(e)mergent Voyageurs

In part one of this series, I weighed in on how emerging I was based on Scot McKnight’s 5 Streams. While I clearly resonated with many of the points, a fair amount of it did not come as a result of the emerging church conversation, but from my child upbringing. The points and degree of engagement on said points are not that uncommon to the Evangelical circles I move in who would not identify as emerging. So, let’s keep looking.

So let’s look at the denifition of the emerging church put forward by Bolger and Gibbs in their book “Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures”:

“Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine practices. Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities.”

Again, let’s go point by point:

-“Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures”: As my previous post in this series stated, the postmodern aspect of my journey is not a explicitly central. Where it is there is probably a result of living in a farily postmodern nation (Canada) not through intentional engagement.

-“identify with the life of Jesus”: Of course this point is important, but if my emerging church journey has done anything, it has strengthened by Trinitarian theology, with an emphasis on perichoresis. However, genuinely trying to shape my life (in community) around the teaching and example of Jesus is important, but I dare say is not so exclusively “emerging” as some might suggest.

-“transform the secular realm”: The complexities of the “how” and “why” in this point make it hard to address here, but I cannot deny that I affirm it. That said, it is rooted in a conviction that the sacred/secular dichotomy is inadequate. YWAM is strong on this conviction, though somewhat poor in the actual practice. The degree to which this is affirmed in some emerging circles makes me cautious, but generally I think it is important to explore.

-“live highly communal lives”: My communal living experience comes entirely out of my ministry with YWAM, though I have had to look outside the mission to discover depth of theology and practice. This critique of individualism and affirming of the essential communal reality of our participation as Body is something that I affirm in the emerging church, though (again) it certainly isn’t exclusive to the movement.

-“welcome the stranger”: Again, YWAM is strong on the practice of hospitality. Granted, YWAM’s context (being missional and communal) makes it a more natural expression of faith, posing more of a challenge to traditional church models. I do believe that the emerging church must become more intentional in it’s evangelistic effort, both in general and specifically within this point. Be clear, I believe “evangelistic” is a broader and more inclusive concept than it’s more common meaning, but I still believe the emerging church can fall short too often in this respect.

-“serve with generosity”: There is a sad irony that, while indulgences played such a huge role in birthing the Reformation, so many Protestants believe that service and generosity can be bought with financial giving. I am not blind to the fact that my ministry depends on such giving, but the need for giving of our lives within the church is critical. I affirm this point, as I am sure most Evangelical Christians would as well.

-“participate as producers”: It is very easy in our consumeristic culture for churches to come to depend on growth models that attract people by providing for the wants and needs of others. While there is nothing wrong with serving others with excellence, shifting our models to a place where it is common for most members of the community are contributing or producing, as opposed to “consuming” is critical. I believe this conviction is truly at the heart of Evangelical Christianity, if it has been lost. It is good that the emerging church reminds of this and models it.

-“create as created beings”: Dealing largely with worship, I enjoy the creativity that is emerging in these circles. In addition to exploring new approaches, it has also attempted to rediscover the ancient traditions as well. This is important, but as I said in the previous post, it is not something that I am particularly engaged in or drawn to.

-“lead as a body”: This is perhaps one of the strongest points where I resonate with the conversation. While I believe that hierarchy can be used well and is at times necessary, I do believe that communal leadership needs to become more of the norm than the exception. I have not done a lot of research, but I am sure how functional this value is in most emerging churches. I hope it is increasing, but I understand if it is a slow transition.

-“take part in spiritual activities”: The development of a healthy spirituality is important, but the means and degree taken varies greatly in the emerging church. I have seen/heard some that I strongly affirm, some that I wouldn’t be drawn to but could still affirm and others that I feel go too far. While I affirm these things, I am not sure I am personally as good at practicing this. Or perhaps I am. Not sure.

Clearly, I also resonate with much in this definition as well, though the degree varies similarly to my first post.

What do you think of this definition? Is it distinctive enough to merit it’s own category? What are your thoughts?

My next post on this topic will look at some of the hot spot issues that critics cite in respect to the emerging church, such as atonement theology, homosexuality, inclusion and others. What other important critiques should I address?