Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

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

by Shane Claiborne 04-13-2010 | 3:06pm
Print
77 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

[Read more of this blog conversation in response to the Sojourners magazine article "Is the 'Emerging Church' for Whites Only?"]

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

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

77 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: Cliff

04-14-2010 @ 6:22pm

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.

by: LFT

04-17-2010 @ 4:46am

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.

by: Dadofiandi

04-13-2010 @ 9:31pm

There is too much concern about labeling and finding differences. We all follow Christ emergent or not emergent. The church isn't perfect and will never be until Christ returns. We all have different roles, apparently.:)
So tired so very tired.

by: gdluehosh

04-13-2010 @ 9:17pm

Cliff, I can understand your frustration. It is almost built-in to the evangelical ethos to define yourself by what you're against, and to eschew traditions for the "true essence" of Christianity (which is gnosticism, pure and simple--and it's an impossible ideal). And Shane has said many times that he and his community, The Simple Way, started off with a similar type of hubris, thinking they were "doing church right for the first time in 2000 years." But they soon learned that that was pretty naive thinking.
My experience is that folks like Shane and other "new monastics" are full of conviction yet remarkably humble about their experiments in Christian faithfulness. Nowhere in Shane's and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove's books will you find statements to the effect of "we've figured it out and everyone before us was deluded." In fact, when I met Jonathan last summer, he talked about how indebted the new monastics are to the folks that raised them. He was a Moral Majority kid in the Bible Belt, a lifestyle he later got away from. But, he told me, we wouldn't have been able to read Scripture to critique the church unless the church had taught us scripture.
Finally, I think Shane's point is not that the church has been decrepid since St. Francis and St. Clare. Rather, they are examples for us, Christians who live in a similar time of disarray and uncertainty and identity confusion, to emulate and build on their witness. And Francis didn't leave the church; rather, he got the pope's permission to start a new order. Renewal comes with commitment, not abandonment.

by: Cliff

04-13-2010 @ 10:01pm

gdluehosh, thanks for giving me some grace to vent, and also for your balanced view. I do respect Shane, and I think you are spot on about his primary point. My hope is that our elderly saints will be included in new movements, not simply as projects to fix or labeled irrelevant, but as valued children of God who still have much to share. Thanks again for bearing with my venting.

by: maverick101

04-16-2010 @ 2:10am

Can anyone point me in the direction of the First Nations Youth movements that are mentioned in the post twice (ie- a website). Thanks.

by: hammerud

04-14-2010 @ 12:31am

The problem we found with the emerging church ideas of McLaren, which began to come into our church, is the undermining of the Word of God. Since "God has exalted His Word above all His name," that was not a good thing and it caused division. Satan's primary means of hindering the work of God is to join the church, disguising himself as a "minister of righteousness." We need to be discerning. Not everything new is good.

by: NC77

04-14-2010 @ 9:11pm

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.

by: Patricia

04-14-2010 @ 10:51pm

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.

by: annabellef

04-14-2010 @ 2:25am

I still haven't figured out what "emergent" means and even this didn't clarify it much for me. Maybe I'm dense, but that's the main reason I just stick with Christian.

by: hammerud

04-14-2010 @ 11:17pm

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.

by: BlueDeacon

04-15-2010 @ 1:11am

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.

by: alicescottferguson

04-14-2010 @ 2:56am

to Cliff: imperative that the elder statesmen the Faith be solicited, heard and heeded in the emergence of all "new"movements. We have all see so many movements come and go...

by: BlueDeacon

04-15-2010 @ 1:10am

We've read your critiques before, and frankly they sound like ideology rather than theology with a little bit of envy mixed in.

by: Patricia

04-14-2010 @ 4:55am

I think, if you're going to make the accusation that Mr McLaren is undermining the Word of God without specific evidence to support your claim, that would be slander and would qualify for a flag.

And I think that if you are implying that Mr Mclaren is the equivalent of Satan, disguised as a minister of righteousness, that would violate expressing yourself with civility, courtesy, and respect even if you disagree, violate not making unfounded prejudicial assumptions, and would also be more slander and personal insult, and so would also qualify for a flag.

So...flag.

by: andrewjj

04-14-2010 @ 6:27am

shane - hey - who you calling BAD and MESSY???

great post. i totally get it. i could have almost written this myself. as you know, we stopped using the term to describe our ministries for similar reasons.
its been a great decade journeying together [longer, actually, you had purple spots in your hair when we first met in the 90's] and i look forward to our occasional bump-intos over the next decade.

by: v.small.steps.

04-14-2010 @ 5:54am

Shane, thanks so much for your post.

by: hammerud

04-14-2010 @ 8:18am

just read his writings. He fits 1 Tim 4:1.

by: David

04-17-2010 @ 9:35pm

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!!!)

by: NC77

04-14-2010 @ 1:06pm

"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 you are saying you are not part of the emergent church phenomenon and your association with it is misguided because those who associate you with it are ignorant of your community, beliefs, etc? Then why bother writing about it if it is something you do not align with? Why not give yourself wholly to what you believe the church is in this day and culture? Seems like a distraction from the plow you have set your hand to. Jesus warned us to not do that.

"So all that to say, I find the "emerging church" language, at least the Emergent

by: Patricia

04-15-2010 @ 2:57am

I would appreciate it, then, if you choose not to "re-hash" your evidence over and over, if 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.

by: Matt Pritchard

04-14-2010 @ 2:26pm

"But there's also a silent majority of old evangelicals who don't write books or blogs, and who love God with every bit of their heart, soul, mind and strength, AND who love their neighbors as themselves."

On my best day I have much less than a mustard seed of loving God with every bit of my heart mind and strength and loving my neighbors as myself (not even to start into loving my neighbors as Christ has loved me).

You're putting your finger on one of the biggest problems. Surveys reveal that those who self-identify as non-Christians largely view the church as hypocritical. But, I think they've missed the problem: we're non-confessional.

There is no majority of old evangelicals, young evangelicals, or dare I say anyone "who love[s] God with every bit of their heart, soul, mind and strength, AND who love[s] their neighbors as themselves." The reality is we suck at loving God and loving our neighbors and everyone seems to know it but us.

If we were to honestly confess, we would tell everyone that even when we try to love God and love our neighbors, we're really bad at it. That's the thing, the reason I'm a Christian is Jesus, not because I've figured out how to be Jesus. Not to say, I'm not trying to love and obey Him fully, cause I am--I still just really suck at it.

by: Patricia

04-14-2010 @ 2:17pm

Well, most of us are certainly not into that deny ourselves part :)! Now, if Jesus had only said "thou shalt grab and keep all you can", we'd be all over it :)!

by: br0ken_w1ng

04-15-2010 @ 5:03am

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

by: hammerud

04-15-2010 @ 10:52am

I accept that.

by: BlueDeacon

04-14-2010 @ 3:14pm

It's a truism, however, that almost all new "moves of God" start with the young. John Calvin wrote "Institutes of the Christian Religion" when he was 26, the same age as Martin Luther King Jr. when the Montgomery bus boycott started. Even Paul admonished Timothy, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity" (I Timothy 4:12) -- and he was likely in his 40s!

I think the problem is that many in older generations are stuck in their ways, used to things going in a certain fashion and focused on traditions, oblivious to the reality that they also are products of their times. Understanding this, several months ago at dinner I told a man in his late 20s -- I'm in my late 40s -- that "You're the next wave." We have to trust the LORD that He knows what he's doing.

by: Cliff

04-14-2010 @ 4:19pm

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.

by: Matt Pritchard

04-18-2010 @ 12:50pm

LFT,

Where is your evidence that emerging churches define themselves that way?

by: BlueDeacon

04-14-2010 @ 5:12pm

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.

by: Patricia

04-15-2010 @ 2:31pm

Thanks!

by: Stein

04-14-2010 @ 5:09pm

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.

by: FatToaster

04-20-2010 @ 8:32pm

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.

by: Cliff

04-14-2010 @ 6:22pm

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.

by: Olha

04-23-2010 @ 7:42pm

??????, ?????? ???????????? ???????????? ???? ...

???? ? ...

by: amybcaruso

04-23-2010 @ 9:35pm

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.

by: NC77

04-14-2010 @ 9:11pm

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.

by: Patricia

04-14-2010 @ 10:51pm

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.

by: hammerud

04-14-2010 @ 11:17pm

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.

by: BlueDeacon

04-15-2010 @ 1:11am

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.

by: BlueDeacon

04-15-2010 @ 1:10am

We've read your critiques before, and frankly they sound like ideology rather than theology with a little bit of envy mixed in.

by: Patricia

04-15-2010 @ 2:57am

I would appreciate it, then, if you choose not to "re-hash" your evidence over and over, if 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.

by: br0ken_w1ng

04-15-2010 @ 5:03am

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

by: hammerud

04-15-2010 @ 10:52am

I accept that.

by: FatToaster

04-20-2010 @ 8:32pm

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.

by: Patricia

04-15-2010 @ 2:31pm

Thanks!

by: amybcaruso

04-23-2010 @ 9:35pm

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.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-13-2010 @ 5:58pm

Thank you for explaining why I said in earlier line of comments that this issue was not one I was wading into--that it screams of someone having their fists wrapped around someting a bit too tightly.

by: thomas0561

04-13-2010 @ 5:39pm

Shane:

Thank you for the comments. I am reminded of a recent article published in a local paper about the restaurant chain "Hooters." The author went at great length to put a positive spin on the history of the chain and its efforts to turn it into a "Family Establishment." Yadda-yadda-yadda. However, no where did the author explain what the word "Hooters" actually meant or what it was describing.

Maybe I missed it, but what exactly is an emerging church? Is it a body of Christ that is trying to emerge from the shackles of theological denominationalism such as the Roman Catholic Church, ELCA, UCC, Southern Baptist, etc. I'm not trying to be cute or smart. I really want to know.

by: Deanne Witzke

08-31-2010 @ 5:49pm

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.

by: jesse3

04-13-2010 @ 8:02pm

Wow, I think I agree with pretty much everything you write here. Well said, Shane.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: thomas0561

04-13-2010 @ 5:39pm

Shane:

Thank you for the comments. I am reminded of a recent article published in a local paper about the restaurant chain "Hooters." The author went at great length to put a positive spin on the history of the chain and its efforts to turn it into a "Family Establishment." Yadda-yadda-yadda. However, no where did the author explain what the word "Hooters" actually meant or what it was describing.

Maybe I missed it, but what exactly is an emerging church? Is it a body of Christ that is trying to emerge from the shackles of theological denominationalism such as the Roman Catholic Church, ELCA, UCC, Southern Baptist, etc. I'm not trying to be cute or smart. I really want to know.

by: thomas0561

04-13-2010 @ 5:39pm

Shane:

Thank you for the comments. I am reminded of a recent article published in a local paper about the restaurant chain "Hooters." The author went at great length to put a positive spin on the history of the chain and its efforts to turn it into a "Family Establishment." Yadda-yadda-yadda. However, no where did the author explain what the word "Hooters" actually meant or what it was describing.

Maybe I missed it, but what exactly is an emerging church? Is it a body of Christ that is trying to emerge from the shackles of theological denominationalism such as the Roman Catholic Church, ELCA, UCC, Southern Baptist, etc. I'm not trying to be cute or smart. I really want to know.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-13-2010 @ 5:58pm

Thank you for explaining why I said in earlier line of comments that this issue was not one I was wading into--that it screams of someone having their fists wrapped around someting a bit too tightly.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-13-2010 @ 5:58pm

Thank you for explaining why I said in earlier line of comments that this issue was not one I was wading into--that it screams of someone having their fists wrapped around someting a bit too tightly.

by: Cliff

04-13-2010 @ 7:46pm

Wow, so the Church of Jesus Christ has been "in ruins" for the last 800 years (since Francis of Assisi)? It's amazing how each generation pretty much feels like the Church is total crap until they can become the predominate voice. And then, of course, THEY get it right where all the previous generations were too blind, callous, or enslaved to cultural systems to avoid screwing up. Don't get me wrong...I'm glad there is a "silent majority of young evangelicals" who are being moved to question and renew the failures of the church. But there's also a silent majority of old evangelicals who don't write books or blogs, and who love God with every bit of their heart, soul, mind and strength, AND who love their neighbors as themselves. Can our diversity include AGE as well as ethnicity and race? Can younger generations make a point of correction without completely dismissing prior generatons of Jesus followers?

by: Cliff

04-13-2010 @ 7:46pm

Wow, so the Church of Jesus Christ has been "in ruins" for the last 800 years (since Francis of Assisi)? It's amazing how each generation pretty much feels like the Church is total crap until they can become the predominate voice. And then, of course, THEY get it right where all the previous generations were too blind, callous, or enslaved to cultural systems to avoid screwing up. Don't get me wrong...I'm glad there is a "silent majority of young evangelicals" who are being moved to question and renew the failures of the church. But there's also a silent majority of old evangelicals who don't write books or blogs, and who love God with every bit of their heart, soul, mind and strength, AND who love their neighbors as themselves. Can our diversity include AGE as well as ethnicity and race? Can younger generations make a point of correction without completely dismissing prior generatons of Jesus followers?

by: jesse3

04-13-2010 @ 8:02pm

Wow, I think I agree with pretty much everything you write here. Well said, Shane.

by: jesse3

04-13-2010 @ 8:02pm

Wow, I think I agree with pretty much everything you write here. Well said, Shane.

by: gdluehosh

04-13-2010 @ 9:17pm

Cliff, I can understand your frustration. It is almost built-in to the evangelical ethos to define yourself by what you're against, and to eschew traditions for the "true essence" of Christianity (which is gnosticism, pure and simple--and it's an impossible ideal). And Shane has said many times that he and his community, The Simple Way, started off with a similar type of hubris, thinking they were "doing church right for the first time in 2000 years." But they soon learned that that was pretty naive thinking.
My experience is that folks like Shane and other "new monastics" are full of conviction yet remarkably humble about their experiments in Christian faithfulness. Nowhere in Shane's and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove's books will you find statements to the effect of "we've figured it out and everyone before us was deluded." In fact, when I met Jonathan last summer, he talked about how indebted the new monastics are to the folks that raised them. He was a Moral Majority kid in the Bible Belt, a lifestyle he later got away from. But, he told me, we wouldn't have been able to read Scripture to critique the church unless the church had taught us scripture.
Finally, I think Shane's point is not that the church has been decrepid since St. Francis and St. Clare. Rather, they are examples for us, Christians who live in a similar time of disarray and uncertainty and identity confusion, to emulate and build on their witness. And Francis didn't leave the church; rather, he got the pope's permission to start a new order. Renewal comes with commitment, not abandonment.

by: gdluehosh

04-13-2010 @ 9:17pm

Cliff, I can understand your frustration. It is almost built-in to the evangelical ethos to define yourself by what you're against, and to eschew traditions for the "true essence" of Christianity (which is gnosticism, pure and simple--and it's an impossible ideal). And Shane has said many times that he and his community, The Simple Way, started off with a similar type of hubris, thinking they were "doing church right for the first time in 2000 years." But they soon learned that that was pretty naive thinking.
My experience is that folks like Shane and other "new monastics" are full of conviction yet remarkably humble about their experiments in Christian faithfulness. Nowhere in Shane's and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove's books will you find statements to the effect of "we've figured it out and everyone before us was deluded." In fact, when I met Jonathan last summer, he talked about how indebted the new monastics are to the folks that raised them. He was a Moral Majority kid in the Bible Belt, a lifestyle he later got away from. But, he told me, we wouldn't have been able to read Scripture to critique the church unless the church had taught us scripture.
Finally, I think Shane's point is not that the church has been decrepid since St. Francis and St. Clare. Rather, they are examples for us, Christians who live in a similar time of disarray and uncertainty and identity confusion, to emulate and build on their witness. And Francis didn't leave the church; rather, he got the pope's permission to start a new order. Renewal comes with commitment, not abandonment.

by: Dadofiandi

04-13-2010 @ 9:31pm

There is too much concern about labeling and finding differences. We all follow Christ emergent or not emergent. The church isn't perfect and will never be until Christ returns. We all have different roles, apparently.:)
So tired so very tired.

by: Dadofiandi

04-13-2010 @ 9:31pm

There is too much concern about labeling and finding differences. We all follow Christ emergent or not emergent. The church isn't perfect and will never be until Christ returns. We all have different roles, apparently.:)
So tired so very tired.

by: Cliff

04-13-2010 @ 10:01pm

gdluehosh, thanks for giving me some grace to vent, and also for your balanced view. I do respect Shane, and I think you are spot on about his primary point. My hope is that our elderly saints will be included in new movements, not simply as projects to fix or labeled irrelevant, but as valued children of God who still have much to share. Thanks again for bearing with my venting.

by: Cliff

04-13-2010 @ 10:01pm

gdluehosh, thanks for giving me some grace to vent, and also for your balanced view. I do respect Shane, and I think you are spot on about his primary point. My hope is that our elderly saints will be included in new movements, not simply as projects to fix or labeled irrelevant, but as valued children of God who still have much to share. Thanks again for bearing with my venting.

by: hammerud

04-14-2010 @ 12:31am

The problem we found with the emerging church ideas of McLaren, which began to come into our church, is the undermining of the Word of God. Since "God has exalted His Word above all His name," that was not a good thing and it caused division. Satan's primary means of hindering the work of God is to join the church, disguising himself as a "minister of righteousness." We need to be discerning. Not everything new is good.

by: hammerud

04-14-2010 @ 12:31am

The problem we found with the emerging church ideas of McLaren, which began to come into our church, is the undermining of the Word of God. Since "God has exalted His Word above all His name," that was not a good thing and it caused division. Satan's primary means of hindering the work of God is to join the church, disguising himself as a "minister of righteousness." We need to be discerning. Not everything new is good.

by: annabellef

04-14-2010 @ 2:25am

I still haven't figured out what "emergent" means and even this didn't clarify it much for me. Maybe I'm dense, but that's the main reason I just stick with Christian.

by: annabellef

04-14-2010 @ 2:25am

I still haven't figured out what "emergent" means and even this didn't clarify it much for me. Maybe I'm dense, but that's the main reason I just stick with Christian.

by: alicescottferguson

04-14-2010 @ 2:56am

to Cliff: imperative that the elder statesmen the Faith be solicited, heard and heeded in the emergence of all "new"movements. We have all see so many movements come and go...

by: alicescottferguson

04-14-2010 @ 2:56am

to Cliff: imperative that the elder statesmen the Faith be solicited, heard and heeded in the emergence of all "new"movements. We have all see so many movements come and go...

by: Patricia

04-14-2010 @ 4:55am

I think, if you're going to make the accusation that Mr McLaren is undermining the Word of God without specific evidence to support your claim, that would be slander and would qualify for a flag.

And I think that if you are implying that Mr Mclaren is the equivalent of Satan, disguised as a minister of righteousness, that would violate expressing yourself with civility, courtesy, and respect even if you disagree, violate not making unfounded prejudicial assumptions, and would also be more slander and personal insult, and so would also qualify for a flag.

So...flag.

by: Patricia

04-14-2010 @ 4:55am

I think, if you're going to make the accusation that Mr McLaren is undermining the Word of God without specific evidence to support your claim, that would be slander and would qualify for a flag.

And I think that if you are implying that Mr Mclaren is the equivalent of Satan, disguised as a minister of righteousness, that would violate expressing yourself with civility, courtesy, and respect even if you disagree, violate not making unfounded prejudicial assumptions, and would also be more slander and personal insult, and so would also qualify for a flag.

So...flag.

by: v.small.steps.

04-14-2010 @ 5:54am

Shane, thanks so much for your post.

by: v.small.steps.

04-14-2010 @ 5:54am

Shane, thanks so much for your post.

by: andrewjj

04-14-2010 @ 6:27am

shane - hey - who you calling BAD and MESSY???

great post. i totally get it. i could have almost written this myself. as you know, we stopped using the term to describe our ministries for similar reasons.
its been a great decade journeying together [longer, actually, you had purple spots in your hair when we first met in the 90's] and i look forward to our occasional bump-intos over the next decade.

by: andrewjj

04-14-2010 @ 6:27am

shane - hey - who you calling BAD and MESSY???

great post. i totally get it. i could have almost written this myself. as you know, we stopped using the term to describe our ministries for similar reasons.
its been a great decade journeying together [longer, actually, you had purple spots in your hair when we first met in the 90's] and i look forward to our occasional bump-intos over the next decade.

by: hammerud

04-14-2010 @ 8:18am

just read his writings. He fits 1 Tim 4:1.

by: hammerud

04-14-2010 @ 8:18am

just read his writings. He fits 1 Tim 4:1.

by: NC77

04-14-2010 @ 1:06pm

"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 you are saying you are not part of the emergent church phenomenon and your association with it is misguided because those who associate you with it are ignorant of your community, beliefs, etc? Then why bother writing about it if it is something you do not align with? Why not give yourself wholly to what you believe the church is in this day and culture? Seems like a distraction from the plow you have set your hand to. Jesus warned us to not do that.

"So all that to say, I find the "emerging church" language, at least the Emergent

by: NC77

04-14-2010 @ 1:06pm

"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 you are saying you are not part of the emergent church phenomenon and your association with it is misguided because those who associate you with it are ignorant of your community, beliefs, etc? Then why bother writing about it if it is something you do not align with? Why not give yourself wholly to what you believe the church is in this day and culture? Seems like a distraction from the plow you have set your hand to. Jesus warned us to not do that.

"So all that to say, I find the "emerging church" language, at least the Emergent

by: Patricia

04-14-2010 @ 2:17pm

Well, most of us are certainly not into that deny ourselves part :)! Now, if Jesus had only said "thou shalt grab and keep all you can", we'd be all over it :)!

by: Patricia

04-14-2010 @ 2:17pm

Well, most of us are certainly not into that deny ourselves part :)! Now, if Jesus had only said "thou shalt grab and keep all you can", we'd be all over it :)!

by: Matt Pritchard

04-14-2010 @ 2:26pm

"But there's also a silent majority of old evangelicals who don't write books or blogs, and who love God with every bit of their heart, soul, mind and strength, AND who love their neighbors as themselves."

On my best day I have much less than a mustard seed of loving God with every bit of my heart mind and strength and loving my neighbors as myself (not even to start into loving my neighbors as Christ has loved me).

You're putting your finger on one of the biggest problems. Surveys reveal that those who self-identify as non-Christians largely view the church as hypocritical. But, I think they've missed the problem: we're non-confessional.

There is no majority of old evangelicals, young evangelicals, or dare I say anyone "who love[s] God with every bit of their heart, soul, mind and strength, AND who love[s] their neighbors as themselves." The reality is we suck at loving God and loving our neighbors and everyone seems to know it but us.

If we were to honestly confess, we would tell everyone that even when we try to love God and love our neighbors, we're really bad at it. That's the thing, the reason I'm a Christian is Jesus, not because I've figured out how to be Jesus. Not to say, I'm not trying to love and obey Him fully, cause I am--I still just really suck at it.

by: BlueDeacon

04-14-2010 @ 3:14pm

It's a truism, however, that almost all new "moves of God" start with the young. John Calvin wrote "Institutes of the Christian Religion" when he was 26, the same age as Martin Luther King Jr. when the Montgomery bus boycott started. Even Paul admonished Timothy, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity" (I Timothy 4:12) -- and he was likely in his 40s!

I think the problem is that many in older generations are stuck in their ways, used to things going in a certain fashion and focused on traditions, oblivious to the reality that they also are products of their times. Understanding this, several months ago at dinner I told a man in his late 20s -- I'm in my late 40s -- that "You're the next wave." We have to trust the LORD that He knows what he's doing.

by: Cliff

04-14-2010 @ 4:19pm

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.

by: Stein

04-14-2010 @ 5:09pm

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.

by: BlueDeacon

04-14-2010 @ 5:12pm

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.

by: Cliff

04-14-2010 @ 6:22pm

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.

by: Cliff

04-14-2010 @ 6:22pm

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.

by: NC77

04-14-2010 @ 9:11pm

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.

by: NC77

04-14-2010 @ 9:11pm

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.

by: Patricia

04-14-2010 @ 10:51pm

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.

by: Patricia

04-14-2010 @ 10:51pm

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.

by: hammerud

04-14-2010 @ 11:17pm

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.

by: hammerud

04-14-2010 @ 11:17pm

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.

by: BlueDeacon

04-15-2010 @ 1:10am

We've read your critiques before, and frankly they sound like ideology rather than theology with a little bit of envy mixed in.

by: BlueDeacon

04-15-2010 @ 1:10am

We've read your critiques before, and frankly they sound like ideology rather than theology with a little bit of envy mixed in.

by: BlueDeacon

04-15-2010 @ 1:11am

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.

by: BlueDeacon

04-15-2010 @ 1:11am

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.

by: Patricia

04-15-2010 @ 2:57am

I would appreciate it, then, if you choose not to "re-hash" your evidence over and over, if 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.