Emerging Church: Who Cares?
After reading Scot McKnight’s informative post on the protests of the Emerging Church, I came to a not-so-startling realization: the Emerging Church is obsessed with itself.
If postmodernism is a “mood” our culture is experiencing, then the Emerging Church (EC) is the church’s experience of that mood. And it is a bad one. I don’t mean bad as in “this is a dreadful effect on sacred evangelicalism” but as “this is an unhappy state of affairs.” Whenever I take part of discussions on the EC I am “cock-sure certain” that there will be tension, hurt feelings, and a whole lot of whining going on about the “modern church.”
Discussions range from defining the EC, what the EC is trying to do, what the gospel is according to the EC, what it means to be “missional,” how is worship different in a postmodern culture as opposed to a modern culture, and so on. To add to this, since postmodernism is the key ingredient for the EC, even more discussions revolve around trying define this nebulous concept that is seen as something liberating in light of dying Modernity.
Can I say who cares?
In reading the account of Luke 21 we do not find Jesus warning his disciples of coming cultural shifts. Instead, anguish, perplexity, wars, revolutions, and persecutions will occur, and they will be signs of this world passing away. Those that call themselves disciples of Christ are promised that the Spirit will advocate for them and are warned not to be weighed down with worries and anxieties that require medication from chemical dependency. In other words, we are to be watchful to not be consumed by the world’s troubles, and instead pray that we might escape such difficulties so we may stand before God.
This does not mean that we can’t be dissatisfied with the current status quo of worship, evangelism, biblical application, obedience to Christ, and love for one’s neighbor in the present Christian world. It doesn’t mean that we can’t call for reformation and revival that calls for sweeping changes from inauthenticity to authenticity, divisions to unity, profession to loving action. Much of the “protest” McKnight blogs about is valid, which is why I have been sympathetic to the EC in the past.
But most of these issues have been discussed before the EC was ever around. Moreover, the EC seems more concerned about how we stand before the world than how we stand before God. Some will find that to be a tired charge, but I only ask you to read up on many of the Emerging websites and books and you find little focus on how we should relate to God in comparison to how we should relate to the world around us.
And it is this kind of narcissism, like a wannabe-cool youth group kid, which keeps the EC in a perpetual state of naval-gazing.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:13 pm
I assume the sharp distinction Adam makes is the same that the Bible makes: The true Jew’s praise is not from man but from God.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:18 pm
The world is not God, so focusing on relating to the world is not the same as focusing on relating to God. Now, God cares about the world, so how you relate to the world actually matters. How you relate to the world would be different depending on your focus.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Brett, I see your point, but the issue is exactly what Ed said. Relating to the world takes precedence over God. It’s opinion of us is more important than his. That seems to be the misplaced priority in the EC that I see, anyway.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Good post adam. i’m going to show this to my EC friends
Prepare to do battle 
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:05 pm
By nature, the movement shirks absolute knowledge of truth. While this is a provocative and exciting idea that has energized the faith-lives of a number of folks, it also has a couple of key drawbacks.
First, it leads to perpetual questioning, which is very attractive to folks who prefer whining about the problems with church to actually forging solutions. In this environment, solutions are discouraged, while whining is encouraged.
Second, it leaves the group vulnerable to having it’s agenda dictated by it’s most opinionated members. I think we see this in the growing politicization of the movement. For the average conservative, that would make the whole enterprise of going to church very intimidating (I understand that this could be said of the “modern” church for liberals). Politics is just one example, however.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:08 pm
My conclusion, which ties to the point of your post, is that both problems tend to overinflate the importance of the movement itself, in my view…
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Why Can’t the “Church” Just be Postive over any Situtuation?? I believe that’s what we are commanded to do……
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Kevin, you made an excellent point about the EC being a movement that is governed by its most opinionated members. Brian McLaren, for all his protests against being the poster child of the EC, finds himself in his place of influence by virtue of the degree he is opinionated.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Has it occurred to anybody yet that we’re compaining about people who are complainers? *rimshot
I think we need to lighten this topic up with a few “Glamour Shots” of Brian McLaren! (Brian, if you ever by chance read this, I’m sorry. I’m glad that your have more self-confidence than I do, because I’d never be brave enough to put up pictures like that of myself!)
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:11 pm
I don’t know what church has to do with emergencies.
Hey Adam, you put RachelMaren on your blog! Thanks, man.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:17 pm
I think we need to lighten this topic up with a few “Glamour Shots” of Brian McLaren!
Because for a limited time only, glamour shots by Deb are 75% off!
All I can say is, “I like his bangs.”
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:11 am
under a load, but here’s my question, and i’m out:
what if standing before the world is intrinsic to how we stand before God? What if these are not mutually exclusive, and by trying to flesh out one, we are unavoidably fleshing out the other? the dichotomy between the world and God proposed here is Luther, and thus not representative of the whole church. i hate to be the party pooper here, but what if the two are so related that there’s no dividing them?
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:16 am
Dude, looks like you got challies-ized…
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:40 am
“what if standing before the world is intrinsic to how we stand before God?”
Jesus PROMISED us that the world would hate us. I think there is an intrinsic relationship, but I think it’s the opposite of what you do, if I had to guess.
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:59 am
Phil Johnson the Pyro Maniac used to link to a blog that was satire on McLaren and Emergent. Unfortunately it hasn’t been updated in months but it was amusing.
http://demergent.blogspot.com/
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:28 am
Myles, I am a believer that our relationship to God primarily influences how we will act before the world, not the other way around. When we start caring about Christ cares about then we see how we should live accordingly. I know there is an opposing school of thought, but it doesn’t hold much water biblically or experiencially, in my opinion.
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:20 am
I believe that when we as Christians or as a body of Christ worry more about what the world thinks than what God thinks we have completly lost touch!
I think there is something to be said for any church who makes an effort to offer appealing programs that have the potential to bring the un-saved in, but I think the key there is that you bring them in with the hope of changing their lives, not leaving them in the same depravity they are in when the arrive.
As a modern church I think we can do many things that can show the love of Christ to this generation, but that is what we should be doing is showing the love of Christ not trying to conform to this world!
November 3rd, 2005 at 12:23 pm
I strongly recommend to anyone here to search biblegateway.com for “world love” and “world hate”
Here are the links:
world and love
world and hate
November 4th, 2005 at 10:01 am
I’m not really sure what the Emerging Church is. I live in a small midwest city and attend a young, rapidly growing church. We’ve gone from meeting in someone’s home 3 or 4 years ago to filling a gym with 1500 people every Sunday morning. Clearly this church is doing something right. And it sees itself as an alternative to “traditional” churches. But the services still seem very traditional in structure to me. It’s just that the music is contemporary and most of the congregation dresses in jeans.
But I don’t find anything radical, exciting, or much different from where I grew up except for the plethora of programs and events designed to get me “plugged-in.” I’m not looking for a new thrill. But I am looking for a place that’s real and relevant, yet uncompromising. If that’s what the EC is, then point me to it - I’m willing to forgive some “narcissism.” If that’s not what the Emerging Church is all about, then I wish something else would emerge.
November 4th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Scott, I think you’ll find that on the whole, that’s actually not really what EC is - they want to be known as a lot more than that. That kind of church model is a lot older - the more recent version (aside from EC) would be found in the “seeker sensitive” movement that rose in the 80s, and then largely crashed and burned. But “modern church” (as in, a church that “fits” among its modern culture, no matter what time in history) is as old as the church itself. Acts is a prime example of being “in the world but not of it”, as the church struggled in the time during which they were still seen as a “Jewish sect”. Church history tells us this happens to various degrees since. (Indeed for a lot of church history, the church dictated culture, rather than the other way around…)
I don’t think anyone is espousing the idea that having a church that can meet people where they are at is a bad thing. I too go to a church in which people feel accepted, where the worship is (largely) modern, and where people can pretty much wear what they want. But the larger issues with EC have to do with a lot more: the place and need for church leadership, and the need for solid, Biblical theology (rather than an “open source theology”, which is really no more than a certain type of relativism), for starters.
I’m not sure if Adam has metioned anywhere on his blog, but I’d recommend the book “Conversing with the Emergent Church” by Don (DA) Carson. While some in EC are crying foul, I think from what I’ve read so far (and overviewed), he’s been entirely fair, being careful to point out what is GOOD about EC, too.
Mic
(Stepping down off her soapbox…)
November 4th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Holy crap, where did Michaela come from!
(hey mic!)
November 6th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
I guess I’m not sure what the difference is between EC’s attitude (as defined here) and the attitude that’s reflected in a lot of these comments. Is the typical evangelical church not also wrapped up in itself? Which has the most people, the biggest private school (usually for white kids), the best known pastor, the most radio stations (one church in my mid-sized city has 2 of the 4 “Christian” stations), the best kids’ programming, and on and on and on. Before EC came along, we were bashing on pentacostals (or non-pentacostals depending on which side of the fence we were on), Catholics, Armenians (or Calvinists, depending on which side of the fence we were on)…
All in all, we do a very good job of convincing ourselves that what we believe is right and complete, and anyone who believes otherwise is crazy and/or out of line. I suppose someday we’ll get over it, but probably not on this side of heaven.