For those of you who want to criticize the tone of this post, please make sure you read my previous posts on the emerging church. One is listed at the bottom. Take this post in the spirit is was intended and lighten up.
Today, at 12:32pm, while most of you were having lunch, the Emerging Church was taken off of life support.
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.
It got some cries out, made some very good points, called for changed, and then died. Its leaders are disappearing or have disassociated themselves from the movement. Publishers won’t even entertain books with this title. Those, like myself, who were very well acquainted with the “movement” get nauseous when the topic is even brought up. In fact, I am nauseous now.
Did this even last as long as the “Jesus Freaks”?
Supposing I am right, let me conduct a funeral. Please, step up to the mic and tell of your association with the movement. No takers. Ok, let me. Better—I will give an autopsy. As a sympathizer of the “movement” I feel I am quite qualified to do so.
Why did the emerging church die?
1. Lack of Tact Theory: I remember learning in seminary that when one pastor replaces another, the new pastor must be very careful not to attempt change too quickly. One thing at a time. Work with wisdom. Slowly, slowly, slowly. Don’t come in and beat up the old way of doing things thinking that your passion and belief in the necessity of change with be shared by others. It won’t. In fact, your demand for change will solidify people in their own places. You will be politely asked to leave. The emerging church lacked tact. It never gained the ear of the home base. Movements such as this need to be changed from the inside out, not the outside in. That is unless you are willing to go all the way and break completely from the home base (e.g. the Reformation).
2. The Offense Theory. The coup did not work. The elephant in the room (the Emerging Church) was forced out. They assumed that Evangelicals would listen and exit the building with them. But what happened was not unlike a disrespectful teenager who thought that he suddenly had it all figured out through a series of unadulterated epiphanies. He tugged on the shirt of his parents letting them know how much more he knew than them and he was blown off because of arrogance. “Tsk, tsk” was the reply, “I remember when I thought I knew it all.” While the Emerging Church, as well as teenagers, do have some very good things to say and should be listened to, it is the (almost total) disregard of Evangelicalism’s values that caused them to lose their audience. Evangelicals were offended.
3. Misidentified Evangelicalism Theory. It certainly is the case that Evangelicalism needs to reform. In fact, one of the Evangelical principles is that we are always reforming (semper reformanda). In principle, Evangelicals are not scared of change. When this principle is denied, it is no longer Evangelicalism, but some form of Fundamentalism. Emergers failed to realize the shared DNA with Evangelicals and belittled them instead. They, most of whom were former Fundamentalists (not Evangelicals), mistakenly identified Evangelicals with Fundamentalists. Therefore, their cries of change, their proclamations of enlightenment, served only to belittle Evangelicals. Ironically, their judgmental spirit of Evangelicalism backfired and caused them to look more like Fundamentalists than than those whom they criticized. It was a Fundamentalism of a different kind, but the attitude was the same. Grace left the emerging building.
4. Heretical Tolerance Theory: Oh, and then there was that. The Emerging church refused to stand up for anything. As the old song goes, “You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.” The Emerging Church fell. It ran out of fuel. It called on everyone to leave their base and fly with them. Many of us came along for the ride. The problem is they never did land anywhere. They just flew and flew. They wanted to wait five or ten years to decide who they were. In the meantime, the fuel ran out. They did land and it was (mostly) not on friendly ground. From there they definitively cried out against Evangelical orthodoxy kicking us in the most sensitive areas: Abortion, Atonement, Justification, Assurance – and then there was the attempted burial of our belief that homosexuality was a sin. Oh, did I mention the attacks on Hell and the Exclusivity of Christ? They quickly moved from an insightful teen who might have some good things to say to crowd of disconnected enemies on the attack.
Of course, as I said, there were many of us who flew these skies with them. Some even identified with the movement believing it has many insights. But soon, most began to parachute out. It was too late for the band-aid of the Emerging/Emergent distinction. One after the other, people jumped. When its most prolific insiders jumped (along with a few pilots), it was over. We landed and acted as if it never happened. “Emerger who? Never heard of him.” And we pull our hat down over our eyes and move on.
To be fair, there is a very real sense in which the ethos of the emerging church will never die. It was not really born in 1994. It will take a new form – a more orthodox form. But that is for another discussion.
(If you have no idea what the emerging church is and would like an overview, see here.)
148 replies to "Obituary: The Emerging Church (1994-2009)"
CMP,
Thanks for the clarification.
And then I have to answer… “So ???”…
“The King is dead….. Long live the King !!”
For those that don’t know the historical content, these are the words that were uttered in England when the King would die… obviously at a certain point it became “The King is dead…Long live the Queen” and soon it’ll be the other way around… but you catch the drift.
The point I’m trying to make is that perhaps one “group” that called themselves “emerging” or “emergent” has passed on due to the negative connotations, but the thoughts and inquisitive nature I recon has not. Perhaps they are now called “Seeker minded Evangelicals” or “Investigative Evangelicals”, but as long as they’re not calling themselves “Questionable Evangelicals” I’m ok with that 😉
As long as the atmosphere of dialogue in a kind and loving fashion, without compromising the core foundations of our beliefs, as long as this remains…. I’m not sure I quite care under which name it exists. I think you’ll always find me there.
So yes, I guess you could have put me on the “emerging” evangelical side of things more than on the fundamental side of that spectrum. But evangelical nonetheless. From the charts in the article it looks like I’m in good company over there 😎
After all… we’re all “Simul Iustus Et Peccator”
In Him
Mick
Michael,
I think the biggest problem was that many emergers were Evangelicals who did not seem to really love or acknowledge the spirit of Evangelicalism, their own heritage. Disenchantment was the only message. It never took on the tone of reformation as it could have, but looked more like a restorationist movement.
However, I don’t want to do something that I have continually challenged people not to—lump them all together. But one of the reasons why I write of the death is because they were lumped all-together and nothing could stop it.
Once again.. thanks for the clarification…
In that sense, I can see why it died.. it’s a sociological axiom that if people that group together, either voluntarily or involuntarily, don’t have anything to identify themselves with, their association will die.
Nations, social movements, etc.. A lot of them die out when the leaders or country or “you-name-it” disappears. The glue that holds them together is gone and they fall apart.
Since the emerging Church never created this identity for themselves to start with (as I understand it).. it was doomed to wither from the start.
But then again…. if the “inquisitive” Evangelicals can be called “emerging”, I’m sure it’ll continue. Only just under a different name.
In Him
Mick
Good comments. I like the name “progressive Evangelicals” but, you know what, properly understood, that is redundant.
Emergent is not dead, rather it is just not relevant anymore.
Why?
It was always at its core moment about techniques, and as Ellul says, such things are only temporal in a society.
I agree with you, hebrewtattoo. Those emergents who disagreed with the concepts of hell and other essentials of the Christian faith might well be classified as questionable as to their essential beliefs that the whole precept of Christianity was valid in the first place. I would not classify them as true emergents in the sense that CMP has written about here, but more along the lines of trendy type folks like those who like to drive the latest cars and wear the latest fashions.
Most emergents I’ve run into are just wanting something new and different in the way of presentation. They want to always be on the cutting edge, be it Christianity or the latest innovations in technology or whatever. They tend to separate that which ‘works’ and that which doesn’t rather quickly, and make their value judgments accordingly.
It’s more of a group mindset that brings these folks together, in my view, than a true religious movement. We see the same thing in the radical fringe charismatics.
And no offense intended at all, CMP. Just another perspective to consider as to why this didn’t last.
Sorry to burst your bubble, especially since you got all those favourable responses, but I’ve been following the EC for a few years now and it is well and truly alive and well. Perhaps it has been distanced from Evangelicalism, and that may be a good thing. Perhaps it is because of this distance that Evangelicals don’t see it every day (‘out of sight, out of mind’) and think it’s failing. But the reality is that the EC–cohorts, communities, gatherings, call them what you want–is alive, always reforming, always looking at new ways of being the church, always looking to welcome whomever will join the conversation. And because of its native ability to reform and grow, it is still very relevant to all seeking, loving, inclusive people from a myriad of faith traditions. Please be informed.
Junno,
Sounds like you are talking about the spirit of the emerging ethos. That is something that has always been around. The the packaging and iding of this ethos with the Emerging Church is what I am talking about.
Also, you are forgiven for bursting my bubble 😉
To be fair, I should add in #56 above that such folks are the innovators and inventors in our society, and so serve a good purpose as far as human progression goes, because they spur us on to be creative. But, as far as Christianity goes, we certainly don’t need them to re-invent the wheel. That, I think, is the real point they miss in their zeal to ‘improve’ upon traditional things.
If you write something and then have to append “don’t react to just this, you have to read everything I’ve written before on this subject”, then what you wrote is poorly written.
The intent of this post is clear. Be glib, be dismissive, be funny. Funny I applaud. Glib has its place. Dismissive is rarely associated with compassion.
I have nothing to say on the substance of your position about emerging church, dead or otherwise, but the simple truth is, this is poorly written and you admit as much by insisting it requires unprovided context to be correctly understood. That’s simply not how blogs work and if you want to be taken seriously you should know better. And if you want to pull off this kind of humor, you must know better.
Jim,
Ouch!
I do intend to be taken seriously and I was not trying to be funny on this post.
There is no “just kidding” that I will follow up with tomorrow. The spirit of this post does include a little background of knowing where I am coming from.
I appreciate your comments, but they are awefully harsh for a first post. I certianly don’t claim to be a great writer, so being “poorly written” may be part of my MO. I would just suggest that you don’t read my stuff? That might make you feel better?
Thanks for stopping by.
As much as I’d love to rejoice with you, Dr. Patton, I gotta humbly disagree. Bell just scored MORE time in Christianity Today (and is still making heads turn even among fundamentalists like me), Pagitt is still generally accepted, McLaren’s books are still selling rapidly, the love of all things vague (which is why I could never be Emergent – even God “boxes” Himself by telling us things about Him) is still eating up young wannabe “cultural cool” Christians, we still have to read this author or listen to this guy to even get a idiot’s version of what they believe on anything – oh, and did I mention that Emergent Village is still running?
As much as I’d like the movement’s vague, theologically weak and Gospel-powerless corpse to see six feet under (I’d personally adopt the social action child and change its name from Social Gospel), it’s still alive and like the rebellious teenager, it needs to grow up and release it doesn’t have all the answers and it needs to listen, just a wee little bit, to those who have been around just a little bit longer, which clearly doesn’t happen?
P.S. What’s your perspective on Rob Bell’s interview? As ever I think trees died in vain for that interview to appear in CT, but then Bell isn’t my favourite “preacher” in the world…
I meant realise not release…it’s 2.21am in London LOL
I don’t know that Bell has ever claimed to be a part of this movement. I would certainly say that he has some of its rougher characteristics, but, formally speaking, I don’t consider him an emerger.
His interview, from what I could tell was dodgy on the Gospel to put it as nice as I can.
You could be right about the life of the movement.
Once again, I think it is important that people realize how much I agree with much of what has come out of the more Evangelical side of the emerging movement. I hope that those who lead it can continue to challenge people from within rather than be so critical.
By that last post I mean that I am not rejoicing in this post. Just observing.
Michael,
I see you struck a nerve! Good! Keep it up bro.
Sorry, one more thing. If you really want to know how dangerous the emerging church is, read a book called, The Truth War, by John MacArthur. It uncovers and exposes many of the lies of the emerging church.
btw, anything by John MacArthur or Chuck Swindoll is worth reading and will bless your heart. And read everything Spurgeon ever wrote.
Good night and Grace and peace!
Stan,
Loved that book! Whether we agree with all of MacArthur or not, or each other or not, that book is certainly a realistic and truthful look at where Christianity, as a whole is, nowadays.
If nothing else, it will start us believers to start examining ourselves to see where we really do stand, both individually and corporately. And that’s always a good thing, no matter what denomination, or particular set of Christian beliefs we adhere to.
I highly recommend all Christians read that one too, and I’m not usually a fan of ordinary, run of the mill Christian books, per se.
There is nothing new under the sun…as the old preacher said one time.
What bothers me is the disdain of other groups in these blogs. It has nothing to do with Christianity but rather loyalty to our own doctrines. So I will ask like this…
What makes a Christian?
1:God made us this way
2:God keeps us this way
3:God elected us this way
So then by that reasoning…
1:God made Arminians, Pelagianists, Emergers
2:His grace keeps us in relationship with Him in our doctrines
3:He must have known but still gave us grace.
So let me see, if you apply TULIP to Arminians and Emergers, then we must be right. Circular reasoning you say? Abuse of logic you quip? I just want to know who died and made us God to determine if our brother or sister in Christ is falling by the wayside by not taking up our doctrinal stance. And to tell you the truth, some people are just not made to carry on the burden of doctrines they can’t understand or don’t even want.
Two men went down to pray…
Which one did Jesus say was more justified?
Very good post CMP! Are you trying to get as much notoriety as I-Monk did with his proclamation of the eventual death of Evangelicalism?
Competing posts,eh?
🙂
TUAD,
Nah, everyone knows what Evangelicalism is (at least they think). About 3 percent of the population has heard of the Emerging Church. 🙂
I imagine.
I appreciate that Bell has never officially made himself part of the movement, but (and I am subject to correction on this): He loves vagueness like them, he has major leaders in the Emergent movement speak at his church (most notably, Doug Pagitt comes to mind) and he shares their epistemological outlook. He may never have purposely added himself to the movement, but inadvertently he’s right in the middle of it…
I agree, but it is this inability to define itself in any way that even comes close to putting up the sails that is the cause for its dying. Stagnit criticisms without many answers. When they do attempt to provide them it seems they stumble and fall doctrinally.
As I said in my article above, there are about 5 distinct ways one can be emerging, but this does not mean they are Emerging. It could simply mean that they are liberal or Evangelical. In the end, the only real way to find a common denominator is to go so low that it does not really make for a movement. Are Emergers those who are dissatisfied with Evangelicalism? No one ever said it was perfect. Are Emergers those who are REALLY dissatisfied? What do they want to get rid of or change? Some doctrine. Some just the importance of doctrine. Some essential doctrine. Some ecclesiology. Some missiology. Some epistemology. Some just want candles.
I root for many types of emergers. But there are so many that I don’t and are simply so far outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, it is hard to believe that they even want to call themselves Christian anymore.
I will continue to represent and root for the ethos that is “always reforming,” but the emerging “movement” as it stands is so spoiled that it needs a reboot (and a new name). It also need grace. Emergers so often seem like depressed and critical Evangelicals.
Kara –
In #24 comment, you said – I would never call anyone a heretic because I just don’t feel as a Christian that I get to make that call. I will say that if a church is based in a doctrine that is obviously against what Jesus taught then I do have the right to challenge them on that and not call them Christian.
No one is expecting you, in and of yourself, to start pointing out heretics and heresies. This is something that has been done historically through councils gathering to discuss and pray about major issues. It’s always been about teamwork, and again, we must stay humble in all of this. I am not belittling your contribution to the body, but I am recognising that claims of heresy are not going to rest on you, nor on me, nor on any one person. This has always been considered over a good long time as wise leaders have gathered together under the purview of God in the decisions. And the goal and motto of such is not division, but rather the goal is to be unity and edification for those who truly want to walk with Christ and follow Him as the Scripture reveals Him.
In the NT letters, we find Paul and the others, unfortunately, having to deal with heretics, which were called false apostles, false prophets and false teachers. And Jesus empowered us to be able to do this when necessary (Matt 16:13-20; etc). We don’t go around doing it arbitrarily or whenever we feel like it. Again, it takes wisdom, accountability, prayer, and much pain in considering such because of the sober seriousness of the situation. And, if it was left to mine, your’s, or anybody’s feelings, I am sure we wouldn’t step out in it. But Scripture and the history of our brothers and sisters gives us the courage that, at times, it will be necessary for the unity, edification and strengthening of the body of Christ.
Do know I am not encouraging us to just kick out all emergers, emergents, and whatever other movements we want to be a part of. But, we have to be willing to consider and discern in these things. It’s not just about me, Jesus and my Bible. We are connected to one another, to a history of believers for thousands of years, and are called to walk out the things of Scripture. And this might call for discipline at times, but again, with humility and wisdom, not arbitrarily.
[…] Church: RIP? Posted on May 5, 2009 by bkingr C. Michael Patton has written an obituary for the emerging church after 15 years. It got some cries out, made some very good points, called […]
CMP: “I will continue to represent and root for the ethos that is “always reforming,” but the emerging “movement” as it stands is so spoiled that it needs a reboot (and a new name). It also need grace. Emergers so often seem like depressed and critical Evangelicals.”
Amen.
CMP: “There is nothing a preacher likes more than a hearty “amen” while preaching. I don’t get too many of those (at least at first!) The “amen” normally represents that what you are preaching or teaching, the people already agree with. In this case, you are probably just confirming their prejudice. They already agree with what you say and they like that you are holding the fort. This is not always bad, but this is not my purpose.”
Okay, I take back my “amen”. And I’m leaving the fort now and going to watch from the sidelines with my extra large bag of kettle corn and diet Pepsi. You seem more than capable of holding your own. Chuck Swindoll and Dan Wallace would be proud of you. Not to mention Apostle Paul. And perhaps even our Triune God too.
ScottL,
Unfortunately a lot of people indeed do that.
ScottL,
And he also called Peter such things. We are still suffering from that one. And the question about the councils…they themselves were formed by the opinions arising from bigotry to begin with, so how can we trust the validity of them? And it is real easy to call someone a false prophet, I have seen people who know the Bible very little and call someone that, only to find out later they did it because their pastor told them to, because their doctrine defines it.
False prophets have abounded plenty throughout history. Think of Smith Wigglesworth, is he one because he didn’t fall into the same line of thinking as C.S. Lewis? Do we call people heretics or false prophets because they are, or because we are told to?
[…] on the death of the Emerging Church. You should read his other articles on the church too. Visit Parchment and Pen to read them. Tagsamerica Apologetics atheism bad theology Bible book book review books […]
C Michael: Which leader jumped ship? Is there a link to this?
I’ve always thought the “movement” needed to rid itself of the noise at the top. McLaren has gone so far overboard and he has come out of the closet, in my opinion, as being a liberal politician – cloaking his ideology with spiritual words. His true motivation has become very clear. Nobody will take the things this group says seriously if folks like him get all the press. It’s up to the genuine folks in the movement to separate themselves from all the noise at the top. If not, then they will not escape the label of nothing more than the other side of the Red Sea for the exodus of disgruntled, self-important, and pseudo-intellectual evangelical prisoners.
[…] the full obituary here. By the way, RIP in my context does not stand for Rest In Peace. Can you gues what I mean by […]
Michael,
I received your post in my email and it piqued my interest for sure, but out of my own ignorance I need some clarification: are there specific notable EC leaders who have “left” the movement? Are their churches floundering or new churches failing to be started?
I followed your discourse on EC theology a couple of yrs ago but haven’t heard much since then. My husband’s boss–our pastor– ate up everything Rob Bell but I haven’t seen any of it over the past yr. Are these signs in themselves of the EC demise?
I am just curious and didn’t find the answers in any of the posts.
addendum to above post: …understanding Bell isn’t officially part of the EC mvmt but certainly shares similarities and also shared limelight for quite a while, even within the dreaded evangelical (not Fundamentalist–I took your FB quiz!) Southern Baptist Church….
When airlines went commercial, barnstorming “died.” When the new age went mainstream, the hippie movement “died.” The emergent church isn’t dying, it’s just becoming mainstream. It wasn’t ejected from the building, it OWNS the building.
🙂
Russ
Kara –
And he also called Peter such things. We are still suffering from that one. And the question about the councils…they themselves were formed by the opinions arising from bigotry to begin with, so how can we trust the validity of them?
No doubt some have abused those words in Matt 16:13-20. I don’t see them as giving precedence for some hierarchical, infallible structure. But they do give room for the church, especially in its leadership roles and functions, to exercise discipline, as seen throughout the rest of the NT. And that might call for recognising some things are heresy and ungodly.
I think you are making an unhelpful sweeping statement to say that councils were ‘formed by the opinions arising from bigotry to begin with’ and also questioning their validity. I think it’s fair to conclude that people like Athanasius were not bigots. He, and the council with him, were dealing with some bad stuff in Arius’ theology that Jesus was a created being. Ouch! And also, remember that our fuller understanding of Christ’s divinity or the Trinity (I’m not saying it’s all 100% clear) come because of very helpful councils through our history.
What I’ve noticed, and I believe Michael did refer to it, is that the emerging church generally wants to disregard historic, orthodox Christianity. But, the thing is that we are not in a vacuum. We have come from somewhere. We are a very small blip in the line of a huge cloud of witnesses who have gone before us. Yes, we’ve made some bad mistakes in our past, and today as well. But we cannot deny the family we’ve come from. If that’s our line, then shall unfortunately be tagged as arrogant as well.
Again, this stuff is not arbitrary that we do on a whim. They are done with thoughtful wisdom and consideration and prayer and accountability.
Kara,
I don’t think anyone here is saying the emerging church as a whole is heretical, but that some of their beliefs and methods are questionable at best. There are pockets of them who do teach there is no hell, and God is just love, love, love., period. That certainly isn’t about individual differences in what most churches call non-essential doctrines, like whether or not spiritual gifts or etc; are for today in worship services, or sprinkling or water immersion when it comes to baptism. That some are teaching there is no hell actually denies God’s word itself. That should certainly be considered false teaching for any Christian who uses the Bible as their standard for Christian practice.
And we should be concerned, because that is the danger in any denomination or movement when they depart from the foundation Christ has given for us to build on, they are in essence building a different foundation through replacement theology. They are then leading people farther from God’s truth than closer to it.
That’s how cults crept into the church, and became established religions of their own.
Every new movement begins with dis-satisfaction, as someone above pointed out. In order to establish a move of God however, it must be based upon Godly principles, obviously, rather than just offering something new and different with no real basis except they think the traditional church is behind the times. In essence there’s nothing wrong with a church wanting to update the way they worship, but redefining the Bible to suit the new agenda is a whole other thing.
Michael, I don’t know if you realize how naive this post makes you sound. I can only assume your obituary is representative of your own interest and not the broader measure.
First the emerging church conversation is shifting out of an evangelical conversation to a broader base conversation that includes Catholics, mainlines, charismatics, etc. If you have been to The Emerging Church Conference in Albuquerque NM, you would have seen that. But oh yeah, YOU WEREN’T THERE with the 900 people in attendance. Nor were you with 300 of us at the The Great Emergence conversation in Memphis listening to Phyllis Tickle explore how emergence is inevitable.
Publishing is not selling almost anything with the word emerging or emerging church but it’s not ignoring it either. David Dark’s The Sacredness of Questioning Everything (Zondervan, 2009), or Pete Rollins The Orthodox Heretic, (Paraclete, 2009), or NT Wrights, Justification, (IVP Academic, 2009) are just three examples.
And if it’s dead, why did the Christian book sellers association host a panel a month ago looking at the dialog. And why did Christianity Today cover it.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/04/the_emerging_ch.html
And why did Emergent Village just convene 24 representatives to DC this last week to reimagine the organization?
I would encourage you to broaden your horizons. If you’re simply not interested in the emerging church, why not just say that?
Thanks Johathan. Interesting.
Again, I am not saying that the way of thinking is not still present, but it has certianly gone through changes (as this way of thinking always does). The “emerging church” proper seemed to serve as the skin which was shed (is shedding) revealing many different animals that are yet to be formally classified. One, most certianly, may be a revival of the Evangelical ethos. Another, just a new form of Christian spiritualism. Another is just Liberalism. (I won’t name names here, but you can guess). Finally, there will always be the most postmodern of them all, which represent those that are still flying (or think they are).
And yes, I was talking to a friend, a major editor for a publisher who does all things emerging, and he said speaking of emerging, “We don’t want to touch that anymore.” The publishers will publish what sells. Certianly books on spiritualism will always sell. So will postmodern books on new ways of thinking. But its identification with the “emerging church” is coming to an end in my opinion. It will simply take on different forms as people begin to land. And this is what has happened. The formally united “emerging church” is being divided into the deaded categories simply because of the law of idenity. If you don’t identify yourself, people will eventually identify you (no matter how much you don’t want them to).
It is really not that big of a deal. What comes around goes around. There is nothing new. Its all good in a lot of ways and will continue to be used by God to help shape the church. We need it.
Ran out of kettle corn.
Jonathan Brink: “Nor were you with 300 of us at the The Great Emergence conversation in Memphis listening to Phyllis Tickle explore how emergence is inevitable.”
Brink is a big fan of Tickle: “Today was day one in The Great Emergence conference. To a large extent it was a deeper summary of each part of the book, including some of the keys dates, pivotal moments and events that helped create what we’re experiencing now. [Phyllis Tickle] made a significant point about how this turn is deeply affecting the concept of Sola Scriptura.
One of the things that caught my attention was Tickle’s comment that there are forty-four specific events that underline the move away from Sola Scriptura. I would love to see what those 44 are but that would be like icing on the cake. The final subject in the turn away will be how we address homosexuality in the church. She reiterated that it’s not if Sola Scriptura ends but when…
The central point of Tickle’s book is, “Where is our authority?” And much of the underlining question for those in this conference is the step and subsequent journey out of traditional church expressions and into new ones.”
Phyllis Tickle from her book, The Great Emergence:
“The next assault in this progression of assaults [upon Sola Scriptura] was the ordination of women to the Protestant clergy… The ordination of women was followed, of course, by their elevation to the episcopacy in the Episcopal Church in the United States. Clearly the battle of “Scripture only” was being lost. Now there was only one more tool left in sola scriptura’s war chest… Enter “the gay issue.”
To approach any of the arguments and questions surrounding homosexuality in the closing years of the twentieth century and the opening ones of the twenty-first is to approach a battle to the death. When it is resolved—and it most surely will be—the Reformation’s understanding of Scripture as it had been taught by Protestantism for almost five centuries will be dead. That is not to say that Scripture as the base of authority is dead. Rather it is to say that what the Protestant tradition has taught about the nature of that authority will either be dead or in mortal need of reconfiguration.
And that kind of summation is agonizing for the surrounding culture in general. In particular, it is agonizing for the individual lives that have been built upon it. Such an ending is to staved off with every means available and resisted with every bit of energy that can be mustered. Of all the fights, the gay one must be—has to be—the bitterest, because once it is lost, there are no more fights to be had. It is finished. Where now is the authority?” (pp. 100-101)
“And why did Emergent Village just convene 24 representatives to DC this last week to reimagine the organization?”
Because of what I am saying?
Look Jonathan, I am a part of this movement in a lot of ways. I don’t think that there is anything inaccurate about what I have said here. I did not say it without qualification. But I do think, between you and I (and everyone who reads this), that if this way of thinking is going to have a stabilizing affect, the first replacement pastor needed to die. It is a good thing for the cause. Once this happens, people are much more willing to listen to the next. He just needs to calm down and speak with more tact as an insider. (I hope you get what I am saying).
mbaker,
That’s right, there are those who do teach against certain truths in the Bible regarding hell and love. I think though that teaching is not new. I don’t want anyone to think I am against all churches or pastors and accusing them of mass religious persecution.
But I do feel that it is just as damaging to people the effect of religious bigotry as with unorthodox teachings. Once again you are the voice of reason and I appreciate that.
I do feel though that religious bigotry needs to be addressed. Do these leaders teach dogma rather than truth? Some do. And those who do should be dealt with because it sort of gives the rest of us a black eye when dealing with non-believers. My friend who is Conservative Jewish was called a Christ-killer by a nun when she was only 7 years old. She then grew up assuming all Christians felt this way and was surprised when I did not. So I let her share with me some of the things she has been taught, from within her own faith and from our faith.
It is one thing to confront people on actions or deeds…that is what we are supposed to be doing. But confronting people on the basis of who they are that they don’t have a choice in being, such as ethnicity, then we are wrong. And to say things about a baby who absolutely cannot help it, that is greater wrong to the person that the baby is.
I would rather people challenge me on my words if I post them, rather than where I attend church. Because the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. But if we have a deep desire to please the Lord and to do His will then we should not challenged on that. If I seek the Lord, and He answers, then I have indeed done what I should have done.
My Jewish friend is very humanist. And I am presented with a challenge, how do I effectively minister? She does not want me to talk about Christianity that sounds like I am proselytizing. So I have to wait until opportunities to arise and then answer. But I have found out that if I see her as who she is rather than what I want her to be, then her humanity is not offended. She is not an opportunity for me to get brownie points with God. She is simply a person who needs to see a Christian who is what they say they are. That is why I seem more critical of Christians, because we are making a claim that most often is difficult for many to live under dogmas. Don’t put on people more than they can bear.
mbaker, I think you take time in your answers to think what you are going to say and that is probably your training as a journalist. I said before that I write plays and write all blog posts as though I am having dialogue. You are the perfect antithesis for my central character. You make me thoughtfully respond to you in a quiet manner. You do a great job at that. And that is why I like reading your posts.
What is with all the drive-by emerging shootings? I thought it was a conversation? Do I smell?
Thank you very much, Kara.
CMP,
Haven’t you been around long enough to know that there are indeed some people who are shooters? You talk as though you never realized there was shooting going on before. LOL.
Michael
I quit reading the comments after a while. I figure if commenters aren’t willing to actually read what you wrote (and it’s evident that many didn’t — esp those blasting you), then I shouldn’t bother reading what they wrote. Heck, it was your arguments that got me to *dial it back* in negative opinion of emergence.
I have to wonder, though, if theories 1 and 2 (and evangelicals’ bad reaction thereto) didn’t lead to theory 4. In the early days of the EC, the embracing of goofiness and the decision not to make any decisions seemed to be fairly uncommon occurrences. But those with “discernment” got out their mile-wide brushes and painted everything that moved as absolute heresy. While it’s not right, is it any wonder that the really radical stuff, that *had* been kept on the down-low, started seeing the light of day and getting more common?
In other words, if Horatio and I disagree on an issue, I may just keep my mouth shut in the spirit of pursuing unity. But if Horatio keeps punching me in the face, I may not continue to keep my mouth shut.
[…] From Parchment and Pen: […]
[…] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/obituary-the-emerging-church-1994-2009/ […]
heard a song once. “they will know we are christians by our love, by our love. they will know we are christians by our love.” this post and subsequent discussion is DEFINATELY what that song was about.