It seems like defining and defending the emerging church are the topics of the moment. Neither are easy to do.
Andrew Jones has some well-written thoughts on the types of criticism being laid out right now.
One of the main problems with the critique of the emerging church is defining what or who is the emerging church. The more I think about it, I believe the answer lies not in doctrine as we are so diverse theologically, nor does it lie in structure as we also do not subscribe to a unifying structure. Rather, the emerging church is simply a movement of persons in the Church who believe the established Church is broken.
That’s it. Even that would exclude some, as a growing number are latching on to the emerging church simply because they believe they can grow a bigger church by reaching postmoderns. I’m a snob… those churches aren’t emerging, they’re repackaging.
So, that’s my definition. The emerging church is a movement which seeks to find forms of church which avoid the problems of the established church. These churches do not unify around doctrine or even the new structures intended to create more vibrant local churches.
While I don’t like being defined by what I’m against, I see it as the only unifying factor in the emerging church movement. Perhaps there would be a way to spin it in a more postive light (although I do think that the fact that we are trying to find forms of church which avoid modern problems is positive in and of itself), but for the most part, that’s it.
So as far as defending the emerging church, our critics should look at our basic premise… the established church is broken… and critique that. Otherwise, you can really only critique individual churches or segments of the emerging church. If criticism as a whole persists, it must be around this topic, or no fruitful discussion will take place. The defense will continue to be, “We’re not all like that.”
The problem with the “emerging church” is that the term is a misnomer. The emerging church is not a church but rather a movement of reform within (and maybe without) traditional Christianity. It’s not a cohesive well defined set of doctrines or even organizations, it’s a loosely held view that the traditional church is not what being all it can be.
People want to put the emerging church in a box so they can poke and prod it (and possibly kill it) But, it can’t be put into a box.
Brian Smith
December 1st, 2005
Good thoughts Alan. I do appreciate how you’ve put it. I think I see the same thing myself. It is unfortunate then, that we are what we’re against. Criticism has and will come because of that as well. I wonder though, if something like this starts that way and that’s just how it is. As long as we don’t focus on that alone and make that our big goal – to kill the established church. That can’t be the point. But starting and doing something postitive can be a way of not being so negative. Peace to you.
+ Alan
November 30th, 2005
I really appreciate your recent posts about the emerging church, and the analysis and clarity you’ve brought to the issues.
grace
November 30th, 2005
I would say the reason we exist is because a large and growing number of people do not feel tweaking the system is enough. Maybe I’m wrong to say that defines us, as much as it is the only characteristic we hold in common.
Anonymous
November 30th, 2005
grace -
Thank you for reading and the kind comment. With the increase in criticism lately, I hope I can help guide the discussion to where we can all benefit from it.
Anonymous
November 30th, 2005
“the emerging church is simply a movement of persons in the Church who believe the established Church is broken.”
I would challenge you to be a little more specific. I firmly believe the established, organized Church is broken, in shambles, divided, fleshly, carnal, luke-warm…etc. However, I am not emerging, emergent or revolutionary, and I am very leery of what I see that is called by those names.
Maybe, better than defining would be describing. What characterizes an emergent church? Or, sets it apart from a non-emergent church gathering that has character qualities that set it apart from an organized, traditional church?
In other words, there are two gatherings, one is emergent, one not, but both hold to your simple definition above. How do you tell the difference? Or can you? Because, I bet many would really like to know before they set foot in a non-emergent gathering.
Jeff
December 1st, 2005
Hammett Gone Wild
A couple of weeks ago I posted John Hammett’s ETS paper on the Emerging Church. It took a little while, but after a week or so it rapidly made its way through many important emerging blogs. Here’s a run down of the links:
Jason Clark noted it, then of…
The A-Team Blog
December 6th, 2005
[...] Blogs like the A-Team blog have noted that my looser definition of the emerging church would include them and most of the people they know. While my intention is not to include everyone as part of the emerging church, I do think it’s much more broad than the current pigeonholing has allowed. [...]
A Different Perspective » Theology Conflicts in the Emerging Church
December 12th, 2005