Emerging as a Mindset or Ethos
C. Michael Patton, who characterizes himself as emerging but not emergent, has posted a five part discussion of what it means to be "emerging" on his blog. The following comes from part 3, and I'm posting it here simply because it helped me get a better grasp of the mindset. Perhaps it will be helpful for others as well. After describing why the emerging church is not a "church," a "movement," or the "seeker-sensitive church," he writes,
Briefly, I believe the best way to get ones arms around what it means to emerge is to define it as a widespread ethos, or way of thinking. This way of thinking is held by those who explicitly call themselves emergers and by many who don’t. It represents an articulated and unarticulated dissatisfaction with the current way that the body of Christ is perceived by the outside world and, indeed, truly is.
This ethos finds expression not in church planting, revitalizations of local church assemblies, or the creation of new denominations, but through conversation—conversations with other like-minded thinkers. People emerge on internet blogs, in chat rooms, and in coffee shops. They emerge through a shared ethos that expresses dissatisfaction and seeks change. These emerging avenues provide people with safety to ask questions—theological questions—that stimulate a conversation. These theological questions come with no assumed answer. In fact, most of the time they are not meant to be answered. Try to answer these questions too quickly with a definite and/or cliché answer and you will have immediately proved yourself disqualified from the emerging conversation. Why? Because you have illegitimized the question. You have insulted the intelligence of the emerging community by acting as if the questions that are bringing about conversation can be answered so thoughtlessly.
...
So What Does Emerging Mean?
In short, the emerging ethos represents a growing mindset which is, consciously or sub-consciously, willing to legitimize and take seriously anew the type of questions being asked, doubts being expressed, and the distrust and dissatisfaction that the a postmodern (emerging) culture has with the traditional church (and Christianity) because they identify with them.
Those that seem to identify with the postmodern mindset too closely, believing that traditional Christianity may not have the answers, are more on the Emergent side. Emergents call for radical change in doctrine and practice. Those that identify with the postmodern mindset yet feel traditional Christianity, while imperfect, does offer the answers to the most important issues may be part of the more orthodox emerging movement. These call for a more mild change.
Thoughts?
If I read the explanation correctly, methods vs doctrine.
Emerging don't like the traditional methods but like the doctrine.
Emergents don't like the methods or the doctrine.
Errant methods come from errant doctrine. The church loses its power, its effectiveness, when it follows errant doctrine.
Our teens no longer see the value of the church, not because the programs aren't cool enough, but because the soft, cheap gospel of the church looks like the same infomercial garbage on cable.
Paul repeated to his young pastors time and again to "teach sound doctrine".
Posted by: Stephen Feather | Feb 23, 2008 11:31:05 AM
Semper reformanda?
Posted by: Jim | Feb 23, 2008 4:45:25 PM
So giving an answer to a question, regardless of its truth content, is a bad thing?
The truth illegitimatizes the question?
Meh. I'll pass. If you don't want an answer, don't ask.
I mean, I get that its an ethos and its conversational, etc. And I like talking to people as much as the next person and sharing ideas - but this just sounds like another dose of doctrinal inclusivity... "Let's not give an answer others may not want to accept/hear."
For some questions there is only ONE answer. And any and all conversation should flow out of the answer, not undermine it, or leave it to question.
Posted by: Gentry | Feb 23, 2008 7:36:19 PM
We like new gadgets, houses and cars, but new teachings should not be so readily adopted.
Where does history fit into the emerging church? If people could be saved by God's word and it's teaching centuries ago (and pass the gospel on so that others believe), then we've got to be very suspect of new teaching that former generations did not believe. Most likely the new teaching (doctrine) is wrong.
Some traditional doctrine and practice may be skewed, but that's where submission to God's word is necessary and where we can derive essential doctrine, ethics and practice.
A group defined by a like-mindedness made up of like-minded people is self exclusive. What if you're in the group and discover they're in error? (I know the church has fit this bill in the past.) But I think any Christian or religious organisation needs to be open to scrutiny and critique, not just exclude members who don't believe what the others believe.
Posted by: André | Feb 24, 2008 5:56:18 PM
If those who are emerging are truly being Christ in and to the culture then they will be hated just as He was. Then they will be thought ill of, just like the rest of us.
Posted by: Morris Brooks | Feb 25, 2008 12:41:36 AM
I want to comment on this quote:
"This ethos finds expression not in church planting, revitalizations of local church assemblies, or the creation of new denominations, but through conversation—conversations with other like-minded thinkers. People emerge on internet blogs, in chat rooms, and in coffee shops. They emerge through a shared ethos that expresses dissatisfaction and seeks change."
So the church consults non-Christians about its hopes, fears and disappointments and then changes the way it does things? Isn't this the same thing as marketing the church by tailoring it to felt needs? To me 'emerging' sounds like a 'busterism' (ie. Gen X, Baby Busters). As much as these folks recoil from 'boomerisms' (church for Baby Boomers) they commit the same error by viewing the world through their own lens and experiences. Nothing new under the sun.
Posted by: Dave Sarafolean | Feb 25, 2008 1:04:53 PM
Amen to the distinction! I identify with the "emerging" strand myself. The key thing to recall is, truthfully, knowing that the Church today doesn't resemble what the Church in the First Century looked like, much as it doesn't resemble what the Church looked like in the 17th Century.
Semper Reformanda indeed! All things to all men! :) For the sake of the Cross, let us not cease to speak in the tongues of all men.
Posted by: David Ketter | Feb 25, 2008 10:53:41 PM