New Dynamic in the Conversation: "I'm More Emerging Than You Are"
When Mark DeVine picked up the current authoritative volume on Emerging Church, as endorsed by Scot McKnight, he was in for a surprise:
The first cold water to hit my face was the contention that Mars Hill Church, pastored by Mark Driscoll, does not meet the criteria for authentic emerging communities (Gibbs/Bolger identify 3 core patterns and 6 optional patterns). Gibbs and Bolger recognize Mars Hill as a Gen-X church, aimed at a cultural and demographic slice of a given community. Mars Hill, like its “conservative Baptist, seeker, new-paradigm, purpose-driven predecessors; only the surface techniques changed(p. 30)”- they remain essentially modern.
This is puzzling, because...
If Mars Hill in Seattle, Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC, and The Journey in St. Louis are being found relevant by hundreds and thousands of urban twenty-somethings today; that’s Generation Y and younger, nicht wahr? And what does that say about the emerging assessment of what is relevant and what is not? Like Bultmann and especially Paul Tillich, once you set yourself up as the prophetic perceivers of current and future felt-relevance, don’t the numbers matter then? What is wrong with these Gen-Y’s who we are told (unlike the Gen-Xers) are thoroughly postmodern. Why can’t they see that Mars Hill, Redeemer, and The Journey are irrelevant to them! Frustrating.
I haven't read Emerging Churches by Gibbs and Bolger, but the prospect of setting up parameters around "emerging church" proper seems like a problematic one, given the movement's porous nature. Also, as DeVine points out: When "relevance" is your justification for existence, assigning outsider status to guys like Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller is an unusual call.
5 comments:
I do believe that one could push back a bit on Gibbs and Bolger’s “exclusion” of a church like Mars Hill by the mere existence of the people they have attracted, however I am not surprised and personally agree that Mars Hill is more of a “Gen-X church, aimed at a cultural and demographic slice of a given community” than an emerging church. Using Stetzer’s taxonomy, I see Mars Hill falling squarely into the category of Relevants. It is a modern approach to ministry with stylistic modifications that have connected very well with their “target group.” To which I would say praise God! Well done! Keep up the good work!
However, it does not “fit” what Gibbs and Bolger have observed in their research, and what they have subsequently described as emerging churches. “... it may be helpful to compare emerging churches with existing forms of church. Against all stereotypes, coffee and candles do not an emerging church make. As already mentioned, Gen-X megachurches are not emerging churches, and neither are Gen-X/young adult services. Indeed, they may meet the criteria for creativity, but they fall short in regard to the other eight categories. Their approach to ministry is modern, with their dualistic/spiritualized/interiorized understanding of Jesus, (while I believe this is true of many/most churches, this may not be a fair assessment of Mars Hill) their embrace of the sacred/secular split, and their focus on the church meeting as opposed to community life. The same is true for their parents, seeker churches that may feature a creative service but do not display the other eight categories.” (p. 45)
there is a sign that says:
be the genXchurch
be the postmodern church
be the emerging church
just be the [f-ing] church already
i think there is truth in that. i do find it problimatic to define the two at all.
i think we just all need to move from "doing church" to "being the church" -- not going for what we are told to do but succeeding in a differant way.
maybe we should just call all of them 'different shades of a post-evangelical church'
Well to say that Mars Hill (Portland) is not the emergent church is not that out there. Mars Hill has a doctrine, and though it might end up being the one the Emergent Church takes on, the EC is still just a bunch of bloggers and authors talking. What we need is to come up with a set in stone doctrine, and it is that doctrine that will decide weather or not a church is Emergent or not.
My vote goes with MH, I think Mark is solid in his theology and understand of the culture.
I think the German phrase nicht wahr doesn't help make the paragraph any clearer.
I appreciate the thoughts here. Something I still debate myself is how deeply involved in the Emerging Conversation I care to get, in terms of the semantics involved. So much (most??) of the energy gets diverted to self-analysis and description that "mere Christianity" ala C.S. Lewis, ala Richard Baxter, seems more appealing all the time... not sure where I'll come to rest on all this.
I think the German phrase nicht wahr doesn't help make the paragraph any clearer.
People with doctorate degrees often translate little bits of their sentences into German, simply to showcase their language abilities. In this case, "nicht wahr" means, "and you know it, Brian McLaren!"
Post a Comment