Tenth Anniversary Issue

[This article first appeared as the cover story for the January 2009 issue of Next-Wave. You can find the entire issue here: http://www.the-next-wave.info/archives/issue121/index.cfm.html ]

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:

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:

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,

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

© Mollypix | Dreamstime.com

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.

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

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,

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.

©Kaz Sano | Dreamstime.com

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,

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.

Return to Top | Table of Contents

Print PDF

Scot McKnight is Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University and a prolific author, having penned more than ten books. His most recent book is The Jesus Creed.  Scot recently began interacting with emerging church folks via his blog after discovering his own resonances with the movement.

What originally precipitated your interest in the emerging church conversation?
It all began when Brian McLaren came to NPU [North Park University] and my colleagues, Ginny Olson and Jim Dekker, encouraged me to go hear him. I did, and ended up sitting next to him. I listened in, thought he had some interesting things to say, and began to work on the ideas. I read A New Kind of Christian with Kris, and then she read the second volume (I didn’t). Then I read Generous Orthodoxy.

Then DA Carson’s book [Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church] was announced and I figured I ought to do more intense work on what was going on.

Here’s what I found: many of the concerns with Evangelicalism and many of the theological interests and shapings of the way of Jesus I hear about among the Emerging movement (I still hesitate to call it “church” and think it is more than conversation – but who am I to decide that one?) are concerns and shapings I’ve had for a long time. For me it was “Now here’s a group that is saying things I also believe and do.”

Whom have you personally met in the movement (either f2f or in significant online interaction)?
Doug Pagitt was the first leader I sat down with; I found him intensely stimulated and stimulating. He had a big vision; he had firm ideas but knew how to converse. I’ve been in touch with Brian McLaren and with Tony Jones. And plenty of bloggers. I’ve read a shelf of books on the movement, and some of the writers are so disarming I feel I know them.

TSK [Tall Skinny Kiwi – Andrew Jones] has been helpful to me; his blog puts me in touch with many others. TSK reminds constantly that the emerging movement is not just American – and this needs to be emphasized. I think of Andrew Hamilton and Sivin Kit, and those around the world who have drawn deeply on the emerging voices.

I’m impressed with Steve McCoy who is a leading voice among the Southern Baptists when it comes to things emerging. His blog has a wealth of back-and-forth, pomo humor, and good ideas.

Who are your thought leaders in the movement?

McLaren stimulates me to think. Pagitt does, too. I’ve read some of Tony Jones’ blogs and I can’t wait to see what he comes up with for his dissertation. For me, though, the thinker I most resonate with would be Stan Grenz (and John Franke too). I’ve met Stan, but New Testament scholars and theological scholars run in different circles – which is sad. So, I never got to sit over coffee with him. I really like Lesslie Newbigin’s books, and think he had a “proper confidence” in the gospel in a pluralistic society.

What did Newbigin mean by “proper confidence” and what do you see as its significance?

Newbigin means that we need to have and can have “confidence” but we can’t achieve intellectual certainty as fallen human beings in world where all our knowledge claims are shaped by our context. This book is a must-read for all interested in the emerging conversation.

Have you had opportunity yet to participate in any emerging church events (e.g. conferences, gatherings)?  What were your impressions?

I wanted to go last Spring to Nashville [The Emergent Convention] and beat myself up thinking about it, but I had a publishing deadline to meet and simply couldn’t afford to take time away from Embracing Grace at that time. I can’t go to New Mexico and miss that much class, but I’m hoping to get some events this year if I can. I sense I will meet old friends I’ve known for years but never met.

What do you think that the larger evangelical world needs to learn from the emergers?

First, that the gospel is something that has to be performed or incarnated or lived out as much as something that is to be believed in.

Second, that the gospel is holistic and means working with God in the redemption God has planned.

Third, that culture has a grip on our minds and our theology and that we need to be both more circumspect and humble about what we know and believe.

Fourth, that it is OK to ask questions about cherished things and that humans are worthy of being listened to when they ask questions – questions lead to conversations that can lead to transformation and relationship.

Fifth, the church is bigger than the evangelical church and the historic churches are part of who we are.

Since most emergers came from an evangelical background, what do you think the emerging church community needs to remember from their days as “just evangelicals”?

The greatest contributions to the catholic Church by evangelicals are manifold – personal faith and conversion or what Stan Grenz called “convertive piety”; Bible study and the need for theology to be rooted in Scripture; the value (if also some problems) of local church integrity (I think “autonomy” is a bad word for the church).

Could you unpack your term “local church integrity” for me?

Local churches need to have the freedom to work things out for themselves – in relationship to other churches and the wider history of the catholic Church. But, when it becomes “autonomy” the local church begins to become insulated and arrogant. Evangelicalism sometimes shows the arrogance bug in its local church mentality – when pastors operate in the pretence that they are papal (though never in wording).

Do you think there are any features of evangelicalism that emerging church enthusiasts are throwing out to their detriment?

Some, I suppose, are. My biggest fear for the emerging movement is a fear of evangelism as proclamation. The gospel has to be lived out (performed) but Jesus not only performed Kingdom but he also proclaimed it. Some are so ashamed of the excesses of evangelism and the abuse of people by some in evangelistic practices that they are shying away from the good news as something Jesus offers to each of us.

Some would say that a strength of the emerging church is its emphasis on dialogue.  How do dialogue and proclamation coexist in the church?  Or, put another way, what is the balance between “a chastened rationalism” and Christian conviction?

Good question, Stephen, and I’m not sure I have an answer to this one. (How’s that for dialogical?) Dialogue occurs when we operate with what Alan Jacobs calls a “hermeneutic of love.” That is, when we treat the words of others with a genuine listening. And when we can be treated by the other in such a manner that we can express what we really think and believe. When this occurs, dialogue occurs. Dialogue today too often means compromise for the purpose of getting along – dialogue is best when I can tell you exactly what I think and you will listen and we can talk about it; and when you say what you think and I can listen.

Some have compared the emerging church phenomenon with the Jesus People movement of the 1970′s.  Do you see that comparison and do you see any other comparisons in Church History?

It was the first thing that came to mind. I mentioned this to Pagitt, and he smiled as if he was hearing a high school teacher tell a new class an old joke. There are always major differences in such comparisons, but there are some major similarities – not the least of which is a radical commitment to live the gospel in spite of what it might do for a person’s economic future. There is a strong and healthy counterculturalism to the emerging movement. A commitment to community. I also think there are some significant parallels to Anabaptism, but that is in part biased in my own favor and in part accurate – their radical commitment to community, to radical Christian life-styles, and to the Bible, etc., show some similarities.

Do you plan to do any book length writing around the emerging church experience?

In a space of about two weeks I was approached by three publishers; I may and I may not. I’ve got some things to say, but I have a full plate for publications right now and I think I need to focus on those things. Maybe some papers will spin into a small book.

Other than the Bible, what’s the one book you’ve read which has most moved you to love God and others?

Please don’t pin me to a “one book” option. I have two marvelous kids, so I’ll give you two books, and they show my catholic spirit: The Little Flowers of St Francis and Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections.

If you could change 3 things about how pastors are trained in the United States what would you change?  How can the local churches and the seminaries dance better together?  Have you seen any really effective models?

Now you’re meddling in what is uppermost in my mind at times, and it pains me to say so because I left teaching at a seminary. That I no longer teach there thins my words, but they are still what I think.

First, seminarians need to be involved in ministry, deeply, while in seminary.

Second, more careful assessment of giftedness needs to take place. (Most seminaries admit those who can afford the tuition, and rarely do they do serious assessment of gifts first.)

Third, everything needs to be shaped toward personal living of the Christian life.

And I’ll add a fourth:  learning in seminary should take place within a small group of fellow seminarians so that it becomes communally-shaped.

Local churches should be where seminaries are located. Any seminary disconnected from a church is creating problems that are long-term.

Models. I’ll avoid answering that one for fear of offending those doing it right and criticizing those I don’t think are doing it right.

Before leaving this one, Stephen, know that for more than a decade I was part of that problem myself for I taught at a seminary and I believed the best model of a pastor was a scholar/theologian who could preach and teach. I believe in scholarship, and preaching and teaching, but pastoring is so much more and begins at home and not in the study or library.

You’ve written, “Is there a possibility for a Fourth Way for the Emerging Church? A way that lives in the story of the entire Church, including the Eastern Orthodox tradition and the Western Roman Catholic tradition, as well as the Protestant tradition, one that both lets this be our story and yet that gives us freedom to take that story into a new story for a new day? I think so.”

Have you been able to develop a vision yet of how that might play out in the next 5-20 years institutionally or will it require the development of new institutions (realizing that’s a bad word for some)?

I believe we are on the threshold of creating a church identity that transcends the old boundaries, and I want to be part of it. But, I’m not the sort of person that can spell these things out – as I’m not in a position to effect those changes. But, if I could (like Eric Clapton) change the world, I’d ask churches to begin by spelling out outcomes (and I’d want them to be loving God and loving others) and I’d ask pastors and leaders and churches to shape everything in that direction. How often have our churches been taught “how” to love and “what loves looks like” and “how we can become more loving” (of God or others)? If this is the Jesus Creed, then why is it not more central to our focuses?

Institutions is not a bad term for me; it is the inevitable result of charismatic movements (here I sound like Max Weber). We want institutions that keep thing alive (here I protest Weber). But, we’ll need central organizations and we’ll need “seminaries” (and we’ll have to think how they ought to look and where they could be and what they should accomplish), and churches that have new focus and that cooperate with other Christians and with local governments, and that see a holistic gospel and seek to perform it locally for the good of the world.

You’ve also written:

“But this one comment: the singular most arrogant posture a Christian can take is to pretend (and that is what it is) that he or she can start all over again” and do so by ignoring the creeds and the voice of the Spirit in the Church.”

What are some practical ways that you suggest local emerging church communities can ensure they stay in creedal tradition without being boxed in by mere traditionalism?

I link to the creeds on my blogsite (www.jesuscreed.org); churches need to read them and learn them and teach them. They need to see the big sweep of the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Movement, and they need to see that local churches can embody the whole Church in a variety of ways – not just by swiping icons from the Orthodox or candles from the Catholics and disciplines from the monastics, but by learning the story of the Church (read Gonzalez or someone like him) and letting that story be our story.

Assessment is the key to keeping things being alive: we have to have an outcome-based shape to what we are doing so people see why we are doing what we are doing.

Could you say a few words about the nexus of the Jesus Creed and the Emerging Church distinctives?

Jesus grew up saying the Shema twice a day; he taught his followers a new shape to that Shema (both Hear O Israel… love God, and love your neighbor as yourself). This shaped how Jesus lived and taught others how to live. Love is what God’s nature is all about, in the perichoretic dance of God’s interpenetrating Trinitarian love) and it is what our live with others is about.

The gospel is not designed to forgive us so we can go to heaven; it is so much more. It is the work of God to restore Eikons (humans as the image of God) to union with God and communion with others, through the Cross, resurrection, and Pentecost, for the good of others and the world.

For me, the distinctive trait of the emerging movement is the word “missional” and a gospel definition like that above, which is the heart of my next book, Embracing Grace, can sustain an entire missional focus to the church of the emerging generation. I hope I live forty more years to see it all work out!

Print PDF