Critiquing the Emerging Church
Published by Matt Glover January 16th, 2006 in Emerging Missional ChurchI’m about to embark on a writing exercise to help our people understand the foundations for why we do what we do. Towards the end of that, I’ll do a bit on “What is Church?” and talk about the various strengths and weaknesses of the different forms of church we see.
What I’m after is a series of sites that try to define or critique the emerging church movement from, preferably, people within the movement itself. There’s plenty of people willing to bag it from the outside, but I want some serious, honest reflection from some on the inside…
After a few years of studying, visiting and experimenting myself, I’m almost at the point of saying there’s no such thing as either the traditional church, the emerging church or any other type of church. You’re either church or your not. The structure/form question is really unimportant fluff. But like I said, that discussion will come down the track - if you have any good definitions or critiques of the emerging chruch stuff, please leave a comment or email me directly.
Thanks in advance.
13 Responses to “Critiquing the Emerging Church”
- 1 Pingback on Jan 17th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
- 2 Pingback on Feb 2nd, 2006 at 8:31 pm
- 3 Pingback on Mar 14th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
I actually did a seminar on this at one of our Forge gigs.
I’ll send it thru if I can find it
In one breath Hamo, what do you think are the strengths and growth areas (no such thing as weaknesses) of the emerging church?
This is a much needed exercise. I recently wrote this:
http://rdwagner.typepad.com/weblog/2006/01/how_well_do_eme.html
I would consider myself a part of the movement, but have many critiques. I like your idea that you are either church or not.
I’ll email you later today and maybe we can talk.
These are very good interviews with Tony Jones…one of the self-proclaimed emerging church gurus……where Tony reflects on some of the weaknesses of the movement.
Part 1
http://libsyn.com/media/stupidchurchpeople/scp_33.mp3
And Part 2
http://libsyn.com/media/stupidchurchpeople/scp_34.mp3
Lance.
One breath…
We are calling the church back to re-enter the world rather than stand apart from it, but in that we can be unnecessarily spikey and depreciative of our brothers and sisters.
Sound right?
Sounds pretty good Hamo. How would you phrase it in a way that doesn’t make it sound like that everything that has gone before is wrong, but instead builds on what is past?
Thanks Lance and Rich too.
Matt,
First of all, greetings in Christ from a brother who not only shares your name but also your love for the Lord.
I came across a reference to your website somewhere and of course couldn’t help dropping in to confirm that with name like your’s, you were bound to be an intelligent, accomplished, thoughtful and hansom chap.
You mentioned in your blog entry, that “I’m almost at the point of saying there’s no such thing as either the traditional church, the emerging church or any other type of church.”
The church I attend traces it’s history to the 1600’s (& prior to that, to Pentecost
) and so you might consider me to be one of those who fall into the camp of “bagging” from the outside of the emerging church. However I’m unfamiliar with what the “emerging” church is. Though I can only speculate about what the “emerging” church is yet I’d like to contribute if I can without “bagging” at all. I thought I’d throw in a thought in relation to the part of your blog that I have quoted.
Though I’m hardly qualified given my expression of ignorance, I agree in part with the sentiment that you’ve expressed here. There is only one church throughout all of history – made up of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. It was confined to one nation in Old Testament times, but since Christ death, resurrection and ascension it now it has no national confines (i.e. it’s universal). I too would say there is no such thing as THE traditional or THE emerging church, but the church itself certainly exists (of course) and has attributes that can be defined.
Though the source may be outside of what you mean by the emerging church, the following statement might be useful for you to consider:
“I. The universal Church (not confined to one nation, as before under the law i.e. Israel), which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect (Christians), that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all.[1]
II. The visible Church, which is also universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]
III. Unto this visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]
IV. This Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13]”
This is taken from the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646AD. You may already be familiar with it and if so you will note that I have removed some words and modernised others just for ease of reading. (The numbers are proof texts supporting the statements)
What struck a chord with me when reading your post was that it was very much in line with Part 4 of this statement called “Of the church”. The Church throughout history is sometimes more, and sometimes less visible – to which we must ask the question why?
Furthermore, whether you consider a particular kind of church to be traditional in nature, or contemporary in a point in history, there is only one true church. The one true church is that which is made up of all true believers throughout history regardless of the denomination. This is the invisible church that Christ our King has built and will continue to build and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it! The visible expression of that church is those people who profess to be Christians that will of course include those that are, and those that are not true followers of Christ. Nevertheless we do not judge, but rather by God’s grace continue to preach the Gospel of our Lord Jesus faithfully and fully, pleading before the throne of God that all who hear will become part of the former.
I’d like to see your finished work on the “What is Church?” to gain some more perspective on what the “emerging” church is (or isn’t, as the case may be!!
)
To the glory of Christ our Lord,
Matthew Glover
I could be wrong, but often I see thid EC movement being a bunch of Christians, dissatisfied with the structure of traditional church, forming their own house groups. So few of them seem to have anything missional about them. Most of them seem to focus around proud, self centred people who feel they understand the teachings of Christ better than others, but choose to abandon the spiritual disciplines (or at least many of them) because they ‘arent relevant’ to todays society.
Weird having another Matt Glover reply. Thanks for your input!
Thanks for sharing