After looking at Scot McKnight's blog, I was pointed to a fantastic blog post by C. Michael Patton on reclaimingthemind.org, where he attempts to describe (and chart) the various strands of the modern church in relation to each other. He covers the entire spectrum: from Fundamentalist factions all the way across to some of the most controversial figures in the Emergent church.
Actually, much of what he points out is how hard it is to actually capture an adequate characterization. Patton employs two very helpful charts, which I placed above. If you wish to learn more about the complexities of this issue in a way that is quite accessible, check out this link below, which is the first post in a series dealing with this topic:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/02/15/would-the-real-emerger-please-stand-up/
By the way, I would love to hear some of your reactions to this post, which I found to be very insightful and reasonably objective. Let me know!
February 19, 2008
Placing the Emergent Church in Context
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 COMMENTS...:
I have yet to go read the blog from which these diagrams come from, but I already see a major problem with it. It is a complete mischaracterization of the emergent church to place it anywhere on a liberal/conservative spectrum. My understanding of the emergent ethos is that it is characterized by a rejection of a foundationalist epistemology that has helped to cultivate this over simplified left/right, liberal/conservative spectrum. (I don't want to argue about epistemology here.) The emergent conversation is a protest against the entirety of a left/right framework. Thus, it seems both unfair and an inaccurate straw-man to throw the emergent church onto a fairly arbitrary and certainly relative left/right framework. These were just a couple initial thoughts that came to mind from a quick glance at the diagrams.
Thanks for your comment Benjamin!I think your points make an important corrective to this conversation, and I want to add that one of the follow up posts to the original post responds to some of your concerns. Here is an excerpt from that follow up post by C. Michael patton:
"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."
I thought this comment was helpful, and I would recommend reading the entire post- here is the link:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/02/18/an-emerging-definition-of-emerging/#more-595
I guess the last thing I would add is that the tenor of the original post I referred to was not militious against the emergent church, but merely an effort to categorize. I do think it is valid to attempt to have some sort of categories for understanding. I also think that to reject any sort of categorization is impossible, because as soon as we begin to assert in any capactiy, we are implicitly placing ourselves into some sort of spectrum of belief relative to others.
I do agree that the chart is somewhat arbitrary, and the author implicitly acknowledges that fact. Great insight!
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments-Norm
Post a Comment