Next-Wave Ezine > church & culture

A Retrospective on the Emerging Church in North America Pt. 1
By Interviews by Stephen Shields

How would you characterize the current state of the emerging church conversation? What's positive? What concerns you?

Jordon Cooper

It has matured a lot over a decade and that is a good thing. I think it is has moved from "church mechanics" which was a discussion on how do we fix church and has moved into a larger discussion on what is the Gospel. Of course everyone likes to talk about fixing church (unless it is the church you pastor, then it is perfect) but talking about the essence of the Gospel causes people problems because it reopens for discussion a subject that our doctrines and even dogma have said is something we understand.

My concern is that the conversation hasn't moved that much beyond a white male dominated conversation. I know that Emergent Village and others have worked on this and made progress on it, the demographic still seems to mirror the wider evangelical church in the United States which is a bunch of white guys.

Brian McLaren

I think at least three things can kill a generative conversation. One is excessive agreement. When everybody is saying the same thing, that's often a sign that hard questions aren't being addressed. When that's the case, participants soon start congratulating themselves for how right they are, and then they begin condemning everyone who isn't as smart and right as they are.

Second, uncivil disagreement can be equally deadly. This makes it unsafe to disagree or raise new questions and conversation ceases to be generative.

Third, triviality marks the end of a good conversation. People wisely lose interest when the topics of conversation become insignificant in comparison to others. Thankfully, I think that in many sectors around the world, these three dangers are being avoided, or recovered from, and the conversation continues to expand and grow and deepen - both in terms of who is involved, and what is being engaged, and the humble but free and energetic way things are being explored. So my "positives" far outweigh my concerns ... which are generally related to the ever-present danger of the previous three conversation-killers.

Scot McKnight

For the most part, it is the same as it has always been: lots going on, much of it in flux, much of it exploratory. But there is a second level of commitment about it all: what was once full of wide-eyed hope suffered some shock with robust criticisms from the right side of evangelicalism, some reality jolts from the difficulty of actual ministry and church work, and some struggles to see that good "ideas" don't always translate easy into "success." But, there is still some firm commitment to make this work. My biggest concern is that 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.

Tony Jones

A caveat: my reflections are based primarily in the conversational nexus of Emergent Village, since that's been my focus. Forgive me for being skewed in that way.

I'd say that the current state of the conversation is that it is as it always has been: in flux and flow. There's never been a set agenda among those of us who've led the conversation -- heck, there's never even been a set group of persons who are leading it! This may sound very hippie, but it-is-what-it-is. No one is really steering this thing. Now, obviously, when a new book comes out, or there's a new criticism voiced, or someone starts a popular podcast, that changes the direction of the conversation. But that's my point. It's those very things that dictate the movement.

I think what's positive is the looseness with which we all hold the emergent movement -- no one is white-knuckling it, no one has their Christian faith based upon it. It's more playful than that.

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 difference, and I'm quite sure that Jesus would agree with me on that. It concerns me when bloggers in the UK (and elsewhere) criticize what we're doing in the US when it's clear they're not really in touch with our context.

Dan Kimball

I would characterize the current state of the emerging church conversation as something that is continuing to morph and evolve as it has from the beginning. The church of Jesus is always “emerging” so it will always be changing and the conversation taking different turns and adventures. The word that comes to mind when thinking about the current state of the emerging church is that is seems to be diversifying. Initially in the USA, the emerging church conversation was primarily evangelical suburban churches asking the question of “where are the 18-35 year olds?”. That is what drew many of us together at those very first conferences that focused on “Gen X” back then. It allowed us a safe place to ask questions for those sensing something was changing. 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.

We realized that there were great changes happening that were far beyond only a generational gap. Or the changes were not just about church methodology but about the world the church exists in that was drastically changing. So this broadened the conversation far beyond merely the whole candles and couches surface issues. 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 was quite thrilling, fun and challenging as it diversified. But how you now define the emerging church has also broadened as a result and is different depending on who you ask. That is why you now have people whom are very familiar with the emerging church and its history like Scot McKnight and Ed Stetzer trying to now define some categories within it.

I have found Ed Stetzer's Scot McKnight's descriptions very helpful when explaining the current state of the emerging church. I wish we didn’t need categories and could just say “We all follow Jesus” and leave it at that. But that means different things to different people with often very different approaches, philosophies and theologies. So I think the current state of the emerging church is diverse enough today to need descriptions of different “streams” or “highways”. I say that, as I have had people say “you don’t need categories – just be the church!” but then I go on their church web site and they use descriptive categorical terms there to describe themselves. So categories are helpful, but we do have to be careful to not over-generalize or over-use them as they have limitations and no one fits perfectly into any one category.

Andrew Jones

The identity issue is a big one now - Who and what is emerging church? Who has moved on from the label and who will be using it in the future? The usage of the term itself has seen a downturn and it now gets less mention on the web than it did a few months ago and certainly less than a few years ago. But the movement itself is doing well.

I have found it really positive to see a focus on sustainability for mission and church through developing social and micro-business enterprises alongside mission movements. And its positive to see the emerging church movements in the global south that are blowing our minds about the potential of the gospel and what an unshackled church movement can so in difficult counties in a very short amount of time. It also positive to see greater acceptance from older church leaders and organizations, and Foundations that are partnering in this great work.

Apart from a worldwide shortage of candles [he he he] I am concerned that the conversation in the West has been hijacked by the Christian publishing industry which now determines who the leaders are according to how many books are sold. Its hard to believe but the majority of EC leaders have never published a book and probably never will. This gives a slanted view on the movement and it ascribes power to the countries that either publish more books or have the purchasing power to buy them. Those counties present themselves as the leading voices but they are not always the countries with the best examples of emerging church. I am concerned that key leaders will not have a voice when they need to speak

What are the most significant developments within the conversation in the last 10 years?

Jordon Cooper

I think the movement from a discussion just about church (should we have candles and coffee in church?!) to a wider (and scarier) discussion where we re-examined theology, praxis, discipleship, and a bunch of things that my theological education told me were already settled. It was at that point I think that someone painted a big target on Brian McLaren and they have been aiming at him ever since :-)

Brian McLaren

-- There are many, but I'll mention four.

First, when the conversation began, it was primarily about the church - how to "do" church, be church, change church, etc. Obviously, there's so much important work to be done in this area, but soon people realized that you can't just talk about the church without talking about its message - the gospel. So I think the shift from just talking about church to talking about gospel was really critical. The writings of Dallas Willard played a huge role in this for some of us ... getting people thinking about the gospel of the kingdom of God.

Second, when the conversation began, it was primarily young white Evangelical males. I represented a first step in diversity - getting middle-aged white Evangelical males involved - a very small step to be sure. But that process has continued - getting mainline Protestants involved, and increasing numbers of women leaders, and more recently, more Roman Catholic folks (2009 should be a big step forward in this regard) and Eastern Orthodox. Gay folk have also found an increasingly safe place to participate in the conversation. There's still so much to be done regarding racial diversity in the US - but that is changing slowly but surely through groups like the Latino Leadership Circle. Meanwhile, more and more of us have discovered that we're part of a larger global conversation. In many ways, the Europeans have been far ahead of us, and we have a lot to learn from them. Meanwhile, there have been parallel evolutions of conversations that are more related to the "postcolonial" turn than the "postmodern" turn - exemplified by Latin Americans (via groups like La Red del Camino) and Africans (via groups like amahoro-africa) and Asians (Sivin Kit is a great networker in Malaysia).

Third, the conversation has also become increasingly interested in matters of justice and compassion. That's a natural consequence of increasing diversity and deepening theology. The New Monasticism is playing a critical role in this, as are groups like CCDA [Christian Community Development Association] and others.

And finally, the conversation has weather its first few waves of critique, and by and large, I think participants have handled that pretty well.

Scot McKnight

Unquestionably, the realization that 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.

Tony Jones

The National Re-Evaluation Forum (1998), the regional gatherings (1999), the name "emergent village" (2001), a book deal with Youth Specialties (2001), the Emergent/YS Conventions (2003-2005), the end of the partnership with YS (2005), three new publishing partnerships (2005), the Emergent Gathering (2003-2007), the Theological Conversation with Miroslav Volf (2006).

I'd also add the publication of several books: A New Kind of Christian, Generous Orthodoxy, A Community Called Atonement, Emerging Churches.

I guess the beginning (2005) and end (2008) of my tenure as national coordinator of Emergent Village was significant.

The overall arc of the movement has been interesting over the last decade, too, beginning with lots of interest from evangelicals at the beginning, attracting major media attention during the middle years, and the interest of mainline, denominational Protestants most recently.

Andrew Jones

Three developments come to mind.
The first is the impact of the web and the revolution of online self-publishing through blogging, micro-blogging and social media websites. Douglas Rushkoff noted that the first Reformation turned hearers into readers but this Reformation is turning readers into writers. And even more - people are finding each other and resourcing the movements of God in ways we could not have imagined ten years ago.

The second is a result of our new global emerging church movement which is multi-directional and increasingly post-colonial. Next month, for example, an emerging church network in Europe sit down for a few days in the Netherlands to learn about church planting and ministry from a guy in India who has seen 3 million people come into the Kingdom through a house church movement. India teaching Europe about mission. I LOVE IT!!!!

Thirdly, the millions of Christians that have either left church to become the church or who choose to follow Jesus without attending a Sunday worship service, are no longer defined as backsliders. Instead, the new forms of church they are discovering, both online and offline, point to the kinds of church models we will be seeing in the future. In fact, its not even about models anymore but more about the Kingdom of God, being the one church in the city and being church where we live, all the time, not just on Sundays.

In your view, what have been the primary benefits of the emerging church conversation to the larger church?

Jordon Cooper

I know people mock the term deconstruction but I hope the conversation has forced the church to go back and re-examine what they have assumed was true and take a look at it with fresh eyes. At the same time the emerging church conversation is a place for people who deep down know that there has to be something else other than what evangelicalism or the mainline church is offering yet at the same time still allows us to explore that within our theological framework. As I have said lots, I don't feel a lot of tension within my Methodist tradition and the emerging church. All over the world, Baptists, Episcopalians, and other people in other traditions are saying something similar.

Brian McLaren

-- I think it's still too soon to tell. I think the Mainline Protestants at this point are poised to benefit the most. They know they're in trouble, and they're bringing their tradition to the table, seeking to integrate it with innovation and creativity. Roman Catholics may also embrace and engage what's happening in some exciting ways ... especially through the orders and various lay movements. Evangelicals are more divided on all of this ... about which I'll offer this brief hunch.

My guess is that about 30% of Evangelicals are either sincere fundamentalists or sincere hard-core Religious Right adherents. Their identity has been largely formed in a culture wars context, and so they tend to respond to anything new and different in a combative way. They mean no harm by this: this is just how they have been taught to be faithful to God. I think that a few of these folks are changing - I'm receiving a steady stream of emails from folks who say, "I used to say you all were of the Devil, but I've just gone through a crisis of faith, and your writings and groups are saving my faith." But many of these folks will probably remain hostile or at least suspicious for the foreseeable future, and I don't think it's wise to try to argue with them or criticize them - they're doing what they believe is right, and criticism will only harden them in defensiveness. It's far better to appreciate them for their many good qualities and respond graciously to their critique and just thank God for all the good they do and ignore the rest. (I just had breakfast today with the son of one of these passionate but hard-edged folks, and he left the faith of his father, but is coming back to Christ through this more generous orthodoxy.)

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I think about 20% of Evangelicals are more progressive, or perhaps post-Evangelical. More and more of the younger generation fits in this category, and for them, this generative conversation space is saving their faith - or is the only viable option for having faith.

The middle fifty percent is composed of moderate Evangelicals. These are kind and gentle people who don't want to be mean, so they hold back from the combative tone of those to their right. But they also fear them, and often depend on them for funding. So if push comes to shove, they'll throw those to their left under the bus to avoid being attacked by those to their right. Yet they're reading some of our books and many of their kids are being helped by what a lot of us are doing. I think of a leader of one of these centrist organizations who said to me, "I don't like your books and I disagree with you on a lot of things, but I hope you succeed, because my children are far from God and far from the church, and they detest the form of Christianity I represent. But your books are beginning to get through to them. So God bless you." It will be interesting to see how all this plays out in the months and years ahead, especially in the aftermath of the presidential elections and our current crises. These aren't easy times for Evangelicals, and I believe a profound re-identification process is under way.

Scot McKnight

The emerging conversation has made the evangelical church aware that there are lots of dissatisfied folks with questions and who need a safe place for those questions to be examined. If the evangelical church will listen hard enough, it will learn that these folks are not out to attack the gospel or the orthodox faith but are intent on an intellectual honesty that is committed to struggle for an expression of orthodoxy in our world.

Tony Jones

I believe the the emergent movement has been an invigorating force. In the early years, we were among the few people in the evangelical church pushing for a recovery of liturgical practices, a patronage of the arts, a return to aesthetic beauty. Ten years ago, the baptist megachurch down the highway from me would have have considered Advent and Lent to be anathema since those were "Catholic" traditions. Now they hang banners over the highway, advertising their Advent and Lent services. I think that emergent was a big part of that -- we were among the "evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail" that Bob Webber wrote about.

I hope we've also been a part of the reinvigoration of theological conversation in the church. Of course, theological reflection has always been a part of academia, but it was hard to find int he church at the end of the 20th century. When those of us in emergent village first found each other, it was primarily because we really wanted to talk theology, and the non-academic places to do that were rare. Today there is a marked increase in theological conversation, whether you be Reformed, Wesleyan, even Anabaptist and Anglican. I like to think that we played a part in that.

Dan Kimball

I think there has been so many great benefits to the church at large over the past 10 years. I think the questions raised by the emerging church has 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. I think that many Christians who were questioning their own faith and confidence in the local church had a forum to discuss things in the emerging church world.
I know for myself, the friends I made in the emerging church conversation were used by God in major ways to help me process change, support me, allow me to talk through issues in a safe environment. So in many ways for me personally, the emerging church conversation both stretched and renewed my faith to some degree and for sure saved my faith in the local church. In fact it has incredibly invigorated my passion for the local church.

At the same time, 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. The New Testament is a powerful reminder of the seriousness of this part of the mission and evangelistic example we see in the early church. You can’t help but read the book of Acts and be drawn into the excitement and urgency of evangelism they had. How we go about it may differ today in our world - but the New Testament clearly paints a description of the zealousness they had for evangelism. Even as the disciples of Jesus when beaten and wounded, when they were jailed and all that they went through – they didn’t simply cluster together and deconstruct or focus on themselves. They were out on mission and from the Scriptures we read their passion to see those who didn’t know Jesus come to know who He is and the saving message of the gospel.

Andrew Jones

The emerging church has given the wider church some concrete examples of how to start and reproduce churches with little or no budget and this can be a wonderful gift to help the wider church get through the recession without stalling the Great Commission. There are now millions of churches that have started in the last decade without buying real estate and without paid professionals. The clergy/laity divide is gone and there are no spectators. The lessons are there, for those with eyes to see.

What are some trends that have not been helpful in the conversation over the course of the last 10 years?

Jordon Cooper

I don't think the critics of the emerging church have contributed to it that much to the conversation and that is something that I really regret. I am not sure if it is because Christians and theologians are just socially challenged and we no longer know how to have a conversation or if the partisanship that make it hard for Republicans and Democrats to chat civilly in public has infiltrated the church.

Brian McLaren

-- I think that in the 90's, there was a market for "this is the new hot model for church" programs, and some of that carried over into this decade, so that "emerging church" became a "brand" or "model" that people wanted to imitate. There was a lot of "my brand is better than your brand" talk, which to me is sad. Thankfully, I don't hear too much of that these days. On a related note, there's a lot of sectarianism still in all our veins, so people sometimes start fighting about terms like missional and emergent and emerging and so on, claiming turf ownership and so on. Some of this is related to the kind of Evangelical polarizations I mentioned a minute ago ... Anyway, my hope is that more and more of us seek to be as "catholic" as we can, avoiding the temptation to slip into us versus them groups. We're all in this together, and none of us is all that great a position to consider ourselves superior to others. We need to extend to others the same grace we need from God.

Scot McKnight

The trend that is least helpful is deconstruction without reponsible construction -- in other words, deconstruction without love and without fidelity to the gospel. Entailed in this at times is a total lack of theological education and sophistication and a willingness to believe whatever one wants to believe. Alongside this is, for me, a lack of evangelism.

Tony Jones

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 of talk of "emergent" vs. "emerging," or the Four R's of Ed Stetzer or the categories of Mark Driscoll or anyone else. Just like no political scientist could classify me as a political "conservative" or "liberal" because of my unique mix of views, I think we in the church should be particularly wary of classifying others. Haven't we learned our lesson after the era of hundreds of denominational labels that so many of us now reject?

Another trend I don't like is what I referred to above -- the theological retrenchment of some (former) emergent leaders resulting in broken friendships. That grieves me, for it seems to go against everything we've hoped to stand for.

Andrew Jones

I have been criticized by some EC leaders as "anti-intellectual" for saying this but not everyone needs to study French postmodern philosophers in order to figure out the way forward. The "postmodern" discussion was helpful in the 90's, and some are still gleaning insights from it, but other fields of inquiry like emergent theory, network theory, complexity, globalization, new media theory, etc, have been great resources to understand our culture. Its a shame that so many critics could not follow us into the 21st Century because God knows we all need some good criticism.