The Death of the Emerging Church?!
Some of my readers may have noticed the recent developments amongst those formerly known as insiders into the emerging church movement. Some of you, however, may not spend as much time as I do rummaging through the blogosphere. So, I thought I would offer you a quick survey of this recent development. Then I will offer my own thoughts on the death of the emerging church.
The first post I saw was one by Tony Jones. Jones responds to some claims that he encountered about the “demise of the emerging church” from the Tall Skinny Kiwi, Andrew Jones. TSK accuses the emerging church movement (EMC) of losing its radical edge on the one hand and of doing nothing on the other. Tony J responds by suggesting that radicality is more about content than about the tingling feeling one gets in the base of his or her spine. The message, Tony J suggests, is still radical, even if people don’t react like those silly hyenas in the Lion King. (“Emergent!” “Oooooo. Say it again!”)
TSK responded with a point by point post. His response questions Tony J’s stance on a couple of theological issues, questioning his orthodoxy. His responses are brief and pithy, though fairly unsubstantiated. I imagine TSK sensed this, which prompted his next post. This time, he bids adieu to Emergent Village (EV), rather than the emerging church movement. TSK accuses those associated with EV of “new theological emphases and sectarian attitudes” (though he refuses to clarify in the comments). He announces that his blog “will be more geared to covering the wider mission, church and social enterprise scene as well as resourcing people – like you – to leave a lasting impact on their world” rather than focusing on emerging ideas.
Blogger Jordon Cooper wrote a detailed response to TSK’s post. Cooper is friendly towards EV, even though the specific language of emerging is not all that important to him. Though he understands and respects TSK’s decisions, Cooper does clarify one of the critique’s leveled in TSK’s post. TSK quotes some promotional material for Christianity21, a conference put on by Tony J and Doug Pagitt (not EV proper). TSK recites with disgust, “Those who started emergent were at the National ReEvaluation Forum in 1998; those who will take it into the next chapter will be at Christianity21.” Cooper clarifies that this is promotional propaganda. In other words, it’s probably an exaggeration to sell the conference, not a literal proclamation.
There are tons of blogs on this issue, so here are a few quick links with less detail:
The Emerging Church’s obituary (Rick Bennett’s blog has several posts on the issue).
Brian LePort is with TSK. (In the comments, LePort goes so far as to say that emerging was just another fad.)
And LePort’s clarification.
My favorite post on this whole debate comes from Deacon Hall on Homebrewed Christianity. Hall says that the EMC may be dead, if it is defined strictly as a sociological movement (and here I would quote Tony J’s warning, “And I think it’s always dangerous to start to declare something over as an historian when one is still up to one’s ankles in it”). Hall suggests that all movements end; that’s just the fact of the matter. But Hall insists that “the only Emerging Church is the Church Universal.” The Church, by God’s grace, is always moving, always changing, and in a sense, always emerging.
Hall’s response is the most insightful to me. It seems that people are debating the end of a sociological movement, which is dangerous from this vantage point. But in reality, it’s not the movement that these people are fed up with; it’s the term. Emerging/emergent has always been about the semantics. It makes sense that people are ready for a new world, particularly when one things about the postmodern addiction and need to change. The terminology has become worn and tired for some, but the idea of moving beyond the recently deceased EMC is a quintessentially emerging kind of idea, regardless of how you feel about the semantics. Like Deacon Hall, I’m not sure that the sociological movement is actually over, and it’s fairly irrelevant to me. But I’m adamantly concerned that the ethos of emergence—the humility, the questioning, the generosity, the collaboration, and the friendships—continues as a trademark of the Church. It’s time for the “after the death-of-emergent” ecclesiologies to emerge.
rather than saying it died, would it be better to say that most of the emerging church “emerged”?
as in, you can see from the example above, various leaders and others who began by questioning the status quo (usually their own religious upbringing) eventually arrived at some answers (to at least some of the questions they were asking.) and since some of them have arrived at different answers it seems, (or perhaps have started asking different questions now), the parting of ways was inevitable.
I still personally think the greatest issue related to the demise/success of the emerging movement will be in whether it will only be a rest stop for post-evangelicals on their way out of town or whether it actually influence the postmodern culture.
I suppose you could say it that way, though I think most in the EMC and those choosing to disassociated with it would prefer to consider themselves still presently doing something, even if it’s not “emerging” anymore.
I’d like to hear more about what you see potentially happening in the future with the influence of postmodern culture…?
unfortunately, I don’t have “futurist” in my profile, but I’ll try to think about that and see if I come up with anything.
Matt writes: “I’m adamantly concerned that the ethos of emergence—the humility, the questioning, the generosity, the collaboration, and the friendships—continues as a trademark of the Church.”
Phil responds: I totally agree. I tend to view the whole emergence thing more in terms of a perpetual deconstruction than a certain entity, and it’s a deconstruction that is the endless task of the church (following Caputo). The emergent critique, if you will, wasn’t directed by some determined movement (i.e. “The Emergent Church” or “Emergent Village”), but was rather representative of a quiet (weak) specter which always disturbs (haunts) Christianity from within (hence the reason emergents are such fans of deconstruction). Emergent just happens (or happened) to be the en vogue term naming these dynamics, and this is why it’s important to consider Rollins’ insistence of being faithful to the event, no matter what time or place or institution you are a part of…
I don’t keep up with TSK all that much, but part of me wonders if the radical edge of emergent simply became too radical for him? Could you shed some light on this?
Yes. Rollins is one guy who has realized his own ignorance. To me, that’s what makes him such a powerful thinker. He’s basically made a theological stance on the inability to make theological stances. Such a move embodies everything I love about the artist formerly known as emerging.
I wish I could shed some light on it. I know he finds Tony J’s stance on same-sex marriage to be “unorthodox,” so I suppose it’s possible that some aspects of it (if it truly exists as a movement proper) are too radical for him. I don’t want to try and put too many words in his mouth though…
I really like the terms in which you’ve mentioned me (you make me sound smarter than I am!). The distinction to which you’re referring is the difference between sociology and, perhaps, Gospel (if that term works). I would add that I at least believe that the distinction between the emergent church and the Church as emerging is both semantic and real–the latter being the difference between part and whole. But the implications, both positive and negative, are the same.
Thanks for the great post!
On the one hand, when the part claims the whole, it loses sight of itself as a part, claiming by definition that the whole should be as the part is. Too often this happens in the emergent movement (especially as they become more accepted), no matter what they may contribute to this whole.
First and foremost, thanks for commenting!
This is a good clarification. I tend to be of the persuasion that semantic differences such as this only carry as much validity as we allow them to. I’m not overly concerned with what to call the ethos I described above. One could call it “goat cheese” for all I care, but the idea of friendly, collaborative conversation is crucial for me.
Thanks again for the comment.
Sorry; last part was the beginning of a new post I was thinking of. It got caught in my reply!
I’ll consider it a sneak peak…
Should I find it problematic that my book on the emerging church is coming out at the same time conversations such as these are so prevalent?
Probably as problematic as my burgeoning attempts at writing a thesis of the EMC from a sociological perspective.
At least you can claim yours was already written when she passed…