Death of the Emerging Church? Part 1

This is part one in a three part series about the future of the Emerging Church Movement.  Instead of doing it all in an oppressively long single post, I’ll break it up.

Tony Jones, Dan Kimball, Mark Driscoll.  All three were key players in the early formation and later direction of what is now known as the Emerging Church Movement.  I highlight these three because they represent three distinct expressions of this movement, and have recently commented on the changing nature of the movement.  This conversation has received a lot of attention as of late in blogs as some prominent voices has disassociated themselves with the friendship.  While others have decried the end of the movement from the outside (usually with excitement).  I am one of those outsiders who respects the way those involved in this movement have pushed the conversation in helpful, if not always easy, directions.

Tony Jones is one of the most recognizable names of the movement.  He is the leader of Emergent Village, even if he no longer holds that title people look to him for direction.  Jones is the leader of the most liberal vein of the movement, both in terms of his past contexts (serving in a mainline church and studying at Princeton) and his current practices.  Deep down I think Jones wishes he was a philosopher.  Jones sees no end in sight to emergence.

Dan Kimball is the practical centrist in this conversation.  Incredibly accessible to the average church leader because of his missional stance and emphasis on evangelism (Origins Project).  He writes books and speaks in ways that make a compelling case for the Emergent vision of ministering in a postmodern context, but refrains from embracing some of the more liberal stances that are non-starters (homosexuality) for many church leaders.  It seems everyone likes Kimball.  Being the practical one Kimball sees emergence as making way for a missional movement, he sees church as always emerging and the label as counterproductive.

Mark Driscoll started out in step with what would become Emergent Village, but quickly and harshly broke off that association.  He has grown a large church in Seattle and leads a huge church planting network.  Driscoll seems to enjoy confrontation and is commonly in the media for offending someone.  One of his favorite targets are those he associates with Emergent, including Rob Bell (who seems to intentionally refuse any labels).  To be honest I have found many of his statement about others to have truth but entirely too harsh, even when I find agreement with them.  Driscoll wishes he was a MMA fighter.  Emergence to Driscoll is apostate and he will tell you so, right before he punches you in the face.

Those are the players.  Here is the point.

The Emerging Church Movement was that nebulous entity that no one really understood, but almost everyone was at least momentarily excited about.  We have all felt cultural disconnects on Sunday morning and to some of us the ECM provided some glimmers of hope.  Then and now we felt as though our churches were just chasing the culture.  It happened with worship wars, power point, highly specialized staff, projected images, and comfy chairs.  All relatively good stuff, but almost all unoriginal and/or limited.  The ECM was the alternative.  An embrace of the historical place of the church, sharing authority and leadership, and embracing the grand narrative resonated with a large segment of the church going (or former church going) populace.

So what happens if the Emerging Church fades away, and perhaps more importantly should it?

Part II: They Should Have Seen This Coming, and Prepared For It.