What is Emerging church, does it matter?

So, what is Emerging Church?

This is what people often ask me, and despite loads of "conversation" I still am unable to give what I consider to be a good answer. I know what I mean when I use the term, but that is certainly not a universal conception. The emerging churches that I have encountered have, to a great extent, been comprised of urban, post-modern, progressive young adults who are missionally minded, committed to community and spiritual practice while figuring out what it means to be followers of Christ in the messy, ambiguous world in which they find themselves. These communities vary greatly in "worship style"- from old-timey country to jazz, from techno-liturgica to rock and roll so it's surprising to me when those outside of the emerging church think it's about a worship style (this is due in large part, I would guess, to Zondervan Publishing Dan Kimball's books which are everywhere, these books are not without merit, but certainly not representative of the EC that I am familiar with)
What I often find is that people will take the missional and contextual piece of the EC and say, well, isn't my traditional rural ministry of mostly 70 year olds "emerging" because we are missional and contextual? Well, not really. This is not to say that you're not engaged in amazing and creative ministry, but to me, it doesn't line up culturally with the EC. But no one wants to say this. We all want to say "sure, you're emerging too, everyone is emerging...now let's hold hands and sing a song", but how accurate is that if almost all of the communities who are seen as emerging are young urban and post-modern? If the movement started out in this urban, postmodern cultural context, then do we use the same term for ministries outside of that cultural context, who are also missional? Now, I know this isn't the most profound thing to be thinking about, but I just find it weird. If the Spanish speaking Latino ministries are missional and contextual, then can I call my postmodern emerging church a Latino ministry because we are missional and contextual?
Am I just trying to be an elitest asshole?
Don't get me wrong, I think all of the church should be missional and contextual. I suspect that the way in which the emerging church will, in the end, influence the broader church is in this post-Christendom reorientation toward mission and context...which would be an amazing contribution.
For myself, all I can do is swear that I will not use the words "missional" and "contextual" again for a long, long time....I've clearly used my quota.

Comments

[MadPriest]

If you define the context of a movement it is no longer truly contextual because the movement is not emerging from the context - you are simply looking for situations where a model will fit. "The Emerging Church" may decide that their work should be in the areas you describe, which would be a good and valuable thing, but they should change their name to something more descriptive of what they are doing.

And I still think the movement is too dominated by leaders and celebrities to be truly emergent. In a truly Emerging Church you would rarely hear about the facilitators, let alone read their books.

[Andrew]

I am wondering whether or not the EM can really be described as a movement in the traditional sense or if it rather a "move" of the Spirit. I know that in my personal experience it seems as though there is a general move in this direction (not without its problems) transglobally and that those who are being led this way are informally linking together and sharing ideas (networking) rather than following any one clear "missional" leader. This is what, in my own limited experience, is so exciting about the whole EM thing. I think it also makes it incredibly difficult to label or define it properly.

[Nadia]

MP,
I agree about the problematic celebrity element. That is why Zondervan Publishing was on my "on notice" board, as I feel they have published so much of the emergent celebrity pablum, and since they have such a large market, we are now having to deal with their version of the EC in the public's mind. My friends in the EC are far from celebrities trust me.
More than anything I have a heart for my people: the postmodern, creative, urban young adults who would NEVER darken the door of a mainstream church. I feel as though I entered the EC thing so that I could establish a CHristian community that my friends would actually want to participate in. On a very deep level I feel that Christianity doesn't have to be embarrasing and that the Gospel and the liturgy is too fuckin' cool to remain soley in the hands of the current "church"...the traditional American expression of "church" IS culturally bound, and not the "default". I think in the EC people are discovering that there is a postmodern cultural expression of the church that a certain population can relate to. The mainstream cultural expression of the church has never been appropriate for them. Maybe we just need a new term for what I described.

[Sherri]

I have found the theology component of EC literature to be the most intriguing and it certainly has the evangelical conservatives on the offensive e.g. vehemently against it.
From McLaren's book, Generous Orthodoxy, he bases his views on a foundation more toward the coherence philosophy of truth. Evangelicals base their doctrinal views on a correspondence philosophical view of truth. These views of 'truth' are pretty different and hence the great debate/divide has begun.

All this to say, that at the core, there is some other stuff driving this 'global conversation' besides the contextual and missional components of EC.

[Lutheran Zephyr]

I've been reading through your (wonderful) blog - I'm sorry that I hadn't found it earlier. I really like this post, particularly where you say:

"Don't get me wrong, I think all of the church should be missional and contextual. I suspect that the way in which the emerging church will, in the end, influence the broader church is in this post-Christendom reorientation toward mission and context...which would be an amazing contribution."

To this end, I wonder if the emergent movement might not help mainline denominations such as ours to renew our sense of mission, identify our unique charisms (Jim Kitchens suggests this) and embrace these charisms in new and creative ways.

Also, as you honestly suggest in this post, the emergent movement is very particular to a younger crowd which, by nature, gets older, has kids, may get boring accounting jobs in cubicles, buys minivans, moves to the white picket fences of suburbia, and frankly grows up. I'm not sure if the emergent movement as we know it will stick around, but I think that some of its ethos will stick with this next generation of church leaders, who will begin to ask critically what it means to be Christian, Lutheran, etc., and thus in my idealistic world bring about a gradual rethinking of the enterprise of church and a renewal of our identity as a community of faith and mission.