The Emergent Moment

Am just wondering if this quote from your article above contains a spelling error “as a viral network of friends”? Should that be
“vital network of friends” (note word `viral’ as opposed to `vital’).

I agree with the rest of the main thrust of your article.

“viral” is a term which refers to the method of growth and connection via the internet. It is a relatively new term often used in regards to online videos or websites.

Thanks for the clarification Scott. Think I have seen it “viral” used before by someone else in the context you described.

Want to now reply to Tony Jones’s article, The Emergent Moment.

I agree with the main points made by Tony.

I’ve been engaging with the emergent/emerging church movement for about 2 years.

I think part of the problem is about people’s erroneous perceptions about what the emergent movement is on about, ignorance about what it actually believes, its aims etc.

Want to throw in a few thoughts about this:

* Its lack of ability to simply and clearly identify and define itself and its main goals. For instance, describing what it is and what its aims are to others who know nothing about it is invariably a highly complex task to undertake.

* Generalised theological ignorance/illiteracy of the mainstream faith community about contemporary missiology and incarnational theology in particular. We supposably are part of the most theologically literate generation of Christians the world has ever known according to some researchers, but in my opinion that “literacy” needs to be put into a particular context. Yes, Christians are reading far more literature written by other Christians. But I suspect a lot of what is being sold at Christian bookshops appears to be `light’ reading or devotional stuff written by authors of evangelical-conservative or fundamentalist persuasion, rather than that written by deep thinks such as Barth, Tillich, Bosch, Bonhoeffer, Brueggemann, Frost, Hirsch, McLaren or similar others.
And many of the harshest criticisms that arise about emergent theology come from those who have something to lose (eg. jobs, control of a congregation, status) from the deinstitutionalization of the mainstream church. They have a vested and personal interest in keeping their fellow Christians `dumbed down’ about emergent theology because often it is their careers and religious statuses that are at stake if deinstitutionalization of the mainstream church occurs.

* Intellectual elitism – it is very apparent from my observations of countless blogs on EM websites that most people who submit blogs to those appear to be pastoral leaders or church workers who are already highly theologically trained and literate. There is not much representation from people who are not from that sort of background ie most other Christians. The EM, I argue, despite wanting to, has not found ways to successfully engage “normal” Christians from working-class, poor and less educated backgrounds into their “conversation of friends”. In that I think the EM is pretty much like the rest of the Church – typically a middle-class, novae countercultural movement within Christian intellectualism, which is something it really doesn’t want to be seen as, but actually is.

* Another criticism I have encountered a few times is an allegation that the EM is engaged in “techniquism” a lot of the time. (I don’t personally agree with that criticism). One person said to me [a former minister who was responding to an article I had sent him earlier by Sally Morgenthaler about Worship As Evangelism posted on Allenon’s website in July 2007 to give what he said a context ]: “The only real question seems to be “does it work?...In my view this whole adventure [using contemporary worship extravaganzas as a sort of substitute for outreach] was poorly conceived from the start: `let’s create a church that the unchurched will feel comfortable in’ [the general aim of doing so]. This message has permeated the western church and has been very difficult to deal with. In my view it has been a means of diluting the Church. My profound concern is that the emergent church accepts this techniquism and instead focuses on postmodern people (instead of the boomers of a generation ago). If it did not work then it will not work now. But more importantly why should it work? Surely what is needed is simply a bigger God and a church with a bigger heart to love and serve Him. Therein lies the path to spiritual renewal and the redemption of our culture”.
Its not the first time I have heard this sort of criticism about the EM, so I think its worthy of some sort of response.

I think there is still a lot of misunderstanding about among `normal’ (by that I mean Xns without B Theols, PHD’s in missiology etc) X’ns about what the EM is about, what it believes, who it is for, and why it does and says what it does. Is it just something for missiology experts, ex-1970’s era Jesus People types nostalgic for something similar mission-culturally to when they were youths themselves (the top EM leadership is very heavily dominated by men in their 50’s who were products of the JP Movement), or is it truly engaging with `normal’ Christians (non-theologically educated to degree’d status) from all backgrounds apart from those of counter-cultural orientation (eg. hippies, new age type people etc)? Is it adequately targeting its educative resources to the “EM uninitiated” suitably?

Questions like those need to be raised, argued about and resolved.

(By the way, just for the record I am theologically educated, an early 1970’s Jesus People Movement convert, involved in missional-incarnational stuff. So I am very comfortable culturally with what the EM is saying and doing. My main point above is that some criticism when you do something different is inevitable. But much criticism against the EM comes about because of ignorance and possibly poor communication between the parties involved. I personally believe that most EM people only mix with EM people in “doing church stuff” – very limiting when it comes to getting the message or “conversation” about EM stuff to new people in the wider Church).

Anyway, that’s what I’ve been thinking about in response to Tony’s article.

Hi all,

First, I have only recently been reading a bit about the emergent church and I am trying to get a handle on what it actually is. I have read a lot that is self-identified as being a part of it or supportive of it, but even in these various contexts I do not have a sense of what “it” is.

I am a Presbyterisn (USA) and even on the PCUSA website there is clear mention of mission activity and pleas for increased mission support, etc. and other ideas that are the same as what I have heard from emergent church literature. SO I am having a hard time discerning what “it” actually is apart from the church of which I am a member is as well.

Second, and related, who is claiming that the emergent church is heretical? I have not seen language of that sort from any sources. If someone could point me to that I would be appreciative.

If you go to my website there is a comments area that goes to my inbox and any information you have on this you can always feel free to pass along there as well.

Regards.