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...

Comments

[Aaron Stewart]

This is a great post Bob. I have been finding myself in the same place as well, most recently it's been more for the reason of feeling more confused by what the three gentlemen mentioned above write and say rather than having a clear understanding of what they are trying to say.

I am more in the camp these days of resonating with men like Piper, Keller, Frost, McKnight and yes even Mr. Driscoll. These are leaders and teachers that are able to distill what they are teaching down to what matters and communicate that in a way that doesn't leave the hearer with more questions than answers.

I'm all about conversation and questions however when the where they lead is to more circular conversations about nothing that go nowhere I have to ask what the point of it is. At the end of the day the creators of "The Conversation" seem to be more interested in just that as opposed to rolling up their sleeves and setting about the business of partnering with Jesus here on earth to bring about his kingdom.

[Bob]

" At the end of the day the creators of "The Conversation" seem to be more interested in just that as opposed to rolling up their sleeves and setting about the business of partnering with Jesus here on earth to bring about his kingdom."

No- I wouldn't say that. In fact, I'd disagree with you strongly. I think you are judging men you don't know and haven't read... and worst of all, judging them by what other people are saying about them on the internet.

I know few people who love Jesus and want to see the Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven more than Brian McLaren. I may disagree with him on a couple of B and C level things and the way he talks about a few things, but at the end of the day, the guy loves Jesus and is extremely kingdom-focused. I could say the same thing for Doug Pagitt, too.

Again- my beef is with the way that some have come to be identified as the voice of a movement, mainly by other people, and the fact that it gets hard after awhile to continually defend oneself against charges both ludicrous and reasonable that flow out of what someone else is saying or doing.

I'm making zero assertions about anyone's motivations or heart in the matter- and for the record- Scot McKnight has a lot of sympathies with the Emergent guys, and guys like Piper would hate to be seen on a list with McKnight and Frost... so, it's not quite as cut and dried as that. And even though Driscoll has toned down the crazy monkey talk, I'd contend that over the years he's said more things that have made me (and should make you) say "What the heck?!?!?" than Jones, Pagitt and McLaren combined. :)

As an aside- one of the things I loved hearing from Doug in a conversation last year was the fact that he gets just as much flak from his lefty, more liberal friends about hanging out with Dan Kimball as he does from friends and others on the right for hanging out with others. I've always thought that if you are taking flak from both sides, you are probably doing something right... and at the very least him standing by and showing support of people like Dan (with whom he has some disagreements) shows character and it's something I admire. Now- I'm not sure he's in exactly the same place as someone like Andrew Jones who needs the support that others are dropping because of the word "emergent" or guys like me who've grown tired of having to answer the same ridiculous questions over and over... So while I don't know if I can do exactly what Doug is doing in this area, I still respect it greatly.

[Aaron Stewart]

Good point. Upon re-reading my comment I would omit the last sentence, not really a fair statement, but I stand behind the rest. :)

[ted]

Hey Bob,

Love your blog and have been reading it for some time now. I do wonder though why you are so sympathetic and unwilling to critique those involved with EV but will write long posts nitpicking Mark Driscoll on songs at his church. What gives?

So while you are ready to "move past" defending those in EV who have influence on your life are you ready to move past poking fun at someone who like Mark Driscoll who you are probably closer to theologically than the guys and gals in EV? It just seems that if you were willing to offer a more balanced assesment of EV in the first place then you might not need to defend what is often indefensible when trying to line up with orthodox Christianity.

This really is not meant to be mean or nasty, but just to point out some observations from a guy who has been reading your blog for some time.

[ryan]

Bob you really believe that Driscoll has said more off the wall remarks than Pagitt, McLaren, and Jones? Really? Are you referring to cultural statements or theological assertions.

If your going theologically I think you would have a hard time living by that claim. I have read plenty of Jones and Pagitt stuff that is more wacko than any of Driscoll's rants.

Of course this is somewhat subjective but I think I can more easily live with Driscoll's sporadic cringing cultural comment, than Pagitt's tacit universalism ideas.

[Bob]

Well, one man's theological error is another's cringe-worthy comment! And vice versa...

I say yes, on the whole Brian and Doug especially (Doug notwithstanding some uncharitable remarks about John MacArthur that made the rounds) have been much more circumspect than Mark. After all, you don't see people picketing Doug Pagitt or organizing protests, right?

I get what you are saying though- I might actually be closer in theology to Mark (as has been suggested). But I feel like guys like Brian have more of a grasp of James 3:1-12 than Mark does. And that actually matters in my book! And my Book :)

[Mike Morrell]

Um, YEAH Driscoll says more off-the-wall stuff than EV folks! Just my POV...

Anyway, back to the point of your original post (and forgive me for lifting my own comment from Andrew's blog) - I tend to think that no matter *what* one calls oneself, the moment one starts to innovate (or even faithfully retrieve theology and practice that is not explicitly from one's tradition), there will be purse-string-holders who will cry foul. I don't mean to be a tire-kicker, but...if the 'powers that be' funding new church and missional expressions are that picky, then perhaps we missional/emerging/ent/whatever people need to figure out lives and careers and vocations that provide funding we don't feel slimy about taking. Otherwise, we're going to be perpetually looking over our shoulder every five years, hoping to stay ahead of the curve of heresy-hunters who don't like our terminology or our lives.

[ryan]

Hey Bob thanks for the response. Your right about Mark failing frequently in living out James 3, makes it even funnier that he will be speaking at a huge national conference about the power of the tongue.

Also I bet Doug, Tony, and Brian are great guys and I would probably have a great time over a pint with them.

Getting back to the original point of this post I would also just add that the word "emergent/emerging" is quite soiled. Sadly, (and our political process is a great example of this) people ascribe meaning to a word or a phrase, and whatever that meaning is, it becomes entrenched in their minds. Its the power of labels and categories; they mentally stick. But they also are communication killers as we see pundits screams labels at each other night after night at the conventions and thinking that somehow think conversation is taking place. So at this point it seems if the "conversation" is going to move forward, emergent, might need to be left behind.

This has been my experience at least with a number of theological terms and phrases that I just will not use anymore because once I do then I get put into a mental box and it is often possible to get out of it. I would rather talk specifics about each specific topic with people and really hear what they believe.

[ryan]

Meant impossible, not possible. Spell check does not find those typos for you!

[Bob]

"So at this point it seems if the "conversation" is going to move forward, emergent, might need to be left behind."

I agree.

[Mike Clawson]

For an alternative perspective on all this, you might check out my wife's post "Claiming Emergent".