I was a first year seminary student in 2002 when I was assigned McLaren's A New Kind of Christian. It changed my life. I jumped into the Emerging Church world with both feet. I became a member of the Emergent Village and attended their National Conferences. To this day I remain epistemologically, liturgically, and aesthetically an emergent Christian and pastor.
I have enjoyed the podcast as it has been a meaningful trip down memory lane (I also enjoyed the previous podcast from Christianity Today on the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill). I don't think, however, that the movement "failed" in the sense that it was unable to achieve its goals. If the goal of the emerging church movement was to hold a necessary "rummage sale" (Phyllis Tickle) and reform evangelicalism for a new generation, then it really succeeded. I know that I am not the only pastor still serving a church today who was influenced and shaped by the emerging church movement. I love introducing younger Christians to Brian McLaren (who is still writing incredible books!)
The emerging church movement certainly had its flaws: it was almost exclusively white, male, and generationally targeted 18-30 year-olds. For those reasons, I think that the movement had to morph into something else; something more inclusive and diverse. I believe that we are seeing the fruits of that today.
I find that I am living most fully into my calling as a pastor when I am able to embrace the best of evangelicalism, social justice causes, mysticism, liturgy, beauty, and mystery in my daily practices and leadership.
And I learned how to live and lead this way by being a part of the emerging church movement.
A pretty fair assessment of one of the emerging church movements in USA, albeit one with greater publicity than other networks. I prefer the word "completed" rather than "failed". As a missionary involved with the global emerging church movement, I feel the description of "mostly men, mostly white, mostly evangelical" might fit Emergent Village in the USA but certainly not the emerging church movement in Brazil or Latin America or Japan or Indonesia. As for traditional evangelicals drinking alcohol, your school in Abilene had a role to play back in the 60's, along with the mission experience and writings of Eugene Nida who challenged and . . . could we say . . . deconstructed it to find a better way of mission enculturation.
I really like Substack for a lot of reasons as a blogging platform, but the difficulty in linking a whole series together automatically and obviously is a major downside. You write these great series but there is no automatic way that I see that they are all able to be found in one place. To do it manually would be a pain. It's a shortcoming of the platform.
I started calling “my Lord & Savior Jesus Christ” “my possibly imaginary Friend” out of respect for my non imaginary friend Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis & Edith Schaeffer, and good buddy of Brian McClaren, because Frank was always so put off by the sense of “certainty” that we Evangelicals claim we have when such certainty is actually a metaphysical impossibility . . . or so Frank claims . . . and he’s quite certain, himself, about that . . . sometimes.
Is this evidence that I was influenced by the “Emerging Church?”
Great 30,000 foot view. I like the 3-part division of the emergent movement you've identified. I was super surprised that my daughter (a college senior) was reading Rachel Held Evans' INSPIRED for a class. Brought back memories.
Sounds like the features of a wine skin. Like changing out the window treatments in a mausoleum.
My Dad used to say Catholic grace before dinner with a weird patois that he never used any other time. His favorite expletive was "Jesus Christ!!", he was an antagonistic drinker, and he destroyed our family. But his religious credentials were impeccable.
You can find his personality in every liturgical tradition, epistemology, and aesthetic.
Echoing comments above, thank you for this. Very informative and I was not aware of that explicit formalized movement. Looking forward to the follow up, and a few thoughts are as follows:
As a continual seeker but steady member of a small Megachurch, I’m definitely aware of the aesthetic components, but have had little to no exposure of the liturgical components. Sounds compelling but I (personally) see more light in the theology versus the liturgy. That’s probably because I really didn’t grow up in the church and I feel like the liturgy is something that’s more meaningful when you’re fully sold out on the theology. I.e. the heart follows what the head confirms as safe.
As I become more informed about and appreciative of the theological approach of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I wonder if there’s space in the Protestant world to adopt some of that but still retain the accessibility afforded by the more modern aesthetics? (I.e. back off of penal substitution atonement theory and more forensic and legal theology and lean into Theosis and God-as-healer theology.). That and, as much as I would love to try out an orthodox church, I don’t think I could get my kids to go and I don’t even think I would resonate as much with the formalness of the liturgy. ;-/
I fully appreciate the value of participatory knowing but I feel like I (and my family) could get that in spades through modern worship bands if I felt the message was in line with more orthodox versus protestant theology. Any ideas or recommendations?
As I look at the church today, I would say that the much of the church is shaped by the desires of their heart even though their heads give all the right answers. They know theology but not how to embody it. This is because of the lack of liturgy in the evangelical church. Good Liturgy (which doesn’t have to be classical formal liturgy) shapes the heart so that our heads are able to act on it. When there is not a thoughtful liturgy we fail to embody what our heads think because our habits have been shaped by wrong desires. This is what the emergent church was trying to experiment with in some places.
To better understand the power of liturgy in shaping our lives I want to encourage you to read James K.A. Smith’s book You Are What You Love.
I look forward to this. I am wondering.. is the mega church movement part of this? In particular, these megachurches and their more contemporary worship style? Churches such as the Vineyard did turn to the coffee shop thing, although I don't know that these theological issues you mentioned were part of these contemporary churches that remained theologically pretty theologially conservative, as they are today. It seems to me that process theology, and other theological movements, as well as the contemplative/labyrinth movement was more centered in intellectual circles... unlike the movement that built the contemporary worship services with the maranatha music, and the jeans at the pulpit. Please continue to provide more education on this! I am listening...
Dr. Beck,
Thank you for wading into this topic.
I was a first year seminary student in 2002 when I was assigned McLaren's A New Kind of Christian. It changed my life. I jumped into the Emerging Church world with both feet. I became a member of the Emergent Village and attended their National Conferences. To this day I remain epistemologically, liturgically, and aesthetically an emergent Christian and pastor.
I have enjoyed the podcast as it has been a meaningful trip down memory lane (I also enjoyed the previous podcast from Christianity Today on the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill). I don't think, however, that the movement "failed" in the sense that it was unable to achieve its goals. If the goal of the emerging church movement was to hold a necessary "rummage sale" (Phyllis Tickle) and reform evangelicalism for a new generation, then it really succeeded. I know that I am not the only pastor still serving a church today who was influenced and shaped by the emerging church movement. I love introducing younger Christians to Brian McLaren (who is still writing incredible books!)
The emerging church movement certainly had its flaws: it was almost exclusively white, male, and generationally targeted 18-30 year-olds. For those reasons, I think that the movement had to morph into something else; something more inclusive and diverse. I believe that we are seeing the fruits of that today.
I find that I am living most fully into my calling as a pastor when I am able to embrace the best of evangelicalism, social justice causes, mysticism, liturgy, beauty, and mystery in my daily practices and leadership.
And I learned how to live and lead this way by being a part of the emerging church movement.
I, too, wondered about calling it “failed.” I felt like it was a movement that is still happening in different ways. Looking forward to reading more.
A pretty fair assessment of one of the emerging church movements in USA, albeit one with greater publicity than other networks. I prefer the word "completed" rather than "failed". As a missionary involved with the global emerging church movement, I feel the description of "mostly men, mostly white, mostly evangelical" might fit Emergent Village in the USA but certainly not the emerging church movement in Brazil or Latin America or Japan or Indonesia. As for traditional evangelicals drinking alcohol, your school in Abilene had a role to play back in the 60's, along with the mission experience and writings of Eugene Nida who challenged and . . . could we say . . . deconstructed it to find a better way of mission enculturation.
I really like Substack for a lot of reasons as a blogging platform, but the difficulty in linking a whole series together automatically and obviously is a major downside. You write these great series but there is no automatic way that I see that they are all able to be found in one place. To do it manually would be a pain. It's a shortcoming of the platform.
I started calling “my Lord & Savior Jesus Christ” “my possibly imaginary Friend” out of respect for my non imaginary friend Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis & Edith Schaeffer, and good buddy of Brian McClaren, because Frank was always so put off by the sense of “certainty” that we Evangelicals claim we have when such certainty is actually a metaphysical impossibility . . . or so Frank claims . . . and he’s quite certain, himself, about that . . . sometimes.
Is this evidence that I was influenced by the “Emerging Church?”
Great 30,000 foot view. I like the 3-part division of the emergent movement you've identified. I was super surprised that my daughter (a college senior) was reading Rachel Held Evans' INSPIRED for a class. Brought back memories.
We’re all the shipwrecked great grandsons of the reformation
Sounds like the features of a wine skin. Like changing out the window treatments in a mausoleum.
My Dad used to say Catholic grace before dinner with a weird patois that he never used any other time. His favorite expletive was "Jesus Christ!!", he was an antagonistic drinker, and he destroyed our family. But his religious credentials were impeccable.
You can find his personality in every liturgical tradition, epistemology, and aesthetic.
Echoing comments above, thank you for this. Very informative and I was not aware of that explicit formalized movement. Looking forward to the follow up, and a few thoughts are as follows:
As a continual seeker but steady member of a small Megachurch, I’m definitely aware of the aesthetic components, but have had little to no exposure of the liturgical components. Sounds compelling but I (personally) see more light in the theology versus the liturgy. That’s probably because I really didn’t grow up in the church and I feel like the liturgy is something that’s more meaningful when you’re fully sold out on the theology. I.e. the heart follows what the head confirms as safe.
As I become more informed about and appreciative of the theological approach of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I wonder if there’s space in the Protestant world to adopt some of that but still retain the accessibility afforded by the more modern aesthetics? (I.e. back off of penal substitution atonement theory and more forensic and legal theology and lean into Theosis and God-as-healer theology.). That and, as much as I would love to try out an orthodox church, I don’t think I could get my kids to go and I don’t even think I would resonate as much with the formalness of the liturgy. ;-/
I fully appreciate the value of participatory knowing but I feel like I (and my family) could get that in spades through modern worship bands if I felt the message was in line with more orthodox versus protestant theology. Any ideas or recommendations?
As I look at the church today, I would say that the much of the church is shaped by the desires of their heart even though their heads give all the right answers. They know theology but not how to embody it. This is because of the lack of liturgy in the evangelical church. Good Liturgy (which doesn’t have to be classical formal liturgy) shapes the heart so that our heads are able to act on it. When there is not a thoughtful liturgy we fail to embody what our heads think because our habits have been shaped by wrong desires. This is what the emergent church was trying to experiment with in some places.
To better understand the power of liturgy in shaping our lives I want to encourage you to read James K.A. Smith’s book You Are What You Love.
I look forward to this. I am wondering.. is the mega church movement part of this? In particular, these megachurches and their more contemporary worship style? Churches such as the Vineyard did turn to the coffee shop thing, although I don't know that these theological issues you mentioned were part of these contemporary churches that remained theologically pretty theologially conservative, as they are today. It seems to me that process theology, and other theological movements, as well as the contemplative/labyrinth movement was more centered in intellectual circles... unlike the movement that built the contemporary worship services with the maranatha music, and the jeans at the pulpit. Please continue to provide more education on this! I am listening...
Looking forward to your further thoughts.