Hammett Gone Wild
December 7, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
A couple of weeks ago I posted John Hammett's ETS paper on the Emerging Church. It took a little while, but after a week or so it rapidly made its way through many important emerging blogs. Here's a run down of the links:
Jason Clark noted it, then offered 11 points of reflection.
Alan Hartung noted it, then offered a loose (and I think unhelpful) definition of EC. It's so loose that I would be considered emerging, as well as most people I know.
Chrismc.net posted a link.
Steve Taylor (Emergent Kiwi) posted his reactions. He's also responded to an email from Dr. Hammett.
Justin Taylor posted a link.
Steve McCoy interacted with an article about Hammett's paper.
Ochuck posted a link.
Emergentno.com posted my summary and has some comments on the paper.
Fide-O posted a link.
Subversive Influence posted a link.
The Sheep's Crib posted a link.
Emergent West Michigan and Already Not Yet have also linked.
By far, Tall Skinny Kiwi has been doing the most with the paper. He did seven posts- Intro, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1 (says that A-Team is cool, thanks!), 4.1, 5.0 (has an interesting poll), and 6.0.
My brief reflections on all this: I think the interaction here has been far more charitable than it has been in the past, which is to everyone's credit. I deeply appreciate Andrew Jone's willingness to engage a thoughtful critic so extensively. This, I think, has provided a positive model for how dialogue can move forward.
Jone's poll in 5.0 asked EC folk to choose among Richard Niebuhr's 5 ways Christ may interact with culture. “Christ the Transformer culture” was the most popular, to my surprise. Some commenters said this was reductionist or “pigeon-holing.” While missiologies do not stictly adhere to only one option, I think it's fair to say one tends to be the most dominate. What is reductionist and “pigeion-holing” is the labeling of everyone who isn't part of EC as modern, fundamentalist, evangelical, etc., which seems to occur in most EC literature. The knife cuts both ways.
As I asked in Jone's comments, my next question is why do people who consider themselves emerging think they fit the “transformer” option? What specifically are they doing that models this? I think getting an idea for how they view this would be incredibly helpful.
Related posts:
- ETS 4- John Hammett on the Emerging Church
- ETS 2006- Brett Kunkle: Essential Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church
- Book Review: The Out of Bounds Church? By Steve Taylor
- Defining the Emerging/Emergent-Church/Movement/Conversation
- Is the Emergent Church a Threat to the Gospel? or Why Im Concerned
- Words or Action?
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts
content rss
December 6th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Hey Roger -
I couldn't figure out how to register to login, so I'll introduce myself in the post. This is Alan Hartung, whom you referenced.
I think the reason you find my definition unhelpful is that it is as open as you suggest. I see the emerging church not as a movement by which we identify with certain leaders or trends, but a movement God has birthed within many in the church.
From what I've read of your blog (which isn't as much, but I'm reading more I promise), I would agree you pretty much fit my definition.
I think that's the problem with people attacking the “emerging church” based on Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, or the list goes on…
That was really the point of the post you linked to. Instead of critique of the “emerging church” as a whole, which is rarely useful because of its diversity, warning of the practices and beliefs of persons to the emerging church is a much more valid approach.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
Hi Alan, I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I think the problem here is semantic. We
December 6th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
A new kind of emerging church?
December 7th, 2005 at 12:34 am
I understand your concerns with my definition. Interestingly enough, most of the persons generally critiqued are directly associated with Emergent Village. In general, when someone self references “emergent” instead of emerging church, their intent is to align with the voices of the organization “emergent.” This isn't always true, as the term is starting to be used interechangeably with the emerging church.
So theoretically, it would be much easier to criticize Emergent than the emerging church. However, I don't think that is really helpful or should be the goal for critics of what McLaren et al have to say.
My concern is that the movement truly is diverse, and when you try to critique based on the voices of a few, you end up with a ton of people saying (and meaning it honestly), “But I don't believe that!” or “We don't do that.”
I do think there is value to critiquing what McLaren and others have to say, but when someone goes about that as criticism of the “emerging church” the only possible outcome is a large number of people saying, “That's not the emerging church.”
It seems like too many people want to define the emerging church, not for ease of conversation but so that they can rip apart the movement and discredit anyone associated with it. This is why I want the looser definition. It encourages dialogue about the issues and allows for warnings without condemnation of the movement as a whole. A movement, which I think you've pointed out by noting how many people would be included in my definition, birthed by God to reform the Church.
The only thing, in my opinion, that is gained by being able to stick a definition and organization on the emerging church which is more strict is the ability to accept or reject the group as a whole. Why isn't it enough to warn about trends or commenting just on the practices of individuals? Then individuals and churches can speak on those issues. A conversation can happen instead of an onslaught on the emerging church which misses the mark over and over again, because it's aiming at a group that doesn't exist. One that's been created by the need to define and exclude.
I don't think this is beneficial to any one in or outside of the body of Christ.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:08 am
“The only thing, in my opinion, that is gained by being able to stick a definition and organization on the emerging church which is more strict is the ability to accept or reject the group as a whole. Why isn't it enough to warn about trends or commenting just on the practices of individuals?”
You mean like the emerging church trend?
“A conversation can happen instead of an onslaught on the emerging church which misses the mark over and over again, because it's aiming at a group that doesn't exist. One that's been created by the need to define and exclude.”
Missing the mark presumes a mark to be missed. Furthermore, do you really think it helpful to attribute the desire to define the emerging church to some “need to define and exclude”? Could we not say that your resistance to a narrow definition is due to some need to evade criticism and avoid being held accountable for the failings of the trend? I think so, but that move would not be really productive, in my opinion. Perhaps it would be best to dispense with talk about “needs” altogether and instead focus on the content of the emerging church movement and how the main points of that content are or are not different from that of groups who are not referred to and indeed resist the use of the emerging church moniker.
December 7th, 2005 at 10:01 am
Roger,
Think of it this way - equating the emerging church with McLaren would be like equating evangelicalism with Joel Osteen or Rick Warren. My point is to say there is much more to it than any of these single individuals can represent (and may often misrepresent). So to equate it with one individual can be misleading. BTW, I think this conversation has been a very helpful one. I'm so relieved to see the cool-headed responses and lack of vitriol on both sides (for the most part).
December 7th, 2005 at 10:34 am
“Could we not say that your resistance to a narrow definition is due to some need to evade criticism and avoid being held accountable for the failings of the trend? I think so, but that move would not be really productive, in my opinion.”
if not productive, why was that comment included in your post? don't get me wrong; i love the discussion taking place. it's just that the referenced phrase seemed uncharitable to me.
i know that i, although a regular attendee of a large mainline church, resist being defined narrowly as a person. there are many facets to who i am and what i do, just as there are many different bodies within the “emerging church” community. i'm doctrinally minded but don't fit in boxes (i.e. reformed, calvinist, covenantal, charismatic, etc.), and retain elements of many of them in my theological convictions. it's not a matter of avoiding doctrinal accountability, but a matter of believing that each doctrinal system is flawed in some way and accepting that i can't wave a banner for any of them.
i think it's the same with the emerging church as far as definitions go.
December 7th, 2005 at 10:39 am
i'm sorry, i meant to reference my name so it wouldn't seem like i'm hiding behind the “anonymous” tag. it's mark and i couldn't log in.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Okay, I figured out how to create an account
Click on someone's name who has an account, and you'll be able to get to a link to create your own.
I'm glad this discussion is taking place. I'm going to respond directly to some of the comments.
I kind of like the “reply” to each comment feature. I don't think I've ever seen that before.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Timbo -
You asked, “Could we not say that your resistance to a narrow definition is due to some need to evade criticism and avoid being held accountable for the failings of the trend?”
I think that's an unfair question. I feel I've clearly stated that I'm not anti-criticism, I just want the criticism pointed in the right direction and in a manner which will facilitate discussion. If you criticize something McLaren says, and I agree with it, then I haven't evaded criticism just because you didn't attack the emerging church for something McLaren said.
That's my point. Why not direct the criticism where it should go, directly to people who have acted or said something, rather than to a larger group which do not identify each other based on a theological system?
Why is there this need to paint the emerging church with one brush?
December 7th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Chad -
Excellent way of putting it.
I think when there are widespread characteristics within the emerging church, those can be criticized individually. For example, if a church uses a Labyrinth and someone has a problem with it, talk about why that may be bad (or may be good). We can discuss it without saying, “The emerging church uses labyrinths, they're all bad.”
Of course, you could also criticize the philosophy that allows for differing forms of worship. That would include much more, if not all, of the emerging church. It's not that I want to see less criticism, I want to see better and profitable criticism.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Alan (and everyone!), there should be a link on the bottom of the left-hand column that says “Create Reader Account.” It's right underneath the login.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Amy -
Thanks for the info. I think that a “reader” account didn't compute for me. I should've been able to figure it out, though.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Alan and Mark, I was speaking against the notion of attributing positions to people based on need. If you note, I merely asked the question “Could we not say that [the alternate position(s)] is due to some need to [insert infinite potential responses here]?” and then answered that in the affirmative: I think we could do that, but I don't think it would be productive to focus on needs, and hypothetically stating a potential objection based on need does not constitute unfair criticism. To put it differently, it was not my intention to attribute your position to some need but to merely question the productivity of your attributing criticism of the emerging church to “the need to define and exclude.” Why discuss “needs” at all?
December 8th, 2005 at 9:34 am
thanks, timbo, for the clarification. i appreciate it. i'm good at missing the point the first time around…