Emerging Church: You Say Dump It

I have been wrestling, as you know, on whether to keep the term "Emerging Church" and apply it to a new project this year. Here are the results from my poll:

Results: 60/40 on dumping it. OK - I hear you but let me tell you my dilemma and how hard it is for me.

DUMP IT

1. I arrived home last week after teaching a group of missionaries from an American denomination that has basically forbidden any connection with the emerging church. And I was their main speaker. . . . . AWKWARD!!!!
2. Even worse, when I got home, Jenna White who is staying with us, told us that her missionary support had been stopped because a pastor in the Baptist church she attends in USA just preached an anti-emerging church sermon and they put a hold on the money they were going to send her. Funny thing was, it was the same denomination that I had just taught, and we have enjoyed a decade long relationship to this particular church

Technorati Tags: emergent, emerging church

3. Pastor Skender, who thought I was perfectly Biblically sound when I taught at the Four Square convention in Switzerland left a comment yesterday where he thinks I am now a heretic because I support the "emerging church". I have responded to him that Four Square in Europe has some good examples of emerging church but thats a another vote in favor of losing the word.
4. Tony Jones defines "emergent" as "specifically referring to the relational network known as . . . Emergent Village" (in his book The New Christians) and since our ministry and the ministries we support are not officially part of Emergent Village, I can no longer use that word honestly, despite the word's usage over the past 30 years.

But wait . . . as always, plenty of good reasons to keep it.

KEEP IT

1. Phyllis Tickle's book The Great Emergence is coming out any day and its a fantastic history of the last 40 years of The Emerging Church. Be a shame to throw a wet blanket on it.
2. The Church of Scotland has just released some guidelines on applying for their Emerging Church fund. [Download the PDF] The leader, Rev. David Currie, is a friend and I have been offering to assist in this wonderful project that is still using the term.
Quote
"Emerging Church’ and ‘Emerging Ministries’ are about reaching out to others in ways they can relate to. It is about the church adapting in order to speak to the cultures round about. Our society is diverse and fragmented, and if we are to fulfil the church’smission in sharing the Gospel, we need to be a people who are prepared to incarnate the Gospel in the many and various expressions of contemporary culture. Such adaptation and innovative risk-taking finds roots in our Reformed tradition – “reformed and always reforming” (reformata semper reformanda). Most people are familiar with the traditional Parish model of church life, but there is no single model of church and Christian communities have always taken a variety of forms."

Well said. What they call emerging church is something I wholeheartedly support. And you will also, if you are applying for support from the Church of Scotland from their emerging ministries fund. But there are some countries and circles where I am no longer using the word. The word no longer communicates what i want it to so, even though i will still be in support of Emerging Church ventures like this excellent one from the Church of Scotland, I will no longer be using the word for myself and the ministries that we support.

Words change. We give meaning to words and we take it away. The word is problematic for many American institutions and often insulting to European ministries that preceded their American counterparts.

So . . . most of you said to dump it and I will. But I am still staying connected to many ministries around the world that are using it.

What do you think of that?

Comments

[Cathryn Thomas]

OK that sucks......... give Jenna a hug for me... so what is their gig.

[Mike]

Lets get back to figuring out what it means to follow Jesus, and who cares what we call it.

[jason_73]

It's such a vicious circle. The name definitely has all sorts of baggage attached to it now, and it's become kind of confusing, so it would be a shame to sacrifice so much for a term.

On the other hand, it stinks that ignorance is placated by dumping it.

It seems though that there has been lot's of names that have come and gone now though, why not let this one be the next? Jesus is still Jesus through it all.

Maybe by dumping some of these terms and names we can start back down the road of just being known as Christ followers or something original like that.

[Ted]

File this under: "Just Ted's Opinion", but nevertheless, here goes.

Speaking solely from my perspective within a denominational framework whose wars with one another have all but destroyed biblical community and given many the impression that these "wars" are very similar to the Clone Wars of Star Wars, I offer this.

Conflict seldom defines. It almost always describes but uses descriptors as definition. And, the accuser almost always sets the issue and the turf for the battleground.

Early on enough of those with visible platforms using the term "Emerging Church" attempted to distinguish themselves from everyone else by dissing the "traditional church", anyone Boomer generation and up, and just about anyone else that might disagree with them. Those extremists then put many others who were either in or sympathetic to the Emerging Church genre on the defensive. Not only did one have to define who they were, but they had to also give numerous disclaimers as to who they were not.

And of course along comes those who in the name of dialogue reveal that in some pretty important areas to a lot of the church, they are not so certain about what is truth.

Emerging Church, like Evangelical, has pretty much become a meaningless term, imo. So my encouragement is to call yourself a follower of Christ, lead others to do the same, and walk in the light God gives you. Define yourself in such a way that you are known for who you are rather than being known by a description you cannot control.

Again, just my opinion.

[Brother Terry]

What "new" name will we use? I'm praying for this money situation. God bless you all.

[Mark Van Steenwyk]

If it weren't for #4 in the Dump It list, I would encourage you (and others) to keep it. I remember when I challenged Tony on his use of those words and he basically said I was being silly and drinking the "Andrew Jones Kool-Aid." Silly me, but I've talked with dozens of people who were involved in emerging church stuff (whether they called it that themselves is besides the point) for 20 years or so. I myself "emerged" into this stuff before I ever heard of any of the emerging church gurus or read their stuff. This is a move of the Spirit that is increasingly being co-opted by a very particular organization with its own agenda.

That isn't to say that Emergent Village isn't doing great things. But the more they play these language games and try to speak for a movement that is much larger than them and seek to form strong organizational ties that centralize the movement around themselves, the more I will feel the need to distance myself and stop using such language. And seriously, every single time I bring this up to anyone on the "inside" I get shot down as being over-reactive. And then every time I then go public with my concern I get tons of "amens" and also an email or something from someone really tied to Emergent Village telling me I'm being over-reactive. When so much passion is tied to a couple of words, it is time to move on.

[Mark Van Steenwyk]

One more thing: I think avoiding labels is good, but when you need to call a network of people something, generic and descriptive language works best.

[Kester]

Told you so ;-)

Language always begins to suck. We just need to realise it as soon as we denominate something. What matters is what's behind it. Problem is, we get too caught in the language. I think this is a valid critique of Emergent as a 'conversation' - its parody as a talking shop is harsh, but sometimes fair. We've all done it.

[Mark]

Hmmm more questions from me... Of your reasons for dumping it most seem to be to do with money/acceptance... whilst I appreciate some folk "earn their living" this just makes me uncomfortable ... i.e. if we have to hide who we are because we won't get funded, I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with that? Or to put it another way, are the "American Institutions" completely wrong in their understanding, or do we not want them to know the whole story so they'll keep paying out?

I agree there is a problem with the "Emergent" monopoly on the word, or at least the difficulty in separating "Emergent" - a noun from "emerging" a verb - perhaps if we could get back to stressing the emergence theory behind it - tbh my problem with the word is that is has become too acceptable... I met a guy at Greenbelt who was heading up a committee to employ an "Emerging Church Consultant" tasked to plant two "Emerging Churches" that had to have Reformed theology! in other words in the UK "Emerging Church" has become synonymous for some with "Fresh Expressions"... the idea that one can set theological boundaries for a church/community not yet "emerged" makes me want to scream!

TBH in some ways I want something that makes a dinstinction between what and where we are heading and where some of the Institutions (especially the Evangelical/Church growth/Cell church) are seeking to go... that's not to say we have it right and they have it wrong, just that we have, in many cases radically different values and I don't want to get money/association under false pretenses!

[andrew]

mark - good point. i raised some money when i spoke to some american foundations about 3 years ago and they have funded some emerging church projects overseas. none of them american projects and none tied to any controversies. no problem yet.

but there might be backlash later on and i could avoid it by not using that term to describe what they do.

no fear in not getting money. but both funders and receivers could be damaged by misinformation. the word has become too broad and it takes too long to correct its understanding.

[andrew]

and kester - yes - looks like 2008 is the year . . . as you predicted.

[tony jones]

Andrew, in the book I was attempting to *explain* how people are currently using the terms, not to proactively define them for people. And in the definition section that you cite, I claim the Emergent with a capital "E" refers to those associated with Emergent Village, and emergent refers to a much broader and looser coalition of people.

Further, *no* ministries are officially associated with Emergent Village. It is, as it has been since you lived in the States, a social network -- a hub of activity. So, as long as you're still friends with many, many people who live around that hub here in the States, you're still connected to it.

Hope that's not a bother! :-)

T

[Ray Short]

TSK - I'm curious about your #1 for dumping the term. I'm with the same group you spoke to last week, just in a different part of Western Europe. You actually spoke to my group last year (and I loved it by the way). I'm wondering what gave you the idea that we were forbidden to have anything to do with the emerging church? Were you told this directly, or did it come up indirectly through conversation?

I only ask because I've never received any sort of direction from leadership to stay away from the emerging church. In fact, I know personally that there is a small team of individuals in Western Europe doing the exact opposite, trying to connect with the emerging church and generate partnership possibilities here in western europe.

Thanks.
ray

[becky]

Andrew - From what I gather, Phyllis book encompasses a historical movement that goes well beyond "emergent church." She doesn't use "emergent code" when talking about what she sees happening. In fact, you might find it helpful to download some of her talks to see how she uses language in describing what she sees happening. (She's also a hoot to hear as well as read).

My take is that emergent/emerging has become yet another turf war -- and one of Wormwood's favorite tricks is to get us bickering so we can't move the Gospel forward. In fact, the jockeying for power in the NYC progressive/emergent circles has gotten so bad here in NYC that things are starting to implode. (That's a good sign to get the heck out of there.) By then, Jesus like Elvis has left the building.

I predicted that Emergent Church (TM) jumped the shark last year (as you well know) so I join in with Kester in saying the shark needs a funeral cause dead fish really, really stinks.

[andrew]

ray. thanks. its a complicated issue and i appreciate your way of putting it. forbidden was not the word used but a similar word. the funny thing is that many missionaries are doing what i would describe as emerging church but will now use a different term.

tony - my friendships are intact - you and others will remain my friends and every 2 or 3 years I will try to get to an EV event as has been my routine. I try to do this with a lot of "emerging church" groups whether they use the name or not.

But Tony, it might be hard to comprehend from an American perspective, but the networks and movements around the world that have been using the "emerging" or "emergent" tag, some of them connected to EV and some of them who have never heard of it, are suddenly now defined by it and you have become their spokesperson and will remain as such as long as they stay under the label. [this was one of my concerns with your book and i was hoping some edits would correct it before the final version, especially when it says you are the "primary media spokesperson for the Emergent movement"]

i realize the distinction between Emergent Village and the global emerging/emergent church movement is crystal clear to you and also to me and hundreds of others . .. but for a lot of people, including the Baptist church that stopped the support last week of the young adult staying with us in Scotland . . . that distinction is blurred and they really cant tell the difference.

I am sure you will be sensitive to the danger of a new American colonialism over the global emerging church and the need for that movement to find its own native words and terms on its own ground.

[andrew]

well becky - there are some fantastic things also going on but its not the quality of the events in USA that is the point, but rather that USA and one or two relatively small and recent movements in that country have the microphone to speak on behalf of the majority of the global movement. one group that i have been working with is now in over 40 countries and another is in nearly 30. these are becoming huge movemeents and they should get their own spokespeople.

[becky]

Actually Andrew - we're on the same page more or less bud. I agree there are some amazing things happen in the US - much of what I see that's truly transformative though is led by folks who bristle at being identified with emergent because of the baggage associated with this label. They tend to operate under the radar - in fact, the moment what they are doing gets commercialized like Emergent Church (TM), they've moved on to where they feel the global spirit is calling them.

My concern with anyone saying they're spokesmen for a global movement can be illustrated by what's happening in NYC - those who are the more media savvy, well connected, and aggressive tend to be the ones who tend to get the most attention thus pushing the ones who are walking the walk to the back of the room.

Also, there's a general bias in US religion reporters to focus on what's on our borders - you've been amazing at helping me to open up my eyes (And if that means I've drunk the Andrew Jones Kool-Aid so be it - it sure is tasty.)_ But a lot more awareness needs to be raised.

[becky]

Andrew - Here's a link you might find of interest Emergent and Beyond (Publishers Weekly, 9/1/08).

[Chris Goan]

HI Andrew

I have been following this debate with interest!I had written this on my own blog in response to one of your earlier posts;

"In our small group in Dunoon, Scotland, we have only fairly recently started using the term ‘emerging church’ in a way that is not wrigglingly self conscious.

This was in part because although our group has many of the characteristics of what the EC supposedly represents, we have never agreed that this is the label or yardstick that we would use. It is only as other Christians have attacked us for being ‘emerging’ that some of us have had a look at this label again, and thought- yes, that kind of fits.

But it is not as if the label is well defined anyway. The 2006 Gibbs and Bolger book ‘Emerging Churches‘ took a well researched swing at this, and I found it really helpful- but to be honest, I also had this feeling that if you look at a diverse movement of Christian activists and malcontents, and search for common strands- you then become responsible for creating a movement as much as defining one.

I wonder if there is also a kind of intellectual snobbery about not wanting to be defined. Many of us have escaped from solidity and predictability in the way we practice our collective faith, and the last thing we want to rush towards is another denomination.

Perhaps others felt the same way- the Methodists, or the Anabaptists- do you think in the beginning, with all the excitement and promise of something new, that they enjoyed the fluidity and freedom of lack of form and structure- and they enjoyed the lack of definition too?"

But having said all this- we need some words that bring us together do we not? If others take pot-shots at us, does that mean that we ditch the words?

You say that the term has gathered baggage that is not helpful- but I am not sure that this will not be true for any term.

And I am not sure what baggage I want to throw out anyway- for me, the great thing about the term is that it excludes the excluders- who are understandably less than impressed!

So- for what it is worth, lets hang on to this for a while longer. There will be enough splitting off into factions later- church history seems to suggest this is inevitable! Perhaps our job is to worry less about definitions, and more about getting on with faith and life?

Cheers from the south...

Chris

[Andy]

"Words change. We give meaning to words and we take it away. The word is problematic for many American institutions and often insulting to European ministries that preceded their American counterparts.

So . . . most of you said to dump it and I will. But I am still staying connected to many ministries around the world that are using it.

What do you think of that?"

I think CS Lewis spoke of the importance of using words concisely...it helps foster effective communication. But it assumes that efficient and timely understanding is to be valued over the messier, more difficult to understand kinds of communication.

Perhaps the biggest problem surrounding the use of the word emerging is the relative lack of time spent with those of the "opposing" side (as though we're on opposing sides!) actually trying to figure out what's being said. It's like two ships passing in the night. And we typically allow the ships to pass rather than trying to love one another.

If dropping the term helps us love our anti-emergent brothers and sisters - then drop it. It's annoying - but the right thing to do.

If its about retaining funding sources - find a job making tents and send the funding back!

[tony jones]

Becky: It's funny and snarky that you put (TM) after the word emergent, but in fact those of us who started emergent village have always made clear that it is an open source name and logo, under the auspices of a creative commons license. Not trademarked, registered, or otherwise owned.

Andrew: Please, please stop referring to a phrase that was on the back of an early, advance galley copy of my book. There were about 100 copies with that on it -- written by a well-meaning publicist. I defy you to find it in the final version, because it's not in there. (NB: I made this clear after your original review of the book.)

And while I'm sorry for the emergents around the world who are disappointed for how the name has evolved -- and how some of us in the States have been a part of that, there are also scores of folks who appreciate the website, the books, the events, and the weekly email.

God Bless!

[Paul Roberts]

I thought persecution was one of the hallmarks of Christian authenticity. Ever since the New Testament, Christians (and, yes, the Judaizers were still followers of 'the Way') have persecuted other believers for making innovative and creative steps to bring the fellowship of Christ to people who are being excluded by the church's status quo. So then, what should we say? "Bring it on", surely? Furthermore, history is remarkably effective in obsoleting organised heresy. If Emerging churches are heretical (which I doubt!) then they won't last. So let His-story be the judge.

[Mark Van Steenwyk]

Since when did heresies "not last?" There are many ancient organized heresies (Nestorianism being just one) and some relative newcomers with long pedigrees (Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses to name two).

[andrew]

tony - thats really helpful - that description of you [which was written by someone else, btw becky] is not on the final edit - fantastic! i dont have a newer copy and would not have mentioned it if i knew

please forgive me. i will not mention it again.

Andy - it is not about keeping funding sources. the foundations i work with trust us when it comes to terms and labels and that trust relationship helps both of us to do what we do best. but they would also expect me to inform them of when the term is no longer useful and they would expect me to know that information.

Paul - i would miss the criticism because we all need it but the main problem is that we are criticized for the wrong things and mis-fires dont help anyone.

[Gerard Kelly]

Hey anrew,

Just caught up with this... I admire you for your commitment to 'continue emerging...' even it it means changing language. I was talking to a Bishop friend recently about the idea of 'planting emerging churches'and he asked 'how do you plant something that is emerging?' - which is a good question.

What's interesting is that what you and a bunch of early-adopters began with was a willingness to seek out the boundaries of the Spirit in our culture and ask 'what new forms of faith and mission are emerging at this time?'. Which is also a good question. Now the question is shifting from 'what is emerging' to 'what can we make happen' - hence the question of funding, projects, titles etc. The conversation has shifted from 'what do we see?' to 'what should we do?' This is an entirely different conversation, I think, and carries the very heavy risk of trying to impose on the emerging church the presuppositions of the funders / project makers: quite possibly the opposite of where you boys began.

So for what it's worth, Andrew, I would say don't lose your prophetic edge. Stay with what is emerging... and is probably not called that any more.