• What is the Emergent Church?

    March 13, 2010

    Last night Amy and I joined a friend for a presentation at Harvest Bible Chapel on the topic of, “What is the Emergent Church?”1 as part of an ongoing apologetics series they are doing.

    As someone who gets to teach the course, The Emerging Church in the 21st Century, once a year, I was looking forward to attending and seeing what was said and discussed; especially considering the speaker for the evening was Dr. David Finkbeiner, a professor at Moody Bible Institute.

    I mean, if you want to get a balanced understanding of what the “Emergent Church” is all about, who better to ask than a professor of systematic theology at a school that officially, “does not endorse the emerging/emergent church” right?!

    Harvest would have done well (though from what I could tell – would never so much as have considered it) to have invited at least one person who could have spoken as an insider to the EC discussion.

    It was clear from the get-go that the tenor of the evening was going to be critical, bordering on condemnatory.  And this, even after Dr. Finkbeiner admitted that there is no simple way to define the EC as a whole.

    Dr. Finkbeiner’s focus for the evening was theological method.  His premise was that what undergirds the “Emergent Church” movement is a post-conservative theological method.  His aim was to critique this theological method overagainst a more traditional conservative evangelical one.

    Essentially, here’s what that meant…

    1) Post-Conservatives err in their non-foundationalist approach to epistemoplogy which takes things like history, context, and culture seriously, where as conservatives rightfully embrace Scripture as the objective and sole foundation to all knowledge.

    2) Post-Conservatives err in asserting that absolute truth, while real, may often times be beyond our ability to fully grasp.  Conservatives rightfully assert not only the reality of absolute truth, but affirm our ability to, “with a little hard work,” objectively know it.

    3) Post-conservatives err in not championing the inerrancy of Scripture.  Conservatives rightly hinge all their hopes on Scripture having been verbally and inerrantly inspired.

    So, here we have a guy who is doing a masterful job of towing the line of modern conservative evangelicalism, lambasting those who dare to think, “There might be some stuff we’re missing here.”

    As I listened to him describe some of the perspectives and viewpoints of post-conservative evangelicals I found it hard to believe that he wasn’t converting himself!

    He quickly and coyly dismissed a broad range of the most helpful aspects of post-conservative theology…

    – The idea that we need one another in the pursuit of truth because all of our perspectives are bound by a host of factors

    – The notion that theology loses its character when not born out of an embodied witness

    – The view that the authority of Scripture lies not primarily in its abstract character, but in its function in the life of the Church

    – The insight that biblical propositional truth derives its meaning and significance from the narratives in which they’re embedded

    – That post-conservative theology is, at its core, a prophetic call to revisit some of our modernistic assumptions

    In each and every instance, the speaker noted that these are the hallmarks of post-conservative theology and then attempted to show why they ought to be rejected.

    OK, so that was the presentation and as enlightening as it was, the Q & A time was even better.  I quote.

    “Is Willowcreek an Emergent Church?  I heard they sell Brian McLaren books.”2

    “Is the Emergent Church a cult?”

    “I’ve heard that Urbana and InterVarsity are becoming more Emergent.  Should I keep my kids away from those groups?”

    I actually had the opportunity to ask the last question of the evening…

    With a little trepidation, but in the spirit of full disclosure, I teach a course on the Emerging Church at the seminary level and I need to say that I think there have been some pretty unfair characterizations of the movement here tonight.  I was hoping that before we go you might offer a positive comment about the role the EC has had in the recovery of the importance of the Missio Dei or incarnational approaches to ecclesiology.

    Dr. Finkbeiner commented that, “Yes, there has been some focus in those areas, but they still are wrong in how they do theology.”  So, no, he didn’t have one positive thing to say the entire evening about the EC.

    Left completely aside from the discussion of the evening was the historical evolution of the EC movement, its place in the scope of the collapse of Christendom, and the most relevant bit of information given the scope of the talk, namely, that theological method simply isn’t at the center for 90% of the people who are in any way affiliated with the movement.  For the vast majority, what is central is joining God in his mission in the world and finding ways to make the church, not culturally relevant (as too many assume), but incarnationally faithful in the pattern of Jesus.

    Between the tenor of the presentation and the questions and comments of the audience, it’s little wonder that conservative evangelicals are so often characterized by fear and close-mindedness.  There are many in the EC community who are trying to carve out a way of being the church and doing theology that doesn’t fell prey to these charges.  I was really hoping to come away pleasantly surprised by the event.  Sadly, I didn’t.

    1. There is no such thing as the Emergent Church. This is a classic conflation of the terms Emergent Village and Emerging Church offered by those who aren’t all that familiar with the topic [↩]
    2. Someone from Harvest was quick to announce that Harvest doesn’t! [↩]
    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in: christendom, church, emergent, emerging church, evangelical, postmodernity, theology

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Recent Comments

  • Jonathan Brink said...

    1

    LOL! All I can say is, "Dooooooh!" Roger Oakland did this same talk (I'm assuming) about four years ago. It's still on YouTube I think and I've met so many people who are biased before even understanding it. It's sad…but oh well.

    03/13/10 10:35 PM | Comment Link

  • Calvin Wulf said...

    2

    Hmmm… they stone prophets don't they? I struggle to balance conversation with those who will listen and dialogue verses those who wont. Where is my time and energy most profitable, with those who will listen, or everybody must get stoned? Me, I donno.

    03/13/10 10:58 PM | Comment Link

  • Ken Silva said...

    3

    As one who’s studied the Emerging Church for over half a decade I can tell you that the EC is, at its root, a cult of a form of liberal/progressive theology.

    I’ve met so many people who are biased in their understanding of it and won’t listen to reason. It’s sad…but oh well.

    03/13/10 5:07 PM | Comment Link

  • @angelaharms said...

    4

    I have a big knot in my stomach. I am so scared by attitudes like this. It's hard for me to believe that there really are people who believe they *know* what's true and don't need to subject their ideas to criticism. Gak.

    03/13/10 11:14 PM | Comment Link

  • ron cole said...

    5

    " I've met so many people who are biased in their understanding of it and won't listen to reason. It's sad…but oh well. "

    Man, I can't believe Ken Silva saying that, he certainly not biased. But you're absolutely right, it would have been nice to have someone engage that community who is engaged in the emerging conversation and practice. And then let the community critique the person. Again it's better to name your boogey man, and then hide in fear, or attack it with everything you have. What we need is a common ethic, maybe then, in getting to know the other we'll understand the other.

    03/13/10 11:37 PM | Comment Link

  • Ken Silva said...

    6

    Ron,

    FYI, what you quoted was actually me paraphrasing Jonathan Brink; and he’s as biased for the EC, as I am against it.

     

    03/13/10 5:56 PM | Comment Link

  • ron cole said...

    7

    Ken, I hear you brother, but my concern is there is no middle ground…it's getting to the point that some call the EC, non-Christian. Sadly. there still a " member " in the diversity and beauty of the body of Christ. They need critique, we all need, but it needs to be done with love and grace…there is one bread, and one body, Hopefully we can talk to one another in the context of that profound mystery.

    03/14/10 1:09 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    8

    Hey Jonathan. I'm not familiar with Roger Oakland, but I;ll take your word for it. Agreed, in the incarnational pattern of Jesus, we do well to try and identify as much as we can with others before making judgments and pronouncements. I hope I am able to heed that advice myself throughout life and ministry.

    03/14/10 1:40 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    9

    I get the tension Calvin and wrestle with you. Thanks for commenting.

    03/14/10 1:41 AM | Comment Link

  • Ken Silva said...

    10

    Ron,

    I appreciate the sentiment. The EC grew out of Leadership Network’s Young Leader’s Network and the folks Doug Pagitt assembled for the Terra Nova Project.

    That is diseased tree that the rest branched off from; and Jesus said a diseased tree cannot bear good fruit. IMO, best to scrap the term and distance oneself from it, if they wish to be considered othodox.

    Especially so now after McLaren’s book clearly shows the newer version of progressive/liberal theology that most of those original EC folks adhere to.

    03/13/10 7:44 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    11

    Angela, dont think I've seen you comment here before, thanks for stopping by. I imagine that we all fall prey to this on some level once in a while – hence the need for faithful and loving brothers and sisters in our lives.

    I zipped over to the "Radical Love Project" site, looks pretty amazing!

    03/14/10 1:46 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    12

    Good thoughts Ron. I'm with you, some sort of relational ethic would go a long way in helping these kinds of discussions to take place on a deeper and more helpful level.

    03/14/10 1:48 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    13

    Ken, my concern is that there are simply too many "roots" spread across the EC landscape to make that broad of a claim. I actually have little problem in affirming that your impression is true in some regard in some instances, but I am far from convinced, as one with not only more than half a decade of my own experience with the EC, but with many personal friends who identify on some level with the movement, that it is either fair or accurate to say across the board.

    It would be equally unfortunate for me to walk away from the meeting last night and make the claim that all conservative evangelicals are close-minded and fearful.

    03/14/10 1:54 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    14

    Ken, I don't think that's accurate. I think Jonathan has a pretty even-handed understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the broad EC landscape. He has never struck me as someone who closes his eyes to those criticism that have some merit to them.

    03/14/10 1:59 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    15

    Ken, again, this is FAR too broad to be taken seriously, you need to be much more specific.

    The EC (Emerging Church) did not grow out of the Terra Nova project. There are a handful of leaders who are in some way affiliated with the broader EC discussion that were originally involved with this project here in the US.

    The Emerging Church movement, more broadly speaking has grown out of the UK, Canada, and Australia – places where Christendom has more fully unraveled and the church was/is struggling for survival.

    Best as I can tell, your real struggle is with Emergent Village and those considered its leaders and spokespeople. For the sake of clarity in conversation, it would be best to identify exactly who you are referring to especially is you are going to make sweeping statement like, "most of those origina EC folks adhere" to McLaren's "newer version of progressive/liberal theology."

    There are more than enough people who don't adhere to what you are describing here who would in no way choose to disassociate with the EC discussion/movement altogether.

    Again, the claim you are making is just about as sound as me assuming that most conservative evangelical are on board with the often-times ridiculous comments that come from the mouths or writings of the most flamboyant conservative evangelicals.

    03/14/10 2:11 AM | Comment Link

  • Ken Silva said...

    16

    Well, we can agree to disagree agreeably for sure. I don’t wish to start any arguments here as this is your blog.

    No doubt there were people e.g. like Andrew Jones doing some things the EC would go on to do.

    However, I personally see no movement per se until after LN helped organize it, and that’s when the term “emerging church” started being used.

    But as I said, we’ll leave it at that; we have irreconciable differences at this time. Thank you for allowing me to state my opinion; and in the end, that’s all it really is. :-)

    03/13/10 8:26 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    17

    Ken, thanks for your grace. I want to offer, for the sake of other readers here, as well as for you if you are interested, a very well documented entry from the Wikipedia entry on the Emerging Church…

    "There has been a strong bias in the US to ignore a history to the emerging church that preceded the US Emergent organization, which began with Mike Riddell and Mark Pierson in New Zealand from 1989, and with a number of practitioners in the UK including Jonny Baker, Ian Mobsby, Kevin, Ana and Brian Draper, Sue Wallace amongst others from around 1992.[15] The influence of the Nine O'Clock Service has been ignored also, due its notoriety, yet much that was practiced there was influential on early proponents of alternative worship.[16] The US organization emerged in the late 1990s.
    What is common to the identity of many of these emerging church projects that began in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, is that they developed with very little central planning on behalf of the established denominations.[17] They occurred as the initiative of particular groups wanting to start new contextual church experiments, and are therefore very 'bottom up'."

    03/14/10 3:12 AM | Comment Link

  • naomijacobs said...

    18

    This doesn't surprise me much. There's a LOT of suspicion out there towards the emerging church, 'post-evangelical' belief and similar renewal approaches to Christian life and mission. I'm not sure how this can be challenged from our end of things.

    03/14/10 9:02 AM | Comment Link

  • Jonathan Brink said...

    19

    Roger Oakland was semi-famous for his early criticisms of the church. When McLaren first started releasing books he did a series on the emerging church and it was essentially the only thing you could find on YouTube. It was very similar to this.

    03/14/10 6:06 PM | Comment Link

  • Jonathan Brink said...

    20

    JR, I would suggest that much of the birth of the Emerging church, especially in the US, could be traced back to an author named Gene Edwards. Edwards wrote about twelve books that could pass for postmodern approach to Christianity. Edwards' early books mirror the dialog that has been happening now but he wrote back in the 80's. Edwards was deeply influenced by Jeanne Guyon.

    03/14/10 6:20 PM | Comment Link

  • Jonathan Brink said...

    21

    JR, I agree with Ken here that the US version of the conversation largely came out of the Terra Nova project. Most of the influential authors Ken cites were part of that conversation. But like you said the origins go much farther back.

    The Terra Nova project in many ways is the quintessential story of emergence. The root question of the project was to ask why those under 35 were no longer going to church, but the problem existed BEFORE the project started. What the Leadership Network did not expect was for the group to begin asking fundamental questions that called virtually everything into question, especially Evangelical understanding of theology. When they discovered the deeper obstacles to faith, especially the emergence of postmodern approaches to thought the Leadership Network was unprepared to go in that direction.

    The UK conversation is so important because the UK is arguably 50 years ahead of the US. The 9 o'clock service (and others) were simply an idea to address a culture that had almost entirely rejected Christendom.

    03/14/10 6:28 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    22

    Hey Naomi, thanks for commenting. I know where you are coming from. I'm convinced that the best defense has been and will continue to be the fruit of the lives and ministry of those who choose to associate with the EC.

    03/15/10 12:26 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    23

    Great info, thanks.

    03/15/10 12:28 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    24

    Oh, I don't disagree with that, that's a no-brainer, but that's not what Ken said. Without clarification, he seemed to be intimating (and reiterated even more strongly in a reply to my reply to below) that either EC landscape has its roots in some uniquely American experiment which couldn't be further off base.

    I'm well aware of the history of the YLN & Terra Nova, but I think what has grown out of that, in terms of its affiliation with things "Emerging" represents a pretty small segment of the larger EC movement/discussion. I bet most of those guys would probably even agree with that, don't you think?

    03/15/10 12:33 AM | Comment Link

  • localchurchpastor said...

    25

    1) I would have killed to see a video of your face and then sped up into a time lapse for the duration of the night. I image it would have been a recurring pattern: a. Furrowed brow. b. Jaw drop. c. Lean over and whisper something to your wife. Rinse. Wash. Repeat. That would have been funny to see.

    2) Makes me think about what Dallas Willard said when we were at the Ecclesia National Gathering: "You know something when you can represent it as it is on the appropriate basis of thought and authority. One of the marks of good Authority is that it is always open to question."

    That ability to ask and be asked reasonable, poignant, meaningful questions seems to be lacking from most akin to Dr. Finkbeiner.

    03/15/10 2:59 PM | Comment Link

  • Chris said...

    26

    I think the most unfortunate part about this is that on the page you link for Moody, right after they get done telling you that they don't endorse contemplative spirituality or the Emerging Church they affirm that, "Moody Bible Institute defends the educational importance of having students read books that challenge our theology."

    So basically you need to read this stuff and be "challenged" but we don't want any sort of transformation from the one way that we believe to be true. What is the importance of being challenged if you are not open to changing?

    03/15/10 3:16 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    27

    Good insight Chris, I was struck by the same thing.

    There is a telling difference in the functioning of local churches and Christian institutions when they value their version of \”doctrinal purity\” over trusting the work of the Holy Spirit and the Lordship of Christ over all things. Thanks for the comment.

    03/15/10 3:50 PM | Comment Link

  • Jeremy Griffin said...

    28

    Yep, that's what most of Moody is like. I did my MA there and received a wonderful education, but Moody's mascot is the Turtle…slow…slow…slow. Anyway, I do not want to be negative against a school in which I learned so much, but I can say that they lag behind in things similar to this. It's too bad.

    03/16/10 2:30 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    29

    Thanks for the even-handed honesty. I appreciate being able to hear from grads who are able to see both the strengths and weaknesses of their alma mater no matter how indebted they feel.

    03/16/10 4:41 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    30

    You got that just about right! Love how you connected with that bit of insight from Dallas – perfect.

    03/16/10 12:10 AM | Comment Link

  • Emily said...

    31

    I don't know all the ins and outs of the EC, but one of the things I value most dearly is the ability to listen to the opinions and beliefs of others with a true openness to being changed by it. I guess you would call that openmindedness…. and it doesn't sound like there was any of that going on where you were! It sounds like one of those talks that churches give about different religions/cults in order to indoctrinate you on exactly where each group goes wrong. I used to love that stuff, totally ate it up. But now, it just reeks of close-mindedness and judgement, and it really bothers me, especially when it's other believers they're talking about. What you said was great… and I bet not one person stopped to ask you more of your thoughts before you left…?

    03/17/10 3:46 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    32

    Here's what I commented to someone else who expressed what you are expressing here; "I think, in part, the issue is insecurity. Insecure people live in fear & cope by polarizing things & people to remain 'safe.'"

    It would be fascinating to hear more about your journey from "eating this up," to where you find yourself now. I imagine you have the built-in potential to set lots and lots of people free.

    As for others stopping to ask more of my thoughts. 2 people talked to me. The first guy wanted to know how I could sleep at night as someone who teaches a class about a movement led by non-Christians. As gently as I could, I told him that there was a lot more to the picture than what he currently saw and that I would be happy to talk with him more about it. He wasn't interested and asked for my email address so that he could send me "sound teaching." I haven't heard from him.

    A girl, maybe in high school, also approached me and wanted to know what I thought about the bounded and centered set analogy that the speaker had used and we had a great conversation.

    I would have liked to have had more conversations, but I think everyone else in the room (and it was a packed room of probably 300 people) pretty much had their minds made up about things.

    03/17/10 2:20 PM | Comment Link

  • Emily said...

    33

    Well, I'm proud of you for having such a gracious attitude toward everyone there who didn't offer you the same. And I think you bring-up a good point… that I should really focus on being more open about what I've learned… I think it's going to take a lot of time in prayer and thought to get some kind of coherent framework behind it, but that is a big part of what I want to be more honest about on my blog. Thanks for the encouragement, I'm going to think about this. =)

    03/17/10 3:16 PM | Comment Link

  • luke said...

    34

    jr, i'm curious to know how he responded to the question about urbana and IV?

    03/25/10 4:00 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    35

    It was something along the lines of not condemning the organizations outright, but encouraging people to beware of heretical authors and speakers that these organizations invite or endorse.

    03/25/10 4:23 PM | Comment Link

  • “Out Like a Lamb” Link Day « Thinking Out Loud said...

    36

    [...] Theological finger-pointing at the Emergents continued over at Harvest Bible Chapel in NW Chicago on a recent Friday night Q&A session with a Moody Professor speaking for the anti-Emergent side while to balance things out they had… nobody.   JR looks at this rather one-sided presentation in this report. [...]

    03/31/10 4:11 AM | Comment Link

  • Steve Wiggers said...

    37

    Hey JR-

    Wow, that's unfortunate that such a one-sided presentation was given, and this is not to say that I am a staunch supporter of the EC movement, but based on your comments about the positive aspects to be learned from the EC (which were not mentioned at all by the presenter unfortunately), I certainly have much more of an affinity toward the EC or post-conservative side of things. Agreed with a lot of your points, thanks for the post.

    Peace-
    steve

    04/1/10 3:56 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    38

    Wiggs! Thanks for commenting man. It really was an unfortunate scenario. Hope you, Jen, and Ian are doing well.

    04/1/10 12:26 PM | Comment Link

Leave A Comment

Mail (will not be published) (required)