|
 |
|
|
|
Because the emerging church conversation/movement is a non, pan, cross and inter-denominational movement, the question arises, how does one know an "emergent" church?
This is an important question… particularly as the tide of criticism of all things emergent begins to rise. I find myself, when reading the critics, increasingly thinking- “But what they are describing isn’t US!”
If we light a candle, are we “emergent?” If we meet in a mega-church, but are an “alternative service,” are we emergent? Couches? Book of Common Prayer? Goatees???
This article is not meant to draw lines and declare who is “in” and who is “out.” More, it’s meant to contribute to the conversation as we all struggle with “Just what is this thing, anyway?”
It may be helpful to think of a continuum of "emergence." As I look around, I see three main areas of reconsideration within the emerging church movement. They are methodological, philosophical and theological, and, I want to propose, to the extent that a church community participates in the ongoing reconsideration/dialogue/reformation in each of those areas, they may be considered to a greater or lesser extent "emergent."
Many churches which claim to be "emergent" might better be seen as a logical continuation of the Willow Creek/Saddleback seeker sensitive model. They exchange theater seats and a non-threatening atmosphere for candles and dim lighting, but are mainly concerned about methodological change. They seek methodologies for making themselves more attractive to the unchurched, but ministry philosophy and theology remain largely static. And again, there’s nothing wrong with this. God bless them in their mission as they attempt to reach people, right? But “emergent”? I’m not so sure…
A little farther down the continuum of emergence are the churches rethinking not just methodology but also ministry philosophy. Many of the Acts 29 churches fit in this category. They are willing to change the way that they do things both on an external level (the look and feel of things), on a deeper level (ministry philosophy, how spiritual formation/discipleship is done), but they aren't really thinking theological change. If anything, many, like Mars Hill in Seattle, actively resist change in the area of theology. They continue to feel comfortable with theological labels such as "Reformed" and continue to subscribe to a view of male-only leadership.
The last (and, I think, most "emergent") group of churches out there are the ones who are rethinking all three categories. For them, being emergent isn't just about how Sunday morning is done (methodology) and neither is it simply a matter of changing how things like discipleship and teaching are done (ministry philosophy). It's also a matter of continuing the work of theological discovery. They are rethinking and reforming theology. For them, theology is not a finished work. They take to heart Doug Pagitt's words- "If you want to honor the Reformers, don't just say what they said... do what they did." This last group see the work of not only contextualizing the knowledge we have of God as a continuing process, but also recognize that - we don't know all there is to know about God/Scripture/theology
- we think the process of learning more will continue indefinitely- the church will continue to grow in it's knowledge of God.
So that’s my definition… What do YOU think?
Bob Hyatt is husband to Amy, father to Jack and lead pastor to the evergreen community in Portland, OR (www.evergreenlife.org). He is also in the beginning stages of launching the nextChurch network (www.nextchurchnetwork.org), dedicated to encouraging church planting through encouraging church planters.
|
|
|
|
|
(18)
NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THIS ARTICLE