Next-Wave Ezine > church & culture

Ten Years Out: A Retrospective on the Emerging Church in North America
By Stephen Shields

(8)

As Next-Wave turns ten years old with its January 2009 issue, it provides a good opportunity to look back over the short history of the emerging church in North America. Next-Wave, after all, is the publication most closely associated with the emerging church conversation and many of the movement’s most prominent leaders have contributed articles to the online journal over the years.

January of 2009 finds us at a crossroads for the emerging church in North America. There’s increasing discomfort with the term “emerging church” itself, with a number of leading lights in the movement expressing hesitations about the term. Andrew Jones, who was an early leader in the conversation, recently announced that he would no longer be using the term “emerging church” as “the word no longer communicates what i want it to.” Prominent emerging church blogger, and Next-Wave Contributing Editor, Bob Hyatt, a pastor with The Evergreen Community in Portland, OR, recently posted his frustration over both the term and the identification of the movement itself, commenting, “I'm more often than not now answering a question about what we aren't than what we are about- and that saddens me.” Bob also shares, “I do have some deep concerns about some of the things I see in the movement as a whole- and to be honest, though I once spent a lot of time defending the emerging church, I want to be about the Gospel.” Theologian and author Scot McKnight, who has vigorously participated in the emerging church conversation through his Jesus Creed blog, expresses his reservations: “I like the diversity of ‘emerging’ but the problem is that the term has been so abused by its critics that embracing the term leads to endless discussions of just how one is part of that emerging conversation. I've basically given up on using the term except in audiences where I think it is understood.” Dan Kimball also limits when he uses the term saying, “I don’t use the term too much anymore because of the confusion and also that it means so many things, depending on who you ask.” Then there is the cyclical parsing of any difference there might be between the term “emerging church” and “emergent.”

But while there is a significant degree of discussion over the terms around and even of the core identity of those in the conversation, what’s not controversial within the movement is that the emerging church has made some positive contributions to the Christian church.

To both assess the state of the conversation today and to get some perspectives on the history of the emerging church, Next-Wave reached out to some of the movement’s most notable leaders. We interviewed:

Brian McLaren – Named by Time Magazine as one of The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America and often considered the father of the emerging church, Brian’s books A New Kind of Christian and Generous Orthodoxy are considered by many to be two of the most important books published within the conversation.

Jordon Cooper – Canada’s Jordon Cooper is an influential emerging church blogger. Jordoncooper.com, which Jordon began in 2001, was an important early clearinghouse of emerging church information.

Tony Jones – Tony, the author of The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier, until very recently was National Coordinator of Emergent Village and has been engaged in emerging church conversation since the famous Dallas Pappasito’s Cantina meeting in August of 1998.

Scot McKnight – Scot, an author who serves as the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago, is a prolific blogger who has been participating in the emerging church conversation for many years. Scot also serves on the Creative Team of The Origins Project.

Andrew Jones – Andrew is a New Zealander pastor and missionary who currently lives in the United Kingdom and serves as Director of the Boaz Project. An A-list ec blogger, Andrew was an early leader in Emergent Village and spent several years ministering in the United States.

and

Dan Kimball – Dan, who serves Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California as their Pastor of Mission and Teaching, wrote The Emerging Church. Dan’s also one of the founders of The Origins Project.

There are a number of helpful lenses that one could use to view the emerging church. One lens that could be used to consider the history of the emerging church would be its involvement in social justice and social relief issues. The conversation has been a part of a resurgence of interest and activity in these areas within the larger evangelicalism movement which birthed the conversation. Another lens could be the impact of the conversation on religious publications. The movement has precipitated a veritable cottage industry of books dealing with the emerging church by both its leaders and critics. The interested observer might also view the conversation from a social networking perspective, considering how such sites as The Ooze and Facebook have advanced the movement.

But the aspect of the emerging church that has generated the most controversy has been its forays into theological reformulation.

Though the original motives of the early emerging church leaders were evangelistic, for many a concern with reaching Generation X and understanding their culture quickly morphed into a larger epistemological concern with modernism and postmodernism.

A seminal moment towards this wider focus occurred at a Leadership Network (LN) sponsored “GenX 1.0” gathering in 1997 near Colorado Springs, Colorado. Doug Pagitt, one of the founders of Emergent Village and today a pastor of Solomon’s Porch, was leading LN’s Young Leaders Network at that time and brought the group there together to discuss how to reach 18-25 year olds. In attendance was a volunteer young adult pastor at Pantego Bible Church in Fort Worth, TX named Brad Cecil. Brad, a student of Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty and other postmodern writers, introduced the other attendees to the postmodern turn. Tony Jones documents what happened next:

“…Doug, Chris Seay, and Mark Driscoll – the triumvirate of the ‘Young Leaders Network’ – put their heads together. They decided that Brad was on to something, that he ‘got it’ – whatever ‘it’ was. … They were splitting up the room between those who understood Brad’s presentation and those who didn’t. And for their part, Doug, Chris, and Mark were interested in spending time with those who ‘got it.”
…
The four of them couldn’t yet articulate it, but they could feel it. It felt like the beginning of something new and the overthrow of something old. It felt to them like the burgeoning of a whole new way of understanding who they were as Christians. And they knew that they needed to do something about it. They began traveling the country, looking for others who got it.”¹

As the conversation diversified, so did the concerns and agendas of those participating. This broadening then brought others outside of the initial group into the conversation. Dan Kimball comments, “Initially in the USA, the emerging church conversation was primarily evangelical suburban churches asking the question of ‘where are the 18-35 year olds?’ … As it was rightfully realized that what was going on around us was far more than just a generational and style issue – the conversation then broadened.” Dan continues, “As the emerging church conversation broadened, those who participated in it broadened. The focuses of what was discussed broadened. The theologies and philosophies within it broadened.” This broadening multiplied agendas within the emerging church, which lead to some confusion within the movement. Dan explains, “…how you now define the emerging church…is different depending on who you ask.” Dan sees this feature of the conversation as being the reason why various individuals have proposed different emerging church taxonomies. It’s easy to argue that the degree to which various groups within the emerging church are interested in theological reformulations has, more than anything else, brought about the various taxonomies that have sprung up over the course of the last few years.²

Tony Jones hates these categorization efforts. He says, ”One of the things I despise is all of the taxonomizing that takes place. I think it’s such a modern tendency to place everyone in this silo or that silo. So I reject all talk of ‘emergent’ vs. ‘emerging,’ or the Four R’s of Ed Stetzer or the categories of Mark Driscoll or anyone else. …Haven’t we learned our lesson after the era of hundreds of denominational labels that so many of us now reject?”³

Part of Tony’s concern appears to be that these kinds of groupings disrupt relationship. For Tony and others there is an unwelcome and – in their view – unnecessary tension between theological diversity and harmonious relationships within the emerging church. This tension is best illustrated in microcosm when Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and John Piper, a well-known author, conference organizer, and pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church who does not consider himself a part of the emerging church, met for lunch on 13 September 2006.⁴

All three men live and work in the Minneapolis, MN area and Tony thought the meeting would be a good opportunity to clear up any misconceptions John might have about the emerging church. During the meal, Doug suggested that Bethlehem Baptist and Solomon’s Porch could mutually explore ways to work together even though they had theological differences. But it appeared that John believed that there had to be some foundational theological agreement before any kind of partnership could be struck. Their conversation centered on the meaning of the atonement, specifically, the penal substitutionary theory.⁵ Tony and Doug did not believe that agreement on this specific doctrine was necessary for mutual endeavor. Tony used the incident to illustrate his Dispatch #7 in his recent book The New Christians:

Emergents believe that an envelope of friendship and reconciliation must surround all debates about doctrine and dogma.⁶

Tony reiterated this principal in our interview with him: “It concerns me when leaders who were formerly friends of mine back away from me and from emergent because they find my theology too risky. I think that’s sin, plain and simple. Friendship should trump doctrinal differences, and I’m quite sure that Jesus would agree with me on that” (emphasis mine).

John Piper also has provided his perspective on the conversation using some language somewhat similar to Tony’s. In an interview with Justin Taylor, John said,

“It was a very profitable time for me. I like these guys, by the way. …However, my root sense is that ultimately, for Tony and Doug, committed relationships trump truth. They probably would not like the word ‘trump’ but would rather say that committed relationships are an authentic expression of the gospel, and that to ask, ‘What is the gospel underneath, supporting the relationships?’ is a category mistake. …There are profound epistemological differences – ways of processing reality – that make the conversation almost impossible... What is the function of knowledge in transformation? What are the goals of transformation? We seem to differ so much in our worldviews and our ways of knowing that I’m not sure how profitable the conversation was or if we could ever get anywhere”⁷

In addition to the similar verbiage, what is also ironic is that relationally John expressed his affection for

Tony and Doug, and theologically, Tony respects John’s favored theory of the atonement and even sees “seeds of it in Pauline writings.”⁸ But the two camps could not find a way of co-laboring.

Despite this tension, nevertheless, some of the emerging church leaders we interviewed saw positive value in some of the theological redefinition that has been occurring, specifically as it has resulted in a more multifaceted understanding of the Christian Gospel. This broadened understanding of the Gospel occurred during the transition from the almost exclusive early focus on evangelism itself within the conversation.

Jordon Cooper noted that the discussion “moved from ‘church mechanics’ … into a larger discussion of ‘what is the Gospel?’ Brian McLaren commented that participants in the conversation “realized that you can’t just talk about the church without talking about its message – the gospel. … The writings of Dallas Willard played a huge role in this for some of us….” Scot McKnight expressed the transition this way.

“…the Gospel had become too shaped by modernity and packaged to make decisions. There is a serious shift in our thinking and in our praxis toward the development and preaching and teaching of a gospel that encompasses all the Bible says about the Gospel – and that means an expansion to a robust Gospel, one that is both personal and corporate, spiritual and social, inner and outer, sudden and progressive, and individual and cosmic.”

Dan Kimball agrees with Scot that this development has been helpful to the broader church by expanding its understanding of the gospel. He notes,

“I think the questions raised by the emerging church have helped change the reductionist view of the Gospel that many of us had. I think that discussion of understanding the Kingdom of God as something more than just what happens when we die was a major and helpful part of the emerging church discussion. I think that the way disciples of Jesus were called to participate in Kingdom activity and being involved in justice and compassion activity has extremely helpful.“

Brian McLaren also sees that the conversation has precipitated increased involvement in the areas of social justice and relief. He notes, “The New Monasticism is playing a critical role in this, as are groups like CCDA [Christian Community Development Association] and others.”

But while several appreciated an expanded understanding of the Gospel, some emerging leaders with whom we spoke expressed two concerns.

The first was that as the emerging church has expanded the church’s understanding of the Gospel, it has not been sufficiently involved in the presentation of the Gospel. Dan Kimball notes that “…as the emerging church has been a community of healing for many disillusioned Christians, I think we need to remember the urgency of need for those outside the church who aren’t Christians. There are so many people who have not placed faith in Jesus and we have a mission to be on.” Scot McKnight echoed this sentiment stating that one of his greatest concerns with the conversation is “a lack of evangelism.”

The second concern is the nature of the theological conversation itself in some circles of the emerging church. Scot McKnight commented,

“…American faith doesn’t work well without some belief-identifiers and the original commitment to make this a conversation, which it still is in many ways, is not as useful when doctrinal issues emerge and call for attention. My biggest concern is that too many don’t care enough about theology and the history of Christian thinking to give both the respect they deserve. We may need to rethink many items, but we can only do so responsibly if we listen attentively to those who have gone ahead of us…. The trend that is least helpful is deconstruction without responsible construction…. Entailed in this at times is a total lack of theological education and sophistication and a willingness to believe whatever one wants to believe.”

In other words, there is a concern that some current theological discussion is insufficiently considerate of the labors of those thinkers who have come before us.

While the emerging church celebrates some of its theological advances in the midst of these tensions and concerns, it is an open question as to whether the conversation will have a significant long-term influence. Indicative that it might has been the degree to which the emerging church conversation has been mediated online. Andrew Jones sees this as one of the most significant developments in the movement’s history. He refers to “the impact of the web and the revolution of online self-publishing through blogging, micro-blogging and social media websites” and favorably mentions Douglas Rushkoff comment “that the first Reformation turned hearers into readers but this Reformation is turning readers into writers.” Because the conversation has occurred in new media, it has not needed to rely on institutions for self-perpetuation. But this very feature may militate against the conversation’s longevity. Historically, movements have passed from generation to generation by institutionalizing. Institutions act as a means by which one generation recruits and informs subsequent generations. Emergent Village, which had been the closest thing to an emerging church institution in the United States, recently stood down from any such role in their recent, A Letter from the Board to Friends of Emergent Village. Referencing a recent online survey of interested parties, the board wrote, “…nearly everyone agreed that emergent is a grass-roots relational network…and that it should not become another large nonprofit religious organization building a big budget and staff. Institutionalization was consistently identified as the wrong way to go (emphasis mine).” (It’s important to note that Emergent Village never claimed to be the definitive voice of the emerging church. With this move, it is declaring itself to be a “network of networks.”)

It may be that the emerging church emphases will survive as portions of the conversation are picked up by other organizations.

In addition to many local churches, other inter-church organizations continue portions of the conversation, including Leadership Network’s Missional Renaissance Community and Friends of Missional. And new organizations are forming. Dan Kimball, Erwin McManus, Lead Pastor of Mosaic in Los Angeles, Scot McKnight and others have started an organization called The Origins Project. The focus of the organization will be on mission and evangelism. Dan Kimball comments,

“This will be a network/community that really partners and serves with other networks as we don’t want to be recreating everything. Because theology is very important in mission, we have determined from the beginning to use the Lausanne Covenant as our doctrinal statement so-to-speak. We like the Lausanne Covenant because it was formed from a multi-denominational and global perspective based around mission.”

Another very real possibility is that with the increasingly declining cost of information and communication precipitated by online media, institutionalization itself may become less necessary as a means by which messages survive from one generation to another. Certainly online new media has helped to precipitate unprecedented cross-traditional and cross-denominational conversational threads. The open question is the extent to which such conversations – including that of the emerging church – will be durable when conducted in this fashion.

And so the tenth anniversary of Next-Wave arrives at a critical moment for the emerging church conversation. Theological differences indeed threaten the short-term cohesion and long-term viability of the emerging church and yet in the midst of those differences, many claim some genuine ecclesiological and theological advances that may yet prove to have long term significance.

Fortunately, followers of Jesus Christ are not ultimately reliant on their own brilliance, devices, and stratagems to co-labor with God in His Kingdom. Submitted hearts can call on God for His wisdom and guidance and trust that the Spirit will lead. Human institutions, movements, and conversations come and go. But surely sometimes God chooses the canvas of human efforts to paint beautiful portraits.

Ultimately, of course, the criterion by which the long-term success of the emerging church conversation will be judged will be the degree to which it has precipitated a greater love of God and others.

Note: The emerging church leaders Next-Wave interviewed touched on a number of topics as they shared their perspectives on the conversation’s history. Since this article only deals with some of the subjects they discussed, a complete, lightly edited transcript of the interviews can be found in this issue. Interviewees, by the way, did not review each other’s answers.

¹Jones, The New Christians, 41-43.
²See DJ Chuang’s helpful metapost for examples of these various categorizations.
³Links added by the author.
⁴While John Piper would not consider himself to be part of the emerging church conversation, his concerns would be echoed by his associates in the New Reformed movement that would consider themselves emergers – e.g. Mark Driscoll.
⁵“Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.” From “Penal Substitutionary Atonement,” Theopedia, http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_substitutionary_atonement, accessed 11 January 2009.
⁶Tony Jones, The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), 76-70.
⁷From The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books), cited by Al Hsu, “John Piper meets Tony Jones: Two views,” The Suburban Christian, http://thesuburbanchristian.blogspot.com/2008/05/john-piper-meets-tony-jones-two-views.html, accessed 11 January 2009.
⁸“My Lunch with John Piper,” Theoblogy, http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2006/10/my-lunch-with-john-piper.html, accessed 11 January 2009.

Stephen Shields is a former pastor, the founder of faithmaps.org, a management consultant, and a freelance writer. Stephen received a M.Div from Grace Theological Seminary and lives with his wife and three daughters in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. He can be contacted at sshields@faithmaps.org and blogs at the faithmaps blog.

You can "Search Articles" in right sidebar of Next-Wave, keyword: Stephen Shields, to find his other articles on the emerging church over the past 10 years.

(8)