I consider Tony to be one of the great evangelical voices of our day. So, naturally, I’m excited to see this article that was referred to me by TallSkinnyKiwi. Here is an excerpt:
As we enter the 21st century, a vital new expression of Christianity is growing in the United States and worldwide. This movement even has a name. It is called "the Emergent Church."
This movement expresses what I call "progressive evangelicalism," because it emphasizes traditional evangelical beliefs – affirming the doctrines of the Apostle’s Creed, a high view of Scripture and the importance of a personal transforming relationship with a resurrected Christ – yet rejects the structures and styles of institutionalized Christianity.
The Emergent Church turns away from spending money on buildings. Instead, most congregations meet as "house churches" or gather in makeshift storefronts and warehouses.
Tony goes on to offer a great synopsis of the heart of what God is doing in this movement:
Emergent churches espouse a decentralized grassroots form of Christianity that rejects the hierarchal systems of denominational churches. Each emergent congregation makes its own decisions by consensus.
Leadership is fluid, with all members sharing authority and participating in the mission of the church. Task forces are assembled to undertake such specific programs as feeding the homeless, establishing a partnership with a Third World church, developing an after-school tutoring program for disadvantaged children or organizing people in a poor neighborhood to solve pressing social problems.
The missionary programs of such congregations are committed to direct involvement with those they decide to serve. These churches want little to do with bureaucratic organizations with professional administrators. Members of these congregations want to be involved personally with those in need. They want to know the names and faces of the people they serve.
Emergent congregations must not be confused with those nondenominational mega-churches that seem to be popping up increasingly in communities across the nation. In fact, the two are markedly different. Emergent churches often express a disdain for the "contemporary-worship music" heard in many mega-churches.
The worship in emergent churches often includes classical music, and such congregations often follow a more formal liturgical style that may even incorporate such ancient forms of praying as that of monastic orders. The people who join emergent congregations are often folks who have tired of what goes on in churches that have "contemporary services."
Tony goes on to describe a "postmodern mindset" that includes some agendas that are not necessarily shared by all… But, nevertheless, his article is excellent and you can read the entire article here.
Comments
5 responses to “Tony Campolo Speaks Up on the Emerging Church / House Church”
Hmmm…most emergent churches I know don’t make decisions by consensus. Very few do much to reach the homeless, establish partnerships with the Third World church, develop after school tutoring programs for disadvantaged children or organize people in poor neighborhoods to solve pressing social problems. In fact, I don’t see most emergent churches being more directly involved in ministry. Emergent churches don’t seem to be doing these things to any degree higher than conventional urban churches…in fact I see them doing less than conventional urban churches. I don’t want to challenge Tony Campolo unduly, but he seems to be describing the idea, not the reality.
I have problems with terms like “emerging church” because it’s so unclear what these terms are defining. There seems to be an “insider” definition of this term–a group of people who have taken on the label. Outsiders, however seem to lump many transitioning-structure churches into the “emerging church” label: simple churches, house churches, organic churches, etc. Bottom line, all of these terms seem to be difficult to define.
As per our own “simple church network” (more terms?????), we do in fact place a high priority on being involved in needs with both our giving and our time commitments: drub abuse homes, overseas missions and needs, etc. We always want to do more… but it seems to me that if churches are not “emerging” in this direction then I’m not sure where they are headed!!
Good point Roger! What are we all doing here anyway? With all due respect to Mr. Campolo, why do we have to define everything? I think it’s this intellectual bug so many of us have. We need to be humble servants and just do it! I think that’s why Jesus picked fishermen, tax collectors and such. Anyway, the church has been emerging for 2000 yrs. I think. It’s time we just get up and walk, don’t you think?
I think as far as definitions go, there are churches that define themselves as emergent; we should limit our discussion to those churches.
Tony says the Emergent Church “rejects the structures and styles of institutionalized Christianity.” Really? I see them rejecting the style, but definitely NOT the structure. Instead of a church service, they have a “gathering.” Instead of pews, they have velvet couches and coffee tables. Instead of an organist they have a rock band or a folk guitarist. Instead of a pastor they have…oh wait, THEY STILL HAVE PASTORS. Instead of meeting on Sunday morning they meet on Sunday night. This is an exact description of one of the most well known emergent churches in my metropolis, and I don’t see any difference in ecclesiology, just a difference in labels. That church being a fair example of most emergent churches, I just don’t see much happening in the emergent movement. Tony must be looking at something completely different.
The other day a theology professor of mine caught up to me in the hall at seminary. He is from Croatia, and he asked me what I thought of the emergent church. I said, “Well, I’m waiting to see what they emerge as.” If their current manifestation is any indication, I’m not that interested.
I hate to defend the emergent church, but I think there are SOME signs of things happening in the emergent movement. The growing number of house churches show that the emergent movement has softened the ground for different ways of doing things. Sure, there were a handful of house churches and communal churches before the emergent movement began, but they were very much of a different sort than the ones we have now. There is new talk about the nature of the church, the way we ought to do church, etc, that was fostered by the emergent church. So I wouldn’t be quick to dismiss the emergent movement. My problem with the movement is that many within the movement believe they have emerged, are a bit arrogant in a pseudo-humble sort of way, focus on changing elements of style when they ought to focus on elements of substance, etc. In the end, the movement is still in its infancy (though I think it would be more helpful to refer to it as emergent movementS), so it remains to be seen what will happen.