What is Emerging? Clarifications (2)
- Posted by scott on January 17th, 2007 filed in emergent, conversatio, emerging, mcknight
McKnight begins his essay by addressing several misconceptions of “emerging” he finds in D.A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, one of the more widely-read attempts to define (and criticize) the movement.
Here are a few of the misconceptions he finds (my summary):
1) “Emerging” is more than Brian McLaren and a hardline postmodern epistemology.
2) “Emerging” folk are often accused of denying the Truth of the gospel.
3) The “emerging church” (EC) exists in the same manner that the Methodist or Catholic church exists and functions much like a denomination.
4) The EC has a single, articulated theology and it is right or wrong because of x, y, and z.
5) The terms “emerging” and “emergent” are synonymous.
6) One can understand what it means to be “emerging” by looking at McLaren’s bookshelf.
Do you think that this list of misconceptions of what it means to be “emerging” is valid?
Have you encountered any (or perhaps held any) of them?
McKnight suggests some corrections to these ideas (again, my summary):
1) “Emerging” has more to do with ecclesiology than it does epistemology. The movement is primarily about finding new ways to be the people of God in a 21st century Western society. While there are epistemological and philosophical distinctions between emerging groups and more traditional evangelical or reformed congregations, it would be an error to think of Derrida first. Emerging has more to do with heading to a bar or coffee shop after getting together with a house church of some sort.
I would add that “emerging” is a better verb than a noun; it is a group of people who are emerging from various backgrounds and sprouting something new. This adds a new layer of meaning to the question “What is emerging?” When asking this, I imagine a time-lapse video of seeds sprouting up from the ground and taking root. (In fact, the organic metaphor is intentional and extremely helpful for understanding how EC groups come together).
At the same time (and as McKnight clarifies), it needs to be said that emerging does not refer to a contemporary evangelical church in po-mo packaging…but if you’re reading this, then you probably already knew that.
2) It would be irresponsible and inaccurate to broadly describe the EC as a group of people who think that the Bible is as authoritative as The Daily Show (perhaps enjoyable and useful, but not necessarily correct).
It’s true that most EC folk are less likely to walk the streets with tracts in hand. But that said, I would be surprised to find any congregation larger than ten that did not exhibit some degree of theological heterogeneity. Many in EC circles are suspicious of categories such as “inerrant” for describing the authority of scripture. The refusal to utter this shibboleth frustrates many evangelicals; consider, for instance, Doug Pagitt’s use of the term “proper confidence” in his conversation/debate (depending on who you ask) with Bob DeWaay.
3) There is no “emerging church” and there is no “emerging movement.” The EC as a collective is best understood as a “loose association” or “conversation” within the catholic church.
Many use these terms because they are helpful and necessary (how else could we speak of it?), but they should not be understood as concrete categories. There is no “Emerging Church of the USA” and you likely won’t find one in the Yellow Pages. “Emerging” is an elective identity, much like “evangelical.” Further, many churches with strong emerging features (thought, praxis, form, etc.) do not claim the label due to the torrid arguments surrounding it. McKnight’s project here is to “reclaim” that label in a sense — or at least to dispel many misconceptions surrounding it.
4) There is no (capital-E) Emerging theology in the sense that there is Reformed theology or Catholic theology, etc. Instead, there are theologians and theologies that are emerging (verb). EC often look to a variety of Christian creeds and denominations to understand themselves.
Right on. Many who are interested in theology (and there are a great number of them) look to theologians such as N.T. Wright, Stanley Grenz, Dwight Friesen, and others. Some participate in collaborative theological projects such as Open Source Theology. On “looking to a variety of Christian creeds and denominations,” consider Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy. For our purposes, a look at the cover is enough; the book is a celebration of several expressions of the Christian faith across time periods and cultures.
5) “Emerging” is a verb that refers to the informal association of Christians coming together from a variety of traditions to form something new. “Emergent” refers to a formal network of congregations called “Emergent Village,” of which only a fraction of ECs are members.
Due to its existence as a formal entity, many look to Emergent Village as an “authoritative voice” for the emerging church. The danger, of course, lies in treating EV as the brain trust of the EC. This distinction is critical, but problematic; in spite of our desire to categorize and label these diverse groups, we must treat “what is emerging” more like an amorphous goo than anything else (consider TheOoze.com, for instance).
6) McKnight suggests that it’s possible to purchase a book and read it without agreeing with what it says.
Fair point. McKnight fears that many see Derrida or Lyotard, assume “hard postmodernist,” and run. That said, have a look at Andrew’s bookshelf.
What do you think of McKnight’s corrections and corollaries (or perhaps my summary/additions)?
Is this a good start at identifying “what is emerging?”
One Response to “What is Emerging? Clarifications (2)”
Leave a Comment
What is Emerging? Clarifications (2)
- Posted by scott on January 17th, 2007 filed in emergent, conversatio, emerging, mcknight
McKnight begins his essay by addressing several misconceptions of “emerging” he finds in D.A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, one of the more widely-read attempts to define (and criticize) the movement.
Here are a few of the misconceptions he finds (my summary):
1) “Emerging” is more than Brian McLaren and a hardline postmodern epistemology.
2) “Emerging” folk are often accused of denying the Truth of the gospel.
3) The “emerging church” (EC) exists in the same manner that the Methodist or Catholic church exists and functions much like a denomination.
4) The EC has a single, articulated theology and it is right or wrong because of x, y, and z.
5) The terms “emerging” and “emergent” are synonymous.
6) One can understand what it means to be “emerging” by looking at McLaren’s bookshelf.
Do you think that this list of misconceptions of what it means to be “emerging” is valid?
Have you encountered any (or perhaps held any) of them?
McKnight suggests some corrections to these ideas (again, my summary):
1) “Emerging” has more to do with ecclesiology than it does epistemology. The movement is primarily about finding new ways to be the people of God in a 21st century Western society. While there are epistemological and philosophical distinctions between emerging groups and more traditional evangelical or reformed congregations, it would be an error to think of Derrida first. Emerging has more to do with heading to a bar or coffee shop after getting together with a house church of some sort.
I would add that “emerging” is a better verb than a noun; it is a group of people who are emerging from various backgrounds and sprouting something new. This adds a new layer of meaning to the question “What is emerging?” When asking this, I imagine a time-lapse video of seeds sprouting up from the ground and taking root. (In fact, the organic metaphor is intentional and extremely helpful for understanding how EC groups come together).
At the same time (and as McKnight clarifies), it needs to be said that emerging does not refer to a contemporary evangelical church in po-mo packaging…but if you’re reading this, then you probably already knew that.
2) It would be irresponsible and inaccurate to broadly describe the EC as a group of people who think that the Bible is as authoritative as The Daily Show (perhaps enjoyable and useful, but not necessarily correct).
It’s true that most EC folk are less likely to walk the streets with tracts in hand. But that said, I would be surprised to find any congregation larger than ten that did not exhibit some degree of theological heterogeneity. Many in EC circles are suspicious of categories such as “inerrant” for describing the authority of scripture. The refusal to utter this shibboleth frustrates many evangelicals; consider, for instance, Doug Pagitt’s use of the term “proper confidence” in his conversation/debate (depending on who you ask) with Bob DeWaay.
3) There is no “emerging church” and there is no “emerging movement.” The EC as a collective is best understood as a “loose association” or “conversation” within the catholic church.
Many use these terms because they are helpful and necessary (how else could we speak of it?), but they should not be understood as concrete categories. There is no “Emerging Church of the USA” and you likely won’t find one in the Yellow Pages. “Emerging” is an elective identity, much like “evangelical.” Further, many churches with strong emerging features (thought, praxis, form, etc.) do not claim the label due to the torrid arguments surrounding it. McKnight’s project here is to “reclaim” that label in a sense — or at least to dispel many misconceptions surrounding it.
4) There is no (capital-E) Emerging theology in the sense that there is Reformed theology or Catholic theology, etc. Instead, there are theologians and theologies that are emerging (verb). EC often look to a variety of Christian creeds and denominations to understand themselves.
Right on. Many who are interested in theology (and there are a great number of them) look to theologians such as N.T. Wright, Stanley Grenz, Dwight Friesen, and others. Some participate in collaborative theological projects such as Open Source Theology. On “looking to a variety of Christian creeds and denominations,” consider Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy. For our purposes, a look at the cover is enough; the book is a celebration of several expressions of the Christian faith across time periods and cultures.
5) “Emerging” is a verb that refers to the informal association of Christians coming together from a variety of traditions to form something new. “Emergent” refers to a formal network of congregations called “Emergent Village,” of which only a fraction of ECs are members.
Due to its existence as a formal entity, many look to Emergent Village as an “authoritative voice” for the emerging church. The danger, of course, lies in treating EV as the brain trust of the EC. This distinction is critical, but problematic; in spite of our desire to categorize and label these diverse groups, we must treat “what is emerging” more like an amorphous goo than anything else (consider TheOoze.com, for instance).
6) McKnight suggests that it’s possible to purchase a book and read it without agreeing with what it says.
Fair point. McKnight fears that many see Derrida or Lyotard, assume “hard postmodernist,” and run. That said, have a look at Andrew’s bookshelf.
What do you think of McKnight’s corrections and corollaries (or perhaps my summary/additions)?
Is this a good start at identifying “what is emerging?”
One Response to “What is Emerging? Clarifications (2)”
-
Conversatio » What is Emerging? Thoughts on Form (3) Says:
January 17th, 2007 at 12:23 pm[…] As I mentioned previously, Doug Pagitt released his public conversation / debate with Bob Dewaay to the world as a podcast, pushing the file out to any of his subscribers and drawing in some new ones. Anyone interested could take part in the back-and-forth while walking, riding the Metro, or battling traffic on the 405. And then blog about it. […]
January 17th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
[…] As I mentioned previously, Doug Pagitt released his public conversation / debate with Bob Dewaay to the world as a podcast, pushing the file out to any of his subscribers and drawing in some new ones. Anyone interested could take part in the back-and-forth while walking, riding the Metro, or battling traffic on the 405. And then blog about it. […]