The purpose of this paper is threefold: (1) introduce participants to the Contextualization Spectrum (C1—C6), a helpful missiological tool for describing Christ-centered communities in the Muslim world; (2) modify this tool so as to render it useful in assessing the emerging church phenomenon; and (3) apply this modified contextualization spectrum to assess some representative samples of actual emerging churches. At the heart of my proposal is the conviction that the emerging church phenomenon is, in part, a contemporary attempt at contextualizing the gospel and the church of Jesus Christ in a changing (postmodern) world.¹ If this is the case, then the emerging church phenomenon (1) bears some similarities with contextualization efforts carried out in the past, and (2) manifests a spectrum of embodiments that are contextualized from a lesser to a greater degree.

This paper has a very narrow purpose and so I offer the following limitations: (1) I will not make a distinction in nomenclature between "emergent" and "emerging" as applied to churches and proponents; for the purposes of this paper, I will lump these together under the rubric of "the emerging church phenomenon."² (2) Regarding this rubric, it is simply a placeholder for the ill-defined yet real phenomenon of which everyone listening to this presentation has (at least) an intuitive awareness. My purpose is not to write a definition but to do an assessment of a phenomenon. (3) One may agree or disagree with my placement of a specific church along the modified contextualization spectrum. Despite agreement or disagreement on the specifics, I will establish that the emerging church phenomenon manifests a spectrum of embodiments from a lesser to a greater degree of contextualization. (4) I will not consider the house church phenomenon per se. Though it is the case that some embodiments of the emerging church phenomenon are house churches, I will treat those as emerging church house churches and not as part of the house church phenomenon; such treatment would take me far a field from my purpose. (5) I also will not consider the phenomenon of individual Christians who purposely do not belong to any church, opting to pursue interaction with others through on-line venues or occasional gatherings of friends. A more fundamental question—"Do such connections constitute a 'church?'"—needs to be raised first, but this is not my purpose.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CONTEXTUALIZATION SPECTRUM (C1—C6)

In Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34(4) in October, 1998, John Travis (a pseudonym) contributed an important article entitled "The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of 'Christ-centered Communities' ('C') Found in the Muslim Context." Travis described his spectrum and its utility:

The C1 – C6 Spectrum compares and contrasts types of "Christ-centered communities" (groups of believers in Christ) found in the Muslim world. The six types in the spectrum are differentiated by language, culture, worship forms, degree of freedom to worship with others, and religious identity. All worship Jesus as Lord and core elements of the gospel are the same from group to group. The spectrum attempts to address the enormous diversity which exists throughout the Muslim world in terms of ethnicity, history, traditions, language, culture, and, in some cases, theology. This diversity means that myriad approaches are needed to successfully share the gospel and plant Christ-centered communities among the world's one billion followers of Islam. The purpose of the spectrum is to assist church planters and Muslim background believers to ascertain which type of Christ-centered communities may draw the most people from the target group to Christ and best fit in a given context. All of these six types are presently found in some part of the Muslim world.³

Travis outlined the distinctive characteristics of each of the six Christ-centered communities (these have been abbreviated somewhat):

C1: Traditional Church Using Outsider Language
Many reflect Western culture. A huge cultural chasm often exists between the church and the surrounding Muslim community. Some Muslim background believers may be found in C1 churches. C1 believers call themselves "Christians."

C2: Traditional Church Using Insider Language
Essentially the same as C1 except for language. Though insider language is used, religious vocabulary is probably non-Islamic (distinctively "Christian"). The cultural gap between Muslims and C2 is still large. Often more Muslim background believers are found in C2 than C1. C2 believers call themselves "Christians."

C3: Contextualized Christ-centered Communities Using Insider Language and Religiously Neutral Insider Cultural Forms
Religiously neutral forms may include folk music, ethnic dress, artwork, etc. Islamic elements (where present) are "filtered out" so as to use purely "cultural" forms. The aim is to reduce foreignness of the gospel and the church by contextualizing to biblically permissible cultural forms. May meet in a church building or more religiously neutral location. C3 congregations are comprised of a majority of Muslim background believers. C3 believers call themselves "Christians."

C4: Contextualized Christ-centered Communities Using Insider Language and Biblically Permissible Cultural and Islamic Forms
Similar to C3, however, biblically permissible Islamic forms and practices are also utilized (e.g., praying with raised hands, keeping the fast, avoiding pork, alcohol, and dogs as pets, using Islamic terms, dress, etc.). C1 and C2 forms avoided. Meetings not held in church buildings. C4 communities comprised almost entirely of Muslim background believers. C4 believers identify themselves as "followers of Isa the Messiah" (or something similar).

C5: Christ-centered Communities of "Messianic Muslims" Who Have Accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior
C5 believers remain legally and socially within the community of Islam. Somewhat similar to the Messianic Jewish movement. Aspects of Islamic theology which are incompatible with the Bible are rejected, or reinterpreted if possible. Participation in corporate Islamic worship varies from person to person and group to group. C5 believers meet regularly with other C5 believers and share their faith with unsaved Muslims. Where entire villages accept Christ, C5 may result in "Messianic mosques." C5 believers are viewed as Muslims by the Muslim community and refer to themselves as Muslims who follow Isa the Messiah.

C6: Small Christ-centered Communities of Secret/Underground Believers
Similar to persecuted believers suffering under totalitarian regimes. Due to fear, isolation, or threat of extreme governmental/community legal action or retaliation (including capital punishment), C6 believers worship Christ secretly (individually or perhaps infrequently in small clusters). C6 (as opposed to C5) believers are usually silent about their faith. C6 believers are perceived as Muslims by the Muslim community and identify themselves as Muslims.

I believe that this helpful missiological tool for describing Christ-centered communities in the Muslim world can be modified so as to render it useful in assessing the emergent church phenomenon.

MODIFICATION OF THE C1-C6 SPECTRUM TO THE NORTH AMERICAN&BRITISH CONTEXTS

I have made a simple modification of the C1 – C6 Spectrum so as to define six types of Christ-centered communities found in the North American and British cultural context. In this case, it is not Islamic religion and culture that form the context for contextualization, resulting in these six types of Christ-centered communities. Rather, it is a culture that is increasingly changing or becoming postmodernized that forms the context for contextualization, resulting in a different six types of Christ-centered communities. "Cm" stands for "(Allison-)modified Christ-centered communities."

Cm1: Traditional Churches Using Outsider Language
These churches are very traditional and reflect traditional Christian culture, liturgy, activities, etc. A huge cultural chasm, especially because of (but not confined to) linguistic distance, exists between these churches and the surrounding community.

Three types: (1) A traditional English-language church in an area in which English is not the mother tongue (e.g., a historic church that continues English language services in a predominately or exclusively Hispanic-language area). (2) A traditional non-English-language church that targets an ethnic group for which that non-English-language is the mother tongue (e.g., a Vietnamese church that holds Vietnamese language services in a predominately English-language area). (3) A traditional, particular English-language church in an area in which English is the mother tongue, but the church attracts an English-language group that is distinct from the general English-language population (a Southern Baptist church in Portland, Oregon, that attracts southern English-language Southern Baptists from the South).

Cm2: Traditional Churches Using Insider Language
These churches are essentially the same as Cm1 except for language.

Four types: (1) A traditional English-language church in an area in which English is not the mother tongue and that offers translation or has a parallel service in the non-English language (e.g., a historic church that continues English language services in a predominately or exclusively Hispanic-language area and that offers simultaneous translation or has a parallel Hispanic service). (2) A traditional non-English-language church that targets an ethnic group for which that non-English-language is the mother tongue but whose second-generation members' primary language is English (e.g., a Chinese church that holds both Mandarin and Cantonese language services in a predominately English-language area and offers English-language services for its second-generation Chinese members). (3) A traditional, particular English-language church in an area in which English is the mother tongue and that has learned to attract people from the general English-language population (a Southern Baptist church in Portland, Oregon, that that has learned to attract the general Portland population). (4) A traditional church that eschews—mostly by conviction, perhaps by traditional structuring or isolationism—most if not all of what has become associated with the church growth movement, the megachurch movement, the "seeker sensitive" ethos, the "purpose driven" ethos, etc. I will group together these phenomena that targeted certain audiences at the turn of the third millennium, and I will refer to them as the "pre-emerging movements."

Cm3: Contextualized Christ-centered Communities Using Insider Language and Biblically Permissible Cultural and Secular Forms
These churches incorporate some biblically permissible cultural and secular forms and practices often originally contextualized by the pre-emerging movements, with "compromised" elements (where present) "filtered out." The aim is to reduce foreignness of the gospel and the church by contextualizing to biblically permitted forms and practices.

Three types: (1) An established church that has been moderately influenced by pre-emerging movements. It still draws heavily from older generation Christians, but it also includes some newer generation Christians who have been raised in the church or are attracted to it because of its more historic church patterns. The church has incorporated some biblically permissible aspects originally contextualized by the pre-emerging movements (e.g., blended worship with both hymns and choruses, choir and praise band; adoption of mission and vision statements) so a type of contextualization has been carried out. (2) A newer church that has been planted by an established church and that carries with it the historic church patterns with moderate adaptation. This newer church may target a different audience than the established church from which it was born, and it may feature more incorporation of biblically permissible aspects of the pre-emerging movements. Thus, the newer church engages in a type of contextualization, but it still largely reflects the historic church patterns with moderate adaptation present in the established church from which it arose. (3) An emerging church that engages in moderate-level contextualization.

Cm4: Contextualized Christ-centered Communities Using Insider Language and Religiously Neutral Cultural and Secular Forms
Similar to Cm3, these churches incorporate many biblically permissible cultural and secular forms and practices often originally contextualized by the pre-emerging movements. The difference is that they additionally incorporate religiously neutral forms, with less "filtering out." Again, the aim is to reduce foreignness of the gospel and the church by contextualizing to religiously neutral cultural forms. Cm1 and Cm2 forms avoided.

Three types: (1) A church that has been strongly influenced by the pre-emerging movements such that many biblically permissible cultural and secular forms are incorporated. In addition, religiously neutral cultural and secular forms and practices are accepted and utilized. These patterns and activities include widespread use of media (power point, movie clips, sketches), contemporary music styles (rock, hip-hop), corporate business strategies and CEO leadership structures, midweek church and weekend ministry, etc. (2) A multiple-venue or multi-site church in which certain worship elements (e.g., singing, praying, giving, baptizing) and community times are produced live on-site while the sermon is reproduced via satellite and video technology. Each venue/site is a contextualized experience targeted at a particular audience (the target groups may differ according to geography, generation, ethnicity, etc.); each venue/site may differ from a lesser to a greater degree from the other venues/sites. A variety of types of contextualization occurs. (3) An emerging church that engages in mid-level contextualization.

Cm5: Christ-centered Communities Strongly Adapting to a Changing (Postmodern) Cultural Situation
Two types: (1) A church that is strongly marked by the pre-emerging movements but now senses that its surrounding culture is undergoing a significant (postmodernism) shift. It concludes that a new contextualization is necessary, yet the church also recognizes that it must maintain its current identity, at least to a significant degree. Thus, while the originally contextualized community remains, a newly contextualized dimension is added on. This additional element can take the form of a new, distinct service (e.g., a "Gen X" service on Saturday nights) or it may be blended into the already existing reality (e.g., the sermon is followed by an "open mike" time for community interaction). (2) An emerging church that engages in high-level contextualization strongly targeted toward a shifting (postmodern) cultural situation.

Cm6: Christ-centered Communities of Protest-Driven Followers
Due to extremely bad experiences with Cm1 – Cm5 communities (leading to disdain for most things "Christian"), Cm6 communities eschew many/most of the activities, attitudes, traditions, even doctrines, of the Cm1–Cm5 communities.

APPLICATION OF THE C1-C6 SPECTRUM TO THE EMERGING CHURCH PHENOMENON

I will now attempt to apply this modified contextualization spectrum to assess some representative samples of actual emerging churches. Before I do so, however, I want to offer a brief discussion of contextualization and look at one recent attempt to do something similar to what I'm trying to do.

No one definition of contextualization exists; indeed, numerous (and, at times) competing definitions can be readily found. For the sake of this paper, I will use the definition formulated by Dean Gilliland in his article "Contextualization" in A. Scott Moreau's Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), pp. 225-227. Gilliland first defines contextualization in terms of its task:

The goal of contextualization perhaps best defines what it is. That goal is to enable, insofar as it is humanly possible, an understanding of what it means that Jesus Christ, the Word, is authentically experienced in each and every human situation. Contextualization means that the Word must dwell among all families of humankind today as truly as Jesus lived among his own kin. The gospel is Good News when it provides answers for a particular people living in a particular place at a particular time. This means the worldview of that people provides a framework for communication, the questions and needs of that people are a guide to the emphasis of the message, and the cultural gifts of that people become the medium of expression.

Gilliland continues with a discussion of contextualization in the context of church mission:

Contextualization in mission is the effort made by a particular church to experience the gospel for its own life in light of the Word of God. In the process of contextualization the church, through the Holy Spirit, continually challenges, incorporates, and transforms elements of the culture in order to bring them under the lordship of Christ.

Because the context in which contextualization occurs consists of far more than just theology, Gilliland adds that

…it is proper to speak of contextualization in a variety of ways encompassing all the dimensions of religious life. For example, church architecture, worship, preaching, systems of church governance, symbols, and rituals are all areas where the contextualization principle applies. Context, on which the word is based, is not narrowly understood as the artifacts and customs of culture only, but embraces the differences of human realities and experiences….In this sense contextualization applies as much to the church "at home," with all its variations, as it does to the church "overseas."

One can debate the merits of Gilliland's discussion of contextualization, but what he describes is certainly part of what is going on with the emerging church phenomenon: It is, in part, a contemporary attempt at contextualizing the gospel and the church of Jesus Christ in a changing (postmodern) world. (On a personal note, I can recall that when I first began reading books about the emerging church phenomenon, I had the distinct impression that contextualization of the gospel and the church was at the heart of these efforts. As a missionary for seven years in Italy and Switzerland, I wrestled with many of the issues with which emerging churches are grappling. This impression was confirmed by further investigation, and it lies at the core of this paper.)

In his article, Gilliland briefly draws attention to the fact that some people are fearful of contextualization because, when taken too far, it results in syncretism, the substitution or dilution of biblical truth and practice by means of the incorporation of unbiblical accretions. This fear has been expressed by some who have interacted with the C1—C6 spectrum. Phil Parshall, a leader in cross-cultural church planting and contextualization, in an article entitled "Danger! New Directions in Contextualization," Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34(4) October, 1998, made a helpful distinction between contextualization and syncretism and applied his discussion to the C1—C6 reality in the Muslim world. This resulted in a map of the spectrum in relation to contextualization and syncretism:

Low______________________High			Low______________________High
contextualization					syncretism
C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C5

Modifying Parshall's spectrum so as to include C6, remove C1 and C2 out from the contextualization category and into a class (I will call it "traditionalism") by themselves, and move C5 under his contextualization category (so as to give a broader spectrum for classifying emerging churches), I propose the following spectrum:

Low______________________High			Low______________________High
[traditionalism]		contextualization			syncretism
C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C6

I am not alone in attempting to analyze the emerging church phenomenon in terms of a spectrum from lesser to greater contextualization (with the added dimension of syncretism). Ed Stetzer, research team director and missiologist with the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, authored a brief article entitled "Understanding the Emergent Church" in which he classified emergent (emerging) churches into three broad categories that dovetail somewhat with my discussion of contextualization:

Relevants: Churches "that really are just trying to make their worship, music and outreach more contextual to emerging culture….They are often deeply committed to biblical preaching, male pastoral leadership and other values common in conservative evangelical churches. They are simply trying to explain the message of Christ in a way their generation can understand….If we find biblical preaching and God-centered worship in a more culturally relevant setting, I rejoice just as I would for international missionaries using tribal cultural forms in Africa."

Reconstructionists: These churches "think that the current form of church is frequently irrelevant and the structure is unhelpful. Yet, they typically hold to a more orthodox view of the gospel and Scripture. Therefore, we see an increase in models of church that reject certain organizational models, embracing what are often called 'incarnational' or 'house' models."

Revisionists: We significantly differ from them regarding what the Bible is, what it teaches and how we should live it in our churches….Revisionists are questioning (and in some cases denying) issues like the nature of the substitutionary atonement, the reality of hell, the complementarian nature of gender, and the nature of the gospel itself."

If we insert Stetzer's three broad categories into my above diagram, something like the following results:

Low______________________High			Low______________________High
[traditionalism]		contextualization			syncretism
C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C6
relevants		reconstructionists			revisionists

I turn now to some representative samples of actual emerging churches and their placement into my modified C1—C6 contextualization spectrum.

Cm3: Contextualized Christ-centered Communities Using Insider Language and Biblically Permissible Cultural and Secular Form
Mars Hill (Seattle; words of Mark Driscoll)

"We had the crazy dream of making a difference in one of the nation's least-churched cities [Seattle], where only 8 percent of the population is evangelical Christian and 86 percent does not attend a worship service of any religion during an average week….We started a church to fill what I saw as the gap of eighteen to thrity-five-year-olds who were missing from the churches in our region….The Holy Spirit burdened me to start a church for the people who had fallen into that dropout hole….The Christian church has a new world of opportunity to explore, among cities, young people, and cultural progressives….These cultural centers are marked by such things as airports that provide mobility, vital arts communities, tech-friendly lifestyles, colleges and universities, and blue politics (Democrats)…." Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 9-11.

"Missions once solely meant sending American Christians into foreign lands and cultures to live among the people there and to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to them in a relevant way. But reformission also seeks to determine how Christians and their churches can most effectively be missionaries to their own local cultures. Reformission begins with a simple return to Jesus, who, by grace saves us and sends us into reformission. Jesus has called us to (1) the gospel (loving our Lord), (2) the culture (loving our neighbor), and (3) the church (loving our Christian brothers and sisters). One of the causes for the lack of reformission in the American church is that various Christian traditions are prone to faithfulness on only one or two of these counts. Consequently, when we fail to love the Lord, our culture, and our church simultaneously, reformission ceases, leaving one of three holes: the para-church, liberalism, and fundamentalism. Through repentance, Christians and churches are empowered by the Holy Spirit to simultaneously love the Lord, love their neighbor, and love their Christian brothers and sisters.

Gospel + Culture + Church = Reformission

Reformission combines the best of each of these types of Christianity: living in tension of being culturally liberal yet theologically conservative Christians and churches who are absolutely driven by the gospel of grace to live their Lord, their neighbor, and their fellow Christians" (pp. 14-16).

"The era of Christendom was dominated by the traditional and institutional church….The end of Christendom and the transition to a post-Christian culture is currently dominated by the contemporary and evangelical church…. A third incarnation of the church is arising, the emerging and missional church…. Mars Hill…is an emerging and missional church because that is the most effective church form for reaching the city of Seattle, to which God has called us….The point is not that one of these church forms is good and the others are bad. Rather, one is more likely more effective for reaching the people in your local culture than the other forms are" (pp. 17-21).

"I decided that being cool, having good music, understanding postmodern epistemology, and welcoming all kinds of strange people into the church is essentially worthless if at the bedrock of the church anything other than a rigorous Jesus-centered biblical theology guides the mission of the church…. So I taught through the book of Romans on Sunday nights, which helped to clarify our doctrinal convictions as a church and cemented us as a church with a reformed view of God and salvation" (pp. 78, 85).

Apostles Church (New York City; words from the website)

Apostles Church exists to embrace and extend the Gospel of Jesus Christ in hopes of experiencing renewal in our lives and in our city. We will do this by: proclaiming Jesus, in relevant words and merciful deeds; assimilating believers, into transformational biblical communities; developing leaders, to oversee effective ministry; renewing the city, by applying our faith to our public lives and by serving the marginalized; planting churches, in our city and around the world in partnership with others.

Worship arts: The content of our worship is the story of God creating and becoming involved in the created order through his presence in Israel, in Jesus, and now in the church to bring history to its completion. In this way, we recognize that worship is the Missio Dei (Mission of God) presented, enacted, celebrated, and thankfully praised to his glory. In worship, we allow the beautiful story of God's grace in history to tell us who we are and to posture us toward transformation as we interact and communicate with his Spirit.

Lectionary: Apostles Church honors the ancient tradition of the Lectionary. For each day, there is a Psalm reading (or two or three), an Old Testament reading, an epistle reading, and a Gospel reading. What is so beautiful about the lectionary is that it pulls us towards a fuller understanding of the grace and mercy of God displayed through ancient Israel, Jesus Christ, and his continuing work by the Spirit and through his Church. The lectionary allows us to unite in daily readings of scripture as community across the city, participating as one body in the study of and meditation on the word of God. Taken from the website: apostlesnyc.com.

Cm4: Contextualized Christ-centered Communities Using Insider Language and Religiously Neutral Cultural and Secular Forms
Late Late Service (London, U.K.; words of Andy Thornton):

"Our ages were twenty-five to forty, and we related to a certain element of culture. Our congregational premise was that we represented a segment of society, not a geographical one but a geographically mobile group able to find one another in the urban setting. We were a church for a certain kind of taste, yet we networked with an all-age church….We were extremely experimental and pushed boundaries. After a year, we lost our novelty. Fifty people joined our community. Membership meant broadly, 'I stand with you as an intentional community.' We sought to achieve fairly similar aims and to commune with God. We were orthodox Christians rooted in the orthodoxy of church trying to reembody faith in creative ways with the gifts given us. We identified ourselves as both orthodox and freedom loving. We wanted three-dimensional worship: upward, inward, and outward. We sought to assimilate different traditions and forms into a coherent Christian expression. We had four meetings a month. One night was education night, where we covered a biblical theme. Another night was a quiet service in which we met in small groups. One night was personal growth night, where we took what we had learned that month and applied it. The final meeting was a celebration with dance music, video loops, and teams of people involved." Cited in Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 314-315.

"We put our worship together with ritual arts and a strong narrative. We wanted those who came to experience freedom within the rituals. In our services, we might sing together, introduce a theme, make some sort of a response with stations, light candles, and offer unspoken responses. At the end of the day, you didn't just listen. You were asked to move physically within the worship space" (p. 184).

Vintage Faith Church (Santa Cruz; words from the website): explains that the "church is unique and different" because it:

• uses a philosophy of ministry that reflects the ancient roots of Christianity.
• is a church of "people," not a place you go to.
• is a multi generational church comprised of individuals and families of all ages.
• is a holistically designed family based church.
• has the arts and creativity in our blood.
• has a heart to clear up misconceptions about Christianity.
• is missional.

Taken from the website: vintagechurch.org.

Cm5: Christ-centered Communities Strongly Adapting to a Changing (Postmodern) Cultural Situation
Sanctus1 (Manchester, U.K.; words of Ben Edson)

"We have been meeting for public worship once a month. Services have grown in popularity and reputation, with numbers varying from fifteen to sixty. The group that forms the backbone of Sanctus1 meets weekly on Wednesday night….The format varies: We discuss issues, read the Bible, and engage theologically with film and music. We also have services, social events, and other activities. The Wednesday night gatherings are based around discussion and adult learning techniques. Both Wednesday groups meet together once a month for a shared Eucharist. The majority of people who attend are between twenty-five and forty ….A large proportion is involved with the creative arts. For example, there are musicians, visual artists, arts development workers, graphic designers, and architects. We are also attracting a number of people from the gay community. This is simply due to the inclusive attitude that is fundamental to the ethos of Sanctus1. The growth of Santus1 over the past year has been organic. People have shared what Sanctus1 is about with their network of friends and contacts. We have not had evangelistic missions or events, but we are a mission-focused church. Growth and mission are part of the DNA of the church rather than an add-on annual event. We are reaching the dechurched rather than the nonchurched: people who have stopped attending church become of boredom, hurts, changes in circumstance, or a number of other reasons. Our next challenge is to attract more nonchurched people to Sanctus1. We are now running a club night in a bar in the city center that is a place for natural evangelism to take place." Cited in Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 267-268.

"We had a guy from the Manchester Buddhist center come to Sanctus1 a couple weeks ago and talk about Buddhist approaches to prayer. We didn't talk about the differences between our faiths. We didn't try to convert him. He was welcomed and fully included and was really pleased to have been invited. We gave him a positive experience of a Christian community, which is in itself an important act of mission" (p. 133).

ReIMAGINE (San Francisco; words from the website):

Lately people have been asking us to describe what's going on with ReIMAGINE, JESUS DOJO, EMMAUS ROAD, and common life retreats. We are a local and regional network of people, connected through relationships, who are taking vows together to obey the teachings of Jesus in every dimension of life through common rhythms and practices. Together we are asking the question, "What are the practices and rhythms we share that help us make a life in the way of Jesus?" We are experimenting with and improvising a common way of life and the cultivation of a local culture. Our monastic practices are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Many of us have met each other through hospitality and conversation around our passions. We try to keep the spirit of this alive by offering hospitality and conversation to others through Emmaus Road. Through EMMAUS ROAD we invite curious people to connect through conversation and friendship.

We sense the need for a more intentional and systematic approach being formed as people in the way of Jesus. We've invited people to join us in experiences, projects, and initiatives to help one another align our lives with the energy of the kingdom of God. We call this process the JESUS DOJO.

Through our experiences together we've come to recognize the importance of making vows of obedience to God with one another. We are in the process of articulating our commitments to certain values, rhythms and practices. We describe this process as the development of a common life. Through a common life we invite people to vow to follow the example and teachings of Jesus in every dimension of life. We've also come to recognize that we need close proximity, solidarity, and critical mass to be effective in vows we've made to obey Jesus through various rhythms and practices. Some of us are interested in setting up intentional communities where we can live in close proximity and offer hospitality and service to others. Through intentional communities we invite people to come and dwell together to become what we were made to be. Taken from the website: reimagine.org.

Cm6: Christ-centered Communities of Protest-Driven Followers
Monkfish Abbey (Seattle): offers three options as to "who we are:"

Option A: At Monkfish Abbey, we are in the process of growing a soul-care community. We think it's important to be connected to God, attentive to our souls, and present and loving to the people in our lives. We meet in the warm red dining room in the Fremont/Wallingford district of Seattle. There are sometimes five of us and sometimes fifteen of us. We are mostly in our 20s and 30s, mostly married, and a few of us have young ones running around. Most of us are Christians, or were Christians, or at least dig Jesus – but not everyone would hang their hats on any of these etymological pegs and that's okay too. We are seekers, searchers, explorers, experimenters…you get the drift. We like art and music and we make a lot of that stuff. We talk a lot and eat a lot. In fact eating dinner together is the only thing we always do at a gathering (everything else changes from week to week, whim to whim, need to need.) We pool our money to help people out. We practice a set of practices and celebrate certain seasons. We have two simple reasons for being together 1) to stay connected to the Divine. 2) To stay connected to others. Oh yeah, and number three, 3) we like each other.

We are a group of friends and acquaintances. We are people who help each other move. We paint each other's bathrooms. We make birthday cakes. We are people who want to recognize that time is not a renewable resource, it matters how you spend it We want to know the new lady with the little girl who moved in next door. The guy in the next cubical. The dreadlock barista at the coffee shop. The yoga teacher with the cool chimes. The plumber at our worksite. The outrageous waiter with the t-shirt that says, "I'm Gay… Don't Tell Anyone." We are people who like life. We are artists. We are computer programmers. We are parents. We are beer lovers. We are people who fight, who laugh, get bored, get inspired. We make music; we make soup. We laze around in the sun; we play scrabble in the rain. We listen to loud music; we go with each other to get tattoos. We read good novels; we learn about wine and cheese. We are explorers. We are people who want to worship God, and talk to God, and listen to God. We are people who readily admit we are not entirely sure what that means. We are people who learn not from a leader, but from one another. We blow dust off of old books, we reform old beliefs. We uncover ancient practices and make them our own. We say, "I was wrong," We look twice at something that catches our eye. We seek.

Option B: We are a trippy little spiritual growth group with Judeo-Christian roots and yen for ancient and future practices. The concept of "shalom" is central to us, and we try to find ways to move our lives and the lives of others into a place of increased wholeness.

Option C: We are a neomonastic incarnational community. (This is the kind of answer postmodern/emerging church planters like, so if that description fits, this one is just for you!). Neomonastic: 1) a new form of monastic living. 2) Being somewhat like a monastery—only without the chastity, poverty, or living in one building together. What's left?

• Regularly celebrating a common meal, conversation and communion.
• Paying attention to the people in our parish (neighborhood) and learning to extend and receive love from them.
• Practicing contemplative practices so we can be present to God and the world around us. (Our contemplative practices usually involve some sort of art, because many of us are artists.)
• Celebrating religious holidays and seasonal events.

Incarnational: We believe the thumbprint of the divine is present in all things and in all people. We try to live as though God, present in us, is actually available to us. (Because we believe that it's true!) We're learning to live in ways that offers that divine source of love to those around us. Some of us are Jesus-y people. For those of us who are Jesus-y we usually describe this incarnational reality as Jesus being present in us, existing mysteriously in our souls. Others of us think more in terms of a divine presence or a higher power—a sort of "Namaste" concept—the divine in me greets the divine in you, the light in me reaches out to the light in you. We are learning to make space for each other as we explore this mysterious reality.

Community: To us, this means a collection of people who belong to each other in varying ways. Some of us see each other often throughout the week. Some of us connect only on the night of our weekly gatherings. Some are long- term friends who now rarely see each other, but who treasure a joint history. Some are just beginning to form new friendships. For some the Abbey is their main religious home (i.e. "church"), but for others it is a complimentary spiritual stop in the course of their week. One way or another, we find belonging here. Taken from the website: www.monkfish-abbey.org

ikon (Belfast) describes its community as iconic, apocalyptic, heretical, emerging, and failing. It describes itself as heretical in the following way:

We acknowledge our heretical stance in relation to the larger Christian community. Unlike the terms "unbeliever" and "infidel," which traditionally referred to those from a different religious tradition, a heretic is one who comes from the same tradition by who reads it in a very different way. Not only do we acknowledge and celebrate the multiplicity of ways that one can read Christianity, we actively employ these diverse readings in order to help ensure that no single understanding is taken as the only true understanding. By doing this we also endeavor to be a place of refuge for those on the edges, or outside, the traditional church system, yet who desire God. While this can often place us in tension with more established forms of religion, we view this as a creative force that allows for a critical, two-way interaction with the larger church, challenging while being challenged. Taken from the website: http://wikj.ikon.org.uk

St. John's College, Nottingham; St. Mary's Church, Luton; "liquid worship:"

Service begins with everyone together in the chapel, followed by forty-five minutes during which people can choose between numerous zones scattered around the building. Examples of zones from various churches: "Renew baptismal vows," "Share a meal," Triumphal entry into Jerusalem," "Thirst for Jesus," "Prayer for the world," Gethsemane experience," "Journey to the cross," "Confess and forgive," "Prayer ministry," prayer labyrinth, video-ed sermon (repeated every twenty minutes), discussion forum, song-based worship. Michael Moynagh, emergingchurch.intro (Oxford and Grand Rapids: Monarch, 2004), 123-124.

maji (Birmingham, U.K.,; words of Pip Piper):

"My view on interfaith stuff is simply that Christianity has to stand up in the wider marketplace, and that means more gatherings and events that bring together those faiths. We share a lot together, and art and film can help that link and help people explore and express their distinct faith journeys without having to feel under attack or undermined in any way. Each is stronger for the encounter. Evangelism or mission for me is no longer about persuading people to believe what I believe, no matter how edgy or creative I get. It is more about shared experiences and encounters. It is about walking the journey of life and faith together, each distinct to his or her own tradition and culture but with the possibility of encountering God and truth from one another." Cited in Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 130-131.

APPENDIX A: Evidence that the Emerging Church Phenomenon is Contextualization-Driven

Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures: "Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures" (p. 44); "[emerging churches] take culture, specifically postmodern culture, seriously" (p. 43); "emerging churches are missional communities arising from within postmodern culture and consisting of followers of Jesus who are seeking to be faithful in their place and time (p. 28).

Ray S. Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006): "In my view emerging churches represent a contemporary expression of the first-century church's existence and mission in a post-modern world" (pp. 11-12).

John Hammett, in paper entitled "An Ecclesiological Assessment of the Emerging Church Movement," presented last year at this ETS study group, noted:

D. A. Carson compares the emerging church movement with the Protestant Reformation and notes a major difference. The Reformation developed around concerns that the Catholic Church of that time had departed from Scripture in a number of significant ways; thus, the changes advocated by the Reformers were attempts to reform the church on the basis of Scripture. By contrast, the emerging church advocates the changes it does largely on the grounds of changes in the culture, and the corresponding need to adapt to those changes. It is true that some in the emerging church, on a number of points, claim to be recovering biblical emphases, and calls to authenticity, community, and a focus on the mission of the church are deeply rooted in the New Testament. Moreover, key leaders of the emerging church affirm that they "love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures." I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of these leaders, nor the reality of their commitment to Scripture. But in reading their material in books, websites and articles, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the concern to respond to postmodernism is what is really driving the movement.

Michael Moynagh, emergingchurch.intro (Oxford and Grand Rapids: Monarch, 2004):

"Emergent church" does not parachute a set model of church on to people; it is church from below. It starts not with a preconceived notion of church, but with the desire to express church in the culture of the group involved. It is church shaped by the context, not by "This is how we have always done it" (p. 11).

I think that the Christians of our generation (the "Boomers") tried hard to fit into the culture of our parents, including the culture of church, while may of our contemporaries went off in a different direction. We then brought up our children in a culturally-disjunctured church, and this became "normal" for us (p. 19).

The church is not the only organization having to adapt. Organizations throughout the advanced world are reinventing themselves as torrents of change sweep down the "Oh Oh" decade. At the cutting edge are three themes. Experimentation…. Personalization…. New forms of scale….Emerging church raises similar issues. How can the church promote experiments? How can it be "personalized" to different cultural groups. How can churches cooperate to produce new forms of scale that support a contextualized approach? Fresh expressions of church make sense because they reflect a "social quake" that is forcing organizations into new shapes. Like the rest of the world, the church cannot stand still—and survive (pp. 93-95).

Tim Wright, The Prodigal Hugging Church: A Scandalous Approach to Mission for the 21st Century (Minneapolis: Joy Resources, 2001), offers a simple theological grounding for contextualization by emergent churches: "God, in the person of Jesus, decided to become like culture. He became like the people he wants to find…." (p. 17).

Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003):

We believe that there are better days ahead for the church of Jesus Christ in all its forms…if we are willing to adapt our forms to seize the opportunities these new conditions present to us….Cautious critics will counter that there are huge risks associated with engaging postmodern culture. To mention but one: There is the danger of syncretism—mixing, adulterating, or diluting the gospel with foreign elements that weaken, damage, or distort its integrity (p. 23).

Putting faith and culture together is a missiological problem (p. 25).

Modern Western Christians tend to forget that they are living an enculturated gospel…. God's people across the storyline of Scripture lived, worshiped, trusted, and obeyed in many cultural settings….To be biblical means to live in a culture, including modern or postmodern, and seek to be an agent of Jesus Christ there. Of course, to be Christ's agents in a culture will make us in many ways countercultural. But even so, we are still living out an interpretation of the gospel, as Newbigin said, in "some cultural form." Those ministering in postmodern contexts need a heightened sensitivity to issues of gospel and culture (p. 84).

Erwin Raphael McManus, An Unstoppable Force: Daring to Become the Church God Had in Mind (Loveland, CO: Group, 2001):

If we accept the premise that the church is an organism, then we know that the church has the capacity for environmental adaptation. A part of the design of the church is to be able to make positive change while keeping her essence at the core. Over the past forty years, the communities around many churches have changed dramatically, yet the church has stayed the same. Somewhere in the community's transformation, the church disconnected. And since the transition began incrementally, the local congregation was either unaware or unconcerned. The church must acclimate to a changing world, or she will destine herself to irrelevance or even extinction. What this means for the pastor as spiritual environmentalist is that he must understand the changing environment in which his church has been called to serve. One of those dramatic changes in our environment is the shift from words to images. To do church in a way that is entirely text-driven is the kiss of death. People simple do not read; they observe. We have a culture raised on watching. Beyond the emergence of a post-literate society, we have a culture raised on entertainment. We need to adapt to capturing images that communicate truth and to move from static to dynamic communication systems. Our culture is not only multi-sensory; it is multilayered. We receive information not only through all of our senses, but also through multiple senses at one time. That's why for us worship many times encompasses not only the teaching of the word and worship through song, but also the use of sculpture, painting, dance, aromas, and film (pp. 16-17).

McManus treats less the postmodern reality and the church's need to adapt to that as he does globalization. Specifically, the globalization issues he treats are: radical migration, urbanization, population explosion, technological revolution, information explosion, the global mosaic, and hypermodernism. One of McManus' key theses is: "Jesus deconstructed the religion of Israel and ushered in the religion of God. Why would anyone be surprised that the core of the New Testament church is radical change? From the very beginning, the church was born out of radical change" (p. 85). He finds support for this thesis in the change from Saturday Sabbath observance to Christian worship on Sunday, and Acts 15. "The church must be grounded in a proper theology of change, not simply to address the radically different world in which we live, but to advance the cause of Christ in a world that cannot produce the real change that has to take place" (pp. 90).

Tim Conder, The Church in Transition: The Journey of Existing Churches in the Emerging Culture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006):

To a certain extent, this identity [of the emerging church] is reactive and critical—an alternative to the resource-heavy, needs-based programs of many contemporary churches. But much of the emerging church's identity is creatively generative. It desperately seeks to embody God's agenda in a changing, post-Christian environment where the aging theological constructs and methodologies of a once-dominant religious institution no longer connect as cohesively as they once did (p. 25).

This transition [in the existing church] is both inevitable and necessary. For the church to thrive in the emerging culture of the present and future, it must embark on this journey. The church will increasingly find that some of its theological conceptions are founded on philosophical premises and cultural conditions that will be deeply marginalized in the future—if they exist at all. As a result, some of the traditional divisions of the church, modes of theological communication, and ministry forms will wane in significance and impact. This doesn't mean an end to our traditions….But it does mean change lies ahead. For the church to maintain its voice in the emerging culture, transition is necessary (p. 32).

I believe we need to be sensitive to inappropriate cultural intrusion in our method and message. We must ask whether our use of cultural material is prejudicial or hypocritical (arbitrarily favoring some cultural material over others). But we need to recognize that the message and practice of the church has never been—nor will it ever be—culture-free ….The message of the gospel has always been shaped by the interests, worldview, prejudices, and communicational mediums of the culture in which it is being communicated….While we must be wary of the ways the message can be reduced or distorted by cultural intrusion, changing cultural realities also offer tremendous opportunity for new and deepened understandings to emerge (p. 53).

We need to learn skills of cultural exegesis that allow for the necessity of a culturally sensitive gospel while avoiding the distractions of inappropriate cultural infatuations. By cultural exegesis, I mean a passionate and wary study of our surrounding culture….Our culture provides the framework and perspective we need in order to dialogue with, pray to, and wrestle with God. Yet we must also query our culture warily because it can certainly obscure the gospel (p. 54).