My good friend Josh Packard was recently quoted on Tall Skinny Kiwi concerning his research (PDF) on Emerging Churches. I was interviewed for the study but certainly didn’t see any credit. I’m sure what I had to say was essential to the quality and depth of the study. I get no respect (in my best Rodney Dangerfield)!! Josh’s research is for a doctorate in sociology, particularly the sociology of religion. Here’s a couple of my thoughts on his findings.
First I should say that I think Josh’s research shows that emerging churches are successful (so far) in remaining a movement/conversation and avoiding institutionalization. There are things that they do as Josh points out that make this possible. However, I wonder how this thesis will hold up over time. There have been many movements (Anabaptists, Moravians, Monastic traditions) that started off with similar features.
Reflecting on Reflecting
Josh touched an an important criticism that he found in his research. Even though emerging churches encourage questioning, it is often the case that they are not as critical of their own beliefs as they are of others. In other words the ability to question in the religious context is focused outward, towards what they no longer are, rather than inward and self-reflective on how they could be better followers of Jesus. This has also been my experience.
Last semester I got together with a group of seminary students and local ministers in Waco when Tony Jones came to visit. It became more of a self-congratulatory I’m-glad-I’m-not-John-Piper-or-McArthur-rally. I have strong sympathies with Emergent, but some serious questions about some Emergent Village’s tactics (Emergenty Sucks at Marketing). This is not an attack on Emergent, but rather an attempt to be more self-critical of what the conversation/movement is about. Unfortunately it was hard to be heard through the din of applause (not Tony’s fault by the way).
Is emerging church just a niche market?
Here’s a quote:
In short, there is a substantial niche market for congregations like those in this study. Although none of the congregations I studied were actively, consciously courting this market, they were attracting these people all the same. While the data indicate that this niche market does exist, it also shows that the people who make up this group of potential churchgoers are very savvy and particularly distrustful of anything which appears manufactured or “inauthentic.” In other words, one could fill a large congregation with people from just this niche alone, but probably not by trying to.
This is a really interesting observation. If emerging church is only a niche, or ends up being one inadvertently, what does that mean?
Thoughts? Bring it!
So this is what you were doing in class…lol!
First, where and how do we delineate between movement and institution? movements occur within institutions? apart from?
Second, I’m not sure if you’re critique amount not asking inward questions is fair or true. Maybe what we are hearing is outward, but I would think that there are EMC out there still asking inward questions.
And I’m kind of tired, no I am tired of Tony Jones being equal to emerging church or even the conversation. He’s so 2003! haha.
Third, this niche market concept is new to me, but I think it’s worth exploring more in depth.
don’t frost and hirsch make the distinction somewhat in shaping of things to come between movement and institution? josh would have a much better sociological answer. so, i hope he’s paying attention. my guess is it involves boundaries, rigid controls and systems in place to maintain a dogma of some sort.
i think the critique about EC often being unreflective is as fair as any criticism. i’m not making a blanket statement that all EC people are like that. i have certainly experienced it though. part of it probably has to do with the early stages of a movement. many people who have been doing EC stuff for a while are more reflective now. others who are just starting out may still be reacting against their tradition or paradigm that they find flawed.
cynicism and lack of self-reflection are two of the biggest dangers in the EC in my opinion. not that everyone has that problem, but that it’s a big temptation for a movement and anytime you are reacting against something you perceive as flawed or inadequate.
I certainly wasn’t equating TJ with EC. EC is bigger than TJ or EV, but TJ and EV are definitely part of EC. If you didn’t understand that then you aren’t post-anything.
A movement, at least sociologically, can be understood in almost direct opposition to to an institution. One is dynamic (movement) the other is (static). My research is about whether it’s possible to maintain a dynamic status indefinitely. In the EC vernacular, is it possible to sustain the conversation endlessly?
Strictly speaking, EC will probably never qualify as a movement sociologically due to its lack of clearly defined goals (there is no way of telling when the movement is over). And yet, nobody would argue that is an institution either. I hesitate to present this as though Movements reside at one end of the continuum and Institutions at the other, or that Movement status is a necessary step on the path toward institutionalization, but these seem to be the two options discussed most with EC. I think a more useful conception for the EC is that they are trying to balance between and Institution and a Sect, wanting to have the cultural relevance of an institution AND the flexibility of a sect. This is precisely what makes EC such a compelling case sociologically.
Interesting stuff…definitely good stuff to think about.
I’m perhaps most intrigued by this niche idea. I think it’s right…for now. But my guess is that what is currently a niche will become much more pervasive. The population that EC is attracting, and that is creating this niche, is only going to get bigger. What happens when this smallish niche becomes very large?
Also, I’m wondering how people fit into this idea who are not part of a congregation at all (another population I think is going to increase in numbers).
I think the church’s focus should be authenticity and not marketing. Once a church crosses that line (don’t confuse marketing with mission work), they begin to become institutionalized.
do you think authenticity or obedience is more important than effectiveness? just curious. it seems like we are constantly trying ot balance between being effective and being obedient or authentic.
I think the comparsion is immaterial. We should always be authentic and obedient. If we are obedient, then God will make us effective the way He wants. I think that was what made Mother Theresa who she was. She did God’s will. There are many people like her that make a huge difference but they are never (and they don’t want to be) in the spotlight.
Effectiveness is subjective. It is based on our criteria of what we think is important. If I lived at the time of Christ, I would have thought He was ineffective right after He was crucified.