Beyond the emerging church?
24 Sep 2008
I’m aware that the move of my blogging to here, and the re-focus for my content, comes at a time when there are several other bloggers thinking about moving on/out from ‘emerging church’.
Entry & Emphasis
There have been many entry points for people into the emerging church conversation, different events, books, speakers, experiences and flavors. Mine was through the association of vineyard churches, and it’s invitation by Todd Hunter to have Dallas Willard, Stanley Grenz, & Brian McLaren, resource some of us as young leaders 10-11 years ago.
This was before Emerging church was called emerging church. Despite Todd Hunter trying to stimulate us into this area, my denomination has largely become hostile and with great antipathy towards the ‘Emerging Church’.
I often surmise that it is this group, my tribe, who I have spent the most time ‘defending’ emerging church to, which is rather tiring. My own denomination with their interactions with the more anti/post church wing of Emerging church, who seem so visible on the web and in books, has wondered how I could be a vineyard pastor and be involved with emerging church at all?
On the other hand I have often (and still have), emerging church people ask why and how can I be part of the emerging church, and be a vineyard pastor.
My route into this wasn’t anglican alternative worship, and it wasn’t the post-evangelical route either. My personal driver was planting a church then having a nervous breakdown literally, and not knowing what I believed anymore about church, and church planting.
It was those initial theological resources of Dallas Willard, Brian McLaren and Stanley Grenz, that helped me understand the nature of post-modernity, the impact of foundationalim on how we communicate the gospel, and the need to see myself as a missionary in a post Christian context.
I went back into theological study to help resource me, and my church plant, to understand the context I am in, and to try to grow a church in that situation, and that has led me to the position of writing, teaching and speaking, to resource others.
11 Years later, one D.Min, and now P.hD and church that has grown to around 300 adults and 120 kids, with lots of unchurched people, and new christians, and a deeply missional identity, I find myself heavily indebted to the Emerging Church, and at the same time very troubled by it.
And I think that is the way it should be, we should always see organisations as the enemy of good practice (to paraphrase MacIntyre), and despite not wanting to organise, the Emerging church has become something itself, that in many ways gets in the way of what it aspires to do and be.
And anything I move onto and into, will do likewise. So this is no bitter moving on, it’s a taking stock, and knowing that as I move forward or try to, any re-focusing will have to be critiqued as thoroughly as the existing church that the emerging church has critiqued.
I’ve always been an advocate for the broader emerging church and it is something I value in my friendship with Brian McLaren, and see so ably demonstrated in his book , ‘A Generous Orthodoxy’. The valuing of the body of Christ broadly and deeply. For me the ‘emerging church’ at it’s best has been the shared experience of the whole body of Christ to our emerging context, and the reconnecting of church to it’s identity and mission in history. Whether you are catholic, house church, an naissant/proto emerging church, we are all the emerging church, with a deep ecumencalism, helping each other respond to similar contextual problems. Trying to form churches that see people find and grow in love and orientation around Jesus. But the emerging church can become so broad, that it loses it’s meaning. It does seem that almost anyone and anything is called emerging church these days. I’m still more comfortable with this broader and generous delineation though. But I sense many are thinking of moving beyond the emerging church, due to it’s dilution. There have always been groups claiming to be the progenitors of the emerging church (I’ve never wanted to do that, rather I have seen Emergent as part of the bigger emerging church), and I suspect some of this grouping want to stop using the term emerging church, feeling that it is overused by too many other people. Some in this narrow grouping, often talk about how flexible ecclesiology is, then are utterly dogmatic about the forms that emerging church should take, or cannot take. Often I fear that these expressions of conscious emerging church are as exclusive, and alientating as the churches they have reacted against. This narrow banding often reduce emerging church to aesthetical styles, and pathological axiomatics, of locations and practices. There can be a regular mantra of ‘we have no programs, we are organic, missional, and are participatory’, whilst doing very little that is missional, and beyond therapy spaces for disillusioned Christians (I’m not against the need for Christians to process the problems of church, it’s just that being missional requires getting beyond that stage). And (you may sense my weariness at this point), often the stimulus to these emerging groups seem focused around people who are not in church communities, who seem to be peddling elaborate theories, blueprints and grandiose hypothecations, of churches that don’t exist, and that they have never planted, or been part of. It’s these manifestations that I spend too much time qualifying in interactions with people interested in Emerging Church, but who have been hitting google and finding this stream so dominant and visible. This post/anti church, reflexivity is something I find increasingly problematic. Part of my moving away from talking about Emerging Church, is my concerns with this narrow version, that is very prominate, and I think ultimately a genetic dead end to the church (in terms of growing viable groups with new Christians). I’ve made a lot of pejorative comments there and will come back to this critique in more detail over the next few weeks. Another reason for moving on from the term emerging church, is that in my church life it’s one we don’t use, and I think that is healthy. Our church community is missional in orientation, it does attend to emerging culture, and key theological issues of foundationalism, but in a way that is natural to what it is and does. It is not a collection of Christians talking about ‘emerging church’, and about what we don’t want to be. That surprises visitors who often expect ‘Emerging Church’ will be the most immediate topic of conversation amongst our people. It’s not…mission, community, life with Jesus are (I hope) our identity and focus. I think for many of us, ‘emerging church’ has been a resource and become part of who we are, and it’s natural to start talking about what we are doing in different terms, than an ongoing critique of existing church. So for some emerging church is too broad, for me it’s becoming too narrow and anti-church, at least in many of it’s UK formulations, or rather in ways that undermine it’s missional aspirations. It’s more past tense, for me, something that stimulated and resourced me to be what I am doing now, and I treasure that. What I am focusing on going forward will be part of a series of posts here. And remember this post was a personal reflection, my evaluation of my experience, how ever riddled with misunderstandings that might be. As you might have already guessed, Deep Church, is a mood, and focus that I am finding a home in, and trying to sketch out with others.
The Broader Emerging Church
The Narrow Emerging Church
Unconscious
Summary
Tagged: emerging church
38 comments
Trackback
Comment by Graeme Campbell
1.25 pm on 24 Sep 2008
Excellent post, Jason, very honest and real, as well as considered and thought out.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
2.13 pm on 24 Sep 2008
tnx Graeme
Reply to this comment
Comment by Caroline Too
2.31 pm on 24 Sep 2008
I guess that problems arise when emergent moves from being a descriptor of activities and relations toward being a label, and wall around, a type… a group…
But we face a problem of baby and bath water proportions here…
I am NOT anti-church
but I am becoming increasingly anti-church meetings, anti-services…
and no, I’m not entirely sure what I would put in their place…
it seems to me that church-as-family is crucial, church-as-nurture is vital and I assume that must involve some sort of gathering(s) but not as we currently practice it
it seems to me that we DO need to end sunday morning events such as services so that we can explore other ways of gathering, enjoying each other, sharing, caring and encouraging-to-learn.
For me, the new monastic influence has been a starting point but I’m still uncertain how it can work out in day-to-day practice. But of one thing I am sure, that we will not discover new ways of doing God’s family and Jesus following, by maintaining a ’service’ culture of church gathering-as-event.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
4.28 pm on 24 Sep 2008
Hi Caroline,
I often think that the monastic influence is important, but that it shows the weakness in a non-meeting model. At it’s heart the rhythms of formation through daily prayers, and worship and service on your own and with others, make demands of our time with others that are far higher than just a sunday service.
And the new monasticism make such demands that the question of access by people who can’t or won’t commit to such an intentional lifestyle in terms of location, and community, worship and service, is a challenge.
I worry that the church as service culture, the dispenser of goods and services, becomes even more, a hyper version so in the private god space/ipod/download church where and when I want model.
The church gathered, not as we have known it, but gathered for different reasons with much more around it, might be the most counter consumer culture and vital practice we can retain for formation of Christian identity.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Caroline Too
5.06 pm on 24 Sep 2008
Jason, I think that you’re righ about the time demands of a physical, monastic community.
But if we take the Northumbria community as an example, we see there a distributed community, that time is less of a problem (other problems of isolation replace it but that’s for another conversation!)
But (and I confess that I’m thinking off the top of my head here) what if we modelled our gatherings on monastic life together? obviously it would only be a pale, edited version but it might include
working together
praying and worshipping together
giving space to each other to be silent (so divorcees like me might take the children off so that parents can have times of solitude with God
time relaxing together
now we couldn’t do that every Sunday… maybe once a month or once a quarter?
and we would truncate some of the activities so we (some) would meet at breackfast… moving through a brief office… work activities …. this beginning to look like a blog post rather than a comment so I’ll stop there…
but do you see how I’m looking at a different quality of gathering, that would have a different rythm and frequency… enabling more time to be doing church without the walls of the building…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
7.48 am on 25 Sep 2008
HI Caroline,
Doesn’t that idea show:
1. A community (Northumbria) with a building and gathering for worship, and high demands, can resource a much larger community?
2. That perhaps we need more communities like Northumbria, who can act as these nodes, and we should be planting some more of these
3. The elements for church life you sketch out, why can’t they be the elements of church community with a sunday gathering, as much as with one? Are they exclusive to each other, and axiomatic?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Dean Whisnant
2.37 pm on 24 Sep 2008
Jason,
Excellent post, I appreciate your openness.
I believe it was in a sermon series that McLaren did at Cedar Ridge several years ago that I heard him discuss what the Emerging Church was. A bad paraphrase might be that it is not a new church or denomination beginning, but a movement of people working within their respective denominations to find that refocus on Christ that enriches their tradition.
I know that even this may be limiting, but it seems to be quite broad. Certainly we could now say that it also includes those that found it necessary to move outside their own tradition due to many factors.
For me the emerging conversation has meant broadening my own understanding of God, deepening my commitment to Him and His creation, and meeting a world of wonderful people to experience this with. As the label shrinks away for many, I know that what it means is not lost and is possibly more powerful than ever.
Peace!
Dean
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
4.30 pm on 24 Sep 2008
That’s the broadness that I have appreciated. Thanks Dean.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jared Hay
3.22 pm on 24 Sep 2008
Hi Jason,
thanks for your reflections - it’s good to stop and take stock from time to time and your PhD studies necessitate that. Just wanted to make a couple of comments as an outside observer in the hope that they will be useful to you and anyone else who reads them…
It seems to me that whoever got into this via Willard, Grenz and McLaren came in through a good entry point - names packed with theology, spirituality and practice, but particularly loving engagement with others. They are worthy mentors and wherever your journey might be taking you they will always be worth returning to.
The other point is that we are almost always most influenced at the time by the people with whom we are most closely associating. I remember you recommending ‘Remembering our future’ and it would be difficult to be studying at King’s and not be influenced by the Deep Church thinking - and it’s a very helpful model.
I guess that what I’m trying to say is, don’t forget your mentors (even if the messiness of those who say they have been fellow travellers is shallow and tiresome)and don’t forget to engage critically with those who are now helping to guide your thinking.
Hope we get the chance to meet up sometime - I’m involved with the Church of Scotland trying to encourage people to break out of the old patterns in order to reach our own and future generations.
Blessings
Jared.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
4.33 pm on 24 Sep 2008
Thanks Jared, I hope I am doing that.
I hope am still engaged with my mentors and have listed some of them here, and I am still influenced by my mentors in vineyard churches.
Also I said it in this post, and maybe I need to restate it every time I offer such a response as this, I am deeply skeptical of my own current location, and believe I should always remain so.
I hope our paths cross some time soon too.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jared Hay
5.12 pm on 24 Sep 2008
Thanks Jason. Interesting response on hermeneutic of suspicion!
If you had to write up a DMin project I’d be interested in reading it. Is it available in any format? Look forward to reading your blogs on the ongoing studies as well.
Cheers
Jared.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
8.25 pm on 25 Sep 2008
What’s your email, Jared, I can send you an email version as pdf?
Jason
Reply to this comment
Comment by Graeme Campbell
3.34 pm on 24 Sep 2008
The thing that I keep coming back to, especially as a church planter, but also just as a Christian is “keeping it simple”. I see where we need to improve things, but my concern is that we are in danger of de-constructing so much that we become insular, selfish (church is for our benefit / needs / nurture). Jesus had large and small gatherings, admittedly some were spontaneous where he was just followed (feeding of the 5000), he attended synagogue. He never said hide yourselves away, but he did say gather, harvest, fish etc. It is all about extending the Kingdom, mission and actually…..numbers (the fewer people that end up in hell, but instead in eternal relationship with the Living God the better). We also have to meet people where they were at. The bottom line is people are people, they just want to be loved, and in my humble opinion we NEED to get out there, hang out in bars in coffee shops, talk to our neighbours, pray for everything that moves AND have safe, comfortable places we can bring them.Sometimes we don’t need to find new ways, because we haven’t often got the old ones down yet:)
If it’s of interest to anyone, for our Sunday meetings we have breakfast together first, informally, with bagels and Sunday papers, then we go and worship, have some teaching and ministry time, and that’s it. It seems to work, because its simple, its real and I for one genuinely enjoy it. Its also really easy to invite someone to.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
4.35 pm on 24 Sep 2008
HI Graeme, I do think we can overcomplicate it, very much so.
Reply to this comment
Comment by fernando
3.07 am on 25 Sep 2008
I’ve been pondering for a while now changing my “emerging church” tags to something like “contemporary ecclesiology” or “sociology of church,” or some such. I’m very thankful for the emerging church conversation, becuase it helped me process experiences of being a pastor, chaplain, lecturer and “consultant.”
There is a growing element in the conversation that is “exclusive and reactive” as you put it. It started appearing on blogs a couple of years back and it seems to be growing in print. There is a solidification going on and what I fear seeing is less self-reflection and self-criticism, which perhaps understandable given the occasional harsh and distorted critiques the movement faces.
But, what drove me to “join” the conversation was a deep frustration with a church that refused to be self-critical, that refused to address it’s own ideological blindness, that was willing to put a veneer of contemporary consumer culture over a broken model of foundationalist faith.
I’m still committed to a critical, culturally aware, outward looking, cosmopolitan church. Anyone working towards that is “on my side.”
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
7.45 am on 25 Sep 2008
>I’m still committed to a critical, culturally aware, outward looking, cosmopolitan church. Anyone working towards that is “on my side.”
Me too mate, thanks for that reflection.
Reply to this comment
Comment by fernando
11.44 am on 25 Sep 2008
I just realised that fourfold formulation might make for a decent little essay.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
11.47 am on 25 Sep 2008
It would indeed! I might use that, with all credit to you
Reply to this comment
Comment by Matt Stone
10.23 am on 25 Sep 2008
Thanks for your thoughts. Much of it resonates.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
10.38 am on 25 Sep 2008
Thanks Matt.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Becky
10.34 am on 25 Sep 2008
Thanks for your post Jase,
It’s very helpful to know which direction you’re facing in, and your thoughts behind any changes.
I came to our church very much a bruised and battered survivor of both traditional and evangelical churches, and any hint of it in my current situation draws suspicion and resistance from me. I love and hate change in equal measure, but I feel safe in your hands knowing that any seemingly massive directional change is all part of the same journey.
I grew slightly disillusioned with both Vineyard and Emergent/emergent/emerging having observed some of the anger and hatred (= “I thought this was going to be different???”), and it’s been good to take a step back and reassess it all. It’s interesting you comment that we rarely identify ourselves as ‘emerging church’ on a Sunday… we just ARE. I think outsiders would be amazed how few people at VCS even know what the term is supposed to mean.
I feel comforted that you are a pioneer rather than a sheep and will never blindly defend any one person or stream of thought against another… and that you can comment and critique the point you have arrived at whilst continuing to publicly praise and support the good people who started you on this journey.
I’m slightly nervous of this new label “Deep Church,” (it sounds a bit hippy and left-wing to me ;)) but I’m confident having read your post that there’s a good reason for it, and I’m still proud to call you my pastor!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
10.40 am on 25 Sep 2008
Thanks for your kind words, encouragement and for noticing the self critique I hope I can continue.
‘Deep Church’…I agree any name is immediately passe and limited and it will be what we make of it.
But the deep does (for me) capture the reconnection to the church in history and trying to be a fashion victim in this one. But that’s another post
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
1.47 pm on 25 Sep 2008
I think in the future the growing influence of the deconstructive theology of Jack Caputo/Peter Rollins on the Emergent Village networks in the US ( and the subsequent ripple effect in the UK) will create ongoing tensions especially with the formation of a new grouping Led by S Mcknight. E Mcmanus etc based on the Lousanne covenant (classic evangelicalism and ‘religion without religion’ liberal theology do not make good bedfellows. I have noticed echoes of this on the UK blogoshere already. My take on the future of the emerging church conversation but I could be wrong.
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
1.58 pm on 25 Sep 2008
That’s very perceptive. I find what Scott McKNight and Dan Kimble are doing very attractive, given a locus in evangelism as part of mission, from a and real concrete resurrection Christology.
I enjoy the deconstruction and those doing it as an academic exercise, but in terms of method for planting a church with conviction of a real resurrection, and the need for evangelism, I find Rollins & Caputos problematic to say the least.
Nothing personal, I especially like Pete, just not my missional ‘cup of tea’
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
1.48 pm on 25 Sep 2008
I should have spellchecked the previous post!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
1.54 pm on 25 Sep 2008
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katharine Moody
3.56 pm on 25 Sep 2008
Hi Jason,
I’m really intrigued by your thought processes regarding where the emerging church conversations are going and your relation to them at the moment.
I use the plural “emerging church conversations” to signal your differentiation between broad and narrow emerging church. That’s interesting to me. The reason I’ve started writing about “the emerging church milieu” in my research rather than “the emerging church” is to also try and signal that broadness you describe.
As I’m sure Rodney will corroborate(!), I’m very interested in what my research shows to be one strand of the broad emerging church milieu (think Caputo, think Zizek, think ikon, think the garden, think deconstruction, a/theism and undecidability) but I don’t think that this strand should overshadow the others that I identify.
The same should go for the narrow emerging church you mention.
In fact, the same should go for Emergent. I was quite shocked by the tone of Doug Pagitt’s recent video blog on the difference between emerging church and Emergent where he did seem to be suggesting the importance of the network Emergent over and above all the other developments happening in what I see as the emerging church milieu.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
4.50 pm on 25 Sep 2008
Hi Katharine, sounds like your PhD research is really taking shape
That’s very helpful.
Doug troubles me on a regular basis
But I haven’t heard that video yet.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katharine Moody
6.00 pm on 25 Sep 2008
It’s at:
http://dougpagitt.com/emergent/emergent-and-emerging-church-distinction
Let me know what you think. x
Reply to this comment
Comment by Marc Alton-Cooper
4.42 pm on 25 Sep 2008
Hi Jason
Having observed some of the emerging church/emergent I have to say the one book that struck a chord was ‘A Generous Orthodoxy’.
I feel that as evangelicals we need to push forward and but look backwards.
In some ways I feel many of us are seeking a depth in our faith, a depth in God that the emerging church has touched in places but not deeply explored.
And maybe in that sense it is this direction that some of us are going on to.
What will that involve? God, Jesus and The Body of Christ I would say.
My experience so far has involved some wonderful exploration, fascination, wonderment and truth…but then again isnt that what it was first like when we accpeted Jesus into our lives.
Why should that be absent because we have been Christians for many years.
This is a journey and if we are to advance down the path we cannot stay in one place for too long…lets take the best of what we have and move forward towards the horizon:)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
4.53 pm on 25 Sep 2008
Old and new Horizons. Thanks Mark.
Reply to this comment
Comment by graham
10.27 pm on 26 Sep 2008
Hi mate,
I wonder how this kind of discussion looks to those outside of the Church, let alone the “emerging” Church. I can only imagine that it all looks extremely petty and self-obsessed. (I don’t mean that you do, of course!)
I remember you and I talking a few years back about whether Emergent should change its name. I think that’s a completely discussion, however.
In the days of slogans, domain names and tag-lines, I can completely understand why groups today are so quick to seek to define, express and brand themselves. However, I think that it probably seriously questions our claims about wanting to be counter consumer culture.
Just thinking aloud.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
7.11 am on 27 Sep 2008
Hi Graham,
I’m sure it does look that way, as does every family conversation, and most of church history.
Thanks for exempting me from that though
I think there is something more than slogans and brands going on, at least for me and other having this conversation.
Do we want to be formed by continuing deconstruction, post church, post resurrection conversations, that seem to lead to an ecclesiology for consumerism/secularism/commodification, the building of churches for one?
Hope your doing well mate, great to hear from you. Did you ever sell those copies of Barth?
Reply to this comment
Comment by GaryD
11.26 pm on 27 Sep 2008
Hi Jason,
You’ve been involved in all this EC stuff far longer than I but in the relatively short time (3 or so years) I’ve been on the scene I can see where you’re coming from. Especially by reading and processing this post and then looking back over that period of time.
I guess for me and many others the change of focus is maybe not all that important but what is important is that the journey and the conversation continues. Many will continue to benefit, learn and be inspired by your new direction and thought patterns, myself very much included.
Cheers
Gary
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
6.20 am on 28 Sep 2008
tnx Gary, for your encouragement and kind words
Reply to this comment
Comment by Tony Simoncini
10.45 pm on 2 Oct 2008
Jason,
Thanks for the insightful post. It’s funny because when I first heard of all the movement away from labels, emerging/emergent…I was troubled as if to say, “I just found all of this a few years ago, and now it’s already moving away from the Christian/theological scene”
Then I realized what I found was not emerging/emergent…but fresh perspective and truth about the gospel, the atonement, and missional living In Christ that seems to exemplify the Life of Christ more than my Charismatic / Pentecostal religious background. So my initial reaction was proof that labels are better on string and in erasable chalk than they are in unchangeable concrete.
With that said, I hope that this dismantling of sorts we are hearing about in the U.S and in the UK can serve as something to catapult this different perspective more into the mainstream of Christianity. It may be wishful thinking, but if I hear another sermon where a pastor preaches against the emerging/emergent church based on stuff they read about it and not on hearing what is actually said and written in context I may just have to take over the service and tell the truth. But because the detractors are so numerous and strong they can take anything they want out of context to spin something meant for truth and beauty and totally pervert it…sound like some bible teachers I know
Thanks for your work, peace to you friend.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
5.13 am on 3 Oct 2008
Thanks for your encouragement and great to hear from you Tony.
Reply to this comment
Comment by robbymac
7.17 pm on 4 Dec 2008
Jason,
Been a while since I dropped by here — REALLY sorry that I missed this when you first posted it! I deeply appreciate your comments here.
And because of my long (although not current) involvement with and appreciation for the Vineyard, I am always interested in hearing your perspective.
Thanks!
Reply to this comment