What is the emerging church?

Apparently I missed the deadline for Julie Clawson’s synchroblog, but I suppose I could still try to offer some definition of this crazy emerging/ent movement/conversation thing. In what follows, I’m going to offer two distinct and somewhat contradictory definitions, both of which I hold dearly.

1. The emerging church is, whether it wants to admit it or not, a sociological movement. It is not, however, one that is monolithic; in fact, very few movements of this sort are. But it can be spoken of with certain generalizations. For example, it was, in its inceptions, a largely evangelical movement—or rather a “post-evangelical” movement—that seems to have been primarily concerned with moving leftwards in an unfortunately dichotomous world to value inclusivity and justice issues. At the same time, it struggled to maintain its own spirituality. In a lot of ways, then, this movement owes a great deal to Tony Campolo and the like, who dared evangelicals to think beyond these dichotomies. This move leftward (and almost beyond the dangerous political dichotomy) was inspired by postmodern philosophy and culture. Pluralism, the hermeneutic of suspicions, the rejection of grand narratives, and deconstruction all led to a general questioning of the evangelical absolutes, of individualism, and of certain theologies. In recent years, it has found a space amongst progressives, who are also engaging in postmodern thought. When I consider the future of this movement, which I believe will still exist even if it rejects its own long-explored self-designation, the question that comes to my mind is: Will it maintain its postmodern edge, or simply dissolve into progressivism, as it has been accused from the get-go. Unfortunately, the difference between the caricatures of evangelicalism and liberal progressivism are largely rooted in personal spirituality, so that it is impossible to truly measure from the sociological perspective. I find hope for the movement, in writers like Brian McLaren, who balance their time and energies on justice issues and deeply rooted, ancient-future spirituality.
2. Despite its observability as a movement and because of its potential to slowly dissipate out of existence, the emerging church doesn’t really exist. It’s commitment to dialogue—which, sadly, does not appear to be a top priority from all of those involved in certain contexts—makes it difficult to pin down. What are the boundaries of a conversation? It is, in theory, willing to include anyone who wants to be a part of it, no matter what theological differences might divide. Granted, I might suggest that certain people are “emergent,” and others, who are also a part of the emerging church movement/dialogue, are simply conversation partners and not distinctly “emergent.”[1]  As this conversation moves outward, it becomes less and less distinct. Those who are listening—which, again theoretically, is much more important than talking in this particular conversation—are taking from it what they like and leaving behind what they do not. It is disseminating throughout the church without a systematic theology or a hierarchy to impose particular adherence. Emergence is being spread thin throughout the church as a whole, leaving its own distinct flavors behind. This is precisely what is good, beautiful, and (dare I say it!) true about the emerging church. It is a dialogical critique, daring the church to take the postmodern context seriously. Some, in all the diverse expressions of Christian churches are listening, engaging, and thinking about what it means to be the Church in this new (and definitely not-so-new) world. As people to continue to engage the conversation and to pick-and-choose from the “emergent buffet,”[2] the emerging church gives up a little of its distinctness. It, despite its detractors, becomes a little more diverse, though probably not noticeably since many of these people grabbing a bit of the emerging potato salad would never label themselves “emergent” or “emerging.”[3] I think this is what makes it so wonderful.

So, what is the emerging church? Its a sociological movement influenced heavily by postmodernism that would love to dialogue itself out of existence by engaging any- and everybody in meaningful conversations about what it means to follow Jesus in our world today, rather than trying to live our ancestors’ theology in a very different world. Some may find this to be an incredibly dismissive understanding of things like “orthodoxy” or “tradition,” it seems to me that wrestling with these issues rather than blindly accepting what has been handed down to us—especially when it doesn’t make any sense to us now—is the only way we can remain faithful to the way of Jesus.

[1]What I mean by this is that some so-called modern thinkers are willing to engage in the dialogue but would not seem to fit into the sociological definition of who is really, really emergent, being based mostly on an affinity for postmodern thought. This also does not mean that all Christian interested in postmodern thought are “emergent,” though one might consider them under the same umbrella for the sake of ease and observation. It may be terribly sad and unfaithful to taxonomize a group of people who all seem so opposed to such classifications, but then one might note that there is a sociological phenomenon of people who seem to think somewhat similarly and who all similarly refuse to be taxonomized.
[2]My friend Gary Black loves this particular analogy.
[3]Here I’m thinking of a very evangelical pastor in my city who openly admits to loving Brian McLaren while maintaining that he doesn’t agree with everything McLaren’s “emergence.”