no one is actually "emergent" from anything at all

Evan Curry writes:

Emergent must not be something one is, but rather it must remain a mindset since there are certain Emergent ideals (e.g., missional living). So, if one who follows those ideals is “Emergent,” then I am Emergent.

My problem with the "Emergent" phenomenon is that it continues to be wrapped up in abstract notions and ideologies that are trapped within abstract "conversations". It lacks pragmatic edge and one cannot make any clear determinations as to what it is by what people do other than "dialogue". This is of interest to those theologically sophisticated enough to entertain such dialogue, but I continue to wonder about the use of dialogue without perceptible outreach to those who simply do not have the intellectual resources or interest to engage in such conversation. To that end I agree with Evan's closing thought:

My prayer is that term “Emergent” will soon phase out and that the ideals of Emergent will become what it simply means to be “Christian” (which I think already does mean so).

Postmoderns are OK with paradox so – I am not Emergent. I cannot be defined. I am messier than that. But I am Emergent. I hold those ideals. I have that mindset. I believe in the missional call of Christ. I believe in conversation. I believe in unity.

I continue to be struck by the notion that a postmodern "person" actually exists. Jesus was a master at using ambiguity and Kierkegaard literally wrote the book in irony and paradox for Christianity. The latter is as modern as modernity gets and left an indelible mark on Barth's theology which itself is a restructuring of theology in a modern context.

The point is that none of this conversation is quite emergent at all, but is a continued development of a distinctly American liberal Christianity. It is not an historical revolution of some sort, nor is it something that has broken any pre-existing paradigm. This passage from Harvey Cox's rather popular book The Secular City published in 1965 is clear enough evidence of that pre-existing liberal paradigm that has a great deal of confluence with the emergence of the American public from one of material scarcity to one of material abundance.

Secularization is a liberating process. It dislodges ancient oppressions and overturns stultifying conventions. It turns man's social and cultural life over to him, demanding a constant expenditure of vision and competence (p. 75).

I would argue that this idea of liberation from the defining structures of the sacred and profane is the source from which "Emergent" deserves to give full credit for its inheritance. However, again from Cox's analysis, it may be that Emergent as it stands now is suffering from the same theological anemia of its modern, not postmodern, predecessors. It is insufferably wrapped up in abstract ideological concerns (again a sign of true modern discourse). That these are ideological concerns is clear in Evan's words above about the substance of Emergent rather than any divestment of energy its is functional role within the church.

"In our emerging functional period, thinking is no longer reflection on isolated substances…"(p.56).  Why this is so is, "(t)he fact that urban-secular man (sic) is incurably and irreverently pragmatic, that he is less and less concerned with religious questions, is in no sense a disaster. It means that he is shedding the lifeless cuticles of the mythical and ontological periods and stepping into the functional age" (p. 60).

In this regard, "Emergent" is a misnomer since it is not emerging from anything and it most certainly is not postmodern as the vast majority of contributors to the conversations have promoted. Arguably, postmodernism itself is a misnomer as it seems rather clearly argued by Habermas, Kolakowski, and others that what we call "postmodernism" is a critical disposition that is thoroughly modern. The idea of the conversation means well, but it does not really have the radical, paradigm-breaking, or developmentally disjunctive characteristics that its agent provocateurs describe it to have.

To wit, it is reasonable to say, and perhaps more accurate to argue, that "Emergent" is a fully modern development within liberal Christianity. If so Harvey Cox, and not Derrida or Mark C. Taylor or Jean-Luc Marion, is its prophet.

Thanks to Existential Punk for the reference to Evan's provocative post.

No related posts.