Comments on: Emerging Churches: House Churches Only Please

By: Tom Middleton

Tom Middleton — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:15:33 +0000

I took Gibbs’ and Bolger’s Emerging Churches course at Fuller last month. If the book gives the impression that they see the ‘Emerging Church’ as pro-house church, I believe that is a mis-taken impression. They are describing what they saw and experienced in their research. I think they are suggesting that Emerging Churches tend to be less than forty persons, because they noticed these fellowships laregely organized as such due to relational barriers past that number.
Yet, they and I agree that emerging churches who are able to organize around doing community life, such as Solomon’s Porch are well within their definition of an Emerging Church

By: Eric Wilbanks

Eric Wilbanks — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:15:21 +0000

Just got finished reading Andrew’s review and your response. Hope you don’t mind me re-posting my thoughts here…

I’ve always considered the “emergent” crowd and related ministries as follows: “Traditional models re-imagined for a post-modern world.” That’s where Bell, Driscoll, McManus and others fit.

The confusion arises, though, out of our attempts to describe this very non-traditional approach to church that seems to be “emerging” alongside the other models. Barna calls it the “Revolution.” Cole calls it “Organic Church.” Many in the house church movement are calling it “Simple Church.” Personally, I prefer any of those terms to “Emerging” because that word is already branded as part of the “emergent” community mentioned earlier. It is also true that these non-traditional experiences are a sort of new reformation in that much more is being challenged than strategies. Traditional Ecclesiology is being mercilessly scrutinized along with sacred assumptions of roles, requirements and regulations concerning the ecclesia as well as the individual person of faith.

So where are all the great “Labelers” when you need them? This movement needs a name that will differentiate it from “emergent” and that will stick in the minds of those interested. My personal “pet name” is the “UnChurch,” because most members of the Body would have a hard time identifying these experiences as church. They simply lack the “classical” identifiers.

By: ed cyzewski

ed cyzewski — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:31:55 +0000

Thanks for dropping by. Are you amazed that I’m a TU grad because they’re a bit too conservative for the emerging church stuff?? Just curious. I lose touch so easily. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Adam Bennett at Research and Innovation joint, but he’s a good friend of mine.

Anyways, back to emerging church. I like the names on your reading list. It’s good to know the students at TU will have a chance to engage with their material.

Some other great books to check out include anything by Lesslie Newbigin and David J. Bosch. You may have already gotten into them, but they’re worth mentioning. Their missiology is what drives a lot of the thinking in the emerging church. Newbigin’s doctrine of election makes his Gospel in a Pluralist Society well worth the hours it will take to read!

I did correct the info about your job at TU.

Blessings!

By: Andy Rowell

Andy Rowell — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:17:36 +0000

It is gratifying to have you read and understand my point. Thanks. Amen to your response.

I will keep checking out your blog. It looks like you are reading books that I want to be reading. Three of my heroes are NT Wright, Eugene Peterson and Richard Hays.

Amazing to find you are a Taylor grad.

I’m not actually a “youth ministry prof” (I don’t know much about youth ministry and have never really done it) but that’s ok – doesn’t matter. I just say I’m a “Christian ministry” prof.

Keep in touch.
andy