January 18, 2006
Unbundling Christianity: An Attempt to Define the Emerging Church
Since this blog launched last October one of the alluring conversations has been the nature and definition of the "emerging church." The debate started when James McDonald declared why he is not emerging, gained volume with my report on Brian McLaren's seven layers of the emergent conversation, and has continued to surface through many of Ur's entries.
To the frustration of its critics, and to the delight of its advocates, the emerging church has successfully resisted boundaries, categories, and labels. Such devices are seen by emergent's adherents as the shackles of modernity used to confine and control what should be free and fluid. To an increasingly suspicious culture even the desire to established discernable boundaries is met with alarm. Such categorization can only serve two purposes - either exclusion (the judging of others determined to be unlike me), or exploitation (the targeting of others for my gain).
So, it is with some trepidation that I venture into the forbidden territory of definitions with admittedly less experience and knowledge of the emergent landscape than many of you reading this post.
My reason for entering is simple - curiosity. Most of the outspoken opponents of the emerging church have leveled the same criticism. They accuse it of being merely a deconstructionist movement - deconstructing modern church forms, theology, and strategies without constructing valid (i.e. modern/rational) alternatives. However, I have a hard time believing a purely deconstructionist movement would endure and gain momentum as the emergent conversation has done. Likewise, if the emergent church were not constructing some alternative theology/philosophy of ministry why would so many opponents feel threatened?
So, curiosity has led me to ask - is it possible to identify the emerging church by what it is constructing instead of simply by what it is deconstructing? Of course any effective process of differentiation requires both, so my definition must include some discussion of deconstruction. But, rather than using that inflammatory and hopelessly postmodern terminology, I prefer the word "unbundling" to describe what the emerging church is achieving.
In marketing bundling is the practice of packaging several items together as a single product. For example, being nearly bald I really don't need conditioner for what remains of my hair. However, if I want to use a certain shampoo I am required to also purchase conditioner because the manufacturer has bundled them together. Bundling is a strategy that forces people to purchase more than they want or need by limiting their options.
The modern church is characterized by bundling. Modernity's insistance on categories and boundaries has meant certain theological traditions have been bundled with certain worship styles, forms, and modes of ministry. For example, in the mid 20th century a progressive view of social justice was typically bundled together with liberal theology and traditional worship or liturgy style. In the 1980s and 90s a serious commitment to reaching non-Christians was often bundled together with conservative theology, contemporary worship forms, and program driven ministries.
The prevalence of bundling in the modern church is obvious by the clearly defined categories by which churches identified themselves. In 1987 if someone identified their church as "seeker-driven" we all knew what that meant theologically, aesthetically, and culturally. Just as everyone knew what "traditional," "mainline," and "Pentecostal" meant. Today these categories are far more ambiguous.
In my experience, the most significant contribution of the emergent movement is the unbundling of the Western church. The assumption that certain theological traditions, forms of worship, and modes of ministry must be packaged together is no longer valid to those with an emergent disposition. These church leaders are looking over the vast landscape of the Church, whose horizon reaches 2000 years back and whose expanse is wider than any single tradition, and they are questioning the validity of modern American evangelicalism as a bundled entity.
Instead, the emergent movement is creating a new ministry paradigm where unbundled elements of the church can be reconfigured into previously unseen forms of Christian community and mission. For example, some emergent communities are combining conservative Protestant theology with Roman Catholic and high church forms of worship - two things previously kept in separate bundles. Likewise, we are seeing a progressive social and political agenda no longer strictly bundled with liberal theology. The fact that Rick Warren and Bill Hybles are addressing poverty and AIDS in Africa reveals that unbundling is even occurring in the flagship of modern Christianity - the megachurch.
The combining of traditions and theologies estranged in the modern era may also explain why emerging church leaders hold strong affections for the spiritual formation movement. An older friend once asked me why young church leaders were so drawn to Dallas Willard at a conference. After all, Willard had none of the style, flash, or youth often associated with the emerging church. But Willard, like Richard Foster, Renovar?, and other pillars of the spiritual formation movement, do draw richly from many church traditions previously not bundled with evangelicalism. They defy categorization, and represent the reuniting of Christian spirituality. They share the value of reconfiguration with the emerging church.
Perhaps no one personifies this better than Tony Jones. Jones is the national coordinator of Emergent - so his credentials as an emerging church leader are indisputable. He is also the author of The Sacred Way, a book that explores the spiritual disciplines of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions and then offers suggestions for how to apply them in our cultural context. Jones openly celebrates that we "live in a time of unprecedented cross-pollination" in the church. He, and other emergent leaders, personify McLaren's principles of generous orthodoxy.
If we take this practice of unbundling/reconfiguring as the defining characteristic of the emerging church then perhaps the movement is misnamed. The dictionary defines "emerge" as "to come out of." It's a word that emphasizes what the emerging church is moving away from - it's a word rooted, as critics have noted, in deconstructing the modern church. A more constructive word, I believe, is "merge." It is defined as "to join together different elements, mix, or combine." Perhaps a better name for what we are experiencing is the "merging church" as previously estranged elements of Christianity are unbundled from modernity and reunited into endless permutations of mission and community.
Posted by Skye Jethani on January 18, 2006
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/42
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unbundling Christianity: An Attempt to Define the Emerging Church:
» Having a Hard Time Figuring Out "The Emerging Church?" from two and two makes five
Let's face it - nobody knows what anyone means by the term "emerging church." For some, it's the world's biggest heresy since Gnosticism (or the "Left Behind" series - take your pick), and to others it's the greatest thing since [Read More]
Tracked on February 4, 2006
» Having a Hard Time Figuring Out "The Emerging Church?" from two and two makes five
Let's face it - nobody knows what anyone means by the term "emerging church." For some, it's the world's biggest heresy since Gnosticism (or the "Left Behind" series - take your pick), and to others it's the greatest thing since [Read More]
Tracked on February 5, 2006
Comments
I think this gets to the crux of the idea behind any movement present in current ecclesiastical circles. the idea of bundling, as I read it, was dead on. Yet it is so sickening that we would view "megachurch" leaders being involved in helping to alleviate a third-world pandemic as a sign of a major shift in the definition of "church." in reality, to do or be anything else really isn't being the church at all? a socially inactive religious group does not pass muster as a "church."
when did any sense of church lose the passion of mobilization toward the disenfranchised and broken of our world? This is a call to repentance, not simply to trend watching or categorical delineation in my opinion.
this is no personal strike against Skye, just an assessment of many statements coming together.
peace-
c.k.
Posted by: C.K. Tygrett at January 18, 2006
Skye, you wrote:
"[S]ome emergent communities are combining conservative Protestant theology with Roman Catholic and high church forms of worship--two things previously kept in separate bundles."
Perhaps I've misread you, but this isn't unbundling; it's repackaging.
A bundle is as bundle does--apologies to Gump.
Regards,
Rich
BlogRodent
Posted by: Rich Tatum at January 19, 2006
Interesting exploration. While I think merging is part of this journey, I think emerging is still appropriate. I am Canadian, along with millions of others. However, there is no singularly defining set of characteristics that make us Canadian. In the same way, there are generalities that encompass the emerging church movement, but to try and define it too singularly ignores what it is.
However, having mentioned nationalities, I will also say that much of the discussion here has been about the emerging church in the USA and about Emergent, the US organization. The emerging church is FAR from than these expressions. It is manifest remarkably different in other countries, such as Canada, UK or Australia.
Thanks for this place to explore the issues.
Peace,
Jamie Arpin-Ricci
Posted by: Jamie Arpin-Ricci at January 19, 2006
Rich--
Some emergent churches package Protestant theology with Roman liturgical forms, but this particuarly combination isn't the central tenant of "Emergentism." It is drawing from different traditions in a way that fits the particular context of each congregation. Bundling is just creating a new set of standard practices, but emerging churches are focusing on the need for unique approaches for EACH local body, not creating another universally applied standard.
That said, I think a legitimate criticism of the emergent movement is that for all the talk about diversity and the centrality of the local community as the shaping force, a lot of them look and feel the same--candles, indie-rock music, reliance on liturgy and ancient symbols, Protestant theology, the Eucharist. Where are the emergent churches that cross Eastern Orthodoxy with Black Gospel?
Still, I think Skye's definition is helpful, and gets beyond the surface of emerging churches to characterize the uniting philosophy of the movement. Perhaps we'll see greater diversity in emerging churches as the influence of emergent philosophy of ministry grows.
Posted by: Nathan Woodward at January 19, 2006
I'm one who is admittedly observing the 'emerging' church from afar. But the thing that has impressed me about it's most prominent exponents in Australia (represented through the Forge network), is its emphasis on mission. The primary questions I hear being asked are, 'What does it take to reach 21st century Australians for Christ? What is an authentic expression of Australian 21st century Christianity?' The forms the church takes are arising out of the response to that question. I don't agree with all the conclusions being made, but it is certainly helping pastors in many established churches think creatively.
Posted by: Alex at January 19, 2006
The word "merging" seems to imply reunification, and it seems premature to conclude that the Emerging Church is leading the church in that direction. Could "the Cross-Pollinating Church" perhaps be a more adequate title?
Posted by: Call Me Ishmael at January 20, 2006
I can't help but continually return to the thought that pomoism and much that is Emergent is completely self centered. How is that you ask? It's because of the resistance and refusal by most of lables and definitions and anything from the outside. It's all about "me" and how "I" define "myself" and nobody else can do that. It is a self centered and self driven philosophy. I always find it ironic how they talk about community and being missional, and yet are so self centered at the fundamental core of their thinking. It's not a problem for some emergent types to lable others as modernist and closed minded (there are volumes of examples across the web) but they won't let the street run both ways. I suppose it's just the next chapter in the individualistic and independent mindset of the modern Western culture.
Big Chris
Posted by: Big Chris at January 20, 2006
Nathan, I think I'll light a candle for the new Pope at a Baptist Eastern Orthodox, Black Gospel, United Methodist Assembly of Church of Christ.
I'd like to get baptized there, too, just to see what kind of water experience they'd come up with.
Posted by: Mark Goodyear at January 20, 2006
Big Chris,
I think that is entirely unfair. While I do not attend an emering church, I am deeply influenced by emerging theology. As a result, my wife & I now live and minister full time in an inner city neighbourhood. Many others I know have equally been challenged to live sacraficially, incarnationally and selflessly as a result. Generalization like that are rarely accurate or helpful.
Peace,
Jamie
Posted by: Jamie Arpin-Ricci at January 21, 2006
Reading this and much of the literature over, a lingering question for me: Who decides?
Who decides the "mix" for the bundle (or unbundle)? Is it the Pastor (assuming there is one), the Elders (assuming there are some), the Bishop (oh, I can hardly wait to see an "Emergent Bishop" or..?"Unbundled Bishop"?. How about when those deciding on the bundle leave for whatever reason?
Coming from a "bundled" Tradition myself (evangelical catholic, aka Lutheran) there is inertia in established systems, but there is also continuity. I have observed megachurches go through major upheavel when the senior pastor is replaced, bringing his own theology to bear. Does the same thing happen in the "bundled" church?
Just wondering....
Posted by: Chaplain Dave Poedel at January 24, 2006
Seems to me that this is just what the church has been doing regularly for it's history: seperating Christ from culture, reexamining it's assumptions and ideas and determining what is essential to following Christ and what has simply become part of the "package" out of habit or comfort. The "emergent" church is simply the church doing what it has always done and the discomfort many feel is simply the discomfort that has always been felt by those who (for whatever reason) want to hang onto cultural forms that they think are important.
Posted by: William at January 24, 2006
Jamie,
How exactly are my comments unfair and generalizations? I tried to be honest and as specific as possible, without accusing the few emerging leaders who aren't drinking McLaren's Kool Aid unfairly. You made a statement and didn't give support as to why you feel I'm unfair. I'm just sharing my observation, observations as one fairly close on a pretty regular basis to some influencial emerging (and emergent) people.
Big Chris
Posted by: Big Chris at January 28, 2006
If it's all about liberality, cross-pollination, and generosity, why am I sitting here looking at a book by McLaren and Campolo entitled "Adventures in Missing the Point?" Each self-contained chapter makes a neat little case of how other Christians are really messing it up.
So, I suppose that all the generosity is reserved for those who believe just like the emergents do.
Posted by: Zane Anderson at January 30, 2006
Big Chris
I think your comments are unfair becuase you could easilly apply the same accusations to most Groups of christians. Unfortunatly selfishness is part of the human condition.
How many worship war's are driven by how I like to worship or I don't want my church to change.
Selfishness is an endemic problem to dealing and working with people.
Equally from watshing and listening to emergent conversations and churches allot of talk about we and us is just as present as I and we. Emergent is full of groups talking about how do we define ourselves and our communities.
Equally i think many of these coments and the initail article are too UScentric to really catch the scope of emerging church and so we are really mostly talking about emergentUS church. Of which I think merging is a good descrition of what is going on now but i think as part of the merging new idea's and forms will start to emerge over the next few decades.
Posted by: Matybigfro at January 30, 2006
"Where are the emergent churches that cross Eastern Orthodoxy with Black Gospel?"
I don't know about Eastern Orthodox and Black Gospel, but if you want a church that combines Roman Catholic, Black Gospel and social justice check out St. Sabina Catholic Church on the south side of Chicago.
Posted by: Mike Clawson at February 24, 2006