Friday, January 19, 2007

Defining "Emerging"

Here is a helpful CT article by Scot McKnight. The article's title is "Five Streams of the Emerging Church," which he describes as: Prophetic, Postmodern, Praxis-oriented, Post-evangelical and Political. McKnight does a great job of concisely defining and defending the whole emerging thing. He also helps point out its weaknesses. If you're curious about what is meant by "emerging" when people attach it to words like "Christian" or "Church," you'll probably find this article useful.

posted by George Polcaster @ 10:20 AM  

5 Comments:

  • At 11:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Can you say "Rabbit Trail"? Sorry babe, but this stuff just does not jive with me. I have so many thoughts in my head after reading that article but am to annoyed to write them out. I just don't agree with much of what they are saying. Or I should say none of the Emerging stuff draws me in. It just feels off to me. BTW- I am so over church having to be "cool". Dim lighting, candles, cozy sofas, coffee and snacks etc.. I'll take the old church, dark wood, pews and a pulpit ANYDAY!!!

    Heidi

     

  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger George Polcaster said…

    Can you believe it, my own wife enters the ring and takes on the Emerging Church!

    Can you give some detail about what concerns you about the emerging church? Is there anything worth taking hold of?

    The world awaits your detailed argument.

     

  • At 5:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    G- I think it's just you and me reading the comments. We should really just sit on the sofa and talk over coffee!

    Well, you asked the question is there anything to take hold of with the EC. Of course there is. I have to admit that not everything bothered me. I did find myself agreeing with some of the articles points. I will go into them in a bit.

    The first thing I was thinking about after reading the article is how Scot says that the EC is a misunderstood movement. Well, after reading articles and such about the EC I can't say I even fully understand it myself. I can see why they say they are misunderstood. It is not an easy thing to grasp in my opinion. I have read a number of write ups about the EC and they all seem to be a little different but all have a "loosy goosy" feel to me. In the beginning of Scot's article he gives his definition of the EC and nine practices. I liked what he was saying and really I felt like he was giving a definition of a Christian's life call not a definition of a movement. Why re-invent the wheel?

    Okay, so the biggest things that got to me was the lack of confidence in our ability to know truth. I agree that there are many things we will not know until Jesus returns. I agree that it is in some way an ongoing conversation. But what happens to conviction in the midst of not fully embracing truth or theology. And isn't not totally following a particular theology or none at all in itself a theology?

    I also was struck by the embracing of the holistic emphasis. I like the fact that they point out that God cares for more then our souls. For sure this is true. It is something that the church should grasp more. But, to me the soul is not on the same level as the others. To make them equal some how feels like we are off the hook a little. Meaning that the call to save souls no longer carries the same weight. As much as God cares for the whole person doesn't he care more about our eternal life (the soul)?

    Overall the movement feels like an off ramp. A movement for the burnt out or those who have been burned by the church. A relaxed, come as you are and have simple conversation that could or could not lead a person to the truth. I just think as Christians we have to live life with deeper conviction then this. We need to go to scripture for the definition of how to live and have conversation with others. I think in todays society that we are at risk of looking to the newest craze or movement for guidance on how to live out our faith. I personally feel a call to read God's word and live out what He says in the scriptures.

     

  • At 10:33 PM, Blogger Grant said…

    You know, whenever I think of doing a bunch of blog entries and really doing a blog, I see that someone else already has covered what I want to blog about (in this instance the emerging church), so I decide it's a waste of time for me to blog. So, I'm just a commenter. :)

    Heidi, I agree with you on most of your points. I agree the movement is hard to pin down, 'loosey-goosey' and there's something about their view on the knowability of truth that seems a bit off. And, I think their focus on being missional is great. But I guess I’ve twisted some of their sketchy parts to make them more palatable to me.

    For example, I agree that some things in scripture are harder to know than others, so I generally assign %’s (I stole this from Grant Osborn – Hermeneutical Spiral, I believe) to my beliefs. I’d like to say that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God 100%, but that I’m about 80% sure Calvinism is true, 100% sure helping the poor is important, 40% sure that I’m correct about my view of the book of Revelation, etc…

    So, what I’m taking from the emerging church and reading of the book ‘Generous Orthodoxy’ is that I should focus most of my energy on the things from the Bible that are the most clear – greater than 90% - and less of my energy on the things from the bible that I’m less sure about. Not that I should disregard entirely my lower % convictions but more of what things I should focus on in my life with my limited time and energy.

    I just think the emerging church is trying to be a synthesizer of ideas and a unifier of the good things of the various movements of the church (Charismatics, Catholics, Main-Line Protestants, Evangelicals, etc…) as opposed to going with the thesis/anti-thesis route of saying Calvinist thinking is right-on and everyone else is wrong. Now, that leads to some pluralistic thinking for sure, but it also has some good points. And I still think that maybe as a movement they can do this, but each individual church must be making some theological decisions or risk an incredibly pluralistic environment where it would be hard to preach with any conviction at all. But who knows, I’ve never been at an emerging church and not sure how this all logistically plays out.

    So, overall, I’m not sure if I’d want to go to an emerging church, but I think some of their ideas are interesting and at the very least they’re an interesting voice in the church these days.

     

  • At 10:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm so late to comment back. Grant, I like your thoughts. Good stuff. G and I both enjoyed reading what you had to say. BTW- I think you should start a blog. We would love to read more about your life and thoughts!

    H

     

Post a Comment

<< Home