Sun 17 Jun 2007
At the GRC a couple fo weeks ago one member of the panel was interested in my defining the emerging church movement more than I could, wanted to know if there were any set of beliefs that would define the emerging church as opposed to other forms of church. I told her that any definition would seem to be the eventual end of the movement as “emerging” and its start as “emerged”.
Later I was forwarded an email by this panel member, sent to my supervisor, regarding her questions about my research, and a similar comment appeared: “Boundary issues: I think how these are negotiated is probably important to the identity of the EC participants and EC as a whole. What defines where this community ends. How do you become part of it. Are boundaries established via networked communication, or are they established offline then merely maintained on the network. etc. An example is how they treat newbies–it may reveal the groups agendas and politics.”
I’m thinking a lot about it today, and coming to the same conclusion. When it comes to the emerging church, if you come along, then you’re part of it. There aren’t many propositions or issues that people who identify with the movement are afraid of exploring, even if they’re seen as criticisms or attacks against it.
But I’m putting the question out there: what are the deal-breakers for the emerging church? Are there particular styles of worship, prayers or liturgies, Christian theological or christological propositions, ways of interpreting scripture, model or style of ministry, way of viewing the world (political or moral position), that would make the emerging church shake its head and say, “Sorry dude, but that aint us”?
Maybe I can think of some specific things:
1. Can there be a bishop in an emerging church?
2. Can a community have a problem with a woman leader or minister and still be emerging?
3. Can an emerging community have more than a thousand members?
4. Can an emerging church have investments in a for-profit business or corporation?
5. Can an emerging church have an opposition to postmodern thoughts or theories?
6. Can a fundamentalist also be emerging?
Waddayareckon?
June 17th, 2007 at 22:12
1. Yes, there’s lots of people in the EC who have prominent roles in the institutional church and its apparatus (like theol colleges). Will there one-day be Anglican bishops with specific oversight for ECs and direct local affiliation - probably.
2. Can you be emerging and theologically unfashionable? I ask myself that a lot. I suspect the answer must be yes, but maybe you just can’t be overt about it?
3. If satellite-networking counts then sure, it’s already there.
4. I suspect this would be a deal-breaker. In fact, I would say based on some books that are fashionable this year, working for a corporation might make people relational lepers in some EC.
5. The naive account of post-modernity seems to be a foundational narrative for the EC. I can’t recall a major work that deviates from it. However, I’m not sure everyone who identifies with the EC in Asia, for example, is sold on post-modernity.
6. See 2. I’ve read a number of SBC-Emerging blogs so I think the answer is yes. Lots of people I have met hold a compatibalist position endorsing both a conservatively theological outlook and a postmodern view of social conditions (you can read Bauman and early Baudrillard in this way). Lots more though *claim* this compatibalism, but really are semi-reconstructed liberals.
June 18th, 2007 at 19:10
Hmm, sounds like a request to thrash out an emerging ecclesiology, and at that point it might cease to be a movement and become more ‘denominational’.
This is an issue I run into when discussing ecclesiology in the evangelical environment. Some really want there to be a distinctive ecclesiology - an evangelicalism that stands apart from denominational distinctives - while others are happy to see it as a broad movement represented in a range of distinctive ecclesiological settings. When does the movement solidify into something else?
I think that tension is present in my observations and discussions over the EC. Some want it to be defined against something, others see it as a variation upon an ecclesiological theme (e.g. EC within the Anglican church in the UK). I’m sure geographic location would shape that too.
1. Can there be a bishop in an emerging church?
Well, there are definitely voices that are considered more ‘authoritative’ than others in some circles. Might not bear the title though - and if the EC is broad enough movement then why not bishops from denominations as part of it?
2. Can a community have a problem with a woman leader or minister and still be emerging?
Well, if emerging is a process then maybe. If the EC is being ‘manifested’ in a traditional or conservative setting then it would be something that should agitate for change, perhaps?
Still, if you check out EC conferences, speakers, panels etc. how many female voices are heard?
3. Can an emerging community have more than a thousand members?
Define community and membership
4. Can an emerging church have investments in a for-profit business or corporation?
That’s a really good question. Certainly certain brands (Apple?) seem to be associated with the EC including some for-profit (yet possibly more ethical?) ventures.
I’ll see if I can find any examples.
5. Can an emerging church have an opposition to postmodern thoughts or theories?
Some voices seem to be able to critique what Fernando called the “naive account of post-modernity”. I guess they’d be a tension over focus on praxis vs. intellectual engagement that might hinder a deeper critique. Leads into another question - in what ways might the EC support an anti-intellectualism?
6. Can a fundamentalist also be emerging?
A great question. Thinking all sorts of thoughts about it.
Some of the voices who define themselves against other forms/models/experiences of church might slide into a form of ‘fundamentalism’ - a core set of beliefs or values that must be maintained/rejected to be EC “orthodox”.
June 19th, 2007 at 20:55
Hey Fernando and Stephen,
mmmm, interesting reflections. Yeah I think I’m with both of you on most of those points. It seems like emerging church will be open to all of those things, I guess because emerging church is borne on histories that contain those things, and will bear the marks of them.
June 20th, 2007 at 07:10
Paul,
Remembered these links relating to for-profit business etc. I don’t think it’s as anathema as Fernando might make out - but - that might also depend on the socio-political location of the EC community in question.
And that investment might not just be financial but also empathetic. For example:
http://jonnybaker.blogs.com/jonnybaker/2005/04/howies_tread_li.html
http://jonnybaker.blogs.com/jonnybaker/2007/02/howies_liturgy_.html
I’ve definitely seen stuff promoting ‘Fair Trade’ investments - which are for-profit companies but seeking to distribute their profits more fairly to the producers.
What would be interesting would be to see who sponsors EC meetings and conferences etc? And does having affiliate links on the EC blogs and web sites (e.g. Amazon) count as investment in for-profit companies?
Stephen.