McKnight on the Emerging Church

Often friends ask me about the Emerging / Emergent church movement. The below excerpts from Scot McKnight's article in Christianity Today should help to give a thumbnail sketch of the movement.
Five Streams of the Emerging Church
Key elements of the most controversial and misunderstood movement in the church today.
Scot McKnight


Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine practices. Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities.
...
Emerging catches into one term the global reshaping of how to "do church" in postmodern culture. It has no central offices, and it is as varied as evangelicalism itself.
...
Following are five themes that characterize the emerging movement. I see them as streams flowing into the emerging lake. No one says the emerging movement is the only group of Christians doing these things, but together they crystallize into the emerging movement.
...
Prophetic (or at least provocative)
One of the streams flowing into the emerging lake is prophetic rhetoric. The emerging movement is consciously and deliberately provocative. Emerging Christians believe the church needs to change, and they are beginning to live as if that change had already occurred.
...
Postmodern
Mark Twain said the mistake God made was in not forbidding Adam to eat the serpent. Had God forbidden the serpent, Adam would certainly have eaten him. When the evangelical world prohibited postmodernity, as if it were fruit from the forbidden tree, the postmodern "fallen" among us—like F. LeRon Shults, Jamie Smith, Kevin Vanhoozer, John Franke, and Peter Rollins—chose to eat it to see what it might taste like. We found that it tasted good, even if at times we found ourselves spitting out hard chunks of nonsense. A second stream of emerging water is postmodernism.
...
Praxis-oriented
The emerging movement's connection to postmodernity may grab attention and garner criticism, but what most characterizes emerging is the stream best called praxis—how the faith is lived out. At its core, the emerging movement is an attempt to fashion a new ecclesiology (doctrine of the church). Its distinctive emphases can be seen in its worship, its concern with orthopraxy, and its missional orientation.
...
Post-evangelical
A fourth stream flowing into the emerging lake is characterized by the term post-evangelical. The emerging movement is a protest against much of evangelicalism as currently practiced. It is post-evangelical in the way that neo-evangelicalism (in the 1950s) was post-fundamentalist. It would not be unfair to call it postmodern evangelicalism. This stream flows from the conviction that the church must always be reforming itself.
...
Political
A final stream flowing into the emerging lake is politics. Tony Jones is regularly told that the emerging movement is a latte-drinking, backpack-lugging, Birkenstock-wearing group of 21st-century, left-wing, hippie wannabes. Put directly, they are Democrats. And that spells "post" for conservative-evangelical-politics-as-usual.
...
All in all, it is unlikely that the emerging movement will disappear anytime soon. If I were a prophet, I'd say that it will influence most of evangelicalism in its chastened epistemology (if it hasn't already), its emphasis on praxis, and its missional orientation. I see the emerging movement much like the Jesus and charismatic movements of the 1960s, which undoubtedly have found a place in the quilt called evangelicalism.



These are some pretty cryptic excerpts. If you are interested you can read the entire article here.

2 comments:

  1. Good quotes from a decent article. The postmodern thing is what holds me up, however. Some within the movement are starting to put forth a new way of interpreting the Bible that seems to flow out of postmodern philosophy.

    The part where any interpretation of the Scripture is just my own interpretation is the thing with me. I’m supposed to buy that anytime I think that I have determined what the Bible “actually says,” I am “as far from what the text says as possible.” I’m supposed to get an interpretation of any given passage from what amounts to as group consensus on the issue. It’s almost a perspectival view of truth.

    Truth is just my perspective? If truth is just perspective, is the truth that ‘truth is just perspective’ a perspective or an absolute, prepositional truth? Seems hard to swallow. The only perfectly true and accurate authority for faith and practice is the Bible. I don’t want to see us all get to far from that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks JK. Good insight on how some would make a case for relativistic interpretation. I particularly liked:

    "If truth is just perspective, is the truth that ‘truth is just perspective’ a perspective or an absolute, prepositional truth?"

    ReplyDelete

I love to get comments and usually respond. So come back to see my reply. You can click here to see my comment policy.