Since then, I’ve let several researchers have my data for their own work. Todd is among them, and I asked him to correct a glaring oversight in my book — I neglected to offer this snapshot of the racial profile of the eight congregations I surveyed.

93% of emergents are white, according to my research. This is not generalizable across the movement — my research methods were not set up in that way. This is, as I said, a snapshot of eight congregations on a single Sunday in 2005. The most diverse church in the study was Cedar Ridge Community Church, at which Brian McLaren was the pastor at the time. Here’s a graphic:

The racial make-up of the emerging church movement.

Years ago, Soon-Chang Rah asked in Sojourners Magazine whether the emerging church movement is “for whites only.” I responded by asking whether Sojourners is for straight only, because it seems to me that we face the same problem: we’d like to be broader than we are, but that’s as tough as getting white and black students to sit next to each other in a public high school cafeteria.

In other words, it’s easy to criticize our movement or Sojo or North Park University (where Rah teaches) or the Evangelical Covenant Church (the denomination with which North Park is affiliated) for being too white. Yes, we’re all too white. The real question is, How do we diversify a movement that is purposefully non-evangelistic?

That is, the ECM is about a particular people trying to solve particular problem. If our solution isn’t interesting to everyone, is that a weakness that we should correct?

It’s dangerous to generalize about either the JPM or the ECM. Neither had/has a headquarters or unifying organization. Both were/are grassroots movements that seemed to spring up spontaneously and then snowball first into apparently relatively cohesive movements and then fall apart over deep differences of philosophy, theology and practice. Both had/have strong, public personalities that provide a certain degree of identity to their movements, but neither had/has any single personality looked up to by everyone associated with them. Both were/are very diverse but unified by a common, minimal ethos that set/sets them apart from the “mainstream” of American Christianity—evangelical or mainline.

Read the rest at Emerging Churches and the Jesus People Movement Compared (you’ll have to overlook Roger’s poor formatting)

This post is part of the Patheos Book Club. Check out the Book Club for more posts on this book, an interview with the editor, and for responses from other bloggers and columnists.

As I am wont to do, I’ll begin with my quibbles. These aren’t letters to a future church, as the book’s title promises. They are letters to the church today. Actually, I’d be very intrigued by a book of letters to the church 100 or 1,000 years from now. But that’s not this book.

This book is a group of letters by Christian leaders to the church today, telling the church what it’s doing wrong and how to fix it. As with many multi-author books, it’s hit and miss. For my part, the spoken word poetry doesn’t work in print. But other letters are great.

Among the latter is David Fitch’s “The Ideologizing of the Church”:

We get distracted from the fact that things haven’t really changed at all, that our lives are caught up in gamesmanship, not the work of God’s salvation in our own lives and his work (missio dei) to save the world.

But, I think the very best of this book is three letters that lie at its center:

In an arrangement that I can only guess is the work of my friend, David Zimmerman (editor at IVP), letters from Tim Challies and Peter Rollins sit back-to-back. Challies letter seems to be driven by the very thing that drives the character Bob in The Big Kahuna to share the gospel, no matter the inappropriateness of the situation.

Challies, an ultra-right blogger, spends seven pages telling us what the Four Spiritual Laws is able to say in a tract. I can only imagine his motivation: Pete Rollins and Dave Fitch wrote in this book, so there will probably be some emergents reading it; therefore, I should explicate the penal substitutionary gospel to them. Challies cannot possibly believe that the readers of this book — assumedly church leaders — are ripe for the gospel. But, as he writes, the word does not come back void, so might as well throw some against the wall and see what sticks.

The very next chapter, by Rollins, exhorts the church not to get caught up in a web of abstractions, even if these abstractions are self-deprecatory. As is Pete’s wont, his letter is peppered with parables and Kierkegaard.

But, I think that the very best letter in the book is one of the shortest. In just two pages, James Shelley writes, “The Fulcrum and the Linchpin” about biblical interpretation. Here’s the money quote:

Dear Church, at some point you must recognize and name your camps and denominations for what they truly are: self-affirming cloisters of people who are happily comfortable with their self-validating presuppositions about Scripture.

Right on, James.

Chuck Colson (1931-2012)

The recently deceased Chuck Colson was among the first heavyweight evangelicals to speak out against the emerging church movement, in this 2006 column in Christianity Today, “Emerging Confusion“:

For evangelicalism (let alone emerging churches) to buy into that would undermine the very foundation of our faith. Theologian Donald A. Carson puts his finger precisely on the epistemological problem: Of course, truth is relational, Carson writes. But before it can be relational, it has to be understood as objective. Truth is truth. It is, in short, ultimate reality. Fortunately, Jim came to see this.

The emerging church can offer a healthy corrective if it encourages us to more winsomely draw postmodern seekers to Christ wherever we find them—including coffee houses and pubs. And yes, worship styles need to be more inviting, and the strength of relationship and community experienced. But these must not deter us from making a solid apologetic defense of the knowability of truth.

Ah, yes, “truth is truth.” The world will miss that airtight logic.

I responded to Colson’s column at Out of Ur:

In his penultimate paragraph, Colson refers to D.A. Carson, fellow critic of Emergent, who argues that objective truth precedes relational truth. Colson then weighs in with this philosophical doozy: “Truth is truth.” (Why don’t you read that again.)

You see, by saying that “truth is truth,” Colson is essentially saying…well, nothing. That’s called a “self-referential argument,” or a “circular reference” and it’s non-sensical; it doesn’t say anything, and it doesn’t mean anything. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been speaking and heard similar statements. I’ll spend a couple hours doing my best to lay out a rather intricate understanding of truth and interpretation, only to be told by an audience member that some things are “really, really true,” “true with a capital ‘T’” or my personal favorite, “true truth.”

I never met Colson, and he never responded to my writings. But, I suppose I should thank him. Colson was for emergent what John Piper’s tweet was for Rob Bell’s book.

Also, this from Slacktivist.

Highlands Church in Denver, prides itself on accepting anyone and everyone, whether they are married, divorced, single, conservative, liberal, gay, straight or bisexual. "(This movement) is just disentangled from the belief that 'if you take the Bible seriously, you have to be a Republican,' " says the Rev. Mark Tidd, pastor of Highlands Church. (Helen H. Richardson, The Denver Post)

From a Denver Post article on the (not-dead-yet) emergent church:

For a rising tide of the righteous young, faith is more about doing right than being right, including being politically “Right.”

This growing representation of young Christians — who either formerly or currently identify with aspects of evangelicalism — are drifting away, and sometimes divorcing themselves from the conservative politics handed down to them by their generational predecessors.

Frequently discussed in the past decade, but often dismissed as a temporary wave of angst, the metamorphosis of this Christian movement has been subtle but strong. What surfaced at the dawn of the 21st century as an amorphous dialogue of questioning, has gradually organized and established itself as a cultural game-changer, now reaching a level of political relevance.

Read the rest: Younger Colorado voters are united by faith, but divided by politics – The Denver Post.

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

Sarah Pulliam Bailey, writer for Christianity Today, is one of my more favorite writers in the evangelical-journalist community. Like me, she was emailed a downright absurd article posted on the Atlantic‘s website last week, linking KONY2012 to the emergent church movement.

In our world, the Atlantic is supposed to represent good, serious reporting. And Christianity Today is supposed to represent slanted, non-objective reporting.

Well, read Sarah’s piece if you’re ready for your categories to be upended. She completely pwns the Atlantic at Get Religion:

Earlier this week, a reader sent us a “slightly alarmist” piece from The Atlantic on a Christian sect driving Africa. Can you guess what might be “The Upstart Christian Sect Driving Invisible Children”? Wait for it: the emerging church. That’s right. The movement that no one is talking about anymore.

I asked Tony Jones what he thought of the piece, given that he has been one of the leaders of the Emergent Church Village, and he had some strong words.

I read the Atlantic piece on KONY and the emerging church, and I was dumbfounded. Firstly, I found the article nearly indecipherable. But even more troubling was the supposed connection between Invisible Children and the emergent church movement is ludicrous. But then, when the reporter referred to Mark Driscoll as a liberal, we all knew that he had no idea what he was writing about. That should be enough for the Atlantic to take the article off their website, and fire the editor who greenlighted it.

Why does Jones feel so strongly about this piece? Walk with me through bits and pieces to find out why it’s such bad journalism.

Please read the rest of Sarah’s paragraph-by-paragraph deconstruction of the Atlantic article here: Correction please on The Atlantic’s lol Kony report » GetReligion.

If we use Phyllis Tickle’s term “Christian Emergence” or “Emergence Christianity” to describe a broad phenomenon that is occurring across the spectrum of Christian communities (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant …), I think the movement is stronger than ever.

In Evangelical and Charismatic circles, many Evangelical/Charismatic gatekeepers have successfully driven the emergent conversation underground. They don’t talk much about emergent figures – except negatively. And people who “come out of the theological closet” are pressured and often nudged out. But there are so many people like you – who are rethinking and going through a deep awakening spiritually, and are just circumspect about it in their ecclesial circles. And surprising numbers of Evangelical/Charismatic leaders are far more sympathetic than you would expect.

In Mainline circles, there is broadening and deepening engagement at all levels.

In Catholic circles, there are growing pockets of engagement on a grass-roots level, and there are small pockets in Orthodox circles too.

Read the rest: Q & R: Is the Emerging Church mo – Brian McLaren.

Phil published an Op-Ed in the LA Times over the weekend:

Although a recent bumper crop of pundits likes to proclaim that we’d all be better off with no religion, I suspect that the majority of us believe that religion, in spite of its flaws, offers individuals the inspiration to be better people and to create a better nation. Seminary and church leaders, in particular, are highly motivated to staunch the decline. Unfortunately, many of them believe that what’s really needed is a return to the “faith of our fathers,” stricter adherence to creeds and (this is America, after all) better marketing methods.

I advocate a radically different solution: the Emerging Church. It’s a movement based on understanding the reasons for mainstream religion’s dramatic decline: improved scientific understanding, changing social norms, an increasingly pluralistic religious culture and more freedom to doubt and question — a freedom that until the last three centuries was mostly absent or suppressed and that is still resisted, sometimes violently, in much of the world today.

READ THE REST: Religion and the ‘rise of the nones’ – latimes.com.

Over the past five years or so there seems to have been a climax and subsequent decline in optimism and enthusiasm surrounding the Emergent Church conversation.  Of course those on the conservative evangelical side have always dismissed the movement as heterodox and a return to theological liberalism, but even some of the more sympathetic critics that often describe themselves as “missional” have expressed concern about a lack of theological leadership.  There’s been no shortage of deconstruction and even ecclesial innovation amid this group, but the common question remains: what is it exactly that so-called emergents believe?

Be sure to read the rest: Bill Walker | Blog.

Mark Driscoll

Believe it or not, I take no pleasure in the flailings and failings of Christian leaders who hold dissimilar views to me. I’ve had my own failings, including divorce and foreclosure. And these failings have humbled me. I’m regularly told by friends and acquaintances, especially those who’ve not seen me for a few years, that I now seem more gentle, more humane. I attribute much of that to the love I’ve experienced, most notably from Courtney, Doug, and my family.

Mark Driscoll and I were never close. In the early days of proto-emergent, I was on the fringes and he was an intimidating figure in the inner circle. He made it abundantly clear that he had no respect for a youth pastor like me. By the time I made the inner circle, he’d left. I’ve attempted to correspond with him since — even to get together with him when I was in Seattle — with no success.

I say all that as prelude to the buzz that’s been making the rounds this week. A pastor who was fired by Mark a few years ago, and the pastor’s spouse, have gone public with their story. It is, I think you will agree, a chilling story. It’s full of intrigue, and could easily devolve into a gossipy sin feast.

But that’s not why I’m posting it.

I am posting it because I think it’s a cautionary tale. I think, as my headline indicates, that the particular theology that Mark Driscoll has embraced since he left the emergent posse (n.b., he was not a Calvinist when I met him in 1998) is untenable. John Piper excommunicates his son, C.J. Mahaney is removed from leadership because he is jerk to his colleagues, and now it turns out that Mark Driscoll has fired pastors and elders who had the gall to question his leadership.

When you read this story, make note of this: Paul and Jonna Petry are not liberals. They didn’t go off-message. That’s not why they were fired, excommunicated, and shunned. Their website is rife with the theological language of Calvinism, language that I and some readers won’t find compelling (e.g., spiritual warfare, “biblical eldership”). Paul Petry was not only a pastor, but also a practicing attorney. Petry expressed concern that Driscoll was having the by-laws rewritten to consolidate his power. Petry was fired, and shunned.

Our theologies have consequences. My hope is that Paul and Jonna Petry — and others like them — will reconsider their theological predispositions in light of what’s happened to them at Mars Hill. I hope that they will seek a theology that is more loving, open, and progressive.

Fired Mars Hill Church Pastor Releases History

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Those who do not remember the past will have it rewritten for them.

Well, not in this case. Not anymore. Four and half years ago, I was fired from Mars Hill Church because I refused to resign under pressure. I was a pastor on staff, an elder, and an officer of the corporation along with a group of other men.   I spent months seeking formal reconciliation and years hoping for a better course.   I have not spoken about these matters publicly until now. With the mounting stories and “histories” coming out regarding Mars Hill Church, it no longer seems right or beneficial to remain silent.

This website serves as a depository, a historical record of the events I and others  experienced at that time - including documents, written correspondence, and personal narrative - with the hope that greater love and reformation will emerge    and transcend our weaknesses and failures.

READ MORE AT JOYFUL EXILES