There continues to be a great discussion across the Interwebs as folks try to nail-down exactly what it means to be “emergent.”
Folks are coming into the conversation from all different places in their lives, as well as at different points in the emerging conversation.
Some people have been discussing emerging Christianity since the 1960’s (or before); some have been in the the discussion for 15 to 20+ years; some picked up the discussion circa 1997 when the initial discussions were taking place that ultimately led to the formation of Emergent Village; others listened in at various points along the way and started to align themselves with the emergent conversation in more recent years (myself included); and still others are on the “outside” hearing criticism from various folks and groups and wondering what its all about.
Regardless of where you are in the journey and conversation, welcome!
While defining the emerging church movement is probably similar to trying to nail jello to the wall, I thought I’d take a stab it this week by sharing what I’ve come to understand it as over the last few years.
In no means will this week’s posts bring about a conclusive definition, but perhaps it will help define what I have currently come to accept and understand.
This week’s conversation started over on Facebook with a couple of comments related to the book, “Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be.” (Andrew Jones has a great review of the book on his site.)
I haven’t read the book personally, but it is on my list of books to read (even though its near the bottom right now ;-)).
As an aside, there’s an interesting video from the 2009 Christian Book Expo (which was held earlier this year in Dallas) in which a guest panel who try to define/nail down what emergent means (the panel includes one of the “Why We’re Not Emergent” authors). It ends up being a lot less generous and friendly than I would have hoped to have seen. And ultimately they don’t get very far in the conversation.
On Facebook, I offered a very basic 30,000 (if not 50,000) foot view of what I’ve come to understand emergent as and I’ll try and narrow some of it down in several other blog posts later this week.
With emergent Christianity, there is a concerted effort towards dialogue and wrestling with our faith in community/ecclesisa rather than simply accepting what theologians of yesterday have told us. There’s a much greater emphasis on “generous orthodoxy” and learning about God through community and each other than the typical top-down approach of a seminary trained pastor speaking for God.
“There is an over reaching envelope of friendship and reconciliation that must surround all debates about doctrine and dogma.” T Jones
So there’s the opening statement. I hope to drill down into several ideas including Generous Orthodoxy, Centered Sets, Missional and Trinitarian Based Values.
It’ll be interesting to see where we go from here. Hopefully it will be a learning experience for all of us (myself included). I hope you’ll jump in and weigh in throughout the week (and beyond).
Part 1 :: A generous orthodoxy
Part 2 :: Centered set
Part 3 :: Missional
Part 4 :: Trinitarian based values
Loved your initial thoughts. I’m looking forward to some more….
Loved your initial thoughts. I’m looking forward to some more….
I find it funny that you say that the review of Why We’re Not Emergent is a great review when the person who wrote the “review” has never even read the book.
You’re right, as of the posting I referred to, Andrew did say he had only read a preview chapter of the book.
I didn’t mean to infer that Andrew’s review of the book was complete or accurate per-say – or even that I agreed with it (I haven’t read the book myself to know).
I only thought the writing itself was great and was amused by his point that from what he saw and read, much of what the authors are/were doing is actually much of what he considers to be emergent.
Does that make sense? Perhaps I should rethink that side note.
Respectfully I don’t know what diffrence it makes. Emergent non emergent we need to be the church and stop trying to over think it. I guess I’m just not smart enough to wrap my mind around why it matters. Maybe it would help if I read the book;) but it seems like its another point of division among the “Chritian community” which is exactly what we do not need. I’m at a pont now where I don’t want to label it any more or fight over interpitation while the world around me is separated from Christ. Its just me but then again I have never been accussed of being a great thinker. Much love- Dave
Excellent thoughts Dave. We need a lot more people who are willing to break bread together regardless of (and inspite of) labels.
Perhaps a generous orthodoxy isn’t as generous if you’re still trying to hide yourself under an emergent label or any other.
I think its the commonality among one another that draws people to the emerging conversation. But that doesn’t make it right – or wrong – in and of itself. But it makes sense that people would say emergents are exclusive while those inside the conversation are trying to say they’re inclusive. As Andrew Jones has written (http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2006/02/what_i_would_sa.html), perhaps rather than going off and meeting on our own, emergents should be more about sharing their ideals with the Church as a whole.
which is why the “hyphonated” emergent groups are so powerful (bapti-mergent, lutha-mergent, catho-mergent, etc.)
they are a group of people who are saying, we can start to do things differently in our faith while still remaining within the family of faith which we’ve grown.
also, it allows me to say that I’m lutheran, but also connected to a new conversation that is the emerging church. Rooted in the traditions and expressions of my heritage but open and seeking the freshness that comes from deconstructing those expressions….
very true! and I like that I can learn from your traditions within the greater conversation and hopefully you can learn from mine.
Respectfully I don’t know what diffrence it makes. Emergent non emergent we need to be the church and stop trying to over think it. I guess I’m just not smart enough to wrap my mind around why it matters. Maybe it would help if I read the book;) but it seems like its another point of division among the “Chritian community” which is exactly what we do not need. I’m at a pont now where I don’t want to label it any more or fight over interpitation while the world around me is separated from Christ. Its just me but then again I have never been accussed of being a great thinker. Much love- Dave
Excellent thoughts Dave. We need a lot more people who are willing to break bread together regardless of (and inspite of) labels.
Perhaps a generous orthodoxy isn’t as generous if you’re still trying to hide yourself under an emergent label or any other.
I think its the commonality among one another that draws people to the emerging conversation. But that doesn’t make it right – or wrong – in and of itself. But it makes sense that people would say emergents are exclusive while those inside the conversation are trying to say they’re inclusive. As Andrew Jones has written (http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2006/02/what_i_would_sa.html), perhaps rather than going off and meeting on our own, emergents should be more about sharing their ideals with the Church as a whole.
which is why the “hyphonated” emergent groups are so powerful (bapti-mergent, lutha-mergent, catho-mergent, etc.)
they are a group of people who are saying, we can start to do things differently in our faith while still remaining within the family of faith which we’ve grown.
also, it allows me to say that I’m lutheran, but also connected to a new conversation that is the emerging church. Rooted in the traditions and expressions of my heritage but open and seeking the freshness that comes from deconstructing those expressions….
very true! and I like that I can learn from your traditions within the greater conversation and hopefully you can learn from mine.
I find it funny that you say that the review of Why We're Not Emergent is a great review when the person who wrote the “review” has never even read the book.
You’re right, as of the posting I referred to, Andrew did say he had only read a preview chapter of the book.
I didn’t mean to infer that Andrew’s review of the book was complete or accurate per-say – or even that I agreed with it (I haven’t read the book myself to know).
I only thought the writing itself was great and was amused by his point that from what he saw and read, much of what the authors are/were doing is actually much of what he considers to be emergent.
Does that make sense? Perhaps I should rethink that side note.