Scot McKnight on the Emerging Church - Part 1

I have been reading Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog for a few months now. I’ve even engaged in the conversation a few times, perhaps being a bit more feisty than I should at times. I’ve never met Scot McKnight, but I tend to like him from internet exchanges. He is gracious and engaging, and even sent me a couple of off-line e-mails to continue a discussion and find out a bit about me.

So when he published an article in CT on the Emerging Church, I had to read it and many of the reader comments, which have been all over the map. I have to say that I’ve not always been comfortable with things said on the Jesus Creed site. Most of Scot’s comments I can handle – many of the comments of his readers I have trouble with. After reading Scot’s article, I think I’ve come to some additional conclusions in regard to the Emerging Church movement. Scot attempts to define the indefinable Emerging Church (EC) movement and says some good things and troublesome things. First the positive:



Scot says that EC folk tend to:

(1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities.

My first thought is, “so who wouldn’t advocate at least five of these things?” I’m sure all Christians would want to “identify with the life of Jesus, welcome the stranger, serve with generosity, and take part in spiritual activities”. This isn’t really a great description of how emergent is different from the rest of evangelicalism, unless Scot wants to press the case that most evangelicals don’t practice what they preach. Many, if not most evangelicals would add to their to do list “participate as producers, create as created beings, lead as a body.” From my own perspective “transform the secular realm” has been an emphasis of those influenced by Francis Schaeffer for decades. The one unique emphasis is “live highly communal lives.” That seems to be coming from an influence of the Eastern Church and hardly seems unique to EC, but all of these are positive ideas. All of this is a good emphasis, or at least can be. If this was the extent of the EC, there would be little controversy.

Another of the key features of EC McKnight identifies is that EC is praxis oriented. That is, they place a much higher emphasis on how Christians live and spend less time arguing about what Christians believe. Within limits, this is good. There are issues, and there are issues. Endless wrangling about non-essentials is something most Christians would want to stop, (provided we can agree on what is essential).

To the criticism that this orientation toward what we “do” might minimize a theological commitment to salvation by Grace through faith, McKnight adds: I know of no one in the emerging movement who believes that one's relationship with God is established by how one lives. Nor do I know anyone who thinks that it doesn't matter what one believes about Jesus Christ. But the focus is shifted."
Do I hear an amen?

McKnight goes on to point out that EC folk are also missional: "This holistic emphasis finds perfect expression in the ministry of Jesus, who went about doing good to bodies, spirits, families, and societies. He picked the marginalized up from the floor and put them back in their seats at the table; he attracted harlots and tax collectors; he made the lame walk and opened the ears of the deaf. He cared, in other words, not just about lost souls, but also about whole persons and whole societies."
Again, I think this is a great emphasis. Much is being said about the implications of the incarnation these days – that Christ’s taking on of flesh means that the physical world matters, so medicine is as important as mission, feeding bellies and feeding souls are both important, writing great novels and sound theology both matter.

In these things, I find value in Emerging Church longings and efforts, and resonate with them. I hope more discussion of mission and incarnation, right practice and transformation of culture can continue. For this I thank the EC folk and Scot McKnight for articulating them. But alas, I do have reservations, and I’ll try to gently enumerate them next.