Emergent (Part 5)

I have written about my Meyers-Briggs NT Rationalist experience in the church in the last two posts. I have also speculated that the number of N.F. Idealists alienated from Evangelical institutions are probably greater than the number of N.T.s. Where did these alienated intuitive types go?

Some of these types departed Evangelical institutions and started their own Emergent congregations. They seek to create communities that are responsive to the postmodern cultural shift. Many others have stayed in existing structures and championed embracing the Emergent conversation within their faith communities. They seek connections with other Emergent minded people but have not left their affiliations. Some have just dropped out of institutional involvement altogether. Within the Emergent congregations are a growing number of people who have come to faith knowing no other model of church other than their Emergent worshiping communities.

We know Evangelicals have always had an emphasis on practical faith. They have been a people of action. Over the years, they have shown remarkable ingenuity in rearticulating their faith as times have changed. They have proven themselves exceptional tacticians and are unsurpassed in mobilizing and deploying resources. Of course, these are the actions that the S.P. Artisan and S.J. Guardian temperaments excel at. The Evangelical movement has historically been much less adept at engaging intellectual nuances and embracing the mystery of God as we sojourn in this world. These are the things that the N.T. Rationalists and N.F. Idealists excel at. I suspect this division has been an ongoing challenge throughout the history of the Evangelical movement. So what has changed to spark recent events? I think at least three major things have happened.

First, the Modernist worldview is breaking up, especially in the last thirty years or so. Young adults have grown up in a postmodern environment. For many, the milieu of the church, be it Evangelical or otherwise, seems entirely foreign. This is quite true even for those young adults who have been raised in the church.

Second, Evangelical institutions have responded to cultural change with what they do best: tactics and organization. The mega-church model of Willow Creek became the gold standard for being an Evangelical congregation. Saddleback has seemingly eclipsed that role. Borrowing from marketing expertise, these institutions created spiritual Wal-Marts tailored to their communities. This was a natural extension of the Evangelical strength of addressing individual needs in practical ways.

However, from the perspective of many intuitive types, the mega-churches have created a consumer spirituality monster. What little existed of God-centered worship amidst an authentic community attuned to the mystery of God was erased from church life. What used to be preaching from the Bible (though from a Modernist mindset) became platitudes with scripture proof-texts. This may sound overly critical, but I think it is a fair description of intuitive types' perspective of the world they left. They believe the culture has radically changed in ways that require the Church to rethink its purpose for being, not just tactics.

Third, is the linkage of Evangelicalism with a narrow spectrum of political agendas. There have always been Evangelicals across a wide range of political viewpoints. Yet, with the increasing focus of visible Evangelicals on conservative politics, especially with the rise of organizations like the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and Focus on the Family, many younger adults in Evangelical circles have become increasingly uncomfortable about being identified with these movements. Either they disagree with some key issues or feel the agendas lack a coherent political and theological basis. There have been organizations around, like Evangelicals for Social Action, that offered alternative perspectives, but they have been dwarfed by the conservative political organizations, many of which have been single-issue focused. Also troubling, especially I suspect for the N.F.s, has been the often strident and angry tone of the politics.

As Evangelicals left to form new congregations and networks, they became more visible. A parallel event began to intersect with the Emergent types. Like their Evangelical counterparts, many mainline church N.T. and N.F. young adults came to see their traditions as hopelessly captive to Modernist theology (liberal and conservative.) They have seen the innovative nature of Emergent types, their unabashed attempt to engage a postmodern environment, their hunger for authentic community, and their desire to embrace the mystery of God.

The presence of Mainliners in the Emergent circles seems to me to be a development of the past five years or less. The Mainliner Emergent types most frequently complain that within their circles, there is a lack of missional focus, calcified institutional structures, institutional blindness to the challenges of a postmodern world, and endless wrangling over internal political issues. The Mainliners seem more inclined to stay within their traditions, but it is uncertain if this will persist.

Because of their particular temperaments, it is unsurprising that N.T.s and N.F.s would be among the first to tune in to the present cultural shift. Social change usually starts with the intellectuals and the artists, who are overrepresented among the N.T.s and the N.F.s. The question is, where do we go from here?

Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one and that the world would see God's love for the world through our oneness. Paul was fond of using the body of Christ metaphor and insisting that one part of the body cannot sever itself from the others. So can the N.T. or N.F. foot say to the S.P. and S.J. hand, I am not a part of your body? Similarly, what if the N.T. or N.F. stays within a system where their every input is immediately dismissed as impractical, too risky, or unreasonable? Is not the refusal to use the God-given gifts of the N.T.s and N.F.s an exclusion from the body?

Many corporations have human resources departments that train and coach work teams to understand the special abilities diverse people bring based on various traits, including temperament. So why does the Church find itself fragmenting according to temperament gifts?

I suspect the difference is that corporations are out to accomplish a mission. They are out to earn profits. They are motivated to maximize the use of all the available resources, including their personnel's giftedness. The Church is not on a mission. Most in the church are there to be the recipients of someone else's mission. Mission is something done by a specialized professional with some assistance from amateur volunteers. Effectively, the congregation's people aren't part of a mission, so there is no need to know or appreciate others' gifts. There is no need to bear with one another as the body of Christ as we answer a common calling. We just seek out a faith community that is comfortable with our temperament. The body of Christ metaphor is too frequently an empty cliché.

But what if we understood our mission was not of clergy to laity, but of the congregational community, as the body of Christ, to the world?

[Previous] [Next] [Index]