What is certain is that 'emerging church' is not any one thing.  There are many streams, rivers and camps within it, but there are at least some amorphous groupings rooted in similar questions that can be categorized.  The new category is a 10 year old or so movement, particularly within western culture, called 'emerging church'.  Unlike the past denominational affiliations of modernism where the constructs were built much like battleships: strong, sturdy, well-defined and organized for clear purpose.  These emerging communal relationships are meta, not mega.  It is less like a strong, industrial machine, and more like a loose conection of smal vessels that are tied together for a broader view of the murky waters called the 'unknown misisonal future'.  It is admittedly, due to it's lack of clear definitions and structure, a real anomaly.  Very hard to categorize and define using modernism's metrics, it is far better suited for the postmodern waters.  Argue what you will, but it's presence and impact is real.  There really is not much denying that at this point.  However, it's purpose, sustainability, survivability and effectiveness are questions yet unanswered. 

I am a mutt.  I hardly belong to any categories.  I think I'd like to, but it just hasn't been a part of my story.  If there was a category for thoughtful/compassionate/activist/charismatic/evangelical/monastic/historic/orthodox/communal/missional church, I think I'd like to belong.  In the late 1990's, this was the pulling on my heart, this was how I wanted to missionally engage my world but I didn't know where to belong or who to ask.  So, my wife and I discerned a calling, set sail and planted Ordinary Community Church in May, 2001.  OCC is a loose network of house churches in the Cincinnati area, determined to explore our faith together over our lifetimes and ask God for his Kingdom to come.  We embrace the call to create community and the challenge to give it away.  We desire to be about the living out of an old faith in a new world.  We didn't know it at the time, there was no term for it, but we weren't alone.  Unbeknownst to us, we were a part of a larger movement eventually termed 'emerging church'.  So now, some 10 or more years later, do we still want to be affiliated with this loose collection of thinkers/leaders/doers/trouble makers? 

I have spent much of 2011 being an ardent critic of EC, and I don't think I would back down or recant anything I've said.  However, I think I still want in.  (if they'd have me)  There is probably enough room amongst the collection of boats for an evangelical who isn't afraid to think or ask questions, and give grace for conversation.  If there is a real advantage to postmodernism within the church walls, it's the ability to live in tension amongst seemingly opposing viewpoints.  Anyone who is asking big questions and desiring to live a big life of mission to their world, I think I want to continue to be affiliated, if that in fact is what the desired outcome is.  Every family has tension, the best stuff is the stuff that happens on the other side of tension.  That's the place where I'd like to go, I'll link arms with any who want to go there too.

Where this comes from for me is in reading Mark A. Noll's book, "Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind" this past week in our doctorate cohort.  This is his sequel to "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind".  I don't disagree with any of his premises and critiques of the Evangelical church, we simply have tended towards the immediate results within cultural relevance and given up the places of intellectualism that actually have the largest impact on culture, thought, trends and practices. 

"As a force in Christian history, evangelicalism has been a movement whose great strengths also define significant weaknesses.  Compassionate concern for the immediate needs of individuals and their families, addressed right now, has been the defining trademark. . . .Yet these commendable traits pose problems for intellectual life, since serious thinking takes a lot of time, must honor the contributions of past generations, and often relies on the special insights of intellectual elites.  (152)

The perception within evangelicalism appears to be (and Noll alludes to it) that with too much time spent pursuing intellectual capacity it will most certainly lead to a kind of left-leaning liberalism as opposed to a conclusion to a truer understanding of revealed truth.  This kind of embedded fear is folly for a church with so many challenges at its front door.  This is not a time to hunker down and wait for Jesus to come back, this is a time to awaken the roots that are underneath our feet and conspire a way forward.  Can we ever dare to have good teaching without good scholarship? (Noll, 155) 

This is partially what I like about the EC.  I believe and have personally experienced that it cares about theological conversation, cares about the deep questions of our day, invests itself in reading/writing and conflicted dialogues.  They appear to be on a quest for enlightenment and discerning a sense of holism with the Creation.  They intend to be active with their learnings, putting feet to their lofty ideals.  We need more feet, we need more Kingdom activism, but it starts with good thinking, the kind that is reflective of the mind of Creation and all things intelligibly known.  I believe in the beauty of intellectual pursuits because I think it can lead to the kind of redemptive activity that celebrates all that is good in our world and worth fighting for. 

"Active Christian life of the sort that defines evangelicalism is a prerequisite for responsible Christian learning.  But unless that activity is given shape, it will not be particularly effective. . . To embrace the energy of American evangelicalism, but also to move beyond the eccentricities of American evangelicalism into the spacious domains of self-critical, patient, rooted, and productive Chrstian reflection, remains the great challenge for evangelicals eager to serve Christ with the mind."  (166)

I want to move forward, I'm not done yet.  My spiritual fathers are buried within a history and tradition of orthodox Chrisitanity, not within the marketing materials of corporate America.  I am looking for a tribe of people/leaders/thinkers/doers who want to be about the same stuff, even if we don't altogether agree on some of the specifics.  Humility goes a long way towards overcoming differences, because apparently I don't have the market cornered on truth.  Learning starts with listening to one another.  I don't know of another tribe other than friends within the EC that could go to those intellectual pursuits.  I'd love to be proved wrong, but I haven't run into it yet. 

The future is not to be feared, the future is opportunity for expansive hope.   Whatever will emerge will require minds and hearts dedicated to the pursuits that are reflective of the Creator of it all.  I'm all in.