Understanding the emerging church
I came across this article at www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=2109. The author suggests those calling themselves 'emergent' fit into one of three categories: (1) Relevants - who are taking the same Gospel in the historic form of church but seeking to make it understandable to emerging culture; (2) Reconstructionists - who are taking the same Gospel but questioning and reconstructing much of the form of church; and (3) Revisionists - who are questioning and revising the Gospel and the church.
It takes me a while to digest this kind of thing, but thought some of you might have an opinion.
peace
posted by dan at 9:21 AM
9 Comments:
I think his categories are basically accurate. While of course they are generalizations, they are true in a general way. In fact, they describe my own journey pretty well. I started just wanting to do ministry for Gen Xers and looked to churches like Mark Driscoll's Mars Hill in Seattle for exemplars. Then I started to question deeper and asking whether the way we do church in general is really working any more. And eventually, through my study of scripture and reading of various authors I started to realize that my evangelical understanding of the Gospel itself was grossly anemic.
So yes, I agree with Stetzer's taxonomy, but unfortunately I disagree with his negative assessment of us "Revisionists". He seems to assume that we are abandoning, in his words, "the teachings of scripture about church, theology and practice." Ironically, it's actually been through the process of returning to scripture and letting it question the assumptions of our evangelical theologies, that myself and many others have come to realize that the evangelical "gospel" is but one facet of the much bigger picture of Christ's Gospel. He implies that we are unbiblical, but as I understand it, the revisionist emergents are actually trying to return to a fuller and more robust understanding of the Bible.
Sometimes I wonder, do evangelicals really value the Bible as much as they say they do, or do they only value it when it supports their particular brand of theology? If they discovered that an honest and accurate reading of scripture was actually pointing them to revise their opinions on "the nature of the substitutionary atonement, the reality of hell, the complementarian nature of gender, and the nature of the Gospel itself" (to quote some of the issues that Stetzer seems to think are most essential to evangelical identity) would they actually change their opinions or would they ignore scripture in favor of their theology? Sometime I read articles and have conversations that make me wonder...
Peace
-Mike
I thought the categories were pretty good myself. Although I don't know that Stetzer was using them in the sense of "degrees." But I think Mike is right in that it's hard to be one without eventually migrating to the next ESPECIALLY if you take a hard look at Scripture.
Don't you think the Church Growth Movement was much more interested in the 'form of church', but not so much interested in theology or thought? And perhaps that's one of the biggest differences between (or causes for) the emergent church and those who say they are evangelical but not emergent?
I guess I have always viewed the SBC as pretty heavy in the Church Growth Movement, so it doesn't surprise me that the author would come to these conclusions, and even still, I would say he was pretty 'generous' considering.
As a person who grew up in the Churches of God denomination, it's interesting to me how some of the ideals driving John Winebrenner when he founded the denomination run along the same lines as some of emergent church ideals.
He wanted to recover a biblical Christianity as opposed to what he witnessed in his culture (therefore, the Church of God as a demonination tag).
There are others, but that is just one example for the sake of conversation.
I am not suggesting he was the first emergent pastor, but some of the minimalistic theological positions of our denomition translate well into this ongoing conversation.
(Of course, I attended Winebrenner Seminary, named after Winebrenner himself. Apparently his distinction of not naming a church movement after a person didn't extend to the academy...)
The "Three Emerging R's." Interesting.
Mike,
Good observations. And, very provocative.
I suspect that part of the problem with the article is that it is, as Stetzer says, ‘too brief.’ He lays out some broad categories that would better be described in more detail.
Also, I suspect that he perceives his audience as rather stodgy and confused or distrustful or even opposed to the Emerging Church. I found his description of ‘Relevants’ to be revealing. He said that Relevants are ‘really just trying to make their worship, music and outreach more contextual to emerging culture.’ My response was: “JUST?!” But, then, if he’s writing to people for whom the word ‘emerging’ has four letters, he’s merely saying, “Don’t worry about these Relevants. They’re not revolutionary. They’re not objectionable. In fact, if you really understand them, what they want to accomplish may actually be laudable.”
Like you, I’m curious and disturbed about his characterization of the Revisionists. He suggests that none of them are ‘Evangelicals.’ As I’ve said, I don’t use the word to describe myself. But, I think I know what he means by choosing the word, ’Evangelical’ in this context. I think he means that none of Revisionists propose a theology that is acceptable or orthodox. And, I believe that is far too broad a generalization.
He says that Revisionists are ‘questioning’ issues like, among others, the substitutionary atonement. That statement bothers me. Questioning? What’s the sin in that? So, like you, I have problems with the notion that taking a fresh look at the teachings we take for granted is a bad thing.
However,…
Isn’t there always a ‘however?
You also may also be painting with too broad a brush when you say that ‘the revisionist emergents are actually trying to return to a fuller and more robust understanding of the Bible.’
According to the way Stetzer views the Emerging Church, I suspect that there are elements of what he called Relevantism and Revisionism in me. And, I’ve said on this blog that we do need to present a message that is qualitatively different than the modern Gospel. I hope that I am pursuing this in a way that makes the Gospel meaningful to postmoderns but continues to be true to our historic faith. Or, as you say it, I attempt to be “trying to return to a fuller and more robust understanding of the Bible.”
But, I doubt that all Revisionists have that goal.
It is my belief that it will be necessary for followers of Jesus to set aside at least some of what Evangelicals take for granted. I’m convinced that we will need to reacquaint ourselves with Jesus. I believe the modern Gospel is flawed and that it twists truth. I believe that it will not be meaningful to people with a postmodern worldview. For instance, the biblical picture of Jesus balances the incarnation and the cross much more than Reformation theology has. (Interestingly, I just presented a devotion to our Renewal Commission in which I said that I believe we will soon need to abandon the substitutionary atonement take a vicarious view of the atonement. I said that because I believe the substitutionary view of the atonement perverts the Bible’s Jesus.)
And, I wonder what Stetzer would think of me.
Not all revisionism can be bad, as Stetzer implies. Luther was a revisionist. But, you also need to take care not to be naïve. Not all revisionism is necessarily good. And, the lesson for us from Stetzer’s article is that when we revise, we must be humble about it. We have to be careful. We have to make God’s Word our only guide. But, we can’t allow ourselves to be arrogant in too quickly throwing away the testimony of those who have gone before us.
Hey Bill,
I think you're right about Stetzer's audience. It really did seem like he was writing for the older, more conservative extreme of his own Southern Baptist denomination.
As for Revisionists, I'm not quite sure who he had in mind. I assume that he was talking specifically about emerging church "Revisionists" and not all revisionists in general (i.e. not the extreme liberal revisionists). Even still, it would be helpful to know who he would include in that group of Emerging Church Revisionists. I assume probably Brian McLaren and those who are sympathetic to him.
At any rate, of the emergent theologians and practitioners that I would put in the "Revisionist" category - e.g. McLaren, NT Wright, Brian Walsh, the late Stanley Grenz, Tony Jones, Miroslav Volf, etc. - I have no problem saying that I think they are presenting a fuller and more robust understanding of the Bible. By that I mean that they are trying to understand the Bible for the kind of document that it really is and what it's really saying in its historical and textual context, and not just reading into it our own theological presuppositions.
Are there other emergent "Revisionists" that you think are not as concerned with biblical fidelity? Who are the "bad" Revisionists that you think he might have had in mind?
It's funny. You said "we can’t allow ourselves to be arrogant in too quickly throwing away the testimony of those who have gone before us." I totally agree, but ironically part of the reason I have moved away from my evangelical roots is because I perceive the evangelical church as having done just. Sometimes it seems like the whole history of evangelical Protestantism has been the story of one splinter group after another breaking off and claiming that everyone else who came before had gotten it wrong and that their denomination at last had rediscovered true Christianity. McLaren calls this trend "the church of the last detail". One of the motivations behind the emerging church as I see it is to start listening again to the broader testimony of the whole church throughout history.
I also completely agree with you about the substitutionary atonement theory of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Of all the various theories of the atonement, that one I think raises the biggest logical questions in my mind and seems to be the most morally repugnant of them all; though I'm not saying that I would throw out all aspects of it entirely. Personally, I think all of the various atonement theories (e.g. Christus Victor, Ransom, Moral Exemplar, substitutionary atonement etc.) hold some truth, and that they work better together than when we try to isolate one of them as the only possible correct one.
I also like what some of the Radical Orthodoxy guys like John Milbank and James Smith have to say about the atonement, as well as how NT Wright explains it in relation to the fulfillment of Israel's covenant.
Peace,
-Mike
BTW, at a recent small gathering I was at with Brian McLaren he gave a similar, but more developed taxonomy of the different layers and types of emergents out there. One of the other attendees, Skye Jethani, happened to be an editor for Leadership Journal and posted Brian's list at the LJ Blog. Skye (not Brian) labeled the seven layers:
1. Style
2. Evangelism
3. Culture
4. Mission
5. Church
6. Gospel
7. World
You can read "McLaren's Seven Layers of the Emergent Conversation" here.
It is actually posted on this blog in this post.
Oops... right you are. I guess I missed that post. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home