Emerging Church

Background

Participants in the emerging church movement believed that society was passing from modernity into postmodernity, a culture marked by growing suspicion of absolute truth and of any single overarching explanatory framework. They argued that the traditional churches and seeker-sensitive churches that had grown substantially in the modern era could not, by themselves, reach a new generation. (A seeker-sensitive church is one that tailors its worship and programs to people attending church for the first time.) The emerging church had no common confession of faith or central organization and referred to itself as a "conversation." In worship, rather than concentrating on the sermon alone, it made use of sensory elements such as candles, images, and symbols, and it emphasized the participation of the whole congregation. It also stressed communal life, practice in everyday life, and the kingdom of God.

Development

• Late 1990s: Leadership Network, an American church-support organization, gathered young pastors who were wrestling with ministry to Generation X. Participants included Doug Pagitt, Mark Driscoll, Chris Seay, and Brian McLaren. The discussion soon moved beyond generational questions to the broader question of what the church should look like in postmodern culture. Driscoll stated that he left the group because of theological differences.
• 2001: Some members of the group formed a network called Emergent (later Emergent Village). Tony Jones served as national coordinator, and McLaren became its most widely known spokesman.
• Mid-2000s: McLaren reported that about 1,100 people attended the 2003 Emergent convention. In 2005 the New Testament scholar D. A. Carson published a critical book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, and debate within evangelicalism intensified.
• Late 2000s and after: The organization became looser, with the Emergent Village board eliminating the position of national coordinator, and a growing number of people became reluctant to use the name "Emergent." In 2009 a joint Catholic–Protestant conference was held with participants including the Catholic priest Richard Rohr, showing the movement crossing confessional boundaries.

Outcomes and Influence

A distinction is commonly drawn between "emerging" in the broad sense and the progressive "Emergent" wing centered on Emergent Village, which sought to reformulate theology more boldly. Much of the broader movement flowed into the missional church discussion.

The movement was introduced in earnest in South Korea in the late 2000s, and a number of books both for and against it were published there, including a 2008 Korean translation of Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger's book under the title The Emerging Church. In 2013 the Korean Institute for the Sociology of Ministry organized a tour of emerging and missional churches in the United States. Professor Jung Jae-young said that the new forms of church being attempted by young Korean pastors could be regarded as a "Korean-style emerging church."

Assessment

Supporters describe the movement not as a church-growth program but as an attempt to renew the structure of the church itself, one that prompted renewed reflection on the nature and mission of the church. They also explain that its acceptance of diversity in biblical interpretation reflects not an abandonment of orthodox faith but the humility of acknowledging that one may be wrong.

Among critics, Carson held that the movement risked accommodating itself to postmodern culture and thereby losing the truth claims of the gospel, and he particularly criticized McLaren's views. Some within conservative evangelicalism and dispensationalism regarded the emerging church as yet another form of liberal theology that undermines the authority of Scripture. Others have pointed to its weak theological articulation.

In South Korea, the Presbyterian Church in Korea (Hapdong), at its General Assembly in September 2011, identified problems with contemplative prayer and the "King's Prayer" and prohibited engagement with and participation in them. Writers associated with this denomination present that decision as a response to currents related to the emerging church. Others have noted that in Korea, understanding of the movement was distorted because the progressive Emergent wing was mistakenly taken to represent the emerging church as a whole.