Emerging Church: Does The Hat Still Fit?

I ask this every year. This year, MOST people in my world say that the label "emerging church" or "emergent church" does not define or describe the kinds of ministries they are doing. That also means that many books on the subject do not speak for these people and most of the criticism misses its target. Not only that, but using the term is problematic for some Seminaries and ministries. What do you think? Is the term helpful to you or a hindrance?

Comments

[Michael Krahn]

I think the terms are becoming negatively loaded in a number of circles. Certainly Ken Silva and his posse are doing what they can to make both 'emerging' and 'emergent' terms that are universally derogative.

[Mark Van Steenwyk]

Its a hindrance, but I still use it. Just like "evangelical" is a hindrance, even though I still use that word as well.

My big beef with the term is that people INSIST on trying to make it into a monolithic term, so that they can analyze and attack the movement. I'm left with two options: 1) distance myself from that newly centralizing definition or 2) embrace the term and keep fighting for a diverse understanding of the term. I've opted for #2.

[Simon Cross]

I think its difficult to try and categorise anything as broad as this current wave of rethinking - perhaps emerging is still useful in some circles,as it helps people get a handle, or somewhere to start. But truth is most of us squirm at being so 'neatly' defined.

ps. believe you met my mate Gareth at the fusion thing - he was the bald welsh guy there to talk mission with Rich and Roger.

[Ryan]

Even though some people would find it easy to call the church I started an "emerging church" I don't believe it's every really been a helpful phrase. I wrote about this back in March in a post called M-R Ducks.

[rich]

I think it has run it's course. It's as damaged as the evangelical here in the US and I don't think there is any way to redeem it now.

I always thought it was to be a transitory tag anyway...

[Damien Tougas]

This is an interesting question. Up until about a year ago, my wife and I had no idea what the emerging church or emerging movement was. All we knew was what we felt God was calling us to, and that it looked different than what we were seeing everywhere else (At least here on the US east coast in the middle of Maine!). The other thing we found was that there were very few (if any) people around us who identified with us in this regard. We kept asking ourselves "Are we the only ones? Why can't we find anyone else who thinks this way? Who can we talk to about these issues?".

Then as I started to do a little more digging online I discovered this thing called the emerging church. The more I read, the more I identified with some of the people involved, and some of what was being said... but not everything, and that is where I see the problem with the label. Emerging church means so many things to so many different people. It's very easy identify with it in one moment and and criticize it the next because it is so diverse.

For me, the label has helped because now I know that I am not alone in my thinking, and that I more-or-less fit under it somewhere. At least now I know where to look for kindered sprits online, now if only I could find more of them around here in my own backyard :-)

Andrew, the next time you are here in the US, you should consider coming to meet some of us here in Maine. We would love to have you (and your family of course) sleep on our couch!

[Makeesha Fisher]

It depends - it works if you're trying to find or attract like minded emergent type people. I wouldn't say it's a hindrance, not for us, cuz we're not trying to make nice with emergent critics :)

we use missional or emerging-missional to describe Revolution (our community) and ourselves as individuals.

[mike]

In my neck of the woods -- South of Houston, Texas, USA -- and the "non-emergents" I have interaction with is is a hindrance as they seem to all have access to the random quotes from books by Carson, MacArthur, etc. used to "proof text" that emergent means heretic. I visited a mid-sized non-denom. church last week and the pastor took a week off from his usual verse by verse exegesis to deliver a word of warning titled "An Emergent Danger." Listen at
http://www.ltlministries.org/pod/podcastCCH.xml

Nov. 27, 2007 issue. Bear in mind that as he rants about the pagan roots of labyrinths, centering prayer, etc. there are four lighted Christmas trees on the platform around him. I don't have a prob. with the trees but it seemed a bit hypocritical to warn about pagan roots with them all around him.

[Makeesha Fisher]

oh, and ftr, I think emerging or emergent is more a philosophy or an approach to thinking about Christianity than it is a definable movement - so to say "emergent church" seems sort of off to me anyway.

[Hufi]

Yesterday Brian McLaren said in Marburg, Germany that he prefers the term "emerging conversation". I fully agree on that.
I wrote about it today (in German): Willkommen in der emerging conversation

[cloudburst]

to be honest, i find it a complete hindrance, and totally confusing term, when applied as a label.

from my observation of the term, it seems helpful when applied as a verb, ie in it's simplest, literal meaning, something is emerging out of something else. (or some one, as in birth..)

when i first saw a fairly 'mainstream' church bill itself as 'emergent' i became hopelessy jaded against the term as a label, as yet another 'cool' word to add to our ways of dividing ourselves.

any term can be usefuk in this regard, as a distinction, and we sure have this compulsion to distinguish ourselves and our thought patterns from one another... and truly how can we do this in an information society, rife with tags and meta-tags, labels, classifications, categories, cliques, sub-cultures, etc..

mm.. i guess in the end it's no worse than any other label...

but as far as telling me anything meaningful about a group of god's children who hang out together? zippo. zilch, nada. sorry.

i might expect a few more candles though.. oh wait, no, that was 'alternative worship'.. sorry =D

[chad]

I really think its fun when we try to make up the words to describe things...and I think often in history the "titles" given to movements that stick where at first the derogatory ones.

In one case, "emergent" is simply a marketing tool here in the US. I don't think it can really apply to alot of the generic evangelical churches that simply have none or loose denominational affiliation.

We can throw out a bunch of other words that can describe the same things (missional...various "post" prefixes), but I think that it would be silly to waste time trying to define something that is still going on.

I also think that many people using the term don't understand the history of the movement and often make two main mistakes.

1. That it is primarily (and first) an evangelical movement in the US

2. That the body "in charge" is Emergent Village.

But I can think of some other great words that simply become irrelevant (there is one right there) and I get tired of using them, but I am learning to just deal with it.

[Phil]

Depends on who you are talking to. Most of my friends don't really know enough about what a Christian is to worry to much about groups/types of churches.

Most of the Christians don't hang around long enough to find out what I think.

[gavin]

i am still okay with it. but when it comes to worship stuff, i generally use the alt worship terminology. if i am telling someone who doesn't know about emergent i will tussle between emerging and emergent in a very sarcastic way. which is probably due to the non-defining practice of emerging leaders.

[Dan]

Hi Andrew -

I think about this quite often being caught up in things and being labelled things in overgeneralized ways.

I am at a point where I am going to be rarely, if ever, even using the terms "emerging" or "emergent" in reference to describing church anymore or using those words in anything I do if at all possible. It is hard, because I have writings that use that term heavily and in the title. But I am going to stop using the terms as often as I am able to, as they almost don't mean anything anymore and the names now invoke such an immediate "do you believe this or that theologically" and there is so much confusion, that I personally want to not get caught up in, if at all possible.

I will use the term "emerging" as a term describing future or rising culture (the emerging culture) or future generations (emerging generations). But the whole emerging church and in the world I am in, the terms emergent church quite honestly is getting in the way of the mission since the words are so controvercial. I just heard from a pastor I know that actually had to write a paper for a church he applying to - where he had to define what "emerging church" meant, as to make sure he was in alignment with the church theologically. Seems so silly and so far astray from what our hearts were all at when we first got into the adventure 10-12 years ago.

So those are some quick thoughts. I just want to be part of the "church". I just want to be part of the church in its variety of expressions and forms that may all be different - but have a passion for truth, a passion for the mission and evangelism and are not afraid to rethink what we are doing and structures for the sake of furthering the gospel.

Missional is a word that is attractive to me, but that also is now often (in what I have heard) being described as "house churches" (missional communities) and I am hesitant to use that too much yet. But time will tell.

[Simon]

I think that the term is useful as an instantly recognisable idea of a bottom-up, evolving, organic faith. Take one step further and define it and you've lost me... and lost the point. I agree that it is the word 'emerging' that is important. 'Church' is loaded with a lot of baggage and assumptions.

[Ken Silva]

Hi Andrew,

For the possible edification of your emerging/Emergent conversation/church readers, I seriously don't have a posse.

Um, it would seem that nobody really wants to claim me bro. :-)

[Dan]

I have never been keen the whole emerging church conversation. Even though I know there are different streams of emerging not all bad, not all good, I still think it is a distraction to what really counts; seeking God with all your heart and being led by him.

The whole conversation started with genuine intent but I think it has become corrupted in many different ways over the past years. We certainly shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water but I do think we need face up to a more invading question the needed to be asked "what fruit have we seen from this label?"

[stephen shields]

andrew,

thanks for asking the question. I go back and forth. the emergent thread of the emerging church seems to have most of the emerging famous and so it draws most of the attention and most of the criticism. This frustrates someone like me because I definitely consider myself emerging but haven't resonated as much with the emergent side of the conversation, though I have friends there. And I have gotten publicly criticized by those who consider me emergent and don't seem to be saavy to the distinction. In fact, it seems to me that most outside of the conversation aren't saavy as to the distinction. Because of this, I'm wondering if we non-emergent emergers should just call ourselves missional and be done with it. On the other side, I'm deeply grateful for what I've learned as a result of being a participant in the emerging church conversation. Anyway, I'm just being honest about the dissonance I feel about this. I don't today have a settled answer to your question.

But, thankfully, it's a *relatively* unimportant discussion (I'm not saying it can't be discussed profitably). In the final analysis, what matters is if we are Christian or not.

[Churchless Christian]

Most Christians I know have not really heard of Emergent.
Those doing 'simple church' seem to not being connected with the label, because it does not describe who they are.
myself like what Brian McLaren says about an 'emerging conversation'. Because in the end, that seems to be all it really is at this stage.

[hamo]

Hi old mate!

I am still alive out here and reading :)

I have almost jetisoned the term except for the fact that it is so much a part of popular parlance.

I choose to speak of 'missional incarnational' communities. A bit of a mouthful, but simply put it is 'going out - going deep' and I believe that captures the essence of the our movement here in Oz.

I can't always bat for the 'emerging church' but I can for the MIC!

[David]

What a wonderful question!

Why don't we hear Calvinists asking this? Or Lutherans, or Wesleyans, or Presbyterians, or Baptists, or Charismatics. Every stream of ecclesial thought should be continually returning to a deconstruction. Refreshing.

In my experience, I'm having fun with the tags right now. But I do fear that as more lines are drawn to separate what is emerging from what is christian that it could start to keep me from finding work... and really that is what this is all about. :)

[andrew]

hi everyone. I just woke up and all these comments were here. i will read them soon and respond. just wantedyou to know that i wasnt snobbing anyone.

[Adam]

I think the term "emerging church" is not very helpful. It is so amorphous and variously defined that it carries no consistent meaning - therefore it is not helpful for use in conversation beyond certain groups who have shared definitions of the term. For these reasons, I have stopped using the term. And I don't think we need to find a new term either.

With that being said, we still can speak of Emergent Village. This is an actual organization that exists.

[Matt Stone]

I have never found the language particularly helpful.

1/ To define everything that's going on under the banner of "emerging church" has the unfortunate side effect of overemphasizing the importance eccleciology ... and underemphasizing the importance of rethinking our christologies, eschatologies, pneumatologies and all the other ologies. And don't get me started on praxixs. Church needs to be rethought, sure, but as Brian has said, everything must change.

And besides, with so many non-Christians pro-Jesus but anti-church, why make church talk the prime focal point?

2/ The "emergent" vs "emerging" confusion is really frustrating for me as an Aussie since the main expression of emerging church in Australia is Forge, not emergent village. I feel like banging my head against a brick wall everytime some local pastor conflates the two since his only knowledge comes through Carson. That goes a long way toward explaining why "missional" is a preferred term by many Aussies, and becoming moreso.

Yet, despite the frustration, without a mutually agreed alternative to both "emerging" and "emergent" to offer up to search engines its hard to find people without using it occasionally. I expect we must endure the confusion for a while yet.