Reasons for Evaluation

With the dawn of the new millennium arose a movement that hoped to forever change the face of Christendom. A new century had begun and a new culture was emerging from the moors of modernism. More than eleven years have now past since the inception of this church-altering movement.[1] Yet this fact remains: no recent contemporary ecclesiological expression has been more widely publicized and more commonly debated than that known as the “Emergent Church” or the “Emergent Conversation.”

Evangelical publishing houses have rapidly promulgated the works of various authors that deal with issues and concepts pertaining to the Emergent movement.[2] Numerous Bible colleges and theological seminaries have offered special courses designed to discuss and research the methods and beliefs of those ascribing to this popular, emerging banner.[3]   

Conferences orchestrated to further the influence of the Emergent movement have drawn thousands of followers and curious onlookers.[4] Profound scholarly interest has also been expressed by those in the Evangelical Theological Society, resulting in a regional meeting being solely focused on this ecclesial trend.[5] Although books, conferences, classes, and scholarly skirmishes have brought considerable attention to the Emergent movement, none of these has paralleled the far-reaching influence of Internet blogs, sites, and forums.

Certainly the wide influence of this sociological phenomenon alone would provide grounds for a lucid evaluation to be performed and made accessible to both pastors and laypersons alike. And to answer this need several good works deal with the many varying issues concerning all things “emergent.”[6]

However and interestingly so, the majority of leaders within the movement have now declared that the so-labeled phenomenon has ceased, or they have called for a disbanding of the “Emergent” label and brand.[7] In an article describing signs of fragmentation in the movement, author Brandon O’Brien reported these words:

 

As one-time leaders of the emergent movement have recently distanced themselves from the term, the network itself dropped its organizational leader [Tony Jones]. The decision of Emergent Village’s board of directors to eliminate its national coordinator position marked the latest sign that the movement is either decentralizing or disintegrating…[Brian] McLaren says there have been ongoing questions about the label itself. “For many people, the name emergent has allowed them to remain in the evangelical world,” he said. For others outside the conversation, he admitted, the name has become an epithet for theological heresy or cultural trendiness. Even some within the network are beginning to avoid emergent vocabulary. Prominent blogger Andrew Jones (known online as “Tall Skinny Kiwi”) has dropped the emergent label from his conversations. “The word no longer communicates what I want it to,” he said, “so even though I will still be in support of emerging church ventures…I will no longer be using the word for myself and the ministries that we support.”[8]

 

Since approximately February 2008 various proponents and opponents of the ECM[9] began reporting that the movement was headed for demise.[10] In a telling piece of narrative, Scaramanga wrote:

 

“The emerging church will disappear.” That is what my informant told me as we shared drinks at our clandestine watering hole. I felt like Luca Brasi being handed a dead fish wrapped in newspaper. The hit had been ordered? The emerging church’s fate had been sealed. In my informant’s mind, the death of the emerging church was a settled matter. I double-checked my surroundings for listening ears before whispering, “How can you be so sure?” The informant (who worked for a publisher) leaned forward and said their marketing plans included dropping the “Emerging Church” brand within two years. That was two years ago. Now comes word from recognized leaders and voices within the emerging church movement that the term has become so polluted that it is being dropped.[11]

 

Confirming the prediction of Scaramanga’s “informant,” emergent leader Andrew Jones wrote, “In my opinion, 2009 marks the year when the emerging church suddenly and decisively ceased to be a radical and controversial movement in global Christianity.”[12] As one critical of the ECM, MacArthur remarked, “…the Emerging juggernaut has nearly ground to a halt. The wheels seem to be coming off… Several influential authors and pastors (including several members of the original network) have now foresworn the word “Emerging” altogether.”[13]  

Such prophetic sentiments soon became reality. One former self-identified “sympathizer” with the movement quipped, “The Emerging Church was not around long enough to be declared alive, so the announcement of its death comes with an apathetic “ho-hum” for many of you. But it is true. Stop the “What is the Emerging Church?” seminars. Edit the “Beware of Brian McLaren Sermons.” And don’t even entertain starting an Emerging blog. As far as I can see, the Emerging Church is dead at 15.”[14] Thus in a little over a decade[15] what was known, discussed, and studied as a groundbreaking movement that would forever shape and change the church came to an end.[16] Some beg to differ and contend the ECM is simply emerging or morphing into a different “skin” or label.[17]

Certainly, the sentiments and ideologies that drove the ECM to great heights of popularity and influence have not ceased to exist. In fact, they may be spreading more rapidly today than they were ten or twenty years ago. These concerns will be addressed in the application of the forthcoming material. However, most within and without the ECM, in particular, have explicably admitted a collapse of influence, organization, and popularity.

Therefore, church leaders now have a great and challenging opportunity to reflect on and theologically evaluate the rise and fall of this highly influential and widely publicized ecclesiological expression. What was the cause of its rise and fall? What will be the continuing influence of this transitioning movement? These questions need to be thoroughly answered in order to provide pastors and other Christian leaders with groundwork by which to evaluate similar forthcoming postmodern issues. Because the inception and the general cessation of the ECM have arrived with clear historical markers, a new perspective has been gained concerning the theological veracity and doctrinal outlook of the expression. In this way a thorough study of what precipitated its rise and fall will provide insight and evaluative tools for understanding postmodern expressions of faith and particularly the Emergent church.

 

Definitions and Limitations

Many pastors, scholars, and authors have vociferously debated how to define the Emergent/Emerging movement. Some identify four interrelated yet distinct schools of thought within the ECM, while others prefer to view it as one organic entity.[18] Broadly speaking, the label “Emerging Church” was originally used to simply define various individuals and churches who were seeking to bring the message of the Gospel to people emerging from a culture of modernism into postmodernism. Dan Kimball echoes this definition, “If you were to have asked me [in 2003] about what the core of the emerging church is, I would have responded with ‘evangelism and mission in our emerging culture to emerging generations.’”[19] Yet, Kimball goes on to delineate how starkly the definition(s) has changed over the last ten years, “…I don’t even think the word ‘evangelism’ comes up when I start hearing about ‘the emerging church’ for the most part anymore…the emerging church world has also become so theologically diverse that it has become understandably confusing. I can’t defend or even explain theologically what is now known broadly as ‘the emerging church’ anymore, because it has developed into so many significantly different theological strands. Some I strongly would disagree with…”[20] Ironically, this comes from the same man who wrote the seminal work entitled, “The Emerging Church.”[21]

Because of the many variant “strands” or “lanes” associated with the labels “emerging” and “emergent,” Mark Driscoll attempted to carefully define the movement through four distinct groups (particularly assessed by their theological suppositions).[22] Driscoll distinguishes the four “lanes” as: (1) Emerging Evangelicals, (2) House Church Evangelicals, (3) Emerging Reformers, and (4) Emergent Liberals.[23] As one closely involved in the beginnings of the ECM and as pastor of arguably the largest “emerging” church in North America (even though he has distanced himself from the label),[24] his sketch is quite insightful.

First, Emerging Evangelicals are those seeking to make church gatherings and the Gospel appear as user-friendly and relevant as possible to those in a postmodern culture. They are firmly within the realm of Christian orthodoxy and are willing to hold doctrinal positions on issues like the nature of the Atonement, the inspiration of Scripture, and mankind’s eternal destiny. However, they tend to differ on “the role of women in ministry, the proper mode of baptism, and charismatic gifts.”[25] Emerging Evangelicals are also quite radical in updating the modes of media and communication for worship gatherings. Organizational structures and preaching designs are also specifically tooled to connect with the postmodern mindset. However, in contrast to the other “lanes,” this group does “not place as much emphasis…on actively engaging in their local culture and loving and serving people as the church.”[26] Emerging Evangelicals are also sometimes criticized for “doing little more than cool church for hip young Christians.”[27] This “lane” is represented by leaders and pastors like Dan Kimball, Chris Seay, and Donald Miller.[28]

Second, House Church Evangelicals could be defined as the dissatisfied.[29] Many within this “lane” are greatly disillusioned by current church models (such as traditional, institutional, seeker-sensitive, and especially mega-church trends in evangelicalism). They point to overseas revivals that spawned from house churches and small cell groups as proof that wholesale ecclesial change is necessary for believers in North America – if they hope to reach the postmodern generation with the Gospel. They decry the status of North American evangelicalism and, in their estimation, its resulting “worldliness” and preoccupation with materialism. Driscoll remarks, “They subsequently propose more informal, incarnational, and organic church forms such as that of house churches.”[30] Most proponents maintain the essential tenets of the Christian faith and keep the Gospel as central in their methodologies. However, a denial of any leadership structure, a dismissal of formal Bible education and preaching, and a thoroughgoing disgruntled sentiment have drawn much criticism against this subgroup. Some contend they are “overreacting to the mega church trend and advocating a house church trend that works well in some cultures but has not proven effective in Western nations.”[31] Authors, pastors, and leaders such as George Barna, Frank Viola, Shane Claiborne, Alan Hirsch, and Michael Frost are key proponents of this “lane.”[32]

Third, Emerging Reformers may be classified as those who “see the postmodern world as an opportunity for the church to practice the semper reformanda or “always reforming” cry of the Protestant Reformation.[33] This ecclesiological principle drives Emerging Reformers to change the modes, styles, and methods of church ministry and worship (that are not clearly defined in Scripture), in order to communicate the Gospel with relevance to the postmodern populace. Strong theological ties are found between traditional Reformed and Calvinistic theology and the Emerging Reformers. Interestingly, Driscoll points out they “are charismatic in terms of spiritual gifts and worship and aggressive in church planting, particularly in major cities.”[34] Though it should be said that not all subsumed under this classification are theologically “charismatic” – as defined by neo-charismatic and Pentecostal circles. In contrast with the other subgroups, Emerging Reformers have maintained a conservative position on gender roles in church ministry: “only qualified men may serve as pastors and preachers.”[35] This highly popular “lane” is sometimes criticized by more liberal opponents for “merely repackaging tired Reformed fundamentalism” and for continuing in an “outdated…understanding of gender roles.”[36] Theological guidance is most often taken from writers and ministers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and recent contemporaries such as J.I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, John Stott, John Piper, C.J. Mahaney, D.A. Carson, and Wayne Grudem.[37] Other key pastors in this “lane” are Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, Tim Keller, Darrin Patrick, Ed Stetzer, and Tullian Tchividjian.[38]

Fourth, Emergent Liberals represent those who have moved from mere Gospel contextualization to the far reaches of cultural and theological accommodation. Driscoll defines this “lane” as those who “have drifted away from a discussion about how to contextualize timeless Christian truth in timely cultural ways and [have] instead come to focus on creating a new Christianity.”[39] Most of the key leaders within the Emergent Liberal subgroup have evolved from a prior position of theological orthodoxy to an ambiguous conversation that seeks to deconstruct or even dismantle the essential truths of the Christian faith (i.e. the Bible as God’s inspired and authoritative Word, God as Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ, mankind’s inherent sinfulness and separation from God, Christ’s death as the substitutionary atoning sacrifice for sin, salvation by the grace of God alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, the reality of a literal heaven and hell, and the second coming of Christ, etc.). In seeking to reach a postmodern culture with the Gospel, most Emergent Liberals ended up rapidly assimilating to the culture they intended to reach. Because western postmodernism is largely characterized by relativism and religious pluralism (though not in every form), this “lane” soon adopted similar interpretations of Christianity – thus a “New Kind of Christianity” was in order.[40] Al Mohler remarks on their vague and troubling theology this way, “When it comes to issues such as the exclusivity of the gospel, the identity of Jesus Christ as both fully human and fully divine, the authoritative character of Scripture as written revelation, and the clear teachings of Scripture concerning issues such as homosexuality, this movement simply refuses to answer the questions.”[41]

To concisely define the Emergent Liberal subgroup may be likened to the common proverbial phrase, “nailing Jell-O to a wall.” However, a workable definition may be as follows: Emergent Liberals are those who originally sought to contextualize the message of the Christian faith to people emerging from a culture of modernism into postmodernism, but who now have accommodated so thoroughly to a liberal postmodernism that theological relativism, pluralism, and ambiguity characterize their life and ministry.[42] To delineate the many layers associated with defining the ECM, Jeff Keuss attempted to provide a multivalent perspective:

[The ECM is generally characterized by]…a minimalist and decentralized organizational structure; a flexible and at times mongrel approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are celebrated and accepted with difference as normative; a holistic view of the role of the church in society (this can mean anything from greater emphasis on fellowship in the structure of the group to a higher degree of emphasis on social action, community building or Christian outreach); a desire to reanalyze the Bible against the context with the goal of revealing a multiplicity of valid perspectives rather than a single valid interpretation; a high value placed on creating communities built out of the creativity of those who are a part of each local body.[43]

To bring further definition for this study, the “Emergent Church Movement” denotes that sector of postmodern ecclesiology popularly known simply as “Emergent Liberal” or the “Emergent Church” and what may be subsumed under the auspices of the “Emergent Village” web collective and other closely linked “conversation” groups.[44] This especially vocal portion of the postmodern movement is currently led by people who have clearly veered from sound, orthodox doctrine.[45] Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Karen Ward, and Rob Bell are central to this school of thought and are generally accepted as leaders in the ECM movement.[46]

Therefore this study will concentrate on what has been referred to as the “fourth lane” or “stream” of the Emergent/-ing Church.[47] Furthermore the following will argue that this most influential sector of the movement was prone to reevaluate and reinterpret core doctrines of the Christian faith, in order to “save” Christianity by reformulating it for success in a postmodern world.[48] However, as a result of these aberrant tendencies the ECM headed down a path of fragmentation and theological demise.

Many factors led to the overall collapse of the ECM. These include but are not limited to (1) the reactionary nature of the proponents, (2) the personality-based structure of leadership, (3) the movement’s immersion in hyper-postmodern pragmatism, and (4) the prevalence of a low view of scriptural authority. Thus what gave exuberant energy to the movement at the outset also precipitated its collapse. Unfortunately, the leaders’ positive desire to reach the emerging postmodern generation in North America also included inherent problems, which can likely be linked back to these four faulty antecedents. The leaders were presenting many excellent questions, questions that still need to be answered. However, their answers were too often influenced by the issues listed above; consequently the movement collapsed.

This work focuses on the two most central factors that contributed to the rise and fall of the ECM movement within the context of North American evangelicalism.[49] This thesis contends that the Emergent Church Movement rose to popularity, in part, because of its reactionary sentiment and pragmatic postmodern philosophy, and conversely, that these same elements also precipitated its fall.

 

Purpose and Approach

The purpose of this thesis is to thoughtfully and graciously delineate some of the key elements involved in both the inception and cessation of the Emergent Church, in order to develop a proper pastoral and theological response to this movement and other similar forthcoming postmodern challenges in the twenty-first century. In contrast to the plethora of texts attempting to broach this subject, this work is not intended to be a heated polemic in opposition to the movement, nor an anecdotal epilogue lauding its praises. The various personalities (as noted above) who spearheaded the ECM will also not be the primary subject of this study. Yet the questions, interpretations, and concepts raised by leaders such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones will be thoroughly discussed. However, this work will not focus on the persons themselves but on the most crucial issues that were contributing factors to the ECM movement. 

Instead of becoming preoccupied with polemics leveled at mere people, believers will do well to remain firm in the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3b). Certainly the people involved in the “fourth lane” of the ECM have, as will be demonstrated, diverted from the counsel of Scripture and historic Christian orthodoxy. Yet the focus should be not on browbeating, but on building up the body of Christ in this the most holy faith.

Therefore the approach of this study is to elucidate for the people of God the means by which His truth is being undermined in the postmodern world, so that they can remain steadfast and strong in the gospel of Christ. So to reiterate, the contention of this thesis is twofold. First, it will be argued that the Emergent Church Movement arose as a sociological phenomenon, in part because of its reactionary deconstructionism and pragmatic postmodern philosophy. Second, it will be argued that these same elements also contributed to the movement’s ultimate demise. Third, this work will close with several points of evaluation and application for the contemporary pastor, so that hopefully they will understand the continuing influence of this collapsed movement, be bolstered in their fidelity to the truth, and learn to foster biblical unity without pragmatic relativism.

 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Some may contend the Emergent movement formally began as early as 1989. For instance, Andrew Jones, an emergent author and leader, and journalist Anthony Bradley, estimated the movement’s beginning around this date (see Andrew Jones, “Emerging Church Movement (1989-2009)?,” in Tall Skinny Kiwi (2009), http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2009/12/emerging-church-movement-1989---2009.html; accessed: May 27, 2011; Anthony Bradley, “Farewell Emerging Church, 1989-2010,” in Community (World Magazine, 2010), http://online.worldmag.com/2010/04/14/farewell-emerging-church-1989-2010/; accessed: May 25, 2011. However, the movement arguably did not see widespread influence and popularity until the turn of the twenty-first century (1999-2000). Dan Kimball (amongst others) has most lucidly identified the popular rise of the Emergent movement with this time frame (see Dan Kimball, “Origins of the Terms "Emerging" and "Emergent" church - Part 2,” in Dan Kimball: Vintage Faith (2006), http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/04/origins_of_the_.html; accessed: October 26, 2011.

 

[2] For example see Dan Kimball, The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003). Or peruse the more revelatory works by McLaren and others: Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004); Brian D. McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming Faith (New York: Harper-Collins, 2010); Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007); D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005); Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, Why We're not Emergent: by Two Guys who Should be (Chicago: Moody, 2008).

 

[3] In October 26-28, 2006, Westminster Theological Seminary held a conference on the Emerging Church entitled, An Eternal Word in an Emerging World. Scott McKnight, a spokesman and theologian in the wider Emerging movement, was a keynote speaker at this event. In 2004, D.A. Carson (a theologian critical of the movement) delivered a three-part Staley Lecture series on the Emergent Church at Cedarville University. On May 30, 2006, Dallas Theological Seminary presented a learning dialogue entitled “The Emerging Church.” This series offered a discussion between the school’s president (Mark Bailey) and three other faculty members regarding “an introductory exploration into a movement hopeful of meeting the complexities of ministering to an emergent culture” (http://www.dts.edu/media/play/the-emerging-church-movement-1-of-3-mark-l-bailey-mark-h-heinemann-glenn-r-kreider-and-andrew-seidel/?audio=true; accessed: May 29, 2011). Wheaton College offers a course on the Emerging Church (EVAN 694 – The Emerging Church) as part of their M.A. program in Evangelism and Leadership (see: http://www.wheaton.edu/evangelism/courses/course _descriptions.html, accessed: May 29, 2011). Fuller Theological Seminary currently offers a number of specific courses related to the Emerging/-ent Church, for instance: “MC536 Leading an Emerging Church,” and “MC535 The Emerging Church in the Twenty-First Century” (see: http://www.fuller.edu/page.aspx?id=7880&terms=Emerging%20church; accessed: May 29, 2011).

 

[4] For instance the leaders of the Emergent Village typically hold an annual conference called the “Emergent Convention” (although other similar terms and descriptors have been used). In an archived online dialogue, Brian McLaren noted that about “1100 [attended the Emergent convention] in 2003, and then about 1500 total in two 2004 conventions” (see http://www.brianmclaren.net /archives/000226.html; accessed: May 31, 2011). In March 2009 these leaders also held a “Catholic-Emergent Conference” formally entitled: “The Emerging Church: Conversations, Convergence and Action.” Fr. Richard Rohr, Brian McLaren, Phyllis Tickle, and Shane Claiborne (amongst others) were keynote speakers at this “the first large gathering of Roman Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Evangelical, and other Christians seeking to explore emergence and convergence together” (see: http://archive.cacradical grace.org/conferences/emer/; accessed: May 31, 2011). Jonathan Brink, a blogger for the Emergent Village estimated that approximately 900 attended this conference (see: http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog /the-emerging-church-conference-day-1; accessed: May 31, 2011). Most interestingly, a search for recent or upcoming conferences or conventions on emergentvillage.com yielded just one result: the “Wild Goose Festival” – described as “a music, art and conversation festival at the intersection of justice and spirituality…rooted in the Christian tradition seeking to welcome all regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, background or belief” to be held June 23-26, 2011 (http://www.emergentvillage.com /events/wild-goose-festival; accessed: May 31, 2011). Undoubtedly, the Emergent Church as a socio-movement has lost a great deal of momentum in recent months.

 

[5] John Bohannon presented a paper at this event entitled, “Preaching and the Emerging Church,” he wrote, “The 2007 Eastern Region Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society composed their entire meeting around the emerging church – ‘Postmodernism, the Emerging Church, and Evangelicalism.’” See John S. Bohannon, Preaching and the Emerging Church: An Examination of Four Founding Leaders: Mark Driscoll, Dan Kimball, Brian McLaren, and Doug Pagitt (Raleigh: Lulu, 2010), 15.

 

[6] For example peruse Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications; Mark Driscoll et al., Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives, ed. Robert Webber (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007); Pagitt and Jones, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope; William D. Henard and Adam W. Greenway, Evangelicals Engaging Emergent: a Discussion of the Emergent Church Movement (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009); Brandon O'Brien, “Emergent's Divergence: Leaders hope decentralizing power will revitalize the movement,” Christianity Today January (2009). 

 

[7] Numerous authors, leaders, and bloggers such as Andrew Jones (emergent leader from the United Kingdom), Tony Jones (one-time national coordinator for emergentvillage.com), and Adam Smith (writer for Relevant magazine) began noticing a collapse mid-year 2009 (Jones, “Emerging Church Movement (1989-2009)?,” http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad .com/tallskinnykiwi/2009/12/emerging-church-movement-1989---2009.html; accessed: May 27, 2011; Tony Jones, “Lonnie Frisbee and the Non-Demise of the Emerging Church,” in Theoblogy (2009), http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2009/12/30/lonnie-frisbee-and-the-non-demise-of-the-emerging-church/; accessed: May 27, 2011; Adam Smith, “The End of the Emergent Movement?,”  (Relevant Magazine, 2010), http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/features/21181-the-end-of-emergent; accessed: May 25, 2011.

 

[8] O'Brien, “Emergent's Divergence: Leaders hope decentralizing power will revitalize the movement,” 13-14. Of note, for Andrew Jones the terms “emerging” and “emergent” seem interchangeable.

 

[9] Henceforth the full title the “Emergent Church movement” will often be abbreviated as “ECM” for the sake of space and verbal conciseness. For further elaboration on the nomenclature surrounding this study see the forthcoming section in chapter one, entitled “Definitions and Limitations”.

 

[10] The blogosphere reveals the most explicit telltale signs. Url Scaramanga (pseudonym), provocative writer for Christianity Today’s blogging community called “Out of Ur,” wrote a very intriguing and well-documented article entitled, “R.I.P. Emerging Church: An overused and corrupted term now sleeps with the fishes.” He notes that as early as 2006 certain publishing groups had plans to drop the ECM label. Furthermore, he chronicles how various leaders publically distanced themselves from “Emergent” – especially in North America. Blogger Trevin Wax wrote an article on February 5th 2008 entitled, “5 Reasons Why the Emerging Church is Now Receding.” Within this perceptive essay he noted the following factors for the recession: (1) The Emerging Church does little evangelism, (2) Some Emerging leaders have embraced a disturbing lack of clarity on key doctrinal and social issues, (3) Many who [were] initially intrigued by the Emerging conversation are now distancing themselves from Emerging theology, (4) Some aspects of the Emerging Church look faddish and fleeting, and (5) Evangelicalism is beginning to address the good questions raised by the Emerging movement (Trevin Wax, “5 Reasons Why the Emerging Church is Now Receding,” in Kingdom People (2008), http://trevinwax.com/2008/02/05/5-reasons-why-the-emerging-church-is-now-receding/; accessed: May 25, 2011 ; Url Scaramanga, “R.I.P. Emerging Church,” in Out of Ur (Christianity Today, 2008), http://www.outofur.com/archives/2008/09/rip_emerging_ch.html; accessed: May 27, 2011.

 

[11] Scaramanga, “R.I.P. Emerging Church,” http://www.outofur.com/archives/2008/09/rip_emerging_ch.html; accessed: May 27, 2011.

 

[12] Jones, “Emerging Church Movement (1989-2009)?,” http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad .com/tallskinnykiwi/2009/12/emerging-church-movement-1989---2009.html; accessed: May 27, 2011.

 

[13] John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 228.

 

[14] C. Michael Patton, “Obituary: The Emerging Church (1994-2009),” in Parchment and Pen (Credo House Ministries, 2009), http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/obituary-the-emerging-church-1994-2009/; accessed: May 25, 2011.

 

[15] To reiterate, determining a precise date for the beginning of the ECM movement is nearly impossible. Myriad opinions exist about when the movement actually began. Therefore, it seems most advantageous to mark when the movement became widely public and influential. Most see this occurring between 1999-2000. Tony Jones offered a piece of historical insight when he wrote, “Those who started emergent were at the National ReEvaluation Forum in 1998…” This statement assumes that Jones believes the ECM formally began sometime shortly after this conference. From another statement by Jones, it appears emergent truly actualized after a number officially left the Leadership Network: “…in 2001, we [Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Brian McClaren, et al) left the auspices of Leadership Network, Andrew Jones had moved to the UK and Mark Driscoll jumped ship (or was pushed overboard, depending on whom you ask)… It wasn’t until the Emergent Convention in 2003 that we gained any real steam, and that was only because of the energy of Mark Oestreicher and Youth Specialties. To be honest, I pretty much thought [t]he thing was over until that convention.” See Tony Jones, “So, You're Disappointed with Emergent,” in The New Christians: Tony Jones on Culture, Politics, and the Emergent Church (Belief Net, 2009), http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2009/06/so-youre-disappointed-with-eme.html; accessed: May 31, 2011.

 

[16] This fact was noted in class lectures with Glenn Kreider during the course ST105 Sanctification and Ecclesiology, Dallas Theological Seminary, spring 2010. See also: Josh Brown, “The Emerging Church is Dead Because Church is Dead,” in I Am Josh Brown (2009), http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2009/06/04/the-emerging-church-is-dead-because-church-is-dead/; accessed: May 27, 2011; Brian LePort, “The End of the Emergent Church? ,” in Near Emmaus (2009), http://nearemmaus.com/2009/12/29/the-end-of-the-emergent-church/; accessed: November 5, 2011; DJ Word, “An Obituary for the Emerging Church,” in Cheaper than Therapy (2010), http://djword.blogspot.com/2010/01/obituary-for-emerging-church.html; accessed: May 27, 2011; Bradley, “Farewell Emerging Church, 1989-2010,” http://online.worldmag.com/2010/04/14/farewell-emerging-church-1989-2010/; accessed: May 25, 2011 ; Gary E. Gilley, “The Emergents Are Emerging,” Israel My Glory July/August (2010): 17; T. Scott Daniels, “The Death of the Emerging Church,” in Pastor Scott's Thoughts (2010), http://drtscott.typepad.com/pastor_scotts_thoughts/2010/08/the-death-of-the-emerging-church.html; accessed: May 25, 2011.

 

[17] Pro-emergent: Jonathan Brink, “A State of Emergence 2010,” in Emergent Village (2010), http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/brink-state-of-emergence-2010; accessed: May 31, 2011; Jones, “Lonnie Frisbee and the Non-Demise of the Emerging Church,” http://blog.tonyj.net/2009/12/lonnie-frisbee-and-the-non-demise-of-the-emerging-church/; accessed: May 27, 2011; Danielle Shroyer, “What do you do when a revolution isn't sexy anymore?,” in Danielleshroyer.com (2009), http://danielleshroyer.com/2009/12/30/what-do-you-do-when-a-revolution-isnt-sexy-anymore/; accessed: May 27, 2011. Contra-emergent: Author, They Say the Emerging Church is Dead - The Truth Behind the Story(Lighthouse Trails Research Project, 2008, accessed May 27, 2011); available from http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletter092208.htm#LETTER.BLOCK33.

 

[18] Cf. Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review 3 (2006): 87-93. See also: Driscoll et al., Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives. In 2005, Aaron Flores defined the movement as rather indefinably, “There is currently no clear, distinct definition or descriptive label for the emerging church.” However, he later borrows a definition from Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia), “[the Emerging Church] is a label that has been used to refer to a particular subset of Christians who are rethinking Christianity against the backdrop of Postmodernism.” Aaron Flores, “An Exploration of the Emerging Church in the United States: The Missiological Intent and Potential Implications of the Future” (M.A. Thesis, Vanguard University, 2005), 7, 11.

 

[19] Dan Kimball, “The Emerging Church: 5 Years Later - the Definition has Changed,” in Dan Kimball: Vintage Faith (2008), http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2008/09/the-emerging-ch.html; accessed: November 5, 2011. He goes on to expound on the definition this way, “And from that, other things were of course included, alternative worship, discussions on ecclesiology etc. as a means for fruitful growth of disciples of Jesus. But evangelism for me was underneath it all.”

 

[20] Ibid.

 

[21] See: Kimball, The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations.

 

[22] Others, such as Ed Stetzer, have seen the Emerging movement as comprised of three groups: Relevants, Reconstructionists, and Revisionists. However, it is important to note that Stetzer’s “3 R’s” were developed approximately two years prior to Driscoll’s formulation of the “Four Lanes.” Thus Driscoll’s evaluation seems more thorough and up-to-date. See Ed Stetzer, “First-Person: Understanding the Emerging Church,”  (Nashville: Baptist Press, 2006), http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22406; accessed: Nov 14, 2011; Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” 89-92.

 

[23] Mark Driscoll, “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway,” Christian Research Journal 31 (2008): http://journal.equip.org/articles/navigating-the-emerging-church-highway; accessed: Nov 14, 2011.

 

[24] Lillian Kwon, “Mars Hill Pastor Ditches 'Emerging' Label for Jesus,” in The Christian Post (2008), http://www.christianpost.com/news/mars-hill-pastor-ditches-emerging-label-for-jesus-31344/; accessed: Nov 14, 2011.

 

[25] Driscoll, “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway,” http://journal.equip.org/articles/navigating-the-emerging-church-highway; accessed: Nov 14, 2011.

 

[26] Ibid.

 

[27] Ibid.

 

[28] See Kimball, The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations; Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003); Chris Seay, The Gospel According to Jesus: A Faith That Restores All Things (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010); Chris Seay, Faith of My Fathers: Conversations with Three Generations of Pastors about Church, Ministry, and Culture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005).

 

[29] This author was personally involved in the House Church Movement for a short period of time due to dissatisfaction and disillusionment with current church trends. Most within this movement have a great passion for God’s Word and a desire to see the spiritually lost come to faith in Christ. Many of their concerns are well founded. However, a denial of all leadership structure, a dismissal of sound Bible education and preaching, and a pervasive spirit of disgruntled-ness have riddled the movement for years.

 

[30] Driscoll, “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway,” http://journal.equip.org/articles/navigating-the-emerging-church-highway; accessed: Nov 14, 2011.

 

[31] Ibid.

 

[32] See George Barna, Revolution (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2005); George Barna and Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008); Shane Claiborne, The Irresistible Revolution (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006); Michael Frost, The Road to Missional: Journey to the Center of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011); Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Leap of Faith: Embracing a Theology of Risk, Adventure, and Courage (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011); Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006).

 

[33] Driscoll, “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway,” http://journal.equip.org/articles/navigating-the-emerging-church-highway; accessed: Nov 14, 2011.

 

[34] Ibid.

 

[35] Ibid. See also John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: a Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006); John Piper, What's the Difference? Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990).

 

[36] Driscoll, “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway,” http://journal.equip.org/articles/navigating-the-emerging-church-highway; accessed: Nov 14, 2011.

 

[37] Cf. Ibid.

 

[38] Cf. See Mark Driscoll, The Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004); Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev.: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006); Timothy Keller, The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith (New York: Penguin Group, 2008); Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Penguin Group, 2008); Ed Stetzer and David Putnam, Breaking the Missional Code: Your Church Can Become a Missionary in Your Community (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006); Ed Stetzer, Planting Missional Churches: Planting a Church That's Biblically Sound and Reaching People in Culture (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006); Tullian Tchividjian, Surprised by Grace: God's Relentless Pursuit of Rebels (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010).

 

[39] Driscoll, “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway,” http://journal.equip.org/articles/navigating-the-emerging-church-highway; accessed: Nov 14, 2011.

 

[40] See McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming Faith.

 

[41] Albert Mohler, “'A Generous Orthodoxy' - is it Orthodox?,” in AlbertMohler.com (2005), http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/06/20/a-generous-orthodoxy-is-it-orthodox/; accessed: Nov 18, 2011.

 

[42] See contra-emergent: DeYoung and Kluck, Why We're not Emergent: by Two Guys who Should be, 16-19; Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications, 41-44. And pro-emergent: the authors of the Emergent Village describe their group this way, “Emergent Village is a growing, generative friendship among missional Christians seeking to love our world in the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (see http://www.emergentvillage.com/about/). See also: Tripp Fuller, “Input Needed: Help Describe the 'Emergent Village',” in Homebrewed Christianity (2009), http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/06/17/input-needed-help-describe-the-emergent-village/; accessed: Nov 18, 2011; Tripp Fuller, “Input Needed: Help Describe the 'Emergent Village',” in Emergent Village (2009), http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/input-needed-help-describe-the-emergent-village; accessed: Nov 18, 2011. At the outset, the intentions and questions of those now accepted as leaders in the Emergent movement were both admirable and profound. In an interview with R. Alan Street, Brian McLaren defined the ECM in these elongated terms, “It appears that the church is growing rapidly where pre-modern people enter modernity, but where modern people move into a postmodern cultural milieu, the Christian faith has not yet understood or engaged the questions they’re raising. So, many of us are seeking to faithfully incarnate the gospel of Jesus Christ – the gospel of the kingdom of God available to all through Jesus – to people in our mission context. Really we’re just acknowledging and seeking to enter a new mission field – not on a new continent, but one that is emerging on all continents. So, in this sense, what people call ‘the emerging church’ (a term I don’t particularly like because if can sound divisive) is really “the church that is engaging with the emerging culture.” This definition sounds a lot like Kimball’s originally definition for the broader Emerging Church. However, McLaren goes onto explain more concisely how he sees Emergent as a new kind of Christianity, “…Emergent and other conversations like it are seeking to rediscover the Jesus of the Scriptures and fairly represent him and his message to our world.” R. Alan Street, “An Interview with Brian McLaren,” Criswell Theological Review 3 (2006): 5-14.

 

[43] Jeff Keuss, “The Emergent Church and Neo-Correlational Theology after Tillich, Schleiermacher and Browning,” Scottish Journal of Theology 61 (2008): 450-51. Keuss provides a rather objective understanding of the ECM as one who postures himself as a religious liberal.

 

[44] Since much of the ECM was (and still currently is – in diminishing form) operated through the medium of the Internet, most discussion groups (or “cohorts” as emergentvillage.com likes to call them) were formed through what might be called a “web collective.” This simply denotes a “conversation” (a discussion group) based in and perhaps entirely cooperating within web-based applications. Websites like theooze.com and emergentvillage.com are particularly representative of the online ECM dialogue. 

 

[45] Full validation of this claim will be given in the forthcoming argumentation.

 

[46] One might also include emergent-liberal thinkers such as Spencer Burke and Leonard Sweet.

 

[47] Within the forthcoming material various sources use the terms “emerging” and “emergent” interchangeably – which may be justifiable. Yet, this study will focus on the beliefs and issues relating to the category or “fourth lane” most commonly labeled “emergent” (the ECM). The deciphering of which “lane” is being addressed by the various authors and leaders will be sought after with thorough due diligence.  

 

[48] This is undeniably reminiscent of Fredrich Schleiermacher’s goal in religious liberalism in the 19th century and of his protégés in the early 20th century. The most lucid work outlining this connection has been written by Jeff Keuss (Seattle Pacific University), in which he contends, “…the ‘emerging church’ movement, through writers such as Brian McLaren, is merely a new form of correlational theology – or what I will term ‘neo-correlational theology’. This ‘emergent’ movement aligns itself with Paul Tillich’s systematic presentation of what he termed a ‘theology of culture’ addressed in his 1919 lecture ‘Uber die Idee einer Theologie der Kultur’ and is deeply rooted in theological essentialisms aligned with Fredrich Schleiermacher and Don Browning… First, the heritage of Schleiermacher’s notion of ‘feeling’ as an authentic categorical form of knowledge forged through radical reflexivity which is the proper domain for authenticity in the Emergent movement. Second, as underscored in Tillich’s Theology of Culture, the church as ‘emergent’ is profoundly imminent and therefore necessarily social, positivistic and historical. Third, theological anthropology is understood primarily through our freedom over and (at times) against the necessity of redemption.” Keuss, “The Emergent Church and Neo-Correlational Theology after Tillich, Schleiermacher and Browning,” 450. Ultimately, Keuss (who is theologically liberal) successfully argues for a clear connection between various ECM voices and the by-gone era of religious liberalism and its accompanying proponents. While Keuss is hopeful and gladdened by this connection, conservative evangelicals should accept it as indicative of the flawed theological bearings found within the ECM.

 

[49] Because of the many ecclesial differences between North American, European, Australian, and Asian contexts, the space limitations of this thesis will limit the study to North America and most particularly the United States.

 

 

:: Written by Michael John Breznau ::

Th.M. Thesis (in part). Dallas Theological Seminary

Nov, 18 2011

 

 

A BIG THANK YOU!

If you took the time to read this VERY lengthy piece, I want to say, "THANK YOU!" I would sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback as I progress on this project. Please feel free to ask questions, probe my sources (I noticed that my footnotes are actually longer than the main body of work), and offer any constructive criticism. Also, if you would like this document in PDF or Word format in order to read it with much greater ease, simply email me or send me a facebook message with your email address, and I'll be more than happy to send you a copy. Reading the thesis in its proper format allows you to follow the footnotes from page to page instead of finding them dumped at the very end of the chapter.

 

May we grow in the likeness of our Savior as we seek to be sanctified by His truth!

In Christ Alone,

      Michael