My latest column at Christian Week:
Once in a while I look at the title of this column (“Emerging Issues”) and feel guilty. I don’t always write about the emerging church, even though I try to stay close to the assignment Doug Koop gave me three years ago. “What are some of the key issues challenging effective and appropriate Christian witness in Canada today and down the road a bit?” he asked. ” How can we respond most faithfully and constructively?”
It’s probably time to take a look at how the shape of this discussion has changed in the past three years.
Dan Kimball, who wrote the book The Emerging Church in 2003, now writes, “I can’t defend or even explain theologically what is now known broadly as ‘the emerging church’ anymore, because it has developed into so many significantly different theological strands. Some I strongly would disagree with.”
He’s not alone. The emerging church is in increasingly slippery term, and the movement has gone in several different directions. Emergent, an American organization, first centralized, and is now decentralizing. Some used to call themselves emerging, but now distance themselves from the theology of others in the movement. Even proponents of the emerging church have given up using the term. It’s hard to even know what the term “emerging church” means anymore.
Emerging issues have gone mainstream
The early issues raised by the emerging church are now being discussed within the church as a whole.
A conservative denomination is planning a conference this year on what it means to be missional. A pastor of a large church is wrestling with what it means to be small and organic, rather than just large and institutional. Evangelical churches are discussing the importance of social action, and how to effectively minister in a post-Christian society. These are no longer emerging issues; they are issues for all of us now.
This is significant. Even if you reject the beliefs of the emerging church, there is no question that they have caused the church as a whole to rethink how to live effectively in our changing culture.
Traditional churches are supposed to be dying, and younger people are supposed to reject the old. But, surprisingly, the traditional church seems to be doing just fine. A recent study by Professor Bruce Guenther of ACTS found that attendance at evangelical churches has actually grown by 50% in two decades. Mainline churches, as well as Catholic churches in Quebec, are in decline and skew the numbers, but evangelical churches aren’t doing as badly as many seem to think.
Journalist Colin Hansen writes, “While the Emergent ‘conversation’ gets a lot of press for its appeal to the young, the new Reformed movement may be a larger and more pervasive phenomenon.” New churches are launching with an emphasis on reaching younger people with solid, orthodox theology. Conservative conferences like Together for the Gospel attract mostly younger crowds. I keep bumping into people who love the writings of John Piper or the sermons of Mark Driscoll or James MacDonald. While some embrace authors like Shane Claiborne and Rob Bell, just as many embrace authors who are anything but emerging.
The emerging church has raised important questions about effective ministry in a changing culture, but that not everyone is satisfied with the answers they offer. We can thank them, however, for their concern for social justice and orthopraxy (right action), and for raising the questions.
Traditional, orthodox theology and ministry is just as relevant in a post-Christian culture as it has ever been. The most effective ministries I know have not changed their theology, but instead are rethinking how to let that theology shape their ministry in a world that has drastically changed. Michael Wittmer writes, “To remain faithful to the gospel we must regularly update our understanding of it.”
We should be encouraged. The challenges are significant, but God has shown himself more than equal to them. He has not abandoned his people. He is still on the move no matter how bad things sometimes seem to be.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
No-one has ever defined “Emerging Church” to my satisfaction.
As you know, I am not big on labels. I have enough problems defining what I believe and deciding how to live my beliefs in a manner I think would be pleasing to our Lord, without trying to put anyone else into little boxes.
Isn’t it enough to simply love our God and try to do what pleases Him? Wherever and whatever that may mean for each one of us as individuals?
“Isn’t it enough to simply love our God and try to do what pleases Him?”
In one sense, yes. In another sense it’s impossible. We are not isolated individuals unshaped by outside influences. Like it or not, we are all parts of larger movements that have histories, and all kinds of positives and negatives. I think it’s better to recognize this than to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Great article, Darryl. You have summed up the issue quite well. I am, however, frustrated (as I am sure you are as well) that most examples, stats, etc. tend to be out of the US context, making it only marginally helpful to understand the dynamics in Canada or globally. That being said, it is still a very good piece.
Peace,
Jamie
I DO recognize that we are not isolated, nor are we insulated, from those around us – whether we are part of a group or are singular individuals.
We ARE affected by the dynamics of the “larger movements,” whether positively or negatively. We ARE affected by the histories of those “movements” as much as we are affected by our own histories and baggage.
I choose not to complicate matters further by over-analyzing every point of doctrine, every belief I hold that is contrary to someone else’s. I am not suggesting that we are should not be sufficiently conversant with our own tenets of Faith, Neither am I suggesting either, that we ignore those errors in doctrine that will eventually and inevitably arise, but that we simply quit using those errors and differences as clubs with which to beat others.
Jesus’ prayer as recorded in John 17 should be required reading for us all, repeated every day until it sinks in to our very beings. Especially from verse 20 onwards:
20) “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
21) that they may be one, as You, Father are in ME, and I in YOU, and that they also may be ONE in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22) And the glory which You gave me, I have given them, that they may be ONE just as We are one:
23) I in them, and You in ME, that they may be made perfect perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.”
To paraphrase another verse: “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded,….” but if someone holds a slightly,…. no, even radically,…. different point of view than I do, I do not believe it is my job to persuade them of their error, (if indeed they be in error in the first place.) Thanks, but I’ll leave that to The Holy Spirit.
Whether they are “Emerging,” or “Emerged,” or “Post-Modern,” or “Traditional,” or “Evangelistic,” or whatever,…. Whether they be “of Paul” or “of Peter,” I don’t care. To me these are useless and unnecessary labels and dividing lines between Brothers and Sisters in The Lord,… Family Members,… and I do not believe it is pleasing to God to continuously explore them. I would rather concentrate on those things which unite us:
Do you love the Lord? Are you a member of the family? Are you serving Him to the best of your ability? Is your relationship with Him changing you? Are you growing in Faith and Love?
Then, even if I do not agree with your theology, Welcome Brother or Sister!
Darryl, you know me well enough to know that I love The Lord. I do not pretend to be perfect, but I do know that I am a product of HIS Grace. That is enough for me….
Got thinking,…
During my lifetime, there have been a number of labels which have been applied to me:
Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic, non-denominational. I have been a Mormon, an agnostic, a prodigal, a rebel. I have searched and I have found. I have doubted and I have believed.
All these “-isms” are merely paths along my road to discovery of the greatest gift that God ever gave mankind: Jesus.
Don’t tell me about “Emergent.” Don’t speak to me about “Traditional.” Don’t argue with me over whether it is better to be Evangelical or Missional, Traditional or Mainstream, seeker-friendly or user-friendly, or whatever…
Speak to me instead about Jesus. Talk to me about the Gospel. Tell me of His Love, Mercy, and Grace. Tell me how to walk worthy of Him. Show me how to be led by The Spirit. How to walk in love, how to be obedient to Him and His calling, how to be ONE with God.
Please? THAT is what I want and need.
Jamie: Thanks. Yes, I wish we had more Canadian stats, etc. It really does seem different in Canada than Stateside or in the UK etc. but it’s sometimes hard to pin down.
Arthur: I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that the lines/distinctions don’t exist, or that we can reach across those distinctions in meaningful ways. If you mean that they don’t exist, I disagree. If you mean to say that they exist, but that we can have meaningful relationships across the lines, then I’m with you.
It would be foolish to suggest that the lines do not exist.
Lines/distinctions existed even when Jesus walked the earth. (e.g. Samaritans, Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees, etc., etc.) Jesus knew enough about the distinctions to address them, but he was radical enough to discount them and include everybody.
So I guess I am just uncomfortable with spending so much time discussing “-isms,” and so little time forging meaningful relationships with others.
By the way: Are you and Jamie suggesting that everything does NOT revolve around what happens in The States?
Blasphemy! Heresy! Obama will get you for that!
I still say emergent smergent.
Amen, Trish!