Emerging Church Part 3: Rising From Obscurity?
THE TWO ORIGINS
    “I think we are wise to adjust our methods, just as any good fisherman would during changing weather conditions” (Street 9). Said by Brian McLaren earlier this year, this assertion summarizes much of what the emerging church has been up to in the last ten years. In this post, I plan on exploring what these changes are as well as the positive and negative implications. I know many of you are rejoicing that I am finally discussing the main point of this series; I hope you understand that the two previous posts were very important for framing the environment from which the emerging church has risen. In so many discussions that I have had involving emerging churches, I am constantly amazed at how little some people know concerning why the emerging church exists. I hope that you have taken time to understand the “why” in the last two posts and realize that the emerging church did not simply rise from obscurity but is a response to the many needs of postmodern culture. So in this post I will examine the emerging church through the two origins, the three schools, the four responses, and a dance (apologies to Eugene Peterson). I ask that you continually give me feedback either over the web or in person; I appreciate the notes, comments, and discussions that many of us have been sharing and I hope to see them continue.
    I am not really sure if it is accurate to say that there were two origins of the emerging church; it seems rather that there was one group which identified the problem and another that presented possible solutions. In either case, I think it is important for us to remember that the church has always been emerging. Local congregations do not look like they did 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago, or 1800 years ago. Organs emerged at one time in history, denominations emerged at one time, even handshakes emerged at one time (remember that believers used to greet each other with a holy kiss) - we have always been emerging (Kimball, “Origins Part 1″ ). People use the word “emerging” in all sorts of ways, many of which may have nothing to do what we call “the emerging church.” In this conversation, when we say “emerging church” we are referring to a recent change in the evangelical mind concerning the relationship between the church and the world; while the church has a pattern of emergence, the recent changes are very unique to our history. So let’s take a look at what they are.
    We could say that everything began all the way back with the seeker-sensitive movement 20 or 30 years ago. The seeker-sensitive ministry style is characterized by a corporate approach to church organization; it focuses on delivering spiritual goods and services to its market (Driscoll, “Seeker vs. Missional” ). Some seeker-sensitive churches made compromises with culture, such as hiring female pastors (Ibid). But by removing religious symbols and shortening worship services, these churches were very successful in creating environments where the nonreligious crowd felt comfortable (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 25). Unfortunately, deeper teaching and more intimate worship were pushed to other time slots to make room for the spectacle Sunday services (Ibid 25), but in the end, these churches witnessed thousands of people embrace the Gospel who would have otherwise never walked into a church.
    The first problems came in the early 1990s when young people in these churches began to feel increasingly disillusioned and isolated by modern methodologies (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 34). My previous post recorded many of the patterns that these churches saw among their youth; those in leadership began to worry about how they were going to reach the next generation. Sally Morgenthaler, a brilliant student of corporate and personal worship, noted, “The ’spectacle’ approach to worship that Dan [Kimball] used… for eight years actually peaked sometime in the late eighties and early nineties. Dan was experiencing the aftershocks of an enormous spiritual quake” (qtd. in Kimball, “Emerging Church” 34). Since we have already examined that spiritual shift, I won’t go over it again. What is important to note is that seeker-sensitive churches noticed the changes and began searching for the cause. We can conclude that the first origin of the emerging church occurred within the seeker-sensitive churches who perceived that their methods were no longer successful in reaching emerging generations. This was the problem-identifying origin.
    The second origin, or we could say the solution-suggesting origin, was in 1997 when the Leadership Network held a conference to discuss reaching Generation X (Kimball, “Origins Part 1″ ). The tagline for the conference was “Advance Scouts for the Emerging Church;” this was the first time that the phrase “emerging church” was used with our current definition (Ibid). Mark Driscoll and Dan Kimball were both a part of this conference and have since become experts in describing the conversation that ensued (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). As Mark explains, the conference realized that it was too generationally focused (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ); they quickly shifted their focus onto the monstrous cultural shift occurring within emerging generations (Kimball “Origins Part 1″ ). The question that was of chief concern during this conference was “What does a missionary look like in America?” (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). At its conclusion, leaders reoriented themselves around the mission of Jesus and his Kingdom in the emerging culture (Kimball, “Origins Part 1″ ). “And out of that came… the emerging church, which is sort of a catch-all phrase for those younger churches and pastors that are trying to figure out how to do church in a postmodern world” (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). From 1997 to 2001, “emerging church” was used by these churches and pastors to describe the unique methodologies with which they were experimenting (Kimball, “Origins Part 1″ ). “Overall, at that time it meant missional churches passionate about seeing the gospel of Jesus communicated and lived out to emerging generations. That is at least what I was thinking as I used the term and still do think as I use the term ‘emerging church’” (Ibid).
    So these were the two origins of the emerging church: the seeker-sensitive churches who asked why emerging generations were leaving and the Leadership Network who suggested how to reach them. The seeker-sensitive churches began their investigations in the early 1990s and over the course of about five years (around 1992 to 1997) the discussion transformed from a few concerned pastors to a groundbreaking conference. This Leadership Network conference would prove to be the catalyst for a new church movement. Following the conference, three schools of thought formed, each of which approached the mission of reaching emerging generations with a unique perspective.
THE THREE SCHOOLS
    To begin, the “emerging church” is not merely thinking up hip new ideas for Sunday services; the “emerging church” is rethinking everything we do and questioning every tradition we have (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 37). There are typically three schools of thought to which emerging thinkers and leaders belong. Dr. Ed Stetzer, a noted missiologist, names these schools the Relevants, the Reconstructionists, and the Revisionists (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). Almost every leader among the “emerging church” can be placed in one of or some combination of these schools.
    The first school, the Relevants, has two wings: Classical Relevants and Reformed Relevants. Overall, Relevants are theologically conservative; they are involved with updating worship and preaching styles and updating traditional leadership structures. Their goal is to become more relevant (hence the name) to emerging postmodern generations (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). Some leading Classical Relevants are Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, and Rob Bell, while some leading Reformed Relevants are Erwin McManus, Tim Keller, and John Piper (Ibid 90). A common critique of Classical Relevants is that they are just doing “cool” church and they aren’t seeing any real conversion growth; it was for this criticism that Reformed Relevants emerged. Reformed Relevants are more mission-minded and are usually outward-looking (Ibid 90); they look to D. A. Carson for theological direction (which is ironic because he is adamantly opposed to the “emerging church” ) and Lesslie Newbigin for missional perspective.
    The next school, the Reconstructionists, stands by evangelical doctrine and theology but is dissatisfied with conventional church models (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 90). Reconstructionists propose more incarnational, organic forms of church structure, such as house churches. Leaders among the Reconstructionists are Neil Cole, Michael Frost, and Alan Hirsch (Ibid 90). Reconstructionists are often critiqued for collecting disgruntled Christians and failing to see conversion growth (Ibid 90).
    The last school of the “emerging church” is the Revisionists. This school tends to question key evangelical doctrines, and as a result they are often labeled theologically liberal (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 90). As Dr. David Mills, Professor of Philosophy at Cedarville University, explains, many of these people are “passionate to change things, but they do so because of their passion for the gospel; they desire to see it lived out in relevant ways in their current context” (Mills 23). So while many Revisionists come to dangerous theological conclusions, it is inappropriate for us to dismissively label them “liberal.” The common critique is that Revisionists are recycling theological debates of previous generations (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 90); if this is the case, then instead of arguing with Revisionists, we should struggle with them through their questions and look back to the answers suggested by leaders such as C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. Brian McLaren, the big wig of the Revisionists, is highly controversial because of the questions that he asks, but he confesses to being a big fan of Lewis and Schaeffer, as well as J. I. Packer, N. T. Wright, Lesslie Newbigin, and David Bosch (Street 6). So Revisionists aren’t living way out there in left field; they are here with us, and the challenges they present should not be ignored.
    The three schools of the “emerging church” - the Relevants, the Reconstructionists, and the Revisionists - each have important points we should consider. Their suggestions are usually controversial and radical, but sometimes they are right on target. I would suggest that you read their books, listen to their sermons, and approach their messages with the same biblical grid that you use for approaching culture. I myself have learned so much from the works of Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, John Piper, Neil Cole, and Brian McLaren and I would suggest any of their books to you! But I haven’t accepted everything that they have said; in fact, some of the things they propose have put me in intense conflict. Yet it is through struggle that one grows. Don’t be afraid of diving into the “emerging church;” they have many lessons to teach us, some of which we may not hear anywhere else.
THE FOUR RESPONSES
    Emerging leaders generally think according to one of these three lines of thought, but they live out their ideas usually according to four categories of response: the Upgrader Approach, the Emergent Approach, the House Church Approach, or the Missional Approach (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). This is why it is so difficult to make sweeping statements about the emerging church; we have Relevant Upgraders, Relevant Missionals, Reconstructionist Emergents, Revisionist Missionals, and Reconstructionists House Leaders (as well as any other combination you can create). The fact is there isn’t one “emerging church” model, there are thousands of “emerging church” models (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 14). Yet even among these thousands of models we can identify those four main responses. Let’s examine them one by one.
    I want to first examine the Emergent Response because of the frequent confusion associated with it. We should note that “Emergent” and “Emerging” are not the same thing (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). As Emergentvillage.com explains, the “emerging church” movement is a wider movement in which Emergent is only a part (”About Emergent Village” ). The Emergent Response originated directly from the Leadership Network conference; a leadership group emerged from the conference that believed America had become a foreign culture and needed its own missiological strategy (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 88). Key members of this group were Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Chris Seay, Mark Driscoll, and Doug Pagitt (Dan Kimball was involved with other aspects of the Leadership Network at this time) (Kimball, “Origins Part 2″ ). For about a year, the team discussed how postmodern America, the gospel, and the church should relate (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). The group disbanded several months later for members to focus more on their local congregations, to create their own organizations, or to withdraw from ministry because of disqualification by immorality (Ibid 89). However, on June 21, 2001 the theological group was re-launched by McLaren, Jones, and Pagitt under the name “Emergent” (Kimball, “Origins Part 2″ ). The following day Mark Oestreicher met with the three and formed a partnership between Youth Specialties and Emergent (Ibid). Today, Emergent is supported by Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, InterVarsity Press, and Zondervan Publishing House, among others, and is directed by Tony Jones (”About Emergent Village” ).
    In conclusion, “emergent” does not equal “emerging.” What sets the Emergent Response apart? Well, most of the other responses are concerned with methodology while the Emergent Response is focused on theology (Kimball, “Origins Part 2″ ). The Emergent Response does not, however, minimize the need for changes in methodology; Brian McLaren says, “The emerging church is raising these deeper questions and proposing that the church exists to be a catalyst for the kingdom of God as a transforming force in the world. This doesn’t minimize worship, evangelism, or making disciples; it puts those elements within their grand purpose” (McLaren, “Underneath” 136). The deeper questions that McLaren refers to deal with Emergent perspectives on theology and its “working out” in real life. Mark Driscoll points out that many of these deeper questions undermine core evangelical doctrines - apparently shifting to liberal perspectives on substitutionary atonement, authority of Scripture, the exclusivity of Christ, and so on (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). McLaren admits that the Emergent Response hasn’t gotten its act together, but he emphasizes the fact that Emergent churches are a mess because they still have a lot to learn (Street 6). He says, “I praise God, as Paul said, for whoever is preaching Christ” (Ibid 6). We may criticize McLaren for not reprimanding false doctrine, but we must also keep in mind that he is not endorsing it either.
    The next response is the House Church Response. This stream is generally theologically evangelical and is almost completely composed of Reconstructionists. The defining characteristic is the creation new church forms, usually house churches (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). Organic Church by Neil Cole is a great resource for understanding this emerging approach.
    Upgraders, the next category of response, usually hold to traditional evangelical theology and church structure, only they upgrade their music and ministry style (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). I don’t plan on saying much else concerning this response because I believe many of us are familiar with this type of church. I do want to point out that while Upgrader churches and seeker-sensitive churches appear similar on the outside, they are fundamentally different in their ministry approach. The best example I can give is by comparing Bethlehem Baptist Church (pastored by John Piper) and Saddleback Church (pastored by Rick Warren). BBC is an Upgrader while Saddleback is seeker-sensitive. How do I know? By examining BBC’s order of worship, we see that it follows a traditional evangelical organization yet it has been upgraded with modern choruses (Bethlehem Baptist Church). In contrast, Saddleback Church has eight different worship venues offering anything from traditional hymns to tropical island music (Saddleback Church). BBC has upgraded their music and ministry while Saddleback is appealing to seekers. So, as much as John Piper would disagree, Bethlehem Baptist Church is part of the “emerging church” while Saddleback Church is not.
    The last response is the Missional Response. Churches of this persuasion tend to hold to reform theology (or at least frequently discuss it) and are passionately focused on being missionaries to postmodern culture (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). They are concerned with translating theology to culture (Driscoll, “Seeker vs. Missional Part 1″ ) and “going out” to the world instead of asking the world to “come in.” Mark Driscoll explains that missional believers are “seeking to be effective missionaries wherever they live” (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89).
AND A DANCE
    To summarize, the “emerging church” originated among the struggles of the seeker-sensitive churches in the early ’90s and the monumental Leadership Network conference of 1997. From 1997 and onward, pastors and leaders began to think about the “emerging church” according to one of three schools: the Relevants, the Reconstructionists, and the Revisionists. As pastors, leaders, and ordinary Christians worked out these new ideas into their lives, the Emergent, House Church, Upgrader, and Missional responses emerged. What we find today is a wide variety of churches and followers of Jesus striving to be missionaries wherever they live (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). Simply naming this the “emerging church” falls short because this attitude has always existed in the church; we have always been emerging. Brian McLaren clarifies, “So in this sense, what people call the ‘emerging church’… is really ‘the church that is engaging with the emerging culture’” (Street 5).
    Because of the many controversial and heretical voices heard in small corners of the “emerging church”, many emerging leaders have attempted to distance themselves from the movement. In fact, many opponents have made such wide and general accusations against the movement that no true follower of Jesus would want to be part of it! As a result, leaders such as Erwin McManus and John Piper have denied being a part of the “emerging church” (although they are), writers like Donald Miller have called themselves Emergent (which he is not), and organizations like Emergent Village have claimed to be Missional (which is a long shot).
    The fact is, trying to pin down the “emerging church” is like trying to diagram a dance. You can explain dance as a series of steps, map it out on a chart, correlate it with beats of music, and simplify it to a mathematical formula, but in the end, have you really described what “dance” is? Dance is more than planned choreography; it is an art, an expression of passionate life. In the same respect, the “emerging church” is more complex than what many critics have claimed it to be; as the Holy Spirit leads and believers follow Him, there is going to be messiness and mistakes and missteps. Yet at the core, I believe the “emerging church” is a beautiful expression of a passionate relationship with Christ. We have danced to one beat for the past few decades. But the music has changed, and it’s time to follow His lead. Some of us will join Him in swing, some in samba, and others in hip-hop. What matters most is that He takes the lead.
    Where is He leading?
    See you next time . . .
