It feels a bit ominous to read the blog reviews of Brian McLaren’s latest – A New Kind of Christianity. The book is raising quite a stink. No surprise eh? One gets the sense there is something different going on this time versus the last couple book releases of Brian’s: The Secret Message and Everything Must Change. One gets the impression we are at a pivot point, a moment that upsets the whole terrain of theological allegiances having to do with the post evangelical emerging church developments of the last ten-fifteen years. It’s like Brian is shaking up the foundations of post evangelical theology. I read the book on my flight home from the ecclesia network national gathering last week and here are some initial observations.
The first chapter was a highlight. Brian outlines all the developments that led to his emergence as a writer and the questions he has been motivated to ask and write about. He tells us about his own development in relation to the various problems with the church in N American evangelicalism. This is insightful. It reveals the basis of his appeal to all of us who have grown up with the same doubts, problems and issues with American church life, particularly American evangelical church. In this brief introduction is why we love McLaren and his influence endures. The question in the back of my mind is: Would Brian McLaren have had anywhere near the attention he’s had if he was writing his books out of the protestant liberal context?
In almost every chapter, Brian rehearses the familiar critiques against the evangelical church in America: its narrow forensic view of the atonement and the gospel, its duplicitous judgmentalism towards the gay/lesbian community, its fascination with the Bible as a fact book to be used as a propositional weapon, the church as a survival exclusivist institution, I could go on and on. This is another source of Brian’s appeal. It is safe to say many of us were looking for someone to say a lot of these things way back when during the times we were all struggling. Thanks to Brian for all this. He has been a gift. The question in the back of my mind in reading all of this was: Have we saturated this subject and indeed isn’t it time to move on from these well-worn critiques? It sure seems like even the most fundamentalist of evangelicals gets these concerns. If not why make more enemies?
Brian spends quite a bit of time developing a version of what he calls “the Greco-Roman six-line narrative,” its dualism, its separation of the next life in heaven from life on earth and its multiple negative effects on traditional Western theology (and evangelical theology) and the way we think about salvation. For many of us this critique goes way back – all the way to Harnack – the godfather of protestant liberalism. There’s some good stuff here but of course there is some overplay (as all popular books tend to do for the sake of the audience). The question in the back of my mind in reading all of this was: Has Brian himself fallen captive to the same modernizing and Platonizing tendencies in his own constructive proposals. In other words, in McLaren’s opened ended theological proposals, is not the incarnate (non-dualized) Christ – the coming of the infinite into the finite, the universal into the concrete – in danger of being conceptualized into some “ideals” which de-incarnate, de-particularize His coming into the world as the Christ/Messiah of the New Kingdom. (this was Yoder’s critique of Niebuhr). Isn’t this Western Greco-Platonic?
For instance, in the chapter on “Jesus and the Kingdom” (ch. 15) there seems to be a missing component in his exposition of Romans – the need for conversion. There seems to be a glossing over that this great reconciliation and renewal in the Kingdom comes only in the individual actually getting down and dirty and dying to his/her own flesh and participating in the renewal of all things in the life in Christ (Rom 6-8). This “entrance” into reconciliation/renewal is incarnational. Without it, the kingdom can become a gnosticized ideal. To me, this is the danger of reading N T Wright too casually (who never renounces the personal justification by faith as entry into God’s greater justice working in the world “to make all things right”).
For instance – there seems to be a missing component in his chapter on eschatology (ch. 18). He sees the end of time as open ended, as “at every moment, creation continues to unfold, liberation continues to unshackle us, and the peaceable kingdom continues to expand with new hope and promise (p. 194).” The “second coming” seems to be missing from Brian’s account. He seems to lack appreciation that God is working in Christ “to reconcile all things to Himself” (2 Cor 5:17-22) and this is leading us somewhere in time. This definitive end – the culmination of history in the second coming – is incarnational to me. i.e in history. Without it, the kingdom can be pushed into an ideal which has little to do with Christ’s reign in history. Many of us are on board with McLaren (have been for a longtime eh?) that the overly pessimistic dispensationalist eschatologies turned us inward and negative towards the justice God was bringing into the world. But in rightfully rejecting these things, has McLaren idealized the future into an ideal/a value that can be carried out apart from Christ and His comsummation of it? In diminishing the physical second coming of Christ to culminate his Kingdom (p. 197) does not McLaren do the ultimate move of Greek mythology – propose that Jesus’s redemption has nothing to do with the physical consummation of the Kingdom here on earth? Is this perhaps a reversion to the Enlightenment myth of eternal progress and the de-incarnationalizing of God’s work in Christ for the justice of the world into a wider societal progress?
I think similar questions could be asked about his positions on the gay/lesbian question, the grounding of the authority if Scripture, etc. In each chapter there’s a lot to agree with. But I’m left asking has he de-incarnationalized Christ into a set of conceptualizations/ideals to be sought after as individuals carrying the Christian banner?
A Parting of the Ways is a Good Thing
This all gets to my final point: Brian’s NKoC, for better or worse, articulates the theology of a specific coalescence of emerging church people – that group most associated with the former Emergent Village. Right? It seems that the same people who regularly defend Emergent (as part of Emerging) and a lot of the positions therein are also doing the legwork here in defending Brian? To me this is a good thing. Help me out here but why should anyone at Emergent have a problem with that? It signifies a clarifying coalescence around Brian and all those who were what once was Emergent. Meanwhile, as TSK or Jeremy Bouma or the several others announce they are leaving associations with Emergent previously, it appears a realigning is happening. I see this as a grand clarification. I see NKoC as aiding and developing this clarification.
In the meantime NKoC is promoting a similar clarification among the other streams. For better or worse, three major streams have emerged in the Emerging meltdown of the past few years. They are Neo Reformed stream, the Emergent/Emerging Stream and the Missional (often Anabaptist) Stream.
1.) The Neo-Reformed is armed with a host of great blogs as well as a theological “coalition.”
2.) The post-Emergent Village Emerging stream is certainly being carried on by the Christianity 21, the Transform group, the Ooze and the Emergent Village website itself.
3.)The Missional stream is the most scattered , from the missional blogs of the Great White North (upon which Mike Morrell has labelled – and gotten a lot of heat for it – the Missional Right), to Len and Forge to Alan Hirsch/Shapevine to the old GOCN to many others. In my opinion this last group needs some theological coalescence (the group I most associate with). Much like “the Gospel Coalition” has done for the Neo-Reformed and the McLaren, Jones and Pagit trio and their edited book series (along with others like John Franke) has done for the emergent stream. We need to work on what our commitments are theologically (especially ecclessiology, soteriology and the prolegomena)
My point is however that I see Brian’s book polarizing the coalescing of these three streams in a positive way. (Is this what Trevin Wax is already saying over here.) At the very least it will coalesce the group that is around McLaren, polarize the Neo-Reformed stream and push us Missional folk to articulate more what our theological commitments are. This is crucial for the next step in post evangelical N. America because it is only by clarifying our differences and having on-the-ground rooted communities working out this stuff that a post-evangelical faithfulness can be demarcated in N America. The ideal would be to see all three streams (after clarification) come together in submission to Christ in a kind of mini-post evangelical Nicaea for the future of the missional church. But if we don’t clarify each others commitments, all we’ll ever do is be in a heresy-hunting, defensive posture, protecting our own turf. It won’t be productive if you ask me. As I said once before, all these differences can only be worked out ON THE GROUND, in real life communities led by the Holy Spirit in the same way it always has. Perhaps then, out of this fertile ground, these three clarified streams can lead to a sort of Nicaean like development for the post evangelical crowd in North America. This kind of unifying is impossible however without the prior clarifying that is being forced on us by McLaren. I contend this is a good thing, even if some claim Nicaea was a bloody mess.
So, thank-you Brian McLaren.
If there are any comments on all this, I’ll be grateful for feedback, although I can only respond as best I can. I’m busy carrying on a back log of pastoral, professor and personal writing work. So please grant me patience?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
I’ve got a foot in a couple of these steams. Thank you both for the critique and for the call to clarify commitments. Good post.
I think you’ve nailed it. I described it as a “fracturing” with different streams crystallizing and coming out of that – but definitely necessary as you point out. Very intrigued by your idea of a “mini-post evangelical Nicaea” and wonder what that might look like… but hopeful for the missional thread of this conversation.
Perhaps Hamilton, ON is the new Nicaea, Dave.
Very important post even if your title might win for the longest blog post title ever.
Dave, I cannot tell you how I long to see rigorous and productive theological dialogue among those within the missional movement. Thank you for your post, for your voice, and for the effective and diverse ministry roles in which you serve.
[...] waters of dealing with Brian McLaren’s latest book, A New Kind of Christianity, in this post: McLaren’s New Kind of Christianity – There’s a parting of the ways here – and that’s alrig… AKPC_IDS += "1095,"; Tags: A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren, David Fitch, Emerging [...]
Thank you David for a very insightful, timely, and fair framing of the book and the emerging/missional streams. I think this is something that could be built upon moving forward.
Thanks for your thoughtful post, David. I appreciate your constructive approach, and open-minded/open-hearted perspective on the role Brian McLaren has played and is playing in our sifting of the streams of “emerging.” I had some relevant thoughts about the timing of this book in the flow of the emerging movements, based on my past experiences and research.
I’m a student of culturology, futures, and the like, and I started into these disciplines in the 1990s with research on identity subcultures like Goths, Neo-Romantics, Riot Grrrls, Eco-Spirituals, Acid Jazzers, etc. (Tall Skinny Kiwi once identified me as having the largest alt.culture library among Christians in North America, to which I joked, “Yeah, like, three books on Punk!”)
Back then, my own primary research findings on subculture movements suggested that if we (1) pinpoint the historical integration point of the movement, and (2) identify what values missing from the mainstream catalyzed the group to form, and then (3) add 15 to 20 years from that point, then that’s when (4) we’ll see an upsurge in the mainstream culture of those previously missing values that were embodied in that subculture.
It’s that reminder of the 15-year movement marker that you mentioned in your post, David, which really got me thinking.
Brian McLaren’s *A New Kind of Christianity* arrives on the scene almost exactly 15 years into the movement that became emerging/Emergent Village — if we take as key crystallizing events the 1995 IVP publication of *Jesus for a New Generation* by Kevin Ford, the 1996 Zondervan publication of *Inside the Soul of a New Generation* by Tim Celek and Dieter Zander, and the 1996 Leadership Network-sponsored GenX conference. (The latter became Young Leader’s network, which can be tracked all the way to Emergent Village.)
Brian’s book could be taken as both a chronos and kairos moment for the surfacing in the mainstream of those questions, values, and practices embedded in the broader “emerging” movement and clarified over the past 15 years. And, as you suggested, *A New Kind of Christianity* may serve to polarize people among what previously was “emerging” to differentiate ourselves into various niches. I agree, that is an important task to undergo. Even though it means conflict, it could lead to more clarity and creativity in our conversations in the long run.
In fact, I wonder if we’ll only be able to really “dialogue” collegially once we differentiate ourselves, because until then, we may mistakenly think we’re talking to one another from within the same subcultural milieu when in fact we’re a cross-cultural situation. (But then, didn’t the same problem happen 15 years ago, when Busters tried to talk “church” with Boomers and Builders? Using the same or similar terms never guaranteed we meant the same thing. Guess that’s the nature of the theological and praxological tasks.)
This is why I think it’s important to understand our own stories, and pinpoint the specific aspects of various sub-movements within emerging that we resonate with, and which we resist. It’s why, a few weeks ago on Bill Kinnon’s posts about the framing of “the discussion,” I was pouring out details of my own 15-year journey of emergence to pinpoint what I did/didn’t “feel” I resonated with in Emergent, and what I’d learned about why that was so. Not all of us approach differentiation from a purely intellectual base, and so the evidence from an intuitive processor has its own form of value in the discussion. What I feel “creeps me out” has an intelligent basis, though perhaps not intellectual, after all …
Anyway, I’m a bit more hopeful for an eventual intercultural dialogue because we’ll know we’re starting from a cross-cultural — not mono-cultural — vantage point. When we form our group’s niche, and specify our group’s core beliefs and values, and feel relatively comfortable in/with our niche, only then can we imagine preferred futures and contribute the best of what we have to offer. (At least, that’s my assumption.)
It’s also intriguing to consider what happens AFTER such “mainstreaming moments” when subcultures surface as it appears emerging/Emergent now has with Brian’s newest book. As best I can recall (having not delved back into subcultural studies for at least 10 years), there are at least four “What’s next?” patterns possible, given how subcultures generally function:
(1) Some go through ascendency, apex, and decline/extinction, except for a remaining hardcore of survivors who hang on to the original form until they die. (Think Zoot Suiters of the 1940s.)
(2) Some mutate and morph as the heritage seed takes on bits and pieces of other values, or hybridizes with other movements similar enough to merge. (Think Punk in its multiple morphcarnations since it emerged in the 1970s — from Straight Edge from Emo.)
(3) Some appear in retro versions that may be relatively faithful to many aspects of the original, or new fusion forms. (Think the contemporary Swing movement, and retro-Rat Pack.)
(4) Or, the entire journey will have identified other crucial values that are missing in both the original subculture and its mainstreamed versions, which may mean the field is ripe for a new subcultural emergence quite distinct from what has gone before. This isn’t necessarily some thesis-antithesis-synthesis kind of a thing, but may be an indicator of a newly emerged paradigm shift, not just a new expression within the older paradigm.
This is part of the reason I’ve focused so much on analyzing paradigms, so the truly new can be spotted as something innovative within a mental model that has not been dominant, instead of just an incremental step within a mental model that has. (And I believe the holistic missional movement represents something quite distinct at the paradigm level from many of the “emerging” streams of a more conventional paradigm that it has been lumped together with.) (But that’s an entire blogs worth of posts to “prove” …)
Finally, I have questions. Which post-mainstreaming pattern will Emergent Village fulfill? Emerging? ReforMerging? Missional? I have some ideas about all that, but guess that’ll have to wait for another day. And … gee, this got long so … umm … instead of clogging your blogging comments, I’ll plan to post on my own.
Meanwhile, thanks again for the time you put in to process and share your thoughts on the significance of Brian McLaren’s contribution to this historic moment.
It seems to me that the neo-reformed is more of a reaction to emergent than a stream that has come out of it. It seems like a counter-reformation movement that re-energizes evangelicalism but does not substantively move beyond it.
My question about emergent is just how much it differs from liberal/progressive versions of Christianity. I suspect that it does, but I often also have trouble telling the difference between the two. And, my question for the “missional” stream, is whether it warrants its own category. What does it theologically bring to the table that is substantially different than the other two sides? It seems like the people in the missional category might rightfully belong in neo-reformed or emergent if the limits on those labels were expanded.
Howdy Dave,
Great review. Can I say for you, Brent, et al, that I regret using ‘missional right.’ It might shock many of you to know that I consider myself missional in many of my influences and practices – even though I’m clearly also ‘emergent.’ Here’s what I said in my defense when I first clarified what I meant by the term:
“I’m very sensitive to how ‘missional-right’ would be received, and I don’t use the term lightly. I only use it after several years of folks framing ‘emergent’ as ‘left’ and ‘emerging’ and centrist, and more recently, via folks with Origins et al, explaining ‘missional’ as culturally-engaged but Lausanne-affirming conservatives. “Right” is not pejorative, but rather the self-identification I’m seeing as relative to emergent.”
As I’ve noted the bemusement and/or outrage engendered at such placement, I’ve reevaluated. ‘EmergING,’ while existing from around 2005-2008, is definitely dead now. No one (in North America at least) self-identifies that way now. So if Neo-Calvinists are ‘right’ and Emergent is ‘left’ (and I have friends in both camps who would debate this, but speaking in broad generalities), then missional folks would be to the left of the NeoCalvs and to the right of the Emergents – which is kind of like saying missional folks are centrist, yes?
So let the endless nomenclature be heretofore revised: I hereby now make my designation of missionals, with God as my witness,
the missional moderates…
or missional middle.
Well said, David. This is meaningful to me, especially as we are seeking to establish a more intentionally missional (& Anabaptist) theology as a community.
I think we need to be intentional about the direction you suggest for the missional (Anabaptist) stream. What would you say is the next step?
Peace,
Jamie
“all these differences can only be worked out ON THE GROUND, in real life communities led by the Holy Spirit in the same way it always has”
Amen and amen. Thanks, Dave. Great thoughts, as usual. Your image of a “new missional Nicaea” is a compelling one. Lots of food for thought (and prayer).
Just a small side comment re: “the familiar critiques of evangelicalism” I know that for those who’ve been tracking with the emerging conversation for the last 15 years these critiques are old news. But I’m telling you that within much of evangelicalism (institutional, on-the-ground, churches and parachurches) these critiques have not yet been faced. There is an amazing momentum that keeps the old narrow ways alive, well, and formative for lots and lots of people. I know, because I see it every day.
Just to say, it is not beating a dead horse to keep rehearsing the critiques. I for one believe the critiques should continue to be articulated. There is an intense and increasingly sophisticated theological conversation among the various missional camps, but I’d hate for that to stop intentional efforts to keep the basic issues in front of those who have yet to engage them.
Jamie,
i think we need to form a some kind of a gathering/website ala the Gospel Coalition where some theological leaders shape some theological commitments around the main issues – Brian mcL’s ten questions. People like N T Wright, Dallas Willard, Michael Gorman, Chr.Wright, Scot McKnight, Darrell Guder, someone who could extend Yoder into the conversation, Stuart Murray, as well as practicioners and missiologists …like Alan Hirsch and Alan Roxburgh, Eddie Gibbs etc….
Mike … It’s the anabaptist in me that winces at “missional middle,” Left or right implies within an existing paradym (smells like Constantine) … so we need the word “radical” in there somehow … missional radical
Brad/futurist … dude that’s a long comment … and I think I liked it
Hi again. Won’t clog the blog again (here, at least), but will just note that I posted a comment in response to Mike’s “missional middle” spectrum that he wrote over on Bill Kinnon’s February 09, 2010, post on “Brian Wants to Frame the Reviews.” Interesting that — as with you — my take on it was that it demonstrated a distinct paradigm difference. Cheers …
great review David and really well thought out observations.
Perhaps it is my own naiveté but I wonder why the American need to label these movements from a two dimensional political perspective. My theology should inform how I engage politics. I’m not sure that my politics should inform how I consider theology.
I think the binary nature of politics in the U.S. has infected our discussion of the church going forward (further into post-Christendom) in ways that are far from helpful.
I just replied to some of the critique re: missional middle on Bill’s blog (Mea culpa! Tongue-in-cheek-a!); as for modifying missional with ‘radical,’ well…cue this song, ’cause anyone under 35 is going to positively bristle by that self-designation. To be blunt: Calling oneself radical isn’t. If others call you radical – the folks in your local neighborhoods or community, say – that’s awesome, because radical is as radical does. But it’s about as overused as ‘authentic’ these days…
Hi Dave, re: your ‘Gospel Coalition’ idea, how do you feel the Origins Project is or isn’t what you’re looking for?
Mike,
Lest you mistake me for trying to be “hip” here (I still face ridicule daily for refusing to give up my “loose fit” Levi jeans), my use of “radical” was a nod to the anabaptist label “radical” reformation, so I was trying to work out of that way of defining the theological history (notice the Constantine reference).
Perhaps a better way to think about it is interms of a post Hegelian (almost Zizekian) collapse of the existing paradym for something else that emerges (not the Hegelian Aufhebung as traditionally understood). To me the issue with Brian McL and the Neo-Reformed is they are still slaves ultimately to the ills of ‘Enlightenment fever.’
As for the Origins group, not that it should concern anybody especially the, but I’m still waiting to see how this addresses the concerns just mapped out above. Will it be pragmatic? The Lausanne Covenant statement? Hmmmmm … We’ll see
Thanks David. I want to help see this happen. I think that such an intentional direction is essential. The question remains: where do we go from here?
Missional middle … hmmm … rather than apply political context, could it be yet another example of an excluded middle? A true paradigm shift.
If the missional are primarily concerned with the day to day nitty gritty of incarnational life, then perhaps this represents a reality that is being overlooked around us? A reality that suffers from being made too complex and thereby too high above the crowd. Or made too “new” so as to frighten the crowd away. Or made so wishy-washy as to get lost in the crowd.
Whereas the incarnational-missional, as Hirsch sees it, is a path for acting our way into a new kind of thinking, rather than thinking our way into a new kind of acting.
I’m going to have to ponder this some more.
Thanks for the great post, Dave … and the great comments, brethren,
Oh, I now you’re using ‘radical’ in a very deliberate and informed way; we did the same thing in my house church decade. Radix, ‘to the root.’ It’s just that – along with ‘authentic’ and ‘community’ and (ahem) ‘emerging,’ these perfectly good words have died a demise of mis-and-over-use, sadly. (Going to the Root remains an excellent read, by the way – even as author Christian Smith has moved on & is Episcopal these days I believe…)
Still, I’m all about your understanding of radical – at least, as much as a 30-something husband and father can be!
I hear you, re: Origins. Not a huge Lausanne fan myself…still, I think these folks can do something great together.
Yes indeed, Peggy – kind’ve like the Vineyard’s Quest for the Radical Middle – whoa-oh! Did you see what just happened? We just got radical and middle in the same sentence…I’m sending distortions in the space/time continuum…I think I just saw myself as a baby boy…
Mike – even before I read your last comment, and while reading David’s comments, and yours in reply, I kept on thinking “radical middle…” No kidding! I first heard that expression a few years ago, in the Christian and Missionary Alliance church, in reference to position of the Canadian CMA within Canadian evangelicalism, as perceived by some. But I like how it fits this particular context.
Loved the original post, and the discussion that has ensued! There is hope for respectful dialogue in blogland!
Thanks for a judicious reading of McClaren’s book. I’m all for efforts as you encourage to identify the theological foundation and emphasis of the missional grouping in the emerging church world. I think part of the distinctiveness of the missional group is in valuaing the process, as much as the telos. Therefore I think the theology will have to be expressed not just in books, speeches or conferences, but in other media, and most of all, in conversation (yes overplayed word). Communities of practice will likely be not only the mode of our theological presentation, but the demonstration as well.
As to whether the missional group defines itself as “middle” or “centrist”, I’m unsure of the benefit of that thinking as again it plays too well into the existing modern fetishes and prevailing paradigms. One worthy word for our identification may be “Participatory”, as distinct from mere advocacy or mere moralizing. Not that participation can’t include these categories, but for missional people they cannot be separated from the incarnational participation of the community in the policies and practices they commend. For us to dissect morality or advocacy from its organic antecedents in worshipping community, is akin to dissecting organs out of a body. Both will die.
In the business world one might put it this way: “these people eat their own dogfood!”
Great stuff. I share the hesitation of others to let left-right continue to influence us, but I can see its usefulness if we could use it heuristically without the political stuff. For what it’s worth, I see some value in differentiating today’s main groups as reformed missional (Driscoll, Chandler, Keller), pragmatic missional (Kimball, McManus, Stetzer), and radical missional. With a nod to Mike and an admission of potential too-trendy-to-be-helpful-ness, I think that different groups are trying to “go to the root” in the critique of traditional church and what they’re advocating in its place. E.g. the differences between organic, new monasticism, emergent/emerging, and “neo-anabaptist” (or whatever it is guys like you and Hirsch are doing
) – but before and behind these differences is a similarly thicker critique than the other “missional” movements/models on offer today.
Per your inspiration David, I’ve tried to graph it out like this, and even attempting to put it all together somehow was very helpful for me. So thanks, and thanks again for this post. I find these to be some of your most helpful ones, and they make me eager for you to finish your current writing projects so that we can see more in depth what you’re saying!!
David,
I too share your hope to see some kind of third “missional stream” emerge, and I think that’s a concern for most of us in Ecclesia. No small task I think, as the natural polarizing that tends to happen in people’s minds between the “neo-Reformed” and the “post Emergent Village” leaves quite a wide swatch in the middle. I wonder if this stream will have to coalesce around something other than the moderate middle.
Michael,
It’s an interesting chart but do you see a place for Kuyperians in your timeline – Kuyper himself, the two Hermanns – Dooyeweerd and Bavinck and folk like Fuller’s Rich Mouw, Citizens for Public Justice President Gideon Strauss, Jonathan & Adrienne Chaplin and many others.
Such a great question! I put the chart together last May and only since have I really begun to see the importance of those influences. I haven’t looked into it enough to know where and how they impacted the missional conversation / movement. I think another missing piece is where the influence of Jim Wallis and Sojourners and those kinds of folks. I’m certainly open to suggestions! (And if you could point to some good starting points as far as looking into that tradition, that’d be much appreciated.)
Michael,
)
Check out the Cardus people in Hamilton, ON, as a good place to start. (There’s a theme here.
[...] a bit dubious and his description of the Grec0-Roman narrative a bit overplayed (as other bloggers have aptly noted and I need not repeat here), I understand that is to be expected give his [...]
Anyone know anything about the “Forming Missional Communities” Conference in DC? It is being advertised as a missional conference, but Brian McLaren is one of the speakers, along with Anthony Smith and others. Should this be understood as a specifically “emergent” conference? See what I’m talking about at http://www.transformnetwork.org (scroll down and it’s on the right side of the page).
I am new to the scene, so this back information is helpful. At this point I certainly find myself aligning with the ideas of the missional stream, so I guess I want to make sure I know where any lines are drawn… Any information would be helpful.
David, as for a representative from the Yoder camp, Lee Camp would be a great addition to that sort of a coalition.
Grt discussion. Michael, I like the chart
there are always nuances in taxonomies that will be missed, that’s the double edge. Given the value of tribal definition (Jungian “differentiation”) as knowing therefore who we are, I too am identified with the neo-Anabaptist stream of missional. This may prove to be a “third way” time will tell. At least in theory we aren’t so worried about living on the margins.
Agreed too that while we avoid pragmatism, we have to be theologically reflective AND rooted in practice. No either-or there. Webber’s small chapter at the close of Younger Ev or Gary nelson’s notes in Borderland Churches both hit at this need. In some ways I prefer nelson (a Canuck eh) his call that we must be “apprentice-pastor-theologian-missionary” and this from a Baptist guy! Getting hard to know who is who on this taxonomy.
Even in my role in FORGE I’m experiencing some tension in all this. Feel the push to roots and practice. If we can’t make it all work locally then it’s “only” a nice conversation, but local will suck you in fast and then trying to even find space for the larger conversation is tough. Interesting to me that our own community is now on the verge of being birthed as its own society out of a larger Menno context. I saw this coming but now see the greater implications for innovation and movement and contextualization that could not happen so long as we were encumbered by the weight of the larger ship. The weight is really less institutional in the end than simply amorphous and incoherent, like any “successful” large church the large is so caught in modernity and its universalizing tendencies there is no possibility of “self knowledge” writ large they do not know who they are therefore defend against all comers. Not to mention inflexible. But small and face to face we quickly define and form a critical mass. Flexibility so important for innovation and engagement, but also.. just living it out as faithful apprentices..
I wonder what a Canadian “origins project” would look like? You know I haven’t watched a lot of the Olympics but as a symbol and maybe an “irruption” it is fascinating. Something is shifting in Canada – one would almost think we are ready to stand and be counted?
And I wonder (sorry for 3rd post) whether we haven’t been able to work at this kind of networking in Canada because we have been trying to track and follow the next big thing North-South and have no bandwidth left for East-West? And this not to say nothing of value to the South but we have to first know who WE ARE — otherwise we just cast seed to the wind.
Dave-
I agree with most of what you write here and with the basic “grid” you work with to delineate what you call post-evangelicalism. I see two problems with what you’re suggesting here though:
1. The Neo-Reformed movement in no way sees themselves as “post” anything. They are just classical Reformed evangelicalism with better packaging. Certainly Tim Keller and Acts 29 have an incarnational missiology that could be considered new and might sometimes upset stodgy Christians who don’t like rated-R movies. But these guys don’t want to be counted as post-evangelical or post-whatever stream of the Reformed river they come from. They feel more akin to their paleo-evangelical brethren than they do to your other two streams of post-evangelicals. I.e., they wouldn’t show up to your new Nicean council.
2. This might just be another way of stating #1. The Neo-Reformed view of Scripture precludes their even entering into dialogue with the other two streams. To them, anyone who is not an inerrantist is a liberal and you can’t proceed forward in dialogue with someone who “doesn’t believe the bible is God’s word.” I.e., they wouldn’t show up to your council.
Oh, and a third thing: we don’t have a Constantine to convene the thing. (Kind of ironic that its the Anabaptist calling for a new council!)