Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches
As there's been some good discussion in response to my previous post on Rob Bell, I thought I'd offer another resource for those interested in some further reading on the emerging church. Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches is a quick read that includes contributions and responses from emerging leaders Mark Driscoll, John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, and Karen Ward. The book was edited by recently deceased Robert Webber.
In reading Webber’s book, it’s difficult to do a better job summarizing the general perspectives held by the five contributors (I thought Webber’s summary chapter was great). Without going into huge detail (and while I’m not sure how fully accurate it is), here’s my attempt at trying to identify a few of the major differences - simply divided along the lines of theology and praxis - among the group of the leaders studied:
Driscoll - theology is universal, timeless, biblical; praxis can change
Burke - theology is universal, timeless, incarnational; praxis can change
Kimball - theology is local, temporary, missional; praxis will change
Pagitt - theology is local, temporary, embodied; praxis must change
Ward - theology is local, temporary, communal; praxis is change
From my perspective (and it is purely subjective based only on what I read – I’ve not spent much time studying any of them in detail) – Driscoll and Burke seemed most conservative and aligned among the participants; in many ways, the difference between Driscoll's “biblical” and Burke's “incarnational” theology is a bit of a false dichotomy, as both men would probably affirm the importance of each, though each may be more a focus for one than the other.
Kimball seemed the easiest influenced by those around him (theological peer pressure?), coming off as the most impartial in what he advocated, as well as the most open to what others did, particularly if and when it lined up with his value of mystery. This may be a huge oversimplification, though, as someone with his hair has to have some convictions that go beyond just being neutral.
Of the group, Pagitt seemed most “dangerous” to me in terms of where his “temporary” theology could end up. He seemed to have a clear idea of where he wants to go in dismantling Christendom, and possesses the skills to make a case for it. Pagitt’s contributions were the ones I marked up the most for further thought and study.
Being the Reformed boy I am, I personally resonated with Driscoll’s thoughts. However, while I appreciate Driscoll and was grateful for the strong Reformed stand he took in Webber’s book, I do wonder if he (and those associated with him) suffer needlessly because of things he says and how he says them that lend themselves to so easily being taken out of context (google Mark Driscoll quotes and you'll see what I mean). The thought running through my head is how much better of a spokeman for the Reformed end of the emerging attractional church Darrin Patrick might be, but that's neither here nor there.
I had the most difficult time understanding where Ward was coming from, partially because her ideas seemed hardest to grasp in the way they were presented, and partially because I felt more of a cultural gap between her ministry environment and mine. Of all the contributors, she seemed the most “gimmicky” in terms of content, and I felt she was all over the map in what she was trying to say about “little theologies” and the like.
In inviting each contributor to evaluate my church (Memorial Presbyterian here in St. Louis), my best guess at their responses to what we’re doing would be as follows:
Driscoll would resonate with our Reformed theology and potential to change (though he would get frustrated by how little and slow change occurs);
Burke would resonate with our desire to have a ministry of presence in the community (though he would wonder how wide and deep that desire goes);
Kimball would resonate with the missional aspect of our interaction with the arts community (though he would marvel at how anal we’ve been in getting there)
Pagitt would resonate with the reality of us having non-believers in our midst (though he would wonder how genuine a joy some members have concerning it)
Ward would resonate with our Sunday morning community (though she would wonder why it doesn’t manifest itself more organically/often during the week)
All this said, and with regard to my reading of the book, I agree with Webber’s conclusion that,
“What is happening among emerging leaders is a desire to return ministry to the story of the triune God from which the story derives. So the question we should be asking the emerging church is not, ‘Is your theology straight?’ but ‘Where will your current practices of ministry take you theologically?’” (201)
In other words (and as I said earlier), with regard to the emerging church, the key question is not “What are you emerging from?” but “What are you emerging to?” I think there is good methodological cause for change in answer to the first question, but I find the need for extreme theological revision underwhelming in answer to the second.
Again, thoughts?