What Is the Emerging Church?
October 31, 2006
Scot McKnight, author of The Jesus Creed: Loving God, Loving Others (which I recommend), served as a keynote speaker at a conference on the emerging church hosted by Westminster Theological Seminary last week. Kudos to Westminster, a Reformed seminary, for hosting a conference such as this. Well, actually, kudos to Westminster for inviting someone like Scot McKnight, who is sympathetic to the emerging movement, to keynote. That’s impressive and commendable.
The text of Scot’s lecture is here, and regardless of where you find yourself on the emerging spectrum (or especially if you have no idea what I’m talking about) I recommend you read the paper. At thirty double-spaced pages, it’s not short. But it is an easy read and includes a lot of helpful guidance and information, while trying to clear up a great deal of misinformation.
I don’t know whether to consider myself a part of the emerging church or not. I do know that while I disagree with some aspects of the “conversation,” I readily identify with other aspects. And, I don’t serve a church that would consider itself a part of the movement, although we are trying our best, with God’s guidance, to begin making an impact in our community in a positive and kingdom-focused way. Whether or not I’m a part of the movement (it doesn’t really matter whether I am or not), I don’t appreciate unfair characterizations, whether it’s of the emerging church movement or of a para-church ministry or of a political notion or anything—or anyone. Unfortunately, the emerging church movement is ripe for mischaracterizations because there are a lot of different types of folks who consider themselves a part of the conversation and a lot of different ideals that flow into that conversation. I think Dr. McKnight’s point that “. . . to define a movement we must, as a courtesy, let it say what it is or describe it until the other side says ‘Yes, now you’ve got it’” is absolutely right. Once you’ve reached that point, then a dialogue can take place on the attributes and shortcomings of the movement in question.
Dr. McKnight offers a critique of D. A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications. Admittedly, I haven’t read all of Dr. Carson’s book. But I found Dr. McKnight’s take on the book similar to my own. And since my initial introduction to the book I have seen at least one other scholar and seminary president, for whom I have a great deal of respect, point to Dr. Carson’s book as mandatory reading. Dr. Mohler is far too careful a scholar to allow Carson’s book to serve as a surrogate for his own understanding of and interaction with the emerging church movement, but the essay to which I’ve linked makes it seem as though that’s the case.
Dr. McKnight outlines four “rivers” (Postmodern, Praxis, Post-Evangelical, Political [he spends the least time here]) that flow into “Lake Emerging” and attempts to clarify misconceptions within each stream. The discussion of these rivers is the heart of Dr. McKnight’s lecture. It is crafted with care and transparency, and Dr. McKnight is careful to point out some shortcomings in these areas. For example, as I read the paper I made notes in the margins. On page twenty-five, he discusses an “In vs. Out,” or “We vs. Them,” mentality whereby we (evangelicals) have a tendency to determine who can sit at our table by virtue of their salvation—or lack thereof. “Evangelicals don’t have official lists [as do Catholics and Orthodox], but rely on personal conversion. And anyone who hasn’t had this conversion is not a Christian—whether they go to Church or not.” I marked in the margin here, “Conversion, though, isn’t an option,” meaning that while we do not determine with whom we interact based on their salvation, we should be about proclaiming the Gospel so that those with whom we fellowship and serve come to a saving faith in Christ. I began to wonder if Dr. McKnight was dropping the ball here. Thankfully, he didn’t. A quote from the next page:
Any kind of Christianity and any kind of Christian—and I don’t want to say the Reformed are excused from this problem—that is not evangelistic is woefully inadequate. Unless you proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, there is no good news at all; and if there is no good news, there is no Christianity—emerging or Reformed.
And a few lines later . . .
Any movement that is not evangelistic is failing the Lord. . . . We better have a goal in mind—the goal of summoning everyone to follow Jesus Christ and to discover the redemptive work of God in Christ through the Spirit of God.
What is my point in all of this? The emerging church has been referred to as abhorrent. It isn’t. There are things within the movement that need to be weighed carefully and corrected or thrown out altogether, just as there are in any other movement or denomination. It’s certainly no secret that within the Southern Baptist Convention there are disagreements on theology and practice. And so it is with every other denomination because these things are man-made, despite what anyone else says. They are flawed, because we are flawed. We use discernment, weigh everything against the Bible and operate within its boundaries and direction. That’s what I see the vast majority of those who consider themselves a part of the emerging church doing. To use a really bad cliché, it isn’t fair to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
Read the paper for yourself. Thanks to the Foolish Sage for posting the paper for download.
Comments
One Response to “What Is the Emerging Church?”
Add to the discussion
IsaiahSix — since I didn’t see your name,
Thanks for this helpful summary and interaction. Blessings on you.