Great post.

I think this is the heart of emergence. We have to be honest about the Gospel that we’re holding onto. And if that Gospel is not addressing the underlying suffering within the individual, there is no real good news.

@John, I know George. He and I are some who are trying to listen once again to the stories and draw out what the good news is. And as he said, sometimes we have to enter the barren land and lose God in order to find God.

In addition it seems difficult to imagine that emerging church has any appeal to those who are not already disgruntled churchgoers; without the backdrop of a rebellion against traditional church what is the point?

this is a really interesting post…

i’m undecided on this theme and so these are only provisional thoughts…

i think the wider conversation of which this is a part, would be greatly enhanced by a greater level of specifics and less generalisation.

as i reflect on it, i wonder if when we talk about “churches” we’d do well to be clear about what we mean when we use expressions like “institutional churches”. because all churches are not alike.
further, i fear too much of the conversation is decontextualised. and that much of ‘emerging’ conversation risks synecdoche. ie. we say “institutional church” when actually we have a specific kind of church we have in mind. it makes the critique sound universal, when actually it’s probably far more partial.

if “emergent Christians” are retreating, and i’m not entirely convinced of that thesis yet,
i’m not sure whether it should be framed in these broad terms or even as a ‘retreat’, for a number of reasons:

– because it suggests or infers that the defining characteristic of emergent Christians is that they left “institutional church”. i’m not sure that actually describes the majority of people defining themselves as emergents or identifying with emerging themes. many never left. thus, the ‘retreat’ is only speaking about a specific group of people. not all.

- it doesn’t speak to what motivates people who have left to return to church except to frame them in ‘retreat’ – which implies it’s a lack of bravery/energy/will to keep going outside of an existing structure or community. Or that they have been co-opted rather than it’s a choice of agency made in positive terms made by an individual who desires to make (potentially transformative) contribution in a very specific context and within a personal narrative.

- if emergent Christians don’t define success by numbers, then the issue of filling stadiums is perhaps a moot point.
– further, that itself is a goal of a very specific kind of Christianity and does not speak for all.
- one could apply the same critique of the good news/dark gospel.

- at the end of the day, when ‘returning’ to church one is first and foremost entering a congregation. not simply an institution, but a community of people as part of a personal narrative. and that’s the point at which we need context, and specifics. and i am increasingly finding that kind of context to be lacking and the conversations or approaches on the table are weaker for that lack.

- when expressions like ‘institutional church’ are used we’d be well served to ask, what churches specifically are we talking about? what actual denominations and congregations are people returning to? and what characterises those diverse congregations? or indeed, should we ask people why they are ‘retreating’ rather than assuming they are ‘retreating’?

i think the thesis risks denying resistance and agency on behalf of the individuals it purports to be describing, and also makes far too generalised assumptions about the shape or theology of churches.
e.g. comments that actually are directed towards the Church of England context are implied to mean all institutional churches. or Joel Osteen style mega ministries get to be the definer of how we think all churches understand ‘good news’.

finally, the idea that there is no institutional structure in emerging groups is potentially a red herring. it allows new forms or shape or leadership style to avoid the issue and not necessarily self-critique the form they take, simply by virtue of not being ‘institutional’.

what exactly do we mean by ‘institutional’?
i think how we define that oftens depends on where we’ve come from or where we are for that matter.
i’ve for some time been fairly convinced that definitions of what ‘emerging’ all too often reflect the traditions of those defining it. but that goes unstated and thus unquestioned for its partial perspective.

the ‘emerging’ vs ‘institutional’ just sounds far too neat a distinction to my ears. it’s a very diverse range of ‘particular’ experiences we are talking about.

that said, i think these are not unimportant questions. and as such are worthy of interrogation.

sorry – should have tried to say that with greater brevity. apologies for the length.

Cary.

I was amazed at the discussion that ensued. It makes for very interesting reading.

Even though I serve a very institutional church, I really hope that the institutional church will NOT be able to handle the dark gospel that Peter Rollins and others describe. If they can, then it will, in fact, be co-opted, refined, and neutered.

Is the Tipping Point near? No idea. But it is swirling out there.