Emerging Protest
Over at Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight's recent post "What Is The Emerging Church? Protest" has a lot of people talking. It is an interesting and provocative look at 10 areas that Scot believes represent the core of what the "Emerging Movement" is protesting. My initial reaction to the post and intro sentence that said "Whatever the Emerging Movement is, it is clearly a protest movement", was... well, to protest! However, I realized that my response was due to immediately interpreting the statement as comparing it too closely with the Protestant Reformation.
While on the basic levels of critiquing dominant expressions of Christianity this comparison might fly, there far more differences than there are similarities between the Protestant Reformation and the nature and centrality of protest in the emerging movement. So while I wish a better word could be chosen because of the inevitable transference that will (and has) occurred, I guess it will suffice to simply state it here and move on.
Having said that, I find this post incredibly valuable. Each of the 10 areas Scot listed found resonance with me, each worth exploring here. So that we are clear from the beginning, these are MY impressions and experiences of the emerging movement and should not be read, commented on or disseminated as though representing the "entire movement". While this should go without saying, I have learned better than to expect that.
So, here we go:
"First, it protests too much tom-fakery in traditional churches."
In all fairness, there has been some well-nintentioned, though inappropriate talk of "authenticity" in emerging circles. In declaring our desire for authenticity, we inadvertently call those outside of the movement inauthentic, which is an unfair generalization. That being said, I think this is less about protesting a lack of authenticity as it about a personal longing for deeper, relational authenticity. We are longing for something more akin to an AA meeting, though with a more missional core. Rather than expression of prideful superiority, it is an admission of brokenness longing for a communal healing context. In this respect, I think protest is present, but ultimately secondary (as any affirmation is secondarily a protest against its "opposite").
"Second, it denounces the divisions in the Church."
I am not sure if this is an accurate articulation of the movement, but speaking for myself, this falls short. Within the explanation, Scot says "Why there needs to be so many kinds of Baptists or free church types or so many others kinds of churches is becoming more and more incomprehensible to the emerging generation". The divisions that are so problematic are not (so much) due to the diversity, but due to relational disunity. While we indeed need to learn to worship together, more so to minister together, that does not mean that we need to lose the distinguishing features- in fact, that would be tragic. Further, while moving in the spirit of ecumenism and unity, we should not overlook the serious differences of theology and praxis that have divided us. Starting with humility about our own position, we still need to use care and discernment in exploring others.
As an aside, as Scot explored in an earlier post, while exploring and celebrating traditions and practices of the past, we often do violence to the beauty of the deeper, richer traditions by randomly sampling them out of their larger context. At the same time, I do not believe that we are absolutely bound to this- it is a caution, not a rule.
"Third, it sees cock-sure certainty as a cancer."
This is perhaps the central topic of discussion & debate surrounding the emerging movement, which is understandable, if over emphasized. I think it remains so central, in part, because it has proven extremely difficult to articulate. This should not be surprising, as by its very nature, it resists clarity. And while it should continue to be explored, it will likely be a very long process. Therefore, those on both side of the issue must be intentional about not being sidetracked by this single issue.
I think Scot explores this better in his next post in the series "What Is The Emerging Church? Postmodernity". That being said, the gain best context on his excellent views on the movement, I would highly recommend utilizing his category tags and reading his many previous posts.
"Fourth, it refuses to separate action from articulation."
It has been my experience that throughout the Evangelical world, this is largely true- that Christians are beginning to see that we need to emphasize action and articulation together. Sure, this might be more evident in the emerging circles, but it isn't unique. Rather, I would say that the nature and the articulation of said action is what is unique within the emergent movement in many ways. For example, a higher awareness of paternalism, colonialism, patriarchy, etc. redefines the motivation, nature and significance of action.
Further, while there is still a significant need within the Evangelical Church to move forward on this, I am not convinced that emergents aren't more than only marginally better. Ironically, emergents are good at rearticulating action and articulation, but not too much better at actually practicing it- yet. There are obvious and amazing exceptions, but we are still a young movement. We should not so much be protesting the false dichotomy as we should be working harder at practicing its alternative. This will lend the authority we need to call for change elsewhere.
"Fifth, it wants individualism absorbed into incorporation."
This point is so important, because of how blinded we are to the pervasive impact of individualism on our culture, and thus the church. The beauty of the Abrahamic Covenant was that in a world where humanity accepted their place as pawns of god-kings, a God chose value the individual enough to convent with them. The value of the individual- individuality as opposed to individualism- is one of the foundational tenets of our faith. And yet, it was towards the formation of a nation- a community of faith- that this value could be truly realized. (See "The Gifts of the Jews" by Thomas Cahill for a compelling development of these ideas).
'Community' has become a buzzword again, which means people will both embrace with shallow understanding and conviction, while others will dismiss it as "just the next big idea". Sadly, this will needlessly distract from the desperate need for true community. This is equally true of the commonly used phrase "missional community". Building missional community is not something one can simply articulate, but like in the previous point, demands action, exploration, experimentation- in short, hard work. It is well worth the work (and the inevitable sacrifice).
"Sixth, the Emerging Movement’s mindset is against marketing the gospel."
I am not convinced that emergents concern with marketing is primarily about the oversimplification (though it is a real issue). Rather, we need to understand that the medium is a message (yes, I know Marshall McLuhan's quote differs, but his would be wrongfully applied here). By this I mean that the means & mediums through which we communicate and promote ideas/beliefs/values carry with them and transmit ideas/beliefs/values of their own, some contrary to the original message.
Consumer marketing is not immoral in and of itself (at least not all of it). Additionally, there is much about our faith worth promoting, much that would be considered "marketable". However, marketing teaches us that we need to over-emphasize the positives and to down-play the negatives. In a faith that calls us to live sacrificially, whose guiding symbol is a torture and execution implement, where identification with the suffering and the poor is paramount, marketing would be hard pressed not to compromise these central aspects.
"Seventh, the Emerging Movement despises the idea that Church is what takes place on Sunday Morning, between 11 and noon."
Personally, this hasn't much of a problem for me in practice, as my emergent journey has largely been explored in my full time ministry with YWAM Urban Ministries Winnipeg. Our home church, Riverwood Community Church, is a unique community that might be characterized as a seeker sensitive church increasingly being informed by emergent values. But this beside the point.
Most emergent voyageurs are frustrated by the way Sunday worship has been hijacked as the sum of all Christian service- evangelism, discipleship, service and worship, all wrapped into one morning. It can distract from the necessity of the daily Christlikeness we are embody together in our missional journey. Further, I believe that the sacred and ancient(-future) drama of Sunday worship has been watered down, bankrupted of its emphasis of God being the subject, not the object of worship.
"Eighth, the Emerging Movement rejects the hierarchy and pyramid structure of many churches."
While perhaps not the hottest topic in the movement, his is one of the areas that probably has the widest variance of opinions within the emergent circles. I have heard some advocate the removal of hierarchy as such a central and strong value, that anything at all that smacked of positional authority was immediately attacked. This extreme is somewhat rare. However, I do think that there is an over-reactive tendency by many in the emerging movement towards positional authority. There is legitimate concern about the abuse of power and position in our culture and in the church, but we would do well to not react too quickly. I think that Scot, in previous posts, has offered a balance view of leadership. However, much more needs to be explored.
(This point is indeed a protest- one that perhaps needs the wisdom of those who truly function in the spiritual gift of administration. So often considered those who were good at organization and clerical office work, we have done a great disservice to this charism and those who possess it. While I am not suggesting that this is by any means THE solution, I do believe we as the church have suffered for this exclusion in a way microcosmically similar to the results of patriarchy- a development of ecclesiology & theology & praxis that is missing a crucial, defining element. That, however, is another post for another time.)
"Ninth, the social gospel cannot be separated from the spiritual gospel."
Living and ministering in an inner city neighbourhood, this is something I engage in a very real way everyday. This by no means makes my views more authoritative- in some respects, I lack objectivity in the matter. However, I think this is one of the single most important reasons I am drawn to the emerging movement. I have a great deal of respect for the depth and beauty of my Evangelical heritage, but its formulation of the Gospel lacked the 'embracing grace' that Jesus seemed to embodied and articulation as he proclaimed with word and deed the Gospel (of the Kingdom; of God; of Peace; etc.).
While I am committed to being a servant of Christ in my city & neighbourhood, I also must confess that my choice to live and serve here was also motivated by a desire to place myself in a context that would demand the most of my faith. And, boy, has it ever! Being here has pushed deeper into community, both the surrounding people and the missional co-voyageurs who have chosen this journey with us. It has made me confront the easy believe-ism that has been a part of Evangelical spiritual and missiological formation (see the history of mission to Rwanda for a devastating example). It has made me see that Jesus was deeply motivated by compassion, deeply informed by prophetic justice, deeply committed to those on the margins, etc. Above all, He did not do this with an attitude of superiority (one that would have been justified given His being God incarnate), but came as a servant. He modelled a wholistic Gospel that came, not out of paternalism, triumphalism or condescension, but by coming along side us as a man.
Perhaps the Canadian context is different, but I find the Evangelical Church here fairly open to seeing that this dichotomy is false. Much of what I said regard Protest #4 applies here. For myself, Scot's booking "Embracing Grace: A Gospel For All Of Us" has been the single most valuable book exploring the fullness of the Gospel.
"Tenth, the Emerging Movement wants to be Worldly."
I am not sure how I see this one as a protest, though I certainly see this as a characteristic of the emerging movement. It often gets framed in conversations with the statement, "People need to belong before they believe". While the heart of this statement is commendable, but the reality of walking this one out is astonishingly challenging. We have recently been confronted with this question in regards to our DTS.
Let me create a scenario: a young unmarried couple, who are moving into deeper, more authentic relationship with God, were considering applying to be part of the school. However, they are currently living together in every respect. They have a sense that it isn't right, though it probably ranks about the same as the guilt most of us would feel for allowing materialism to get the better of us during a shopping trip. The question was raised- would be allow them to come as a couple, living together and participate in the process, knowing full well that we believed their relationship was not ideal and that we would spend a great deal of time working with them towards marriage?
In the end, we decided that, in such a scenario, we would not accept them for many reasons (ie. beyond discipleship, the program included missional outreach in cultures where their relationship would be highly offensive to the local church). However, the discussion was difficult, intense and richly rewarding.
Therefore, it is one thing to affirm the value of "belonging before they believe", but we need to be prepared for the difficult realities that surround this, as well as the reality that in many cases, we will find that the wisdom of the larger Evangelical church was worth considering all along.
In all fairness, there has been some well-nintentioned, though inappropriate talk of "authenticity" in emerging circles. In declaring our desire for authenticity, we inadvertently call those outside of the movement inauthentic, which is an unfair generalization. That being said, I think this is less about protesting a lack of authenticity as it about a personal longing for deeper, relational authenticity. We are longing for something more akin to an AA meeting, though with a more missional core. Rather than expression of prideful superiority, it is an admission of brokenness longing for a communal healing context. In this respect, I think protest is present, but ultimately secondary (as any affirmation is secondarily a protest against its "opposite").
"Second, it denounces the divisions in the Church."
I am not sure if this is an accurate articulation of the movement, but speaking for myself, this falls short. Within the explanation, Scot says "Why there needs to be so many kinds of Baptists or free church types or so many others kinds of churches is becoming more and more incomprehensible to the emerging generation". The divisions that are so problematic are not (so much) due to the diversity, but due to relational disunity. While we indeed need to learn to worship together, more so to minister together, that does not mean that we need to lose the distinguishing features- in fact, that would be tragic. Further, while moving in the spirit of ecumenism and unity, we should not overlook the serious differences of theology and praxis that have divided us. Starting with humility about our own position, we still need to use care and discernment in exploring others.
As an aside, as Scot explored in an earlier post, while exploring and celebrating traditions and practices of the past, we often do violence to the beauty of the deeper, richer traditions by randomly sampling them out of their larger context. At the same time, I do not believe that we are absolutely bound to this- it is a caution, not a rule.
"Third, it sees cock-sure certainty as a cancer."
This is perhaps the central topic of discussion & debate surrounding the emerging movement, which is understandable, if over emphasized. I think it remains so central, in part, because it has proven extremely difficult to articulate. This should not be surprising, as by its very nature, it resists clarity. And while it should continue to be explored, it will likely be a very long process. Therefore, those on both side of the issue must be intentional about not being sidetracked by this single issue.
I think Scot explores this better in his next post in the series "What Is The Emerging Church? Postmodernity". That being said, the gain best context on his excellent views on the movement, I would highly recommend utilizing his category tags and reading his many previous posts.
"Fourth, it refuses to separate action from articulation."
It has been my experience that throughout the Evangelical world, this is largely true- that Christians are beginning to see that we need to emphasize action and articulation together. Sure, this might be more evident in the emerging circles, but it isn't unique. Rather, I would say that the nature and the articulation of said action is what is unique within the emergent movement in many ways. For example, a higher awareness of paternalism, colonialism, patriarchy, etc. redefines the motivation, nature and significance of action.
Further, while there is still a significant need within the Evangelical Church to move forward on this, I am not convinced that emergents aren't more than only marginally better. Ironically, emergents are good at rearticulating action and articulation, but not too much better at actually practicing it- yet. There are obvious and amazing exceptions, but we are still a young movement. We should not so much be protesting the false dichotomy as we should be working harder at practicing its alternative. This will lend the authority we need to call for change elsewhere.
"Fifth, it wants individualism absorbed into incorporation."
This point is so important, because of how blinded we are to the pervasive impact of individualism on our culture, and thus the church. The beauty of the Abrahamic Covenant was that in a world where humanity accepted their place as pawns of god-kings, a God chose value the individual enough to convent with them. The value of the individual- individuality as opposed to individualism- is one of the foundational tenets of our faith. And yet, it was towards the formation of a nation- a community of faith- that this value could be truly realized. (See "The Gifts of the Jews" by Thomas Cahill for a compelling development of these ideas).
'Community' has become a buzzword again, which means people will both embrace with shallow understanding and conviction, while others will dismiss it as "just the next big idea". Sadly, this will needlessly distract from the desperate need for true community. This is equally true of the commonly used phrase "missional community". Building missional community is not something one can simply articulate, but like in the previous point, demands action, exploration, experimentation- in short, hard work. It is well worth the work (and the inevitable sacrifice).
"Sixth, the Emerging Movement’s mindset is against marketing the gospel."
I am not convinced that emergents concern with marketing is primarily about the oversimplification (though it is a real issue). Rather, we need to understand that the medium is a message (yes, I know Marshall McLuhan's quote differs, but his would be wrongfully applied here). By this I mean that the means & mediums through which we communicate and promote ideas/beliefs/values carry with them and transmit ideas/beliefs/values of their own, some contrary to the original message.
Consumer marketing is not immoral in and of itself (at least not all of it). Additionally, there is much about our faith worth promoting, much that would be considered "marketable". However, marketing teaches us that we need to over-emphasize the positives and to down-play the negatives. In a faith that calls us to live sacrificially, whose guiding symbol is a torture and execution implement, where identification with the suffering and the poor is paramount, marketing would be hard pressed not to compromise these central aspects.
"Seventh, the Emerging Movement despises the idea that Church is what takes place on Sunday Morning, between 11 and noon."
Personally, this hasn't much of a problem for me in practice, as my emergent journey has largely been explored in my full time ministry with YWAM Urban Ministries Winnipeg. Our home church, Riverwood Community Church, is a unique community that might be characterized as a seeker sensitive church increasingly being informed by emergent values. But this beside the point.
Most emergent voyageurs are frustrated by the way Sunday worship has been hijacked as the sum of all Christian service- evangelism, discipleship, service and worship, all wrapped into one morning. It can distract from the necessity of the daily Christlikeness we are embody together in our missional journey. Further, I believe that the sacred and ancient(-future) drama of Sunday worship has been watered down, bankrupted of its emphasis of God being the subject, not the object of worship.
"Eighth, the Emerging Movement rejects the hierarchy and pyramid structure of many churches."
While perhaps not the hottest topic in the movement, his is one of the areas that probably has the widest variance of opinions within the emergent circles. I have heard some advocate the removal of hierarchy as such a central and strong value, that anything at all that smacked of positional authority was immediately attacked. This extreme is somewhat rare. However, I do think that there is an over-reactive tendency by many in the emerging movement towards positional authority. There is legitimate concern about the abuse of power and position in our culture and in the church, but we would do well to not react too quickly. I think that Scot, in previous posts, has offered a balance view of leadership. However, much more needs to be explored.
(This point is indeed a protest- one that perhaps needs the wisdom of those who truly function in the spiritual gift of administration. So often considered those who were good at organization and clerical office work, we have done a great disservice to this charism and those who possess it. While I am not suggesting that this is by any means THE solution, I do believe we as the church have suffered for this exclusion in a way microcosmically similar to the results of patriarchy- a development of ecclesiology & theology & praxis that is missing a crucial, defining element. That, however, is another post for another time.)
"Ninth, the social gospel cannot be separated from the spiritual gospel."
Living and ministering in an inner city neighbourhood, this is something I engage in a very real way everyday. This by no means makes my views more authoritative- in some respects, I lack objectivity in the matter. However, I think this is one of the single most important reasons I am drawn to the emerging movement. I have a great deal of respect for the depth and beauty of my Evangelical heritage, but its formulation of the Gospel lacked the 'embracing grace' that Jesus seemed to embodied and articulation as he proclaimed with word and deed the Gospel (of the Kingdom; of God; of Peace; etc.).
While I am committed to being a servant of Christ in my city & neighbourhood, I also must confess that my choice to live and serve here was also motivated by a desire to place myself in a context that would demand the most of my faith. And, boy, has it ever! Being here has pushed deeper into community, both the surrounding people and the missional co-voyageurs who have chosen this journey with us. It has made me confront the easy believe-ism that has been a part of Evangelical spiritual and missiological formation (see the history of mission to Rwanda for a devastating example). It has made me see that Jesus was deeply motivated by compassion, deeply informed by prophetic justice, deeply committed to those on the margins, etc. Above all, He did not do this with an attitude of superiority (one that would have been justified given His being God incarnate), but came as a servant. He modelled a wholistic Gospel that came, not out of paternalism, triumphalism or condescension, but by coming along side us as a man.
Perhaps the Canadian context is different, but I find the Evangelical Church here fairly open to seeing that this dichotomy is false. Much of what I said regard Protest #4 applies here. For myself, Scot's booking "Embracing Grace: A Gospel For All Of Us" has been the single most valuable book exploring the fullness of the Gospel.
"Tenth, the Emerging Movement wants to be Worldly."
I am not sure how I see this one as a protest, though I certainly see this as a characteristic of the emerging movement. It often gets framed in conversations with the statement, "People need to belong before they believe". While the heart of this statement is commendable, but the reality of walking this one out is astonishingly challenging. We have recently been confronted with this question in regards to our DTS.
Let me create a scenario: a young unmarried couple, who are moving into deeper, more authentic relationship with God, were considering applying to be part of the school. However, they are currently living together in every respect. They have a sense that it isn't right, though it probably ranks about the same as the guilt most of us would feel for allowing materialism to get the better of us during a shopping trip. The question was raised- would be allow them to come as a couple, living together and participate in the process, knowing full well that we believed their relationship was not ideal and that we would spend a great deal of time working with them towards marriage?
In the end, we decided that, in such a scenario, we would not accept them for many reasons (ie. beyond discipleship, the program included missional outreach in cultures where their relationship would be highly offensive to the local church). However, the discussion was difficult, intense and richly rewarding.
Therefore, it is one thing to affirm the value of "belonging before they believe", but we need to be prepared for the difficult realities that surround this, as well as the reality that in many cases, we will find that the wisdom of the larger Evangelical church was worth considering all along.
_______________________
emerging churchOnce again, these are just a few of my own views and should be taken to represent the entire emerging movement. I'd love to hear your feedback.
Thanks for these reflections -- and I like your take and clarifications.
On the word "protest" -- I know whereof you speak. DA Carson made this point, and I think it needs to be sustained. The EM is at its heart dissatisfied, or in the words of Bill Hybels there is holy discontent, and I find emerging types quite willing and ready to speak about most of these issues. So, while the suggestion that the EM is a new Protest-ant Reformation is wildly inaccurate, there is a strong element of protest in what I am seeing.
Again, thanks for carrying this discussion forward. (Comment this)
Oh, and I haven't heard back from you yet, Mr. Arpin-Ricci. You know who I am.
Jez (Comment this)
"So, while the suggestion that the EM is a new Protest-ant Reformation is wildly inaccurate, there is a strong element of protest in what I am seeing."
Well said.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
I would have to disagree about movements being trends. Sure, some trends or fads call themselves movements, but I think this is not the case with what is being called the "emerging movement".
Interestingly, from our own discussions (and read at your blog), we still a heap we could discuss about theology. I am glad you are reading here!
If you want to get a better grasp of the emering movement, I could make sure recommendations. Let me know.
Love ya,
Jamie (Comment this)
(Comment this)
great perspectives.
Of Emergent, Dallas Willard in this month's Leadership magazine said, and I'll paraphrase, you can't develop a gospel as a reaction to modernity.
I thought Mr. Willard encapsulated this well. As Emergent continues to "emerge", our theology cannot simply be a reaction to modernism or to mainstream evangelicalism's lack. No. Emergent can be a movement of God that stands on its own in a changing world.
P.S. Jamie I need your email. (Comment this)
I wanted to holla at you and pass on my email address. Sorry to interrupt the flow of things. SO, they have an inner city in Winnipeg? ;)
Best,
Max (Comment this)