flotsam & jetsam (2.18.08)

For those of us (to include me) that have a difficult time keeping the difference between emergent and emerging straight in our minds. Toward the end of the entry I found this paragraph helpful:

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 mainly.

Here is an interesting article on the dynamics of church size and congregational life featured on the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship site. A couple of observations:

A Congregations Magazine summary of recent research on congregation size says studies show that most congregations are small. Nearly 60% of churches have less than 100 people, including children, at a typical service. At the same time, most churchgoers attend larger churches that draw more than 350 people to Sunday worship. In fact, half of U.S. churchgoers are concentrated in only 10% of its churches—the largest ones.

And also this breakdown of congregational size:

Family church (fewer than 50 active members): Longtime members set the direction and see the minister’s role as offering pastoral care.

Pastoral church (50 to 150 active members): Church life revolves around relationships, with the pastor and key lay leaders at the center.

Program church (150 to 350 active members): As the church grows too large for the senior pastor to know everybody, church programs become more important. Lay leaders or extra staff offer pastoral care.

Corporate church (350 or more active members): People come to the church for excellent worship and excellent programs. They receive pastoral care mainly through their small group.

The authors note the most difficult transition for a church to make is from the pastoral to the program model. We are a pastoral church that would like to do programs well, but not be programmic. Tim Keller has a helpful article regarding church size and its implications here.

David Brooks describes the opening salvo of a "fresh start conservatism." The whole piece is developed around the idea of investing in human capital--remaking an investment in an American work force that lost its dominance thirty years ago. I like these two lines on education:

If there is one thing we have learned over the bitter experience of the past 30 years, it is that per-pupil expenditures and days in the classroom are not sufficient to produce superb information-economy workers. They emerge from intact families, quality neighborhoods and healthy moral cultures.

Keith Fournier on "How the Religious Right Lost Its Religion." This is a long article that you can save for a rainy day just in case you may be interested in an "evangelical Catholic" perspective on the strained relationship between conservative politics and mainstream evangelicalism.

Comments

[MikeS]

I have a hard time using the word "orthodox" in any way associated with the emerging movement. Perhaps by comparison to the more radical emergent movement, one might use that word much like one would say that Clinton is conservative when compared to Obama (based on an 8% ACU rating versus a 7%). Perhaps someone could shed some more light on what is "orthodox" in the emerging movement.

[Champ]

Mark Driscoll defines/compares "emergent" and "emerging" this way: "I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church Movement in its early days and spent a few years traveling the country to speak to emerging leaders in an effort to help build a missional movement in the United States. The wonderful upside of the emerging church is that it elevates mission in American culture to a high priority, which is a need so urgent that its importance can hardly be overstated. I had to distance myself, however, from one of many streams in the emerging church because of theological differences. Since the late 1990s, this stream has been known as Emergent. The emergent church is part of the Emerging Church Movement but does not embrace the dominant ideology of the movement. Rather, the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity."

[pgepps]

It would be interesting to see how "orthodox" would be defined by some. There are, after all, quite a lot of churches just like mine (a fundamentalist, independent Baptist congregation on the smallest end of your size scale, in a 100+ year old building in a small town) whose teaching would not be "orthodox" by pretty much any creedal or confessional standard. "No creed but Scripture" leaves one with little room to argue the meaning of "orthodox" with those who criticize the inarticulate creeds or logic-chopping systematics of others. BTW, that doesn't mean that the critics are right, or "orthodox"--only that "orthodox" really doesn't supply what's wanted in the discussion.

Here's a question to consider that comes straight from Scripture: do they divide up existing churches by following the published-for-profit teachers of their choice?

Do we?

Cheers,
PGE

[Hans Dreyer]

Mike, I think there is quite a spectrum among "emeging"/"emergent". Having had numerous discussions with my oldest son about this movement and having read SOME of their works (I would recommend Dan Kimball and Rob Bell in particular), I do find myself resonating with much of what they say. And, by the way, they have noted that it's not a movement that is attracting only the young and postmodern, but actually many who are as tired of some things in "evangelicalism" as the evangelicals were tired of "fundamentalism". Yes, the authors can be over-the-top and some go too far. But for the most part I think they generally stay in the bounds of orthodox Christianity. They do question a lot more, though - and that's a good thing, as we can get too used to pat answers and formulas. Thus their bent on "conversation". Not a bad thing.

See, for example: http://www.dankimball.com/

[jon]

Mike: If one reads "A Generous Orthodoxy" and regards that as the majority report of the emergent movement, then your conclusion may be spot-on. Mohler concluded that McLaren's book presented an "orthodoxy bear[ing] virtually no resemblance to orthodoxy as it has been known and affirmed by the church through the centuries" (16 Feb 2005). However, the movement (and if you read the above link, that word "movement" is even eschewed in favor of "conversation") is incredibly diverse and certainly includes those that are orthodox. "The Church in Emerging Culture" edited by Leornard Sweet is a very helpful read along these lines because it is a conversation about the movement (there, I got both words in) between key leaders both in and out of emergent: Crouch, Horton, Mathewes-Grren, McLaren and McManus. I enjoyed Horton's work during this dialog as he down-plays the emergent reaction to postmodernism, much as Wells does in "Above All Earthly Pow'rs." The benefit, of course, is the emergers are rightly critical of much in contemporary evangelicalism, seek historical roots, authentic worship, and are thoughtfully missional.

Champ: Thanks--very helpful. Driscoll is certainly one of the emergers worth hearing.

PGE: Are you in search of a biblical orthodoxy? Can you be satisfied with an historical orthodoxy? The continual shuffling of the Church is certainly an area where the emergers have mimicked their evangelical forbears. Where are you aiming with your, "Do we?"

Hans: Yep. Don Carson recently commented on Rob Bell: http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1365