Pretty consistantly I see the Emergent conversation either misreprented or misunderstood. As someone who sees a lot of value in the Emergent conversation I think it is about time to try and clear the air. I added the word please because what I see happening is Emergent is becoming the latest fad in the Church which makes it much less than helpful. (The same could easily be said for Missional). So if you are looking at joining in the conversation please weigh the following:
1) Don't miss that Emergent is a critique.
I am fond of saying that Emergent is at best a conversation and at worst a movement. The reason for this is that when a critique becomes a movement, it is starting from a fairly negative foundation. Some of what troubles me about fads is that they tend to just adopt methods or principles and miss the real purpose of what is happening. Emergent is what has always happened in the Church, there is always that edge that wants to take us out a little deeper, engage the culture a little better and see God as a little bigger than we have been. Emergent is best understood as walking in that tradition - it is not a comfortable place because it often is experimental and almost always misunderstood. So this isn't something new, but something that is definitely needed. Not to be embraced as a "new" methodology, but as a prophetic word that is trying to call us to a better place as the Church.
2) Don't think a few candles makes you Emergent.
Emergent isn't something you try and attach to how you have done church in the past. It is a conversation that dares to ask how what we are doing is working (or not working). It is a conversation that is happening amongst pastors, priests, leaders and laity from a wide range of ecclesial settings. That is one of its primary values. It doesn't look like anything because it is not a form, philosophy or even a methodology. It is a conversation and you are welcome to join in. In fact you have likely already joined in and not even realized. Sure there are some Emergent churches that use candles, but many don't and if you listen to the conversation - some actually shouldn't.
3) Don't think of Emergent as something other than the Church.
Emergent is not a new church. It is a natural function of the glorious Church of Jesus Christ. It just happens that some felt it was helpful to name it. Think of how many movements within the church have been named. Pietists, Orthodox, Protestants, Methodists, Revivalists, Charismatics. Sure some of us like the labels now, but these labels can be double edged swords. Please, if you want to make a new church, don't call it Emergent, in fact why not consider not doing that at all. The Church has had enough schism for ten Milleniums.
4) Don't think if you are Emergent you won't need the rest of the Church.
If you think Emergent means you don't need the conservatives that dislike your Emergent ways then you are sadly mistaken. One of the critiques that Emergent brings is that of a high degree of disunity. Now the critique is nuanced with a cry for diversity as the basis of unity, but let us not mistake that for a call to disunity. Again this is why Emergent is best as a conversation, conversations happen best with more voices not less, even those voices you don't always want to hear.
5) Don't miss that Emergent means a call to authenticity.
The main critique I hear over and over is one that asks, "where is the authentic experience of the Church?" It would be a shame to have that go forward and build something highly inauthentic. Emergent isn't a call to do what isn't you. It is a call to work within your blessed tradition and maybe reach a bit broader audience. It is a call to wade a bit deeper spiritually. To embrace practices from other traditions only when they are going to foster something deeper, something real. It definitely doesn't jettison the gospel or try to mush everything into a form of relativism. It might question some of the ways we describe this (and even understand this) but only so we can better frame our faith and communicate it to others, say in a way they can actually recieve (authentic). It is about being true to ourselves and the call of God on our lives. Anything less than that should raise a warning flag. Like I keep saying, Emergent isn't a fad we can jump on to try and make our church the hottest thing since sliced bread. Those sorts of things are a dime a dozen and if they really worked we wouldn't need new ones every few months. Emergent is something deeper, it is a conversation and you are welcome to join in.
I could go on, but I think this conveys what is immediately on my heart. There is a great Emergent conversation going on over at Resonate, and I'm sure there are others. I hope to hear you there.
[Edit: I fixed my title.]
6 comments:
Frank, what do you make of the Emergent versus emerging church distinction? I think it's an important one, with Emergent being the American group Emergent Village, where emerging church is something much boader, which would include a place like Resonate, and is more than a critique. Thoughts?
The only think is that only the Emergent/emerging folks make that distinction. Most people think of it as the same animal.
As for the emerging church being more than a critique, it is the critique part that is emerging. But like any good critique it brings about change and experimentation - that is also called emerging. But it is only emerging within or out of a specific previously known context. The danger I see is that we float out away from our context (as if that were possible), cut our ties and call that the Emergent/emerging church. That would produce something akin to the response to feminism that most of us reacted to before we realized that as a critique feminism is important, as a movement built on the critique instead of applying the feminist critique to an existing structure creates an imbalance. That is the same danger I see with missing that at its core Emergent is a critique. Yes, there is more, just like there is ecofeminism and other excellent applications of that critique. That is where the more is legitimate. When the more is a whole new church then I think we missed the whole point of the critique.
But who should get to define a movement? Scot McKnight's paper argues, rightly I think, that those within the movement get to do the defining - he was arguing against DA Carson on that. So shouldn't emerging/Emergents be allowed their distinction, which is, after all, important. To say Resonate and Emergent Village are the same thing is to my mind a mistake, even to outsiders.
As for critique. I suppose it depends on how you define the term. I'm sympathetic to criticism, to critique in the Kantian/Hegelian sense, which necessarily involves rethinking and change as a result.
Yes and no. Yes, if they need to make distinctions (and we do tend towards that, compartmentalizing and specializing) then do so with the terms. But the problem is these terms are already loaded when they get out beyond the Emergent/emerging friendly worlds. And what has to be done more carefully is how we present those terms to the rest of the folks - otherwise they will fill in the blanks on their own. That is where I get frustrated.
someone once told me that i didn't have to get piercings or tatooes to be radical and reach the marginal because true radicalism is in thought and actions, not symbols. i believe that. therefore even the most traditional forms can be present in a radical community or movement... the dress doesn't matter so much as the heart.
I agree David, I had a conversation last night with my friend Charity about what constitutes being cool. And it has more to do with not trying to be cool and just being comfortable with your own skin. This is that deep inward call for authenticity that is so much at the heart of the Emerging movement. It isn't about form, but about heart and reality.
Post a Comment