Stand to Reason

For crying out loud.  I have so many things on my mind that I want to talk about.  I've tried to head toward other topics like music and book quotes on the Trinity, but the onslaught against the emerging church conversation never ends.  And as a good baptist I can't keep my mouth shut.  So I feel compelled, once again, to respond to an online article.  This time, one that links to me.

Stand to Reason, is an apologetics/discipleship ministry that intends to train Christians to defend the faith.  If you know more about StR and want to share more in the comments, feel free.  As for me, I've seen their site before but never felt compelled to spend much time there.  They may be great, who knows?

In a recent post on the StR blog, Brett Kunkle has decided to tackle the never-ending question, "Is Emergent a Conversation or Movement."  I'll draw out a few quotes and respond.

In quoting the Merriam-Webster dictionary, Mr. Kunkle writes,

It defines a conversation as an "oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas" and a movement as "a series of organized activities working toward an objective" or as "an organized effort to promote or attain an end." From these straightforward definitions, does Emergent qualify as a conversation or movement?

Okay, easy enough.  Let's see what he comes up with.

It seems that Emergent has moved way beyond the conversation stage. They have their own books, their own websites, their own conferences, and their own churches. They no longer offer mere sentiments, observations, or opinions.

Lovers of oak trees have books and websites and conferences, but that doesn't mean there is a movement of oak tree lovers.  They just enjoy studying, talking about, and sharing information on oak trees.  Apologists have books and websites and conferences.  Does that mean they have a movement of apologists?  Or are they just continuing a conversation about the faith that needs defending?

These things constitute a conversation that includes observations and opinions.  But what about that pesky fourth thing?  We may have a movement if we see a fleet of churches who are organized and working together to reach objectives and goals.  Uh, where are they?  Where's the denominational headquarters?  Where's the emergent pope or recognized president?  Where's the website that all emergents go to for directions because we all belong to a movement? 

There is no movement, at least not yet.

And having churches that consider themselves emergent or emerging doesn't mean there is a movement.  It means they agree on a word that helps to identify them, and they don't even agree on that.  And one "emerging church" can be very different from another, and yet another.  That makes for a pretty poor organized movement.

These things clearly show the emerging church is a conversation, and only a conversation so far.  But Kunkle continues.

Emergent is working toward a particular objective: to reform the Church. Now, there is nothing wrong with this objective in and of itself. We would certainly want to think carefully about the reforms being proposed by Emergent, but that is a topic for another day. My inquiry here has to do with Emergent’s insistence on being called a conversation rather than a movement.

It should be the work of every church to work for reformation: semper reformanda.  Just because there's a loose knit web of people who have a lot in common because they are talking about some specific reformational ideas to help us reach emerging generations doesn't mean there is a movement. 

And Kunkle ignores the fact that some who consider themselves emerging don't want anything to do with the church as they know it.  They want to start their own churches.  But a number of others want reform.  And some others are skeptical of getting too organized.  This varied understanding of church is the pulse of a conversation, not a movement that has an objective.

The answer may lie in Emergent’s seemingly ultra-defensive posture...when it comes under criticism. It seems to me that this may be a strategy, albeit an unconscious one, to get out from under ANY criticism. A movement with a clear objective ought to be critically examined so if Emergent can successfully label itself a "conversation" then they can deflect any attempt at examination or critique.

Or it could be that it really IS a conversation.  Getting into motive (conscious or not) puts a writer into a highly flammable situation.  I agree, if it's clearly a movement and they try to deflect criticism, there's something very wrong.  But I already showed there's no evidence of a real movement. 

And I would love to see examples of where those in the conversation are unwilling to accept criticism.  I have seen Brian McLaren (for example ) accept criticism like I haven't seen an evangelical do so.  Here is an example.  There is a new blog with a (sometimes too harsh) critique of Emergent.  Those sympathetic with emergent who comment on that site aren't saying they shouldn't be critiqued.  There is dialogue and critique of both sides.  I think the claim that emergent wants to avoid critique is imaginary.  Theories of evasion and unconscious strategy are fun and all, but unproven.

They have offered a clear critique of the current Church, they draw clear conclusions, and they offer a particular direction which they believe the Church ought to move in. For evidence of this, simply pick up any book by a recognized leader of Emergent.

Really?  I've picked some up and read them.  They are thin on clear conclusions and particular directions, but thick on critique and possible suggestions.  They point out possibilities and dreams of the church.  Believe me, I really wish they were clearer on direction and solutions!

So let us set aside any debate over whether Emergent is a conversation or movement and move on to the more important task of carefully and thoughtfully examining Emergent’s views on and proposals for the Church.

You can approach the emerging church conversation any way you like.  But I suggest it's always better to try to understand it before you speak about it.  And Kunkle, like too many evangelicals, doesn't understand much about the emerging church yet.   Maybe this will open up dialogue that will prove fruitful.

Comments

[Todd]

Nice post Steve. Alan Roxbrough suggests a notable difference between "Emergent" and "emergent." Johnson's book titled, "Emergence" is an excellent look at 'emergence theory" and i sense it forms a better description of what is longed for as opposed to a convention, denomination or other forms of connection. some describe it as "organic" but i am not sure that necessarily defines it. McLaren links to Wendell Berry's piece, "In Distrust of Movements", also a good read (IMO).

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks Todd.

By the way, do you know of a site or post where emerging, emergent, Emergent are explained and how to use them. I at times have difficulty knowing when to use them.

[Todd]

Likely one of the best is the redux Andrew Jones is doing over at www.tallskinnykiwi.com. I will do some looking to see if Roxbrough put these thoughts online with his co-blogger Christ Erdman.

[Steve McCoy]

Yeah, I've been keeping up with Andrew over there. That's the only place that came to mind for me.

[Wes]

Steve...thank you. Both your thinking and your heart give me much hope. Don't stop now.

[Sivin]

I'd still like to see it as an "emergent conversation" (of course, we're moving somewhere with all this listening, talking and thinking). As an Asian, Malaysian, Chinese ... etc. it was the word "conversation" that drew me in to eavesdrop and then later participate. If it was "movement" I would have stayed more at a distance even though I'm interested.

[Steve McCoy]

Sivin, I'm right there with you. I would have remained an interested observer if it were truly more than a conversation. Thanks for adding that important thought.

[Brett]

Hey Steve,

I'm the author of the post you have critiqued. Thanks for taking the time to engage my thoughts there. I learn a lot through such interaction.

Let me say two things in response:

(1) You added a number of necessary conditions to the defintion of "movement" when you said "We may have a movement if we see a fleet of churches who are organized and working together to reach objectives and goals...Where's the denominational headquarters? Where's the emergent pope or recognized president? Where's the website that all emergents go to for directions because we all belong to a movement?"

I merely stated that a movement was "a series of organized activities working toward an objective." At first, you seemed to agree with that definition. If that's the case, then the Emerging Church is a movement. First, there are certainly organized activities--have you seen the well-organized Emergent Conventions (this is only one example of organization)? Now, that doesn't mean that every aspect of the Emerging Church is organized but going back to my definition, complete organization isn't required for something to be considered a movement.

Secondly, there are certainly objectives that people in the Emerging Church are trying to accomplish. This doesn't mean everyone in the movement agrees on all of the objectives but again, on my definition, total agreement on all objectives is not required. Further, we can point to several objectives that seem to be common to the majority in the movement (i.e. deconstructing the modern church, desire to engage a postmodern culture).

One last thing...by calling it a movement rather than a conversation, I am NOT saying that conversation and dialogue shouldn't take place. On the contrary, I think more of that should be happening but the conversation should not exclude those who don't label themselves as "Emergent" or "the Emerging Church."

(2) Over at the A-team blog you offer the following: "If you really desire a good discussion as you say, I encourage you to recheck the accusations and try to be generous about it. Maybe you aren't giving the benefit of the doubt to those who are trying to make clear argument, not statements about you personally." I would truly appreciate it if you would offer some of this charity and generosity to my views, as well.

What do I mean? Well, at the end of your post you conclude "But I suggest it's always better to try to understand it [the Emerging Church] before you speak about it. And Kunkle, like too many evangelicals, doesn't understand much about the emerging church yet."

Steve, I'm not sure how you can tell from my ONE post about ONE particular topic that I do not understand the Emerging Church. Do you have any idea what kind of time and effort I have spent trying to understand the Emerging Church movement? Of course not, nor do I know how much time and effort you've spent. To be charitable, I assume you have put in the necessary study, dialogue, and effort. It would be helpful in this conversation if you would assume the same about me.

Indeed, I spend time almost every single day reading books, blogs, and articles on Emergent. In addition, I have personally dialogued with Brian McLaren and Spencer Burke, two recognized leaders within the movement (whether you agree with their specific views or not) and will be attending the Emergent Convention in Nashville. I am humbly trying to understand the views but in the process, several concerns have surfaced. I am deeply concerned about some of the theological and epistemological views a number of the Emergent leaders have proposed through their writings and speaking. But know this: my goal in all of my study, research, and dialogue is to humbly seek the truth and ultimately, to bring glory to God.

You are certainly free to disagree with and argue against my conclusions. But please give "the benefit of the doubt to those who are trying to make clear argument, not statements about you personally." Thanks again for your interaction.

Best Wishes,
Brett Kunkle

[Steve McCoy]

Brett, thanks for the post. I do appreciate the time and thoughtfulness you gave to your response. I will try to be as brief as possible to a long comment.

"(1) You added a number of necessary conditions to the defintion of "movement"

I didn't say those to be necessary conditions, but they would be obvious pointers. The things you pointed to (conferences, books, etc) don't obviously show a movement.

"First, there are certainly organized activities--have you seen the well-organized Emergent Conventions (this is only one example of organization)? Now, that doesn't mean that every aspect of the Emerging Church is organized but going back to my definition, complete organization isn't required for something to be considered a movement."

The issue is not whether or not they have conferences. The issue is the purpose of these. Is it to discuss, share ideas, even to disagree? Or is to display a platform that shows a movement?

"Secondly, there are certainly objectives that people in the Emerging Church are trying to accomplish."

I have no problem saying it this way, but to call it a movement must, by definition, mean a groupwide objective. Right? So let's see if that's what you show below...

"This doesn't mean everyone in the movement agrees on all of the objectives but again, on my definition, total agreement on all objectives is not required."

I can agree with that as long as you agree that there must at least be some major agreement on key objectives at the least.

"Further, we can point to several objectives that seem to be common to the majority in the movement (i.e. deconstructing the modern church, desire to engage a postmodern culture)."

Okay, now is the heart of the issue. I think this is what makes or breaks the determination of a movement.

1. Deconstructing the modern church

I don't know to what extent you take this phrase. But generally it's a stripping action, not a moving action. And how to do this is disagreed on. To what extent is disagreed on.

I'm happy to have you explain in what way you think this proves EC to be a movement.

2. Desire to engage the postmodern culture

I'm sure you would agree that every Christian and church does have or should have this desire. This isn't unique to emergent, and so I think it is far too vague to define it as a movement. You have unwittingly included Al Mohler, who I'm sure wants to engage pomo culture, into emergent. And I don't think he's going to be thrilled with that. Email him and see. ;^)

Seriously, even if the above desires are in place they are both just desires that people can have. You can hold to both of those and still just be a conversation (very organized dialogue) that isn't actually moving toward the objective in any clear way.

I think a new look at the definition of "movement" would help: (from the Merriam-Webster dictionary) a series of organized activities working toward an objective.

A movement isn't a random number of organized events and random objectives. A movement is a SERIES of organized activities that WORK TOWARD an objective. You can't just say the events are organized. You can just say there are some vague desires that are the same. You have to show that the events are in series, meaning they are coming one after another in order to work toward an objective.

"Steve, I'm not sure how you can tell from my ONE post about ONE particular topic that I do not understand the Emerging Church."

You tried to say you understood the EC in one post, so I tried to show you didn't understand in one post. I'm just evaluating your words. If you did understand the emerging church, I think you would have responded differently.

"Do you have any idea what kind of time and effort I have spent trying to understand the Emerging Church movement? Of course not, nor do I know how much time and effort you've spent."

Brett, you know that time and effort don't equal understanding. Just ask the seminary professors who gave me grades that didn't reflect understanding, even after I put forth great effort! I didn't judge your time or effort. I'm sure you are reading and studying hard. That's your job.

When one theologian argues with another on their understanding of a doctrine, does the second one take it personally as if they are being told they didn't do their homework. They are just coming to different conclusions about the same issues, and at least one of them doesn't understand.

So please don't take my words as attack.

"my goal in all of my study, research, and dialogue is to humbly seek the truth and ultimately, to bring glory to God."

I'm really glad to hear that Brett. And I thank you for sharing that personally on this site. That's my desire as well.

[Steve McCoy]

Brett, I want to make clear for readers of my blog where the ministry you work for is coming from.

Greg Koukl, the founder and president of Stand to Reason, says...

"Be forewarned. The Emergent Church is the most theologically corrosive view/movement/trend in a long time. The Seeker movement and the "Laughing Revival" of the last decade pale in comparison. And it’s consuming millions, especially young people. We’ll keep you posted."

Melinda Penner says...

"Postmodernism and the Emergent Church movement are not revivals and reforms of the church, they are an assault on the church's foundation."

Though you are not Koukl (strangely, you both share less than ordinary last names!) or Penner, I think it helps to see where your ministry is coming from. Blessings, and thanks for your willingness to engage my post.

[Brett]

Steve,

Thanks for letting us take up some signficant room in your comments section to address these issues. Let me make a couple of comments and clarifications, and then I'll have to bow out of this particular discussion.

(1) Your the first person I've read or talked to who seems to think that Emergent simply has "some vague desires that are the same" and who does not think the EC has some common objectives. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether Emergent is a conversation or a movement.

(2) I did not try to say that I understood the EC in one post. That task would take an entire book! Again, I addressed one aspect of the Emerging Church -- whether it is more accurate to characterize it as a conversation or a movement.

(3) Let me assure you that I did not take your comments as a personal attack. What I find too often with many in the EC is a simple dismissal of criticism by saying "You don't understand us." Steve, I am not at all accusing you of doing this because you engaged my reasons point-by-point, which I thoroughly appreciated. However, for those reading this blog I simply wanted to demonstrate that many who are critically evaluating the EC work hard at understanding the movement and their concerns should be given a fair hearing. Don't dismiss them as negative jerks with an axe to grind but rather, understand that what motivates many of them is a love for Christ and His Bride.

(4) Let me add some context to Greg & Melinda's comments. As I mentioned before, our concern at STR is with the Emergent Church in as much as it embraces postmodern philosophy (thanks to Roger for this nuanced distinction). That is what their comments are aimed at. Do we think everyone in the EC embraces philosophical postmodernism? No. Are we opposed to the cultivation of more authentic communities within the church? No. Do we think evangelicalism is exempt from criticism? No.

I would plead with those in the EC to pay close attention to what many EC leaders are saying in regards to theology and philosophy. Read McLaren, Grenz, Franke, Jones, Hauerwas, Lindbeck, Murphy (www.EmergentVillage.com list these authors as recommended reads) and others with a view toward their theological and philosophical conclusions. Within their writings you will find a radical revisioning of Christianity.

Again Steve, thanks for the chance to dialogue. One very good insight I will take from this encounter is the need to be very specific and nuanced as I continue to dialogue on the EC. Who knows, maybe we'll get to do this again on another issue!

Blessings,
Brett Kunkle

[Steve McCoy]

Brett, I don't have the time to respond more fully, and I may choose not to do that, but I wanted to thank you for a very thoughtful and generous response.

I see problems in McLaren and some others theologically. I don't have a problem saying that. But I also think McLaren has a lot of great stuff to offer as well.

I hope you and others who are seriously critical of EC will see that emergent is not a movement following McLaren et al wholesale.

Thanks for the dialogue. I think it has been helpful for me as well.