I recently had a conversation with Wing about the terms "emerging" vs "emergent" which I believed in classification of post-modern church means something different. Then Dan threw in the "Post-Emergent" where we take the best of the crop and start our own kind of thing.
After a little research (something I find myself doing a bit too often in the last month) I've found some answers to justify for what I mean.
The concept of the emerging church came out of a conversation within a group of pastors and theologians in regards to their response to "generation X" and how they could reach generation X in the middle late 90's. But this conversation then shifted towards of how the church should handle post-modernism: This is what we call Emerging
Within it came out 4 different streams:
1. A stream within that came out that tended to be more liberal regarding issues like original sin, authority of scripture, atonement of sin, exclusivity of Christ etc. This is what we call Emergent. (I think Kevin could relate to this)
2. Then we have another group that are more based with house churches and try to do smaller groups, moderate and evangelical, just trying new church forms.
3. The third group we have the traditional church with all the jazz, but they are trying to upgrade the music, upgrade the preaching style to make it more hip and cool for the kids. Trendy Church beta/ RC 2 that kind of thing.
4. The last group we have churches that hold on to traditional reform theology and try to change the focus of the church towards what looks it would look like from a mission in the post-modern culture. So, what does mission look like within our own culture. Like imagining us becoming missionaries and dropped in this society, what do we do? What does the mission church in this society look like? What does the missionary look like? That's the emerging part. The Missional church.
In some ways, I wish I could be like Dan to pick and select the best from all these 4 to make a "post-emergent" view, but I don't think is possible. I don't think I belong to the first 3, for one I'm not liberal, nor am I small house church, or am I into this hip and cool church thing.
Kev, I think I've got you started for this coming Saturday's conversation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
hey
post emergent was last week. this week i might just be a --------. who knows. i think the most important thing from all these three wacky streams is truth. if you get believers yet you don't have truth, then you are a religion. but if you have truth and you are all, one or a few of these then by george you have something that i don't think words can describe.
Ahah! You just wait till Saturday...it's gonna be fun. :)
I've wondered about this whole emerging/emergent/emergency (okay the last one I made up) thing. I've never really tried to place myself into any of these categories.
I guess you think I fit under "Emergent". I've never used that word to describe myself. I never even know it applied to me! All those issues which you mention seem to match my liberalization of beliefs. I always considered this group as "Liberal", "Progressive", or even "Secularized" Christians.
Streams 2 and 4, as you define them, are what I aligned with 'Emergent'. I might clump some Stream 3 Churches in on that, but I think the majority of Stream 3 are just plain evangelicals.
You know what though. Eug, I would have thought you had some liberal pizzazz in you. You do after all read 'postmodern' theology and progressive thinkers.
How do you hold on to traditional, reform, theology and still "live, move, and have your being" in a postmodern culture?
Post a Comment