(e)mergent Voyageurs

Lately I have been asking myself some questions about my relationship to the emerging church movement/conversation. It is not so much that I am second guessing my affliation with certain people or doctrines as it is that I am consider the nature of my existing connection. So, here is my attempt to look at how things play out:

I am not now (nor have I ever been) a member of a church that would fit the description of an emerging church. I will acknowledge that, largely a result of my rural upbringing, that I had positive experiences with a broad spectrum of Christian tradition (including Evangelical, Anabaptist, Charismatic, Sacramental and Reformed). Since then, I have worshipped and ministered from an Evangelical context (both in respect to my home church and YWAM) with fair amounts of Anabaptist influence.

So, what of my theology, doctrinal convictions and Christian practice? How do I measure these things? Let me start with Scot McKnight's very helpful "Five Streams of the Emerging Church". (NOTE: I will be exploring each point in general, so see McKnight's article for details):

The first stream is called the "Prophet/Provocative Stream", denoting the strong, public call for the Church to change. While I have certainly seen areas where the Church, specifically in our Western, Evangelical context. However, I have been very intentional in my attempt to do so without the scorn and absolute rejection that others might use. I have endeavoured (though not always successfully) to critique with grace, humility and hope. I do not reject my Evangelical heritage, but rather stand within it, acknowledging it's strengths and weaknesses. However, I believe this to be true of far more emerging Christians than the critics will acknowledge, so this does not answer my question.

The second stream, the "Postmodern Stream" is far more difficult. The expressions of postmodernism are broad, complexified further by the degrees of embrace. One thing is clear: I am not a hard postmodernist. I do believe in absolute truth. I affirm the importance (though I question our tendency to over-state it) of propositional understanding of truth. There are aspects of postmodernity that are dangerous with others that offer great opportunity and maturity for the Church. Much of it is neutral, determined in value through our response to it. Postmodernity cannot be absolutely embraced or rejected, but above all, it must not be ignored. It offers essential critiques of modernity, as well as some of our current socio-cultural and historical expressions of faith. However, the fact is that the postmodern stream has not been as central to my faith journey as other areas.

The "Praxis-Oriented Stream" is without a doubt the most significant stream for me. McKnight further subcategorizes this stream into three focuses- worship, orthopraxy and missionality. While I believe my Evangelical heritage did not provide a robust enough a theology and practice in respect to worship, I have not rejected it. In fact, it is still primarily the context I worship in. In respect to orthopraxy, few would argue that we need right living as much as we need right belief, though emerging Christian contend that the former has not been a natural product of the latter (though I would say the definition of "belief" is primarily what is the problem). The statment "by their fruits you will know them" speaks as much to the incarnational fruit as it does to the seeds of belief that birth them. It is the missional sub-stream, however, that is most significant to me. The space is too limited here to explore all that it means to be missional, but it should be said that missionality and emerging are not one and the same, despite much overlap.

The fourth stream is the "Post-evangelical Stream", representing suspision of systematic theology and caution towards "in or out" formulas to who is saved. There is unquestionably great value in systematic theology. However, an over-emphasis and confidence in these systems fails to acknowledge the very historical, cultural nature of the approach and it's inherent limitations. Rather than rejecting it outright, I believe it needs to be honoured responsibly along side other approaches (which also must be evaluated). With respect to the "in or out" angst within emerging Christianity, I share the emotional struggle it raises, but would far rather err on the side of clumsy evangelism than silence. (Note: I am not saying all emerging Christians are evangelistically silent, but I do believe it is a clear weakness in the larger movement- one which I struggle with too).

The fifth and final stream, the "Political Stream", is largely (though not exclusively) an American phenomenon. I have discussed this socio-historical reality before, but suffice it to say that the political aspect of the emerging church is not as central or divisive outside of the US. So while this will be a focal point for the American conversation, I suspect it is more on the merits of American Evangelicalism than it does with the emerging church itself. At any rate, it plays a very, very small part of my own emerging journey.

While there is likely enough influence in these dynamics for me to identify with the emerging church, I know many Christians who share these same dynamics who would in no way identify with the movement. Obviously, from my blog I clearly engaging emerging church topics, move in emerging church circles (at least virtually) and affirm much of what I find in the conversation. I ask these questions not out of some desire to distance myself from the movement, as I openly identify with much of it. However, given how very little difference there is between these dynamics and many non-emerging Evangelicals I know, is it fair to use it as a descriptive label? Or is it simply an influence?

What do you think? Am I missing points that would qualify or disqualify me? Should "emerging" even be a defining type at all? Let's hear what you have to say.