Upfront Disclaimer: I do not speak for anyone on the board at Emergent Village, nor am I assuming the position of spokesperson. I speak from a position of proximity and friendship with emergent. And if you want to put a label on it (something I will hopefully make a point about), then by God, you can consider me emergent. I recognize up front and am fully aware that as with any group, the possibility for mistakes exist. So I am in no way in favor of giving Emergent “a get out of jail free card” from receiving criticism. I simply hope to push back against the criticism and remind everyone (myself?) of the spirit of emergent, instead of taking pot shots. I also will be careful of how exactly I capitalize e/Emergent, so please pay attention to my attempted nuance.
1 – An Introduction, 2 – A White Man’s World
I think this criticism is closely connected to the first and naturally, I think the response should be similar. Ultimately, I don’t necessarily think it’s the leadership at Emergent that is at fault, but rather the ill-informed people at the edges. This is not to give Emergent a pass, but rather to think comprehensively about these issues in such a way that a scapegoat is not necessary. And this may not be the type of response that most people are looking for because it sort of became my my biased historical interpretation.
Today’s criticism . . . Emergent Is Just A Trendy Brand/Flash In The Pan That Will Eventually Become A Denomination . . . And that’s what the leaders want it to become or are pushing it to become.
First of all, I think it important to put some humanity on the history of this “thingy”, as Christy in the comments called it. Tony Jones gives a pretty solid history in his forthcoming book The New Christians (my review here), which fittingly enough releases today on Amazon. It’s worth the price of the book alone. But I think he misses an important part of the history, although what do I know . . . I wasn’t exactly there. But in the beginning, Emergent gathered shape and substance (ht: Josh Case) primarily due to the lack of a peer group. In the late 90s and early 0s (?) many of the now Emergent leadership, were busy planting and pastoring churches in new and innovative ways. People like Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren, Danielle Grubb Shroyer, Dan Kimball, Tim Keel, etc, were planting and pastoring churches. They were some of the first people (in the States at least) that were practicing these things. By default of not having any other “peers” many of these leaders forged friendships with each other in order to think and practice together.
This history can’t be glossed over. Emergent began and has at it’s roots in peer-to-peer networking, which is a formal way of saying friendship. This value of friendship drives everything about Emergent. Not just its generous posture for theological conversation but for the entire tone and nature of the “organism” itself.
I’ve heard way too many people assume that it was created as an organization in reaction to modern Christianity/Mainline/Evangelicalism. It never gained it’s shape and substance by beginning that way. It’s shape and substance has always been rooted in it’s friendships. This is why it’s not cliché or cursory to talk about a deep commitment to one another. They were a group of rag tag practicing pastors. And not a group of pissed off ex-church workers looking to create the next “thing” in reaction to their past. They were fresh, thoughtful, provocative, practicing friends. This was and has been the spirit of emergent.
So with that history in mind . . . and knowing the nature and intent of the shape and substance that was emerging (pun intended) from this group . . . we can begin to think about how we got from this little small group of friends almost a decade ago to this growing empire (sarcasm implied) with it’s various genres or flavors (Emerging Women, emerging church, Presbymergent, Anglimergent*, Convergent, etc).
I have a hunch that in the beginning many of the Emergent Village leaders never thought that they would grow this large (i.e. that people wouldn’t think they were crazy and actually want to jump on board). But people began to listen and engage with the thoughts and practices that were emerging from these young churches. As these ideas started resonating with others, momentum continued to swell forward and more and more people came on board. I was a late comer, although I can brag with confidence that I use to go daily to the now defunct Emergent Village message boards and stir the pot with my fellow heretics. Many of the people that jumped on in the beginning years began doing the theological legwork that the rag tag group of pastors had done when they started. They began to arrive at the same type of conclusions that the early/first group did. They began with a healthy diet of Wright, Newbigin, Bosch, Guder, Brueggemann, Hauerwas, and Moltmann to name a few. By reading these books and engaging in lengthy conversations about the nature of their thoughts and conclusions . . . everybody was on the same page about what Emergent was and would be. Perhaps not necessarily at homogeneous conclusions, but rather about the spirit and friendship of Emergent.
At this point my history lesson gets a bit on the biased, snarky side. Take it with a grain of salt.
But then something happened. Some people decided that friendship wouldn’t be the primary value. Thus Driscoll (and others) ran off to do their deal. When this happened, a lot of people quit letting friendship be the defining value and begin to pick and choose the things they liked and didn’t like. At this point, a lot of people also began to see the “conversation” as one that didn’t necessarily involve foundational, theologically different starting points. But rather just aesthetic changes to style.
This opened up the “conversation” to a whole different group of people who didn’t or wouldn’t do the theological legwork. They jumped on because it became fashionable. Or cool. Or trendy. The National Pastors Convention began hosting emergent-esque conversations and seminars and this gave every youth/college pastor with a soul patch a reason to feel “liberal and risky”. They could come and listen for a couple of days and then go back home and say just enough in staff meetings or to their pastor that made them feel like a rebel. But they never did the theological legwork in the beginning. They never deeply thought or practiced the theologies that were emerging. Rather they jumped on the bandwagon because it became trendy. Or they thought candles would be a cool way to add more people to their contemporary service. Or they picked and chose what they wanted from each camp.
The day of friendship was dead, except of course for many of the people in the beginning and a smaller group later on that “got” what Emergent was about.
Now I’m fully aware that this is probably an over-simplified history and diagnosis of the problem. But I think there is a lot of truth to the fact that once Emergent (or emerging church) became popular, that many people jumped on board without doing the theological legwork. And I hate to keep bringing this up . . . but I’m under the impression that those who have read and been in deep conversations about the theological foundations are much more generous to Emergent than many of the critics who for the most part have no idea what they’re talking about half the time.
This is why so many crazy-eyed college kids think that getting their picture made with Brian McLaren is the end all be all. Or why backing Doug Pagitt into a corner after a keynote to pick his brain is borderline stalker-ish. When you’re not after the next trend or bandwagon jumping, you realize that people with no names have just as much to say and just as much value as any of the “big-timers” do. When you don’t do the theological or sociological work needed to understand the larger framework of Emergent, you lose the friendship and get the trend.
In this way, people can continue to operate out of the same systems that their previous traditions operated out of, without doing the work on the front end of critical and historical examination of our foundations.
Now what in the world does this have to do with the criticism presented in the beginning that . . . Emergent Is Just A Trendy Brand/Flash In The Pan That Will Eventually Become A Denomination . . . And that’s what the leaders want it to become or are pushing it to become.
I’ve got this sneaky suspicion that Tony Jones (National Coordinator for Emergent), the Emergent Board, the Coordinating Group, or any other Emergent leader would just as soon pack this whole thing up and go home before they became a denomination or an organized group that seeks to expand it’s empire. For them, it always has been, should be, and will be about friendship.
Again, most of these leaders are first and foremost pastors. Emergent is not their “main thing”. They don’t have the time or the desire to want to expand Emergent or make it into a brand. They’re too busy trying to keep their church’s head above water, pastoring, counseling, preaching, leading, thinking, writing, shaping.
I think the ones who are doing the criticizing are the same ones who are perpetuating these themes of trendiness, flash-in-the-pan, denomination-esque organization.
They are the ones who are asking for Emergent to create a doctrinal statement. They are the ones carbon-copy-catting Solomon’s Porch and Jacob’s Well. They are the ones cornering Tony and Doug after conferences looking for the next great “fix”. They are the ones lurking around to get a picture with Brian McLaren. They are the ones who have taken a regular, normal, everyday radical like Shane Claiborne and deified him on college campuses as some sort of “hot commodity”.
The leaders, they’re too busy pastoring and practicing to even sit around and wander if Emergent is a flash-in-the-pan. It’s a moot and irrelevant question for them. They are simply doing and practicing theology in the context of their local communities.
Meanwhile, guys like me, who sit around at home all day blogging, are the ones that turn ideas into trends, people into brands, and friendship into denominations.
* I even noticed that Ian Mobsyby is asking similar questions over at the Anglimergent site about the differences between Anglimergent and Anglicanism.
Listening: Carnival II Memoirs of an Immigrant by Wyclef Jean
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
28 Comments
good post josh, as always. outside of published work, this post is the best brief history of emergent that i’ve seen. (which really isn’t saying much, but i’ll put it out there nonetheless)
i think we could split this critique in two: 1) emergent is just trendy brand/flash in the pan that will eventually become a denomination and 2) that’s what the leaders want it to become or are pushing it to become.
i think it’s quite possible for #2 to be untrue and #1 to eventually become true. for instance, my own trajectory emerges (no pun intended) from the united methodist tradition. the last thing in the world that john wesley wanted was for his band/class groups to become a new church, in fact he’s probably turning over in his grave at the methodist church today–an institutional upholder of the status quo.
so it’s possible that sometime in future, under new leadership that emergent could become #2 although the current leaders would detest that.
now, will that actually happen? i doubt it, because as you noted emergent is about relationships, about friendship and grassroots networking; most importantly it’s about being contextually authentic i think. being relevant and creating conversational space within your local narrative, or denomination or whatever. in that sense, i think emergent naturally resists the type of modern, top-down organization that comprises most denominations and institutions. if things stay the way they are, there will always be emergents in those denominations, etc.–almost as a type of underground grassroots force permeating post-christendom from the inside out, an interesting and encouraging thought i think–but emergent will never become one. that is unless there is a serious change in ethos. i would hate it if that happened.
ok, so that was long. perhaps borderline monopolization. hope it makes sense.
The “quick fix” and aesthetic changes are things Kimball warns about in his first book multiple times. Not only is a quick fix trendy, it is ineffective. But, trendiness always comes with something new. And that mindset is likely to be short-lived. Let’s be honest, most church going folk would MUCH rather have a major heresy in the church than a slight aesthetic adjustment. So the trendy people will just have to be.
But I have to ask: How far is the Emerging Church from a denomination already? I mean, there is some organization, common bonds, coordinating and cooperating, history, a vision/dream, conferences, and more. Maybe it’s low-level, and maybe it’s a huge umbrella, but it still sounds like it could fit the definition. Maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing, either.
Blake: neat points about Wesley. Don’t Lutherans use the tag, always-reforming, too? And I don’t think Smith and Helwys envisioned the SBC.
I’m new to this conversation
(hi!), but I’ve been reading the series and I guess I’d call myself post-evangelical, if my state of being post-SBC counts for anything.
So in peace I come. Here are my questions — for Josh and for others: is there not some intellectual snobbery in this whole thing? I say this as a Ph.D. in English Lit — a discipline prone to much snooty-ness. I’m just not sure one has to read 5 or 6 theologians in order to do friendship.
Sure, to promote justice one’s heart and mind needs to change. That takes friendship, effort, and of course, good books. But I wonder if we-who-use-the-big-words (and I include myself) end up excluding those (who for whatever reason) don’t.
In what ways does/can/should emergent translate itself into the vernacular. Or I’m just being a snob myself here — what’s wrong with emergent being popular — or having your picture made with McLaren?
In Peace…
What is a denomination?
I mean that most seriously. I’ve alluded in my own blog to parallels I see with what’s going on now and the “Christian Brethren” – at least in their early years. Nearly 200 years later, those Brethren meetings which have not died remain entirely self-organising, and usually in open fellowship with one another and other Christians in their vicinity. They’ve never conceived of themselves as a denomination, and never really looked for a unifying principle, statement of faith, national/international leadership, or even title for the “group”.
For a summary (in rather dated language, I have to say) see
http://www.brethrenassembly.org/articles/who_are_the_brethren.htm
My point? It’s possible to go for centuries without living according to other peoples’ agenda, if we want to — but over time, it must be said that most Meetings have become more-or-less indistinguishable from churches of other denominations.
I think the biggest thing that would bar us from ever becoming a true denomination is the vast differences in those who consider themselves part of the movement. On eschatology you have universalists, you have those who believe in substitutionary atonement,and everything in between. You have fundamentalists (ok… if you consider Driscol an emergent) you have liberals. Like you said the only unifying principle that we really have is friendship and a desire to hear each other out.
Besides, I think we make the mainstream church (and by mainstream I mean both evangelical and mainstream camps) a little too uncomfortable to exactly welcome us into their fold.
Then on the other hand we have those in emergent who are quite interested in remaining with their particular denominations.
In all we have entirely too many different facets to ever become a real graspable organization.
Matt, you said: “I think the biggest thing that would bar us from ever becoming a true denomination is the vast differences in those who consider themselves part of the movement.”
I was thinking this myself, and I think it would be by far the biggest factor in preventing or at least slowing down the process. But, denominations almost always take a long time to fully come into fruition. And if the unifying factor is not doctrine but “friendship” as Josh and the “about us” page at EV say, then doctrine nor method should be the walls that prevent that, at least in theory.
I think the real problem is the negative connotations we give the idea of “denomination.” Denominationalism has had its problems, but it can also be helpful. Emergent becoming a “denomination” would only make official much of what already goes on. It’s not necessary (to make it official), but it wouldn’t be the end of the world either.
Which reminds me, now that I’ve had a little sleep. Josh, where have some critics made this particular criticism? I’ve seen the “trendy” criticism in places, but the denomination one is new to me. Do said critics cite any instances where the Emergent leaders have pushed for a denominational unifying? And are said critics not part of a denomination themselves?
Good thoughts. I think there is such a fine line between people being drawn into a contagious positive energy which catalyzes them in a spirit of friendship and the point at which that energy shifts into an almost an addictive, cultish type of attraction where it’s about the label or the leader and a newcomer getting some indirect high from proximity to another’s identity and charisma.
Some of what you describe are the challenges faced by any growing organization.
How do they transition from small to large, making accommodations that size necessitates while preserving what motivated the few friends to start the group in the first place?
I also think you’re raising issues that go to the core of what it means to follow Jesus. When Jesus said ‘follow me’ I doubt he meant ‘follow whichever human claims to speak in my name’ – in fact he was pretty clear he didn’t mean that since he warned about following false messiahs. I think he meant “follow me in being a leader who holds true to his values and works to bring in the Kingdom without waiting for answers from some deified human”
Groups which are trying to avoid being overstructured and overcontrolling can only work if many of their members follow Jesus in taking initiative and having an Esther sort of mindset that “maybe I am here for such a time as this”.
So I am a lot in agreement with you, Josh, about the responsibility of individual members/friend of Emergent.
Julie and others wrote about the baggage Emergent women are dealing with.
I wonder if many Emergent members are dealing with the baggage of coming out of overly structured and controlling Christian environments where leaders seem to like being deified (they wouldn’t put it that way of course, but it’s almost like they consider hero-worship just compensation for the grief they have to put up with from critical members). The Emergent members are coming out of situations where the leaders liked them to be sheep because it made life easier.
They knew they didn’t like that and so they’ve left – but they haven’t necessarily left behind the habits they learned there. Like deifying human leaders and depending on them for answers and direction.
I think it’s fascinating how Israel asked for a king like all the other nations even though God said “Don’t you realize you’re better off without one?” If people come out of denominations and controlling Christian environments and are not transformed, then they will end up pushing Emergent to be a new and better version of what they came out of. And that won’t really work, because new and better requires a completely different sort of environment.
I love the idea of an environment where friendship predominates. The challenge is, how to make that work in larger Emergent just as it worked when it was smaller.
Good thoughts here. I think this is the best article of the series yet. You really captured the two broad movements of emergent.
One of the greatest challenges the church has faced since the Reformation is how to maintain unity amidst diversity… not to mention that quirky tendency of Christians to kill each other in the 1600’s. During the 20th century ecumenical movements began, declarations were signed, and some progress was made.
Perhaps emergent is finally making some real head way in creating an ecumenical common ground, preserving our diversity and backgrounds, and engaging the church in a common mission and a common love for our Lord.
I usually avoid getting into arguments about who says what about emergent, but I think there is just so much promise in doing the hard theological work and learning how to form theology in a context with Christian community in light of our traditions led by scripture. Sorry about the run-on sentence there.
Quite honestly, I think that the basis of this particular criticism is the inability of institutions to think creatively about how organization happens. The only context that most folks have uses language like ‘denomination’ when it sees some resemblance of organization and leadership. Honestly, I can’t completely fault them either.
However, folks like me (and many here I’d guess) that are more than a little skeptical about the forward thinking capabilities of institutions hear someone say that ‘Emergent is just becoming another denomination,’ and our buzzers go off and we’re all like ‘no you didn’t!’because that’s not who we are together or it unfairly captures what it is that we value.
Point being, I know that the small emerging community I belong to is trying to be creative about how we live out our lives as Christians in our context. I honestly have a hard time calling it a ‘church’ because as you wrote several weeks ago, that term does have a lot of baggage associated with it. Could it be that we’re having the same sort of knee jerk reaction to the term ‘denomination?’ Emergent is a whole bunch of people who value the generative friendship and freedom could help redefine the ways that denominations function.
We’re creative that way, right?
again . . . i’m swmaped this morning and would love to repsond individually to each of the comments, but can’t right now.
i would say one thing in relation to the general idea of some of them . . . lets start thinking of emergent as a verb. and not a noun or adjective. if we make that subtle shift perhaps we don’t have to or won’t fall into the same negative baggage that comes with institutionalizing and denominations while still reaping the benefits of something new and formative.
hey Josh, I haven’t read your previous posts on this series yet, nor the comments, so I apologize if you addressed this issue as you are dealing with this topic.
My take is that ‘emergent’ looks like an organization because there are concrete leaders attached to the label. I don’t know the future of ‘emergent’ but ‘emerging church’ is here to stay.
‘emergent’ tends to be the voice of the few, but ‘emerging’ is a much larger voice — it is a postmodern christian voice that is growing worldwide — and it is not attached to any specific leadership. It encompasses opensource theology; the deep church folks; the Australian movement; etc…
I guess my question would be why do we care to defend ‘emergent’? I think the leaders of emergent like Tony Jones, Brian, etc… would much rather prefer ‘emergent’ be a stepping stone to the larger global movement. what think ye?
What seems to be missing from this discussion is any mention of the international emergent scene which has been documented by Andrew Jones (http://jonnybaker.blogs.com/) and evidenced by festivals such as Greenbelt UK (http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/) that have been around since the 1970s. And for those who consider the mainline churches DOA, the UK-US Anglican stream offers some positive hope for change within denominational structures. The work of these UK pioneers such as Jonny Baker (http://jonnybaker.blogs.com/) which started in the 1980s crossed the pond thanks to the work of visionaries like Karen Ward (http://www.apostleschurch.org). This week The Living Church (the magazine read by US Episcopal Bishops and priests) published its first piece on emerging church in a liturgical context. It’s not available online but if anyone wants to read it, send me an email to bgthedoor@aol.com. There’s a lot of signs of hope ahead here.
Josh, I would offer that you’ve missed one fundamental point that helped forge the friendship and that was how the group got started. The Leadership Network brought these rag tag group of leaders to address a growing postmodern problem. How do we reach those under 35 who aren’t showing up anymore. They were organized around addressing an issue. The dialogs were exploratory and friendly. This bonded them in friendship.
The friendship talks are well documented by Tony and others. The problem is that the issue they were tackling was bigger than just a “program fix”. This was a massive shift in thinking, one later to be described as the liminal period.
I think Emergent will likely morph into a hybrid of sorts. They created a grass roots organization that is fundamentally organized around being explorers. They’ve taken the reigns off people and given them freedom back. This is a massive shift away from a control oriented religion of the past. They are more of a symbol than denomination.
Ok. (So maybe I was thinking about Friday’s topic–emergent is just a people in a room talking theology, which I don’t think it is but sometimes I wonder…)
Aren’t denominations–the western protestant ones–really just a thing of modernity? Do people say post-denominational? (that wouldn’t be the same as non- denominational…)
Just an example of how locked in we are to modernity: one good model to describe any sort of launch is the Product Life Cycle you learn in marketing classes. If you’re thinking in that model, you’re going to be obsessed about whether emergent is some sort of denomination-to-be.
Becky, your point about int’l and demonination-mergent should have factored into my post, but I didn’t see it.
As much as I fundamentally disagree with pretty much anything “emerg—” I have to give them a nod for being brilliant in one way.
“Emergents” have created an entity that does not exist. They appear to (and I say “appear to” carefully because there is nothing more offensive than to make a direct statement towards “emergents”) have created a nebulous theology, a non-existant affiliation, and no type of standardized praxis so that no one can pin down what Emergent is, who is a part of it, or what those people do that make them emergent, and therefore cannot accurately criticize it.
How can you criticize something that, by admission of its members, doesn’t exist? They have apparently managed to do everything in such a way as to be able to cleverly slide out from under any criticism by shiftily pointing out that “Emergent” is not really a formal entity.
I have to say that in some twisted way, that is quite brilliant.
Two quick, specific notes on the post: There are some things more important than friendship. And “friendship” doesn’t (and shouldn’t) always equate adoption or acceptance of one another’s beliefs.
Great post. I do see the issues with those coming to the conversation because it is trendy. They aren’t just not doing the theological legwork, from my experience many of them aren’t willing to examine theology at all. These are the voices packaging pseudo-fundamentalist ideas with the trappings of hip and cool. And calling the rest of us heretics.
But I think there may be more routes into the conversation than just the theological friendships. Personally I was encountering new ideas through postmodern philosophy and missiology and then someone suggested I read McLaren. It fit and so I jumped in. I went through a few years of obsession with the Ooze and saw the various paths that brought others to the conversation (like the anti-institutional and the missional crowd). I personally think the theology discussions are necessary, but they aren’t part of everyones path in.
still swamped with work. sorry i can’t be more of a conversational partner today. i didn’t include the international . . . because i’m talking about EMERGENT and not the EMERGING CHURCH. my primary concern is with EMERGENT continued to taking the hits.
julie. good point about their being other on-ramps than the theology. i just think you’ve gotta have a good framework in order to understand where it’s coming from and that it’s not just a trend.
Matt Mc-
Emergent is and isn’t a formal entity. You will have people identifying with emergent yet we truly have no centralized leadership to call our own. We have many ‘leaders’ but no head (at least here on Earth), thus we’re not a true organization in the sense that organizations are thought of today.
Maybe we’re the idealization of a postmodern organization, one where marching orders are not doled out from the top but decisions and changes made from within the rank and file.
As far as friendship and adoption/acceptance go, I agree with you in that friendship does not equate to adoption, I can have Muslim friends yet not ‘convert’ to Islam BUT I can accept the fact that they are Islamic.
Again, great thoughts. And like I mentioned yesterday, I agree that most true Emergent people and leaders are less worried about the title and more about the practicality of working out what they claim to believe, whatever that might be.
You could say what you’ve said about any group, however. I’m sure there are many Baptists, Evangelicals, Charismatics, Conservatives, whatever, that feel there are real valid ideas at the heart but many are just along for the ride to have something to belong to or aren’t really in it because they believe in it.
You alluded to this, but I think that the media/entertainment (the Christian bookstore mentality) has done as much to try and pull people into a fad than anything else, not just in the case of Emergent but other things, as well.
Peace.
britt wrote: You could say what you’ve said about any group, however. I’m sure there are many Baptists, Evangelicals, Charismatics, Conservatives, whatever, that feel there are real valid ideas at the heart but many are just along for the ride to have something to belong to or aren’t really in it because they believe in it.
I think that’s likely too – however, that it applies to other groups is not a reason not to point it out about Emergent, if you care about Emergent.
If people in Emergent pride themselves on not being sucked into cultural phenomena like consumerism or church phenomena like pointless traditions – and my my sense is that they do – all the more reason to say “here’s where we’re TOO much like the culture and/or denominations” or “if we go here we’ll be just like them and then what’s the point?”
I think I already said this but it seems so central: I suspect these things wouldn’t be such big issues if people were more serious about following Jesus. How can anyone whose life doesn’t set them apart at all from ‘the crowd’ truly claim they are following him?
Yesterday Julie talked about men who attended local cohorts and dominated conversations without making room for women who felt uncomfortable about aggressively jumping in. Presumably these men think of themselves as Jesus followers, yet in what sense is that following Jesus? Is that what Jesus was (is) like?
I’m just asking.
I am actually a member of Jacob’s Well, have been for many years. I was also witness to explosive growth Jacob’s Well had over the last 3 or 4 years. Because of that, I will admit we are a fad. Lot’s of people attend or visit, because it’s cool, because it’s an oddity, because the local newspaper wrote an article about it. We are trendy. Our worship leader is an excellent musician/song writer, we have candles, we have a host of artists who are incorporated into the worship whenever possible; and there are a lot of people who attend for those reasons.
The thingy is
, that’s not important. Those who come to Jacob’s Well because it’s cool, run in to people who are pursuing Jesus. And I think that’s why I think it stuck. Instead of finding merely a new trend, people found something deeper and meaningful. Probably the biggest question we continuously ask ourselves is “How do we make space (both physical space and time) for those who are searching?” As we pursue this person God, how do bring others along that same journey?
So, my conclusion, emergent/emerging is a fad in many ways, and the critics are right when they say that it is. But, and others have mentioned this above, our fad-ship really doesn’t matter. It just is for now.
Good series, Josh. Though some of this annoys the hell out of me–when we cease talking about whatever it is we’re interested in and start talking about the conversation itself. It becomes all self-referential, like a bad rap song. (Incidentally, I’m not blaming us entirely. I think virulent critics force us to be more introspective than we’d otherwise be)
I’d like you to interact a bit with this Trevin Wax fellows, who blogs on what he sees as Five Reasons The Emerging Church is Now Receding. He writes from a conservative point-of-view but isn’t being nasty. And his five reasons don’t form an acrostic, I promise.
By the way, I’m pretty sure that Trevin Wax is a single individual, and not a plural ‘fellows’ as I erroneously typed. ; )
Josh – There is considerable confusion as to how Emergent (meaning Emergent Village I presume) sees itself vis-a-vie the international scene and the mainline churches especially the Episcopalians and Lutherans. Also the use of “emergent” when one means “emergent village” can create considerable confusion especially among those who do not self-identify with EV and yet consider themselves to be emergent.
@ MIKE thanks for the link. i’ll have to check it out.
@ BECKY thanks for the book. it came today. i think emergent village sees itself as a local, contextual, operating in a particular place and time . . . group of friends. it’s not trying to be more than that. or larger than that. so in that vein, i’m not sure why it’s necessary that they have to trace their history through europe. or revise it in a way to take note of the larger movement of the emerging culture. i know tony, and doug, and i’m sure others have been on record as saying . . . that larger things are emerging in culture, i.e. education, politics, economics, leadership, networks, etc. so in this way, emergent isn’t claiming to have the corner on the market but rather are discussing their particular, local place in the larger narrative that is emerging in this particular, local history.
i’ve been using EMERGENT, because that is where i’m most familiar and i’m responding to those critics in particular. the problem is that all of these terms have become so ambiguous because everybody has 5 categories of emergent or 3 categories of emergent. and i’m just not sure those due to much to resolve the confusion as they do add layers of confusion.
Okay, so the “leaders” don’t want Emergent (which is a verb) to become a denomination (which is a noun) because they aready are pastors of churches (or professional writers or…)that aren’t denominationally connected. But, they are visiting groups as invited speakers, writing books, and holding conferences to what? Promote their mutual philosophy of how to “emerge” spiritually, socially, and politically in a post modern world? And, if people buy into said philosophy (theology) what are they supposed to do? Go rock the boat back in their local congregation? Split off from their own congregation and do the lone wolf thing until they find some other lone wolf? Blog with you all so they have a “sense of community and can join a conversation” because we’ve already split (physically or emotionally) from a building-based form of Chrisitanity we no longer understand or recognize or want to? (Guess my “Church” hurts are showing now–sorry).
Two comments caught my attention: From Jonathan on 2/12 at 12:30 PM [Emergent seems to be] “a shift from control oriented religions of the past.” Sounds like how a lot of denominations got started–get back to the Bible and away from the control. Is Emergent different?
From Rob on 2/12 at 2:01 AM Talking about some of the snobbishness that seems to ooze here and there, “I’m just not sure one has to read five or six theologians in order to do friendship.” Seems like most of the “rank and file” aren’t sem students, pastors or pastor-want-to-bes. Maybe a good question to ask yourselves is: Outside of the leadership circle what’s your age demographic and what’s their social status (student, employeed outside the church, married, single, with or w/o children)? Many of us who are watching from the sidelines, (popping in and out of the conversation because our lives demand most of our time not because we’re lazy and don’t want to stick with it. Example: my two year old just now needed me to help her go potty, my 19 year old left for college retreat earlier so I went out to bring back a treat before he took off, I have a Dylexic son who frequently needs help with homework and so…I break away from the conversation or I arrive late and post after everyone else has left), anyway, we (if I can speak so boldly as to think there might be someone else out there in my boat) are hoping that what we see in Emergent is a gathering of people giving voice to the idea of being Church rather that going to Church and then coming together to share, encourage, minister, and worship (in various ways as unreligiously as posible). We’re hoping we see folks who are not just talking about important issues from a Biblical/life perspective like: poverty and world hunger and HIV/Aids, but who are taking small (and larger) steps toward making a positive difference in those areas. (If you need to call that social justice so be it but it’s social justice in the name of Christ not in the name of politics). I’ve gone on way longer than I intended and I’m probably way off track for the point of this post. I don’t even know if I ended up going where I intended to but life goes on so I can’t really go back and editi now.
7 Trackbacks
[...] I bow to the largess and erudite comments of Josh Brown, who has started a lively series of posts and …. [...]
[...] 1 – An Introduction, 2 – A White Man’s World, 3 – Trend/Denomination [...]
[...] A Trend/Flash in the Pan that will settle for Denomination [...]
[...] – An Introduction, 2 – A White Man’s World, 3 – Trend/Denomination, 4- A Public Service Announcement on [...]
[...] Read Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: Trend/Denomination. [...]
[...] Here is Josh Brown’s take on whether emergent faith is ‘becoming another denomination.’ His whole series on this is worth reading–see [...]
[...] Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: Trend/Denomination | IAmJoshBrown [...]