nuance

Recently there has been a hubub of sorts in the b’sphere about the label “Emerging Church” and whether or not it has continuing relevance - that is, whether it is a clarifying term or a confusing term. Recently, by popular demand, Andrew Jones decided to kill the label once and for all. Dan Kimball, who wrote The Emerging Church, might be following suit, using the term “more retrospectively than futuristically.”

It seems that as of now, Mark Driscoll hasn’t totally abandoned the emerging church label, although he has taken great pains to explain his place in it. We all know that Mark Driscoll has been working hard to clarify “good” and “bad” streams within the emerging church world, and does so pretty well in this video:

For an extended version of that breakdown, check out this talk from a recent conference in Ohio.

Now, in my view, Mark’s “lanes” should not be viewed as some kind of dogmatic definition of the emerging movement; Mark is just doing his best to distinguish the streams according to his perception and experience within the emerging church. And it’s also useful to note the kind of critique that Driscoll is making: it’s largely pastoral, and the interest is protecting his flock from deception, which is a good, good thing. If a pastor isn’t doing that, then he’s not doing his job.

However, in the interests of fending off heresy, some pastors can be too rigid, and Mark might be guilty of this. (Note well: I said “might be” because I “might be” totally wrong, and I’m open to correction.) I am particularly struck by Driscoll’s quick dismissal of Rob Bell and Mars Hill Grand Rapids, especially when some very evangelical theologians who are sensitive to the emerging movement have given at least a measure of approval to Mr. Bell. I think specifically of two faves right now, Ben Witherington and Scot McKnight; while both are critical of Bell’s stance on certain things like homosexuality, and will call him out for other theological inaccuracies, neither are willing to throw him off the bus as a Liberal, albeit an Emergent one. This harshness is in line with the way Driscoll holds up his “Emerging Reformers” stream as the only really pure/orthodox stream within the movement, although he tolerates the Emerging Evangelicals and the Emerging House Churchers (probably meaning the new monastics or intentional-community folks especially; I don’t see the old-school charismatic house-churchers as fitting within the emerging church movement).

I have to take issue with this emphasis because at present I probably do not fit precisely within the Emerging Reformers camp. My Reformed theology has been undergoing some renovation, leaving me, at the moment, post-Reformed. Further, my love for God’s people has been growing in its scope of acceptance for all those who genuinely profess the orthodox faith according to the creeds. And this is, in a word, why I still really value the term “emerging church” - because new things have been emerging in my heart over the past couple years that have brought me to an emerging “consciousness” of sorts (not to get all hippy on ya).

So as we move forward in Burlington, I don’t want to abandon the sense that we are doing something new in a new way - that we are planting a church that is not static and conforming but emerging in its orthodoxy and evangelical-ness. This emerging attitude or perspective has several characteristics as I see it in my finite mind’s eye:

>>A love for Jesus and the biblical story. Systematic theology is not thrown out, but it doesn’t turn the emerging church on. The story - and what it means for us to be in the redemption story with the resurrected Christ - turns us on.
>>A supreme simultaneous focus on mission and community. The mission defines the community and the community defines the mission, and neither are left out of the equation. This means we are contextual, missional, relational, etc. in our outreach - it is not agenda but life and love and friendship. This also means that we are in love with the utter supremacy of Christian community over any other form, and we want the whole world to be a part of it.
>>A holy distaste for the forms of church and church life that do not simultaneously value mission and community but emphasize one over the other (mission in megachurch, community in millichurch). We’re not stoked on the churches that have walls and not doors, that act like bounded subcultures and not relevant, welcoming countercultures. But we still love the people in those churches like brothers and sisters in Christ.
>>A tenacious grasp on historic orthodoxy, and in our case, evangelical orthodoxy. This means we’re not going to compromise who the Bible says Jesus is; we’re not going to let go of our human-yet-divine Savior nor our three-in-one God nor our Spirit-inspired Bible nor our life everlasting nor our substitution-atonement. We are not liberals.
>>A big gospel. Big enough to save sinners from hell and save the homeless and hungry from starvation.
>>A moving Holy Spirit. Can’t really define that one, it’s just the way it is.

Now, all that said, a statement of what the emerging church is not is still very valuable. I do believe it is quite important to make the distinction between the emerging church and Emergent Village, which is essentially a brandname born out of the emerging movement. And while I think it is a mistake to dismiss anything associated with EV as some kind of liberal heresy, it is not a mistake to very clearly point out a trajectory of thought on traditional theology that is troubling at times.

And, I should mention that Rob Bell is not doing a great job of stepping to the side of the EV trajectory. He has given blanket approval to at least McClaren and Pagitt, and has hosted other even more mainline/liberal speakers in his pulpit as recently as this summer. I like Rob, and I think I understand his theology better than before, and I even like a lot about his theology, but maybe he is too weak on the pastoral responsibility that Driscoll is a bit too strong on.

If all that is confusing, here’s McKnight (from Kimball):

I maintain a crucial distinction between two related streams: emergent and the broader emerging movement. Emergent is crystallized in Emergent Village and its leaders Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt. Emerging is a mix of orthodox, missional, evangelical, church-centered and social justice leaders and lay folk. When I think of this broader emerging movement, I think of Dan Kimball at Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, Dave Dunbar at Biblical Seminary in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch and their book The Shaping of Things To Come, and Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz.

So there you have it. The church I see in Burlington is indeed an emerging church - it is a unique church for this time, in this movement. Let’s not lose that identity as we move forward.

But regardless, Emergent is not the emerging church. It is an offshoot, a stream, if you will, but not even a very well-defined one. It’s kind of a…website. And three bishops and their books: Brian McClaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download