If you haven’t seen this graphic yet, it was done by Michael Patton and much discussed on Jesus Creed. It was Patton’s attempt to visually represent where people usually associated with the emerging church would stand.
There are a few problems that I see with this graphical representation of where some of these theologians/pastors stand.
First, as has often been pointed out both by those within the emerging movement and those without, the emerging movement is not a monolithic movement. There are certain trajectories that most of those within the emerging movement follow (think Scot McKnight’s Five Streams), but they are not monolithic. Part of this is that some within the emerging movement would fall dead center on this chart if the topic was, say, the resurrection of Christ. If the topic was the atonement or hell, some of these people would move more to the right (it’s strange and/or interesting that Patton didn’t put the emerging movement on the left). The point being, the placement of these people depends upon which topic is being discussed.
Secondly, the term ‘orthodox Christianity’ needs to be defined. Like I just said, on different topics some of these men would be in different places. When it is not defined, and when the process of moving someone from the left to the right of the circle, or even out of the circle, is not made known, the graphic causes more confusion than clarity. For instance, N. T. Wright would not be seen as ‘orthodox’ in many people’s eyes because of his views on justification. Yet he is still within the circle of orthodoxy. Does that mean that a person needs to be perceived as denying more than one tenet of orthodoxy before one is pushed outside of the circle? Unless things like this are defined, the graphic only represents Patton’s thoughts on the situation and nothing else.
Third, since when is N. T. Wright emerging?
Fourth, McLaren is straddling the fence while Pagitt is outside of the circle? That struck me as completely odd. Perhaps its just me, but I see McLaren further away from orthodoxy than Pagitt.
Fifth, D. A. Carson “represents the best of traditional Evangelical scholarship”? That’s arguable on many accounts. I like some of Carson’s work, but ‘best’ is a stretch. I know Carson would probably want to see himself in the middle of evangelicalism, but I think he should be closer to the ‘fundamentalist’ side.
Sixth, Mark Driscoll almost in the ‘emerging’ category? How many times does the man have to publicly state that he is not emerging/emergent before it gets through to people? Just because a guy wears jeans and has an urban ministry does not mean he is emerging/emergent!
Seventh, since when is N. T. Wright emerging?
What are your thoughts on the chart? Where would you place some of these people if you don’t agree with their placement?
****UPDATE****
Here’s how I would have drawn it:
25 February 2008 at 5.03 pm
I definately think that MacArthur should be in the fundamentalist column (why is nobody over there anyways?). I don’t really see anyone that subscribes to dispensationalism as orthodox, the two are antithetical. I probably woudn’t have spencer burke in the same crowd as paggit. I had a great conversation with him lately, and don’t see him as any kind of left winger, and don’t think he would say he is.
25 February 2008 at 5.06 pm
I would concur with preson777 and say ‘get MacArthur outside of orthodoxy’. That man is hurting the church as much as he’s helping it.
I’ve been working with this on my blog too and there seems to be consensus that a chart like this isn’t really helping anything. Still a good catylist for conversation though.
Earl
25 February 2008 at 7.58 pm
Driscoll identifies himself as an Emerging–Relevant, within Stetzer’s threefold distinction: Emerging–Relevants (orthodox but contextualizing); emerging–Reconstructionists (generally orthodox but new forms, like Frost & Hirsch; house church movement); Emerging–Revisionist (in my mind, EmergENT–not orthodox anymore: Mclaren, Pagitt, etc.)
curiously, Driscoll put Rob Bell as the same category as himself when he wrote that article for the Criswell journal. I don’t think he’d put him there now.
I think Emerging is losing its usefulness as a term–it simply means “Not your Daddy’s Evangelicalism” and nothing more; in fact, it would be great if Stetzer’s terms would replace them, IMO.
Here’s the link to Driscoll’s article:
http://criswell.files.wordpress.com/2006/03/3,2%20APastoralPerspectiveontheEmergentChurch%5BDriscoll%5D.PDF
Totally agree on MacArthur. Hyper-reactionary and often inconsistent AND uncharitable.
25 February 2008 at 8.28 pm
Steve: I remember reading that article a while back. Since then he has even distanced himself further from any form of the phrase emerg*** (either ‘ing’ or ‘ent’). At Southern Seminary he did a whole lecture on it. It was the first time that he publicly named names. He went after Pagitt, Bell, and McLaren. He definitely doesn’t identify himself with Bell any longer.
25 February 2008 at 8.56 pm
We might be confusing orthodox or non-orthodox with what is actually a posture towards culture. I would think orthodox is referring to doctrine. In which case MacArthur is definitely orthodox. But the term fundamentalism has come to mean something other than a set of doctrinal beliefs, it’s more a posture towards culture and an attitude towards those doctrines.
25 February 2008 at 8.59 pm
Dispensationalists aren’t orthodox? How so?
25 February 2008 at 9.13 pm
I updated the post with my own map.
25 February 2008 at 9.14 pm
I thought it was funny that McLaren was in between Emerging and Emergent. How old is this chart?
25 February 2008 at 9.14 pm
I found this helpful in answering my questions i e-mailed you, especially the Scott McKnight article. His comments on orthopraxy are right on with how I’ve been feeling.
What does being outside orthodox christianity mean on his chart? By continuing the lines of the outer circles is he implying people outside orthodox christianity (or straddling the line) are still christians? As McKinght says in the section on pg 5 entitled in versus out, ” [Some emerging Christians] say what really matters is orthopraxy and that it doesn’t matter which religion one belongs to, as long as one loves God and one’s neighbor as one’s self.” If one says that, they might as well not call themselves Christians.
It would be nice to see who falls in the fundamentalist camp on the “outside”, I thought all they cared about was being “inside”.
25 February 2008 at 9.31 pm
Art- I find the new chart much more accurate. You forgot the thick, black, plastic glasses in the description of ‘emergent’ though. Those ‘Rob Bell’ Glasses seem to be everywhere.
Meade- it’s possible that Art removed someone’s comment between your two so let me know if this isn’t necessary.
Dispensationalists, imo, are just as othodox as the rest of the folks trying to follow Jesus. I don’t consider MacArthur as being outside of ‘orthodoxy’ because he believes in dispensations but because he attempts to lead through fear and his proclamation of a ‘get out of hell’ gospel is hurting the church more than it is helping anything. Before I get bombarded with questions, I believe that the choices we make on earth have eternal consequences and I do believe there is an eternal aspect to the Gospel (’I go to make a place for you…’) but I think that MacArthur has made the Gospel into something that doesn’t make a difference in out life here. It is all about going to heaven when we die, and that has created apathy and mediocrity in the the Church.
His most recent book (I think) THE TRUTH WAR is little more than propaganda directed and illiciting fear out of conservatives who don’t know what ‘post-modern faith’ or ‘emerging’ really are. His book has very few citations from prominent emerging authors, and when he does he characterizes the whole movement by it’s liberal characteristics. He even went so far as to label those who believe as I do as ‘apostates’ and he said that I think I am saved, but am really not. And unfortunately, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
I will stop ranting now.
Earl
25 February 2008 at 10.23 pm
Arthur: I personally would say that Pagitt is further from Orthodoxy than McLaren. McLaren’s whole shtick is in my thinking nothing more than classic Brethren teaching with it’s acceptance and pacifism simply extrapolated out…Pagitt is a scary dude theologically in the sense that what he seems to dream for Christianity is more in keeping with classic liberalism mixed with practical new age syncratism, mixed with a total distrust of any sort of certainty. McLaren for all his talk of a “New” Christianty is not really saying anything new to Christianity (in the broadest sense) and really nothing outside of his own tradition. Doug on the other hand is mixing in philosophers and thinkers who have previously had no place in “Christianity,” as well as liberal thinkers like Marcus Borg.
25 February 2008 at 11.40 pm
Earl: I didn’t delete any comment. I think Meade was referring to the first comment made by Preson. Also, I realized as I was typing the description for emergent that I fit the bill for the physical characteristics of emergent: soul patch, tattoos, indie music, and thick framed glasses. You’d be hard pressed to find me in a prayer labyrinth though!
D: My comment about McLaren and Pagitt comes, admittedly, from reading more McLaren than Pagitt. The only Pagitt I have read is in Listen to the Beliefs of the Emerging Churches. McLaren’s views on hell, homosexuality, the historical Jesus, and quasi-universalism-esque feel makes me think that he is doing a little more than just repackaging Brethren teaching.
Perhaps if I was more familiar with Pagitt I would think of him as more left than McLaren.
BP!!: That is one thing that I forgot to bring up in the post that struck me as odd the first time I saw the chart. Who in the world is a fundamentalist, yet not within orthodoxy? I couldn’t think of anyone who fits that mold. You could make the argument that some epistemological foundationalists are outside of orthodoxy, but not fundamentalist. I would think that, historically, if someone held to the fundamentals of the faith they would be firmly within orthodoxy. But, as Meade pointed out, fundamentalism has taken on a whole new meaning in today’s understanding.
26 February 2008 at 1.11 am
Haha nice chart my friend, nice chart.
26 February 2008 at 8.16 am
nice chart. it’s interesting to see how people organize these charts. i am curious how old that first chart is. I agree with the .. exasperation that McLaren is where he is. He should definitely be way out on the emergent side.
I also would need to see what the original author means by ‘fundamentalism’ ‘evangelicalism’ and ‘emergent’. They mean different things to different people. Assuming that ‘fundamentalism’ is the resistance to question ones views and ‘evangelicalism’ is the willingness to question views while holding to the inspiration of scripture and trinity, that leaves ‘emergent’ to perhaps mean ‘willing to question all views in light of culture’, also known as ‘liberal’. Perhaps the chart reveals the authors bias? (note I am well seated in evangelicalism and relate well to the chart you made)
26 February 2008 at 8.49 am
av: The chart is recent. I believe it was posted last week. I have commented on Michael’s blog and he has been handling all of the comments on his chart very well. It does represent Michael’s views and, most likely, those who are theologically close to him. For that I think it is useful. Perhaps each community or each person needs to make a chart that would apply well to them or their community in order for a visual chart to be helpful.
26 February 2008 at 10.18 am
Art: Pagitt, is also in all of those categories…but I think more extreme.
What I was trying top communicate perhaps is that almost all of McLaren’s theology comes from the influence of pacifism in the church of his youth..he is just carrying that out. The universalism (which I think is probably just adapted inclusivism) comes from his love for peace and his discomfort with the wrath of God. But really what arminian is comfortable with the wrath of God? Same with his view on the atonement. Same with his view on homosexuality…and on and on. It may not be directly the teaching of the church he grew up in but it is the logical conclusion.
Now Pagitt I can not even begin to explain: But he has said, that they have Muslims who attend their church and are able to fully participate and speak. He had also said that homosexuality is compatible with the Christian life. He has also made comment on the Historical Jesus that to me sound just like Marcus Borg. Add to that how church is actually practiced at Solomon’s Porch (not the social justice, that is awesome) and you have a really, really strange mix of stuff that can barely be called Christian, let alone orthodox.
26 February 2008 at 10.24 am
D: Whoa. I didn’t know all that about Pagitt. I just knew he liked yoga
26 February 2008 at 11.32 am
I just listened to Driscoll’s message from this past Sunday on the Emerging Church.
He has changed his vocabulary since both the Criswell article and his lecture at Southern Seminary. He now breaks it down into four “lanes.”
Lane 1: Emerging Evangelicals
Lane 2: Housechurch Evangelicals
Lane 3: Emerging Reformers
Lane 4: Emergent Liberals
He places himself in Lane 3 along with Dan Kimball and Donald Miller among others. He said he has some minor disputes with Lanes 1 & 2 and completely disagrees with Lane 4, where he places Pagitt, McLaren, Bell, and Jones.
Its interesting to see how much his vocabulary has changed when talking about the emerging movement over the past two years.
I’m not sure I see Lane 2 has a distinct lane, as it is relatively small. I see it more as a subset of Lane 1. But I guess it depends on what characteristics one uses to make the distinction.
It seems that he used an ecclesiological distinction between Lane 1 and 2, but then used a theological distinction between Lane 3 and Lane 4 and both of them in relationship to Lanes 1 & 2.
Once again, it is shown how hard it is to label or sum up the emerging movement.
26 February 2008 at 11.49 am
[...] Arthur Boulet, for the laugh. Explore posts in the same categories: bumpin’ yer head, church, emerging [...]
26 February 2008 at 12.38 pm
I think it changed because Bell and the movement began to get crazier..I can tell you as one who lives here in GR that when Bell started his ministry we all loved him, he was so about the Bible..but man he kept getting crazier and crazier…I think Driscoll has seen this and had to distance himself even further…I know that we have had to do the same thing..I planted CrossWinds seven years ago…so when the emergent thing started we were all for it..and then it got weird…so we had to back off.
Also lane 2 is huge for those of us who are in full time church planting, it is really being pushed. So some of what Driscoll is saying may be unintentionally aimed at others who are in full time vocational ministry and especially in leading edge ministries like church planting.
26 February 2008 at 1.12 pm
your picture is hilarious.
26 February 2008 at 2.58 pm
Listened to the same message–
I believe he actually puts Kimball, Miller, Rick McKinley in Lane 1 (minor disagreements, like women pastors, less than 5 point calvinists, etc.), and puts himself with Keller, Piper, Mahaney in the emerging Reformers lane–though I see wide divergence with those guys in how they approach culture, and a better diagram above would have a dimension to account for that.
I think the House church thing is fairly large in influence–so many people citing Barna and Frostt & Hirsch. See the autonomous “house-church” la carte spirituality with students.
26 February 2008 at 3.02 pm
Steve: You’re right. He does place them in Lane 1. I remembered wrong. I was thinking of when he was talking about people who hold their doctrine in their fist and their form or practice in an open hand.
I guess I’m out of the loop with the house church movements. I have honestly not heard much, if anything, about them.
26 February 2008 at 4.34 pm
Google “Organic Church” you will find plenty.
26 February 2008 at 4.39 pm
I don’t see people so much consciously identifying themselves with the leading thinkers on it, as with the spirit of it: “Let’s get together and complain about how bad/lame/mistaken our parents’ churches were, and why our little group of 12 people is so much smarter.”
I see this in campus ministry–there’s a guy named Jaeson Ma on the West Coast who wrote a book called “The Blueprint: a Revolutionary Plan to Plant Missional Communities on Campus.” He wants students to start churches by and for themselves. He has a low ecclesiology and thinks students have little to gain from people older than 22.
My question is what happens when they graduate (let alone what are they doing in the meantime?)
26 February 2008 at 4.56 pm
stevelutzpsu- “Let’s get together and complain about how bad/lame/mistaken our parents’ churches were, and why our little group of 12 people is so much smarter.”
As humorous as it is, that sums up the majority of house churches/ fellowships that I have interacted with. I have found that they also read house churches into Scripture when it really doesn’t appear to be the only model of apostolic church.
Excellent question, btw. I don’t think that the average folk doing church in different forms gives much thought to the concept of sustainability. Doing church differently is fun and invigorating, but what about when its not so new and different anymore and it just becomes as broken and dysfunctional as the organization is separated from? Perhaps I’m talking to the wrong people, but I just don’t see those kind of questions being asked before jumping ship.
Earl
26 February 2008 at 7.57 pm
Earl–
Right on.
There was a group of people who withdrew from the campus group I led. They were convinced they would do things differently, so they printed up t-shirts with their slogan and wateched Noomas for a year.
when they ran out of ideas they basically disbanded and many of them filtered back to our group.
It seems they hadn’t really thought about what would happen when they ran out of Noomas!
27 February 2008 at 12.44 am
Steve: That is a great story!
28 February 2008 at 9.38 pm
Your ‘map’ is awesome.
13 March 2008 at 11.48 am
[...] and soul patches. I found someone that disliked C. Michael Pattons’ Chart so much that he created his own. It works for [...]
6 September 2008 at 9.24 pm
[...] Finitum non carpax infiniti (who has a chart of his own!–nice.) [...]
31 October 2008 at 4.34 am
Hey Steve,
this is random but I chanced upon this site and saw that you commented on my book “the blueprint” stating that our theology for church is in and for themselves (pertaining to young adults only) if you actually read my book you will see that our campus churches are generational, many of them that are now house church communities in the cities with growing families. Also, we are under Harvest International Ministries which is a network of 6,000 local churches worldwide that sent us out to start student churches from mainline churches.
I wanted to give you clarification on who we are and what we do for the kingdom. The campus is a strategic mission field, but it’s not the end all…discipling nations is. All the best bro as you seek first the kingdom
7 December 2008 at 6.34 pm
C Michael Patton did define “orthodox Christianity” maybe you should read his blog.
7 December 2008 at 11.12 pm
Noah: He updated the post a few times. I wrote this post the day he wrote his. He updated it after I wrote this.
8 December 2008 at 1.58 am
noah,
I actually know michael (small world) I TA’ed for TTP some time ago. I am good friends with carrie, and know mike and rhome fairly well. How do you konw them?
8 December 2008 at 12.10 pm
I am late to the party on this, but it seems Johnny Mac & McLaren have each moved father into their respective wings.
I am also curious as to where people would now put Driscoll given his latest harangues on women in his Song of Songs series.