I hope you do not mind if I occasionally reduce the content of the conversation to jellybeans and soda.

Having been brought up in a working class neighbourhood of Liverpool UK (think Bronx and you won’t be that far wrong) two things you learn very quickly…you need quick wits and a keen sense of humour to survive and don’t take yourself too seriously as your balloon will soon be punctured!

Great to hear from you..

Whatever you do please do not read parts 2 and 3 of my response or else you will be tempted to find a sword to run on! If yopu do, you will sense the same exasperation that Jesus did when he uttered something along the lines of “How long have I got to put up with you people?”

I can assure you that it was not an attempt to fall out!!

I will not reply again until I have read parts 4, 5 and 6. I promise!!

I know…you did warn us….read the whole lot before replying!!! Phil raps his own knuckles in admonishment.

“In fact, I agree with so much of what the emerging church is about. As I say in the last post, emerging, to me, is just a revitalization, in many ways, of evangelicalism.”

“Even the idea that “we are the culture” (as distinguished from the johanine concept of the “world”) is very good. It is an understanding that culture is, in and of itself, amoral. It is infected with sin to varying degrees, but culture is part of the common grace of God. It is not our job to simply broadbrush and condemn culture as if all of it is wrong. ”

“As I have said before, there are some emerger who I consider myself more emerging than.”

Now these statements don’t just float my boat…they virtually launch the ocean liner onto the open seasl

I almost feel as if we are sharing the same cross-atlantic flavour soda!

In fact, I agree with so much of what the emerging church is about. As I say in the last post, emerging, to me, is just a revitalization, in many ways, of evangelicalism.

Even the idea that “we are the culture” (as distinguished from the johanine concept of the “world”) is very good. It is an understanding that culture is, in and of itself, amoral. It is infected with sin to varying degrees, but culture is part of the common grace of God. It is not our job to simply broadbrush and condemn culture as if all of it is wrong.

Hope that makes sense. I think once you read the next posts you will see this.

In a very real sense, I don’t speak as one outside the movement, but one from the inside who does not necessarily feel comfortable with the label or some of the more extreme elements. As I have said before, there are some emerger who I consider myself more emerging than.

I consider myself to be amongst this grouping and am not afraid to,say so. Changes are necessary, not just in thinking, which I think many, including some on this site are happy to concur with, but in practise, where the rubber well and trulty hits the road. That is where manypeople balk and refuse to go much further in my experience.

and finally part 3…

“Those that identify with the postmodern mindset yet feel traditional Christianity, while imperfect, does offer the answers to the most important issues may be part of the more orthodox emerging movement. These call for a more mild change.”

I for one fully believe that traditional or orthodox Chritsianity has answers to offer to most if not all of the important issues. (difficult to know what that actually means as the “important issues” are not specifically identified). That does not for one moment automatically mean that I believe the changes ought to be “mild”. Far from it in fact. The changes ushered in by the Reformation that so many on this site hold dear were by no means “mild”. I passionately believe that no les sthan a reformation in church structures and practice (as opposed to doctrine) is essential if the church is to be effective in engaging in its mission.

Which brings me to my final point. The “M” word..we had the “L” word last week, but another word which is in danger of dying a slow death in in my view is the word “Mission”. I have been on this site for about 10 days now Michael and have loved it. However, one thing really concerns and disturbs me. There has not been one single discussion starting blog, or even mention, from yourself, neither is there a category which covers the topics of either Mission or Evangelism. There is a category on Evangelicalism, but when I entered it, it contained numerous threads on Evangelicalism but not one on the subject of evangelism itself if I am not mistaken.

The other issue this raises is the whole Calvinist approach to Mission and Evangelism. What is it? I see no mention of it, almost a reticence to tackle the subject. I appreciate that it goes right to the very heart of Calvinism as a set of doctrines/beliefs, (ie if only those predestined are elected to salvation…does that mean we have to evangelise at all if God has already chosen those he is going to save?) but that is not an acceptable reason for a reluctance to give the subject the discussion time it fully merits.

I shall retire now to await what I imagine will be a spirited response from the p&p blogosphere. I would like finish on an irenic note in that there is nothing I have said in any of the last three posts which I would not say if you were sitting beside me and we were discussing it face to face.

Over to you now folks.

“Who are they being sensitive to? Themselves. Culture (believers and unbelievers). The imago dei in everyone.

I think you may discover that we are trying to be sensitive to the many people who mainstreamers have deliberately and consciously de-sensitised themselves to and disassociated themselves from!

“This ethos finds expression not in church planting, revitalizations of local church assemblies, or the creation of new denominations, but through conversation—conversations with other like-minded thinkers. People emerge on internet blogs, in chat rooms, and in coffee shops. They emerge through a shared ethos that expresses dissatisfaction and seeks change. These emerging avenues provide people with safety to ask questions—theological questions—that stimulate a conversation.”

And what’s wrong with that I may ask!!?? - is that the creaking of the floodgates I hear opening in response to that last statement!! It would seem to me that Jesus was forever engaging in deep and meaningful conversations with people throughout the entirety of his brief years of public ministry.- and note I said “meaningful” and not the type of shallow and superficial discussions that us evangelicals have turned virtually into an artform. I confess to being fully in the Brian McClaren camp here and I paraphrase “stop counting conversions and engage in conversations. If you engage in conversations then conversions will follow..I am convinced of it!” A massive problem with mainstream church is that we are far too obsessed with our programs and our structures and our bible studies and our prayer meetings and our business meetings to spend time having meaningful conversations and building up effective relationships with people. The church needs to free people up so that they can build these friendships and have these conversations but we will not do it! (and that is a heartfelt and passionate plea which I make no apology whatsoever for!)

“People emerge on internet blogs, in chat rooms, ” - if this is to be criticised is a blog/chatroom discussing theology such as Parchment & Pen superior to a blog engaging with non-Christians! Could it not be argued that it is at least of equal importance as this site, if not more so in God’s eyes??

“Try to answer these questions too quickly with a definite and/or cliché answer and you will have immediately proved yourself disqualified from the emerging conversation. Why? Because you have illegitimized the question. You have insulted the intelligence of the emerging community by acting as if the questions that are bringing about conversation can be answered so thoughtlessly.”

This has some degree of truth in it, but it is surely no worse than the off-pat answer, the “I am sure of my own rightness” approach which has epitomised quite a lot of conservative evangelicalism down the ages. Yes it may be a reaction to it, but in some instances surely the reaction can be justified? Is giving someone a “definite cliched answer” really listening to and respecting the position of the questioner?

I am glad I have been enlightened as to the fine art of irenic argument prior to replying to this section of the ‘real emergers’ rather than after it. I will try my hardest to remain on the irenic pathway throughout my response but if I wander and stray like a lost sheep (oops sorry…bit of Book of Common Prayer highly unemergent Anglicanspeak there) I trust that you will graciously forgive me!

“Most people want to “go” to an emerging church to see what it is all about. I often tell them that this is not the best way to understand what emerging is all about.”

Initially yes perhaps. But many many people also go and really like and appreciate what they find - that it is such a refreshing change from what they have had to uncritically accept and put up with for the past ten years or more, especially in that you are allowed to think and explore for yourself rather than being spoonfed from the front.

My own view is that many established church leaders do their best to discourage their members from going to an “emerging gathering” because they are actually afriad that their members might like what they discover and want to go again…and again…and again even!! In fact I am strongly of the opinion that much of the anti-emerging rhetoric is based largely on fear…always a poor motivation in my view.

“The emerging movement is neither unified nor organized. ”

Name me a denominational/doctrinal (especially amongst evangelicals) movement that is!! It is obvious from this site alone that even the Calvinist fraternity are hardly unified! They may all adhere to the TULIP principles but there are huge differences between the irenics and the non-irenics, just to cite one example alone.

“Relation to culture (forgive the stereotyping):

1. Fundamentalists: Separate from culture.

2. Evangelicals: Change the culture.

3. Emergers: We are the culture”

I appreciate that you accept that this categorisation embraces some stereotyping but I can’t let you get away with number 3 without some right of reply!

Some emergers may take “we are the culture” approach, but please do not tar us all with the same brush. It is far too much of an over-simplification. Many of us “emergers” believe that the church needs to engage with the culture rather than scamper timidly away from it; to meet people where they are, not where we are, or even worse, where we expect or demand that they should be, or want them to be, and if that means being church within the culture then that’s fine by me.

That’s a very different thing to saying that we “are” the culture. What many of us do believe is that the church for decades if not centuries has taught that Jesus said “come to church” rather than “come to me” There is far more emphasis it would appear to me for the church to “go out” than for people to “come in”. I would strongly contend that the reason why so many churches are dying and closing (as has been highlighted on this site) is that churches have slowly stagnated and fossilised, slowly died and then the inevitable happens and they close. The main contibutory factor being a stubborn unwillingness to accept that the church needs to engage with the culture rather than remain totally separate from it if it is to be relevant and effective.

I also think that your definition of evangelicals as people who want to “change the culture” is wildly idealistic and over-optimistic. Most evangelicals are perfectly happy within their own culture and would be horrified at the very thought of rising to the challenge to change the prevailing culture and the effort that would take. I am not sure that that many evangelicals want to move out of their comfort zone. I would be greatly encouraged if this was the case, I just do not see that much evidence to show that it is happening.

“Who are they being sensitive to? Themselves. Culture (believers and unbelievers). The imago dei in everyone.

do you have first hand experience of bristly emergents? or is this an emerging strawman? how about a story about an interesting example?

cmp–

is one of your five emerging types ‘emerging agnostics’ or ‘emerging pantheistic mystics?’

peace–

scott

Thank you for this series; I think it’s going to be very helpful toward clarifying & refining our understanding & analysis of the emerging phenomenon.

In the Theology Unplugged series, you and Rhome called the emerging church more of a “tendency” than a movement. That was helpful. The terminology you used here, “ethos, or way of thinking”, is even better.

The key new thought I’ll be taking away from your post is the distinction you draw between the seeker-sensitive movement and the emerging ethos. Namely, emerging people are not asking questions and expressing doubts for the sake of appealing to outsiders–rather, their desire to talk about these things comes from the fact that they identify with them. That’s key.

TUaD,

Hmm, good observations. Emerging folk do need to exercise restraint and discernment in how they react to those who question their questions and doubt their doubts. They must diligently avoid caricature of those they see as “traditional”; they must not disdain the wisdom of the “old guard” who are not following them in their discussion. It’s a big problem in their movement–and it does seem that some aren’t even interested in getting past the smug faux-humility with which they ask their questions…to start finding answers.

I would add:

It’s got to be quite a challenge for them to do so. They face not just discerning wisdom (rooted in God’s revelation) that answers their questions or shows problems in the presuppositions behind the questions–they also face dismissive disdain. They face a sea of critics arrayed against them–a sea that includes both loving maturity guarding the treasure of the gospel against hollow, wise-seeming philosophy, and knee-jerk, unsympathetic closed-mindedness that doesn’t stop to understand or answer their questions.

I think Michael was quite right when he identified where many emergers are coming from: “Their questions have never found a place—as safe place—to be asked. Most of these people are no longer active in Church nor are they seeking to be. They may not be able to articulate this dissatisfaction, but there is an ever present nagging within them that says, “This is not the way it is supposed to be.”” And they sometimes still face rejection simply for struggling.

And of course, some of them are also more interested in feeling victimized than in reconciliation to the traditional church, more interested in asking questions than in finding answers, more interested in compromise and syncretism than in genuine contextualization, more interested in attacking confidence than in resolving doubt. And some, who really aren’t like that, still struggle with maintaining the right attitude. (I’m reminded of a post by Matt Chandler, Ned Flanders and Me.)

I have no doubt that God will edify the body of Christ through this situation. I do not know precisely how that edification will manifest. I pray that all of God’s children, as we approach this situation, will not fall prey to the many ways that Satan would seek to tear down the body–even using us as his unwitting instruments.

I am in agreement with your post. It seems as though we are in the vast minority.

Random Thoughts:

From what I can tell “emergers” seem to want to appear pious in their asking of questions; they certainly don’t want anyone to actually answer them. The highest form of humility, for the emerger, is making truth obscure; and the greatest arrogance is being ceratain of something.

This is an interesting time to be alive. I would have never thought such an assault on the truth of the Gospel would be tolerated as much as it is these days.

Are we too tired to continue to stand up for the truth? Nah, just lazy.

What do you mean by this: “I think you have underplayed the practitioners as a result. They don’t get the “press” because they don’t always explicitly identify with emerging”?