Or something like that.
So I’ve been doing a little research on this emerging church thing. Not much, yet. As you can probably see on my reading list below, much more is coming.
From dipping my toes into the various blogs and sites Google dredged up for me, the emerging church seems to be controversial at best. There are two critiques that caught my attention:
1) One writer contended that emerging churches favor narrative sermons rather than sound exegesis, preferring to relate to the listener rather than educating him. He wanted to know where the original Greek and theological ideas were.
2) The church is necessarily modern, therefore shouldn’t try to cater to postmodernity.
Today I was happily thinking myself an emergent. I read over these critiques and was surprised at them. As for the first, it seems like a massive generalization. Why wouldn’t you combine the two – in any church, even if not emergent? Stories and narrative are crucial to the human experience. So are church history and theology – they would be integrated into the narrative, would they not? They’re part of the story. I don’t see how that is an either-or decision. As for the second, well, I disagree.
As an English major, I love narrative. I also love the return to traditional liturgy that some emergent churches favor, because I feel like it connects me to a family of faith that stretches back for two millenia, to my fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers in the faith. I like the idea of incorporating different talents like art into worship. And I love the emphasis that the emergent church places on relationships and conversation.
So my question for you is, how do you feel about the emergent church? What are some objections you can come up with that would help educate me? What are some benefits you see? What are some holes you could fill in my education on this topic?
keith said
If I were you…..I would not have anything to do with the emergent church movement. Check out this site: http://www.understandthetimes.org/ec/exposingec.shtml
mikeoles3 said
a good new book just came out that gives a good history of the emerging church. it is called “The New Christians” by Tony Jones.
I would also check out Shane Claiborn’s Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radicals
Good luck on your journey.
don’t listen to the first commenter
Thomas Rasmussen said
I’d recommend checking out http://www.emergentvillage.com, listen to some of the podcasts, surf around, check out other blogs that link to that site and get a feel for things, join in the conversation whenever you like, and get to know people.
Mike said
First of all, there is an important distinction to be made between the Emergent Movement and Emerging Churches. Many public Emergent leaders have now disassociated with the movement while remaining Emerging Churches (i.e. Mark Driscoll). Second, both of the above terms are far to vague and wide to even begin to strap down a definition for- only time and history will give us a clear look at this movement (you can really only understand history looking backwards). Third, I think the phrase “The church is necessarily modern’ is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The entire populace of culture is moving into “post-modernity” and if the church does not follow we will soon find ourselves irrelevant to the culture we are charged to subdue and restore for the kingdom. Like the term Emerging, the term Post-modern is also too wide a topic to define or label as of yet. A few thoughts on it- postmodern does NOT mean relativism. It simply means “rejected the thought of modernity” – which, ironically, is what led to the idea of relativism. ((If you have to question everything, the basic contribution of modernity, then you have to question even that basic truth and you find yourself in and endless circle of relativism and impossibility- hence the movement into “post-modernity”))
Much more to say on both topics.. but just some thoughts.
Mike
mike@fcccdoc.org
keith said
If all you want in a church is a name it and claim it or tag it and bag it church…..then by all means go for the emergent church. The congregation of the emergent churches just need to have their ears tickled. They have itching ears……they want to be told what they want to hear….and the pastors are happy to mislead them because it’s all about numbers and money….no salvation. Don’t pay attention to to mike….he is obviously confused.
talithakoum said
For those of you who responded directly to other commenters (mikeoles and keith), I would love it if you would point out exactly what is incorrect with the comment you are responding to. This way, I can see the positives and negatives of both sides, and you, oh lucky commenters, get to contribute to my education.
Though Keith, I must say, what you are describing sounds like a different movement that the emerging church, which in my research places a huge emphasis on social justice, living out what they see as the teachings of Jesus, and missional living. That doesn’t correlate so much with “numbers and money.” That sounds to me a little more similar to the megachurches that started popping up in recent decades.
Mike said
Keith:
I’m interested as to know how I am confused. You make that comment so confidently with seemingly no facts or thoughts to support it.
You seem to be making a judgment call on a philosophical (and God help us, theological) movement based on the demographics and happenings of a few congregations. If I did that to the Baptists, or the Catholics, or whatever denomination you hold, I would surely get the same results. Your first statement seems to confuse the “Word of Faith” movement with the Emergent movement; whereas it seems to me the two are almost opposite poles. The phrases “name it and claim it” are not maxims of the Emergent church- rather an ignorant ad hominem attack on something you obviously have had no real interaction or serious thought about. I am a charismatic calvinist and at the church I work at we preach through books of the Bible- paying no heed to tickling ears. ((oh, and last I checked we definitely don’t have numbers OR money, haha))
If all you want to contribute to the conversation are uninformed and wrongly placed axioms then by all means..
name it and claim it.
Mike
mike@fcccdoc.org
keith said
Mike……Check out the thousands of links about the emerging or emergent cult…..not church……don’t take my word for it. Seems your mind is made up…..ride it out cowboy….there is a way that seems right to man…but the end are the ways of death. KJV
Dave Hitchcock said
I really don’t know all that much about the “emergent church” movement or whatever, but here’s what I do know. We’re instructed to rightly divide God’s Word, teach sound doctrine, and be faithful stewards of God’s Word and God’s people. Any and every church fails in this aspect to some degree, because any and every church has MEN who are involved in the leadership. If the emergent church is more based on catering to the emotions of individuals rather than Scriptural exegesis, then it’s like both of Great Awakenings we had in this country. Should our walk with God be based on emotion? No. Should a church be a place where people can go to have their emotional needs met? Absolutely. I guess all I’m trying to say here is that every church, denomination, movement, whatever, has it’s upsides and it’s drawbacks, and instead of bantering over labels and movements and identifications with said labels and movements, why not just be thankful Christ is being preached and that God’s Word is being held forth (to whatever extent the rightly divided Word of God is indeed being held forth)? Let’s just identify ourselves with Christ, study as much as we can to come to a knowledge of the truth, and then we can show it to other brothers and sisters in Christ who may have erroneous ideas about what Scripture says.
Also, I have not yet read the links, but I DO know that there have been a lot of GREAT movements in the Church originally labelled as cults by the large churches of the time (Lutherans by Catholics, Calvinists by everyone, Wesley, etc.). That does not make them WRONG, or actually CULTS. Look up the definition of a cult sometime, as well as do a study on the Greek word for heretic. The Jewish leaders back in the day called Paul the apostle a cult leader. Did that make him a cult leader? No, of course not. So just because this has been labelled as a cult by mainstream Christianity, or it’s a popular thing to call it a cult right now, does NOT by any means actually MAKE it a cult. It doesn’t even make it wrong. There is no standard by which to adequately judge right and wrong except by the Word of God. Not what your pastor, or priest, clergy man, favorite church website, friends, etc., says about it, but what the Word actually says. Is someone a cult just because they believe something that doesn’t line up with the Word of God? If so, we’re all part of a cult, because I hope none of you are actually arrogant enough to think you’ve got it all right.
egeiro said
So.. I gotta say. Mike is totally right here. And Keith is a moron.
Just my thoughts..
=)