« A Woman's Place |
Main
| Batter My Heart »
The Emergent Church is Like a Homeschool Group
Update: I made a few slight changes to clarify terminology.
I figured out why everyone’s confused about the Emergent Church Movement (ECM). Maybe my claim is too bold, but as the famous blogger who posted on Wittenberg Gate would say, “If you’re going to blog, blog boldly.”
I’ve been confused—no doubt because I had read only emergent critics. The critics asked, What does the ECM believe? And they concluded this:
1. ECM has no doctrinal statement
2. No unified system of belief
3. No unified practice
4. No accepted leader, not even Brian McClaren.
5. No consensus on what makes one emergent
6. They resist appointing a ECM “director.”
And that’s all true. It seems that both fans and foes agree that the ECM is a very loose association of diverse individuals and churches around the world. Thus, for many critics, it is beyond the radar of rational analysis. And, for some critics, it seems that the ECM’s ephemeral character validates their charge that the ECM has abandoned absolute truth and is charging wildly toward postmodern chaos.
I don’t think so. I think the critics, some of whom are on my short list of Christian “heros,” have got it wrong. And I think their problem is that they fail to correctly categorize the nature of the ECM. They are trying to analyze it as a theological movement. In other words, they’re asked “What does the ECM believe?” And when they fail to get a clear answer, they conclude that the ECM must have forsaken the truth of the Bible and historic Christianity. I, however, think that the ECM needs to be analyzed from a social perspective first and from a theological perspective second. What do I mean by that, you ask? By “social movement” I mean what people are doing and how they are relating to society and to one another. By “theological movement” I mean assertions people are making about theological matter. Sure, they’re related, but some distinction needs to be made.
Consider the homeschooling movement . The homeschooling movement is a social movement primarily, not a theological movement. The homeschooling movement arose when various people in various locations decided for various reasons that the public system of education was deficient and decided to remedy that by taking their children out of the public schools and assuming much greater control over their children’s education. In my experience (my parents began homeschooling me in 1986), social factors such as the poor academic quality of some schools or the “secular” nature of the curriculum or the perceived danger of bad influences from non-Christian friends acted upon parents all over the world, and many families concluded individually that the best option was to remove their children from the public schools. Because the same social factors were present in many locations, many people reached similar conclusions independently and organized together afterward. Then, many likeminded parents sought each other out and formed very loose and non-binding networks of support. Homeschooling networks generally do not control their members’ curriculum choices, church attendence, or associations with others.
I believe that the same is true of the ECM. Many people in various locations have perceived that the way church is done is inadequate and have decided to “redo” their own churches or plant new ones that use innovative methods. Widely existing social factors, such as the mega-churchization of Evangelicalism and the adoption of business growth models to run churches have contributed to many people in various places individually reaching similar (not identical) conclusions about the inadequacy of the modern church. After concluding that something needs to be done, these people have also formed loose and non-binding networks of support to facilitate their growth as a movement. But, like homeschooling networks, emergent church networks are voluntary associations that have little to authority to control their members actions or beliefs. That doesn’t make them bad, necessarily. It just means they need to be understood for what they are
If a person tried to understand homeschooling by relentlessly insisting that homeschoolers produce a unified statement of doctrine, they would be terribly frustrated. Homeschoolers tend to be motivated by certain theological beliefs, but there is never any guarantee. Some are highly Reformed; others Pelagian. Even if one were to leave doctrine aside and insist that homeschoolers define exactly what they do, they would still be frustrated. Homeschoolers do many things. They do whatever they want to do. And that’s the whole point of it. Homeschoolers don’t want to be stuck in a rigid system where their children day is dictated to them by someone else. They want to choose what works in their own families’ unique situations.
I think that same is true of the ECM. People have determined that some or all of the old forms of church either don’t work or are just plain wrong. Therefore, they are trying to do something or many things in a different way. No one dictates to them exactly what they must change or do to be emergent. The whole point is that they want to do church in way that ministers to the people in their own locality, building upon the foundation of the Scriptures and often ancient church traditions. Some people call that “missional.”
Now, although I was homeschooled, I am not an unequivocal fan of homeschooling. I think it has great strengths but also definite weaknesses. One of its weaknesses is the possibility of lack of accountability to anyone outside the family. Similarly, although I am becoming more and more sympathetic to the ECM, I am not a blind fan of everything called emergent. One of the possible weaknesses of the ECM is lack of accountability to more developed theologies.
But this post is not about criticizing the ECM. It’s about seeing it for what it is. It would be grossly inappropriate to criticize a poem for not being a legal document or to criticize a play for not reading like a recipe. Similarly, it is not fair to criticize the ECM for not being a monolithic, authority-driven organization with carefully worded statements on everything we want to know about it. To analyze the ECM as though it were the Roman Catholic Church with its pope, catechism, and developed authority structure just makes critics look foolish.
Related Tags: Emerging Church, Emergent, Homeschooling, Christianity, Church
i think you are right in that there are a lot of similarities between home schooling and emerging church (our family has done both)
Likewise, it was moving into home education from institutionalised education that led us into more thinking about different sorts of church. Great post, Hannah.
Apart from the Church, to whom or what entity do you think a family should be accountable? Besides the Church (which is a voluntary association) the only option is the State, and that is coercive.
I'm not trying to be picky for the sake of being picky, but rather I'm speaking to issue of terminology. True, this is not a big deal-- the terminology-- but I hope discussing more accurate terminology isn't off-putting.
I'm somewhat familiar with sociology and the only context in which I've heard "sociological movement" is in reference to the discipline penetrating other disciplines, such as law. As in "The Sociological Movement In Law".
I wonder if you mean to say "social movement" instead of "sociological". Sociological is not the same as social-- sociological refers to social science perspective dealing with patterns, structures and the like in society. Usually when I hear non-sociologists use the term "sociological" in everyday speak they mean "social".
Again, not a big deal at all, and this is clearly not the point of your post. But sometimes refining the use of our terms helps the overall big point of an argument.
I want to clarify my first comment, asking, in what way should a family be accountable, even to the Church? The church is there to make sure people are not living in sin or caught up in false and harmful doctrine, do they have a right to hold a family *educationally* accountable?
Interesting observations Hannah. I think you've over-simplified the critiques though . Jeremy Pierce wrote a very good post recently looking at the three main streams within ECM - two were pretty much ok, it's the third that is seriously problematic. Not all Emergents are in the third - but the third is where the dispensing of essentials takes place. Sorry I don't have the link to his post.
Sorry - my comment comes across a bit awful, I wrote it at a hundred miles an hour. What I was thinking was that there is as you say this general socialisation and I was thinking that there are streams within it. What I don't know is whether the streams run separately or are merged within the loose overall picture.
Hannah thanks for your thoughts; my concern with the ECM though (besides theological issues) is that it seems like another way of "doing church" (perhaps how homeschooling is another way of "doing school"). I agree with a lot of the conclusions of the ECM regarding the modern, program-driven models of the contemporary evangelical church. But it seems to me that the ECM is providing another way, ultimately another way to "do church", another sort of program (although of a vastly different sort from the megachurch phenomenon). Basically there is a problem when any church or movement is not totally motivated by the gospel and that's it. Just my 2 cents while in a rush. But thanks for opening up the conversation.
I know, 4 comments...
I really don't like that said "I think you've oversimplified". I'm sorry - poor wording. It was more about fitting two picutres together - your overall with a specific. It's a good post on the socialisation aspect - the overall.
In other words, they’re asked “What does the ECM believe?” And when they fail to get a clear answer, they conclude that the ECM must have forsaken the truth of the Bible and historic Christianity.
It's been my experience that EC critics, such as Stand to Reason, are not as concerned with the vague answers as much as they are with the few clear answers they do get. Their conclusions are based on the statements have been made by EC proponents.
I, however, think that the ECM needs to be analyzed from a sociological perspective first and from a theological perspective second.
That's all well and good. Simply tailoring the way we do church to reach the culture at hand is certainly a noble endeavor. However, there are theological implications (whether or not they are considered secondary), and they are what the critics are concerned with.
Similarly, although I am becoming more and more sympathetic to the ECM, I am not a blind fan of everything called emergent. One of the possible weaknesses of the ECM is lack of accountability to more developed theologies.
Excellent. Accountability is important. This issue reminds me of the "emergence" of the non-denominational denominations back in the 70s. The same issues were brought to the table: relevance to culture (or sub-culture), departure from the way things were done previously, etc. In that sense, the EC is not really a "new" idea.
To analyze the ECM as though it were the Roman Catholic Church with its pope, catechism, and developed authority structure just makes critics look foolish.
I believe that the most reliable critics of the EC do not expect it to have a structure similar to that of the RCC. Your claim, imo, is a big stretch here. EC critics simply want answers to basic, doctrinal questions. Questions that really aren't that difficult to answer, and questions that hinge on tenets of orthodox Christianity.
Andrew Jones, Great to see a comment from you. I appreciate it.
Sarah, I'd love to hear more about your family's journey someday.
Samantha, Great questions. Issues of authority would have to be addressed in a different post--too big a topic for now. But to put it briefly, I see a synergy between an individual/family/group and the larger groups that form the society.
Glenn, I thought of this before I posted but I didn't know whether "social" or "sociological" would be better. I now changed the post to clarify. Feel free to clarify my terminology anytime. It's much appreciated.
Catez, I'd be interested in seeing the post if you find it again. But, honestly, I started out by reading the critics. It took me about a year to start reading what Emergents themselves are writing, and I have found that to be far more helpful.
I do think there are many streams within ECM, and probably even more than three. That was the point of my post--ECM is diverse. And, don't worry, none of your four comments offended me at all. Thanks for interacting with me.
Ashley, You wrote: "But it seems to me that the ECM is providing another way, ultimately another way to "do church", another sort of program." What I've read from people like Scot McKnight doesn't give me that impression but it may be truth in some cases. Perhaps that is the tendancy of human beings--to want to take the complex activity of following Christ and reduce it to a "program." There are no emerging churches in South Korea (I have that on authority from a close friend of Brian McLaren), so I haven't had the opportunity to visit any yet and see.
Okay, Rusty,
I'm going to get into the theology in a later post, but I have found that I have more in common theologically with certain ECM voices than I do with others. And I feel I have gotten very clear answers from the ECM people I have read--Scot McKnight and David Fitch and even stuff on Emergent Village. Yes, even, Brian McLaren.
Obviously, Rusty, I know that emergent critics realize that the ECM isn't the RCC, but I do feel that many (consciously or not) have only one method of analysis and that is to ask "What do they believe?" And it does seem that some expect to get an answer as authoritative as if the pope were issuing an encyclical. I'm not denying that is a valid question but it is not the only question that needs to be asked. This is a bone I've been picking for too long now as I have seen too many very poorly framed critiques of Muslims, Mormons, Emergents, and others (sorry to lump the those together) from conservative writers who can only analyze other groups with one tool, "What do they believe?" But that's another post in itself.
Samantha, Let me answer your question again, because I'm afraid that what I wrote was unclear. By "accountability" I do not mean a relationship of "authority/submission." I believe that families are accountable to their local church, and that local churches are also accountable to the families that make up their membership. Citizens are accountable to the State, but the State is also (ideally) accountable to the citizens. That's what I meant by "synergy." Mutual accountability. Not total domination. And, of course, understand that God is always the ultimate authority.
To apply that to the ECM, newer theologies are accountable to older theologies, not in a "athoritarian" relationship so much as a mutual consideration for what the other has done and learned and a willingness to listen to criticism.
I could say a lot more, but again, that needs to be developed in another post.
"writers who can only analyze other groups with one tool, "What do they believe?" "
Hannah -could you elaborate on what other tools you believe would be valid?
great discussion. I'm sorry I'm not participating but I'm enjoying reading it!
Ilona, I'm tempted to write a whole post about it because it really bothers me. Here are a few factors that should be analyzed:
(1) History
(2) Political factors
(3) Socio-economic factors
(4) Cultural issues
(5) Age, gender, etc
And I should add that when most evangelicals ask "What do they believe?" they try to answer that by looking at texts. If Muslims, than that Qur'an; if Mormans, than the Book of Morman and so on. That's a good thing to do, but it shouldn't end there. Not all groups are as text-based as we Evangelicals like to think we are. So looking at the Qur'an, for example, will be of limited help in trying understand the beliefs of the many non-Arabic reading Muslims who really have little idea what the Qur'an teaches. We would need to look at their history, examine their oral traditions, and so on to grasp who they are.
And I would add that it is always good to talk to some real people and find out what they say they believe. Often, what a book says that your Muslim or Mormon neighbor believes is rather different from what they actually say they believe.
Opps, Ilona, forgot to add a very obvious one: "What do they do? Praxis is no small thing.
I read through your list. I think that there is a question here. Do we care more about the temporal or the eternal?
In the temporal realm all those things are truly important, and it composes relationship- people to people. But in the eternal, it matters how one relates to God.
It is there one gets down to that final question...not Jesus asking "Who do people say that I Am", but who do you say I Am?
That gets down to "What do you believe?" in your theological base.
All praxis rises from that.
I think that part of the problem with asking what emergent churches believe is that it's like asking what non-denominational churches believe.
Some of the things that I identify with "emergent" are very superficial - the way they "do" services, the way they communicate, etc. There is a church where I live that looks (from their website) very "emergent". Yet this church is on the list of independent reformed churches in the area, their pastor is from Calvin Seminary and their teaching is reformed. One woman I work with had her baby baptized there, so they do paedobaptism.
In a lot of cases, emergent isn't the belief, it's the method of getting the belief out there.
Another point:
Ilona - you ask if we care more about the temporal than the eternal?
Does your church have pews (or places to sit)? Some churches don't.
The church I described - I'm not going to go there. It's not because of their theology, it's because I have my comfort zone when I worship and this church is not in my comfort zone. Does that mean that I wouldn't attend an emergent church because I care too much about the temporal? Maybe.
I visited a church a few weeks ago - beautiful stained glass and a real full-sized pipe organ. Does this mean this church cares more about the temporal than the eternal?
Does your church have a piano, organ, do you sing anything other than out of the Psalter? All of those things have been condemned by some group of people or another.
If we are going to question (and I'm speaking to myself here - I'm looking for a new church) the temporal niceties in churches, then we'd better to totally to "four walls and a sermon" (which is what the early reformed churches were labeled as).
Yet another point:
I'm taking a philosphy class at a secular college (there are a few folks in this college that are trying to pick up cheap, required credits while going to a more expensive college). One of my classmates is an associate pastor at Mars Hill (Rob Bell's church) - one of the "emergents". This classmate is attending Calvin Seminary (yes, Reformed) but is Arminian. But he doesn't condemn Reformed Christians as being heretics (many Arminians do).
I've had several conversations with this classmate and his theology (based on what he has said) isn't any different that most "mainstream" Arminians.
He has hit the points of the Gospel, he believes that God is sovereign (this was one of our exam questions on Thomas Aquinas).
Based on what this man has said, I have absolutely no reason to doubt his theology.
How then, can we paint all emergents with a broad brush?
Are we taking these churches that are largely independent and judging them as every other independent church that we see - by what that church believes, or are we lumping them together?
Are we being careful to judge them on their theology? (and I'm including propriety in worship in theology)
Or do we all into the trap of condemning them because they don't "do church" the way that we are used to?
Here's the link to the original article defining three branches of the EC (relevants, reconstructionists, revisionists--the last group being the worrisome one, doctrinally speaking):
http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/pastors/1372534.html
That article and the posts related to it are worth reading and tracking down--they really enlightened me.
Although I agree that the homeschool movement is indeed diverse, there are subsets of it which subscribe to particular theologies. The funny thing (in relation to your analogy) is that the one I'm most frequently seeing is a reaction to the culture (isolationist) as opposed to the EC which aims to engage culture. So I have to admit getting a laugh out of hearing the homeschool and the EC movement put together, though the way you explain it makes total sense.
Thanks for the link Marla - I will have a read of it (not right now as I'm taking time out from most stuff at the moment - just popped in here). I read Jeremy's but didn't follow up further.
Ellen, I agree that this isn't a matter of seats, instruments, or coffee bars. When I say "eternal" I mean the bedrock theology, the things that relate to that eternal life that results from faith in Christ.
"emergent isn't the belief, it's the method of getting the belief out there" Even so, each church with "emergent methodology" has some set of beliefs -its theology. The point is that this is what is important.
"How then, can we paint all emergents with a broad brush?"
exactly. If it is only a methodology and has no theology that the name "emergent " is attached to , then the concern would be wolves in sheeps clothing, wouldn't it? that something looks like bona fide Christianity, but when the beliefs are examined, is not. That would be the danger in not being able to pin things down in "what do they believe?'.
This isn't new. the purpose of formulating the Nicene Creed had the same focus. Making sure the basics of the faith were not compromised, and a counterfeit being promoted. I think it is a valid Christian concern.
I think we can agree that matters of "doing church" are not bedrock theology. Part of the problem is that we find Christians, historically, getting confused on that issue. Not always, but enough that it raises flags and rings bells.
Ilona, do we not have the same issues with non-denominational churches? I solve the issue by simply not going to any church that doesn't post it's beliefs openly on their website (although the church we visited this morning doesn't have a website - I did some research into where their pastor graduated from, etc.)
Even within denominations, sorting out good theology from bad can be messy. I thought in a CRC church, I'd be fairly safe. I was wrong
Nice article, Marla. I will encorporate that into future discussions.
Ellen, I don't know how we can escape our personal responsibility for "studying to see whether these things be true". Checking into the baisc theology upfront sounds like a good idea to me.
I would extend grace in matters where the semantics are somewhat loosely used ( as in the Pentecostal statements in your linked post).
It is time that this messy theology gets addressed though. I think this is part of the contention that some have with the 'emergents'.
I personally think it is a loose move made up of disparate groups which over time will coalesce according to their theological affinities.-but that is just an offhand opinion, I know little of the Emergent movement outside of internet reading. It seems to have a lot in common with other grassroots moves- as Hannah has observed in this post.
Scot McKnight wrote an interesting article (pdf) on the emergent movement for the Covenant Companion, the mag of my church's denomination. He speaks of its existence outside of America: "Some would describe the EM outside the U. S. as a highly effective grassroots attempt to reach others with the gospel through local efforts, Bible studies, house churches, and social services. Any description that does not acknowledge the worldwide scope of this movement will fail to see that it is far more than an American sideshow among disaffected evangelicals. "
Ellen, I don't know how we can escape our personal responsibility for "studying to see whether these things be true". Checking into the baisc theology upfront sounds like a good idea to me.
I didn't say that we should try to escape it. My comment was to point out that this is not a new thing. Those who come down on "emergents" as a group (when they are not all the same) should have the same issues with non-denoms.
I would extend grace in matters where the semantics are somewhat loosely used ( as in the Pentecostal statements in your linked post).
They use anti-trinitarian language and their "apostles" believe they walk in the shoes of Paul.
Bonnie, That articles was the turning point in my understanding of the ECM. I greatly respect Scot McKnight's work as a conservative New Testament scholar. I was also struck by the portion you quoted, as I am now a permenant resident in a non-Western country. The point needs to be made (hey, maybe I should make it) that the ECM is not all about postmodernism. In the US, yes, it is mostly about ministry to postmodern culture, but outside that, it is about ministry to whatever form of culture a Christian encounters.
Ellen,
Whatever your view of the language they use, most Pentecostals are firmly Trinitarian.
Accountable Christians do want to know the theological stance of non-denominational churches. That is why you see faith statements pasted up everywhere. On blogs, forums, in newsletters and magazines. The theology is important.
The preoccupation with Emergents is just a continuation of the practice of finding out what the doctrinal statements are.
Ilona, most, not all. "Jesus Only" Pentecostals, Oneness Pentecostals, and others believe in "modes" or "manifestations, not "three persons in one Godhead."
I guess I'm not getting my point across. There is a blog, EmergentNO, not a Non-denomNo. A lot of people seem to think that emergent = apostate and that's not always so.
Emergent churches, just like non-denoms, need to be explored one church at a time.
I think you've made a good point here Ellen. The United Pentecostals do teach modalism, which is an old heresy. Here's a brief entry from Apologetics Index (for those who are curious).
Modalism has crept into some churches and ministries that are not United Pentecostal. Concerns have been expressed about the theology of T.D. Jakes for example.
I think Pentecostalism needs some dialogue within itself about where the boundaries are, as Pentecostalism mainstream didn't begin as anti-Trinitarian and isn't.
Hannah,
I see what you are saying, and as you've said knowing what a group believes is important. I think your analogy with muslims and Mormons doesn't quite hold up. Non-Arabic speaking muslims (like those I talk to here0 don't read the Qu'ran in Arabic - true, but they have it read and explained to them in English in the mosque, know the pillars of Islam (which is like their creed) and other basics. They may also read the Qu'ran in English. Mormons read the book of Mormon. Certainly they may not have a complexity in their personal belief system in all cases, but they do know what they believe.
I read Scott McKNights article some time ago, have read other things by him, and have read some Emergent stuff over time too. I find McKnight glossed over pretty big things - e.g. he refers to Emergent as a reaction to evangelicalism. I have difficulty with something that forms as a reaction, a negative, to something else, particularly when the something else is itself so broad and encomapsses so many different forms of expression and nuances. I did see problems in what he had to say, and perhaps will take a proper look at it sometime.
Catez, Thanks for following up with your thoughts. I do stand by what I said, but I was not referring to the Muslims you or I have had contact with. Rather, I was referring to many in tribal parts of Africa or underdeveloped areas in Indonesia where (1) English is not spoken, (2) there is no translation of the Qu'ran into any local languages, and (3) traditional culture (such as animism) remains very strong. As for Mormons, I find that their doctrine is not derived so much from the Book of Mormon as from other books, like the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrince and Covenents, statements from their current "prophet" and so on. And many Mormons are not well instructed anyway, just like many Christians. But as this is not a post about Muslims or Mormons, I will save those issues for another day.
As for the Emerging Church, I also hope to deal with some emerging theology next week, if possible. Perhaps one "emerging post" from me per week for several weeks, might be enough to deal with it justly. While Scot McKnight was the first person to help me see some good in the movement, he is not the only person I am reading. So I hope to bring authors like David Finch and Stan Grentz in the conversation (sorry to sound so emergent) soon. As for ECM being a reaction against Evangelicalism, I don't remember McKnight saying that, though I don't deny that he might have. IMHO, North American emergent may be a reaction against Evangelicalism, but I have a hard time saying that about about the worldwide movement. Some might also say that the reformation was a reaction against Roman Catholicism. Reaction or not, it doesn't mean it is either good or bad. The claims of the group still have to be examined. Anyway, it will be great to hear further thoughts from you, Catez.
Blessings,
Hannah
Hi Hannah,
Good point on the tribal muslims - but then how many of those am I in contact with? I was thinking very much about my sphere - and my impression is that Emergent is currently pretty much a Western thing.
Yes, Mormons do have other sources - I was just being brief, and agree with you. Point is there are basic beliefs or doctrines that these people hold, even the non-Arabic speaking muslims will have a "creed", albeit mixed with other traditional spiritual beliefs. Having said that, Emergents are not a non-Christian group. So then I would want to know what I was getting myself into (if perchance I was getting into it at all), and would want to know the beliefs.
The cultural question is relevant for me - I live in a very multi-cultural country, and that is reflected not just in the population but also in our politics.
Ah yes, you will hear more thoughts from me (grin). Looking forward to it.
