Okay, I just have to ask the question. Is Emergent just another institution? I mean, it already seems to be a brand name with an organizational structure, celebrity authors and speakers, and a life of its own apart from people. Not the emerging church. Not emerging Christians. Not emerging culture. Emergent®.
Another question. What does Emergent do that cannot be done or is not already being done by individual Christians and the church? Why do we need another structure?
Am I the only one with this perception? Am I misunderstanding something? Please let me know if I am speaking in ignorance.
| permalink |
Aaron: You’re speaking in ign…. j/k.
I believe that this is a danger that the folks involved with emergent have been concerned about for some time. If you subscribe to the emergent/c newsletter that goes out each month you’ve probably noticed how they’re struggling with it. They have shared their ambivalence about the power of The Emergent Brand, expressed a desire to serve as a “ghost organization”, and openly restructured some of the more obvious “organizational structure” elements of emergent.
And in the best moments of what is said and done by those “in” Emergent, I’ve felt their desire and aim to avoid all the trappings of celebrity status or the risks of replacing/undermining what is being done by local groups, congregations, practitioners, thinkers, etc.
I don’t want to sound like an apologist for Emergent here. I’ve had the exact same thoughts you expressed in this post and wondered about the same things. So, I’ve tried to watch closely for all the encouraging signs that demonstrate that these fine people are making sure that the Practices of Emergent match the noble ideals which articulated so well by those authors/practitioners/theologians/etc who are so deeply involved in Emergent.
I’m hopeful and encouraged by what I see.
I’m so glad that I didn’t post that thought in my blog 2 days ago
Aaron asks the question that a few people were whispering in the corridors? Is Emergent Inc just another institution? And if so, are institutions bad? (p.s. I almost as [...]
I’ve wondered the same thing, Aaron. It’ll be interesting to see the answers here. Peace.
I think the key to it all is dead-tree publishing, and the partnership with Zondervan/EmergentYS. That’s what makes McLaren and others into celebrities of sorts, and that’s what makes Emergent so much more influential than the countless other emergesque ministries like Mustard Seed Associates, Acts 29, House2House, Off the Map, and others that I don’t know about (the ones I’ve listed are all local).
I personally believe it’s a rehash of old and bad religous movements emerged into one (excuse the pun). I can see paralels with the “Discipleship Movement etc;” and they are fraught with danger.
Hey Aaron,
I am not Emergent or Institutional so maybe I do not qualify to answer but as I see it Emergent has become the New Institution, same as the old Institution with it’s leaders and gurus. Now don’t get me wrong I understand that most think they need these gurus and so called leaders in order to understand the landscape of what the church seems to be in our day. And that is fine if anyone feels they need these things. I think the division in the body comes when I or anyone else thinks that we now have arrived at the place of complete understanding. Complete understanding is a man but that man is Jesus. Let us pray that we will all remain open to the true freedom that the gospel offers.
See you sunday!
Peace & Freedom
Emergent is just a word. Maybe it will change, maybe it won’t. It is the philsophy behind it that is what is important and what we should be critiquing, questioning, considering. Aren’t we really trying to define “Emergent” or the pervading philosophy that is making up those who are trying to define it?
Here’s the deal:
1- Me and a whole lot of other people have gone to traditional churches and have found them seriously lacking.
2- We can’t quite put a finger on the reasons they don’t seem to fit.
3- Somebody (Brian McLaren, et. al.) recognized this fact and some of the reasons why we feel this way and decided to discuss it out in the open.
4- Those same somebodies didn’t want to put a definition on what is happening in our culture to separate us from traditional churches and left the door open intentionally so that we wouldn’t be premature about where things were going.
5- We all took a big sigh of relief at finally being understood by somebody (et.al.), but all we know how to do is to try to put a definition on something that maybe we shouldn’t be defining.
6- People are uncomfortable with change. They see our change and they assume that it must be wrong.
7- God looks down and smiles and says, “Just keep seeking me.”
Forgive me as I play catch-up.
I think the observation that Christians and churches are emerging into a new culture is sound and, IMHO, necessary. All of my questions stem from the organization called Emergent. What does Emergent (or any of the parachurches Justin mentioned) do that makes them necessary? To ask it another way, what does Emergent do that cannot be done or is not aready being done by the church?
April, it was the same for me. The first time I read A New Kind of Christian it was as if a new world had been opened to me. Finally someone understood.
George, you have wisdom.
Glad to have your input.
Publishing. They can publish books. And they represent the big names. That’s the main two things.
Emergent Inc…
Aaron asks the question that a few people were whispering in the corridors…
)
Is Emergent Inc just another institution?
And if so, are institutions bad?
(p.s. I almost asked the question first
……
Emergent Inc…
Aaron asks the question that a few people were whispering in the corridors…
)
Is Emergent Inc just another institution?
And if so, are institutions bad?
(p.s. I almost asked the question first
……