Emergent and the Emerging Church
In recent weeks, there appears to have been some confusion in certain circles about the difference between Emergent and the rest of the emerging church.
A number of other bloggers -- most of whom are far more intelligent, wittier, and probably better-looking than I -- have already spoken to this question, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents' worth as well.
This comes from the comments thread from an earlier post, in answer to a question by a visitor going by the name of "exile".
You've asked a very good question, which is coming up a lot in recent days, since EmergentUS announced Tony Jones as their National Co-ordinator (scroll down to Report from Emergent Summit, Part 1). Originally, it was National "Director" but they changed it later because they felt Co-ordinator better described the position and also sounded less hierarchical. Follow the above link and you can see the progression -- and the reaction.
First off, there is a difference between EmergentUS (and UK), and what has become known as "the emerging church".
EmergentUS and EmergentUK are related organizations that fascilitate conferences, and seek to co-ordinate the wide-ranging discussing about being Christians in a postmodern world. They've always been "organizations" -- however loosely organized they actually were -- but they are not synonymous with the emerging church in general.
They'd be the first to tell you that, as well.
The "emerging church" would encompass people of many differing theological stripes, but who share the same sense of "what used to work, doesn't anymore". They are questioning, researching, blogging and discussing (usually in coffee bars or pubs) what it means to take the timeless message of the Gospel and contextualize it for a postmodern (post-Christian) audience.
For many people "in the conversation", EmergentUS & UK function as resources, sounding boards, and a way to discuss with people from a variety of geographical and theological backgrounds their common concerns.
The reason I'm not personally concerned about any implications stemming from Tony Jones' appointment, is that Emergent has always been an organizational entity, so it's not really changing who/what it is. EmergentUS is simply recognizing that, if they're going to be fascilitating so many things, they'd better at least do a good job at it!
The other reason I'm not overly concerned is that so many in the conversation are already (or still) a part of a denomination, and while some are frustrated, there seems to be a genuine commitment to being "emerging Vineyard", or "emerging Baptist", or "emerging Salvation Army" (these are only a few examples).
For these people, the Emergent resources (websites, books, conferences, etc.) are valuable means of input, but to use the old adage, they're "eating the meat and spitting out the bones" -- they'll take what is helpful to them in their current context, and let the rest slide.
And the house church movement is generally pretty independent (in good and bad ways, depending on the individual house church), and therefore is more likely to treat Emergent as a resource, not as the fountain of infallibility.
Overall, I think Tony Jones' new responsibilities will be good for Emergent as an organization, and where this discussion is helping people understand the difference between Emergent the organization and the Emerging Church, so much the better.
A number of other bloggers -- most of whom are far more intelligent, wittier, and probably better-looking than I -- have already spoken to this question, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents' worth as well.
This comes from the comments thread from an earlier post, in answer to a question by a visitor going by the name of "exile".
"This is completely off the subject, and has nothing to do with BBQ's or Bob the Builder.Exile,
"I was scanning back through your entries and came across your post on June 20th. I have recently begun observing the 'emergent'-thing, and I find it quite fascinating. It speaks of a process, a pursuit if you will. It has been left without defined parameters because it hasn't been so much a movement, but simply a people who are hungry and searching...
"So, do you foresee any repercussions in assigning a 'national coordinator' to a 'movement', when so much of what I have read seems to written as a reaction to 'national movements', by people who do not wish to be 'coordinated', by an outside source?
"I would be interested to hear your take on it..."
"Exile"
You've asked a very good question, which is coming up a lot in recent days, since EmergentUS announced Tony Jones as their National Co-ordinator (scroll down to Report from Emergent Summit, Part 1). Originally, it was National "Director" but they changed it later because they felt Co-ordinator better described the position and also sounded less hierarchical. Follow the above link and you can see the progression -- and the reaction.
First off, there is a difference between EmergentUS (and UK), and what has become known as "the emerging church".
EmergentUS and EmergentUK are related organizations that fascilitate conferences, and seek to co-ordinate the wide-ranging discussing about being Christians in a postmodern world. They've always been "organizations" -- however loosely organized they actually were -- but they are not synonymous with the emerging church in general.
They'd be the first to tell you that, as well.
The "emerging church" would encompass people of many differing theological stripes, but who share the same sense of "what used to work, doesn't anymore". They are questioning, researching, blogging and discussing (usually in coffee bars or pubs) what it means to take the timeless message of the Gospel and contextualize it for a postmodern (post-Christian) audience.
For many people "in the conversation", EmergentUS & UK function as resources, sounding boards, and a way to discuss with people from a variety of geographical and theological backgrounds their common concerns.
The reason I'm not personally concerned about any implications stemming from Tony Jones' appointment, is that Emergent has always been an organizational entity, so it's not really changing who/what it is. EmergentUS is simply recognizing that, if they're going to be fascilitating so many things, they'd better at least do a good job at it!
The other reason I'm not overly concerned is that so many in the conversation are already (or still) a part of a denomination, and while some are frustrated, there seems to be a genuine commitment to being "emerging Vineyard", or "emerging Baptist", or "emerging Salvation Army" (these are only a few examples).
For these people, the Emergent resources (websites, books, conferences, etc.) are valuable means of input, but to use the old adage, they're "eating the meat and spitting out the bones" -- they'll take what is helpful to them in their current context, and let the rest slide.
And the house church movement is generally pretty independent (in good and bad ways, depending on the individual house church), and therefore is more likely to treat Emergent as a resource, not as the fountain of infallibility.
Overall, I think Tony Jones' new responsibilities will be good for Emergent as an organization, and where this discussion is helping people understand the difference between Emergent the organization and the Emerging Church, so much the better.
posted by Robbymac at
8:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home