Earlier, I posted Scot McKnight’s Five Streams of The Emerging Church in effort to clarify the differences between the divergent expressions of what is cumulatively called the Emerging Church Movement. Again, I think McKnight’s differentiation is important information for those who have questions about or are exploring the Emerging Church. That said, I don’t think McKnight’s “streams” are as clear or concise as C. Wess Daniel’s Four Types of Emerging Churches. Wess’ Four Types highlights differences by not only placing a serious focus upon the specific theology/philosophy types represented by the different emerging groups, but also by citing examples of the thinkers and churches that emphasize important aspects of these differences.
Four Types of Emerging Churches and Their Thinkers
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
I would confidently say that our growing church community in Lancaster is a hybrid of #3 and #4, with a strong emphasis upon literate Biblical interpretation, Gospel contextualization, and an open friendship & spirituality. In other words, we lean towards Rob Bell (Mars Hill Michigan), Erwin McManus (Mosaic), and Shane Claiborne (Simply Way) more than we do Mark Driscoll (Mars Hill Seattle), who is also categorized #4. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that we don’t lean towards Driscoll theologically or philosophically at all.
That said, I think the people in the other two types (Deconstructionist and Pre-modern/Augustinian) have much to say to the church in this postmodern time in which we all live. Do we all have to agree with everything that is said? No, of course not, and we don’t. That does not mean, however, that a conversation and friendship can’t follow. That’s the point of the emerging church. We can – and should be – friends in conversation while we all continue to search for deeper understanding and meaning. These four expressions, in spite of their specific differences and nuances, are all types of “Emerging Churches.” In other words, they represent four different groups that live under the same big tent.
And a big tent it is …
Related posts:
I think McKnight’s works a bit better only because this kind of concise compartmentalisation is still an Enlightenment-era problematisation. The fuzzy logic that McKnight uses divides the lot along lines of thought rather than ideologies and groups can easily mix the different streams without complicating the model. The four types by Daniel tries to be more particular which makes the mixing of groups (except #3) contradictory.
Further, to label something today as becoming “pre-modern” (not you but Daniel) shows a lack of understanding the progression. The best we can get is a Frankenstein monster risen from the dead for past thoughts. Thinking in “pre-modern” terms is absolutely foreign to our contemporary minds, just as it would be thinking in ancient Greek, Norse mythology, or classical paganism.
I think I am still waiting for the definitive explaination. Not sure if there is one. Although I know well enough where I would locate myself here I wonder where he would locate the missional house church crowd, exemplified by Al Hirsch and Frank Viola? Also, my blog at http://mattstone.blogs.com is a perfect example where one may be an open Anabaptist but not by into new Monasticism. I wonder if he’s considered that open Anabaptism can take many forms?
Matt – I would also be one of those open Anabaptists that hasn’t bought into new Monasticism. I’m also not one who has bought into the missional house church crowd either. I suppose that’s why I consider our community to be some sort of “hybrid” of #3 and #4.
I don’t think this model or McKnight’s is exhaustive as far as defining the Emerging church. I don’t think that was the intention, though we’d have to ask Wess and Scot to be sure. I do think these models, especially Wess’, are very good starting points for people who have no idea what the emerging church is and/or those who only associate it with Jones, Pagitt, and McLaren. I think these models are very good introductions for the curious and skeptic.
Thanks for the thoughts, Matt!
Shawn, ok, I’d agree its a start for those who only associate it with Jones, Pagitt and McLaren. And help me out, I’m still puzzled by #2. Who else do you think would exemplify that? I am wondering Ive missed a whole crowd of people.
HA! Perhaps this list is a good introduction for those of us who are already familiar with the emerging church too! Frankly, that is a good question, Matt. Personally, I know more than a few Lutherans, PCUSA, Reformed (UCC), United Methodists (hold the Augustine?) and Orthodox folk who may fit into number #2. That said, in all honestly, we’d have to hear from Wess to be 100% sure of what he was thinking. He did say that #2 is the second most influential group. So, it must be fairly large.
Latte Links (5/28)…
1. “On Victimization as Racism” by Collin Brendemuehl
It comes in multiple forms. It comes on all sorts of colors (pun not intended). And sometimes it hides against the wallpaper and is difficult to discern. But it is there and it haunts hum…
I just find McKnights to be too generic, I like what he says, it just doesn’t go deep enough for into the actual theory behind these churches. There are many different types of emerging churches, we all know that, and this is largely because each community is heavily influenced by different types of postmodern thinkers. I think we often overlook how influenced we are by different thinkers in the church. There are communities who largely read Hauerwas and Yoder, while there are others who read Derrida and Foucault, and then others who focus on Augustine, Milbank, etc — this creates very different types of communities. Of course there are now clear lines, but that doesn’t mean we can take note of some common voices, ideas and language picked up from different schools of thought.
An even more general rubric would be to simply say there are emerging churches that are influenced more by Anglo-American philosophy while others are more influenced by Continental philosophy. And while there are some (small) convergences between these two “schools” there are some serious differences, again that all influence these communities.
The idea of the progression of postmodern headed towards a kind of “pre-modern” isn’t my idea at all but the idea of Anglo-American philosopher Stephen Toulmin.
Shawn thanks for linking to this discussion, it’s not perfect but I still find it helpful for me in tracking with some of the differences emerging churches exemplifying. Actually, over various conversations I’ve had with people about this rubric many have felt there would be a fifth category that blends different groups in different ways. I would be happy to have people add to this in ways that make it more helpful.
hey dawg, i like these catagories for the different types of emerging churches. simple, easy to label, and largely true. might i suggest another book which details another rubric for the emergent churches: Entertainment Theology by Barry Taylor (http://toothface.blogspot.com/2009/05/times-they-are-changen.html)
i’ll have to post more on these later, but he sees 4 types: Zen Culture, The Next Enlightenment, Retrolution, and Resistant Communities. I’ll detail these and we’ll have to see how they stack up to eachother. RAWK.
Thank you for taking the time to draft it, Wess.
I agree, Wess. Actually, the vagueness of McKnight’s Streams is why I went back to your archives to dig up your rubric. There are unique expressions within the larger Emerging movement. I think they are worth defining clearly to not only celebrate the divergent identities and emphases within the camp, but also to illustrate how different emphases/expressions can indeed exist and unify.
Plus, I think it is extremely helpful to clearly communicate that the emerging church is not solely about/exhaustively defined by McLaren, Jones, and/or Pagitt. They are part of it, for sure, and their contribution and voices are valuable, but they do not embody the entire movement.
All of the above is clear in your rubric. It’s not so clear in McKnight’s.
Looking forward to that post, Luke! I’m not familiar with Taylor.
Wess, I agree that McKnight is “too generic,” but that’s why I like his (and dislike yours). Most lists rarely include groups that would talk of Richard Kearney and his “hermeneutics of religion” (based on Ricoeur), or Jack Caputo’s “weak theology” (Derrida [again!] and Vattimo), or Carl Raschke’s “rhizomatic communities” shared with Ron Martoia (Deleuze and others). None of these groups can be reduced to the deconstructionist model that is behind Emergent Village. I say this as one who has studied directly under Raschke and as a (fellow) PhD student working directly in the fields of contemporary philosophy and theology.
I’d want to make sure “deconstructionist” isn’t being used as a negative term here, because it’s not in my mind. Just another stream of philosophy that’s influencing the emerging church. I do think there are a number of emerging churches that do fit this model, but wouldn’t want it to be thought of as being “Reduced” to that. I think deconstruction can be a very rich theological movement when it draws on the proper Christian traditions that have also deconstructed the Church when needed. Caputo has a fairly wide audience among emerging church folks, whether explicit or not. We can disagree on this point, that’s fine but I’ve witnessed it first hand. Peter Rollins is a great example of a profoundly inspiring and theologically astute leader who utilizes deconstruction in a positive way.
For the rest, I’m fine if you don’t find it helpful. Some do, some don’t. It’s only meant to be a guide not a law.
[...] strands of emergence. First, I want to thank Shawn Anthony, whose blog compares these two options here. It is worth looking at his intro first, since he did the work, so should get the props of your [...]
BigMIke…
I am So Lucky That I found your blog and great articles. I will come to your blog often for finding new great articles from your blog.I am adding your rss feed in my reader Thank you…