Why They Don't Say Emergent

"Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be". Absolutely hilarious! I only read the sampler PDF, cheap and stingy as I am, but what I read was really funny and actually quite clever.

Heres a couple of guys practicing, as far as I can see, emerging-missional ministry in a fabulously Reformed way and at the same time telling people why they are not 'emergent'. You have to see the irony of the whole thing! Especially funny is the use of postmodern graphics on the front cover and then an innocent rib-poke at postmodernism. Beautiful! Classic! And the fact that it poses as an "anti-emergent" book gives it an automatic thumbs up by virtually every critic under the evangelical sun.

I haven't read the whole book and I have never met these guys - at least if they have shown up to any of our Emerging church roundtables or events, then they probably didn't introduce themselves - but what I briefly googled about them seems great and I think I will like them when I finally get to meet them one day.

Ted Kluck is a well-received writer. I don't know much about his ministry - whether emergent ministry principles are employed or not - but his writings certainly take the necessary relevant form. Kevin DeYoung is Senior Pastor of University Reformed Church that supports "green" church planting and portrays its worship as "missional". His church is described with words like "mission minded" and "pilgrim" which is all very good. The missionaries sent out from his church seem to be doing wonderful contextually sensitive work overseas - exactly the same qualities and signs I would look for in an emerging-missional ministry back in the home country. And I was especially impressed with URC's one officially sponsored mission agency listed on their website - which I will not name due to its sensitive nature but you can look yourself. And I bring it up here because its a great example of what "emergent" looks like . . . without using the tag.

Technorati Tags: books, kevin deyoung, ted kluck, why we're not emergent

Their sponsored ministry [still unnamed here] seems like a really well-run holistic effort, reaching out in "areas of social, family, vocational, and physical needs, through services in education, health, and counseling." They play Middle Eastern music on the website and use "Storytime" in the community which I imagine works a lot better in communicating to the Eastern mindset than a 3-point propositional oratory. Their half-day immersion experience includes a visit to the Mosque at prayer time and listening to the Imam, which is exactly what I was doing a while ago. All sounds very post-colonial to me. I love it! So cool to see a traditional church allowing this level of cultural engagement and a style of communication that is narrative and not purely propositional . . . as is appropriate in this context.

Did somebody just say "Propositional"?

The real fun starts when a new Christ-Community starts forming from a very different non-Western culture like this, and they decide NOT to attend a Western style church where people dishonor God by leaving their shoes on for worship and placing their scribbled-on Bibles on the floor as if it were an ordinary book, and to . . well you get the picture. Rather, they start to form a community colored by their existing culture and allow Christ to build it His way.

But churches and missionaries who do this under the "emerging" banner get creamed for it.

Roger Oakland in his harsh critique against the emerging church called "Faith Undone", critiques what he calls 'emergent missiology' in which groups like YWAM allow their converts or 'Messianic Muslims' to visit the mosque and say their daily prayers but accept Christ as Savior. These new converts, Roger quotes from Charisma magazine, "continued in a life of following the Islamic requirements, including Mosque attendance, fasting and Koranic reading, besides getting together as a fellowship of Muslims who acknowledge Christ as the source of God's mercy for them".

Although I applaud Roger Oakland for a criticism that at least lands in the right place, I cannot agree with Roger's conclusion that the results are "disastrous". I also think Roger's either/or approach to engaging culture is quite juvenile compared to the more typical 6 stage scale many missionaries in emerging culture try to employ when considering the level of cultural engagement [from C1 as traditional church using outsider language all the way to C6 representing a full immersion and perhaps in danger of syncretism]

But generally speaking, what Roger condemns as "emergent missiology" is just the same old missiology that has been around for a very long time and it could probably be embraced by Reformed folk under the banner of sensitive contextual mission strategy . . . IF it doesnt have the horrible word "emergent" attached to it. Its more a matter of word-play than compromise.

So the moral of the story, as I see embodied here, is to fully obey Jesus by crossing barriers with the gospel and to do it in a culturally sensitive way so that a new community starts to emerg . . .ooopps . . . i mean. . . organically mature . . . while remaining simply structured and using existing appropriate native forms of organization, communication and cultural manners, all to honor God who has sent us just as He sent the Son . . . and never ever ever ever ever ever EVER use the word "emergent" or you will not be invited to speak at a Reformed conference!

As if that matters to you.

And it reminds me of that post I wrote called "How your Emerging Church Can Stay in Calvary Chapel, Inc." This also reminds me of when James MacDonald told everyone why he was not emerging but the sound track on his website was a special theme song composed by none other than emerging worship leader David Crowder. LOVE IT!!! I took a screen shot that still makes me laugh.

And this book will make you laugh also. Everyone seems to like it. I haven't read a bad review yet. Even Don Carson liked it, although he might have missed the irony. I might have to forgive the publishers for not sending me a review copy and just buy the whole book to see what else they authors say.

If you have never read a book on emergent theory, [and if I was critiquing this book a bit more seriously, i would question whether the authors had or not - but then i have only read the first two chapters] then I recommend Steven Johnson's Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software as well as the best book on how emergent theory impacts the church on mission which is, of course, Kester Brewin's Signs of Emergence.

Blurb for Kester's book - "Drawing on the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ, as well as urban theory, art, and social practice, Kester Brewin calls the church to dispense with tired structures and re-emerge as a networked, bottom-up organism that is responsive to the needs found in the urban environment."

hmmmmmm . . . . if emergence finds a basis in the incarnation of Christ, and we are told to consider the ant and its emergent behavior (Prov. 6:6) . . then why is it such a bad thing???

SORRY - my mind was slipping away to the BIBLE for a brief distracted second there . .

right . . back again . .

And if your reading list of emerging or emergent books contains no books at all on the missiology that informs it [what DO they teach people in Seminary these days???] then just start picking up any books you can on mission and get your head around the idea that we all have to think like missionaries in our own culture if we are to fulfill the Great Commission in our back yard and see new communities of Christ appear . emerge . . . get planted . . . whatever you call it . . .

Anyway, Ted and Kevin . . . congrats on a great book. May you continue what you are doing and never be "emergent."

Comments

[ed cyzewski]

It just goes to show how labels can get in the way of people who generally would otherwise agree. Josh Brown posted a little while back on the importance of people who call themselves emergent doing their homework, and I think the missiology homework is key. I think Christians can find a lot more consensus when we talk missionary principles than if we started tossing around emergring, reformed, etc.--however helpful those titles may be at times.

Here's hoping and praying for more dialogue, understanding, and collaboration, even if we can't use the word "emergent".

[Abraham]

I'm confused by the sorts of endorsers they chose.

Who are they trying to sell this book to? It would seem like the audience they're shooting for is people who already hate all things "emergent."

But if that's the case, then what's the point?

[Michael Cline]

I'm in a circle where I have to be very careful of my church lingo. "Emerging" seems to be more and more acceptable, but at the "gent" on there, and you either (1) Don't believe in Hell, (2) Are a complete relativist, or (3) Practice eastern cultic worship.

So I stay underground when I'm back home (but not in the Twin Cities, where being "Emerging" is like being middle class).

But I'm wondering--I listened to the podcast these guys gave, either on emergent village or josh and nick podcast perhaps. Are you suggesting that they are being purposefully ironic but letting the publishers bill them as an "anti-emergent" book? They seemed pretty clear in their distance from Emergent and seemed unaware of the irony you have found in their own words. Just wondering.

[andrew jones]

or am i being more ironic than i should be?

[becky]

Andrew - as we've discussed in the past, you also have those of us (esp. in the states) who use "emerging" because "emergent" has come to mean that stream postevangelical emergent church with an emphasis on independent church planting doesn't resonate with many working in mainline churches esp. those of the Anglican variety.

As I'm an avid flyfisher, I described this to someone using a fishing analogy (well Jesus was a fisherman) - the emergent streams seem to be akin to fresh and saltwater. The ultimate goal is the same (catch fish) and the overall concept remains the same but the gear, techniques, etc. are radically different.

[David]

andrew, you are just more iconic than you should be. :P

[David]

oh... as you have demonstrated, the emergent wink is still the most revolutionary response to the critics such as like.

;)

[J. R. Miller]

Interesting take.

Have you written some stuff that gives your definition of "emergent"? I would be interested in read your thoughts.

Thanks!

[TSK: JR, the name is used different for churches and missions in every country so i try to limit my audience to avoid confusion. when in usa in 2005, i jotted down some thoughts that i used when i briefed a group of mission and Foundation leaders. here and there are more links to more resources.

Snippet: “Emergent”, as it is used in “emergent theory”, is a name given to the phenomena of how new organizational structures progress from low-level chaos to higher level sophistication without a hierarchical command structure. Emergent theory explains how birds change direction, how slime mould moves, how ant colonies are built and how Amazon.com knows so much about us. The process involves constant communication and feedback among the lowest level of organization, pattern recognition, local action affecting global behavior, and takes into consideration the element of unpredictability in a chaotic system. Solomon was wise in suggesting that we observe the ways of the ant and be wise (Proverbs 6:6) And the emerging church has been wise in allowing the vocabulary from emergent behavior to give a window of insight to the traditional church.]

[bradm]

The fact that you like some of what they do at their own churches and that emergent folks do similar things doesn't make them emergent. I guess I fail to see the irony.

[andrew jones]

sorry if it is not clear. The irony thats sticks out to me is this:

take what you know of emergent theory (google it and find some principles from computer science or business or agriculture) and then put those emergent principles up against:

1. the mission agency supported by Kevin's URC in close proximity to the supporting church [hint . . . oh my . . what similarities!!!]

and 2. a church like Rob Bell's Mars Hill which actually did not "emerge" in the same way and might come up short on the list of emergent characteristics

and then . . have the people from number 1 write a critique of number 2, calling them emergent in a critical way and calling themselves non-emergent but at the same time . .

ahhh . . am i ruining this by spelling it out?

must run off to play badminton. pick it up later. bye.

[Matthew Wilcoxen]

Interesting that you call David Crowder an "emerging worship leader." Has he called himself that, or are you staking your claim? lol.

[TSK: matthew - i have no idea if he uses the word to describe himself and maybe now that he is established as an artist, he could no longer be considered emerging.
but back when he used to do conferences with us and his pastor (Chris Seay from Young Leaders/Emergent) around the USA, the word "emerging" seemed to fit.]

[Scot McKnight]

Well, Andrew, you might be spoofing everyone but I read that book, talked with one of the authors, and I didn't take away anything other than a serious critique of emergent. In fact, I'd say they are calling anything that smacks of liberal theology "emerging/emergent."

[TSK: Thanks Scot. I take that as a challenge to read the whole book and i look forward to doing so in the near future. The confusion with liberalism is unfortunate. I would be curious to know where they get that from. It certainly is not the conclusion i have drawn in my journeys although i have met some liberal folk that have also joined this mission into the emerging culture.
but then . . i have also met some liberal folk that pray. thats doesn't mean evangelicals should not pray

But Scot, I am not spoofing. I am deadly serious in appreciating and celebrating the good ministry that Kevin's church is doing with their Middle East outreach and i really do think it exemplifies best practice and personifies emergent characteristics]

[eric Blauer]

Well...the style of the website of URC is sure "modern" not a pomo bone in its body.

[eric Blauer]

Well...the style of the website of URC is sure "modern" not a pomo bone in its body.

[ally simpson]

so what is "postmodern graphics" then?

Honestly i would enter the discussion but you know what i see?

Just another couple of dudes with some opinions who want to try to make their point. Call it emerging, emergent, not emergent, whatever ...............its all an enigma wrapped inside a riddle or whatever the crap Spacey says at the end of that film!! ha

[andrew jones]

or better yet . . . just DO it and expect that the new will always be suspect and whatever name people give it will be short-lived so try not to name things.

Jesus didn't name his movement. I can see why.

for an understanding of postmodern aesthetics of the 1980's vs. internet aesthetics, see Lev Manovich in "The Language of New Media"

[ally simpson]

What about a movement that had no name? great point Andrew.
I guess that is virtually impossible, if you don't name it then someone will.
It just seems that emergent/emerging is such a broad term and its boundaries seem very blurry, almost undefined, in the same way that evangelical has become mighty hard to nail down these days, its kinda funny to see so many people trying to define their team and in doing so creating other new teams with tiny little differences

[ally simpson]

oh and forgot to say, i knew what you meant by Postmodern graphics, i didn't articulate well enough that i think the term in relation to art/media/graphics is a crock of sh@t!
My mother always told me to tell the truth!

[andrew jones]

i think rather that the term is dated, and we no longer use the term "postmodern" to define art. but back in the day it had meaning and still does. check out manovich - his description of webpage aesthetics in contrast to postmodern is quite good.

and yes, people will always throw names at us [like "Christians"] and its always hard to know whether to stick with the name or to leave it when the label no longer fits.

[Scot McKnight]

Andrew,

What struck me was that this book did four things:

1. Critiqued liberal trends.
2. Call liberal trends emerging.
3. Critiqued liberal trends as emerging.
4. Ignored moderate and even conservative trends among "emerging" types.

The book is well-written, mostly fair and balanced, but I didn't agree with the decision to seek for liberal trends and call them the emergent group. As you know well, I am one of those folks who think the emerging movement is actually broad and includes all sorts. Some of whom are quite conservative theologically.

[andrew jones]

i know that, Scot. If this is the direction of the book, then I would say it is ill-informed.
In my experience, theologically conservative churches that start a church planting project in the emerging culture are happy with the result and the new plant carries the essential DNA of its mother church, even though it may look different.
And likewise for a liberal church that wants to plant one. But I don't come across many liberal churches that want to play and if they did, they would probably not want me - with my evangelical protestant convictions - to give my oversight or counsel over the process.

And you are right - the book seems really well written, and funny, and casual, and fair in a fun, elbowing kind of way, and the two guys seem like they are worth getting to know. Glad you got to chat with one of them.

[J. R. Miller]

I found your short series where you give your best "definition" of emergent, so I will read that.

Thanks.

[andrew jones]

ahhhh . . that was for a magazine in 2004 - link here. hope it is still helpful and not too old.

[metamoses]

Well done, Andrew!
I posited a crackpot theory on my blog about "emergent/emergence" becoming a catch-all scapegoat for stuff (theological, scriptural, cultural, etc-al) church people don't agree with- regardless of actual evidence to link said stuff with emergence. Sad to see its in effect already and that i (or whomever i subconciously stole it from)didn't make it up.
BTW- noticed the term "emergent leader" being used often in the book excerpt, but doesn't the term "emergent leader" nearly cancel itself out? How does that work?

[andrew jones]

good point on leadership. In emergent theory, leadership happens momentarily - like a lead goose leading the rest of them for a quick turn - but then transfers to the next "leader" who is positioned in the right time and place.

much more of a group thang than a superstar thang.