Once again I found myself trying to define the term "emerging church" to someone. People who are familiar with the term "emerging church" usually believe they understand it's meaning. However, I see so much confusion as to the definition, it's obvious that we still have a long way to go before we effectively clarify the meaning.
While it's not something that particularly concerns me, as I am not involved with any kind of church at the moment and I have no real authority to speak on the matter, I did have a thought about this term and the difference in understanding equating with the difference between the term being viewed as a
noun, adjective or
verb. I hesitate to even perpetuate the discussion. As a blogger and blog-reader, I am actually thoroughly tiring of this being an issue. I don't really care for the use of the term anymore because it has become so complicated and misunderstood. But because people are still asking, I guess I felt motivated to share my thoughts, insignificant as they are. So I'll throw in my $.02 and then add the thoughts of some much more informed and authoritative individuals.
So - some people believe the term is a noun, a thing. They likely have the understanding that the Emerging Church is like the Baptist Church - a denominational structure. Often these people become confused, if not downright defensive, when told that it is not a "denomination" but indicative of movement or change.
Others see it as an adjective, describing someone or something that affiliates itself with, involves, or practices a certain type of meeting, place of meeting, type of worship, or cultural relevance in the application of Christian faith.
Still others understand that the term as a verb, an action word. The term is representative of something that is happening, rather than something that exists. It is intangible. Obviously for people who are accustomed to a "church" term being a tangible thing consisting of exact beliefs and practices, the notion that it is intangible is a somewhat alarming thing.
Now for some quotes from those who know more than I do and my comments about them:
::: While it's challenging to determine when the term first began being used in reference to the church, I have found some ideas about it's origin. A number of emerging church bloggers refer to a book titled "
The Emerging Church", by Bruce Larson and Ralph Osborne, published in 1970. But the term has only gained widespread use in fairly recent years.
As one frame of reference,
Dan Kimball expresses these thoughts:
"I first heard the term "emerging church" around 1997 when Leadership Network was using it as their tagline which said "advance scouts for the emerging church".
"For me, the term "the emerging church" simply meant churches who were focusing on the mission of Jesus and thinking about the Kingdom in our emerging culture. It meant churches who were rethinking what it means to be the church in our emerging culture. It meant churches who were "being the church" instead of "going to church" in our emerging culture.
"The word "emerging" simply means 'what is coming to the surface'. So I use the term for what is the Spirit of God bringing to the surface in terms of the church that He has since the birth of the church."
::: Unfortunately this term that I believe was intended to be an adjective or verb has become a noun, a title, a name for something.
Alan Creech says (emphasis and italics belong to the author):
"I am hearing far too often lately the term "emerging church" being used as if it were one cohesive group of people with a common agenda...
"Until recently, that term was only used as a adjective to describe something that was going on with Christians in this period in history - something new and interesting. So, it got talked about waaaay too much, written about one too many times I guess, and a "label" has been developed and it has begun to be placed on people. This is unfortunate.
"The biggest reason that it is unfortunate is because it is a constructed and false label. That'll do right there, I reckon, for being reason enough. It is an illusory notion that there is some unified ecclesiastical "animal" called "the emerging church" which has some kind of common voice and authority of some sort. This is simply not so. There may well be a bunch of people all over the world who are starting to notice some of the same things and do some similar things church-wise, some things. But there is not nearly this group of leaders who can be rightfully called the "leaders of the emerging church." There just isn't any such thing."
::: The way I see it, the EC cannot be a denomination, because many of it's "members" are actually active members of existing denominations. From
Wikipedia:
"The emerging church is highly decentralized with little co-ordination. There is no mutually agreed upon ecclesiology about the role and nature of the church.
"Some emergents attend local independent churches that specifically identify themselves as being "emergent" while others contribute to the conversation from within existing Christian denominations. Denominational affiliation ranges from the Anglican/Episcopal Church to the Southern Baptist Convention while many emergent churches are non-affiliated intentional communities or house churches. [6][7] Emergents share a willingness to challenge traditional church structures and organizations like the house church movement while respecting the different expressions of traditional Christian denominations. [8]"
::: Some thoughts on the fear that this organism is quietly trying to usurp or demolish existing church structures: the emerging church doesn't desire or intend to
replace the existing system, but to complement it, to add something of value to it.
Andrew Jones says:
"New things compliment and enhance rather than replace.
"In emerging church, new models take their place with traditional models. Asking “What is the next model “ becomes redundant, since novelty by itself is no longer valued and the emergent is actually a remix of ancient and recent and present. Thus our hesitation. Our emerging models are taken as threats to the residual church, but they should not be. We want to preserve older models, not replace them. We want them to stay and remain healthy because we see ourselves as intrinsically linked to their heritage. We want our new models of church to nestle snuggly alongside the old models in a way that allows synergy and interdependence. Old wineskins allow for vintage wine and so do new wineskins. If Jesus likes them both, then we all should find room in our ecclesiology for the other."
In other words, it does not want to exterminate existing churches, but to collaborate with them in the commission to make disciples of all nations.
[Sidenote:
nations, in my opinion, not only means an independent governing nation state, but also any race, generation, culture or people anywhere in the world. Hence, the word
nation could as easily mean your next-door neighbors as it could mean a tribal people halfway around the world - see
ethnos - Greek 1484 at
BlueLetterBible - "
a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus".]
Of course one thing that adds to the confusion is the word
emergent. It is often used somewhat interchangeably with the word
emerging when paired with the word
church.
Doug Pagitt said this on
Religion & Ethics Newsweekly:
"Five years ago or so when numbers of us started using this phrase "emergent," there were a number of reasons why we thought this word worked well. The reason I was most excited about it is the use in a forestry term or an agriculture term. Emergent growth is the growth in a forest that is growing below the surface, that if you were to knock away the dead pine needles and leaves and branches, you would see the growth that's happening there. The health of a forest is determined by the health of the emergent growth, the growth that's about to come up.
"The idea is there's something that's about to come to the surface, and it's growing in the environment of the rest of the forest or the rest of the field. So it's not against, it's not over in another field, it's not something that wants to destroy the forest; in fact, it's going to grow because of the protection of it -- the idea that there was this emergent growth that was happening in Christianity, that was protected and that was going to have the chance to survive because of the environment."
But here's where the confusion comes in.
Emergent is
also an organization that is often mistaken for being or representing the "emerging" or "emergent" church, when instead it is rather a resource for emergers, a network for Christians who find themselves in the throes of "emerging".
From their website:
"We must imagine and pursue the development of new ways of being followers of Jesus … new ways of doing theology and living biblically, new understandings of mission, new ways of expressing compassion and seeking justice, new kinds of faith communities, new approaches to worship and service, new integrations and conversations and convergences and dreams.
"In recent decades, a small number of Christians across the globe have begun taking on this challenge, and now they are beginning to find one another to share insights and encouragement and hope. Growing networks in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, and North America are coming together in person and online for thoughtful conversation, prayer, worship, and action as part of this transforming mission.
A network called emergent is seeking to network these important regional networks. Emergent is for people who feel called by God to invest their lives at this new edge of transition, exploration, creativity, challenge, collaboration, faith, danger, and opportunity."
The other confusion that I see is that the term often is used in reference to a generation, much like the terms
Generation X or Y.
Andrew Jones say this, as well:
"My experience in UK is that Brits often confuse emerging church with ministering to youth. It is not “youth church” or “Gen X Church”, although young people are likely to model many of the emerging cultures values. Emerging church is open to [prefers?] intergenerational involvement and is probably suspect of attempts to isolate and fragment into age-specific ministry. Thinking that emerging ministry is youth ministry is a trap. If we believe the problem is youth, then we only have to wait a few years for young people to grow up and think like their parents. But the problem is deeper than age. It has more to do with a different value system and worldview, which they will not grow out of. The emerging culture sees life in a radically different way than their parents, and will need to understand the way of Jesus in their own culture. This is the missional challenge for us, the same challenge that the church in every age is faced with."
::: One more note - awhile back
Steve Taylor worte the A to Z of the emerging church. Well written and enjoyable, this touches on many different aspects of the "emerging church" and the people who identify themselves with it. It helps one to see how vast and varied this thing is, how it is not something stationary or easily definable but rather fluid and broad and intangible.
So there you have it.
In a nutshell:
It is a verb, an action or motion. It is something that is happening.
It is an adjective used to describe places or people who align themselves with that motion which is happening.
It is not a noun. It is not the title of an organization or denomination. It is not something definable or stationary or concrete. It has no leaders or structure.
