If you’re at all up to date with the Emerging Church conversation taking place online of late, you’re no doubt familiar with Mark Driscoll’s remarks regarding the various camps he’s sees forming in contemporary Christianity. Put loosely, Driscoll (who serves as senior pastor and founder for Mars Hill Church in Seattle) calls attention to the following separations: Group A: the camp (including himself and his Acts 29 church-planting movement) who see themselves as being open to new, relevant methodology, but unwavering on “orthodox theology”. Group B: identified as those who are exploring both new methodology and new theology (at least in terms of postmodern perspectives on modern constructions of original orthodoxy). The Emergent gang would fall into this category. And then there’s Group C: who are made up of the fundamentalists who are rigid and unwavering on both methodology and theology. For Driscoll et al, only his group is on solid ground. Everybody else is sinning- to one degree or another.

Part of the irony here is that- even the act of dividing the entire spectrum of contemporary Christianity into three groups betrays Driscoll’s modern underpinning. In reality, the current state of affairs is best represented in terms of a spectrum. And in such a reality, it’s not nearly so easy to delineate groups/beliefs. As with the color spectrum, we might ask: what do you do with turquoise and teal when the only labels available are green and blue?

Take for instance the example of one particular church body and the beliefs it attests to (this could be virtually any church body): Now, you might be able to read off said church’s doctrine statement from their website, but does that mean that every person involved in that community sees the world through that one lens? That they can, like the Borg (of Star Trek fame, not the theologian named Marcus!), attest to what is represented within it without even the hint of disagreement? I don’t think so. Who do we think we’re fooling to say otherwise? No doubt there is enough agreement so as to hold off full-on cognitive dissonance, but not so much as to say everyone sees everything in exactly the same way.

Now, people such as Driscoll certainly try and work their way around such muddledness. And one of the ways they do this is to label by association. For instance, Rob Bell is in trouble in Driscoll’s book because he lets Brian McLaren speak in his church. The assumption being that Bell must secretly hold every belief in the same regard as McLaren. And McLaren's in trouble not just for what he's said himself but because he references the work of Dominic Crossan (of the so-called Jesus Seminar).

Following this same logic, another person might be guilty merely for attending a rally with a "questionable individual"- or for simply participating in the same community-service event. For Driscoll et all, it seems that to even associate with someone is to make a statement regarding one’s absolute, unwavering endorsement for everything that other person says, does, believes. For instance, one might preach a sermon or write an article, quoting chapter five from a certain, in some way relevant book. Now, in Driscoll’s world, by doing so, one is supposedly openly acknowledging (without reservation) one’s endorsement for what said author wrote in chapter nineteen, twenty-one, and three.

Please... Not only does this kind of out-of-context labeling make for bad journalism, it makes for poor thinking, weak logic, etc. Furthermore, what kind of fellowship of believers (and of human beings) can we expect if we are only allowed to associate (through both direct and indirect means) with those whom we can agree with on every matter, 100% of the time? That kind of recipe makes for a lonely planet if ever there was one!

Another example of this associative blacklisting comes to mind. I remember when Scot McKnight wrote a piece about the Emerging Church movement for Christianity Today. In the piece mcKnight made note of the fact that while he personally “leans left” politically, in the larger conversation, real diversity in political persuasion exists. A certain commenter read McKnight’s remark and placed him in one of two (only two!) possible categories that existed in his mind. This commentor came out swinging, asking McKnight how he could possibly support the party of abortion and homosexuality. Huh? Say what? Did McKnight even make mention of these two topics? Did he even reference any particular political party? Nope. It was guilt by vague association – plain and simple.

Now, I am not at all surprised that Driscoll has come out with guns and lines drawn- so to speak. In all honesty, I’m actually surprised this hasn’t happened sooner. And maybe, to some extent, this line drawing is not such a bad thing. After all, in many places (including where I live in Central Oregon), there is a real unclarity that exists as to what the Emerging Church, or Emergent, is all about. For instance, several church plants in this area (loosely sharing emerging/Emergent/postmodern labels), seem to be aiming at re-thinking their methodological approach – what those in computer programming circles might call- “the front end”, while sticking to very conservative theology as their underpinning on what we might call - “the back-end”.

To me, based on where the Emerging conversation is at present, this seems a little like false advertising. Now, given this is a wide-ranging movement, from my perspective, most of us involved in this discussion are not merely seeking to throw a new coat of paint over an old frame. Most of us are striving to understand our understanding of the frame- in light of postmodern, post-Enlightenment, revelations. And blurred branding actually makes it difficult for those of us who really are trying to do reality differently (as opposed to just doing a church service differently), to reach out to the (purposefully) unchurched. I hope people comprehend this delinializtion. Believe me, children of evangelicalism might be interested in post-evangelical Church discussions, but the people from a non-churched background – in other words, those raised in a thoroughly postmodern milieu, will only enter the debate/discussion at a much deeper, root level; at the level of reality paradigms.

Now, I don’t want to be uncharitable here, but when it comes to Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church in Seattle (notoriously known as “the most unchurched city in America”), do you think their growth is coming from the unchurched postmodernists? Or from the frustrated sons and daughters of evangelicalism; those who are thankful to find a church that will let them believe what they’ve always believed was always right, but do so with hipper surroundings featuring rock music, French Roast coffee and cranberry-orange scones? Hmmm… I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

So, what ultimately, am I saying then? Perhaps you perceive that, on the one hand, I seem to be criticizing Driscoll’s labeling campaign, and on the other, welcoming it. I can’t have it both ways, can I? I guess what I’m saying is that, while there may be some short-term benefit in clarifying our terms (read: labels), I still regret the spirit in which such labeling often occurs; in an ethos of “I’m right, you’re wrong”.

Speaking of labeling, I recently came across a comment regarding this entire mess that I thought spoke volumes. This one man, clearly grieved, said that this entire debate just seemed like yet another war (whether it be of words, or swords) between type-A dominant, Western males. This comment gave me pause. Because, after all, I fit this particular label- to a tee. And if I’ve only added more of the same with this particular article, then I regret it. Because part of what I’m trying to say is that there is no room for bullies in the Kingdom of God.

As Miroslav Wolf would say, the only response fitting for disciples of Jesus is inclusion and embrace. And the truth is, even when we differ with others over certain issues, or approaches to those issues, there is always so much more we can unite around- rather than divide over. We are all much more alike than we realize. So maybe it all comes down to intention. If we label for clarity’s sake, then so be it; this can prove helpful and constructive (as long as we recognize that reality is often painted in shades rather than distinct tones). If, however, we label to exclude, or more precisely, merely to support a “we’re in, you’re out”, “we’re right, you’re wrong”, “we’re good, you’re not” mentality, then something in our thinking needs to change. And chances are this change is not really about theology at all, but rather about humanity - humanity made in the image of God. To those who have ears, let them hear.