"Post-emerging"? Oh brother!

I wish Dan, Scot, Erwin, Bob, and whoever else links up with them great success as they launch into that new venture. I predict, however, that no matter how many times they say "Lausanne Covenant, Lausanne Covenant, Lausanne Covenant!" avoiding controversy and regular "wackings" from the heresy hunters will still be next to impossible.

I imagine this "new" movement will come with a lot of brand new books for sale along with other marketable items, pricey conferences, etc... to help it move forward? How nice.

Boring.

Those who used the term to identify and describe the pursuit of mission in a changing context are now naturally shifting to new descriptors.

Those (like publishers?) who jumped on it as a "brand" or the next cool thing..pretty much missed the whole point anyway. (e.g. if you think that "missional" is just a trendy way to say "evangelistic"..you probably missed it.) The term pretty much lost it's traction just as it got reduced to a marketing label.

Have no problem with the term. Find the term helpful. Will continue to use the term. Think the very POINT of the term is to direct our attention beyond the whole label concept (even though this is a goal we will never fully accomplish).

Uh, point of information: Luca was not handed the "death fish." Santino (a.k.a. "Sonny") was handed the death fish which symbolized Luca.

I guess the question is: what is the point of the term anyway? Is it to nail down a specific theological position? I don't think so. Is it to define who's "in" and who's "out"? I don't think so.

So, for those who are concerned with such matters, I don't think this term was ever meant to convey such ideas. And if clear, boundaried definition is what you're looking for, then perhaps a new term is something you should seek out.

I'm a pragmatic fellow (most of the time). So I encourage McKnight and gang to start their new venture. If nothing else, it will allow them to have influence in circles where the Emerging/Emergent association is too "polluted".

But, even so, I think the "Emerging" term should and will carry on.

As one named in this anonymous piece, let me register three observations:

First, there are some reliable facts in this story.

Second, there is an envelope around these facts -- a death wish on emerging that is probably also wishful thinking -- that is interpretation.

Third, I have for three years argued for sustaining a difference between the international emerging movement and emergent, which for good or bad is centered in Emergent Village.

Conclusion: the emerging movement, broadly considered and whatever name you give it, is alive and well and flourishing. Many of us know that the word "emerging" has been stained by some poor thinking and by some vocal critics who have not taken the time to recognize the differences within the larger emerging movement. But if some of us choose to connect ourselves and if some of us choose not to use the word "emerging" any longer, that has nothing to do with the reality that there is something serious going on in the church.

I will be posting about this next week on my blog.

"Post-emerging church reality"? Really, after only 6 years or so? That's not enough to be a blip on the radar of most people's lifetimes, let alone on the grand picture of Church history.

I think McKnight helpfully set some things straight that needed to be. That being said, the whole fixation around NAMES is kind of funny. They are at once both completely trivial and unimaginably important. The movement continues on no matter what you want to call it.

There was(is) nothing new or original about the emerging church. It has existed almost since the beginning of the Church. It will be replaced in our lexicon by something that is the same under a new name.

Hmmmmmmm....

And behold, an emerging Earth, and an emerging Heaven, and the Old Earth and the Old Heaven were submerged.

Lookit, I enjoy reading the UR articles, but I am not exactly hearing any tires on the road.

Yes, I know I sound like a jaded Christian.

Call me unconvinced mr/ms. anonymous poster. Indeed the 'Emerging Church' banner has gotten a wee bit nebulous, crowded, etc. But you are going to have to do better than shadowy meetings with a 'publisher' in order to say anything of value here. Your post is no better than macro level gossiping.

But at the same rate how newsworthy is it when an over-used, ill-defined, and mis-understood term falls by the wayside? RDM is right this will continue on regardless. Are you taking glee in the demise of the word, or are you secretly hoping all of a sudden you will curb the tide of post-modernity and globalisation and it's effect on 'church as usual' by declaring the emerging church dead by using veiled and ambiguous threats?

ai yi yi...

who cares?

if terms are losing their usefulness, then so be it.

I would consider myself within the larger EC conversation, but I'm not so shallow as to be wedded to a term/label and neither are most in the conversation that I know. So again, who cares? Who cares?

Who needs the term when arm-chair "researchers" have so demonized the term you can't get a fair hearing when all you want to do is talk about how to best share the gospel with people...

It's not like a label falling into disuse will make key voices "go away" or represents some kind of "victory" in the fictitious "truth war" that isn't happening no matter how much you need to cast life that way.

On another note,to RDM, I don't recall anyone claiming novelty or "new revelation" in the EC. In fact there was more of a sense of "renewal" of ancient and deeply traditional practices, theological thought, etc. So the constant yammering about "you're nothing new" only demonstrates just how much so many critics "don't get it".

Finally, there is no "post-emerging" reality--at least not yet. The discourse is not determined by it's name, it's determined by it's content. What a silly thing to write.

What a total yawn...

Proof we live in a microwave, flash-and-grab, fast food society. "We've marketed The Word to death. Now it's lost its meaning. Time to kill it. Move on."

I believe The Movement will live on. With or without the original marketed term. At least now we live in civilized times instead of during the Reformation, when people were burned at the stake, drawn and quartered, tortured, or excommunicated for supposed heresies.

My question now is what to do with the term Evangelical. There's a word that's quickly losing traction and flavor.

Interesting responses... In the blog entry I wrote which was quoted here was not saying the emerging church as a movement is dead. I specifically stated that I am planning on continuing to be very involved in the mission of why I got involved in the emerging church and what it was originally about. My blog entry that was quoted here was sharing about how the term is defined is different than 5 or 6 years ago in how it was used. So a lot of my energy has been answering questions about how it is defined, answering questions about whether emerging and emergent the same and all those types of things. Not from the watch-dog types, but from wonderful pastors and leaders who are understandbly confused by the whole thing. For me, I want to not have a term gets in the way of focusing on mission or is confusing. That's all I was trying to say and how I long to be with others who will rally around evangelism - which is the network that is being discussed. The mission goes on, although the terminology may not be as helpful as it used to be (for me in the context and world that I am in). It is funny, as I don't even think most of our local church has any idea of terms as we don't use the term "emerging church" in our own church. It is more of a leaders connection to understanding these things. I would ask that you go to my original post they linked to and read the whole thing about terms and definitions if you want to see the context of these quotes posted here.

I am sure Scot will have a nice response to this on his blog and be far more articulate!

Dan

it is funny, i am bible school and doing a paper about post-modernism and read that the emerging church was in a way an answer to that... i call a professor that i repect and he clued me in that as of today emerging is Dead... Post? what that about... i am all about current coming to the cross... is this new group going to do it.. idk... but i do know that the heart is in the right place...the world is changing.. i would rather jump and wack 100 things till i find the one that works instead of trying nothing at all...

Going with the Lausanne Covenant, eh? It might be a whole 'nother discussion but it has its problems. My blogs go into that a bit. Pay particular attention to the parts in red and underlined further down in the blog.

http://possiblyfitforhumanconsumption.blogspot.com/2008/07/republicans-and-democrats-can-do-it-why.html

Just what IS "emergent?" After haning out w/ people who describe themselves this way for a number of years, I still have no idea what it means.....the only common denominator seems to be the pursuit of something different then what they have experienced in the past

Why do some continue to treat "emergence" as a noun?

It is a verb.

Emergence theory is not theology. Ecclesial emergence describes the shift underway in global religious communities as they abandon old institutional barriers and begin to form peer-to-peer relationships via virtual interconnectivity.

Those who try to attach some grand theological shift to the word "emergence" are missing the point, and will continue to be frustrated (as evidenced by Andrew's poll).

Perhaps the best definition yet is Scot McKnight's take on the "emerging streams" as it looks beyond rigid theological uniformity as our basis for community. Per McKnight, emergence is a “missionally shaped ecclesiology that seeks to unite Christians for the sake of unleashing the gospel to change the world, rather than a theological movement designed to demand conformity on specific theological issues."

Roughly 20% of the world population currently uses the Internet, fewer still use it communally. As goes (grows) the Internet, so goes emergence. Emergence is a natural consequence of God's image reflected in vastly accelerated ecclesial interaction.

And it is more than that. Emergence is a growing community of Christ-followers sharing their faith, concerns, questions, challenges, failings, dreams, prayers, and visions via virtual networking. This phenomenon has never happened on an instantaneous, global, un-moderated, egalitarian level. We’re witnessing the birth of a new ecclesiastical revolution in which age-old denominational and sectarian boundaries are becoming irrelevant -- being replaced by a real-time congruency of global and local community – born of unrestricted virtual interaction.

Just as the printing press radically expanded access to understanding and literacy, so the Internet – born of the microprocessor – is shrinking the literate world into a global town square.

Ho hum! Predictably American responses to "Emergent". Emergent / missional approaches challenge people to think outside the box and then when a theologically divergent and rich milieu springs up, someone attempts to put the brakes on it. Lusanane covenant indeed! The term 'Emergent" may be getting worn, but don't do the American evangelical thing of expressing fear at the prospect of on-going dialogue and engagement with Christian diversity. I guess frustration always accompanies hope, and I'm frustrated, but still very hopeful.

Whole lotta talking and planning going on in reference to names and marketing...not a whole lotta something going on in terms of worshipping, serving, and honoring Christ.

Fact is, there is a shift in many churches whether they get the missional/merging/emergent idea or not. What have they shifted from? What are they shifting to? And why all the name changing anyway?

It does not matter- the next day it will be something else. The one thing I know is that the Word of God never needs changing. It is always constant and never void. Man throughout history, always will look for a way to put their own spin on the gospel, but God is Sovereign and His Word is truth. So try it mankind, much good it will do ya!

Hello I am a "free-range" follower of Christ involved in the ministry of Solomons Porch in Minneapolis(one of the flagship groups in the Emergent camp). With the use of the term emergent now by mainstream evangelical groups I think the strong possibility exists that what happened to the Jesus People movement in the 70's will happen with many of the emergent congregations. They will be welcomed into mainstream groups with open arms and then absorbed to where there is nothing left of their original character. Remember Don Henley's lament about seeing a "Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac"? Oh, sorry I forgot we're postmodern. So let me propose new labels. Those who are absorbed will be known as the "Convergent", and those that go underground to escape attention will be called the "Submergent". With that as a start we should never despair of running out of labels. Feel free to add your own as the spirit leads. Well I better shift my paradigm into high gear and hit the open range. 10-4 to all.
Trucker Frank

If only we could take the amount of thought and time spent on such trivial, meaningless debates, such as this one, and replace it with real Kingdom work done in partnership with each other for the sake of Christ and those who need him.

For whatever value (be it real or perceived) these internal conversations actually bring, I believe that by and large they serve merely to distract and divide the members of God's family, keeping us from doing the very work we're actually here to do.

May God bless us with a renewed attention to the things that matter, and a bitter distaste for all that does not.

It's not easy to kill descriptive words. I am pretty sure that Christianity Today would be pretty offended, along with a lot of other people, if people started saying that the "evangelical church" is dead. But really, that is the core of the problem.

While we can't say that the evangelical church is dead, I think it is fair to say that it is "dying." If this is so, then what will rise in its place? And what will we call it.

Post-emerging, boy that was a pretty fast turnaround, less than 15 years?

I hope "they" don't ruin the word missional.

Another fad bites the dust, long live the next fad!

emerged - submerged?
missional - dismissed?

how about the Gospel - understood, believed, lived and shared? that has worked for the past umteen centuries.

I'm much more interested in today's PERCEIVED definition of "Christian" and "evangelical."

Two things I want to point out.

"The informant (who worked for a publisher) leaned forward and said their (the publisher marketing plans

We have a publisher, a marketing plan, and a brand. That's all we need to know that this "movement" is consumer-driven. As David Wells would say, the consumer, not the Bible, is sovereign.

Exactly my point, Mr. Kimball. In some ways, you need to get into the philosophical, contextual, and abstract when discussing the religious aspects of the birth of religious movements. Not always the easiest when living in a western and centric country.

It is clear to me again, that church movements when marketed effectevely became captived of the same means used to promote themselves.
It is the mark of global capitalism. It is avoidable, though, as long as we remained faithful to God, the Holy spirit promtings, and not fashion trends within the church. You cannot blamed the publishers however when you benefit economically from brand equity.
Hope these great christian entrepreneurs find their way to God´s purpose if they lost it.
At His service (not brands)

i think the key thing in your post was mentioning mcknight's new network that rests on the lausanne covenant. for a movement [emergent] that lacks a clear beginning and direction, i think it's important to perhaps look at the writing of the lausanne covenant as the launching point for this new, globally-connected christian expression. the conversation needs to be about where the movement is going and how to be involved in its practical implications both here in the us and internationally. the conversation should NOT be about emergent terminology--it should be about emerging action.

If you think the Emergent Church is dead/dying, then you're asleep at the wheel.

the Church, Christ's church, the one he loved in Ephesus and Colosse and the one he loves now, is alive. She is the individuals who make up the whole of the Body of Christ--simply put, people all over the world who love Jesus and want to know Him and stand fully on His Word, and can't live a minute without the grace that comes from the cross. She is the profound mystery, Christ and the church, and i want THAT, i want to follow THAT. call it what you will, the power of Christ is alive and it is powerful, and it is in people everywhere who love Him. He is what i want. He is the beginning and He holds all things together. not another name, there is no other.

The Emerging Church is over rated. I first thought it was a good movement in certain areas. But now I compare it to all the past revolutions and revolutinaries who thought they were being so revolutionary but are now out of existence. I also think the fundie/conservative evangelical movement is also over rated. I think both sides are guilty.....Guilty being sucked up in their supposed self importance. The one by their 'coolness' and the other by their 'pharisaicalness', if that's even a word.

First of all, thank you Scott, Todd, and Dan for setting the tone of this straight by bringing us into the conversation cited by the so-called "new leak"...

That said, some thoughts for the overall discussion:

I would note that the missional impulse to build environments and conversations toward God's reign includes that our building is p/re-formation, it is incomplete in a 1 Corinthians 13 way. And so when we name something "emergent" or "evangelical" we may hope to be evocative- describing and not prescribing, inviting and not circumscribing. But it is not always left to our intentions. Unfortunately when we disciples of Christ elect not to join other disciples in their missional vocation 'we' often succumb to the temptation to justify this risk with provocation, totalizing 'their' descriptions and invitations as "too narrow" or "too wide."

I am continually being taught the wideness of God's love and the narrowness of the way. I am forever in need of the spiritual disciplines of 'joining.' And the friendship that is 'Emergent Village' uniquely inspires in me this holistic adaptation of the evangelical impulse to go and share. May the road rise to meet any conversation that seeks to join God by following Jesus together, and may God lead us not into the temptation to totalize those who do not join any such conversation.

Jesus spoke of having no brother or sister other than the ones walking with him in the Way, doing the will of the Father who sent him. And so brand loyalty or tribal inclusion was a name given to shared generative action and not the reverse. Jesus family were joiners, and those who wanted to trump the new-comer were not in the family in-so-far as they wanted teh family to themselves. The Buddhist is taught to "kill the Buddha"- that is to say (in a gross over-simplification) if you meet someone along the road who claims to be the revelation of God, then such a person neccessarily misunderstands God's revelation and must be buried. Christians have learned that we must die to rise, continually. The dieing is that ancient purifying work of God, and the rising is that ancient inevitability of the new creation inaugurated in Jesus Christ's deconstruction of Galgatha and death and Empire and self-aggrandizement... So things will always emerge without trumping or circumscribing these Yahwisms of death and resurrection.

How about a future of seeking to join God's World in this dieing and rising with Jesus and not one continent to argue about who is next in line to die... or rise?

I once had a roommate that couldn't wait for a particular couple to break up. As it turned out, he had no intention of dating the girl but just despised their relationship. As others pointed out, it seems some want the term and the "movement" it represents to be erased. Btw, my former roommate is still single - hasn't found what he's looking for.

Some great comments here. Appreciated Scot and Dkimball and Trucker Frank!! signing on. Loved this one in particular - "Your post is no better than macro level gossiping." by Dave Brusch. (Will be checking out his blog.)

"Emergents" don't really care about the term. If you've haven't heard it said yet, It's often described as more of a friendship and the conversations that are enjoyed.

Where did you get this news about this new network?

"Emergent" folk are so resistant to definitions (heaven forbid we define anything so we know we're talking abotu the same thing) that they can only blame themselves for it getting away from them. Defining is not the same as "labeling" or "stereotyping" or whatever else it is they are afraid of.

Most all terms end up meaning something than what they started as. Karl Marx once said "I am not a Marxist." I sometimes wonder with what many people cal "Christian" if Jesus would have said "I am not a Christian."

As one on the outside of EC and especially EV looking in, Emerging looked to be nothing more than a bunch of intellectual-talking guys dialoguing on how to make the church more acceptable to the world, and trying to synthesize different ideas with the Christian religion.

It's interesting that there now seem to be two types of Emerging Christian leaders. Those who want to be based on God and His objective Word, and reach post-moderns. And those who are questioning so much that they can barely be called Christian anymore. I'll let the reader guess who belongs in each camp, heh heh.

Luca Brasi was not the one being handed the coat with the fish. Luca's bulletproof vest was delivered to Sonny to demonstrate that Solozzo and the Tattaglias had killed him. Get your "Godfather" references right.

This is the first, but not the only or worst weakness in your argument. The emerging church (I use lower case letters because it is not a formal organization, hence not a proper noun) does not play by the standard rules of organizations or even movements, so why would you use those rules to conclude that the emerging church conversation is "dead"?

This is exactly the type of stuff we're trying to escape. Thank you for making our point for us.

* The Primordial Covenant

"And [remember] when your Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, [He asked]: "Am I not your Lord?" They said "Yes, we testify!" Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: "Of this we were unaware."

The definitive attribute of man is his ability to forget.

The very word used in the Quran for "man," insan, is related etymologically to the word nisyan, or forgetfulness.

Thus the human as he is initiated into the world progressively loses his awareness of the immediate presence of God.

It is the function of religion to make us remember.

1.This is related to the five stages of the lives of man, one of which, is the 'preconceptual life', which took place before we came into this world.

2.This world, known as dunya in Arabic, is derived from the word 'low' and is seen in Islamic cosmology as the lowest world. Indicating that there are worlds above this one, and that man descended from the highest, which is from the presence of God.

This stage of preconception is when, according to the Quran,

God took all the created souls, and brought them together where He said to them

"Am I not your Lord?" and the souls responded in affirmation,

"Yes, we testify!"

What is the meaning of idol worship?

A simple definition of idol worship is to believe that anything beside God can help us, or to hold something as more important to us than God. Thus if we hold our property (for example) as more important than God /or give our jobs more time and attention than God - we are committing idol worship. Unfortunately, the majority of people who believe in God commit this gross offense without even realizing it. If you ask them, "Who is your god?", they will be outraged to hear this question. "What do you mean, `Who is your god?' they will ask, `My god is the Creator of the heavens and the earth.' " And most of these people will be shocked to find out that their proclamation that their god is the Creator of the heavens and the earth is no more than lip service, and that they are in fact destined for Hell (12:106). Idol worship is a gross injustice, the violation of the first commandment in all the scriptures of God, and is an unforgivable sin if maintained until death.

[31:13] Recall that Luqmaan said to his son, as he enlightened him, "O my son, do not set up any idols beside GOD; idolatry is a gross injustice."*

Footnote: *31:13 How will you feel if you take care of a child, give him the best education, and prepare him for life, only to see him thank someone else? Thus is idolatry; injustice.

[12:106] The majority of those who believe in GOD do not do so without committing idol worship.

(sub-title) The Unforgivable Sin

[4:48] GOD does not forgive idolatry,* but He forgives lesser offenses for whomever He wills. Anyone who sets up idols beside GOD, has forged a horrendous offense.

Footnote: *4:48 Idol worship is not forgivable, if maintained until death. One can always repent from any offense, including idolatry, before death comes (see 4:18 & 40:66).

(sub-title) The Unforgivable Sin

[4:116] GOD does not forgive idol worship (if maintained until death),* and He forgives lesser offenses for whomever He wills. Anyone who idolizes any idol beside GOD has strayed far astray.

God tells us that idol worship nullifies all work.
3. Jesus as idol.

[5:72] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord* and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers.

3. Jesus as idol.

[5:72] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord* and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers.

I once had a roommate that couldn't wait for a particular couple to break up. As it turned out, he had no intention of dating the girl but just despised their relationship. As others pointed out, it seems some want the term and the "movement" it represents to be erased. Btw, my former roommate is still single - hasn't found what he's looking for.

Thanks to Matt Kelly above for the detailed comment. Interesting read.

Stu