What is the Emerging Church? and Misnomers Surrounding the Emerging Church
a
Click "Digg It" to let Digg.com users know they should read this post!
Click "Digg It" to let Digg.com users know they should read this post!
October 26th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Thanks for this summary, Mark! I’m sorry I missed McKnight’s talk.
Allow me to paraphrase you summary, at least in terms of the “marks” of the emerging movement, to see if I’ve gotten in right.
If we wanted to define the emerging movement, we could say that it is a missional ecclesiology that:
[1] engages with postmodernity both as a cultural phenomenon and in terms of how theory and practice might reorient our theology
[2] embraces a Christian praxis that rethinks and reshapes:
[a] worship in terms of how we have traditionally “done church”
[b] orthopraxy as central to Christian faith
[c] social justice as suffering with others as transformative
[d] proclamation as missionally going out to draw others towards Christ
[3] contructs a critique of evangelicalism’s complicity with modernity as blunting the wholistic force of the Gospel and biblical narrative
[4] promotes an approach to politics that refuses simplistic left-right dichotomies of the American two-party system, though often strategically leaning leftward
Is that a fair summary?
If so - and assuming it’s an accurate portrayal of what “emerging” is about - then I must say that it deeply resonates with me on a lot of levels.
October 26th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
I think that is an excellent outline, Joel, although in a few places said as you might say it, rather than in the exact words McKnight might use. I’m hoping that some of my WTS classmates can get past the anger or revulsion they might have at some of Scot’s more provocative statements aimed at tweaking our securely Reformed noses to see that, in terms of the main points you outlined, a Reformed person should not only be comfortable with those aims but wholly able to embrace them without in any way giving up what makes him Reformed.
In fact, I feel very driven in those directions by my Reformed distinctives, not in spite of them.
October 26th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Man, I see a lot of the prevailing winds blowing through American Methodism coming off of that lake of the Emerging Church. I shouldn’t be surprised, what with all the new congregations that I see cropping up that don’t want to be $foo UMC but are SomethingReallyNonChurch, A United Methodist Congregation.
And yet I am in a congregation that’s almost two centuries.
[Dangit, maybe I should have kept ignoring these pomo kids! ;)]
October 26th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
I don’t understand the insistance on the language of “conversation” versus something more substantial…
In my mind, a conversation is merely talk, but it seems from your notes that actions are more the focus…
Thanks for your work.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Gentry, I can understand why that might sound confusing. I think by “conversation” emergent folk don’t mean just talk, as you say, but rather something more like “meaningful dialog,” the kind of talk that leads to learning, understanding, and–hopefully–praxis. Action starts in words: “But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”
October 26th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Mark, one thing I couldn’t help but think while listening to McKnight this afternoon was whether he was aware of the particular distinctives at WTS? Whether he’d had any exposure to Vos, Ridderbos, Gaffin, Clowney, Frame, Poythress, Conn, Longman, etc?
Since reading “Symphonic Theology,” which is on your short list of recommended books, it has been my recommendation whenever someone would ask me for a reading recommendation from my seminary education. It is a highly accessible book, irenic in its tone and profound in its simplicity, that thoughtfully addresses the theological and epistemological issues McKnight raised. I think he would benefit from reading it, in the same way I think everyone else would benefit from reading it.
One of the perplexing things I find is this idea that WTS is squeemish about exposure to alternate viewpoints. I have not found that in my time here. At the same time, while I think I lean in a Biblical-Theological, “incarnational analogy,” ancient creed direction, I am not troubled by, but thankful for, those who remind us of our carefully thought out systematic and confessional framework. I do not feel that these are shackles from which I, or more importantly, we, need to unburden ourselves, but find myself thriving and challenged by the tensions that the rich insights on all sides produce.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
John,
You have articulated so well what I said only briefly above: the things I’ve learned at Westminster have driven me to be more missional, not less.
I do not know for sure, but I would suspect that McKnight may not be fully versed on the distinctives you named. It is quite possible that in some of the more polemical moments of his speech he may have been just as guilty of acting out of a caricature of what Reformed people are as he accuses people like Carson of being in regard to emergent folk. That being said, we all know that there are those in our camp who sadly warrant the caricature, just as there are those in the extremes of emergent who fit the stereotypes we may carry.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Mark, by the way, I fully endorse Garver’s “summary.” But, as you recognize, it is entirely in keeping with the teaching at WTS that a fair number of churches, including Redeemer, most prominently, and Liberti, locally, are creatively embodying.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Mark, I’d actually typed my follow-up before reading your reply.
Also, just to be clear, I did not take any offense to what McKnight said and, obviously found much with which I could agree. I just think his presentation could have been more edifying if there had been some “recommended reading” ahead of time.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Well, we’ll have to catch that on the backside, I guess. Following up on Anthony’s presentation this afternoon, I’m planning sometime this weekend to post a recommended reading & Internet resource page relating to things brought up at the conference.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
I should add that I also will be converting most of the names and book mentions in my conference posts into links, which should aid in “further reading.”
October 27th, 2006 at 6:18 am
What a surprise and honor, Andrew, to find one of emerging’s best-known representatives on my blog! Tony Stiff, the conference organizer, in his talk on Thursday evening concerning resources on the emerging church, highlighted your blog as one of the best places to do what Scot McKnight urged us all to do: go to the sources where EC best defines itself.
I urge all my readers to spend some time at http://www.tallskinnykiwi.com if you want to get a good picture of a thoughtful “insider” take on the emerging church.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Mark…!
excellent notes and i really applaud your integrity in this discussion, raising great critique without losing some sense of what was really being said.
any chance anyone recorded this lecture? and any chance those persons would be willing to share the audio?
those notes were seriously awesome. thanks for doing that! (i’m Josh H. from dw.net) i will be following closely to further posts, and look forward to what McKnight has to say on atonement stuff…
peace!
October 27th, 2006 at 10:13 am
I also liked Joel Garver’s summary, but, as John points out, some of us have been deeply committed to those features of ministry for a pretty long time. (We started Redeemer in the late 80s.) So how can someone like me can buy whole-heartedly into all the features of Joel’s definition of ‘emerging’ and yet not be considered (by them or by me)to be part of the movement at all?
October 27th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Thanks for the summary Mark.
October 27th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Thanks for the summary. I’ve been trying to keep up with the conference through the various blogs.
October 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Mark-
Thanks for the summary. I was hoping to make part of this forum, but as long as there are car accidents in Philadelphia I can’t do weekdays (as the rain begins to fall on the roads). Anyway, I was hoping to get better informed on this stuff and I feel like you’ve filled me in.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Thanks for the comments and encouragement everyone. Audio of the conference in the form of CDs will be available sometime next week from Westminster Bookstore (www.wtsbooks.com). Watch the front page of the web store; I’ll post a notice there when they are available. I did record all the lectures so far on my iPod. If someone has server space I can place them on, I’d be willing to do a “leakcast”
Rev. Keller: Your point is well made. By those definitions alone, Redeemer is “emergent.” But looking back at my notes I think there is at least one important distinctive that Joel did not make explicit: the post-evangelical/post-theological dimension. As much as McKnight wants to agree with Emergent Village that emergent/emerging isn’t a theology and doesn’t espouse a particular theology, to say that you are “post Bible study piety” and “post systematic theology” is indeed a theological position, if only a negative one. It is perhaps on that basis that Redeemer is not and cannot be emerging.
What do others think?
October 27th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Mark: I think you are very right. And there’s the question–is that particular theological change necessary for the missiological/ecclesiological change?
October 27th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Why is post-evangelical necessarily a bad thing? I agree w/ you Mark that there is a theological element to the movement (I know I’m not supposed to call it that
- I see it as a recovery of a holistic gospel message that integrates all of the distinctives outlined in the first post into an approach to scripture and community. I don’t think it’s necessarily a negative position but it’s also not typically articulated as a theological approach - as if theology and praxis can ever be cleanly separated.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Regarding the post-evangelical, post-theological dimension of things, I’m not sure I see that as entirely accurate or in every respect problematic. A lot of it depends upon what those terms means.
Regarding “post-evangelical,” I get the sense that this is a rejection of a very particular and historically situated sort of evangelicalism, which for some emerging folks is tied up with: versions of inerrancy that give little thought to the ontology of the Scriptures as a cultural artifact or that are overly enmeshed with a literalistic hermeneutics, evangelism that is method-driven and oriented toward crisis conversion experiences, the rise of the Religious Right and various kinds of evangelical political involvement, etc.
Regarding “post-theological,” I’m at a loss. It seems that the emerging movement has some very highly theological representatives within it: John Franke, Stan Grenz, Jamie Smith, Roger Olson, Scot McKnight, etc. But I get the sense that “post-theological” for some emerging folks means rejecting (again) a very particular and historically situated sort of way of doing theology stemming from, say, 19th century developments in how we do “systematics” or popularized 20th century versions of the same.
That at least is my impression from listening to what people were saying today.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Joel,
I asked Scot McKnight this evening about “post systematics.” His reply was very much like your explanation.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
My take on the post-theological approach is that there’s a concern to recognize that all systematics are in some sense reductionistic. Franke talks about theology as a second-order discipline; it’s a recognition that theology isn’t the same as revelation, but a reflection on the revelation. As such, all theology is interpretation and open for discussion, debate, and critique. There is also a recognition of, and respect for, the pluriform nature of the scriptures. There’s a desire to recognize the theological diversity that exists within scripture itself, and to learn from and live in that tension rather than force it to resolve. Systematics is often an attempt to resolve all the points of tension - there’s something artificial about that, I think, that’s often seen as disrespectful to the nature of the revelation as given.
October 28th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Are you talking to me?
October 29th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
[...] http://foolishsage.com/2006/10/26/what-is-the-emerging-church-and-misnomers-surrounding-the-emerging-church/ [...]
October 29th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
[...] Here. [...]
October 29th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Just want to let anyone tracking this thread know that Scot has given me permission to make available the full text of this address as a download. Find it here.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
[...] Scot McKnight rejects the stereotype that emerging folk “talk like Lutherans (cuss)…theologize and evangelize like Reformed (which means they do lots of the former and little of the latter)….confess like mainliners (say things they don’t actually believe), drink like Episcopalians….worship like charismatics (with their whole bodies, including tattoos….vote liberal (which is to say, they’re Democrats)….deny truth (Derida in their backpacks).” [...]
October 30th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
[...] Scot McKnight presented a paper at the Westminster Theological Seminary Emergent Church Forum last week. Mark Traphagen has posted some notes along with a link to the full text of the presentation (PDF). [...]
October 31st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
[...] Many thanks to Mark Traphagen for posting his notes and the link to this analysis of the emerging movement presented by Scot McKnight. McKnight’s paper, "What is the Emerging Church?" is well worth reading. You can get it at this link on pdf or audio. I found myself in it even though I have avoided the term emerging as a label for our ministry at Cityview. I still would esquew the lables and prefer the relationships. I am a follower of Christ serving a city as a pastor to a congregation in Vancouver. We are working out what it means to love God and love people on a daily basis. As a pastor I lead a group of people to boldly and humbly accept the influence–the salt and light–that proceeds from knowing Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit engages the word of God and us so that we will encourage, prod, and provoke one another on to love and good deeds. I know that we are becoming a community of faith, hope, and love. But it requires great courage. Therein I believe is one of the greatest pastoral responsibilities for our day–crafting an environment that supports courage. The salt and light that proceeds from a follower of Jesus will be down right scary if the fear of people is allowed to remain unchallenged in our lives. And thus, the announcement of Jesus’ identity and our desparate need for a redemptive work of grace must come from our mouths as good news and as an invitation to respond to Him. [...]
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
[...] What is the Emerging Church? and Misnomers Surrounding the Emerging Church [...]