RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

The Emerging Church Brand: The Good, the Bad, and the Messy

by Shane Claiborne 04-13-2010

[Read more of this blog conversation in response to the Sojourners magazine article “Is the ‘Emerging Church’ for Whites Only?”]

First, I want to say I do not want to discourage those who have found renewed hope in Jesus and the Church through “emerging church” conversations and circles. And I am fully aware that there are all sorts of “emerging church” conversations happening, especially overseas, and some promising new signs of hope such as the indigenous (First Nation) youth movement that embraces the language of “emergence.” There are lovely things happening inside and outside of the great “emergence.”

If you are unfamiliar with the language of “emerging church,” it has become a very confusing trend within the contemporary renewal happening in the Church. A decade or so ago, a bunch of young, mostly white evangelicals started seeing similar conversations beginning to spark all over the place about the reshaping of evangelicalism, the rethinking of missions, and reimagining what it really means to be the church. Language of “the emerging church” connected many of the dots, which remained primarily white evangelical men, many of whom had great ideas and led vibrant communities and organizations. Nonetheless it has always been evident that this is not the whole conversation or renewal happening in the church — and the fact that the dozens of books and cover stories done on the “emerging church” hailed mostly faces of white men shows the many forces of colonialism, privilege, and all the other principalities and powers that still threaten to hold our faith captive. Entire movements of hip-hop church and missional communities overseas and indigenous movements of first nation Christians have also been stirring up all over the world, though they do not get the same air time or book deals.

Eventually, books and brands began identifying as “emerging church” or “emergent.” So it got a little messy. In my opinion, “the movement” became a bit narcissistic, and often became little more than theological masturbation: feels good but doesn’t give birth to much. It’s one thing to talk about theology. It’s another thing to talk about talking about theology. There is some sloppy theology out there. Some “emerging church” folks have repeated some of the mistakes of fundamentalism (only with more tattoos), and others have repeated the mistakes of liberalism (only with more wit). Meanwhile, there are many folks who seem to know exactly what “emerging church” is and think it is the anti-Christ. However, neither of these, I am convinced, represents the silent majority of young evangelicals of all colors of skin who love Jesus with all that they are and are not willing to use our faith as simply a ticket to heaven and ignore the hells of the world around us. There is a new evangelicalism that loves Jesus and wants to change the world.

While there are many voices who self-identify as “emerging church” or “emergent” whom I consider close friends and refreshing voices in the church, there are also folks who identify as such whose beliefs and practices, or lack thereof, I find very problematic. On the flip side, I also have many friends who deliberately do not identify as “emergent” or have never heard of emergent whom I find to be beautiful, brilliant voices in the church… and likewise, there are those same “non-emergent” figures whose beliefs and practices I find deeply problematic. Hence the sloppy mess. What has been most disturbing is that much time is being wasted critiquing or defending this “emergent” thing, that as far as I can tell has no real life or DNA of its own. And many of the folks who claim to be critiquing me or our community end up only critiquing this “emerging church” phenomenon — and clearly are not familiar with our community, statement of faith, practices, ecclesiology, or writing. In fact, much of the time I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with critics who thought they were critiquing me but really were only critiquing “the emerging church.” I was merely guilty by association, and an association with something I could not even identify, much less align with.

So all that to say, I find the “emerging church” language, at least the Emergent™ brand, utterly unhelpful. So I will not spend much energy, beyond this note, to try and defend, or for that matter destroy, what seems to me little more than a brand name for a product no one can identify. There are many great things that have come out of the “emerging church” discussions and communities. People have been reminded that discontentment is not a curse but a gift to the church. Many of the conversations have reminded people that they are not alone as they dream great dreams for the church. And that we have to constantly re-imagine what it means to be Christ’s body in our age and context — but no one needs a brand to dream those dreams.

Without a doubt — there is an actual movement in the church, after all, and I would much rather celebrate that, and join it with all my heart, and encourage everyone I know to do the same. Labeling it with a proper noun, however, or worrying about how somebody else labels it no longer interests me at all. True movements are measured not in decades or book deals… but in centuries. It is an incredible time to be alive. God is moving in the world, and God is restoring the Church — but that is nothing new… it seems to be a pattern that happens every few hundred years. How cool it is to hear that ancient whisper that Francis and Claire heard in Assisi and so many others have heard throughout history… “Repair my Church, which is in ruins.” Let us continue the reparations.

Shane Claiborne is a founding partner of The Simple Way community, a radical faith community that lives among and serves the homeless in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia. He is the co-author, with John Perkins, of Follow Me to Freedom, from which he offered this excerpt as his contribution to the conversation on race and the emerging church.

Categories: Diversity, Ministry, Race
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • To me, it seems reasonable to write an article regarding the emerging church if you are continually asked/critiqued about it.

    I think you heard him correctly when he said "it is a product no one can identify." I believe his point was that it IS nothing. People are talking nonsensically about a movement which has no clear definable roots or followers. He is trying to explain that the "Emergent Church" is a irrelevant term with no definition. No one understands it, because no one can define it. And thus critiques are irrelevant, because the words and movements are to vague and non-cohesive. And I believe he was critiquing the trademark. Using that as a way to further explain how silly the word is.

    Shane and his community are currently following Jesus in a radical Biblical way; deliberately, humbly, and from their hearts. Hearing him speak or reading his books/other blog entries will make that clear quickly.

    It seems he was asked to explain his allegiance with the Emergent church, and he did so. You seem to imply he is disobedient toward God, and not picking up his cross daily to follow him. It is hard to see how your train of thought ended up there.
  • amybcaruso
    I am encouraged to hear people talking about the Emergent church in a critical way. It needs it!

    But I feel the harshness, myself, whether due or not. I don't think there's any knowing right now what will come of all this new stuff--be it emergent, new monastic, community, missional.

    I do know that I have been moved by many of the movements that are currently happening in the Church and would also say that they all have their share of messes, at least from what I can see.

    Lord have mercy, we Americans are a hungry people. I live in a culture that consumes--and in my specific context, consumes church, community, service. We are hungry people.

    I have seen the Emergent church help people see God and a fulfilling life in service to God. I have seen people come together in community across the theological spectrum. Perhaps this is just the first thing that God is doing in this small movement in the life of the church. I have hope. I can pray.

    May I humbly suggest that the Spirit is moving in many of these communities--is taking us to the cross, slowly but surely to the cross.
  • I think that labeling a label as "bad" or "unhelpful" may be Shane's right... but I don't think that labels are always unhelpful. My experience with "emergent" was first found when I was |--| this close to leaving the church entirely... and when I found "emergent" community it helped me understand that there were other people out there like me, that I was not alone, and that the church didn't have to be the narrow picture I had been raised under.

    The label at that time was entirely helpful as it represented something much deeper... community.

    I would agree that now the label has been usurped by authors and publishers wanting to make a buck... but that doesn't necessarily make it meaningless.

    The same could be said for the word "Christian." Many young persons like me cringe to be called "Christian" due to the complicated history, current cultural implications, etc. At the same time, generations of Christians are offended at the thought of doing away with the term. To them, it is a core definition of who they are and what they represent... despite the flaws in the term's past. Is it my right to declare "Christianity" dead like many emergent leaders have done with the "emergent" term in the past few weeks? I think not.

    I agree 100% with Shane's ideas in this blog post BTW... I just don't think the term emergent is meaningless to all just because it isn't an all-encompassing definition for all good going on in the greater Christ-following universe.
  • LFT,

    Where is your evidence that emerging churches define themselves that way?
  • So here is the deal. I'll stop calling myself emergent (although i only use the word when someone else uses if first) and i'll still move with the Spirit that is persistent in her emergence.

    Deal? ok.

    ...I don't think you have said very much here, Shane. Other than continue the 'emergent is white' meme.

    Actually I'm sensing something here. The more that this conversation diversifies and includes others the more privileged white people seem to be jumping ship. (tongue in cheek!!!)
  • LFT
    Emerging Churches define themselves as those:
    1. Who take the life of Jesus as a model way to live
    2. Who transform the secular realm
    3. As they live highly communal lives.
    Because of these three activities, emerging churches
    4. Welcome those who are outside
    5. Share generously
    6. Participate
    7. Create
    8. Lead without control and
    9. Function together in spiritual activities.
    Boiling it down to one sentence: Emerging Churches are...communities who practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures.
    Comment: please notice that all of the above emerging principles are not about what Christ has done for us, but what we do for him. The true gospel is news about what Christ has already done for us as a Savior, rather than instruction and advice about what you are to do for God. The primacy of his accomplishment, not ours, is the essence of our faith. The gospel of Christ above all brings news, rather than instruction.
  • maverick101
    Can anyone point me in the direction of the First Nations Youth movements that are mentioned in the post twice (ie- a website). Thanks.
  • Patricia
    Thanks!
  • hammerud
    I accept that.
  • br0ken_w1ng
    In an attempt to answer a query several comments ago, I believe the people who coined the term "emergent" borrowed the term from the field of systems theory. It is one term from a cluster of terms, along with "self-organizing" which provided relatively new and rich language with which to talk about a new moving of God the coiners of the term perceived as happening on a global scale. Here's a handy wikipedia article on the scientific notion of "emergence": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

    and an exerpt from said article:

    "The common characteristics [of emergence] are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive" (it can be perceived). For good measure, Goldstein throws in supervenience -- downward causation." (Corning 2002)

    In the early days (doesn't that sound quaint) it was a rather rich term for those using it. Unfortunately the term has been bled of most of it's original richness—thus rampant confusion as to its meaning. It has shifted away from an attempt to talk about something "already happening," and has shifted toward a branded enterprise of one's own making. It has shifted toward, as Shane so succinctly put it, Emergent™.

    I imagine those who first coined the term would be the last to defend its current iteration. I imagine they would hold more tightly to God's actual moving, which may be described as having emergent properties, than they would hold to an un-radical, un-novel enterprise which had become, by definition, non-emergent. That is, they would hold more tightly to "emergent" as a description than they would to Emergent™ as an enterprise.

    I tend to think the people who are involved with the Emergent™ enterprise in its current iteration are people who need an enterprise in which to operate and "emergent" happened to be handy. I imagine they need the "work of God" to be a self constructed, self propelled enterprise. They are uncomfortable with quiet, small, ill defined workings which are inherently out of their control.

    I propose the division "emergent" vs "non-emergent" is a red herring, a more useful delineation would be "enterprise" and "non-enterprise."

    Enterprise™ comes in many guises: robed, sombre, formal; gelled, tattooed, casual. Any organization imbued with a culture of control, enamoured of its own cleverness and its own innate ability to achieve its way to definable ends is a culture of Enterprise™.

    What I find around the world, what I hear Shane saying he has found around the world, what I know many have found around the world is a wild cornucopia of quiet, small, ill defined movings of God which are already happening, it's just a matter of noticing them. The opposite of Enterprise™. You can't, by definition, go to a controlled, centralized, managed Enterprise™ to get a sense of these movings of God. They are antithetical to Enterprise™. People engaged in Enterprise™ would be moving too quickly and loudly in their cloud of clever achieving to notice the quiet, small and ill defined. The only way to get a sense of these movings of God is to sit down with others and listen to stories, or, barring the freedom to travel, to sit down with someone who has travelled and been with others and listen to their stories.
  • Patricia
    I would appreciate it, then, if you choose not to "re-hash" your evidence over and over, you would refrain from making your accusations - sans evidence - over and over again, also. I believe if you insist on repeatedly making the same allegations, you ought to be required to repeatedly cite your same evidence, too.
  • But here's the thing: These elders were willing to accept change. I've been involved in three churches that didn't; two no longer exist and the other has lost all spiritual discernment.
  • We've read your critiques before, and frankly they sound like ideology rather than theology with a little bit of envy mixed in.
  • hammerud
    I have written at length about his views on the God's Politics blog in
    the past and our church has been forced to deal with his views at
    length and with the involvement of all of our elders. It is what it
    is and it is not without evidence. Among other things, I suggest you
    read his books "A Generous Orthodoxy" and "Everything Must Change."
    Not to be insulting, but if, in reading his writings, you cannot
    discern that he undermines the Word then I am not the one that has a
    problem. I'm not going to rehash what I already have written in the
    past on this blog about McLaren. The New Testament over and over and
    over warns about "seducing spirits" using "good words and fair
    speeches" to deceive the simple. We are warned not to be taken in by
    "the sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to
    deceive." God's Word is precious and I personally have a major
    problem with anyone who would undermine it, and McLaren does just that.
  • Patricia
    I understand 1 Tim 4:1 quite well - it's your attempt, minus any evidence, to apply that verse to McLaren and/or the "emerging church" that is the issue for me. I believe that when you accuse people of deliberately undermining God's Word, and of being tools of, or the equivalent of Satan, those are serious charges which require serious evidence in order to be considered anything than violations of both the Code of Conduct and of common Christian decency.

    You have provided no evidence, just disrespectful, insulting, slanderous, exaggerated, and unfounded accusations.

  • NC77
    Hey Patricia,

    All too true. At least we are honest about it. :) It is not an easy thing to do. But there really is something to receive from God if we give it all up to him.

    Hope all is well with you and you had a great Easter holiday. It was beautiful here in NC.
  • Cliff
    So it does happen. Your church sounds like what I'm talking about. Instead of simply accepting the resignations of the elders (turning things over and getting out of the way) your board expanded to include both. That's all I'm saying...that their voices are still part of the conversation and make-up of the church.
  • But I long to see new movements that incorporate age as part of their diversity, who respect and utilize the wisdom, experience, and insights that older people can offer by having walked with Jesus through many different seasons of life.

    Sorry, but that's never going to happen for reasons I've already mentioned; at some point the church is going to be turned over to that next generation and the older folks will have to adjust. Now, the older generation should certainly advise the younger but not to the extent that the elders are still running the show according to the old ways, and I hope that they realize that times change.

    My church, which has undergone cataclysmic change in a generation, gets this. Some time ago certain ruling elders who had been around for some time offered their resignations because they felt that they might be in God's way; in response, however, the board was expanded.
  • Stein
    My understanding of what Shane says is:

    The church has recently been divided into camps -- one emphasizing salvation experience and neglecting discipleship, the other emphasizing social action and neglecting faith roots. What is emerging is the strong center that claims that faith without works is dead, as are works without faith -- the center that has for too long been silent (or been silenced by strident voices at the poles). What is emerging is the whole gospel -- conversion faith that cares for the soul married with social action that cares for the body.
  • Cliff
    I agree that older generations must not look down on younger generations, and older generations have to guard against the worst aspects of traditionalism. But I long to see new movements that incorporate age as part of their diversity, who respect and utilize the wisdom, experience, and insights that older people can offer by having walked with Jesus through many different seasons of life. I long for 1 Timothy 4:12 to be matched with 1 Peter 5:5: "In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble and oppressed." Rather than turning it over to the next generation, having mutual submission and mutual humility between generations.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008