Had a fascinating conversation with Laura and Cris yesterday about different approaches to church planting. We all felt that some of the traditional church planting agencies in the UK are jumping on the emerging church band wagon and just re-branding trad church planting as emerging church because it sexy at the moment...My problem with this is that there has been a radical failure in contextualisation.
IMHO emerging church is not simply about repackaging it is about a thorough examination of theology, ecclesiology and missiology through the lense of contemporary culture. Therefore models that seem to formulated in the culture of modernity don't work, in fact models don't work...
Technorati Tags: culture, emerging church
Ben
Thanks so much for saying this in the public domain. It's been a concern of mine since the publication of Mission-Shaped Church. Although that report is excellent in moving the discussion on and challenging the inherited church's preconceptions about what church is (so I for one am glad it has been published and is being followed up), there is a real danger that some of the recommendations contained in it could lead to the type of 'window dressing' you're referring to without really getting to the root of what a truly incarnational mission-shaped church will look like.
I have similar concerns about the kind of 'mixed economy' that it talks about as it doesn't seem to be driven by mission concerns but by an agenda of retaining the existing institution alongside new plants. I'm totally in favour of a genuine 'mixed economy' where the variety is determined by different mission contexts, but not where we're seeking to hang on to a dying breed while paying lip-service to 'change'.
Who knows what the 'institution' (if I can use that word) will look like in the future if we really do seek to contextualise through the kind of theological and ecclesiological reflection you're suggesting. If we short circuit that process though, we will simply change the form and continue to become increasingly disconnected from the context in which we live.
Posted by: Malcolm | January 25, 2006 at 10:17 AM
I agree - it does seem as though everyone is jumping on the emerging church bandwagon... I presume today merely adding candles to a service means you are an emerging church.
I think that over the next couple of years we will see that those emerging churches that are truly contextual will be the ones 'bearing much fruit' and those that are not may well be the ones dying out.
Unfortunately I am not sure what else can be done as I'm not really up for endless discussions and debate as to the nature of the emerging church.
Posted by: gareth powell | January 25, 2006 at 10:38 AM
Hmmmm... Your post raises a few question marks for me, the first being the implied equation of 'emerging' with 'missional'. This certainly hasn't always been my experience, several emerging churches I've come into contact with (I've only first-hand experience in the UK) come across as incredibly introspective in character.
The second is the modernity/postmodernity distinction, which I have lots of problems with as an analysis of contemporary culture, but that would involve a huge rant on my part... :-)
Third, and probably most importantly though, I think it's important not to be too precious about what counts as 'real' emerging church. Certainly many forms of church planting have little or no sense of contextualisation (how much of a problem this is, is another question), but given that the term 'emerging church' is a late '90s invention, we should remember that cultural awareness in missionary work isn't a new thing, and was around a long time before anyone had heard of the EC or postmodernism. I don't know how helpful (or postmodern!) it is to draw up the lines and say who's in and who's out. Who's to decide? And, more importantly, who cares?! :-)
Posted by: Daniel Walters | January 25, 2006 at 05:25 PM
Thanks for the comments.
A few further thoughts...
I don't think emerging equates with missional, I think that there will be emerging churches that are more missional than others. They'll reflect a vast spectrum. I'm also slightly uncomfortable with the language of missional, I love the theology behind it but struggle with the language. I think that we need to anglicise the language and this will help the Uk emerging church to own and contextualise the theology of the Missio Dei.
I don't think it's about saying who's 'real' and who is not, who's in and who's out, rather it is about saying who has sincerely engaged in the process of contextualisation. It's also about giving a movement some definition, if we say everything is emerging church then nothing is. Within that there will be an element of exclusion, but that exlusion will be inclusion in other spheres. If we have no definition we will become grey and bland.
If the Gospel is to be faithfully incarnated into each culture then contextualisation is fundamentally important, failure to do so means that people will be excluded through no fault of their own.
Posted by: benedson | January 25, 2006 at 10:38 PM
Fair enough... but - to be devil's advocate - it seems that just as there are those who aren't really properly engaged in a contextual approach but want to leap on the 'emerging church' bandwagon, so too there are churches/communities which *are* very much contextual, and yet are *not* interested in 'emerging church' as a phrase or a label, and may also be 'out of the loop' in terms of EC networks, blogs etc., for whatever reason.
In which case, is 'emerging church' not fairly meaningless as a term? And if so is it really worth worrying about who's using it?
Posted by: Daniel Walters | January 26, 2006 at 08:58 AM
It's definitely a meaningless term if you don't use it! If you own it, like I do, (but accept that it is far from perfect) then that is when the term starts to have meaning. I want to be open with our use of it, but also have some definition...and that's another long blog posting...
Posted by: benedson | January 26, 2006 at 09:59 AM