Will The Emerging Church Conversation Truly Say Anything New?

The emerging church conversation has made its way to the forefront of the alternative Christian landscape as the latest trend in recent years. This para-movement apparently had its origins with a group of youth pastors and leaders who had a desire to network and explore greater ways to be more relevant and creative in their ministry to teens and college students. It has actually been around for more than a decade and has grown steadily in influence as a very attractive segment. Similar to the house church movement in that it does not have central organization, the emerging church attempts to defy definition, labels, and stereotypes. The trend touches every corner of Christianity, crosses denominational lines, and involves all interested parties. To be “emergent” means you ask a lot of questions, remain open-minded, resist resolutions, and encourage dialogue as the golden key to enlightenment. Most recently, some have attempted to shape their expression of emerging church into more of a defined denominational thing (no surprise there), while others have threatened to “begin” a new spin-off segment in defiance of anything resembling centralization. If interested in more of a history and definition of “the conversation”, I encourage looking up a good Wikepedia article online. Because it is in the “headlines” so to speak and its many voices do have the ears of many seeking, out-of-the-box Christians, my purpose in addressing the emerging church trend in this chapter is to tell what I applaud about the conversations, describe where I believe the movement is falling short, and share my thoughts about the validity of the emerging church as a potential revolutionary force.

Things I Appreciate

There are several things on the surface I wholeheartedly applaud as spiritually healthy and viable coming from the emergent ranks. Many of the same attitudes I practice myself and encourage others in. I support the questioning of structures, systems, and traditions found in the church today. I would not be where I am today in my practice of church life if I had not participated in boldly asking important questions. Discovering the origins of our modern church practices is vital in our following the Lord in an organic way. I appreciate the desire to be relevant to post moderns. There must be a relevant gospel message presented in every generation. If we are a genuine, spiritual Christian people who are engaging our culture, I believe we will – as a by-product of our new nature – relate in a common and accessible way. I applaud wanting authentic and open dialogue. There must exist a place between us and among us where there is the opportunity for discussing the sensitive, controversial, and difficult issues. An atmosphere of acceptance, respect, and trust available for the sincere who are seeking help, hope, and feedback. A place where ego, judgment, negativity, agendas, and quarrels are absent. I believe a people who are touching Christ will in turn be a people who are teachable, shapeable, and welcoming without being susceptible to error or deception.

Items of Deep Concern

I would like to continue by highlighting what I believe are monumentally important issues the emerging church conversation is grossly neglecting.

I feel the para-movement has failed to take aim at the modern pastoral office. This office, regardless of motives and intentions, is a slave to the systems and traditions supposedly being questioned. The modern pastor props up and perpetuates the structures and institutions that restrict The Body of Christ. Remove him and you are well on your way toward an organic expression of church life.

The emergents have neglected the role of the itinerant church planter. Neglected is not the correct word – not even on the radar is more like it. This is a core reason why most cutting edge movements always return to the same old structures and Sunday morning ritual of active clergy and passive laity.

Where is God’s eternal purpose in all of this conversing? Does anyone know it? Is anyone sharing it? The eternal purpose was central to Paul’s church planting and ministry in century one. Is our message and method better? Have we evolved and out-grown it? I say we are man-centered!

Like so many movements and trends of the past, I see so much talk and theory with little to no actual adjustment to the way we practice church, so we could expect some real change. Why doesn’t anyone have the courage to try this? Do we really want to see anything change? I have my real doubts.

Why isn’t an indwelling Lord being mentioned? Where is the talk on Jesus residing habitually in us and among us? We appear to still be stuck on revival, WWJD, much activity “for the Lord”, numbers & nickels, and miracles. All outward, sensational, and surfacy. How are we to live by the life of our Lord if we are not acquainted with the inward journey and its reality? Scripture tells us that “Christ in us” is the hope of glory. That we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Our outward manifestations will not be fruit of the Spirit if they are not an overflow of the work of God within our spirits. This is largely how we come to know Him, by recognizing and responding to His inner life installed in us. Christ is to first be revealed in us then to be revealed through us to the outside world.

Is anyone operating with a knowledge and understanding of the first-century narrative? Why are we not more acquainted with the chronological story of the early church? Does anyone care to search it out? Because we cling to our regurgitated Bible study methods, our chapters and verses, our prooftexting approach to “topics”, and our hyper-appreciation for knowledge, we invariably hold to traditions, systems, and structures that perpetuate practices that actually have no Biblical or New Testament basis at all. We are blinded and at a disadvantage because we do not know the story. This can not be overstated in my opinion. We are literally unable to see Christ, The Church, and God’s eternal purpose in their rightful context because we do not use a holistic approach when touching the NT. The other great travesty is that we miss the overwhelming emphasis by the NT writers that our faith is intensely and irrefutably a CORPORATE experience. Because we are ignorant of the story, today’s gospel (fueled by the great influences of culture – the enlightenment & the scientific method) is individualistic through and through and to the core! We are alone and don’t have to be! The Christian life was never intended to be attempted solo. A whole other universe is available to us when we are able to see the Lord’s intention through the local church as a body life habitat where fallen saints, living at close quarters, work out this great salvation as a company – growing in conformity to their Head who is Christ. Question: Why is the chronological narrative of the first-century church not passing the lips during the emerging church conversation? Why is it eerily absent when we claim to be so Scriptural? If our ecclesiastical traditions are built on a faulty and sandy foundation because we do not even know (or are even aware of) the story of our early sisters and brothers, is it any wonder we are long overdue in questioning our modern church practices? How have we justified the way we do things then? We have used the Bible but we have not applied the real Story! If we are ready to stare into the mirror of our own ignorance, I am convinced we will be moved to godly sorrow over this forgotten woman (The Bride of Christ). Without a people who know and operate from the narrative, I fear we will fail to see a truly counter-cultural church expression in this generation.

Two last things:

Where are the truly Christ-centered ministries and messages out there in the emerging world? Why so institutional and academic? Why are we still so topical and systemic? We preach “its” and “things”. We share doctrines and formulas. We have a mastery of principles and themes. We are so organized and … dare I say predictable and boring? Methodical and numbing. God’s people have been sermonized to death! The Gospel of Jesus Christ is fiery. It is spontaneous, wild, and barbaric. It is inspiring and enthusiastic. It is passionate, different, and carries weight. Yes, it is peaceful and sound, but it is not asleep! Do we forget that our message is a Person! The King of the Universe. The All in All. The all sufficient One. Is He not enough? All the fullness of God is found in Him. When He comes in, all of the “things” come with Him. We have no need for analyzing and dissecting and compartmentalizing when it comes to Jesus. He is a whole Person who wants to be wholly embraced. He is enough. If we would just stick to sharing Him in a simple way, we would find that He has a way of covering it all. We would have no need to deploy our precision management techniques we have added to the Gospel. Count how many times Paul directly references Christ in his letters. He is saturated with Christ and he means to saturate the saints with nothing but their glorious Lord. At one point he stated, “I purpose to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified among you.” Where are the workers of today who have that approach? Jesus Christ is not an ideological system that must be proved. He is the ultimate personality. Our Gospel Message is a Him. And He ought to dominate the entirety of our communications with each other and to the world.

With all of this open dialogue, endless questioning, ultra-transparency, never-arriving, and all-inclusiveness that seems to be the banner of the emergent ranks, I wonder if the world can detect that we are actually standing for anything at all? Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate being teachable. I despise an exclusive mindset and spirit among God’s people. I admire hunger, desperation, and seeking in our pursuit of knowing the Lord. I prefer an open heart to a closed mind, any day. I don’t think I would be much of a Christian if I didn’t possess these attitudes. My concern is that we may be allowing our “openness” to dominate the headlines so to speak, when the posture that the emergents claim as their identity should probably be quietly taking place behind the scenes. What ought to be at the forefront of the emerging movement is a stance for Christ Himself being given first place in all things related to the church and ministry. From the vantage point of glory, there is no other vision in view. Anything else is resorting to subjects and topics and behavior modification for the Lord’s people. Christ is the answer. Christ is certain. Christ is absolute. Christ will not fail. We can build and stand on Him by the Spirit and it will always produce (by nature) wholeness, both inwardly and outwardly.

I will stop there …

Closing Observations

In my personal experience I have witnessed many similarities within the Third Wave (3rd generation Pentacostal & Charismatic – including Word of Faith, Full Gospel, Vineyard, and Apostolic and Prophetic movements) movement and the Seeker-friendly/Willow Creek circles that I see playing out in the emerging church conversation drift. Both seemed to have had their times in the sun as the latest ear-tickling trends and dominated the headlines of the popular evangelical Christian world for a season. There was a lot of talk about being “New Testament”, returning to the ways of the early church, the cutting edge, being relevant, disdain for “religion”, community, being Biblical, creative expression, changing our cities, signs and wonders, restoration of the “five-fold ministry”, 10/40 window mass evangelism, remote missions, small groups, body ministry, and abandoning traditional worship styles. But when it came down to it, and this is the hinge pin for me, nobody was willing to radically alter the way they practiced church or their leadership models to realize the major changes they were frequently suggesting. Nobody was willing to sacrifice anything out of the ordinary. The old adage “If you always do what you’ve always done then you’ll always have what you’ve always had” proved true yet again. It was all a bunch of talk that resulted in zero change. None. That was eventually what drove me from their ranks. I wanted to be with people who were willing to abandon such things as comfort, convenience, positions, titles, popularity, money, influence, and security for the dream of God. That is why I believe the emerging church is headed in the exact same direction as her predecessors; a case of history repeating itself, just dressed up in different clothes. Church history has proven time and again that whenever practice and leadership is left untouched during times of reform, there is inevitably a return to the stale old default setting of an active clergy and a passive laity. Puke!!!

So ultimately my question for the emerging church conversation is this: Does this movement signal a true paradigm shift or not? If the issues I have brought up in this chapter are not addressed with pure Christ-centeredness then the answer emphatically must be NO!

Also, why does there not seem to be an appreciation for the simple, the poor, the not-so-educated, and the wild at heart (ala 1 Cor. 1:18-31) among the emergents? Why does there seem to be an intellectual bent with all of their communications, books, articles, websites, and messages? It seems that if you are not waxing witty then it is unlikely that you will be taken seriously or become well received.

After reading this chapter, some may ask me, “So what is your prescription for what will work?” My answer would resemble something like this: I believe I have been outlining that very thing throughout this book. Simply put, only a radical abandoning of all things institutional, an attempt to start over at ground zero in our Christian experience, and abhorrence to all modern leadership styles, could even give us a fighting chance at revolutionary change. We desperately need a revelation that The Church is something contrary and outside of culture. Perhaps then can we only begin to “emerge” from the ashes of devastation that centuries of pagan Christianity brought on. I wish that we would fully emerge sisters and brothers!

Also, some reading this from the emerging ranks may falsely accuse me of being elitist, closed-minded, and opposed to dialogue. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, I purposely practice a lifestyle of resisting an elitist and sectarian mindset (which can be found in most every Christian denomination, movement, segment, and circle). With a church world and culture so tolerant and politically correct in our time, I can easily see how someone who actually had conviction and stood firm for something could be mistaken for being elitist. The radical, the extremist, and the non-conformist certainly are an endangered species and appear as an oddity to the postmodern mind. I want to assure you that I am of the barbarian type!


(an unedited excerpt from the Bonus Chapters section of Jon's upcoming book "Contending For The Church: Desiring The Way of Christ in How Christians Gather Today", to be released this Fall)