I have hesitated to post this for a while because, like many of my friends and colleagues, I am unsure what “Emergent” means and/or doesn’t mean. Let’s face it…it depends on who you ask and who is talking. From everything I have read or heard (from the leaders within Emergent), Emergent is basically a conversation of what it means to be a Christian (follower of Jesus) and the Church in our postmodern world. Therefore it’s a conversation that includes all aspects of the Christian life and community touching on theology, hermeneutics, methodology, etc. If that is the definition, which I think it is, then I would say, “I am a friend of Emergent.” The problem is that it depends on who you ask and how they define Emergent (problem of etymology). If Emergent isn’t just a conversation but instead is defined by a creed, formula, statement of faith/beliefs, then although I may fit into that category (depending on what it was), I wouldn’t want to – I’m just not interested in being a part of it if that is what it means. Part of what draws me into the world of Emergent is the shared experience of being fascinated, confused, awed, mystified, and perplexed with what it means to live the Gospel of Jesus in our ever changing global world.
I don’t know Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, etc. personally but I have read most of their books and have heard them speak on occasion. I have read/heard enough to agree and disagree on various points, but from all I can read/hear they are followers of Jesus, who are trying to navigate their way around our postmodern world.
So…I am a friend of Emergent (as I define it)…a fellow pilgrim on a common journey…confused, perplexed, and profoundly enthused about the future of the Church and the emerging leaders within it.
So, if “Emergent” is all about conversation, then how come so many people run off to start “Emergent Churches”? To me it seems like too many people have forgotten the conversation. They don’t want to just talk. They just want to run off and do everything differently.
Can that really be “emergent”?
I like your comment of being “fascinated, confused, awed, mystified and perplexed”. I think that sums up our faith fairly well.
Just don’t run off an plant an “emergent church” now, ok?
I agree, although I think people should go off and start new, even radically different churches, in my definition of ‘Emergent’ you can’t use it as a brand name – it is just not what I think the term means. I think the challenge is that everyone has different opinions to what Emergent is. Thus, some people want to think of it like the Willow Creek Association and others like a denomination. I, however, choose to define Emergent as more of an ongoing conversation of what it means to live the gospel in our new world. Therefore I don’t view it as an agreement with a particular style of church, a theology or someone’s books but the helpful conversation about new styles of churches, theologies and people’s written works.
But that is the inevitable problem with words – everyone has their own definition for them.
i’m way late on this one but I think they go off and start new emergent churches because either:
a) they are impatient
b) they see a church planting need and go for it
c) the conversation isn’t allowed to happen in their current church and gets pushed out
d) the see unreached people and can’t take it any longer
e) they want church their way
f) all of the above
g) none of the above