What is the Emerging Church? Scot McKnight Fall Contemporary Issues Conference Westminster Theological Seminary Oct 26-27, 2006 I am particularly honored to be invited to speak at Westminster, not only because someone of my ilk – and I’ll let you exegete “my ilk” as you wish – rarely gets such an invitation, but because I’ve been invited to answer the question “What is the emerging church?” Perhaps a little Mark Twain tomfoolery will give us a fresh start. Here’s the urban legend: The emerging movement talks like Lutherans – which means they cuss and use naughty words; they evangelize and theologize like the Reformed – which means, in the first case, they don’t do much of it, and in the second, they do it all the time; they confess their faith like the mainliners – which means they say things publicly they don’t really believe in their hearts; they drink like Episcopalians – which means – to steal some words from Mark Twain – they are teetotalers sometimes – when it is judicious to be one; they worship like the charismatics – which means with each part of the body, some parts of which have tattoos; they vote liberal – which means they all move to Massachusetts come election time; they deny truth – which means Derrida is carried in their backpacks. Each of these points is wrong, but they are frequently repeated stereotypes that sting and bite – but, because they are wrong, as the emergents would say, they “suck.” In order to define this movement, there is a correct method to follow. Which is where I want to go now: to define a movement we must, as a WTS Emerging 2 courtesy, let it say what it is or describe it until the other side says “Yes, now you’ve got it.” To define a movement, we must let the movement have the first word. We might, in the end, reconceptualize it – which postmodernists say is inevitable – but we will should at least have the courtesy to let a movement say what it is. How many of you would tolerate an Arminian defining Calvinism by reducing it to “irresistible grace” or even TULIP? or of calling all of Calvinsim “hyper-Calvinism”? I think folks like you should get to define what you think, and I think the emerging folks should be given the same privilege. 1.0 D.A. Carson and Emerging The reason I say this is because I believe the most notable critique of the movement, that of D.A. Carson, in his Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, did not do this. Why say this? For the simple reason that this book (almost) narrows the discussion to one person – Brian McLaren – and narrows the issue – to postmodernist epistemology – and then nearly always defines the latter in “hard” postmodernist categories in spite of the fact that no Christian – at least not Brian McLaren – could ever be a hard postmodernist. Carson’s awareness of the distinction between “hard” and “soft” did not inform his analysis of McLaren. These are, I am aware, harsh words. I say them because of my opening principle: we have to let the movement say what it is and we have to learn to describe it in such a way that the movement says “Yes, that’s it.” I have probed and prodded emerging church leaders and ordinaries for about two years now, and I have almost never heard anything that resembles what Carson thinks is so typical of the emerging “church.” Let me say it WTS Emerging 3 again: I have sat for hours with Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt, along with two theologians who are much-admired in this conversation, LeRon Shults and John Franke, and I’ve never once heard any of them deny the truthfulness of the gospel or deny that there is truth in a hard postmodernist way. I have heard them push categories that many of us are familiar with about “truth.” In each case I’ve heard what I would call a chastened epistemology, what Lesslie Newbigin calls a “proper confidence.” But Carson, who otherwise (rather ironically) has so much good to say about Newbigin, doesn’t show that nuance, and it is telling. Because Carson’s book has been so influential, we need to say more. There is no such thing as the emerging “church.” It is a movement or a conversation – which is Brian McLaren’s and Tony Jones’s favored term, and they after all are the leaders. To call it a “church” on the title of his book is to pretend that it is something like a denomination, which it isn’t. The leaders are determined, right now, to prevent it becoming anything more than a loose association of those who want to explore conversation about the Christian faith and the Christian mission and the Christian praxis in this world of ours, and they want to explore that conversation with freedom and impunity when it comes to doctrine. Which is an issue in and of itself: the evangelical movement is defined by its theology (or as David Wells would say, by its lack of theology); the emerging movement is not defined by its theology. It doesn’t stand up and say, “Lookee here, this is our doctrinal statement.” To force the emerging movement into a theological definition is to do violence to it – it isn’t a theological movement and so can’t be defined that way. [Added: By saying that the emerging movement is not a “theological” movement, I have something specific in mind. The EM is not known by its WTS Emerging 4 innovative doctrinal statement or by its confessional stances. Now, to be sure, every movement is “theological” in one way or another, and that means the EM is a theological movement. But, what we need to keep in mind is that it not a “Reformed” movement with a new twist, or an Anabaptist movement with new leaders (though I think it is more Anabaptist than anything else), and it is not a Wesleyan movement centuries later. It is, instead, best to see it as a conversation about theology, with all kinds of theologies represented, with a core adhering to the classical creeds in a new key.] Also constantly misused in the debate today are the terms “emerging” and “emergent.” But, “emerging” is not the same as “emergent.” Please listen. “Emergent” refers to Emergent Village – an official clearinghouse for this conversation where there are cohorts across the world who officially associate themselves with EV. Emergent Village, or emergent, is directed by Tony Jones, a PhD student at Princeton, former youth minister, and now an energetic traveler on behalf of EV. “Emerging,” on the other hand, is bigger, broader, and deeper. “Emerging” is connected to EV the way WTS is connected to Reformed Christianity in the world (in all its brands). So, when you say “emergent” you should be thinking of Emergent Village and Tony Jones; when you think of “emerging” you should be thinking of … well, that is what I have to get to soon. [Added: I refuse to give up on this one. In spite of my protest above, speakers at the conference continued to refer to the “emergent” movement and the “emergent” church.] But, let me back up to Carson’s book – not because I delight in doing so but because I think it is necessary. By narrowing “emerging” to WTS Emerging 5 postmodernity and narrowing postmodernity to denial of truth, Carson has foisted upon the evangelical world a stereotype that most evangelicals are already prepared to reject. In other words, if you define emerging as Brian McLaren, and then narrow Brian to his sometimes incautious – even if nearly always probing and suggestive – comments about postmodernity and epistemology, and then roll out the implications of what Brian would seem then to believe, and then close with two chapters about what the Bible says about truth, you will give the impression that emerging is about hard postmodernism and, if you got your guts about you, you should avoid these folks like the bubonic plague. Which is what some are doing… which is fine … unless you want to be accurate. One more point. The leaders of what is now called Emergent Village are Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Chris Seay, and Tim Keel – along with others like Karen Ward, Ivy Beckwith, Brian McLaren, Mark Oestreicher, and others. Carson’s book, however, after sketching the movement by looking mostly at Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren and Dan Kimball, spends most of its time with McLaren and then Steve Chalke. Here’s Carson on p. 187: “As far as I can tell, Brian McLaren and Steve Chalke are the most influential leaders of the emerging movement in their respective countries.” Chalke famously equated penal substitution with divine child abuse. Now Carson’s got the major emerging church leader in England denying penal substitution. The problem is that Chalke is not a part of the emerging movement in the UK at all, and he is certainly not one of the “most influential leaders.” I wrote to Jason Clark, the leader of Emergent UK, and this is what he said: “Steve is a good friend of mine, and he denies … [he is the leader of the emerging movement in the UK] himself, and has never been part of the emerging church in the UK.” This connection by Carson, to use one of his WTS Emerging 6 own words, is sloppy work. That part of the book about Chalke should be ignored or cut out – it has nothing whatsoever to do with emerging. But, his point now has a life of its own, because some are now saying that the emerging movement sees the atonement in terms of cosmic child abuse … I’ll get to this in my lecture tomorrow. Yet another point: defining a movement by what folks are reading is hazardous. I think most emerging folks do read McLaren – does that mean they find his questions their questions or does it mean they find his resolutions theirs? The difference is enormous. 70 million copies of the Left Behind series have sold – does that mean pre-tribulation rapture is growing in the USA? In fact, one piece of research shows that 90% of the readers don’t believe its eschatology. I don’t need to fill in all the lines and implications here – the point is clear. Before I go on I must say this: there are many points in Carson’s book that hit their target. I suspect that the emerging movement, and Brian McLaren in particular, will be more careful when they speak publicly or write books about what “truth” means. In fact, I suspect the postmodernists among the emerging movement will more likely refer to Peter Rollins’ How (not) To Talk about God than they will Generous Orthodoxy. Carson reminds us that the emerging folk can’t continue to eat cookies that are all chocolate chips. Furthermore, Carson opens up with three elements of the emerging movement: protest against evangelicalism, protest against modernism, and protest against the mega-church. I think he’s right: the emerging movement is a protest. I don’t think it is the next “Protestantism,” as some have claimed, but it is clearly an anti- and protest movement. But, I must say this: if you want to know what the emerging WTS Emerging 7 movement is all about, don’t read DA Carson’s book first. Instead, first read Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Baker, 2005). Why? As I said before, the courteous thing to do is to let the movement speak for itself. Which is exactly what Gibbs-Bolger do. They show the center of the movement is about ecclesiology not epistemology. 2.0 Gibbs-Bolger and Emerging We need to move lest I begin to use some words that do not go well with a halo, as Mark Twain put it once. Or, as a Chicago politician once put it, let’s not cast “asparagus” at our opponents. Andrew Jones, aka Tall Skinny Kiwi, perhaps the most centrist voice in all of the emerging movement, rates this as his top book on the emerging movement. Here’s their definition: Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses the 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. This definition and delineation is the result of doctoral student research (Bolger) and professor (Gibbs) collaboration. Bolger is now a colleague of Gibbs at Fuller Theological Seminary. It is the only study complete enough to hand on to others and say, “Here, this is what emerging really is.” Tony Jones is doing his own study for his PhD at Princeton, and no doubt it will become even more definitive – WTS Emerging 8 and others have offered shorter analyses. But, for now, this is the study to which we must refer and I suggest that each of you – if you want to indulge in emerging discussions – buy and read this book. Of, if you can’t afford it, buy a cheaper of book of mine and check this book out of your library. What I am asking is that you be responsible enough to let their definition and their delineations shape the substance of what the emerging movement is. They are “communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures.” Just how many of them are there? No one knows, which means I have the platform to guess and exaggerate in order to make it seems a lot bigger than it really is. So, I turn now to George Barna’s book Revolution and repeat the oft-repeated number that there are 20 million born again Christians in the USA for whom the primary means of spiritual experience and expression is not the local church, and that by 2025 there will be 70 million such persons. Never mind that Barna then revised that 20 million down to 5 million, and that he seems to have what Joseph Epstein calls a “built-in squishiness.” What needs to be observed is that Barna is getting his fingers around some important facts, even if the theory that holds them all together – his grip – is up for serious debate. This is where “definition” really matters. Carson’s book narrows emerging to emergent and emergent churches to churches that question Christian orthodoxy and doubt we can know truth. In so besmirching the emerging movement with such a definition, many are prevented from seeing what Barna is pointing out: the emerging movement of churches and Christians involves the house church movement, simple church movements, and churches that may well not even have a “worship service.” Barna contends that 1 out of 5 Christian adults attend a house church at least once a WTS Emerging 9 month, and he calculates that 20 million adults attends a house church once a week. This movement is distinguished from “small groups,” and therefore forms a sizable population. Here’s my point: if you narrow the emerging movement to Emergent Village, and especially to the postmodernist impulse therein, you can probably dismiss this movement as a small fissure in the evangelical movement. But, if you are serious enough to contemplate major trends in the Church today, at an international level, and if you define emerging as many of us do – in missional, or ecclesiological terms, rather than epistemological ones – then you will learn quickly enough that there is a giant elephant in the middle of the Church’s living room. It is the emerging church movement and it is a definite threat to traditional evangelical ecclesiology. I would like to spend our time rehearsing Gibbs-Bolger’s nine characteristics, but you did not ask me to come here to summarize someone else’s book. Instead of doing that, I want to spend the rest of our time examining the emerging movement – again, as a missional ecclesiology – as characterized by four rivers flowing into Lake Emerging. 3.0 McKnight and Emerging [Added: Let me develop my metaphor first. There are four rivers flowing into Lake Emerging, a lake that is no more real to some than Lake Wobegon. I happen to be a believer in both, and so let me explain what I mean. Each of these rivers – postmodern, praxis, postevangelical, and politics – flows with its own integrity into Lake Emerging. Some hang out on that river and near where it flows into Lake Emerging. Others flow right into the Lake but hang out near the opening. Yet others flow into the river WTS Emerging 10 and boat themselves into the whole of Lake Emerging. Now if you see the complexity of location here, you will see the difficulty of pinning Lake Emerging down. This is the way most movements of this size are created. Hang on because it will eventually become clearer to all of us.] I begin with the obvious one. The emerging movement is to one degree or another connected to postmodernity. So, our first river to look at is the postmodern one. 3.1 Postmodern River “The mistake,” Mark Twain says God made, was “in not forbidding” Adam to eat “the serpent.” Had God forbad the serpent, Adam “would have eaten the serpent.” Imagine where we’d be had Adam eaten the serpent. Moral character, God reveals, is shaped by solid prohibitions. When the evangelical world prohibited postmodernity, as if it were the apple on the tree, from its students, the fallen among us – like Jamie Smith and Kevin Vanhoozer and John Franke and Stan Grenz and Ray Anderson – chose to eat it to see what it might taste like. We found that it tasted very good even if at times you found yourself spitting out hard chunks of nonsense. As some of us have learned, once again to quote Twain, “a week or two” with the postmoderns will “limber up” our “piety.” It is not always the piety that gets limber when one begins to read and absorb postmodernity. Sometimes it is the theology that can begin to be limber. I quote from Peter Rollins’ new book, How (Not) to Speak of God: “This understanding [of the emerging theological movement] includes a rediscovery of ideas such as: concealment as an aspect of revelation; God as hyper-present; the affirmation of doubt; the place of silence; religious desire as part of faith; Christian discourse as a/theological; God-talk as iconic; a