Reforming Ecclesiology

I found it very difficult to summarize the whole essay on "Reforming Ecclesiology in Emerging Churches," so I decided to go ahead and post a DRAFT of the article here .  As I mentioned earlier, it will be published in final form in Theology Today in January.

But here is the abstract and the conclusion:

______________________

Abstract: The rapid growth of “emerging” churches worldwide provides a new opportunity for reflection on the nature and task of the church. This article briefly outlines some of the tensions this movement raises in relation to the traditional “marks” (one, holy, catholic and apostolic) of the church. It identifies some ways toward a reconstructive and reformative ecclesiology that also recognizes that followers of the way of Christ are multiple, embedded, particular and hospitable.

Conclusion: My argument in this essay has not been that the credal “marks” of the church are wrong, but only that they are not exhaustive. When interpreted in absolute and exclusive terms, noting the unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity of the church may in fact be misleading; these may actually mark forms of religious community that have little to do with Jesus’ way of knowing, acting and being in the world.

Yes, followers of this way ought to work for unity in love, but this does not require the denial or denigration of the multiplicity of expressions of that love. The many forms of ecclesial becoming can serve together in the infinite ecumenics of divine grace.

Yes, churches are called to become holy, but this does not require isolationist walls that protect “our” sacrality from “their” supposed profanity. Missional care in the way of Christ is embedded in the concrete, mundane concerns of oppressed others.

Yes, Christian communities ought to be characterized by a universal embracing love, but this does not require an anxious political exclusion of others. Different polities can facilitate the service of the church while celebrating the particularity of each context.

Yes, becoming ecclesial involves making clear our connection with the first apostles, but this does not require a blind repetition of the tradition.  Followers of Jesus can be identified by their receptive hospitality to, for and with their neighbors and enemies.

Emerging churches worldwide have a great deal to teach us about reconstructing ecclesiology and reforming our communities in ways that mark them as faithfully participating in Jesus’ way of knowing, acting and being in the world.

_____________________

If you have comments or questions, please refer to the page number of the downloadable draft (see above). 

My daughter from the US is visiting us in Norway this next week and I won't be in the office so I may not be able to participate or respond as often as usual, but I'm eager for feedback and will respond asap.

Comments

[andrew jones]

Hi LeRon. Good article and i like the framework. I guess its an American audience you are writing for which explains why all your examples are american and not, for example, from Norway (I preached at Subchurch in Oslo once).

I would add the the word "emergent" is not an american word and i dont like the idea of it, and everyone who has used the word around the world over the last few decades, to be somehow colonized or at least coloured by Emergent Village, but i do appreciate your wider definition of "emerging church" a term that we are currently wondering if we should keep or not.

[LeRon]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for those comments... one of my goals was to make the American audience aware of the growth of this kind of community globally so I probably should add some other examples.

I feel ambivalent about the term "emergent" too... although it can be taken in a narrow sense, most of the people I know at the "village" don't mean it to be exclusive or colonizing.

What I do like about the term is that it can be connected to philosophical and scientific models of emergent complexity, which in my view provide a more dynamic and open metaphysical and conceptual framework for contemporary theological reflection on issues like the nature and task of "the church."

[Craig Mathison]

LeRon,

Great article. I think you accurately touch on some ways in which truly emergent churches are not simply updating facades, but deeply questioning underlying structures. And they don't lead with creed, but with relationship. That plays out in their ad hoc theological approaches, and, as you accurately point out, their hospitality.

I found your use of "reconstructive theology" also very helpful. You accurately point out the first step of reconstruction is deconstruction. But this "demo" of theology is not at all nihilistic. Rather, it is pounding on every pillar to see how sound it truly is and rethinking the engineering with an updated understanding of stress, loads, spans, etc. While the terms "reformist" and "emergent" are now somewhat tainted, "reconstructive" is fresh, descriptive and evocative.

Thanks for your good work.

[len]

It's interesting to run your piece up against Snyder's work in Decoding the Church. Also intriguing, running your observations on the willingness and benefit to enter a creative commons with the other in order to find new ways forward thru the lens of Wilfred Drath in The Deep Blue Sea. He argues for a "third principle" of leadership when tasks require embracing multiple worldviews and honoring each for their unique contribution. For a summary of his arguments to that point see my last post at Allelon Missional Journey blog.

[LeRon]

Craig,

Very encouraging feedback... you captured my intentions perfectly! ;)

Len,

Thanks for these references, neither of which I knew beforehand.

I checked out both of your blogs - very interesting!

Best wishes on your work,

LeRon

[Tony Mills]

LeRon-
I am only vaguely familiar with the emerging church, but I was curious if you have read anything about the New Monasticism and, if so, is it at all related to the emergent movement? These really are not well-informed questions, since I am too busy reading comic book stuff, but I am hearing things in the air and am wondering if you have an opinion on the matter.

[Mike]

LeRon!
Great article!

Hey: wasn't it Cyprian, not Augustine, who initiated extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Help me out here!

Re: apostlicity and tradition. Spot on here. I am recalling, though, that plenty of academic missiology from the 80's and the 90's- heck, throw in Roland Allen, too!- has often endorsed embedded models of praxis. On the one hand, the models attempted to guard against the very dangers of preserving traditions in other cultural contexts. On the other hand, the models advocated a critical openness to receiving from one’s or another’s culture. I'd guess-really, only a guess- that some of that influence, e.g., the late Paul Hiebert, participates in the embedded model you describe.

Your thoughts?

[LeRon]

Hi Tony,

I've only heard a little about the new monasticism, but I know that at least some self-described groups would also associate with the general values of the emerging church movement. Or so I've heard. Of course, it would have to be a quite "new" and different kind of monasticism to fit my "other" four ecclesial marks.

Hi Mike,

Hmmm... good question about the source of the quote, I'll have to double check that one. :) In relation to your observation that earlier models have also had these other marks, I quite agree. Actually, we could trace them back to the apostles. I didn't mean to suggest that the church has been marked always and only by the big four of the creed until the emerging movement, but that often (too often in my view), and even with the apostles (Peter, for example) these big four squeezed out the other four.