Every year it seems there are a handful of posts in the blogosphere proclaiming the death of the emergent "church" with the vigor and noise of a town crier with a twist rapturous joy (Jim West). Others take a more irenic tone (Brian LePort, Andrew Jones). Others try to make sense of it all (Tony Jones, Danielle Schroyer, Thomas Mathie). It is like a year's end ritual which ironically calls people who identify with the emerging church movement to re-connect and respond to such claims. I am fine with people in the blogosphere proclaiming the death of things as they wish. It's not an academic forum that requires actual evidence to substantiate anything at all. But as long as we are clear that claims that have no true substantiation are fictions in as much as a Fox "News" report on the turnout for the lastest round of "teabagging."
Jim offers a hearty thrust of gratitude for this death of a "movement devoid of the Spirit and completely beholden to the whims of its participants. A movement mocking Christianity and bereft of God himself."
The death of the emergent movement, if it has come to pass, will put the ‘fun’ in its funeral. A funeral which should rightly be marked by all God’s true people as the end of a heretical schism. A good death indeed. A death whose time has long been overdue. A death by which God proves his hand was never in it.
The irony is that the movement is itself a new kind of ecumenism where differences coexist among theological similarities. It is, as I have described it, a meta-denominational movement. It has become this even as people from numerous denominations have joined together with a shared understanding of their views of Scripture, tradition, worship, sacraments, etc. It is a community of Christians who share that community beyond traditional structures which are no longer esteemed to have any special purpose to receive the gifts of God, namely grace. It is thus quite ironic that a movement that is declared not to have the hand of God in it is a movement that began as a process to find the hand of God at work in the world. When the hand of God is no longer seen to be active in churches that have confused traditional structures with that very hand, something literally emerges from that structure. That's the emergent(ing) church movement (ECM).
While I do not hold that this is some new Reformation of special purpose as some have said this year, neither do I hold that this is some kind of heretical movement that has lost sight of the central position of Scripture. Rather it reclaims Scripture as that which must reform and even destroy religious traditions and customs in order for the Word of God to be revealed through the drawing near of the Kingdom of God. Moreover our doctrinal and hermeneutical tools to understand the meaning of scripture must continually evolve. I do think that this is a classically liberal movement because it reclaims the freedom of one's conscience to discern God's revelation both individually, and most importantly corporately to critique rampant American individualism. While I do not think this is particularly post-modern given that one of the hallmarks of modernity is this self-critical impulse, it is neither fully modern since it is intentionally non-foundational in how rational systems clarify revelation.
What ECM is becoming, the central issue here, goes more back to Niebuhr’s hypothesis in the Social Sources of Denominationalism. ECM is in a pattern that is not new and we can find examples of it in the past (Disciples of Christ perhaps?).The pattern is that if this is an emerging movement, at what point has it "emerged" and what has it emerged into? History shows us that it will emerge into its own social system (arguably it already has done so). There are fault lines of disagreement that are already quite pervasive in the movement. The current fault lines are where things will break apart into contained sub-movements for which the radical edge may be one (see Outlaw Preachers).
I think it is important to see where the tensions are that are forming these social faultlines. This will show us how the Emerging Church Movement (ECM) is evolving and into what it might be evolving. Positive points of unification are worth holding up, but this is never where change occurs. Change occurs at fault lines and fault lines change landscapes in often dissentful and unfriendly ways. While ECM has not reached that point in a lasting way (there have certainly been conflicts), there is nothing in the social history of religious movements to indicate that it will not. To this point I agree with Andrew Jones that it is not quite a radical movement at all as much as a re-set for the traditions that up until 20th century modernity were assumed to be adequate vessels for the Kingdom of God. But what this re-set will become is what we are trying to understand right now.
Related posts:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Drew Tatusko, Drew Tatusko. Drew Tatusko said: fresh post! emergent christians missed the memo that their movement is dead: http://bit.ly/4s18US #emergent #outlawpreachers [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by dtatusko: fresh post! emergent christians missed the memo that their movement is dead: http://bit.ly/4s18US #emergent #outlawpreachers…
"ECM is in a pattern that is not new and we can find examples of it in the past (Disciples of Christ perhaps?)."
It is interesting you bring this up. I think the Restoration Movement, which brought in the Disciples of Christ/Christian Church/churches of Christ, have a story to tell to the conversation and the emergent church. I have long said this for years. The Restoration Movement started much like the conversation did. People coming together and saying there has to be a better way. I think the Restoration Movement has a bigger piece of church history than it has been given credit for. Yes, this a bit of a soap box thing for me.
As far as it being dead. Who knows, what I do know it is different from where it was. I pointed this out at Andrew Jones' blog. I also think there are different strands in this. As Josh Brown said, there is no spoon or Emperior's Clothing.
For West, someone like him makes me laugh. He only knows one part of the conversation. The conversation is NOT set up around the label of just "emergent church." It just isn't. It is with people who are on a similar journey. Those who wish to find theology or gatherings that are based upon a more community oriented theology. This isn't just tied up with Pagitt, McLaren, or any other people that some tag as "big guns." The fact is, the conversation is about individuals who are, again, on the same path. Some are happy in taking the hyphenated label and others who might run outside of that. It maybe that the label is dead or might be dying, but the conversation isn't. Someone like West can dance on the label all he wants. He has no understanding of it and I for one am ok with that. I was never tied to a label other than the conversation and that I know is not dead and will never die. As long as we push one another to the organic gathering and pushing out from it, it can't die.
Just some thoughts.
i think that behind most of west's posts he is looking to get a rise out of people or at least a good laugh. he's usually pretty tongue-in-cheek. but his traditionalism runs deep indeed.
Gotcha.
I forgot to touch on something. When I was highly involved at theooze we had a year of being under attack. A lot of fundies and conservatives ready to send us all to hell. What happened with in that is like what you said, we all went into our other little groups after awhile because it seemed easier than to have to defend oneself over and over. It is an interesting thing that does happen, however, it does not mean a movement is dead, rather it is forming and changing.
Great post.
Here's my take.
I think more and more and more churches are being "infected" by the emergent conversation. Like anything else, great ideas spread and powerful ideas shake people.
My favorite example: while in no way an "emerging church, Willow Creek megachurch pastor Bill Hybels bought and gave to his congregation the book "The Hole in our Gospel."
The book is all about how care for the poor MUST be tied directly to following Jesus. The idea that GOOD NEWS isn't just GOOD NEWS for your soul, but it is GOOD NEWS for the hungry, poor, naked, and widowed of the world.
Sounds a lot like the "emerging" authors I read.
[...] The Emerging Church Isn't Dead, Yet (Or So Say Some) 2009 December 30 tags: Andrew Jones, Drew Tatusko, emerging church, Jim West, Tony Jones by Brian LePort After reading my post on the possible demise of the emerging church movement (see here) our most famous biblioblogger, Jim West, gleefully declared her death was not a moment too soon (read here). On the other hand, Drew Tatusko responded by writing that those of us who think the end is near have made such declarations much too soon (read here). [...]
that's the point. it's an "other" centric movement not a "me myself and i" movement. it's finding jesus in the world who is its light. what folks in the ecm have found is that there is often more light in the world and just more heat in the church. better to follow the light than hang around only to get burned.
As much as conservative theologians would like to see the emergent movement go away, it just will not. It will expand and contract and redefine itself continuously along the way; it will evolve as all natural systems do. As we continue to reach out to people and grow as leaders we will see our ideas begin to influence the mainstream; it is already happening. Fundamentalism always softens and dissipates into mainstream culture.
[...] is not what it used to be, it is no longer a revolution, etc. I responded to some of these claims here. Jonathan Brink does an even better job of describing these ebbs and flows in a more lengthy [...]