This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Em Church Ecclesiology: Promises and Dangers

One of the "hot trends" in the church growth movement is that of the "emerging church" phenomenon. I have to confess that I'm only just becoming acquainted with this phenomenon, and most of my acquaintance has been via the internet. There are a plethora of books and conferences out there, but I've not read any of the books or been to any of the conferences. (Though the way some of these bloggers write about their conference experiences, it feels almost like being there.) All this is basically a disclaimer saying mine is not an in-depth analysis of the em church, but rather some initial questions and suspicions.

As I understand it, the em church has a few foci: a non- (sometimes anti-) institutional premise which focuses on relationships among smaller gathered groups of Christians, a preference for an emotive and existential worship experience, and a conscious embrace of a "postmodern" worldview. All of these contain both promise and peril.

Relationships and Smaller Groups

In the twentieth century, the popular marketing of this small group trend went under the terms of "house church," "cell group," and so forth. The point was that since we as individuals get lost in the large group, we needed smaller, more intimate settings for discipleship and accountability. This felt need got coupled with a presupposition that the New Testament pattern of eccelsiology was to have several house churches meeting in one city. It appears that the current jargon describes this setup as a "multi-site congregation."

What's interesting to me, is that, historically speaking, this was the genesis for the parish-diocese dynamic. In other words, there was one Local Church (diocese) in a given city, headed by a bishop, and several house curches (parishes) served by presbyters/priests. (Admittedly, this is a very simplified model, but is, I think, a fair description of the very early development of the Traditional Church structure. One sees hints of it in the New Testament, but sees its more developed form in Clement's letter to the Corinthians [c. AD 95] and the Ignatian letters [pre AD 107])

If the trend, then, among the em churches, will eventually follow this historical organic model, I think this a good thing. Especially since another of the aspects of the em church is its conscious a la carte borrowing from various historic practices of the Church (the use of icons, for example). By following this historical development, and coupled with this growing appreciation for Church Tradition and history, the em church may well find themselves consciously returning to the proper ecclesiological structure.

Unfortunately, given the em church's self-conscious non-/anti-institutionalism, they will equate the dynamic organic ecclesiology of history with the sins of institutionalism. Further, since the impetus toward the "house church," "multi-site congregation" also appears to tend to take on the therapeutic motif of our culture, instead of moving toward a more communal understanding of ecclesiology, the individualism still inherent in postmodernism will likely win out and frustrate these efforts.

Existential Worship

The willingness of the em church to explore alternative forms of worship has some potential good. Some of these worship experiences utilize the historic liturgies of the Church. Since these liturgies formulate Christian belief in time-tested ways, then the shaping of Christian minds and hearts by these liturgical snippets is a welcome good.

Unfortunately, one cannot take a screwdriver from the toolbox and very effectively hammer nails with it. And given that the em church worship is still weighted with the orientation toward needs of the individual worshipper, whatever good might come from this eclectic style is bastardized.

Historically, the Church's worship has focused on God, not on the worshipper. While it is true that the liturgies (at least in the East) were translated into the vernacular, and local customs and (small-t) traditions were encouraged, the words, form and structure of worship were predetermined. The Church didn't ask the catechumens if they would prefer more praise choruses over the traditional hymns. The Church didn't bring non-Christians into a "seeker service" to evangelize them. The Church worshipped God. If you wanted to join in, fine, but no one asked your preference.

This alternative worship, furthermore, is too unstable. Though the point of worship is the praise of the Trinity, the effect is the formation of Christian minds and hearts in the beliefs of Christianity. With the style and words of the service changing weekly (or oftener) there is no chance for any substantive formation of Christian minds and hearts. Or rather, the substantive formation is one of pluralism and relativism, the lack of a solid criterion of discernment.

Postmodern Worldview

In many ways, this is the most troubling development of all. The positive, of course, is that insofar as this embrace of the postmodern offers a substantive critique of the modernist hegemony which invaded the Western churches, the em church has an opportunity to embrace again, in a renewed way, the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Another positive is that having learned how to communicate with the culture, the em church can experience a greater facility to keep the conversation going when it comes to evangelism.

The difficulty, however, is that it does not appear that the em church is adequately handling the pluralism and relativism with which postmodernist thinking is rife. So far as I can tell, the em church phenomenon does vocalize commitment to absolute truth (albeit not in modernist terms). But this commitment is contradicted by the pluralist and relativist worship--admittedly the most formative of Christian practices--which it promotes. How can one balance the commitment to an absolute, transcendent God with an approach to worship which communicates "It doesn't matter as long as it's sincere"?

There are other more superficial complaints I have, not the least of which is the (in my view) selling out to marketing that the em church phenomenon does. It seems as though new jargon must continually be invented so that it can be trademarked and the books copyrighted. This can lay dangerous foundations for a resurgence of theological nominalism.

Furthermore, the non-/anti-institutional commitments of the em church are themselves being institutionalised. Googling "emerging church" leads to dozens and dozens of websites, books, conferences, and so forth. It all may be "decentralized" but it's just as institutional as the historic Church they criticize for its institutionalism.

But once again, mine is only a beginning glance. These are but impressionistic concerns and questions. If others can help me see the substance, I would be grateful.

Posted by Clifton at November 1, 2003 05:00 AM | TrackBack