Where Does Emergence Fit In the Christian Tribes?

The irony is that most “emerging church” people that I know and whose books I read are affiliated with the Institutional Church!

I’ve never felt left out or not included; rather, I see some groups being more ‘radically’ emerging than others…

I actually think it’s a bit presumptious to make charts of “who’s in and who’s out” without some sort of data to back it up

I would be surprised if the data corresponded with the chart…then again, most of the terms are loosely defined terms.

I’ve yet to meet an Southern Baptist who sees themselves as a hardcore Fundamentalist (but the rest of us see it clearly). That is to say that our perceptions of these terms in fact cloud an objective understanding of anything less than empirical data.

Presumptuous, and a bit arrogant. Using a broad brush to describe any group, and specifically Institutionalhists, grossly simplifies the discussion, something I find more in common with fundamentalists. My experience across many, many “tribes” is that while the “official” stance may be firmly footed in no change, the people that actually do the ministry generally could care less. They want more conversation and cross-fertilization.

In some minor defense of myself, if you read the preceding post I originally made on this topic I never claim this to be gospel or statistical fact (the post here at Emergent Village is very much a “part two”). This is just a construct to facilitate contemplation and hopefully conversation. I don’t think acknowledging that people have primary categories of living out their faith is reductionistic unless we imagine that it is all they do, or that an individual is occupying only one category – and I clearly assert that isn’t the case. But in the case of institutionalists (and I’m referring to institutionalists that are not “Emergent institutionalists” which I admittedly neglected to think about) I know plenty of people like this, I imagine you do as well. In my own case I have met many Episcopalians who are, first and foremost, are Episcopalian and could not care less what is happening in the wider church – and this is something I’ve seen repeatedly from both an insider and outsider view of Christianity.

Is it the beginning and end of that person? Of course not! But I’ve found, at least in my own life and when I’ve had to explain some idea or another, that breaking down the infinite complexity of human behavior into some sort of system is helpful in people gaining some understanding of it. Such is my attempt here. There is always the danger of reductionism, but that threat is everywhere.

It might not help everyone, perhaps it isn’t useful at all – but don’t mistake an idea that is being tossed around for someone asserting some sort of cosmic truth, it’s not and I’m certainly not.

In regards to data, such data is simply not available in any meaningful way. Most of the religious data sets we see are very much limited by self-identification or gross simplification and distortion of the questions. Such data might be useful in a highly abstract way for the use of academic papers, but say very little about our lived experience of faith and practice. I’m not against such exercises, but this is distinctly not that and nor would I have it be.

I really don’t want to be snarky or mean, but this chart confirms some theories I have. While the “emergent conversation is directed at the whole Church”, the whole church, for the most part, could care less. The 200 million persecuted Christians in China, the rapidly expanding Latin American pentecostals, the deeply evangelistic Koreans, the burgeoning African Church are all focused on accomplishing Christ’s mission. This chart illustrates that emergents take themselves way too seriously and posess an exaggerated sense of self importance. Emergents write books about themselves, interview each other, hold conferences to discuss their movement. They even invent special code language with terms like “cohorts”, the “conversation”, “missional”, “POMO”, “deconstruction” etc. These are shibboleths that help emergents identify one another and separate them from the rest of the church.

The grandiose vision as Tripp Fuller defines it for the 2010 The Handbook of Denominations is “Calling for the dismantling of imperialistic Christianity (Christendom), particularly those structures that impede faithful living.” What a mission statement, “Dismantle Christendom”. This herculean task is, of course, doomed to failure because Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” My theory is that emergents will simply be noted as a white, middle class American left wing political movement deriving from the mainline Christian denominations of the early 21 century whose theology was confused and syncretistic, much like the Unitarians. The Albigensians of the 13 century became a footnote in Church History in part because they did not believe in procreation and the movement died for lack of new members. Likewise, the antipathy that most emergents have towards evangelism will relegate it to a similar place in Church history.

If we could drop the special language, drop the pretensions, drop the antagonism towards the rest of the Church (including that pejorative label, “fundamentalists”), tone down the political rhetoric, celebrate the unity we share in Christ instead or charting out our place, perhaps we could make some progress towards accomplishing our common mission.

The comment above, I think, misses a lot of things that Western culture specifically, and human culture as a whole, are progressing through. I’m sure many of us can point to many of these things.

But at the moment, I just want to address the critique of the goal to dismantle Christendom. The commenter here seems to have a disconnect, in that he equates Christendom with the church that Jesus built. Let’s establish, for this discussion, that these are not at all, and never have been, the same things. The church is what all of us want to help. We can agree on that. Christendom is what many of us believe began its attempt to dominate the church in the time of Constantine, and has continued to do so, to our detriment, ever since. I wish more of us wanted to dismantle it.

In any case, I can admit that it is possible that emergent will fade away as a footnote. But it is also possible that Phyllis Tickle and others are right.

Gideon, I think it will be very easy to misread what you have done here as some means to communicate our own perception, when in truth it sounds like its more of a brainstorm session thrown up on the wall.

I don’t share Rick’s concern for language because any system will eventually define itself in language. To see that as codewords, misses the point. Any attempt to communicate could in essence be termed codeword if used as Rick suggests. It’s the exclusion that Rick implies that I have never seen. Cohorts as example are radically inclusive in nature, at least the ones I have participated in.

But I would say this. I think I find Phyllis Tickle’s a little more realistic because she draws the frame around everyone, allowing the fundamentalists to hide in the far corners.

Just my take.

So are the 200 million Chinese Christians “Christendom?” Or are the 380 million African Christians “Christendom?” Or the 12 million dedicated Korean Christians? Or is it only American Christians you want to dismantle? If present trends continue, by 2025 there will be 633 million Christians in Africa, 640 million in South America, and 460 million in Asia. By 2050, to extrapolate further, only a fifth of the world’s Christians will be non-Hispanic whites. And the overwhelming majority of those are theologically conservative, evangelistic, charismatic believers. A Kenyan scholar says, “the centers of the church’s universality [are] no longer in Geneva, Rome, Athens, Paris, London, New York, but Kinshasa, Buenos Aires, Addis Ababa and Manila.” So perhaps you could indentify the Christendom you are wanting to dismantle?

Unfortunately, Western Christianity continues to influence christian theology globally. Christendom is everywhere. But as an African American male, I can say that the emergent discussion, or whatever you want to call it has indeed always seemed closed to me. Furthermore, my internal debate is whether I actually want to be identified with these labels to begin with. Not sure I really want to affirm once again a group of white males controlling and dominating the theological discussion. Let’s be honest about what is happening. I mean really, if people really wanted other voices included, they would have intentionally sought them out. A lot of this stuff talked about is old in many black churches anyway. Just saying, it is time to call a spade a spade. I am excited about the emergent and missional shift I see taking place among many young white Christians, but let’s not pretend it is something it is not.

When you say that “Christendom is what many of us believe began its attempt to dominate the church in the time of Constantine, and has continued to do so, to our detriment, ever since” says nothing about who or what this hypothetical christendom is today. Perhaps you are wanting to dismantle the Roman Catholic Church, or the Orthodox church? “Dismantling Christendom” and “Allowing the fundamentalists to hide in the far corner” is the language of exclusion, actually the language of the bully.

Southern Baptists are the largest protestant denomination in America with over 16 million. Is it these fundamentalist Christians that you want to “Hide in the far corner?” Or is it the Assembly of God that you want to “Hide in the far corner” or the Church of God in Christ, the theologically conservative, fundamentalist black denomination that should be hiding in the far corner? This is not sounding “radically inclusive”. And what exactly is “radically inclusive?” (Other than hyperbole). Does it mean cohorts include many races, genders, sexual preferences, ages, and economic levels? I can find that Sunday morning or in a home Bible study…we just don’t call it “radically inclusive”. In 1901 William Seymour, a black man, began to pastor a congregation of white people and other races in his Azuza Street Church in LA, launching a move of the Spirit that’s been going on for more than 100 years. Drew’s point is well taken, a lot of this stuff is old. In our city the churches joined together and volunteered time, people and resources to upgrade, paint and do maintenance for public schools this summer. Most of those churches were theologically conservative and fundamentalist. So I suppose we were missional?

The in group code words, the constant moralizing (against consumerism, capitalism, imperialism, sexism, fundamentalism, you-name-it-ism), the superiority (we will allow you to hide in a far corner), the antagonism towards other Christians (we are going to dismantle Christendom) and the antipathy for all things American gets wearisome. Who gets to decide what is Christendom and what is not? Should I feel embarrassed because I say I love the Lord Jesus, is that too pietist? Can I not tell people about Jesus and what He has done for me? Is that too individualistic, not communal enough, an old evangelistic paradigm? Can I lay hands on the sick and pray for their recovery? I know that’s too something…it will come to me. It may not be working for a few upper middle class white post modern religionists but for hundreds of millions of Christ followers on every continent, it could not be more contemporary, life changing and exciting.

Rick,

Your critiques here are very helpful, because they help us to see our “blind spots”—the places where our language does not jive with the spirit of the thing it is we say we are a part of, the “generative friendship of missional Christians,” etc. When our desire for “radical inclusiveness” comes off as hyperbole and superiority, then we need to pay attention and humbly thank you for pointing out our weaknesses.

Your passion for the global church and for a pentecostal expression of faith (at least that’s what I’m detecting) are refreshing and welcome. At least, I want to say that I welcome them! Too often our conversations about emerging/emergent/missional Christianity are too insular, too U.S.-centric, too North American, too cerebral, or too Western. I’m grateful for the non-American, non-Western voices who’ve offered their thoughts here on this blog. If you look around, you will find them. We need to hear more of them, and we need to actively invite and allow them to shape our views. We need to keep the bigger, global picture always in view.

It’s also helpful to get your reaction to the emphasis (and perhaps over-emphasis) on communal/community. But please understand many of us are reacting to the overly individualistic faith we were given. So you’re reacting to our reaction. Somewhere there is a proper balance, and I think we all want to find that balance. Having said that, I love Jesus too, and I want people to invite people to follow him, to seek first his kingdom. I’m pretty “unbalanced” when it comes to Jesus and the Gospel of the kingdom—I’m all in! It’s that pursuit of God’s kingdom that leads us to the harsh critiques you’re reading of consumerism, imperialism, etc. Sorry if that’s a message you’ve grown weary of hearing. It’s one I feel much (most?) of “Christendom” still has not heard—judging by the amount of prosperity Gospel, cultural Christianity, etc.

Shalom,
Steve K.

(BTW – emergence Christianity isn’t the completely white bread caricature that you’re painting either. There is definitely a growing number of African-American, Latino American, and Asian-American brothers and sisters involved in this conversation here in the U.S., and there are groups and individuals all over the world who are thinking and dreaming about God’s kingdom together.)

I agree with Steve, these are really helpful critiques that we need to see. I’m interested, though, in seeing if we can come to a common understanding of what we mean by Christendom. I feel like we might all agree that it is a bad thing, so my sincere apologies for not further defining what I meant by it.

So, when many of us say Christendom, I think we are referring to the political structures that have been created since Constantine’s day, when the church and state were joined together in ways that were clearly unhealthy, leading to various executions, wars, political appointments, Crusades, heresy trials, and so on and so forth.

The idea, as far as I understand it, is that Christendom has been the attempt to create Christian nation-states or empires, and baptize everything that they do. We still struggle with this to this day, in America and in other places, and I think the church would benefit greatly from not having to deal with this.

Chinese Christians certainly are not part of this kind of Christendom, as they are often persecuted by the State. The same can be said for many other groups of the church, and I think we can all have a great care for them.

Pentecostalism, at least in its beginning, was very much against the earthly kingdom kind of Christendom – dismantling barriers and resisting violence, and all those beautiful things that it was known for in the beginning.

Does that help indicate what many of us mean?

Let me tell you that as a largely institutional Christian who has been watching the emergency with interest, this conversation thread has perhaps been one of the most provocative I have listened to so far. I am cheered and hopeful at the sheer number and thoughtful participation of different voices built from varied life and spiritual experience willing to give to the conversation which is what I think emergence really is. Thank you all for your insight. While I cannot be with those who would seek to deconstruct rather than bring your insight to bear on us, I can take back to my Christian community the stirrings of change or perhaps metanoia in me from having listened. This is, in my view, what you are about with the constant striving for constructive inclusivity that brings insight. This can only be done with a willingness to understand that the greatest and perhaps the only real enemy to the conversation, which must indeed be the work of Christ himself, is the need to be right. As imperfect human beings, we cannot eliminate this need in its entirety but striving to do so brings hope and joy to those of us who listen.

Why is the church and the world sectioned off in different boxes? Shouldn’t the world be a larger box containing all the rest? I don’t understand that categorization. Maybe you should say secular and religious instead of church and world. It seems to me the entire emergent movement is a philosophical rejection of that artificial divide.

I’d also like to know what you mean by closet secularist?

Rick, am I correct in saying that you are angry? If so why? This is a dialog.

I actually think this is an issue of misunderstanding the point of the drawings.

The distinctions of “in the corner” or even “the middle” is a construct Tickle uses to identity belief systems and how intently one holds the fundamentals of those beliefs. Those in the corner are there because they want and choose to be. It’s a construct to talk about how people belief, not one we use to judge the correctness or value of someone’s belief.

The dialog allows people to self-identify so they can talk about their own journey.

No one is excluding anyone. There’s no tribunal saying only white Anglo Saxon Protestant males get to participate. I think the white male thing stems from the fact that the US version of Emergence was largely out of the Evangelical conversation, which is dominant white male. But Emergent Village has always strived to be inclusive.

Tickle’s work, and even Gideon’s, offers us a way of talking about things. Some we’ll get right, and some we’ll get wrong.

It’s easy to dismiss these things, and you can, but in doing so you eliminate yourself from that conversation. And if you do, then I wish you well. If you stay, great.

I replied earlier, but it didn’t show up (I imagine I didn’t complete the process!) Anyway…

@Pam
“This can only be done with a willingness to understand that the greatest and perhaps the only real enemy to the conversation, which must indeed be the work of Christ himself, is the need to be right.”
I think there is some wonderful truth in that, thank so much for sharing it with us.

@Mike L – The original post, which explains more of this typology, can be found here:
http://blog.gideonaddington.com/2009/08/the-tribes-of-american-christianity/

The breakdown of groups is essentially about orientation. The “World” orientation refers to a focus that is on the world we live in, the people in it, etc. It is oriented (in practice at least) towards what we might call the secular though the driving goals might be religion (caring for the poor, for instance.)

The Church, here, is meant to indicate an orientation that is focused more in the institution (not the sacred, per se, but our denominations, the Church as a whole, etc).

The closet secularist is the person who is nominally religious or goes to a church, etc. but really isn’t religious at all and they are fully or mostly “secular.”

@Everyone else
One of the reasons I created a typology different from Tickle’s is I wanted something that was more oriented around the individual and I felt her quadrant system (which I quite like) was more oriented around the denominations and groups. Someone being an Evangelical, for instance, doesn’t tell me much. Nor does someone being a Liturgist. It might tell us something about the external trappings of their faith, but it doesn’t speak to what drives them. My own academic and personal interests lie in what motivates people, the things that drive them and give their lives meaning – and that has a lot to do with this structure.

As Jonathan said – this is very much a brainstorming session and pushing it further than that might be problematic. But any typology will be faulty: prone to leaving things out, and touching upon the biases inherent in the person that made such a thing (I actually asked for response regarding what biases I might be demonstrating in the original post.)

As to the issue of the Emergent conversation being limited to white protestants, etc.. well, yes, there are a lot of them. I’m not a protestant, but sure – that’s the norm. But that doesn’t present a problem in and of itself. We’re dealing with “white, affluent, Western people” and they have issues that are going to drive their religious lives just like African American or Korean or Chinese communities have unique situations.

I think the Emergent conversation is vital because of this… because being in power, being affluent, dealing with the Constantinian captivity, dealing with the follies of certainties of modernism, insipid denominational infighting, Western rationalism, the Enlightenment… we are scarred in peculiar ways and it is only sensible that in our groping for some healing we shall go in different directions. And we can only hope to work through this so that we can be better, so that we can be better neighbors, so we can do more for those whose suffered us as we passed through that sin.

I hope that helps some.

Can I not respond to Jonathan?

I don’t see why not.

Sorry, I have to respond to one particular comment by Jonathan Brink. You said the following “No one is excluding anyone. There’s no tribunal saying only white Anglo Saxon Protestant males get to participate. I think the white male thing stems from the fact that the US version of Emergence was largely out of the Evangelical conversation, which is dominant white male. But Emergent Village has always strived to be inclusive.”

I guess the problem with this is the passive explanation of our current state. As though the emergent community (a fresh start) has no responsibility for the lack of racial and gender diversity. That passive voice give the appearance that that these things just somehow came to be. Things are always done to people by people, and black folk know that lesson all to well.

And to say that emergent village has always “strived” to be inclusive is patronizing. That is just pc rhetoric, at the end of the day you either empower those who are underrepresented or you don’t. There are plenty of people out there already worth listening, but the emergent community has a choice of who they are going to look to as leaders. Forget what the evangelical community has done, the emergent community currently has chosen to empower white male voices over other options.

Like I said in my earlier comment, I truly am excited about the theological shift the emerging church has taken, and look forward to the ways it will relevantly and contextually engage our society in the 21st century. But as far as diversity goes, I do not think the community has always been honest with itself (even as the discussion has attempted to be honest). Just my thoughts on it.

I’m sorry Gideon. I sent a response yesterday, everything seemed to work OK, it posted on the site and then it was gone. I’ll assume it was a technological glitch.

Jonathan, I’m really not mad at anyone. I sometimes fellowship at an emergent church in Portland and have friends in the “Conversation”. I am a little disturbed though by some tendencies that are exemplified in this analysis.

Gideon’s original question was “Who is “in”? and Who is “out”? Why do some feel like “outsiders” to the emergent church movement (and to Emergent Village, specifically), while others don’t?”.

Gideon himself characterized the emergent crowd as “Emergent church is a bunch of white, middle class protestants” And Drew observed “Not sure I really want to affirm once again a group of white males controlling and dominating the theological discussion.” I would not blame it on your evangelical roots.

Second, I agree with Gideon’s statement that “given how many people fall under ‘fundamentalist’ this is an enormous issue and threat to any conception of Emergence as the future of the church”. Those 200 million Chinese Christians, the 380 million African Christians, the 70 million Latin American Christians are largely theologically conservative, mostly fundamentalist with a pentecostal bent. This is where the Church is going by any measure. And it looks like those numbers are going to explode. Some Anglicans who are uncomfortable with the direction of the American Anglican communion are now taking direction from the more conservative African Bishops and this trend will continue as numbers of the institutional American church dwindle.

I get a little miffed by Gideon’s statement that conservative “politicos are much like the Closet Secularists in that religion is a secondary concern” While that might possibly be true of James Dobson it is equally true of Jim Wallis. The largest protestant denomination in America is the Southern Baptists who tend to be politically conservative as well. In fact “born again” evangelicals who attend church weekly are more politically conservative (check Barna). To say political conservatives within the church view religion as a secondary concern would be very wrong (and a little insulting).

Emergents tend to see the “Conversation” as having inflated importance. Gideon sees “Emergence as the future of the church.” In the self-definition of the Emergent Conversation for the handbook of denominations that so many labored over and edited, Tripp Fuller sees its mission as “Calling for the dismantling of imperialistic Christianity (Christendom)” Jonathan Stegall wishes that “more of us wanted to dismantle it.” That is an aggressive and antagonistic mission. Who gets to define what Imperialistic Christianity is? How are you going to dismantle it? The Lutheran Church in Europe, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church in Russia are tied very closely to their governments. Are you going to dismantle my denomination (I’m Foursquare, a denomination that ordains women, was interracial from it’s inception and is largely fundamentalist), someone else’s denomination, the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptists? At the beginning of this blog Brian called the analysis “Arrogant.” I know that often Emergents feel defensive but some of this is earned. For a group who likes to insist that it’s difficult to affirm propositional truth, it sure seems to know what is right and what is wrong.

I understand your point about Phyllis Tickle’s chart however the language is condescending “allowing the fundamentalists to hide in the far corners.” Hiding in the corner? “Allowing”?

All that being said I was so encouraged by Steve’s generous response. Any person who serves the Savior is a friend of mine and that fact sooo transcends any of our differences.

I hope that answers Gideons question, “Why do some feel like “outsiders” to the emergent church movement (and to Emergent Village, specifically), while others don’t?”

The “left politicos” have a secondary concern as religion as well… I’d not say they don’t. But left politcos tend to value the ‘conversation’ and ecumenical work as a part of their ideology. The reason I put them ‘in’ is because of that. Conservative politcos don’t tend to have this as a driving influence. Politico’s, by my definition, are people who put those political considerations first – not who simply are liberal or conservative.

As the Emergent church being the future… I don’t believe that, or rather, I have no opinion as I don’t think anything can be said really. The Emergent community often says things along these lines or imagines this might be the case, but what I’m saying is ‘if this is so, if this is what we imagine it to be… we have to figure out who is being left out, why, and how to change that.’ I apologize if that was not clear.

Thanks Gideon. I hope I haven’t been too harsh. As far as left and right politicos I agree that left wing politicos tend to value the ‘conversation’ and ecumenical work as a part of their ideology. However, right wing politicos also make broad religious alliances and are ecumenical in the sense that they foster cooperation around ideological issues that may include the Roman Catholic Church, and often, lately, jews and the State of Israel, among others. But yes, their relationship to the emergent conversation may be distant.

Thanks for the blog, it’s good to talk.

Drew said: “the emergent community currently has chosen to empower white male voices over other options.”

I’m thinking you may be somewhat misinformed. Personally I’ve been very encouraged by the recent and ongoing restructuring of Emergent Village, which has made a deliberate effort to invite and empower women and persons of color to become part of the leadership structures of EV. This was reflected in the recent EVDC09 gathering, for instance.

I share your desire to see more deliberate empowering of diversity in emergent circles, and thankfully, I do actually see signs of it happening.