Emerging, missional, or both?

[Brian Beckstrom]

Recently Mark Driscoll (Mars Hill, Seattle) complained that the emerging church has a startling lack of converts. David Fitch (Life on the Vine, Chicago) posted a great response to Driscoll's critique.

Although he refuted some of the charges leveled against the emerging church, he did maintain that not all emerging churches are necessarily missional. I agree with Fitch on that point, and am curious what others might think?

[Russ]

Nice find, Brian.

I guess I still don't really have a good feel for the definitions, so forgive me if I'm answering the wrong question.

It seems as though a church could be emerging without being missional. It would be possible for someone to have the aesthetic and audience nailed, and even have the postmodern approach to theology and structure, without necessarily living into a mission -- or at least, without living into their mission.

I'd also like to question the value conversions have as an indicator for success of a congregation. Do you think the notion of conversion is relevant to this sort of community? Converted from what? Into what?

[David Hahn]

Thanks for your thoughts Brian. Since reading it on friday night after our vegas assembly my mind has been racing. You raise an interesting and important point that cuts to the heart of some of this stuff. I am not a big admirer of mark as the model or even the rep spokesperson for emerging churches. His immediate dismissal of such complexity speaks to his own narrow perspective. I was up in seattle with karen ward, right down the street from mars hill and know there are other things going on in fremont besides this church. He doesn't even welcome or advocate for women as lead pastors of faith communities and that in itself tells me a lot of where he's coming from.

I'm not going to merely rant based on prejudicial remarks about him nor dismiss him, as he has so quickly done for the emerging communities, but actually seek to address the substance of his and, at least your questions/critique regarding emerging churches as missional.

The challenge navigating all of this of course is language. What does missional mean? What does it mean to be church? Where is our focus? Where is God's focus? The emerging church is in many ways a conversation, but it is also a church. There is power in conversation because there is power in words as we see from the creation story. But there is more to it than reducing it to conversation as though its only chit chat at a coffee shop. It is a serious engagement around embodying church that doesn't hold on as tightly as has been in the past. There is less anxiety around issues about propositional faith, who's in and who's out, the numbers game, 'getting people for Jesus' because of a profound view of the incarnate God holding us all. Peter Rollins does the best job here.

I'm particularly concerned about a couple things: conversion and the insider/outsider game.

1. conversion is not about a black and white, not i'm converted and well, maybe someday you can be too, like me. But for me there's always a gradation of being converted. Are there not things even in the suburban congregations where big ceo's of large corporations are not paying fair wages across seas for manufacturing? How are they converted to have a voice for the oppressed in a way that Jesus would advocate? Are we not immersed in a consumerist, money driven culture where there is a disparity between what we say and hear on sunday morning and how people are actually converted ought to live that out in their daily lives? What about the continuing conversion of the church? (The very title of a book by Darrel Guder) To suggest a conversion in black and white fashion for me undermines the complexity of what God in Jesus is continuing to unpack within us. I love Peter Rollins explanation on emerging:

Ikon does not view itself as having reached some final destination/destiny but rather as being on a journey toward that which forever transcends us. As a result of this we understand ourselves in a continual state of kinetic movement and fluidity. As such we would prefer to call ourselves a community becoming Christian rather than a community of Christians, for if a Christian is someone who selflessly follows Christ and radiates divine love in a broken world then we are profoundly aware that there is much of our being that lies in darkness, still needing to be evangelised. The term ‘emerging’ should not then be thought of as a provisional one that will some day be replaced with the word ‘emerged’, for we embrace the idea that re-reading, critiquing, constructing and deconstructing are all processes which remain vital for our spiritual development. By recognising ourselves as pilgrims and sojourners we endeavour to regularly meditate upon the direction of the movement and be open to the divine call that would draw us down paths we have not yet discovered. As such there is an implicit ambiguity and openness built into the heart of our structure." from www.ikon.org.uk "coordinates"

[David Hahn]

2. What is the preoccupation with 'who's in and who's out'? It's driving me crazy. I have friends who make fun of me because they say, 'you think you're going to get me don't you? good luck!' There is something going on here that I have let go of for the sake of seeking something else out, a more missionally centered way of being church without the anxiety of corporate success however not be confused with feedback as margaret wheatley speaks about it.

A helpful beginning point for me comes from this footnoted quote out of Miroslav Volf's book After Our Likeness.

"The boundary between those who belong to church and those who do not should not be drawn too sharply. According to missiologist Paul Heibert, an analysis o fthe category "Christian" can benefit from the mathematic distinction bewteen "bounded sets," "fuzzy sets," and "centered sets." "Bounded sets" function according to the principle "either/or": an apple is either an apple or it is not; it cannot be part apple and part pear. By contrast, "fuzzy sets" have no sharp boundaries; things are fluid, wihtout any definite point of reference, and exhibit varying degrees of identity - such as a mountain that turns into a plateau. "Centered sets" are defined by a center, by the distance of individual things from that center, and by movement toward or away from that center. Hiebert correclty believes that the category "Christian" should be understand as analogous to "centered sets." Although a line of demarcation does indeed exist, the issue is to confirm the center rather than to preserve the boundaries (Hiebert, "The Category," 421ff.)." p. 148

For me missional is not designed around function but nature. God is the center and moving out. We want to focus on the boundaries when I think that it is not even ours to worry about. We are to focus on the center, the perichoretic expression of God, the community of God, that is working its very life in and through us. Church for me is defined not according to what we are doing, i.e. conversions, but rather by the center, at least as I understand it to be in my little, insubstantial mind...God. That center for me is living as communities where Jesus is Lord and Savior. That's it! Attending to that center is where we can trust that God will work both through the very communities who hold that name as well as learn to recognize the presence of God beyond it as they very one who really can't be held as much as one who is holding us, all of creation! Emerging churches are missional because God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the center and like the postmodern, or some would say, post-post modern framework from which they come, are not beholding to language imposed on them from the modern template that comes with its own fractured power structures, much of which goes without any critical thinking for why it is the way it is and how it even got there to begin with.

I truly believe that emerging churches are a subset of the broader title missional church, or at least the missional church i've come to understand through my dmin program at luther sem. The emergent church is a radically contextualized and incarnational expression of missional church with God at the center. I celebrate 'differentiated unity' which for me means that this church will look different in different locations socio-economically or whatever. Why can't we say, 'great! your doing great work in your area and we're trying to do our thing here too. God is in charge and beyond it all.' Let's let God stay in charge and not diminish each other in the process, as if its some great ecclesiastical beauty contest, but rather try to be faithful to the center which is God'

[Brian Beckstrom]

Hey Dave. It was great to catch up with you at Assembly.

I'm also not a fan of Mark Driscoll. I resonate much more with David Fitch whose response to Driscoll I posted. Like Fitch I maintain that most, but not all, emerging communities are missional. In addition to my own observations much of my thinking on this subject has been shaped by Alan Hirsch. Hirsch makes the distinction between what he calls an "attractional" church that utilizes different strategies to attempt to attract people to church and a "missional" community in which faith happens in the midst of life. The attractional church reinforces a consumeristic attitude in which people come to church to receive their religious goods and services, the missional church emphasizes discipleship and sending its members out to do mission.

Hirsch uses his own early attempts at creating an alternative faith community as an example. He and his colleagues started a restaurant that was the basis for an emerging community. Ultimately the experiment failed because it was another variation on the attractional model of ministry. They attracted people by providing a cool, hip venue in which to acquire their religious goods and services but they never actually formed followers of Jesus. Hirsch argues, I believe rightly, that some emerging communities are merely variations on the attractional model, while others manage to be both emerging and missional.

As I look at the emerging movement I see both types of communities. That's why I think communities like yours that have an emphasis on formation are important. In order for God's kingdom to come and God's will be done we need to form disciples not just consumers.

[Brian Beckstrom]

To hear Alan Hirsch define the term "missional" you can go to this link. http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2008/06/audio_ur...
Here's another article out of the evangelical world asking if there is a difference between being emerging and missional. http://www.biblical.edu/images/belong/PDFs/vol2no5r.pdf

[David Hahn]

i like the attractional v. missional stuff. i'm also wondering a couple other things. 1. the issue around missional v. attractional doesn't particularly seem to be only in reference to emerging churches but a broader problematic and systemic issue that finds itself in and out of all churches, emerging, modern or whatever. Perhaps it is the natural human tendency that once organized organizations want to preserve oneself in a safe and familiar environment. maybe its about learning to further the organization as organism. 2. the challenge it seems to me is making the shift from the church as God's ultimate horizon to the world into which the church is sent, partnering with God, as God's ultimate horizon. i'll check out the links, thanks.

[Brian Beckstrom]

I definitely agree with your observation that emerging churches aren't the only ones tempted by the attractional model. In fact I would go even further. I think Emerging churches are the least attractional among those on the contemporary scene with megachurches being the most. That's not to say that being attractional is an altogether bad thing, in fact I think the attractional church is very good at connecting with seekers who have some church background, but I don't think it will reach those who aren't willing to set foot in a church building. That's where emerging communities that are missionally focused have a distinct advantage.

My concern for the emerging church is that it retains its radical edge and isn't co opted by the more prevalent attractional model. We in the western church have been so shaped by the institutional church paradigm that we don't even recognize its hold on our imaginations. And greatest among sinners am I. Despite my passion for the missional church I often find myself reverting to what I know best, the security and comfort of institutional Lutheranism. And I don't think I'm alone. In fact many emerging mainline expressions of church seem to have altered their appearances to appeal to a new generation, without adjusting the substance of their ministry. So what we're left with are hipper versions of the attractional church that still aren't very good at making disciples of Jesus.

[David Hahn]

that's also why i think the differentiated unity piece is of particular interest because we aren't in it alone. we will open ourselves the voices of other traditions and allow them to shape a bigger part of who we are. i'm trying to get my greek orthodox priest friend here one night to talk to us about his perspective of monasticism as well as a franciscan nun i met two weeks ago. the more we immerse ourselves in ourselves what do we think we're going to get??? anything different?

also, i just got an announcement from a friend that there's going to be an emerging conference in albuquerque in march. it's entitled: the emerging church: conversations, convergence, and action March 20-22, 2009. Brian McClaren and Phyllis Tickle will both be present. I heard both of them at an anglican conference in virginia two years ago along with peter rollins, diana butler bass and a host of others. we should try to get a contingent to go.

[Brian Beckstrom]

That conference sounds like fun. I love McClaren.

[Kacey Hahn]

I now have these dates on the calendar. I loved listening to Phyllis Tickle, she is remarkably articulate and prophetic.

[Lars Hammar]

Where to begin. What a great discussion. Having been to Mars Hill, and seen Driscoll in his native environment, I gained a lot of perspective on what's going on. It was particularly interesting to make that walk every day from Karen Ward's place, down the hill, to Mars Hill. It was like stepping into a different universe.

Driscoll is basically hip fundamentalism. So many things reminded me of my college fundamentalist days - especially the overly made-up girls in the "womens' track", led by Mark's wife Grace (yes, that's her name), with a baby on her hip, literally, talking the old 1950's lines about being a good wife, supporting your husband, etc. Not all bad, but done in a way that doesn't allow a woman any choice. The theology was obsessed with substitutionary atonement - to bizarre lengths. Everything is about "the blood." Blood, blood and more blood. It was Mel Gibson theology with a black-painted interior, a couple candleabras, a really good band, and a pastor who looks and talks all Gen-X hip and irrelevant.

I see good and bad in Mars Hill. The good is that they've shed the whole "nicey-nicey" stuff that Lutheranism is so full of - all this "don't swear, don't use sarcasm, don't talk about sex or drugs or pop culture unless you carefully screen out and bleep everything" mentality. How many of us would dare say "suck," or admit that we struggle with sex issues in a "nice" Lutheran church? Many of us are sick of the hypocrisy in that, and Driscoll connects with that. They also get people coming to church at Mars Hill, and changing their lives, who you would never see at one of the many ELCA churches in that neighborhood. But, he goes waaaaayyyyyy too far. He referred to emerging churches as "staring at some stupid icon and walking a faggy labyrinth". Yes, he said "faggy" and didn't flinch. There's a line between being authentic and being offensive, and he goes way over it, in my opinion.

There are two really key issues in this discussion. The first is the attractional-extractional vs. missional approach, the second is the in vs. out and identity/community issue. The first is the attractional one, and I struggle with that all the time. While I like the idea of going into a culture and starting a ministry there that's completely indigenous, some people legitimately do come to, or back to, a life of following Jesus because of something a church did that attracted them. And, I don't see many true incarnational ministries around. Everyone does a little attraction.

The second is the conversion issue. When you look at the extreme poles, Mars Hill on one side, with almost cultish of in and out, and the UCC on the other side, with no defined beliefs or standards at all, you have to consider where emerging might best fit in. I believe that every communtiy has something that unites it, something that holds the people together, some commonality. In order to build and maintain community, you need to have some core beliefs, some standards, some rules of order, or you will end up with a social group dominated by the rich and connected (what we call in Lutheranism the "family church"). This has been the UCC's downfall. In the absence of any beliefs, politics (both macro and internal church) has become the core. At Mars Hill, as much as they may say it's about their very rigid fundamentalist beliefs, it's as much a personality cult around Driscoll. What is emerging's core? I would venture that Solomon's Porch would struggle without Pagitt, that Vintage Faith without Kimball etc. They're heavy personality cults as well.

To get converts requires having something to convert to. If who Jesus is, what being a follower of him means, and what the church believes are only conversational topics, then we're not going to get a lot of non-Christians to make a break with their old ways and embrace something new. In the Gospels, Jesus demands people break off their old ways and ties a lot (and connect to him and his teachings excl

[Lars Hammar]

My last post cut off through some fluke of typing. I accidentally deleted the whole ending as I was trying to fix a typo. It was meant to end with "Jesus and his teachings exclusively".

How I would end it is with the question of how do we build community without clear lines of in and out, even if we draw those lines generously and graciously? I hear a lot of very intellectual abstractions about community and philosophy in emerging circles, the nature of sets and such, with I think is great. But, I think most of the world is more interested in how becoming a part of such-and-such community is going to change my life than in getting involved in conversations about intellectual topics. Giving up individuality and personal convenience and choice is anathema in our consumeristic culture. Church, by its very nature, is contrary to this - the sacrifice of giving, the inconvenience of coming to worship, the compromising of living with others, the submission (gasp!!) to a higher authority and rules is all anathema, and all part of the essence of discipleship. I see so much good in living in ambiguity and mystery and personal experience, but I wonder if some emerging churches aren't trying to construct a religion that doesn't require things of people, so as not to offend their consumerist sensibilities. I wonder if our fear of "in and out" language is really a fear of loosing the supremacy of our individualism and personal choice.