While those of us who identify with the emerging conversation are generally taken back when people ask us if we are a denomination, The Handbook of Denominations is going to include the Emergent Village in its upcoming edition. Its editor is a former professor, blogger, author, friend, and really sweet podcast guest and would appreciate your feedback to the current draft. Without further ado Deacon Atwood will take over….
The Handbook of Denominations is a reference guide to the Abrahamic religious bodies in America today. In the 2010 edition I want to include an entry for the emergent church. Unfortunately, space is limited, and the tone has to be relatively neutral. Here’s a draft of what I have composed for the Emergent Village entry, which will have to cover the entire Emergent movement. If anyone has a reasonable estimate for number of emergent churches and number of participants, it would be helpful.
EMERGENT VILLAGE
Founded: 2001
Membership: statistics not available
The emergent church movement is one of the most creative responses to the challenges that all religious communities face in contemporary America. By the end of the twentieth century there was ample evidence that American society had entered a “post-Christian” period, meaning that traditional Christian institutions were losing relevance outside their own structures. Instead of reacting negatively to this development, emergent (or emerging) churches embrace a future that is open-ended. They believe that the Christian communities must be open to a radical transformation of individuals and society. Drawing on “post-modern” philosophy and literary theory, Brian McLaren and others in the late twentieth century started calling for the dismantling of imperialistic Christianity (Christendom), particularly those church structures that impede faithful living.
Emergent churches reject modern bureaucracies and prefer to build cohorts and virtual communities, of which McLaren’s Emergent Village is a prominent example. It relies heavily on internet networking (podcasts, blogs, etc.) and conversation to build relationships across theological and social divides. Rather than defending the crumbling ramparts of denominational identity, emergent churches encourage congregations to create their own eclectic collage from the rich resources of the Christian past. Sometimes called the Ancient-Future church, emergent churches blend various Christian traditions with modern music and visual presentations.
The emergent movement has many similarities to the Pietist* movement of the early Enlightenment in that the participants generally avoid the type of doctrinal polemics that have caused so many schisms in the history of Christianity. Emergent churches avoid drafting doctrinal statements or creeds, often noting that “Jesus did not have a statement of faith. They advocate for a “generous Orthodox” that encourages conversation among different types of Christians. According to one emergent theologian: “The writers of the New Testament were not obsessed with finding a final set of propositions the assent to which marks off true believers.” Instead of fearing or attacking post-modernity’s rejection of objectivity and absolutism, emergent churches seek to rediscover the transformative power of Biblical and liturgical narrative.
Unlike liberalism, which simply rejects those elements of Christian doctrine that are inconsistent with a modern scientific worldview, post-modern (or post-liberal) emergent thinkers draw heavily on the Christian tradition, especially the mystical dimensions of faith. Unlike conservatism, they draw on the wisdom of the past without feeling the need to defend obsolete views of nature.In general, emergent churches do not reject the discoveries of modern science, but they do use post-modern theory to critique scientism or any other rationalistic ideology that undermines humane values and spirituality.
Emergent churches also encourage the deconstruction of dogma and ecclesiastical structures to uncover ways in which Christian symbols have been coopted by the powerful to oppress the weak. Unlike many evangelical churches, emergent churches often draw upon feminist and liberation theology without rejecting the basic evangelical call for personal conversion. Emergent churches see the contemporary marginalization of Christianity as a way for Christians to reclaim Jesus’ vision of a servant people living by faith.
Several emergent communities have adopted “missional living,” which means that the focus of life together is active engagement in service rather than merely meeting for worship and prayer. Shaine Clairborne’s Potter Street Community in Philaldelphia is a famous example of the “new monasticism” of the emergent church that was inspired by the writings and preaching of sociologist Tony Campolo. Emergent church leaders claim that Protestants and Catholics tend to miss the point of Christianity, which is found in Jesus’ teaching and example. As such, they tend to be critics of market capitalism and actively promote peacemaking as a central mark of faithfulness to the Good News of Jesus.
I really like this—a lot. Great, insightful description. My only suggestion: the second paragraph states “Emergent churches reject modern bureaucracies and prefer to build cohorts and virtual communities, of which McLaren’s Emergent Village is a prominent example.” Why not simply say “Emergent Village” instead of “McLaren’s Emergent Village?” I wouldn’t want to give the impression that Brian is some sort EV bishop or CEO.
I have to say, although I’m usually one of those persons who is taken back when Emergent is referred to as denomination, I’m really excited that EV will be featured in the newest handbook!
A few thoughts…
“post-Christian” – I would avoid since statistically the US is not post-Christian and as Jenkins, Wuthnow’s new book and others show, the world is far from post Christian. Important to make distinct from post-Christendom.
“Rather than defending the crumbling ramparts of denominational identity, emergent churches encourage congregations to create their own eclectic collage from the rich resources of the Christian past.” This is why I call it a “meta-denominational movement.” Paradoxically, it is in a book that is classifying it as a denomination. Odd since it really bears no central features of a denomination! Besides it’s far too new to get that distinction in the religious marketplace.
Remember that “mystical” is not a postmodern thing at all. However the use of the mystical in order to satiate what C. Smith calls “therapeutic individualism” might be a result of “post-industrial” societies. Sounds nitpicky, but I think a crucial set of distinctions.
Remember also that feminist, queer, liberation, etc. theologies come from various complex and overlapping circumstances, many of which are distinctively liberal in the true sense of the term (meaning a sense of freedom in the midst of various social, epistemological, etc. boundaries). Oddly, or indicatively depending on your view, “generous” is often synonymous with liberal. So is this a liberal instantiation of the overlap of various orthodoxies? I think that denominational research in the past 20 years basically proves this and emergent is one kind of outcome.
For something that sits between a lot of ideologies, it seems to come off at the end to sound quite ideological. This might turn off a lot of Protestant and Catholic church leaders who are finding ways to be emergent in their own contexts as the various hyphen groups show. The danger of course is that while critiquing those denominations, the presence of this entry in a denomination guide seems kind of oxymoronic. Thus, I think it is clearly meta-denominational and not post-denominational by those who are currently participating…
Hope this helps,
Drew
I think this is a great start. Incredible, really. The only thing I would push on is finding some language that includes people who fit the typology without the obvious affiliation. I am not part of Emergent Village, for example, but theologically I fit right in. I resonate so strongly with this statement yet I have never really thought of myself as Emergent.
Narrowing it to Emergent Village alone is perhaps too much?
I agree with Tripp Hudgins…the challenge with the larger “movement” is that one almost needs to claim to identify with EV to be included. MANY movements have been defined retroactively, rather than in the moment. There is a danger in defining EV or Emergent or Emerging in the here and now because it can create barriers and limit imaginations.
On another note…the language is murky about whether or not it is New Monasticism or the Simple Way that was “inspired by the writings and preaching of sociologist Tony Campolo.” Few of the New Monastic communities are particularly beholden to Tony Campolo for their inspiration.
I also don’t get the basis for “Emergent church leaders claim that Protestants and Catholics tend to miss the point of Christianity, which is found in Jesus’ teaching and example.” So many Catholics and Protestants (and ALL Anabaptists) would agree with that.
Furthermore, is a critique of capitalism and an affirmation of peacemaking central to EV? Really? Views on this seem to be too diverse within the larger movement to make it a tenet. Unless, of course, one is using words like “critique” or “capitalism” or “peacemaking” in such an abstract way as to be meaningless.
Do you guys realize what this sounds like to the outside observer? To the average person picking up a handbook on denominations you sound like the Death Star. “Calling for the dismantling of imperialistic Christianity (Christendom)” All Christendom huh? You realize that those are the people reading this book? “Emergent churches also encourage the deconstruction of dogma and ecclesiastical structures to uncover ways in which Christian symbols have been coopted by the powerful to oppress the weak.” Yo might as well offer free 666 tatoos. I think you can come up with a much wiser, nuanced statement. You may get kudos from Hugo Chavez but I really don’t think you are going to win any fans in the church. What about the generous orthodoxy? This sounds like a search and destroy mission with a cultic mystical twist. Can we come up with a little less hyperbole and make love the goal here? Thanks.
I’m too new to this to make any suggestions for additions or deletions. I must say that I am enjoying learning more about what I call the Emergent Conversation and have found nothing that I would disagree with in Craig’s article. From what I have heard and read, it rings true for me. Thanks Craig for doing this.
how about we just go with your title:
“Input Needed”
Seems fitting in many cases.
How do you define the undefinable…
Great start, but I think it might be helpful to make a distinction between emergENT and emergING. You seem to make them synonymous, but my understanding is that the emerging church is the wider umbrella under which emergent, and others live. While a few letters may seem like hairsplitting, it is an apparently important distinction to many. Here is Seattle, for example, Mars Hill Church pastor Mark Driscoll has readily identified himself as emerging (specifically, he calls himself an “emerging reformer”), but draws a sharp line from being any part of the emergent side of the house.
So, in his mind — and I’ve heard others say essentially the same thing — you can be part of the wider emergING movement without considering yourself emergENT.
Anyway, this was a key point for me to grasp as I was trying to wrap my head around all this a few years ago. Maybe it would be helpful for others, too.
I am not real thrilled with being called a denomination. Even Doug, just this weekend, was articulating that in his ACWB roadshow. We are Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etcetera…but we all look to the EV creativity for conversation, for crativity, and for others who are not thrilled with status quo Christianity. Calling ourselves a denomination I feel makes it sound like we are OK with denominational divisions and blurred Christianity.
I kind of hope this is a joke.
Any description should emphasize that Emergent Village is NOT a denomination. Check out this by Dwight Friesen http://msainfo.org/articles/emergent-village-and-full-communion
I also believe any description of EV should include the four values listed on the EV side (Commitment to God in the Way of Jesus, Commitment to the Church in all its Forms, Commitment to God’s World, Commitment to One Another) and some practices that flow out of those commitments. And last but not least please don’t say “McLaren’s Emergent Village” as that is false.
In the second paragraph I said “EV side” … I meant “EV site” Here’s where you can find the values and practices of EV http://www.emergentvillage.com/about-information/values-and-practices
Whereas I am uncomfortable with Emergent getting a public label of “denomination” I feel what is happening in the Body of Christ through Emergent could use some more positive public attention. That said, I have a couple comments about the content of this piece. I think it is very important not to call the group “Emergent Village” but rather “Emergent” or “Emergent Church”. EV is one facet of a greater group, and I think most (if not all) of the peeps at EV would share my sentiment. Have you shared this link with them directly? Their input would be invaluable. I also agree with some of the things said above, but won’t repeat them since you can discern for yourselves on the suggestions provided. But this line: “prefer to build cohorts and virtual communities” needs a little more. It seems to downplay the community gatherings of Emergent folks. Many people reading it won’t know what is meant by cohort and will automatically jump to the virtual part, and will get the idea this is not really all that…. well, real.
I think that the intermingling of emerging churches and people within existing denominations should be noted. Many people who identify as emergent will stay in their existing denominations like the Presbymergents, Anglimergents, etc. this should be a long term structure since there is no plan to create a separate emerging denomination anywhere on the horizon.
Very interesting
I don’t like the sound “denomination”
Movement is what we can identify with
The description is somewhat well put but I would definitely leave out “McLaren’s Emergent Village”
How about “conversation” and not denomination? EV should be an appendix to the book.
I’ve been an Emergent guy since 2003/4ish… McLaren, Jones, Paggit and those guys have had a huge impact on my early years of ministry. I think this draft is a good start as I really resonate w/ Emergent on many levels. On the other hand, I agree w/ Rick… from an outsider looking in, this looks like ANTI-”Death Star”-esque in many ways. I also agree that while mentioning McLaren is fine, putting him on a pedestal is probably not what he would want, nor what this particular movement is all about. Healthly deconstruction is fine, but the wording does seem a bit elite and might come across a bit cynical.
Keep drafting…
shalom
Ryan
I want to echo Bob’s comment: lot of us emerging folk are anchored within existing denominations and seeking the transformation of those denominations and their congregations/ministries.
While this is true: “Rather than defending the crumbling ramparts of denominational identity, emergent churches encourage congregations to create their own eclectic collage from the rich resources of the Christian past.” It would also be good to acknowledge that some of us are seeking to prophetically call our denominations to more faithful contemporary expressions of their particular Christian identity.
Sorry that some of you thought this was a joke. It is a serious effort to keep the public informed on American religion today. The book’s title was written in the 1950s. This is the 13th edition. Many of the groups in it (Sunni, Shi’ite, Baptist, Catholic) reject the word denomination, but that is the title we’re stuck with. I discuss the issue of “denomination” in the preface. If you prefer I can leave the emerging church out of the Handbook of Denominations.
I was personally impressed with the article. A couple things have been pointed out that are helpful, but considering the context (a Handbook of Denominations that includes more than just denominations) I think it is a great thing for the friends and conversation that has formed through the Emergent Village to be included. Many of us still participate in our denominations and yet are more at home with our emergent friends, some of us have the emergent types as our only tribe, but either way for someone who thinks this conversation is important for a bunch of people it nice to know such a historically important reference work desires our presence and that an onlooker to the conversation did such a great job.
Thanks to everyone who has commented and thanks to Dr. Atwood for being open to hearing from some of the village about the entry.
Man, I have a lot of critiques/advice I could give about this entry. Here’s a few:
1. As many have pointed out, there is a distinction between Emergent Village and the broader “emerging church”. While this entry’s title names the former (presumably because the book mostly deals with institutions, and EV is the closest thing to one in the emerging world), the entry itself seems to be describing the latter. I think it ought to either a) be retitled “Emerging Church”, or, if “Emergent Village” is retained, note that EV is a small part of a larger movement.
2. I agree with Rick that the tone comes across as far too negative, and really too “dogmatic” in the way it describes what emergents believe. I think it ought to use more qualifying words like “some” and “often” and “sometimes” to indicate that not all emergents think the same way, and that there multiple streams of the conversation that focus on different things.
3. The initial reference to McLaren is fine, but I agree that it shouldn’t be referred to as “McLaren’s Emergent Village”. These days he’s really only marginally involved in it anyway.
4. I really think that it should be explicitly stated in the article that EV and/or the emerging church is NOT a denomination and has very few formal institutional structures. Rather it is a movement/conversation that exists in and around and outside of existing denominations and institutions, and is often inclusive of these, not in competition with them.
Craig, the author of the article and editor of the Handbook, told me that this article is going in a new section called ‘new paradigms’ that includes other non-denominational movements and church networks. The ‘denomination’ word is just part of a book that keeps getting revised since the 1950′s when they were totally trendy!
Like others before me, I have issues with the Emerging/Emergent distinctive. Emerging is a general movement, one that is summarized quite well in the write-up and can be found withi many traditions. Emergent is Emergent Village, one specific group of people within the general emerging movement. Depending on the book editors wishes, you may want to adjust your entry to reflect this. IE. Does the editor really want you to talk about Emerging Churches as a movement or Emergent Village as one group?
Additionally, the final paragraph could also be used to highlight Emergent/Emerging connections with the anabaptist tradition. As anabaptists also claim to be either Catholic or traditionally Protestant, and also focuse on peacemaking, rejecting capitolism, and emphasizing the teachings and example of Jesus (see McLaren’s “Generous Orthodoxy” chapter on the seven Jesus’ he has met, the Anabaptist Jesus).
Suggestion to add how ‘emerging’ insights are really lodging and gaining huge steam within mainline tradition even more so than free church evangelical traditions currently. The proposed entry has no mention of this huge trend into the emerging future (presybmergent, anglimergent, luthermergent…). Do consider the addition. Cheers
If you are going to call “Emergent” churches a denomination would you call “Evangelical” churches a denomination? Denominationalism is not the only source of diversity in the church yet this article seems to imply that it is.
i think the trouble here may be that emergent is =primarily= a movement, but it =sometimes= manifests as a denomination. there =are= some churches that simply identify themselves under the emergent label. they are sometimes expatriates of a single denomination or wing of the church and other times melting pots of several churches. they are not simply “nondenominational” but specifically “emergent” in their self-identifying. so, for them, it has evolved into a sort of denomination.
but, at this point in time, the majority of others calling themselves emergent or some variant thereof, are not members of such congregations. at least not as far as i can tell from reading, reading, reading both in print and online (so maybe i’m wrong?). instead, folks seem to be more in the hybrid camp: anglimergent, baptimergent, episcomergent, adventimergent, cathlimergent, baptimergent, etc. etc. i find that i agree with phyllis tickle’s portrayal in “the great emergence” of this being more like a system-wide change in religious paradigm and as such is bubbling up in all or nearly all denominations and does =not= require leaving one’s denomination-of-origin.
i think it makes sense to have emergent as a denomination in the book, but i think that some discussion of how it is not limited to that is crucial to painting a realistic picture of what emergent is. for how i personally see and embrace emergent, i really like this quote from Jeromy Johnson’s blog, http://mendingshift.com/ …
“I am not sure that the word ‘emerging’ captures what the Spirit is doing. I think a more appropriate word is forming, the word ‘remerging’.” … “A remerging of those who don’t want to put aside their differences for unity’s sake, but want unity to be found in recognizing and embracing the beauty in all of our differences.”
I like the description. Please forgive the English major in me but please add a “y” to “generous Orthodoxy” !
“Emergent church leaders claim that Protestants and Catholics tend to miss the point of Christianity, which is found in Jesus’ teaching and example. As such, they tend to be critics of market capitalism and actively promote peacemaking as a central mark of faithfulness to the Good News of Jesus”.
How can the framers of the domination of the emergent church look to Jesus teaching and example when they see “the Bible is uniquely authoritative for Christians”. -Brain Mclaren (1) (but not the rest of the world?). What does that mean exactly. Where did “peacemaking as a central mark of faithfulness” come from? Jesus said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:13) Looks like a church that is trying to be a friend of the world which James warns about. (James 4:4) Why would a Christian domination want to be unequally yoked with unbelievers and partner with lawlessness (2 Corinthians 14-18) (2) Looks more like a cult than a Christian domination. They have created a god (another Jesus) in their imaginations to suit themselves and are guilty of idolatry. Where’s the love of my neighbor? Loving my neighbor is not coddling their unbelief or ignoring and applauding their sin. The emergent church looks like the wide gate that Jesus warned about. (Matthew 7:13)
Go ahead, delete this if you choose. “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words.” Proverbs 23:9
(1) http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/faq/do-you-believe.html
(2)http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/ramadan-2009-day-1.html (celebrating Ramadan)
Let me see if I understand the main belief of the Emergent Church. Is it correct, that from this statement about the Emergent Church, that it does not matter what you believe as long as you are sincere and open to others having a different opinion? If that is correct is that because there is no absolute truth?
In general, emergent churches do not reject the discoveries of modern science, but they do use post-modern theory to critique scientism or any other rationalistic ideology that undermines humane values and spirituality. – How exactly are you defining “conservatism?” Perhaps with a really broad stroke. How many people do you know who truly reject discoveries of science without offering a counter-scientific hypothesis? Also, who or what is used to critique “oost-modern theory”? Or does this somehow stand alone above critique. Does anyone even know what it is?
Jesus did not have a statement of faith. – But did he not quote the Shema to the pharisee? Regardless, you cannot claim to “look to the ancients” if you’re going to cast off any form of creedalism. The early church bound itself with creeds not only in order to survive, but to thrive.
Unlike many evangelical churches, emergent churches often draw upon feminist and liberation theology without rejecting the basic evangelical call for personal conversion
Unlike many evangelical churches, emergent churches often draw upon feminist and liberation theology without rejecting the basic evangelical call for personal conversion – Serioiusly? Ask anyone south of the border – liberation theology is dead and has been dead for about 20 years, maybe more. In what ways do you appropriate liberation and feminist theology? Calling for more egalitarianism? Calling for fairness and justice for the oppressed? What evangelical does NOT want that?
Emergent church leaders claim that Protestants and Catholics tend to miss the point of Christianity, which is found in Jesus’ teaching and example. As such, they tend to be critics of market capitalism and actively promote peacemaking as a central mark of faithfulness to the Good News of Jesus.
– Good thing you emergents came around!!! What have we all be doing for the past 2000 years? Finally, after everyone else has missed the boat you can direct us toward true enlightenment.