Four Models of Emerging Churches
I’ve had a lot of vested interest in the emerging church for a number of years now, partly because of my own previous experience in communities that reflected many of the qualities present in Bolger and Gibb’s “Emerging Churches,” and partly because upon reading that book I was better able to organize my own disparate thoughts on the future of the “emerging” Friends church, or what we now convergent Friends. But there is often a too complicated debate over who and what the emerging church (EC) is, whether it is a good thing, and who really represents this “movement.” I am not really interested in defending or critiquing this movement, though I am personally in favor of at least some of the expressions within these groups, because I think the church should always be contextualizing its message the best it can. But this doesn’t really help us understand the who and the what of the EC. That said, I have been playing around with various ways of categorizing these various emerging groups, and I wanted to throw out this very early, proto-typology and see how it flies.
A Couple Disclaimers
But before I give them, let me offer a few disclaimers. First, these categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, I’ve seen some of these groups sharing practices, and thinkers and are influenced by a variety of theological and philosophical positions. So my “proto-typology (if you will allow me the designation),” is meant to offer a really broad stroke to start a conversation, about the rich variety in this post-modern church. Hopefully, the conversation will be one that will in fact help make this list more accurate and better yet, help us be more faithful to the Gospel in our world. Second, I absolutely hate typologies. Absolutely and completely. Third, these categories are not based on new field research, but rather my own readings (and interpretations) of a variety of authors and positions. In other words, I am not trying to create a final word on this, but rather a (really) rough guide. Fourth, my stock is ultimately not in the emerging church, it is in the Quaker tradition so if anything my bias lays with the peace church.
Wow that’s a long list of disclaimers!
The way I’ve tried to construct these categories is around a) philosophers and theologians who have influenced these groups, and b) their stance towards Western culture.
Four Types of Emerging Churches and their Thinkers
- Deconstructionist Model: Probably the most well known group of emerging churches these churches are truly postmodern in just about every sense of the word. These are Christians influenced mainly by deconstruction, a philosophical approach invented on the continent. In their holy readings of philosophical discourse Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault and Caputo would be there. Much of the focus is on adopting postmodernity, and contextualizing the Gospel accordingly. Peter Rollins’ Ikon in Ireland would be a good example of one such group. I think Tony Jones and Brian McLaren would also fall under this category. I would say they are accommodating to postmodern culture, against modernism, and often against the institutional church making them lean towards a sort of non-denominationalism.
- Pre-modern/Augustinian Model: This model would be the second most influential within the EC, and can be in (friendly) opposition to the first group. Instead of understanding postmodernism in terms of Nietzschean philosophy as group one would do, this model leans more towards a Renaissance styled post-modernism (similar to what is represented in Toulmin’s Cosmopolis). Whether this group is truly early modern or whether it reaches back further to the pre-modern era I am not quite clear on, but St. Augustine and St. Thomas are key figures for this group. This is the where the Radical Orthodoxy of John Milbank, James K. Smith and others would fall. We see some catholics here, as well as other theologians that tend towards placing a higher emphasis on tradition within the overall framework of the Christian faith, rather than simply contextualization. This group would be see history as having shown us a better way, and if we reach back far enough we may be able to find wisdom that will help us in our quest of faith today. They would be more favorable towards institutional church, and have a pretty clear understanding of what kind of church we ought to become, but would also be seen as nostalgic and trying to uphold an institution that has often oppressed and violated those we are called to help.
- Emerging Peace Church Model (Or Open Anabaptism): This model of the emerging church stresses the non-conformist tendencies of Jesus, and thus the church should follow in his footsteps through non-violence, love of enemy and caring for the poor. This one may be closest to a kind of new monasticism that has so often been written about in recent times. While there are people from the various peace churches involved in this type of church, there are also people from a variety of traditions who are seeking to contextualize the Gospel within our culture. This group does not accept any one style of culture as being good, thus their non-conformist attitude is directed at modernity and postmodernity alike. They see Jesus (and his incarnation) as their primary model for engaging culture. They are influenced by Wittgenstein, Barth, Bonhoeffer, John H. Yoder, McClendon and Nancey Murphy to name a few. In this group you will find people like Jarrod McKenna and the Peace Tree, Shane Claiborne, some Mennonites, Rob Bell’s Mars Hill, Submergent, Jesus Radical and convergent Friends, to name a few. This group is counter any kind of Christendom styled church and thus would be sometimes for and sometimes against institutionalization, and would see contextualization as important only up to the point that it remains ultimately an extension of Jesus’ ministry and message.
- Foundationalist Model: This model of the emerging church is more conservative in their reading of Scripture and modern approaches to ecclesiology (standard preacher-centered teaching, music for worship, etc) while seeking to be innovative in their approaches to evangelism. This may come in the form of people meeting in pubs, having tatoos, cussing from the pulpit, playing loud rock music for worship and adding a layer of “alternative-ness” to their overall church service. These churches can be found within larger church communities, or can be on their own, sometimes as a large (possibly mega) church. They follow standard Evangelicalism in that they aren’t attach to traditions, and come out politically and theologically conservative, while maintaining a more accomodational stance toward culture in the name of evangelism, they will ultimately look similar to older church communities theologically. This is where I think theologians like Millard J. Erickson or D.A. Carson have a lot of influence. And where practitioners such as Mark Driscoll, Dan Kimball, Erwin McManus and many “emerging services” within mega-church congregations like Willow Creek might be found.
How These Are Connected To Local Bodies
Within these four models (are there more?), there are also a variety of ways for understanding what “church” is and how (and where) worship should be conducted. Just because it’s an EC doesn’t mean that it isn’t a part of a traditional church, Presbymergent (Presbyterian), and Tribal Generation (Anglican) are two examples of a mainline model of church being a part of the above groups. Then there is the mega-sized churches (like Mars Hill in Michigan and Seattle) who even though the church is huge they are able to maintain a number of qualities that make their communities fit within the groups above. Then there are the more blue-collar churches, or lay-inspired groups, like Kester Brewin’s Re-Imagine and Ikon mentioned above. In these communities what is most important for these groups is connecting with those outside the church, involving as many people as possible in as many ways as imaginable and being creative with whatever you have. They tend to be small in size and spread out in terms of leadership and often won’t have much in the way of paid staff. Then there are the groups who see themselves within a narrative unity of a larger tradition, but radical enough to be innovative and often times break outside the hardened mold of that tradition. Here (I think) would be more of the Radical Orthodoxy and Emerging Peace church groups. They may meet in tradition church buildings, or elsewhere, and worship will often take its cues from its tradition but then seek to build on that tradition in a variety of ways.
I hope this is somewhat helpful, and if you have some suggestions by way of clarification please feel free to chime in. I am not trying to make one look better than another (I’ve already said my biases). This is simply to help frame who is in the conversation and where they are coming from.
EDITED: 3:50pm 1.16.2008 (Added content to #4)
Related posts:
Wess, this is a helpful typology. As you imply, it is not definitive and the defining lines are not impermeable. The conversation it fosters is likely its most significant contribution.
The typology reminds me a bit of a similar typology Nancey Murphy and Jim McClendon made 18 years ago regarding postmodern theologies. (See “Distinguishing Modern and Postmodern Theologies,” Modern Theology 5:3 [April 1989]: 191-214.) I think their discussion of various axes—an epistemological axis, a literary axis, and a metaphysical axis, which all define “a three-dimensional conceptual ‘space’”—might serve as a model for moving this discussion of emergent churches forward. What are the axes that define the ecclesiological conceptual space? And how is emergent thought departing from the traditional conceptions of this space?
M&M conclude that postmodern theologies, in their various forms, demonstrate “three important and interrelated tendencies”: holism in epistemology, a focus on discourse or use in philosophy of language, and a focus on tradition and community in ethics. As you might detect, the postmodern tendencies outlined several years ago resonate with much of what we see in emergent ideas today. That is because, I think, emergent churches are ecclesial manifestations of earlier developments in postmodern theologies.
All of this to say, I would encourage a plotting of emergent churches on a more fully dimensional coordinate system, in the vein of M&M. This would first take a plotting of the conceptual space to which emergent churches are departing (M&M plot modern thought before plotting postmodern thought.)
@Chris – Thanks for the comment and reminder of Murphy and McClendon’s article, one I’ve seen sited a hundred times and have yet to read!
Could you give us an example of what you mean by:
I am interested in seeing this plotting played out further to find where it goes.
And in terms of their “three important and interrelated tendencies,” I would certainly agree with and accept within the model I propose but I am under the assumption that their view might well be rejected by more continental thinkers and deconstructionists? Is that correct?
back @ Wess: You really must read that article. It is, I think, required reading for anyone who wants to be involved in discussions of the modern/postmodern dyad. You can get a copy of the article electronically via Fuller’s ATLAS database.
Explanation: In the article M&M lay out three axes that have defined modernity. They write,
I was wondering what axes define the conceptual space of traditional/non-emerging churches. I am placing traditional churches in the position M&M place modern thought, that is as the dominant form over against which emerging churches are moving. M&M say it thusly,
In short, I am wondering, if we were to use their article as a model, on what axes would we plot traditional ecclesial models? How would we plot them? And, how would we plot emerging trends over against the conceptual space created by the plotting of these traditional axes? How would the article read if we replaced reference to modernism with traditional/non-emerging church models, and postmodernisms (notice the plural!) with emerging church models (again, plural!)?
Wess,
thank you for a helping analysis. My biolgraphy includes formation in Charismatic, Anabaptist, and liberal Baptist settings (in that order). When I came to the emergent movement, I think I embraced 1 & 3 both in reaction to and affirmation of some of the threads in my background.
Here’s my rub with your analysis… it seems to me that at the center of something new, something emerging, there must be a different way of doing theology. At that point, I would exclude #4 from the emergent church. It seems to me that there isn’t anything new of substance there, just a mask placed over old ways of thinking about God and about the church. I don’t see how that group is substantially different than the seeker movement of the 80′s which took an old way of doing theology and asked, how do we get outsiders into this old theology? By packaging it in a way that is as unoffensive to them as possible. #4 doesn’t listen to the critiques from the broader culture or ask whether the theological foundations need to be changed. So, I don’t see anything newly emerging there…
@Chris – I’ve downloaded the article, thanks for the tip. Thanks for expounding on what you meant, I think this would be a really great thing to do and helpful on a number of different levels. Actually, I will incorporate their article into my seminar paper I am doing right now (Quaker mission in Modernism/postmodernism) and see what I come up with. And it would be great to extend this to the ECs. There has to be someone here up for the task!
@Roy – Thanks for the comment, you make a really great point. Obviously some of these questions revolve around the greater question “What is the Emerging Church?” And I, for better or worse, accept Bolger’s sociological positioning on the matter – but even still that may not help us with your questions. So let me address them.
I agree with the arguments you make here, and I can see how an argument for excluding #4 can be made. In fact, my placing #4 was an attempt for my model to be inclusive. I know there are number of churches within the EC who wouldn’t fall under #1-3 and yet feel they are a version of the EC. I am not personally in a position to say who is and who isn’t and so that’s part of why I included Driscoll’s group.
But there are some other reasons that may be more to the point:
1. Along with Foucault, I don’t think there is a clean break between the modern and postmodern. There isn’t a pure form of either at this point, and so all our attempts to “contextualize” are bound up in our ‘hybrid’ culture/s. This being the case, I’d argue for the inclusion of #4 inasmuch as those within that group see themselves “contextualizing” the Gospel in postmodernity, even if it is done in a way that by-in-large protects an Enlightenment vision of it.
2. Along with Slavoj Zizek, I’d want to say that within an ever increasing globalized world, there will also be an increasing number of radical fundamentalists. Now, before I get hosed, I am not calling everyone in #4 radical fundamentalists I am sure a number of the churches represented there are not, but then again there certainly are a good number of them who are. Zizek’s point is that fundamentalism is a response to (even a valid response in some senses) Globalization (and I’d add postmodernity). So insofar as #4 is a counter-weight to #1-3 I think it should remain.
3. Finally, while the theology may not be substantially different (is a substantial difference in theology necessarily a good thing?) I would say that their position to culture is different than seeker churches and more modern-traditional ones. I think they’ve accepted a more optimistic stance towards popular culture (a move that’s only happened in the last 20 years (?) within culture theory) and they are more much missionally oriented, at least Dan Kimball is in his book “They Like Jesus But Not the Church” (See my review). I think Kimball’s book, while reflection a foundationalist epistemology (as Nancey Murphy might say) shouldn’t necessarily be kicked off the model’s island, because of his understanding of culture and church mission.
Thanks for the dialogue.
@Wess @Roy – There is one axis right there! In point #3 you mention the position of ECs to culture. One could likely map traditional churches on a church-to-culture axis and find them leaning toward a position of pessimism, while the ECs (no matter their variety in other areas and their variety in manifesting this attitude) display a position of optimism. I think we could probably plot the churches on a missional axis as well, but I don’t know how that would look just yet. Any ideas? Other axes?
Wess, I understand the arguments that you make but it still seems to me that #4′s feet are both pretty firmly planted in the “what was” and I’m not sure that I even see one lifted to step into the “what is not yet” yet. So we are back to the greater question: what is the Emerging Church?
good discussion… and I’m pleased to make this new connection.
blessings
Wess,
great post… and not just because of the shout out.
In Australia what is often called the emerging church (or ‘emerging missional church’) is often Foundationalist in theology (#4) but Deconstructionist (#1) in church form. I.e. doing church differently which is never as exciting as BEING CHURCH as a community who are truely seeking first God’s nonviolent transformation of all things (the kingdom).
So sadly mission gets compromised for the sake of ‘evangelism’ if you know what I mean. Being funky becomes more important than the faithfulness. Geting people ‘in’ becomes more important than us living ‘in’ God’s alternative order.
I’d say that my biggest concern wrt #3 and its application in “Convergent Friends” is that I sense so much idealism in bridging historic divides among Friends that Spirit might be…hijacked. It’s my sense that this is what led to some of the very divides among Friends now. There was so much effort to preserve the “unity” of Friends that that important testimonies (e.g. equality) were brushed aside.
My sense is that Friends should (in a sort of melange of 1,2, and 3) try to work on their own spiritual health with a group of peers that has no regard for the traditional boundaries of faith. And if it builds bridges between Friends groups (or for that matter any religious institutions), great. If it doesn’t, that’s not the point. “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God…and all these things shall be added unto you…” because “The Kingdom of God is WITHIN you!”
Otherwise, the objective will simply be on works of man and not works of God.
Hi Josh – thanks for the comment. I don’t understand convergence in the same way as you suggest – at least in the sense of bridging the gap between the great divide. Sure that’s happening to some extent, but convergent friends isn’t simply an ecumenical group – it isn’t bridging the gap, it is the gap. I’d say that convergent friends aren’t trying to tie loose ends together, but somehow embody what is lacking.
Also, I think my perspective is that it is one assumption to think that the Spirit would be hijacked in any kind of cross-dialogue with other Friends. I’ve found the exact opposite to be true personally. But again, I stress, and have stressed many times, this isn’t another attempt at modern liberalism, where unity = the lowest common denominator. I invite you to check out the rest of my blog if you’re unsure of where I stand on this issue.
I completely agree that the kingdom of God is the first and most important thing we seek, and this rolls back into my first two paragraphs. It’s just that I think that when seeking the kingdom, a lot of people get excited and want to be apart of it, which means there is some joining a long the way. I also believe that the kingdom of God is filled with people I wouldn’t expect to be there, and so I try and keep my heart open to these possibilities. And you most likely agree with that point, but I thought I’d let you know where I’m coming from.
I think convergent friends, ultimately, is one Quaker argument, a community of friends claiming something – maybe their argument is good, or maybe it will fail, but in either case it is one among many. It is our hope that it is a really good presentation of a particular argument and understanding of Scripture, The Quaker tradition, Jesus Christ, and our contemporary society.
Oh and what do you see as traditional boundaries of faith? I’m not sure what you mean by that.
Thanks for commenting.
Over the last week or so, I’ve had some difficulty putting things into the words that I feel are the “clearest” depiction of how I see them. The phrase “traditional boundaries of faith” is a grand example.
My essential point is that I have a deep-seated concern/fear that “Convergent Friends” is simply trying to do the same thing that previous generations have (i.e. “trying to solve the world’s problems”* by way of institutions) with a belief that a little postmodern philosophy and some podcasts and blogs will make “us” succeed at something that has blown up in the faces of previous generations of Friends.
The most serious problem that I see is the interest in some circles of bridging gaps between groups of Friends…with some feeling that such a goal is the ultimate goal. My caricature of this is that some Friends feel that problems between some Friends organizations can be simply solved by “holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya.’” Feel free to send me an e-mail if you don’t follow what I’m saying; if you don’t have my address, I’ll send you a message.
I have been reading your blog, although I haven’t really felt the need to comment until recently. I’ve got a lot going on and don’t particularly feel like being at the epicenter of controversy. E-mail me and I’ll explain just what I mean.