Collapse of the emerging church?
...the collapse of the emerging church as a popular project.He expands in the comments
It's just a hunch, but I sense that some of the key players are less and less willing to work with that particular language. I think that, whereas a few years ago people were excited by the prospect, people are getting used to/bored/fed up with 'emerging church' as a concept, and will thus leave it behind.
Not that I think that that means 'game over' for all that people like Emergent stand for - far from it actually - but I think people may increasingly assimilate those ideas into their practice without taking the name. (I think for some time this has been foreseen in the collapse in usefulness of the term 'emerging church', which is so tired as a phrase it has begun to mean nothing.)
I think people have become tired of a whole lot of talking, and want to see things actually happen... and when stuff actually happens, it tends to be quieter and create less internet hum than the talking about it.
I agree with what Kester is saying. For some the term, "emerging church" has become meaningless for many reasons. I am both tired of the term "emerging church" which I agree means nothing now to many people but at the same time I am excited about some of the projects that I am a part of but at the same time don't feel the inclination to talk (or blog) about them, partly because we are in the middle of trying to make them happen and many people in the church dismiss anything with the emerging church out of hand. As I am in an environment which includes the old and new, the label "emerging church" carries a lot of baggage (much of it isn't fair or accurate). I think it is also an evolutionary process where one is confronted with new ideas and as time passes we move forward with those ideas which in turn help our ideas evolve further.
As has been said, the term postmodernity is a description of what we are not, not what we are becoming. Even the term, "emerging church" is based partly on the past, not the present or the future. So while the "emerging church" as a phrase is kind of worn, the ideas that are behind it are more and more a factor in how I live and think.
Disclosure: I am a member of the Emergent Coordinating Group and Resonate which means that I am more than a little biased.
Labels: church, emerging church, ideas, Resonate
9:34 AM ::
7 Comments:
I think there is a natural process of every new paradigm, that goes through a lifecycle. The emerging movement started in the early seventies, but never gained traction. But the early players kept the principles in the back of their minds, and wanted to resurrect them, when the time became right.
Analytical church planting took off in the nineties, and many "proto-emergents" jumped on this, to further their ideas. But, church planting was "new methods to create old churches", which was okay, but the emergents wanted something more.
A few years ago, the emergent idea took off again, and meetings like the one in Boise (Allelon) collected lots of new thinking in an inexpensive area. Ideas took shape, and new expressions of Christianity resulted. And, with all new ideas, these ideas were put into print, along with some tips on how to replicate them.
The writers spent their time marketing their new books, and withdrew from conversation. Few appeared in the forums on Allelon and Ooze, they hit their Dunbar Number and turned away new friends.
We're now at that phase of "collection and implementation" where the global strategies and ideas need to be transformed into workable hardware and software. That takes time, and is not very "pressworthy". Others have viewed the emerging movement as something that's not a theological problem, but a relationship/communication/time management paradigm. And have started "building the bridge" from the other shore. Rather than building a bridge from the church outward, they are building from a societal paradigm inward.
The term refers to so many things that I don't even know what it is I am supposed to be tired of anymore.
I was going to tirade on some stuff here, but decided against it. I post it on my own space if you are so inclined.
Mike, good thoughts on this.
blip.
The Emerging discussion became boring when the prevailing topic became what was and was not emerging. That said, some extremely valuable things happened and were said. As a church planter, the spadework of trying to be a church that is what it claims to be and what we believe the church was intended to be leaves little time, energy, or inclination to discuss the ins and outs of a broader movement
couldnt agree with you any more. nice to hear you say it.
I didn't even know the term "emerging church" until last year (we are a house church "by accident"). But I'm already a bit weary of the term emergent, simply because labels become stereotypes all too quickly. I already see some folks embracing it as a sort of fad, instead of pursuing it as a journey of change.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home