Good question! David Black has an enlightening paragraph:

For myself, though not an emergent, I heartily concur with certain emphases in the movement such as every-member ministry, consensus leadership, and “serving others with liberality” (what an ear-delighting phrase!). As Scot notes, some emerging churches are foregoing “worship services.” (Agree. I think you will look in vain for the meeting of the church to be described as a worship service. Worship in the New Testament is 24/7.) They are questioning the need to meet in “sanctuaries.” (They are right: the church is people, not a building.) They ask, “Is it necessary to make a monologue the most important thing on Sunday morning?” Or, “What would happen if we got rid of the pulpit (which stands six feet above contradiction) and did our teaching on the same level as the people?” No wonder the emerging church is considered a threat to traditional evangelical ecclesiology. Anything more likely to raise the hackles of those who tout their inflated membership statistics and their majestic buildings and their oratorical prowess can scarcely be imagined.

The single most important thing I have learned from the emergers is a reemphasis: that Christian fellowship is a fellowship of ordinary human beings (cauliflower is nothing but cabbage with a college education, notes Scot) working together for something much bigger than any of us, and that the way we ought to live – though none of us can do it perfectly – is to take no thought for anything but what God wants, and that is to love Him by serving others. Today Jesus is calling us to move from the sanctuary to the street. He calls us to be leaders by serving. He challenges some of our most cherished practices and destroys some of our most sacred prejudices. Jesus lived a life of greatness that comes not by grabbing but giving, not by saving but sharing, not by asserting self but denying self. And into that kind of life He is calling all of us, whether we belong to emerging Christianity or not.

Technorati Tags: emerging church, Scot McKnight

<i>Anything more likely to raise the hackles of those who tout their inflated membership statistics and their majestic buildings and their oratorical prowess can scarcely be imagined.</i>

I doubt it's the heights of pulpits, etc. that's raising hackles within traditional evangelical circles. The entire first paragraph seems completely off point and playing to stereotypes. A dead church could implement every one and still be dead. A living church would not gain one bit of additional vitality by doing so.

The second paragraph has more merit, but these ideals are hardly the sole property of the emergent church.

Posted by: Laughing Boy 21 Aug, 2007 - 23:15:24

You're quite correct - I put in the second paragraph as an attempt to show that the emerging church shares the values of the wider church body - not trying to say that only the EC cares about these things.

The first paragraph is not meant to sum up the values of the EC! I thought it was interesting because it was an "outsider" putting down some thoughts on why some EC stuff might annoy "traditional-type" church leaders (if you have someone who loves his "exalted" position in front of the church, telling him to step down and teach at ground level may well annoy him!).

Of course, just blindly saying, "Let's throw out the pulpit and do circle-teaching (or whatever) is to embrace form, not substance. The medium is important, as we know, but some churches (in the US, at least, I don't know about here) are adopting some - let's call them "emerging stylistic methods" - without engaging with the deep ecclesiology behind the form.

I found it interesting moving to a different church where the focal point of our worship service wasn't the sermon, but communion. That was very refreshing for me!

Posted by: Roger Saner 22 Aug, 2007 - 08:04:55