Emergent Is...pt.2

Emergent is a growing generative friendship among missional Christian leaders. (Read more from the source here.)

Yesterday, I talked about Emergent as a friendship.  Today's topic is that lovely verb "growing."  There is certainly a lot of literature out there about growing churches.  The standard criticism is that it's just a numbers game.  I agree.  Even those programs that talk about the health of the church as much as they can, still come down to a bottom line: ATTENDANCE.  Sorry, I know that color is hard to read.  I found myself wishing that I could make it flash crazily, as in the opening credits to "The Holy Grail."

It all comes down to attendance.  Wanting numerical growth is not a sin necessarily, but should it be the goal.  I respect the late Mike Yaconelli, who described his church as "the slowest growing church in America."  He challenged so many of our notions of God and ministry and he was not one to worry about the numbers game. 

So what is this growth we are talking about?  Here's what emergentvillage has to say:

The spirit of emergent is inclusive. We seek to welcome all those who wish to journey with us and enter into a friendship around our shared mission and vision and voice, expressed in our rule. Emergent is intentionally cross-confessional. We hope to bring together Christians from varied confessions and traditions (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox). In addition, emergent seeks to grow in diversity in terms of race, class, gender, culture, language, nationality, and ministry setting.

Believing as we do that national boundaries are becoming less significant, and that global realities are becoming increasingly important to all local faith communities, we believe that our relationships must increasingly bring people together from around the world.

Some critics are saying that Emergent's claim to inclusiveness has, as of yet, produced little fruit.  They seem to have been somewhat successful in being gender-inclusive, but the organization is peopled mainly by white, middle-class, protestants with an evangelical background.  Actually, this is not the case in the U.K. where emerging types seem to come more out of Anglican vein of the church, which shouldn't be surprising.  To be fair to Emergent, they have invited speakers to their conferences from various other denominations, so it's not as if they're not trying.  Which brings me to an important point: Who else is trying?  Who else is trying to grow in this way? 

Those who criticize Emergent for not being diverse enough rarely seem to provide a better solution.  The best evidence that Emergent is doing everything they can to be inclusive is Brian McLaren's latest book, "A Generous Orthodoxy."  You know, the one with the record-breaking subtitle!  I think this book demonstrates a clear way in which mainline Christians can start to get together with those whom we might call post-evangelicals.

Emergent makes a strong statement about gloablism that I stand behind.  This can't be just a British and American thing.  And it can't continue to be a game where those from the U.K. deride those from America, and vice versa, as has been happening too much, in my estimation.  This can't just be another way to change the American church.

That brings me back to this verb "growing."  I'm actually surprised at the narrow category that Emergent's statement uses for growth.  Is it only about adding more denominations and such?  I would like to believe it's about more than that.  I would like to believe it's about moving forward from a lot of evangelical baggage.  But I guess that battle wouldn't apply as much to the other groups Emergent is trying to include.  Maybe an important aspect here is that Emergent must encourage growth in the greater evangelical community that will allow such inclusiveness.  Perhaps those in the U.K. should not be so critical of U.S.-Emergent roots and get behind our desire to forge a worthwhile ecumenicalism.  At the same time those in the U.K. could be asking what kind of diversity is lacking in their own neighborhood.  I can't speak to that issue, so I won't try!

Comments

[Rob]

Once again forgive my ignorance. With the merger of different "religions", i.e. "We hope to bring together Christians from varied confessions and traditions (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox)" wouldn't there be a possibility of losing true message? One that I could think of is a difference between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants view Jesus as the high priest and confess their sins directly to him and he interceds for us. Where Catholics use confession for their priests and bishops to go before Jesus for them. We have direct access to Christ as Christians and do not need a middle man. I could be off course, but that seems to be my understanding of that issue. I am trying to better understand the Emergent movement and I am truly sorry I can't get on their website. THanks for your help!

[Bill]

lol...you just don't know the secret handshake!

I think the point is that there is good in all of these things (i.e. Catholicism, the Orthodox church). I don't think the point is to downplay our differences as may be true of some ecumenical movements (I'm just guessing here—I don't have a lot of personal knowledge about things).

Evangelicals, from my perspective, have been too reductionistic in our critique and refusal to fellowship with the Catholic church. I learned this the hard way when I was at Bible school. There was a Catholic kid in one of my classes. I started giving him all my pat criticisms of the Catholic church and he began to show me how the truth was a little more complicated than I thought.

Again, I don't think we should minimize our differences, but if we refuse to learn from each other then we just might be missing out on something that God has in mind.

[Rob]

Roger, Roger. I had a good friend of mine in college who was Baptist when we first got to school, but became an Episcopalian. It was tough for me to understand his desire to do so because the denomination seemed so alien to me. Although I there are some differences in what we believe on some issues, we largly agree on others.

[Jeremy]

I've been lurking around this emergent thing for a few weeks, growing a bit more vocal in the last few days. I stumbled into the "conversation" (as Brian McLaren puts it) quite by accident, right in the middle of being frustrated by the lack of fellowship occurring within my small Vineyard church, so the timing was everything.

As I understand it, discounting, shunning, or just plain excluding certain denominational segments is counter to the whole idea of what "emergent" wants to be. Further to that, let me ask: Shouldn't we believe that "emergent" can lead to a truer walk with God that becomes an actual elimination of denomination?

After all, who is Christ? Someone who is so ambiguous and unstable as to actually create segments of followers? I don't think so! The truth of the matter is in God's Word, or it's nowhere at all.

I think that with the willingness of those in the emergent conversation to overlook denominational boundaries through friendship and fellowship, God will move in a big way toward eliminating those pesky barriers.

It's great to be part of the conversation, by the way.

Blessings.

[Just Me]

I'm confused about two things here: One - you say that you don't think the point of "emergent" is to "downplay our differences" - but if that's not the point, then what exactly is? To "over" play our similarities? or to have something totally different - if such a thing can exist? Also - in the excerpt from the emergent website there is the phrase "expressed in our rule." What in the world does that mean?

[Bill]

I'm thinking about honoring those differences and possibly learning from them. The tendency of Protestantism, in general, is that everybody protests everybody else. We have reductionistic reasons why we don't fellowship or agree with one another. I agree with Jeremy that it would be nice to see some of the denominational barriers fall, and I even think they are, with or without Emergent. The average Christian is just not as concerned anymore about whether or not they should hate the Methodists, etc.

Nonetheless, we do have differences and McLaren's book explores those differences. One important concept among postmodern Christians seems to be forsaking an either/or mentality and embracing "both/and." McLaren's book talks about why, to list a few examples, he is both liberal AND conservative, both fundamentalist AND calvinistic.

[Bill]

This is what they say under the heading "Values and Rule":

"Members of the global emergent community hold in common four values and practices that flow from them. In the language of a religious order, we call these four values our rule"

One of Webster's definitions for rule is "the usual way of doing something." They are probably using the word in much the same way a monastic order would, as in "The Rule of St. Benedict."

[Valerie]

Jeremy......nice to have you in the conversation!

Great break down of the point Bill!

[Just Me]

So the "rule" or "authority" over the movement (if that's the right word) consists of "friendship," "growing," and ...?
I get the idea of the "Rule of St. Benedict" comparison, but what are the four values? You didn't say.
On the first response - I guess I was fortunate to be raised in "protestant" churches which weren't constantly fighting with each other. In my life I have been Presbyterian, C&MA, EFC, Baptist (Southern at that!), Lutheran and "non" denominational or "independent" and I have never thought anything about shifting between them - nor has anyone within the churches condemned me for doing so. I do think that it would be great to learn from each and every one of these different traditions; I've certainly enjoyed doing so.

[Bill]

1. Commitment to God in the Way of Jesus.
2. Commitment to the Church in All Its Forms.
3. Commitment to God's World.
4. Commitment to One Another.

Those are the four values you're asking about.

[Xhan]

Sounds very churchy to me. How do you explain all those values to an outsider/non-initiated/non-baptize average Joe that is not up to the whole emergent stuff?

[Xhan]

when the emergent-super-friends see the speck in the traditional church eyes, do they get to see the log in theirs? Or do their expensive Oakleys protect them from that?

[Bill]

Xhan, if your comments continue to be rude and unhelpful, I will block you from commenting any further. I welcome contrary opinions, but I'm not going to waste my time on someone who's just trying to egg me on.

[Jeremy]

Xhan wrote: "How do you explain all those values to an outsider/non-initiated/non-baptize average Joe ..."

Xhan -- You simply show Joe what Christ did while He walked in our shoes, fully a man, yet fully God. Christ is the model we use as a measure to determine whether we're living "right" in God, as God sets down in His Word. Here's the real crux: You either believe and have faith -- or you don't. It's not up to me or any other believer to convince you by how cool we are so you'll want to "be like us."

That works, by the way, whether Joe has never heard of Jesus before, or if he's maybe a new Christian who's just not sure about all the details -- whether Joe is looking for a brand-new life in Christ, or just a little discipleship. It isn't rocket science, man!

I know that might seem like a pretty simplistic answer, but it's true. I might be writing out-of-turn here, not being fully up on "Emergent" myself, but that's the whole point isn't it?)

[Xhan]

Dear Pastor Bill,
which parts of my comments are rude and unhelpful?

1st, I'm no one to help, have that clear.

If I were talking with you face to face and possing some of my questions and opinions to you, what would you do, just leave me hanging? Done with me just because i do not use your jargon and I'm not religiously correct?

I'm not trying to "egg" you. Actually, I gave you a chance to put some emergent-relational-evangelism in practice. I guess if I show up in your church on a sunday morning and ask to talk to you, you'll kick me out of your church too? Remind of that Phillip Yancey illustration in What is so Amazing about Grace, have you read it. I am refering to the illustration of the prostitue and the reason she doesn't go to church to seek for help, because she feel awful on her own and all the church would do it make her feel worst.

Man, Billy, if my sarcasm and my edge was so annoying to you that you don't want to listen from me anymore, what difference is that from been a pharisee in Christ times?

It does not suprise me that if I do not agree with your view of christendom, spirituality, community of faith, postmodern emergent thought, you consider me a waste of time.

Yeap, I won't be surprise to not see this comment here later today.

Another one bite the dust.
So long my friend.

[Xhan]

Dear Jeremy,

It isn't rocket science? it took god to send his son (for say it simplicticly) god himself incarnate, can you see the cosmic implications of that? Sorry Jeremy, i can't continue my thought, because i have a slight impression I am not welcome here anymore.
Peace.

[Bill]

Xhan, I suggest that if you want to be a part of a conversation you do more than just rip on the people you're talking about.

Perfect example: asking me if I'm paid staff. I am and I happen to believe that's very important. Others in emergent circles seem to be trending away from that. If you really want to debate that issue, then pose your argument in a constructive way.

No, I would not leave you hanging...unless, of course, it got to the point where I perceived that you were obviously just trying to be a thorn in my side. That's what it seems like you're doing.

As I said in the last comment, I welcome contrary ideas. In point of fact, I WANT to learn where I'm wrong. The whole point of doing this is to figure out, piece by piece, what this whole Emergent thing is about. Again, if you have constructive comments, great. Otherwise, I will ban you from commenting.

[Xhan]

Son, you said:
I'll have to work on that grace thing some more! ;-) (read comments on emmergent 1)

And you were certainly right.

[Jeremy]

Later Xhan.

And if you're still lurking: Don't get the impression I think God is in any way simple. But we are, my friend. So to include us in His cosmic plan, he had to break it down.

Man has spent centuries trying to outsmart God, and it's gained him little. Two thousand years later the best we can come up with is to go back to God's original plan! It makes me laugh wildly!

If you still want a voice, surf to my new digs online at http://templeoflife.typepad.com, where you are welcome to try to hurt my feelings ... and I will try to help you understand what's so mean-spirited about your comments!

For Christ ...

[Xhan]

oh... a rescuer! I'll take your hand Jeremy.

[Jeremy]

That's great. But kudos to Bill ... he's still putting up with you! :-)