Emerging criticism of the emerging churches

There seems to be a growing amount of critque of the growing number of alternative modes of church, which have collectively been called the emerging church.

Of particular note is the new EmergentNo.com site that TallSkinnyKiwi cites- From EmergentNo.com: This site is an aggregator for several anti-emerging-church blogs. Comments are welcome from people of all theological perspectives and backgrounds.. In a similar vein, see also emergentno.blogspot.com. For a fuller round-up of the anti Emergent (a group/network of 'emerging' churches, connected to Brian McLaren)and the more moderate Emergent-critics blogs, see TallSkinnyKiwi's summary.

It seems hard to determine whether the criticism is little more than a backlash from Christians in the churches that feel they are being rejected by what appears to be the emerging church movement, or whether there is something more important being levelled at these new faith communities. TallSkinnyKiwi had previously said: "And I am not saying that we should stop the discipline of examining ourselves daily or welcoming constructive criticism, but I am saying that I think a lot of us have done enough explaining and defending to feel like we are freed up again to get back to the mission of helping God reconcile all things to Himself, and not to feel dampened."

Certainly I can voice my own disquiet at the term 'emerging church', and that for several reasons:

• Firstly, the term has a feeling of triumphalism about it.
  I know that any hint of superiority would be denied by those 'within' the movement, which has most frequently set out specifically to be inclusive - one-up-manship is the last thing that anyone would have intended. Nonetheless, by simply saying that one's local church format has 'emerged' there is an implication that that evolution was necessary and that what has been left behind need be shaken off like soiled clothes.

  Most of the people who are in or have embraced the emerging churches seem to have emerged from Protestant evangelical local churches. For almost everyone I've met in this context, that was both a vital and significant stage in their faith journey. There is a huge amount of deconstruction that is utterly necessary as we progress in our spiritual growth. But the significance of the stage of faith must be recognised, and the process of deconstruction must be one of both suspicion and retrieval, questioning the narratives but retrieving those things of worth within them.

• Secondly, the term 'emerging church' is too monochrome for me, too singular, too vanilla.
  True, there is great diversity within the emerging church movement. True, there are many creative people doing many creative things. True, there is some inspiring innovation. Noted are the points raised by Justin Taylor in distinguishing Emergent from emerging. But the simple fact that most people are 'emerging' from Protestant evangelical churches sets some sort of glass ceiling on diversity.

  The apologists for the movement seem to be keen to reinforce their orthodoxy in matters of mission and doctrine. Whilst this is laudable in many respects, it is adherence to orthodox evangelicalism that limits the scope of both diversity and beauty.

• And thirdly, it worries me that the term 'emerging church' implies that what is new is what is worthwhile.
  True, many emerging churchers do draw inspiration from followers of Jesus in history, from those in the centre and those on the margins of Christianity from the first believers, through the ages to now. True. True.

  However, the term 'emerging' just somes across as too synonymous with 'contemporary' to me and to eschew 'tradition' in a baby-and-bathwater sense. Don't get me wrong, contemporary is good, contemporary is vital, contemporary is required. I'm just concerned with a two dimensional view of Chrisitanity that is naive to the third dimension of history.

  My journey of faith has been inspired by the historical Anabaptists and, though I was not born within it (within a Mennonite/Amish/Brüderhof/etc. family), I identify myself with the Anabaptist tradition now. The Anabaptists have been around since the Reformation in the 16th century, but they cannot be placed comfortably into the Protestant camp even though they opposed the Roman Catholic status quo of their day.

  But the Anabaptists join the legacy of faithful believers on the margins from the time of Jesus onwards, including the DonatistsDonatists, Waldensians and Lollards, and showing connectons with later groups like the Quakers and Baptists.

  As such, I don't feel like I'm part of an emerging movement, as much as part of a long legacy of radical disciples of Jesus.

So, is the emerging church a helpful movement? Maybe. Maybe not.

Certainly those who would call themselves emerging are rasing very important challenges that we all need to rise to. Certiainly it is scratching exactly where many people are itching. And I certainly feel an affinity with much that is emerging.

I'm just not sure I could say that I or the faith community I'm part of is emerging.