emerging mosaic

This morning I opened up my email inbox and there was this article about Driscoll defining emergent/emerging churches is a way "we can all understand" Monday Morning Insight Weblog: It has link to a PDF of an article by Mark in the Criswell Journal (which also has an interview with Brian McLaren giving his perspective that the good people over at Monday Morning Inisght don’t link to) and a previous article by Ed Stetzer using the same categories as Driscoll.

After staking his claim to being of founder of the emerging church in the US Driscoll goes on to categorize the emerging church (based on Stetzer’s categories) into three groups as follows.

Relevants are theologically conservative evangelicals who are not as interested in reshaping theology as much as updating such things as worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership structures. Their goal is to be more relevant; thus, appealing to postmodernminded people. Relevants commonly begin alternative worship services within evangelical churches to keep generally younger Christians from leaving their churches. They also plant new churches to reach emerging people. Relevant leaders look to people such as Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, and Rob Bell as like-minded leaders. The common critique of Relevants is that they are doing little more than conducting “cool church” for hip young Christians and are not seeing significant conversion growth. Within the Relevants there is also a growing group of outreach-minded Reformed Relevants, which look to men like John Piper, Tim Keller, and D. A. Carson for theological direction.

Reconstructionists are generally theologically evangelical and dissatisfied with the current forms of church (e.g. seeker, purpose, contemporary). They bolster their critique by noting that our nation is becoming less Christian and that those who profess faith are not living lives markedly different than non-Christians; thereby, proving that current church forms have failed to create life transformation. Subsequently, they propose more informal, incarnational, and organic church forms such as house churches. Reconstructionists, who are more influenced by mainline Christian traditions, will also use terms like “new monastic communities” and “abbess.” Reconstructionist
leaders look to such people as Neil Cole and Australians Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch. The common critique of Reconstructionists is that they are collecting disgruntled Christians who are overreacting to the megachurch trend but are not seeing significant conversion growth.

Revisionists are theologically liberal and question key evangelical doctrines, critiquing their appropriateness for the emerging postmodern world. Reconstructionists look to such leaders as Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt as well as other Emerging Christians. The common critique of Revisionists is that they are recycling the doctrinal debates of a previous generation and also not seeing significant conversion growth.

A couple of observations  

Why is it that we are so eager to put each other in boxes and define groups? Is driscoll’s true modernism showing through. He is just adding to the fodder for those who want to quiet prophetic or more radical voices in the conversation by labeling them. While I may disagree with the theological direction some of folks are going in I defend their right to go there. But I guess this is the consequence and they need to be prepared for that.

The article is called a pastoral perspective on the emerging church I guest hat is in contrast to the non-pastoral perspective of Driscoll’s recent Christianity Today rant.

There is no mention of the missional church folks. I think they are another stream in the conversation unless he covers that in mentioning Hirsch.

It is strange that he feels compelled to mention as a critique that these streams don’t see any significant conversion growth.  I do feel sometimes there isn’t enough attention paid to being evangelistic conversion growth isn’t the only paradigm. How about transformational growth?

There are several other things in the article that I explore at a later date but for now let me look at Driscoll’s attempts to define. Driscoll interestingly enough doesn’t put himself in any of the categories but the inferences are clear in the article.  Relevants good. Revisionists bad! Recontructionists eh?

BTW no people of color mentioned

Brian Mclaren’s definition of emerging church in his interview in Criswell

"the emerging church" (a term I don’t particularly like because it can sound divisive) is really "the church that is engaging with the emerging culture."

Read the interview Brian is as articulate, gracious and thoughtful as ever despite some loaded questions.

My favorite definition of the emerging church comes form Kester Brewin om The Complex Christ

we need to become wombs of the divine and completely rebirth the church into a host culture.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Technorati Tags: Brian_McLaren, emergent, emerging church, emerging_church, evangelicals, evangelical_churches, faith & culture, mark_driscoll, spiritual-practice

One of my favorite writers speakers and evangelicals Tony Campolo has a great article on beliefnet.com calling for a new approach to Christian participation in the political arena. He wants to

jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics. Believing that Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, we want to unite Christians who are concerned about what is happening in America.

Having recently met with some political types in our state I was amazed to find out how few political folks thought realized that not all people of faith subscribed to the Pat Robertson view of the world. It seems that conventional wisdom was the Christian faith community all looked at the world the same way had constituency had already been wrapped up by one side of the political debate.

Being a person who doesn’t buy into either of the extremes I’m excited to here someone like Campolo calling for Christian engagement that moves beyond partisan politics. God is not a Republican or Democrat. God is God and to tie God to one political arm or the other seems like political expedience that borders on blasphemy to me. I think Christians that engage in the public square in a way that glorifies God when we take the whole counsel of scripture to heart and we don’t cherry pick one or two issues.

That is what I think Bono (among other unorthodox Christ followers) is doing

Popularity: 9% [?]

Technorati Tags: bono, christianity, conventional_wisdom, evangelicals, faith & culture, partisan_politics, religious_movement, tony_campolo

Maurice Broaddus has this to say in an article Black People in the Conversation over at emergent diversity

In a lot of ways, the emergent church struck me as, well, the Christian equivalent of the grunge movement. A little subversive, a little edgy, and whole lot of white, middle class evangelicals trying to make Christianity look cool. In other words, originally I saw a lot of style over substance. However, once I dug a little deeper, read some of the foundational works, a lot of the substance of postmodernism resonated. I was left wondering how this would translate to black churches, wondering what an emergent African American church would look like or what a multi-cultural emergent church would look like. Better put, what would a multi-cultural church look like that drew on all worship traditions? Because, let me tell you, I ain’t feeling guitars, candles, and labyrinths. I love organs, drums, and gospel choirs way too much to give them up. Of course, part of this stems from the fact that we could all stand with a bigger definition of worship.

Mauice raises some important point about how worship can be a point of disconnect for black folks in the emerging church conversation. I’ve run into this at my faith. Some heavily Anglo emerging church times might not want up front preaching (ala Doug Pagitt’s  reimaging preaching) most black folks expect that. So it has been important to search for common ground.

HarvestBoston asks can (or should) emergent be a prophetic national voice? he has this statement attributed to Brian McLaren

But this approach fails to realize how compromised those supposedly Christian roots are—by slavery and racism, for example. What Native American would like to go back to the nineteenth century? What African American would like to go back to the 1950’s? Dr. King used to say that the church must be neither the master of the state nor its servant, but rather its conscience.

If we seek to reinvigorate our churches but fail to be a prophetic voice in our nation, we miss an important opportunity. Or, put another way, if in ten years more of our churches are thriving and growing—but racism is intact and no less entrenched, will we be satisfied?

This is the kind of imperative I hear from some in the emergent conversation that give some hope and why I think practicing reconciliation matters. I wish others would pick on the truth that race matters.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Technorati Tags: african_american_church, black_churches, black_people, diversity, emerging church, evangelicals, multi_cultural_church

In an article on On Evangelicals and Interfaith Cooperation, an interview with Tony Campolo makes this statement that I think is relevant to the spiritual practice of (racial) reconciliation I suggested in my post emergent thread.

TC: Rather than making theological statements, we need to tell each other our stories. Jesus would tell stories and then say, "what do you make of this story?" One more story.

I believe the being of reconciliation of any kind (but especially racial reconciliation) is when we  can safely tell our story.

What’s your story?

Popularity: 14% [?]

Technorati Tags: diversity, emergent, emerging church, evangelicals, Jesus, racial_reconciliation, spiritual-practice, tony_campolo

As I share in a comment to the original post I was un prepared for the the nerve that this post has struck in the emerging church blogosphere. I think it is important to share the wealth of thought that is being generated on the subject. Not everyone sees it the way I do (that’s a good thing) but there’s a great deal of thoughtful conversation and for that I am grateful. So here’s some clips from around the blogosphere and responses to them.

In his post  Is Post-emergent Emerging? Michael Hamblin writes

 Although I have differing concerns about N.T. Wright than Andre, I do feel that there are too many people riding on the “N.T. Wright is cool” bandwagon. Too often it seems that before you can be part of the emerging conversation, you must be fluent in whatever Theological tongue or personality happens to be the fad of the moment, or you can add nothing of value to the conversation (which is to say, you are marginalized and excluded for not being into the hip new Theology). Lastly, reconciliation as a lifestyle is something under emphasized by both Evangelicals and emergents alike - but more on this another time.

He also offers a critique which has popped up in other places of my use of the word post-emergent to describe my current connection with the emergent conversation. I’m a bit ambivalent about the word post and underestimated the range of meaning that is has for folks. I use to to mean beyond as in I am being drawn beyond the limitation of the current conversation.

rhett at the The Colour & the Shape asks

I’d like to know more about the ‘European theological framework’ though. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure I understand what is meant by this. Either way, it’s sad that you feel that you can’t be included in the Emergent Conversation on your own merits. I can only put that down to your context. I know many people who would do their best to welcome you, or anyone else

some of his commenters write: Give us some books by other ethnicities we can read then. If you’re African American involved in the conversation, write book.

Another writes: Attacking or putting down one conversation does not promote another. For me I do not want to be apart of one group that is just tearing down another.

The European theological framework is the I reference is the approach that normalizes theological conversation about a white European/white American world view. This has the effect of excluding the voice of non euro theologians etc.

Tim Samoff writes

I guess I’m not ready to give up just yet (big—and true—change doesn’t happen quickly).

I haven’t given up I’m drawn to something more.

Jordon Cooper asks Is the emerging church really any different?

This(my post)  has been a discouraging post for me because I fear he is correct…

one Jordan’s  commenters writes: Surely the influence of Martin Luther King on the aspirations and ideals of the emerging church has been momentous? He was immensely inspired by Karl Barth, who I’m sure owed a debt of gratitude to that North African theologian of note, St Augustine.

To this I ask where is the influence of MLK evident? If there was real influence then the conversation like MLK would be multilingual in its  language of theology MLK was intentional about reading European theologians ( maybe he had to in order to included have the conversation) shouldn’t those in the emergent conversation have that kind of intentionality as well?

Jamie at Hey, Ya Know What? says of the conversation

It’s much like so many other Christian movements and institutions, it is very anglocentric. One of the things that drew me in early on was how this may finally be the thing that brings folks from different ethnic groups together. That is something important for my family. I want my kids, who already claim to be ‘both’ when faced with the "are you black or are you white" question, to see and practice a faith where both are present and celebrated in Christ.

subversive influence prognosticates

2006 will, I think, be a year where the emerging conversation starts to crystallize some of its theological common ground, but a lot of the emerging voices who have been at this a while are going to become less and less concerned with doxis and more and more concerned with praxis. That is to say, emerging churches that have been doing are going to start talking even less and doing even more. Some of this is characterized as weariness, but at a deeper level, I believe it’s the stirring of the Holy Spirit in these leaders.

I hope is is right and if he is I will be a part of that.

Finally Anthony Smith (a friend and who I might add is a brilliant guy) adds a historical perspective to what I am expressing

In his recounting of Guder’s thoughts he mentioned that there is a danger in the emerging church in not  thoroughly discerning its sharing in the American experience.  This has been one of the valid criticisms, I believe, of the emerging church conversation.  That somehow we have moved on from modernity and have found (and still finding) a faithful way to follow Jesus in postmodernity.  I believe this to be a dangerous temptation.  The temptation being that we have faithfully (possibly completely) named our capitulation to the bad habits of modernity.  The emerging church, in many ways, has the resources to ‘name’ these bad habits.  But one bad habit has gone typically unscathed in the broader conversation: the racial Constantinianism of North American Christianity.

That is my round up for now I am floored and humbled by the response to this and only pray that in some useful way I have helped move the conversation in a positive direction.

Popularity: 52% [?]

Technorati Tags: diversity, emergent, emerging_church, evangelicals, postmodern, reconciliation, spiritual-practice

Chris Monroe over at Paradoxology has posted some of his lunch conversation with George Barna who said

the emergent movement (when compared with the "revolutionaries" he had been studying) was rather insignificant

Is it possible that after all the hype in the media and news coverage the impact of the emergent movement/conversation will be insignificant? If its true is there anything to be done about it? What’s the measure of significance that Barna uses? What’s the measure of significance that those of us in the emerging church conversation use? (fair to say that my measure is praxis)

These are some lingering questions I have from this post.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Technorati Tags: emergent, emerging_church, evangelicals, george_barna

Popularity: 6% [?]

Technorati Tags: ancient_future, evangelicals, robert_webber

there a lot of talk today about new this and new that. new church, new church plant, but do we need new evangelicals. i don’t much care for the word but evangelical does serve as a description of one stream of the christian faith. tom sine who heads up mustard seed associates with his wife christine is one of the most holistic writers on the subject of where the church needs reforming as we move into the future. he has posted a copy of his article In Search of an Alternative Future for American Evangelicalism from the current issue of prism magazine on the msa web site. check out this significant addition to the conversation on the future of evangelical christianity.

Popularity: 21% [?]

Technorati Tags: christian_faith, christian_perspective, evangelical, evangelicals, evangelical_christian