Four Types of Emerging Churches and Their Thinkers

Hey i wanted to read the rest of this article but could not access it from the link provided. Although i think there are possibilities with the suggested typology the representative thinkers seem to haphazardly grouped together. Shouldnt the foundationalist model include some theological or philosophical figures like theologians Millard J. Erickson or D.A. Carson? At least they fit the foundationalist category but certainly not the seeker friendly model that these foundationalists find themselves in. Also, should their be some practitioners in the 2nd and 3rd categories? I would also think that McLaren and Jones would be seen as critical realists or soft postmodernists and not deconstructionists. The word deconstruction is routinely misunderstood by Evangelicals who take it as a synonym for critical thinking. Despite my criticisms i really like the attempt at a broader philosophical/theological categorization of contemporary “emergent” types. Perhaps if just one seminal philosophical and or theological thinker was coupled with an emergent practitioner then i think the typology would be more compelling. For instance Mclaren and Jones would fit more properly under a post-foundationalist model with Stan Grenz. This would play out better in its contrast to the foundationalist model with Driscoll and Carson. Maybe a conversation with some fellow emergent folk and a couple of theologians could tighten this up?

hi james – great comment and thanks for the feedback. I will add in the suggested theologians, you’re right about them fitting in with that grouping. I just overlooked their influence.

In terms of deconstruction, I am pretty sure I am not mis-using it here, I’ve got a pretty good grasp on what it means. I might be wrong about McLaren (I am not sure where he fits nice – maybe #3) but I am pretty sure, from the things I’ve read on Jones that he is more and more interested in continental philosophy and deconstruction (I don’t see this as a bad thing). I don’t know if he’d consider himself a “soft postmodernist” but then again I am not sure what that means. I would argue that Grenz isn’t a pure post-foundationalist at least insofar as his understanding of Language is still rooted in a representational framework and not on a more Wittgensteinian model (and I would think Jones would be).

It sounds like you may have suggestions on a fifth model though – critial realism or soft-postmodernism? I’d be interested to see what you mean by them and if you think they are a separate grouping? I do feel another group might help with some of the disconnect.