'Emergent' is a word I see gets thrown around a lot. Is there any definition to what is and what isn't emergent?

  • Is it a catch-all for certain points of view?
  • Are there people out there that actively identify themselves as 'Emergent'?
  • What are, or what is considered to be the main tenets and/or beliefs of the Emergent Church?
  • 3
    Might be helpful to distinguish between emergent and emerging. Emergent is a movement whereas emerging is more of a generic description. Not sure that helps. Aug 23, 2011 at 22:37
  • Defining it is tough, like trying to define existentialism, partly because of the stigma against systematics.
    – Kazark
    Apr 18, 2012 at 20:24
  • Have you ever tried nailing Jello to a wall? :P
    – Dan
    Aug 26, 2013 at 14:53

3 Answers 3


DeWaay, in The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity, (on Amazon but in stock on CICstore) asserts that Emergents believe in a hopeful view that "the kingdom of God is emerging through the processes of history because God is the future, drawing everything into Himself" (DeWaay 11). See DeWaay's book for that case, but I think this is a fair assessment.

How this looks in a few details:

  • Emergents usually reject final judgment, preferring to think God will save everyone in a tangible paradise here on earth.
  • Their mission is not first to spread the traditional Gospel message of Jesus Christ to individuals, but instead to do good in society and make life better to all.
  • They want to create coherent meaning specific to a church or other community, rather than seeking to better understand objective meaning and absolute truth.
  • Truth and meaning are experienced, rather than known.
  • Conversely, experiences are more important than doctrine.
  • They seek spiritual growth in many various ways, usually rejecting that the Reformation thought that means of grace (Bible teachings, prayer, fellowship, the Lord's Supper) are paramount.
  • Many even go so far as to reject basic logic as useless: they won't acknowledge the self-evident basic logic laws that all people follow every day, that A is A, A is not non-A, and A and non-A cannot be both true.

Some identify themselves as Emergent or emerging; many followers or proponents of emergent thought do not identify themselves as such. One such self-identifying source is the Emergent Village.

I do not think it should be regarded as a catch-all term.

Emergents will try to avoid any straight, direct answers, and they may object to my broad strokes here. Their beliefs also vary among each other, of course.

  • Do you have any sources or links for any of your bullets? Jun 10, 2015 at 5:18
  • 1
    For Emergent beliefs, see McLaren A Generous Orthodoxy and DeWaay The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity. Liberal theology is a bit older and broader, so you would have to pick an aspect of it perhaps. Just to pick one: maybe Spong Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. Jun 10, 2015 at 13:20

Unfortunately, this is a huge question. So, I'll provide a generic overview answer from a few sources.

First, here is the Wikipedia article describing Emerging churches (the Emergent Movement). It covers a lot of ground.

A simpler overview of their principles can be found in Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger (Baker Academic, 2005)

Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine practices. Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities.

Finally, there's an interesting Christianity Today article about it here.

Trying to give much more detail than that would lead to a book deal.

As far as who identifies themselves with that movement, it seems that they do have community that clearly defines themselves as "emergent". (here).

  • 3
    +1 for the Christianity Today link. "Emergent" seems by its nature a bit hard to pin down from a traditional evangelical perspective, but that article helps me get a feel for it. I wonder if the movement is trying so hard to avoid what they see as a problem, that they are minimizing and maybe even discarding what should be held most dear.
    – jimreed
    Aug 25, 2011 at 16:16
  • 2
    Richard's answer is all true, but I'd venture to say that nearly all Christians would agree with items 1-9, and so it isn't very helpful to distinguish what is unique about the movement. Aug 26, 2013 at 14:12


When exploring what the tenants of the Emergent Church are, we should evaluate a few sensible things for determining exactly what the Emergent Church is:

  • The originators of the phrase or idea
  • what the movement isn't
  • the influential authors of the movement
  • What critics claim it to be

So, let us begin with the first task:

Emergent: Who coined the term?

According Anglican Priest Ian Mobsby in his book God Unknown the term "emerging church" was first used in 1970 in the eponymicly titled book The Emerging Church by authors Bruce Larson and Ralph Osborne who defined/predicted the following characteristics of the Emerging Church:

What Emergent isn't

The chosen name for the Emergent Church is "Emergent". This therefore means that both the originators and followers of the movement feel that another moniker does not accurately describe or encompass their beliefs. This then means that the Emergent Church is not just:

This isn't to say that the Emergent Church doesn't incorporate aspects of some of the above, but referring to the Emergent Church movement as one of the above is either A) too reductive or B) pejorative. If the leaders and members of the movement felt that one of the above described the movement, they simply would have called it the "Postmodern Church" or the "Progressive church."

Defining the Emergent Church by it's authors and leaders

The Emergent Church has a number of authors or publication who are popular among members of the Emergent Church and who have helped to guide or define the church or who have impacted the church in some way or another. A partial list includes:

Bruce Larson
Ralph Osborne
Brian McLaren
Tony Campolo
Jim Wallis
Rob Bell
David Kinnamin and the Barna Institute
Doug Pagitt
Ian Mobsby
Nadia Bols-Weber
Rachel Held Evans
The Junia Project
Relevant Magazine
(additions are welcome, please feel free to suggest edits to update this list)

So, what does this list reveal about the movement? One of the best places to start is with David Kinnaman's writings. This Biola Alumnus is a statistician who collects demographic information about the modern church. In his books UnChristian and You Lost me, Kinnaman lays out his findings showing that the American church is in decline and the reported reasons behind that decline. In an attempt to combat this, authors like McLaren, Campolo, Wallis and Bell have sought to re-explore the gospel message; operating under the belief that the existing church is missing the mark as Kinnaman so clearly illustrates. Campolo and Wallis in particular explore Jesus' concern for the "marginalized" and "other" via Jesus' healing, attention and concern for socially outcast groups and people. They suggest that the Gospel then is best "preached" by emulating this healing and charitable work (this is known as "Social Justice" in the Emergent Community.)

One such marginalized group is women. Works like that of the Junia project and Rachel Held Evans seek to make a place at the table for Women and include them in conversation and leadership.

Nadia Bols-Weber, another strong female leader demonstrates the extreme inclusive nature of the Emergent Church in which all sinners are welcome.

These authors span a range of traditions from contemporary Evangelical to extremely orthodox Lutheran, Anglican and Episcopalian. This has two implications. First, it means that the Emergent movement is paradenominational. This is largely an extension of the welcoming and inclusive nature of the movement which is simply an extension of the Gospel focus of the movement which recognizes that it was the marginalized Other that Jesus spoke to, dined with and lived amongst and it was the orthodoxy which Jesus worked against. Yet, just as Jesus was unorthodox, he came from orthodoxy and included components of it in his mission and movement. Similarly the Emergent Church includes a very orthodox core, both in worship style and theology while simultaneously being very unorthodox. All of these things echo the traits detailed by Larson and Osborne.

Criticisms of the movement

What can be equally elucidating to defining the movement is by examining what critics identify within the movement and exploring the criticisms and if they do or do not have a basis in fact.

In his paper on the Emergent Church, Dr. Ed Stetzer lays identifies 3 types of Emergent church members: Reconstructionists, Relevants and Revisionists. The Wikipedia article on the Emergent Church describes the Reconstructionists as being "generally theologically Evangelical, and speak of new forms of church that result in transformed lives." which seems to be a fair assessment of the movement.

Of Relevants, Stetzer notes,

These people attempt to contextualize music, worship, and outreach much like the “contemporary church” movement of the 1980’s and 1990’s. Their methodology may be considered by critics to be progressive. However, their theology is often conservative and evangelical. Many are doctrinally sound, growing, and impacting lostness.

Despite this, Emergent leader Rachel Held Evans disputes this as a goal of the Emergent Church, stating:

What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.

We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.

We want to ask questions that don’t have predetermined answers.

We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.


You can’t hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. We’re not leaving the church because we don’t find the cool factor there; we’re leaving the church because we don’t find Jesus there.

Of the Revisionists however, Stetzer notes, "Most of the harsh critique is reserved for this group. I noted that some in this group have certainly abandoned evangelicalism." (which is certainly true as many migrate to non-evangelical churches) He goes on to state,

For this group, both methodology and theology may be re-visioned. My concerns include that some might dispense with the substituionary atonement, the reality of hell, views of gender, and the very nature of the Gospel. It is at this point that many believe the move is similar to the mainline denominations years before, and I agree.

And indeed, many have criticized Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo of being proponents of Unlimited Atonement (though all of them deny this).

Even within the most progressive/liberal wing of the Emergent Church, you get the sense that they are not looking to revise the fundamentals of theology, but instead are looking to re-vision how we pursue Christ. Evans describes her personal transition this way,

I went from having a long list of fundamentals (young earth creationism, biblical inerrancy, religious exclusivism, conservativism, etc.) to having a short list of fundamentals (love God, love people, affirm the creeds).

And Nadia Bolz-Weber has stated in interviews

I’m this really orthodox Lutheran theologian. I’m not this liberal that’s just quoting Thich Nhat Hanh in her sermons and saying every religion’s the same, and yet I’m very socially progressive.

[Elsewhere Stetzer has noted] that when examining the Emergent Church,

analysis is, well, rather challenging since there is such a broad diversity among those who call themselves emerging, from inerrantist evangelicals to mainline liberals, and everything in between.

This is not because Emergents are trying "to avoid any straight, direct answers" or are attempting to be cagey, but because the Emergent Church is fundamentally inclusive of all denominations and flavors of Believers and embraces the diversity of perspective within the church. The focus is more basic and fundamental than that. As Evans noted, our experiences of the Gospel are more important than our dogmas. Truth and meaning are experienced because the Good News of Christ is the Truth and the Gospel can only be experienced, not just objectively known. While Absolute truth obviously exists, we are fallen creatures who are imperfectly able to perceive perfect truth. Instead of choosing to let that that fracture the community of believers into denominations over dogmas that have little bearing on the actual Good News of Christ, the Emergent church instead chooses to create a space for a wide range of beliefs where community members can discuss theology and yet still disagree, love one another and hopefully experience and live out the Gospel in their lives.


Is it a catch-all for certain points of view?

No, it is a para-denominational movement which transcends most viewpoints.

Are there people out there that actively identify themselves as 'Emergent'?

Yes - most of the authors above self-identify as Emergent and I link to some interviews in which some authors directly claim this. I myself identify as an "Emergent Wesleyan".

What are, or what is considered to be the main tenets and/or beliefs of the Emergent Church?

  • The main (only?) tenant of the Emergent Church is that God loved the whole world and that God desires that all would experience the Good News of Christ. This is typically manifested by the Emergent Church by

    1. Seeking to always welcome the stranger, other and marginalized in as many ways as possible. These ways may include:

      • Pursuing Social Justice
      • Including women in all aspects of church
      • Allowing Laiety to participate in leadership. This ensures that they A) feel welcomed and B) have the space to fix anything which might make them feel unwelcome
      • Being willing to discuss, consider and engage people of any and all viewpoints or denominations and incorporate their ideas and beliefs (with the exception of those core beliefs as outlined in the Creeds, such as Substitutionary Atonement and the Trinity
      • Incarnationally living and practicing a Kingdom Theology and Inagurated Eschatology
      • Choosing not to make people feel unwelcome or unable to be a member of the Church because they hold any given viewpoint
      • Creating a space where marginalized "Other" GLBT persons do not feel ostracized
      • A welcoming compassion for the plight of the widow
      • A welcoming compassion for the orphaned
      • A welcoming compassion for the immigrant or refugee
      • A welcoming compassion for the homeless
      • A welcoming compassion for the disabled
      • A welcoming compassion for the mentally ill
      • A welcoming compassion for the drug-addicted
      • A welcoming compassion for anyone living in or with any type of sin in their life
      • Other
      • All of the above
    2. Encouraging people to find right relationship with Christ through traditional and non-traditional means - however an individual best experiences Christ. This might be through:

      • Contextual and Experimental mission
      • Blending of theological roots and contemporary experience
      • participating as producers
      • create as created beings
      • Contemporary Worship
      • Liturgical worship
      • Monastic pursuits
      • Fasting
      • Prayer
      • Lecto Divina
      • Artistic Expression
      • Other
      • All of the above

While this may seem like an oversimplification of the Emergent Church, Jesus simplified his ministry and the Gospel to just two bullet points. Because the movement is so diverse, it is often criticized as "liberal", "postmodern", or "progressive", but this is too reductive and pejorative. It spans a spectrum. The movement seeks to be no more or less progressive, postmodern or liberal than the ministry of Jesus. While it may seem like members are trying to be cagey "hard to pin down" they do not intend to be any more or less hard to "pin down" than the positions of Jesus himself.

  • 1
    There are two types of liberalism which I think often get co-mingled -Liberal as a political term and liberal theology, the theological school of thought which are not necessarily synonymous. If the EC were one of these, it would have simply joined that movement, but it didn't because it was distinct from those movements. Nov 24, 2015 at 22:39
  • Let's take it to chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/32083/… Nov 24, 2015 at 22:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .