Defining Emergent and Emerging
I wrote a paper about the Emerging Church for seminary several years ago. At the time, Emergent and Emerging were not used in the same distinction as they are now. I see them as different forms of the same root, but usage dictates meaning, not history or assignment of meaning. There is an excellent article about the Emergent and Emerging church at the blog Reclaiming the Mind Ministries called Would The Real Emerger Please Stand Up. It is not clear to me where the chart came from but I find it helpful. I'm including these charts from the post here.
This first chart shows the range of beliefs in Christianity. I would guess that the author would not be attempting to show that each grouping is as large or historically important as the next one, just the spectrum of belief conveniently boiled down to nice categories. Then he zooms into a section to further discuss the messiness of it all.
I'm not quite sure everyone would like their assigned categories, but of course that is one of the issues of the whole emergent/emerging church what is the validity and way to self define ourselves. Traditionally people were assigned class, gender, place in society with some people busting out of the assignment. Today post-moderns see that everything up for grabs, if one does not like his or her gender, change it. If you don't like your social class, create a new one. (This usually involve a fashion statement with an accompanying genre of music, as if clothes really do make the man.) It is my opinion that a lot of this talk is somewhat more about associations and less about theology, but of course not exclusively and not for all individuals.
A few years back when I wrote my paper on this topic the Wikipedia article on the Emerging church was somewhat less developed. The defining mark of the Emerging church was that they refused to be defined. However, that has been sorted through and captured quite well quite well by the volunteers writing the Wikipedia article Emerging church. You may want to surf over and get reacquainted with the movement.
This first chart shows the range of beliefs in Christianity. I would guess that the author would not be attempting to show that each grouping is as large or historically important as the next one, just the spectrum of belief conveniently boiled down to nice categories. Then he zooms into a section to further discuss the messiness of it all.
I'm not quite sure everyone would like their assigned categories, but of course that is one of the issues of the whole emergent/emerging church what is the validity and way to self define ourselves. Traditionally people were assigned class, gender, place in society with some people busting out of the assignment. Today post-moderns see that everything up for grabs, if one does not like his or her gender, change it. If you don't like your social class, create a new one. (This usually involve a fashion statement with an accompanying genre of music, as if clothes really do make the man.) It is my opinion that a lot of this talk is somewhat more about associations and less about theology, but of course not exclusively and not for all individuals.
A few years back when I wrote my paper on this topic the Wikipedia article on the Emerging church was somewhat less developed. The defining mark of the Emerging church was that they refused to be defined. However, that has been sorted through and captured quite well quite well by the volunteers writing the Wikipedia article Emerging church. You may want to surf over and get reacquainted with the movement.
Comments
Are there truth propositions in the Bible that we are bound to accept if Scripture cannot be broken?
Does the statement, "The Bible is the Word of God." have any meaning, and if so, what is the meaning? Does your view of man have anything to do with the way you answer the question?
Good to hear from you again.
"By what authority do we 'start' churches?"
In one sense, it is Jesus who builds the church. Mt 16:18 God appoints the leadership. 1 Corinthians 12:28 1 Timothy 1:12 2 Timothy 1:11 I see starting a church as a part of preaching the gospel in a new place or with a new group. I see the great commission as authority to teach being pushed down to the Apostles and the church who would continue their work. Did you have something else in mind?
"Are there truth propositions in the Bible that we are bound to accept if Scripture cannot be broken?"
Yes, I believe the Bible is true. I believe it is meant to examine us in our faults, not that we should sit in condemning judgment on the Bible. We are to obey. I refer again to the Great Commission.
"Does the statement, "The Bible is the Word of God." have any meaning, and if so, what is the meaning? Does your view of man have anything to do with the way you answer the question?"
It means God has revealed himself to us. Neither I nor society invent God, rather he created me. I do not define him, he defines himself. He has revealed himself by his acts of creation and providence. This are clear, but we need Scripture to properly interpret them in a correct and mature manner. Yes, I think my view of man is accounted for partially in this answer. Man needs revelation from God.
If I missed something here, let me know.
When Jesus asked His question, He blessed Peter for his propositional answer. I suspect His answer to Peter would have been different if Peter had said, "Well, Master, let me tell you a story..."
I also suspect that Rome's replacing Peter's confession with Peter himself as the foundation of the church is a transfer of epistemology from proposition to narrative.
At least that is the way I think. Am I missing something in the emerging, emergent, church?
The term creates great uneasiness with me, as something orderly arising from some primeval slime by some self-energizing process. The model I see is that the church is the result of a calling to rebellious sinners and a resurrection from unbelief and moral and intellectual error and sin to eternal and unchanging truth concerning God and His Son.
Ephesians 1:13,14: The spiritual blessings in heavenly places seems to have been declared in straightforward propositional statements in Paul's opening remarks. Jesus himself said that the time would come when He would no longer use parables which were designed to hide the truth, but would speak plainly [Luke 8:10 and John 16:25].
Martha's confession also involved a plain, straightforward, proposition. [John 11:27]
I agree with your statements, the prepositional truths, that you made that the Scriptures do teach prepositional truth and narratives. Prepositional truths interpret the narratives in Scripture.
My link to the story regarding defining the Emerging and Emergent churches is more a statement that they can be defined despite the movements desire to not have that happen. (It does not fit their model of truth perhaps?)
The Emerging church has a wide variety of theological persuasions. Some of these Christians are quite orthodox while others are out there on the fringe. Today, I attend a church that is definitely not Emerging or Emergent. But if I was planting a church, I think some of the ideas of creating an authentic worship environment rather than a glitzy worship environment might be a model I would use. At the same time, I would seek not to over use the word authentic, placing it at the center of everything I do and say. If we are loving one another then we can be vulnerable and honest with ourselves, in our prayers and with others. It does not need to be conjured up.
Thanks for visiting my blog. Millersville is right down the road. I was wondering, who would you put at the center of orthodoxy? By the way, if you read my posting, I did say that not everyone would be happy with the nice neat chart. I think it is designed to be understandable, not comprehensive. So if you can, let me know how you would draw that chart.
well since you asked "who"? I would put in the middle of the chart I have to answer Jesus Christ. But, with that as a given I would draw a chart of orthodoxy with over lapping circles.
At the center would be the early church and its creeds. I think the Apostles creed and the Nicene creed are a great mark for Christian orthodoxy.
Slightly to one side of this "center of orthodoxy" I would put the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern orthodox church. They would both overlap orthodoxy and each other.
A slightly smaller circle (representing it not as being as old) would be protestants. This would over lap the Roman Catholic church because it did emerge from this but would also over lap the middle circle because its aim was to reform.
Then in an even smaller circle I would put evangelicalism. This would of course touch both protestant and the center circle as well.
The reality is evangelicalism is not the center of orthodoxy or historical Christianity.There are other traditions that have a better sense of Christian orthodoxy in some areas than we do as evangelicals.
I think the danger of the chart you have with evangelicalism at the center is that it creates a new center not an orthodox one. With the chart you are using one might miss ways that the more fundamentalist on one side and the emergent on the other side are actually more orthodox in their Christianity than the middle "evangelical". And the chart leaves the two oldest Christian traditions completely off.
If the chart really reflects the way most of us evangelicals think than no wonder the emergent conversation has pointed out the arrogance of this. This is one reason why I am so involved in this conversation.
Thanks for your thought Terry, maybe we could get lunch sometime.
Peace,
James
Thanks for responding to my questions.
I see where you are going with the answer. Perhaps my sin of arrogance is showing in a way I did not know. I do appreciate the contributions of Coptic Christians in Egyptian Orthodox and Ethiopia Orthodox to Christian history and Christian thought, these two groups are monophysite. And in that sense they do not meet your definition of Orthodox though they commonly have the name orthodox. Of course they are actually called something else in the native tongue. The "Orthodox Church" is really using the term orthodox with a different meaning than Michael Patton is. He is also using the term different than you are. He is addressing an issue in terms of American Protestant belief because that is the part of the emerging church his is trying to define. If the emerging church is merely a conversation, then I am a part of that conversation. I have blogger friends all over the world who are a part of that. But if being a part is being active in a fellowship that is a part of the emerging movement, then I am not. I think it still gets down to definitions.
I have to say, I thought I did caveat the chart by saying it was a summarization for clarity sake and not trying to be comprehensive.
Getting together sounds great! How do we do that?