About The Emergents - Part One

The emergent church movement began among a group of frustrated young evangelical leaders in the late 1990’s. It is difficult to define or even make generalizations about, but the emergents are postmodern in outlook, open-minded in their practices, and appeal primarily to younger generations in urban areas. In many ways, I share their feelings and their frustrations, especially at the inertia and intolerance that is often prevalent in more traditional modern churches. And I certainly don’t believe, as many critics do, that the emergents are a fad that will soon fade into obscurity.

In fact, I’m quite a fan of the emergent churches, and would probably belong to one had I not been called into small-town ministry. I admire what they do and feel they are a very necessary part of 21st century Christianity. But I have a few concerns about some of the emergent theory I have read.

The first and biggest concens is about the way the emergents sharply define themselves over and against the rest of the “non-emergent Christians.” There seems to be a clear line drawn between the insiders and the outsiders, between “those who get it” and “those who don’t.” Does the distinction have to be so black and white?

Tony Jones, in his 2008 book The New Christians, uses the image of a tiny life raft that has cast itself away from a giant cruise ship - which represents how the emergents have broken free from the traditional church. Could Jones have chosen a more divisive and alienating metaphor? Does Christianity in America need to think of the wonderful new thing that is “emerging” as a rebellion and a separation? Or are they throwing the baby out with the bathwater when they write books with titles such as Everything Must Change (by Brian McClaren)? Does everything really need to change? Perhaps we need a better metaphor.

In a recent conversation with a friend who considers himself emergent, I pushed him to define the movement beyond just saying “we’re postmodern,” or “we’re doing things differently.” He had trouble coming up with a concrete answer, but he eventually said, “We’re guided by the Holy Spirit, not by what we’ve always done.” Which is more or less the same description that Tony Jones offers:

“Emergents tend to have a stronger belief in the third person of the Trinity… Emergents trust in the Holy Spirit more than they trust in the methods of doing church.”

And I agree with that sentiment, too. Being led by the Spirit and not by convention is something we strive for everyday in my very modern, very traditional church - and something at which we often succeed.

My challenge to the emergent movement is this: What is being said of the Spirit-led nature of the emergent movement, and what makes them such an authentic and relevant expression of the Christian faith, can also be said of many traditional-looking churches. Just because a congregation has traditional worship services, traditional music, traditional programs, and traditional people does not mean they are bound by the old conventions and deaf to the leadings of the Spirit.

Perhaps the emergent movement should think of itself not as something separate and uniquely led by the Spirit, but as one branch of a whole new reality that the Spirit is calling forth - a new reality that is transforming the entire spectrum of faith. My feeling is that most emergent writers would agree with this sentiment, but perhaps some of the backlash to their efforts comes because they are perceived as a rebellion and a rejection of what traditional churches are doing.

(In part two of “About The Emergents,” I will offer an alternative to the lifeboat metaphor for thinking about how the emergent movement fits into the 21st century reality of American Christianity - one that is more inclusive of the Spirit-led transformation that is happening all types of churches.)