Look who's done with words like "Emergent"...

Since at least 2005, I was advocating for Emergent (technically Emergent Village) to change their name. Already, at that time, there was confusion between the emerging church, a loose movement of those interested in exploring methodological, philosophical and theological movement and change and Emergent Village, a specific organization commonly associated with personalities like Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren. 

In my mind, though I would consider those guys friends, the confusion between what they thought/wrote/said and what the emerging church as a whole was about was too great. I believed (and others agreed) a way that Emergent could serve the emerging church as a whole was to change the name, thus stating clearly that while Emergent was a part of the emerging church movement, it wasn't the sum total of it (something they never claimed to be, by the way) and they didn't speak for everyone who considered themselves a part of the EC. 

Well, you know... the name remained. Too much had gone into building the brand, and the confusion not only remained, it solidified. In fact, people began to speak of the "Emergent Church" and far from looking to the churches that made up the movement, folks, critics in particular, began more and more to look at Mssrs. McLaren, Jones and Pagitt (as well as some others). 

Of course, at that point, many who had broad sympathies with the emerging church began to tire of constantly being asked to defend the theology of others as though it was their own. Speaking for myself- I like and love those guys, but I don't want to... I can't own everything they write or say. 

I thought for a long time that in the way all movements tend towards having a left and a right, so too the emerging church would eventually end up with a left of Emergent and Friends and a right of the "missional" church movement. And if the trends continued, eventually, I thought those who identified with the "missional" aspect of the emerging church would distance themselves from the words "emergent" and "emerging."

Well, I was right. Andrew Jones, a co-signer of Emergent's "Answer to Critics" has now stated that though he will stay relationally connected, the confusion between the emerging church and Emergent has become so problematic and so hindered the work he's trying to do (mainly by causing supporting churches and organizations to distance themselves) that he's dropping the use of the words.

Further, Dan Kimball here talks about a new network forming with Scot McKnight that would seem to be positioning itself as a counterbalance to Emergent. 

As for me- I don't know if I'm done with the phrase "emerging church" yet- but just about. I know that when I say it, I'm more often than not now answering a question about what we aren't than what we are about- and that saddens me. I'm profoundly grateful for the emerging church conversation and for the role that guys like Doug, Tony and Brian have played both in it and in my life as well. 

But I do have some deep concerns about some of the things I see in the movement as a whole- and to be honest, though I once spent a lot of time defending the emerging church, I want to be about the Gospel. Answering questions about what someone else does or doesn't believe, even someone I consider a friend and influence in my life, just doesn't appeal to me any more...