R.I.P. Emerging Church??
Url Scaramanga, the somewhat naughty and provocative editor of Christianity Today’s Out of Ur blog, wrote this article. What do you think?
An overused and corrupted term now sleeps with the fishes.
“The emerging church will disappear.” That is what my informant told me as we shared drinks at our clandestine watering hole. I felt like Luca Brasi being handed a dead fish wrapped in newspaper. The hit had been ordered…the emerging church’s fate had been sealed. In my informant’s mind, the death of the emerging church was a settled matter. I double-checked my surroundings for listening ears before whispering, “How can you be so sure?” The informant (who worked for a publisher) leaned forward and said their marketing plans included dropping the “Emerging Church” brand within two years.
That was two years ago.
Now comes word from recognized leaders and voices within the emerging church movement that the term has become so polluted that it is being dropped. Consider Dan Kimball. He wrote the book on the emerging church—literally. His 2003 book, The Emerging Church, reintroduced the term into the evangelical lexicon. In Kimball’s blog post from last week he writes:
Although I am finding that the term [emerging church] has become so broad now and so confusing, it is very important to know that I am not by any means stopping being involved and pursuing the heart and mission of what the term “emerging church” originally meant. At least in how I was personally using it when I wrote the book 6 years ago.
What did the term mean 6 years ago? Kimball defined it this way: “If you were to have asked me what the core of the emerging church is, I would have responded with ‘evangelism and mission in our emerging culture to emerging generations.’” But, according to Kimball, few people associate emerging with evangelism anymore. (He finds himself using the term missional instead.) Today, Kimball says:
I can’t defend or even explain theologically what is now known broadly as “the emerging church” anymore, because it has developed into so many significantly different theological strands. Some I strongly would disagree with.
The other recent voice in favor of dumping the term emerging church, is Andrew Jones (a.k.a. Tall Skinny Kiwi). Like Kimball, Jones has been an advocate for emerging ideas. (He even co-signed Emergent’s “Answers to Critics” declaration.) Jones conducted a poll on his blog asking whether or not to dump the emerging church term. The results were 60/40 in favor of killing the expression.
Jones travels internationally, and he’s recognized that in many places (particularly parts of Europe) the term emerging church is still a popular, defined, and generally positive idea. But he concludes:
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.
It seems my informant’s prophetic word has come to pass. The emerging church is dead—at least in nomenclature, if not in spirit. Both Jones and Kimball are dropping the term while trying to remain faithful to the original intention of the movement. And they represent many other church leaders and bloggers who are moving toward a post-emerging church reality.
As the emerging church rides off into the sunset, where does that leave things? Well, news has been leaking about a new network being formed by Dan Kimball, Erwin McManus, and Scot McKnight among others. I understand further meetings will be happening this week to help solidify the group. The still unnamed network has agreed to start with the inclusive but orthodox theological foundation of the Lausanne Covenant, and they intend to emphasize mission and evangelism. They appear to have learned from the emerging church’s mistake—define purpose and doctrine early so your identity doesn’t get hijacked. If they do their work carefully, perhaps the new network can avoid getting “wacked” in every sense of the word.
Comments
20 Responses to “R.I.P. Emerging Church??”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
the reason for god
- Amanda said: Wow, looks like an... the last thing to convert…is the wallet
- Richard Clarke said: The version I heard had...
- Andrew Park said: Money on a different...
- Andrew said: Relates directly to...
- Dan Lowe said: You know, if this was a...
- Amanda said: hehe, it's funny because...
- Lucy J said: Kinda reminds me of a...
- Eric said: The story goes that... the role of theology in faith
- Ed Magee said: thanks Janet, intersting...
- Janet said: "Are people looking for...
Yawn! The chattering classes are at it again.
SIGH! It’s all turned out to be such an EMERGENCE-EE or should I say EMERGENTS-EEEEEK!
Because of cyber-communication technology, international networking runs at such a fast pace that mistakes gain close to instant magnification. It appears to me that so much happens so quickly at surface-perception level that there is insufficient time to collectively “process” developments at a deep spirit-germination level. It’s like the sun beats down on the sprouting emergent-seed, the wind blows it over, the birds peck at it etc before it even gets a chance to “be”. It looks like its identity has been hijacked before it can even fully recognise itself for what it is! However, I take comfort in the fact that there is good organic soil involved in the story and that the purposes of God blue-printed in the seed will flourish where it is given sufficiently life-supporting conditions. In all probability, the more it is attacked and maligned and/or made-over, the more likely that it is a genuine move of God. How can you copyright, certify or target-proof a move of the Spirit? Personally, I’m not particularly worried about who calls it what. I just recognise it when I meet people following the blue-print (exhibiting the genetic coding) of the seed and thank the Lord when I discover kindred-spirits endeavouring to live out the abundant life of Christ in their particular context. I don’t need a celebrity-approved lens to look through to study it. However, I wish Godspeed to all involved!
…I like Lucy’s comments
…we can codify and over codify and miss the mission
…I think, Alan, what you write about is not creating more networks (which have their place for communication and encouragement) but getting down to the business of getting back to what we are called to be/do so that each group/church/individual can be released to do God’s bidding in their unique ways and places…according to, as someone once said…the forgotten ways…that do keep showing up in each generation.
…my fear is that some new network will soon become one more list of who’s in and who’s out…instead of coming together, somehow, to do His work in His world through His people.
…keep us posted
…thanks for keeping things stirred up
…when are you and the Lady Deb next going to be in Denver?
…don’t forget, your room is waiting.
…
…the “still unnamed network” has apparently “learned from the emerging church’s mistake” — don’t give it any name at all and your identity doesn’t get hijacked.
The emerging church has emerged to be “the no-name network.” The next steps are not to tell anyone who you are, what you do, when you meet or where you meet, what you meet for, what you do when you meet… oh crap that’s the model of church we were trying to run away from… isn’t it?
I’m with Darryl, let the dead bury the dead and the chattering run classes…
Slainte
Well, no kidding the emerging church will dissapear. Once it’s fully emerged it’s no longer emerging, but there, so calling it the emerging church doesn’t seem quite appropriate.
But seriously, the emerging church is what it is, by that name or any other name.
And as far as the movement goes, God is the author of the church (even ‘movements’ in the church, or getting the church to go back to it’s roots) and only He can bring it to an end.
What concerns me, though, is this question: What is Church to us that we even feel the need to attatch some adjective to it?
Amanda, it is a good point that you make. And many critics say the same thing. But I think there are distinctives in movements that raise a certain message that is not being heard or practiced in the larger church. Perhaps the Emerging Church has done what it needs to have done. Raise the issue of faith and spirituality in the pomo setting. Point taken.
Amanda, like Alan I agree with your points. Many of my friends have asked me, “When the emerging church emerges then what? What will the emerging church become? When will we know that the emerging church has emerged?”
I understand the questions and ponder them myself. However, the issue at hand is what the emerging church brought to the table on the Western religious landscape. If we, who call ourselves Christ-followers, walk away from the reconstructing of that which has been deconstructed then do what every other movement has done. We witness the creation of a movement that believed in an idea or ideals, and never finished the work resulting in something substantive that was ushered in by the Holy Spirit.
Even if the term emerging church goes away the movement and ministry of reconciliation cannot stop. I believe this is where the issue of missional and incarnational become important. Let the naysayers gloat in the spoils they have created. Let us move forward with great hope and anticipation.
I know we have plowed this ground before, but all of this is a reminder to closely guard what we mean by “missional” and “missional-incarnational.”
The term “emerging church” is dying because it doesn’t really describe anything well. Just look at the term with new lenses: without the textbook definitions of its original advocates, all one could say that it means is “the church is developing, or changing.” The term started with a fuller, more technical meaning, but it has since devolved to the sum of its parts–”emerging” and “church”–such that now all one has to do to be able to claim to be a part of the “emerging church movement” is to be among the many who are discontent with the status quo. And we all know that’s a very broad stroke.
Things are definitely changing–but on many different fronts. We need to be able to clearly and precisely articulate what is happening in our hearts and in our communities, without throwing around easily undefinable terms.
I think, for example, that “missional” and “incarnational” are better words, from a strictly linguistic point-of-view, because the words themselves are much more specific. They don’t just mean “coming to maturity” or “coming into existence.” “Emerging” is very ambiguous.
Spot on David and Don. Couldn’t agree more.
If the issue here is the name, then the question is who names it.
To be honest it seems a bit off the charts for some to same the name is useless, either dead or dying. Why? Because this simply isn’t the reality. If you look across many Christians circles globally the idea of “the emerging church” is still buzzing. Albeit the definitions are slightly different, the main ideas are still there, and they’re not dying.
For the first time there are many people picking up Emergent-esque books, reading them and getting captivated by the ideas. Whether the books are “Blue like Jazz”, “A Generous Orthodoxy” or “The Shaping of things to come”, they are still being read and generating interest.
What will happen is not a kind of “lets-scrap-it-and-start-again” ethos, but as more books come out the definition of emergent will be more refined, more articulate. Likely issues that cause confusion will fade simply because they don’t captivate people, where as the main ideas will stay because they do.
I guess my point is: the definition of “Emergent Church” is still emerging. It’s emerging in away where a group of writer/speakers can’t real maintain control of.
An Open Letter to Scot McKnight, Erwin McManus and Dan Kimball in this regard.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Hi Alan. It was good to chat with you a few weeks ago! Remember us talking about the confusion between the terms missional and emerging back at Fuller in 2005? We talked about how missional was a theological concept, while emerging was a postmodern expression of the church.
The missional nature of the church should be constant, while the appropriateness of “emerging” somewhat depends upon one’s culture. I’m glad that you addressed this distinction head on in a recent post (I’ve been busy, but still lurking the past few months).
It is interesting “emerging” is now perhaps dying as a term. I suppose one can only “emerge” for a time before one becomes somewhat established. And, as has been mentioned, there are many different strains of “emerging church.”
A historical theology professor recently asked me to try to define the “emerging church.” I responded that this was in itself problematic, due to the nature of the movement. In general, however, I have distinguished the “emerging church” from the “emergent” movement–the latter being more open to non-orthodox understandings of the Christian faith.
Emerging is similar to postmodernism, in that it is a reaction to or defined against something else. Postmodernism is contrasted with modernism, and emerging with modern churches. As modernism fades in memory and practice (at least in regards to matters of faith and epistemology), the term “postmodern” becomes less necessary. Indeed, few other than church leaders commonly use the term anymore. Our culture is simply our culture.
In the same way, could it be that as emerging concepts (whatever those may be) gain in acceptance, that the need to name this church expression becomes less necessary?
Here are some suggested emerging church replacement terms: liberal church; neo-liberal church; deceived church; false church; apostate church; UCC; …
There is a great post on this on Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog. Interesting comments here too! Check it out:
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=4358
Have a great weekend!
IHL,
Richie
Boy, that’s not cynical at all! Bertogem, you do realize that “the emerging church” and “the Emergent Church” are most definitely not synonyms, don’t you? In fact, one of the main reasons that guys like Kimball and McManus are forming a new network and rearticulating their stance is to distance themselves from the much more theologically liberal “Emergent” strain within the very broad “emerging” movement. Please, be careful about leveling pejorative comments in such an unscrupulous way. The term “emerging” is so broad that it doubtless includes hacks and nutjobs in one cranny of the movement or another, but also many people who are dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Even if you believe they are in error, many are still those for whom Christ died. We are talking about the beloved Bride of Christ here. Give it some respect and if you have a problem with positions that people take within the movement, get a little more specific with the issues and speak the truth in a loving, edifying way that we can all learn from, if not in word, then in example.
-david michael gregg
p.s. Please read my article “Disagreeing Like Jesus” .
Sorry, I forgot the link to “Disagreeing Like Jesus”: http://www.thegoodquestion.com/2007/09/disagreeing-like-jesus.htm
I agree with Amanda (and many of the other thoughts posted here); as soon as the “Emerging Church” became self-aware and tried to define itself, it ceased being the emerging church. There has always been an emerging church, and there always will be; at the moment, I think much of what is actually emerging in The Church is emerging within - not so much new movements, but new life within the old. The new wineskins analogy has possibly been misused - we’ve seen that many of the so-called new wineskins have become old wineskins in only a handful of years, implying that they were perhaps lesser quality skins to begin with.
Much of the emerging ethos has been tied to postmodernism, which I think is a misnomer; it’s just a new form of modernism, with the underlying belief that new (what is emerging) is necessarily better, even if there have been occasional hat-tips to the past.
I wonder, too, if evangelicalism (the emergent church of the 60’s) is itself failing?
I tend to think that Ryan Bolger’s general refusal to use the term “emerging” alone, without its partner term “missional” is and has been a helpful guidepost over the past decade or so.
The term “emerging church” is often used by mainline denominational missiologists to refer to churches just now developing in a variety of places on earth– particularly those who are now reclaiming their particular cultural voice as Christians after having been first colonized by forms of Christianity that were either ambivalent or downright hostile to their particular cultural and religious contexts. “Emerging Church” thus serves sort of as the missiological shorthand analog to something like “developing” in economics. I’m not pleased that that term gets used that way, but, frankly, it’s pretty commonplace.
So, at least in my denomination, the additional moniker, and so “emerging missional,” has been essential to use to distinguish the kind of specific focus on Christology, missiology and ecclesiology I see folks like Alan, and before him Newbigin, and still with us David Bosch and Darrell Guder, helping us articulate and begin to live into.
“The Emerging Church” as any sort of a solo referent has thus always been problematic in mainline circles. The fact that it has been taken in, essentially, as “the latest thing” by so many marketing plans doesn’t help that any. Let’s remember that marketing plans themselves CREATE short life-spans, by necessity. They’re not about “brand loyalty” but rather about the “impulse buy.” And so they constantly have to move on to “the next big thing.”
Marketing cannot sustain community. It takes real community to do that.
Emerging Missional– yes. Long may it live! Emerging alone– or Emergent alone (as moniker, not necessarily as network)– those can go.
Following on from Taylors comments, would it be fair to say “emerging alone” has been dead in Australia for some time? It has been a while since I’ve seen an Aussie blogger identify themselves as emerging without some sort of qualification, yourself included Alan.
As David suggests, if the term can mean anything it ends up meaning nothing. That’s where we find ourselves. There is too much going on for one word to capture it. There is too much going on for one network to exemplify it. In a pluralistic culture like ours should this be so unexpected?