Emergent’s Doctrinal Statement
December 9, 2005
“Okay, but what IS Emergent?” “Yes, I get that, but what does Emergent believe?” These are all questions that those of involved with Emergent hear all the time. So, naturally, one would think that Emergent should come out with a Doctrinal Statement, a Statement of Faith that would finally make it clear exactly what Emergent believed, especially on certain doctrines and certain social issues.
But that’s not going to happen [Emergent does have 4 values that they believe to be important, and you can find those here]. I’ve heard many people who are involved with Emergent say that it would totally go against the ethos of Emergent to do that. One of the primary ways to describe Emergent is to say that it’s a conversation. And as soon as you draw those theological lines on the ground, you’ve set up a conversation that is then only open to those who espouse those certain beliefs. The conversation becomes limited and more homogeneous.
I understand that. I have had Emergent leaders explain that to me and it makes sense, but…it’s hard too. I have, for a long time, said that for Emergent, the issue of women in ministry should completely be a non-issue (I have the same desire for any denomination or Christian today). I would hope that we could move beyond the times when we’re reading scripture in such a way that we would think that women were created differently than men when it comes to having the gifts and abilities to serve God in ministry. I feel the same way about my belief and acceptance of the idea of ordination for the LGBT community (obviously this is incredibly more highly controversial than the topic of women in ministry, but equally important). But, for some people who are in the Emergent conversation, they are still wrestling with these issue, and I know that those in Emergent want the Emergent conversation to be a place that is safe for them to ask questions, and to admit that they don’t know what they think about the issue. I understand that.
But there is of course the flip-side to that. There are the people for whom the question of women in ministry is so important to them, perhaps so central to their identity, that they are not going to want to be part of a conversation that doesn’t automatically just make that issue a non-issue. It seems that on the one side you’d be excluding some more conservative Evangelicals, and on the other side, you’re excluding those from the more Mainline/progressive denominations.
And I don’t really know what to do with this. I want people from all backgrounds to feel comfortable at the table of conversation with Emergent. I think that it has much to offer people from all different traditions. But I still wrestle with issues and questions that I think are so important, that affirm or deny humanity, like the issue of women in ministry, that should simply be non-issues.
Tags: Doctrine, Emergent, emerging-church, Theology
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
December 9th, 2005 at 9:40 am
I am glad Emergent welcomes ALL people. For those that don’t agree with the woman issue, then Emergent is not for them, as evangelical churches are not for me. Yet, that does not mean treating each other in mean-spirited ways. We need to agree to disagree. Emergent can’t be all things to all people.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:48 am
I have been reading a lot on this whole emergent thing and I have to say I’m not particularly impressed. And here’s why:
(1) It’s just another movement that promises to be a new way of viewing christianity or of being a Christian. I have seen soooo many groups, orginizations, movements, etc. come and go that have promised this new touch from God or whatever.
(2) It is creating another split in the church. It isn’t helping the situation any. There is and should be a lot of criticism about the church.
(3) We are talking waaaay too much. You want to have a conversation, fine. I’d rather go into the wilderness and seek God and to serve others in my humble way.
(4) This we don’t have beliefs, but we really do have beliefs talk is meaningless. The fact of the matter is we do have beliefs. We have a core that we value and on which we live our lives.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m extremely critical of emergent thinking. And for good reason. I’ve heard it all before. This is nothing new. If it wasn’t the pentacostals, it was the promise keepers, or the seeker churches, or the mega churches, or the mainline denominations. All it does is distract from what is really important: our relationship with the father through Jesus Christ and our sharing that love with others. If you think that will happen through being emergent, fine. I’d rather do it through the true revelation of Jesus christ.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Adam,
You are hitting on what I think may be one of the more glaring flaws of the Emergent Conversation. Because it is a conversation and not a movement with boundaries and a doctrinal statement, nothing can really be made a non-issue. Compound that with the fact that different folks in the conversation are going to have different non-issues, and you will have at some point a good deal of friction. You throw a disenfranchised ex-fundamentalist in with a likewise jaded ex-mainline liberal and the things they bring to the table as non-negotiables could be rather contentious.
Emergent does not like the idea of someone being ‘in or out’. I don’t either. This is one of the foundational critiques of the modern evangelical church. But most of those conversing do have in their minds that some are in, while others are out of the conversation. I know that is totally subjective on my part, but if you read the blogs, the books, and listen to the various audio out there, it shines through. It’s a human thing. We’re flawed and that is just one of the ways.
At some point, Emergent will have to draw some lines. They will go past the four values and start to come up with some non-negotiables (I would argue they already have some). I applaud them if they do end up in a place where no one is in or out. They would be the first. But I have to believe some of these things will shake out in a particular way. Everyone is playing nice right now. I hope to God it stays that way, but I do not think it will.
This leads me to my last point. While am sympathetic to and feel a part of Emergent and/or emergent, it is not as safe a place as being trumpeted. Sure, it’s safer than anywhere I have ventured in the Church. But there are certain folks in the conversation, big names, heavy hitters, that if one were to disagree with them on the issue of ________ (fill in your pet issue) things would start to look very familiar. The things that you left behind would be right back in your face. How do I know? I’ve commented, honestly and gracefully, at a few emergent blogs and been lambasted because I disagree. That is not the norm, but it happens. I am not a pessimist, I am a person who watches people and does a fair job at figuring them out. Not to be too simplistic, but people are people whether emergent, fundamentalist, reformed, x denomination or y, Mclaren or Falwell. We all have a hill or two we’d die on.
I appreciate your struggle in this. It is the one thing I struggle with in the conversation as well. I think that the coming movement (or the one that may already be here) can still be very glorifying to God and strengthening to his body. As long as the focus remains on the Kingdom, it will work out just fine.
Rich
December 9th, 2005 at 10:59 am
E-Punk,
You have proven my point. You draw a line. And that’s ok, but I didn’t think that was the Emergent mantra.
Rich
December 9th, 2005 at 11:03 am
I can appreciate the fact that Emergent isn’t seeking to exclude anyone from their conversation, but I have noticed a hint of exclusion in the things I read.
There is not an Emergent church that I know of here in NE Louisiana where I live, so my only interaction with this ideology is here online, in blogs and websites, and the only way I can discuss at all is through long lists of comments. And through these comments I have noticed that a lot of those who tag themselves emergent get really snippy very fast when questions start getting asked, or when someone comes in with a more traditionally conservative viewpoint.
The impression I always get is the the “emergent” commentors hold this air of superiority over the conversation, talking down to anyone with a different viewpoint. I think this is probably due to the fact that they view themselves as progressive, and in our culture, progressive has come to mean “enlightened.”
Point is, this attitude (although I know it is not endorsed by the emergent church) is not an open and visitor-friendly one, but a very exclusive one.
And while I find myself agreeing with some of what I read and disagreeing with some of it, I think it is very shady and dangerous to espouse a system of belief that is not clearly drawn. We can’t pray to indecision or mystery. These things are only useful if them motivate us to find the answers to the questions.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Swami Says: Emergent will be a full-blown denomination or will be defunct and gone by 2015. Mark your calanders.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
The issue of ordination of women (as one scholar put it, ordained to what?) seems to me to be one that more and more Evangelicals are finally working their way through. And that is a great thing. I, from my understanding of scripture, do see gender distinction, but I also see equality. I think that there does need to be friendly dialogue betweent the two groups (as I stated earlier in my blog) for the future health of the church, emergent or not.
I don’t think I could support the ordination of the GLBT community. It doesn’t make sense to me. It seems to be supportive of one particular lifestyles (among MANY) that are, in essence, sinful. Not that I am above sin in any way, but I work my way through it in repentence and discipline. I couldn’t support the ordination of ANYONE who would live in an active lifestyle of sin that is contrary to the bible.
After that, I want to say that I support the EC, and I think it is an amazing blessing from God. I hope to see the continued discussion of different viewpoints, and I think that this more than previous attempts could bring the church to unity.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Well, by being an inclusive conversation some lines are drawn. What I think Existential Punk(Adele) was referring to was that the conversation is inclusive of women. It is also inclusive of those in the LGBT community.
As for the issue of ordination. Emergent the organization isn’t ordaining anyone, so it’s a non-issue here. It can be a subject of conversation, but until they ordain people it’s just a conversation about what other organizations do.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
emergent is not a church, nor should it ever be. it is a conversation among people asking the same questions. thas it. making it more or less is not really fair. Thus a doctrinal statement need not exist. before that happens emergent would have to dissolve and become something else. but for now I wlecome the opportunity to discuss these issues with a variety of people. and since there is no building, people can throw stones all they want. there aint nuthin for them to hit. I am still unsure what people find so unsettling about other people coming together to discuss similar issues, but hey fear is a funny thing. My feeling is, if I want to be part of it, i am. but if I feel it is no longer a place for me, I leave. what’s the problem. I am presbyterian. when i enter an emergent cohort to discuss whatever, i don’t stop being presbyterian. and when I am tired of the convo, i go back to my church, but hopefully with new insight into God, the world, and myself. soooo, what is bad about that again, cause i forget!
December 9th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
But it is a church. It has become one.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
I thought this was an interesting development regarding the “Emergent Church”.
http://www.stupidchurchpeople.com/2005/12/emerging-irrelevancy.html
It seems that as the emergent movement progresses it will begin to look more and more like every other religious organization.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
To be fair, Cubicle Reverend, Emergent has not “become [a church].” When McLaren talked here at the seminary earlier this fall, he was very clear that those involved in the “Emergent conversation” are keen on keeping it from being a “new church” or a “kind of church” (read: ecclesiological blueprint). There is evidence, on the other hand, that Emergent is leaning toward institutionalization, given its appointment of a National Director (Tony Jones). But in the final analysis, as it stands, Emergent remains a “conversation” and as such is better described (per McLaren) as “the church emerging.”
Swami’s prediction remains, however, that the inevitability of cultural tendency toward organization will take over and Emergent will denominationalize or disappear. We shall see….
December 9th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Be that as it may, it has become another church. They have the structure in place and people are building congregations around Emergent. Therefore, in my mind, that makes it a church, even if there is no real membership into that body. The minute they created a board it became a church.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
I don’t think that it would be fair to call Emergent a church or a denomination. The ideas and beliefs are more varied than any denomination or organization, yet there is much unity. Although there is a board, I think that there will be people from all backgrounds, denominations, and persuasions contributing to the discussion for as long as it remains (hopefully for a while!)
December 9th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Every non-profit group in America has a board. Are they all churches? Come on now David…
December 9th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Hmm, well here’s a critical difference between emergent and traditional church structures:
In traditional church structures, the doctrine determines who is in and who is out, and the powers that be enforce it (excommunication, inquisition, shunning…)
In emergent, you’re in if you want to be, and nobody is going to kick you out if you don’t toe the line (especially as the line is a pretty fuzzy concept.) In fact, I believe emergent welcomes respectful dissent, and even, to an extent, hostile dissent. The likes of Brian McLaren are much more tolerant of the latter than anyone I’ve ever met.
It’s great that there’s a forum where mainliners and evangelicals and all other manner of faith traditions can get together to talk about what it means to follow Christ without believing that they have all the answers, or that we even have all the answers between us.
And just to hark back to the first comment, I believe e-punk was trying to say that people who are rigidly against women in ordained ministry would opt not to go anywhere near emergent, rather than she would not want them around or even kick them out.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
What is the purpose of the non-profit versus the church? Fact of the matter is the intention of the Church and Non-profit do not always intersect.
And whether it was their intention or not, Emergent is becoming another denomination. This is how it usually starts. A group doesn’t like what is going on in modern church, and instead of effecting change from the inside, they leave and form their own group.
“Emergent” churches are forming as we speak. In the next year to two years we’ll either see it grow or die.
December 10th, 2005 at 12:39 am
Cubilce Rev - I don’t know why you’re harping on this so much. There are “emerging” churches in many existing denominations, particularly mainline, and they will continue to thrive without belonging to an “Emergent” church hierarchy.
The fact is that emergent isn’t quite like any other church body - it’s a much looser alliance. It may disappear as a formal entity, but it’s philosophy of openness won’t go away.
And unlike many “movements” in the past that evolved from severe dissatisfaction with the PTB, emergent didn’t solely come about because people didn’t like what was going on in the modern church. Many people are just looking for more than that, or a different way of expressing their faith.
December 10th, 2005 at 12:47 am
“And just to hark back to the first comment, I believe e-punk was trying to say that people who are rigidly against women in ordained ministry would opt not to go anywhere near emergent, rather than she would not want them around or even kick them out.”
Thanks, Dave, this exactly what I meant!
And Daniel, thank you as well for your comment, “What I think Existential Punk(Adele) was referring to was that the conversation is inclusive of women. It is also inclusive of those in the LGBT community.”
December 10th, 2005 at 6:54 am
To the extent that the Emergent community can accomplish the four values, specifically #1, it will be successful. Unfortunately, I don’t hear nearly as much conversation about the four values as I do peripheral issues.
There are a number of voices trying to define what emergent will be, how it will differ from 20th Century liberalism (if it will differ).
I’m hoping that the community will abandon the tendency toward elitism and style-over-substance, and fully embrace the four common values.
December 10th, 2005 at 11:08 am
>>>But it is a church. It has become one
December 10th, 2005 at 11:14 am
Liam, way to go! I think you nailed it! But some people still won’t see this and will continue to argue.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
As far as harping is concerned, I am just stating facts and going off of experience.
(1) Many movements did not start out as a “church” per say, but as a group of people who wished to see changes made within their various denominations. What starts off as a movement tends to either pick up steam and officially become a church (and emergent may not be there yet, but it’s pretty darn close) or just peter out.
(2) I have read the Emergent Village web sight on a number of occassions and that is filled with Doctrinal Statements. I saw nothing but doctrinal statemens. Also
http://www.emergentvillage.org/Site/Explore/Structure/index.htm
talks about group structure. Plus it’s central group helps to guide them in their formation and implementation.
(3) Even if they do not tell them to leave the congregation, they are trying to turn them from the inside out.
Are you formally a church denomination yet? But, I see you guys throwing Emergent around like a Baptist or a Presbyterian would throw his denomination around. And believe it or not, I can see that as much of a problem as being emergent. As far as I am concerned, they are all just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I read “Generous Orthodoxy” and I am extremely suspect of someone who quotes as heavily as he did from other sources and not from the cannon of scripture. Does the church have a lot of problems? Absolutely. I go to a presbyterian church that is just as clicky as the next church, but they are honest Christians trying to seek out their faith. I’ve been there guys. I’ve been a part of the movements, I’ve seen both the good and the bad that results from them. If you want to be Emergent, fine. But really consider the ramifications of following something, anything, and test it in light of scripture. It is easy to throw the name of Jesus around, talk about loving others, and make it sound good while still missing the mark. I’ll be the first to admit I am extremely hard on this emergent “conversation”. Like I said, I heard it all before. Which is why I like my church. No promises are made except to Love God and to be a part of the family of believers. Simple, and to the point. And emergent may not be a church in the strictest sence of the word. But it is only a matter of time that the areas that do not meet the criteria of a church will be met and a formal denomination will be formed or it’ll peeter out and lose steam.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:32 am
Do a “Find & Replace” on Emergent with Vineyard, and it all seems pretty familiar.
I’m not sure Emergent currently is a denomination. But it is more than likely to head that way, for reasons I try to outline here.
That may or may not be a good thing. Boundaries can be a help and a hinderance…
December 12th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Whether or not it becomes an actual denomination, church, or what have you, it is coagulating. Some friends and i have been to many of these conferences, and they are starting to look like the same middle to upper-class white church/executive boards functioning in the world today. They may, however, talk about inclusion, but the make-up of the “emergent” leadership might say otherwise.
On some level, i agree with KP, because I’ll be honest, when did a conversation need a board and/or a leadership team.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Ok, so I’m in the conversation. What now? If this is what being Christian is about, we have some problems. Emergent is becoming an annoying word for me to hear though. It’s like the word “moist,” it’s only good when describing certain things.
Damian ALXDR
btw: check out Matthew Paul Turner’s book Provocative Faith… good stuff