No this isn't a post on why its cool to cuss, or to cuss makes you postmodern or something. This is a post on all this confusing language around the movement of churches engaging emerging culture. As of late terms like "postmodern" and "emerging church" have become akin to "conservative" and "liberal," by that I mean they're quite meaningless other than what we fill them with to derogate others by. Tony Jones argues that emerging and Emergent are basically memes with no real difference other than what we attach to them. I'm not so sure Jones' fighting against categories is true to reality though.
First, Jonny Baker illuminates that there is a difference between emerging and Emergent, one is a movement the other an organisation. This is the reality, and the distinction is important.
Second, it's important because the language of "emerging church" is losing its meaning, if it really had any. I think "emerging church" is an umbrella term that incorporates many bodies (including Emergent), congregations, voices, and such of churches that are engaging the emerging culture (the culture in continuity with deconstruction, but seeking reformulation and reconstruction).
Also, I'm afraid "emerging church" has been pigeon-holed into one defined culture that wears torn jeans, speak certain ways, and uses Macs. Not true. A church of "gray heads" can be emerging if its trying to engage the emerging culture, that's why I stick with this definition for understand the emerging church movement-"churches that are engaging the emerging culture."
Do you think its important to distinguish between emerging and Emergent?
Posts
