A Living Alternative

As someone who has intentionally differentiated between “emerging” and “Emergent” (but always identified to a degree with both), Tony Jones recent post on the topic caught my eye.  Tony sums up his post very well by saying:

“Drawing lines and defending borders never ends well for the line-drawers because before you know it, someone has drawn a line right behind your heels and, guess what, you’re suddenly on the other side of the line with me.  Line-drawing is yet another form of infinite regression.”

When differentiating between these two terms (and their respective and varied meanings), if it is being done to exclude, protect or “prove”, I believe Tony’s point is a very good one.  My own differentiation has less to do with distancing myself with Emergent Village (which is the most common differentiation I encounter on this topic), but rather to be more contextually specific.  “Emergent” is increasingly being associated with the more dominant American expression of the emerging conversation (in part due to the use of the term in the name “Emergent Village”).

Let me be clear: I am not saying that an American expression is a bad thing.  In fact, far from it.  While I may not land in the same places with some of the EV folks, I think they have been bravely and prophetically engaging emerging-missional issues in their context better than most.  That their intentions and integrity of purpose are being questioned is a reflection that people do not know them very well.  Further, I am not saying that EV is ONLY an American expression, but only that they are primarily so.  Their impact and investment extends globally.

That being said, differentiations are not something that can or should be completely avoided.  To make this distinctions is an essential and even important part of what it means to be human.  Yes, it is too often abused and misused, but we face an equal danger by denying differences.  I maintain the difference between the terms, but not when used in evaluative or competitive contexts, but rather for understanding and clarity.

Tony’s point is well made, though, and should be acknowledged.  It is too easy for us to reap the benefits of others risks and work, then dissociate from them when it is inconvenient or unpopular.

When I first began engaging emerging church issues online, I entered the conversation at a time when things were rising to a boil. Though the intensity and frequency of the topic(s) have cooled considerably since there, there is still a markedly polarized debate over many issues. Questioning whether the emerging church is within orthodoxy is perhaps the most common.

One of the most difficult dynamics of this debate is how resistant the emerging church is to labels and categorization, largely due to its very diverse and varying expressions. As in all things, it is the extreme examples from with end of a the spectrum that get the most “press”, when in reality the largest representation- those in the middle spectrum- are rarely acknowledged. As a result, many in the middle have begun to dissociate with all things emerging (and/or Emergent), finding other labels and categories instead.

Perhaps it is this very inability to fix the emerging church into a category that threatens so many people. While there are legitimate concerns about doctrine and theology in respect to some in the emerging church, most critiques I encounter result from a lack of understanding of the varied dynamics of the conversation. Labels are used, for good and for ill, to acts of touchstones for relating to people, ideas, etc. The more unclear the label, the easier it is to be abused, misused or misrepresented.

I am not suggesting that labels are absolutely necessary nor that we should better define the emerging church. Rather than a category a person or group fits into, the emerging church is, from my perspective, primarily a sociological phenomenon, influencing a larger spectrum of group in many contexts. It shares common aspects and influences, but cannot be used to absolutely identify a persons or groups theological or orthodoxical integrity.

So what makes the emerging church so contenious? Ultimately, it is because the emerging church is deviant. Got your attention? Let me clarify. It is deviant in that it deviates from the many of the norms and assumptions often associated with those in question. It is represented in variations and departures from the norm within a given sphere of influence. Some deviations are compeltely neutral, others touching on issues of varying debate and some crossing what many would call the line of orthodoxy.

I am not going to attempt to say who is which of the three areas stated above, only that when we discuss the emerging church, we must recognize that we cannot take specific examples as proofs either for or against the larger phenomenon. This does not mean that the larger phenomenon is above critique- by no means!- as there are many fair criticisms that broadly apply. However, when critiquing aspects or examples of those who identify with the whole, critiques (and defenders) must be careful not to allow sweeping generalizations to attempt to narrowly define the phenomenon.

Understanding the emerging church as a phenomenon allows us to acknowledge that there is, indeed, an observable influence with common influences and dynamics. We can also recognize that those influences and dynamics do not dictate response, but rather interact with the exsisting dynamics in a given individual, group, context, etc. resulting in unique expressions. Far from deterministic, people within these given context can choose how to respond or react to the phenomenon. Those people who, on whatever level or to whatever degree, affirm and embrace parts of the new phenomenon can identify with the emerging church.

I am no sociologist or theologian, so I recognize that this is not a perfect hypothesis. Rather it is just the observations I have made through my own experience. I would love to hear your thoughts. Let me know.

Emerging Church Deviance Missional Phenomenon

Ed Stetzer brought NBC Nightly New report (seen in part above) to my attention via his blog. When Tom Brokhaw misrepresents what the emerging church is on national television it is no wonder people keep getting it wrong. What bothered me further is how they took Jennifer Snipe’s response to a question about politics, then edited it in as though she was responding about homosexuality. I have had this done to me by a TV reporter before, so I know how it feels. For another segment of the interview not seen above, click here.

Emerging Church Missional Tom Brokhaw

While money prohibits travel at the moment, this event is one I would certainly attend if I could. November 17th, Resonate and The Freeway are hosting Cultivate Gathering in Hamilton, Ontario. Tim Baily, Joe Manafo, and David Fitch are among the speakers. The cost is $50 which includes lunch. If you are able to be there, make the effort. It will be worth it. Oh, and pass on the word at your own blog too!