On Emerging Church

As my last post raised the knotty question of “Emerging Church” I thought I had better post something indicating my position on this matter. I could think of nothing better to do than reproduce a comment I posted on Monty's blog who was also thinking about the issue at the time. Frankly, I have to admit that I haven’t developed my thoughts on “Emerging Church” since I posted this comment (I really need to do a bit more studying):

On this emerging church business: I haven’t done much work on this matter myself but here are my first impressions, possibly to be corrected and enhanced by further study.

‘Emerging Church’ is one of those expressions that catches an underlying mood - probably a mood of disappointment/disaffection. That same mood might have manifested itself as far back as David Tomlinson - a defector from the quasi-cult restorationist movement - he emerged from that movement a rather disillusioned man and became the de-facto leader of “Post evangelicalism”.

Perhaps as a result of a quick succession of false dawns (involving various gnostic experiences, blessings, healings, prophecies, revivals, church structures, spiritual formulae, big personalities etc etc) crammed into living memory, a feeling of “we’ve tried all that, so where to next” prevails amongst Christians. I have seen quite a few spiritual restarts even in my time: that is, groups who attempt to clear the ground of the spiritual elaborations of their forerunners and remake church as they attempt to get back to a kind of contemporary primitive church – an oxymoron if there ever was one.

It’s not surprising, then, that the emerging church is a new philosophy of church that doesn’t want to look like a new overarching philosophy of church – after all, we’ve seen no end of them before. So the emerging church faces the logical conundrum also faced by postmodernism – how do you present a completely new philosophy without it looking like just another new philosophy? The result is a rather groping exploratory approach where the stress is on the journey rather than the destination, because all destinations, true to the postmodern sentiment, are thought to be end-of-rainbows. Sometimes there can be a downright evasiveness about just what the “new philosophy” stands for.

Emerging church knows what it isn’t, but sometimes I feel that it is not at all sure about what it actually is: Christian dissenters find themselves grasping the term “Emerging church” just as some disaffected evangelicals grasped at the term “Post evangelical” - terms that act as “rafts for the mind” when the mind is in the sea of confusing times. Thus under the umbrella of “emerging church” one can find Christains that make uneasy bedfellows – in short “emerging church” is a pastiche of views and a mixture of Christains that are trying to jump start a new kind of church, although some of them are still looking for the jump leads.

However, having said all that I find myself on balance sympathising with emerging church in as much as it is a reaction against, dowdy, strict, kitschy, plastic, corny, cosmetic, contrived, dated, out-of-touch, domineering, authoritarian, patriarchal, false, artificial, triumphalistic, pseudo, affected, unselfconscious manifestations of Christianity (if you want that in even more emotive terms see Ben). Fair enough we can all be a bit like any of those things at times, but when these tacky Christian styles come with a self confidence born of a conceited spiritual narcissism the product is very ugly phenomenon indeed, and I find myself in common cause with the emerging church people, in spite of being a “Grand Narrative” man myself.

Let me add that I do bulk at some emerging church counter reactions, reactions that may shows signs of the beginnings of a loss of grasp of the grand over arching themes of structured Christianity. Instead these themes have morphed into the shapeless blob of “God consciousness”. And the tremendous irony is that that is precisely where the affected touchy-feely narcissistic manifestations of Christianity, which emerging church is reacting against, was also taking us!

But I shouldn’t unfairly generalize on what seems to be a very variegated trend. On the matter of engaging society emerging church may have something to teach us and someone like Paul is probably the man ask about it. (and Ben!) I was fairly impressed by the authentic feel of the “Nooma” DVD’s (Rob Bell et al) and moreover there seemed to be behind them a gospel message that you and I, as fairly conservative Christains, would recognize and applaud.

“Evangelical Culture Disgusting” says Mega Church leader

A few postings I ago I reported the rather strong words of the Rev Mark Stibbe who suggested that those Christains who did not fall for the 1994 Toronto Blessing were in danger of committing the unforgivable sin. Well, today I have just received my copy of the February edition of “Christainity”. In this edition Rob Bell, Pastor of an emerging mega church and creator of the Nooma series of DVDs, is reported as saying “Evangelical culture is terribly sick in America. It’s absolutely disgusting and it is in no way a representation of what Jesus had in mind. It’s actually anti-Christ in its orientation”. Now let me say straight away that my impressions of Rob Bell have generally been very favourable and he comes over as an unwilling Christian megastar who is acutely aware of the pitfalls of celebrity and heady Christian scenes. But is evangelical culture really disgusting? That accusation is no big deal: how many times have I wanted to sign a written complaint about this or that bizzare evangelical practice or belief with “Disgusted of Norwich”? However, the “anti-christ” charge is rather different: that’s as strong as accusations of theological sin can get and makes Stibbe look like a master of tact! Whatever the truth is here it is nevertheless clear that there is spiritual pathology in America, because at the very least this sort of contention is evidence that things are not at all right between some very influential American Christains.

I sometimes ask myself why do I have to take such an interest in the “negative” hotspots of the Christian community and immerse my self in the worst that that community can throw at me? Some Christains, it seems, opt for a subtle epistemological method that in one sweep fixes all the deep contradictions in their ontology – they simply don’t go looking for them or they ignore them when they come their way. They stay within their social and empirical playpen and this circumvents what are otherwise spiritually dangerous liaisons with circumstances that are difficult to interpret. And those puzzling circumstances can be excessively challenging: after all, some of the contradictions one finds within evangelicalism actually could be construed as evidence against the very veracity of Christianity (if such is possible)

Why don’t I lead the quiet life and use a playpen epistemology? I don’t think I could do that simply because, as any serious investigator is aware, it is those strange anomalies that don’t quite fit the categories which are signposts to deeper truths. For this reason, and for reasons of integrity, VNP is committed to facing up to the whole of reality without prejudice, even when those sense making interpretations are not readily to hand.

Make my day - give me an anomaly.