Emerging Church is not dead
26 Sep 2008
With all the furore and cross linking to posts, some seem to be collapsing all the discussions about Emergent and Emerging into the “Emerging Church is Dead” sound-bite.
I want to make clear, my last post was not about the end of the emerging church. It was about my struggles with it, my gratefulness for it and the direction I am moving in as a result.
Scott McKnight has a great post, and in particular comment no.11 by Brian McLoughlin, was most helpful to me, in explaining what might be going on for some of us.
Tagged: emerging church
16 comments
Trackback
Comment by fernando
7.58 am on 26 Sep 2008
Yes, I identify with Brian’s comment and his use of the word “prescription” is clarifying and telling.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
7.00 am on 27 Sep 2008
It’s a long time since a comment stood out more to me than than the post, but that was one of them (your comments not withstanding of course
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
11.25 am on 26 Sep 2008
‘think Caputo, think Zizek, ,think deconstruction, a/theism and undecidability’
Jason,
It is my impression that many emerging church groupings in the UK are being challenged and persuaded to follow the vision of the above mentioned strand outlined by Katherine Moody in books,conferences and leadership interactions - this could well lead to some groups abandoning participation in the Christian tradition in its broadest sense. This vision is a pitch to the ‘heart and soul’of the loose network of groups in the Emerging church mileaux.
At the same time there is a counter trend from other strands for groups to reorientate round a more defined emphasis on Christian orthodoxy/tradition.
How to manage this converstion/debate/interaction about these rival competing visions will be a real challenge as it is liable to generate many sharp disagreements about both important theological and practical issues affecting the future direction of many groupings
The conversation has already started and led to a straining of relationships at leadership level.
It is my hope for a mature open interaction that values friendship as I suspect passionate emotions will be raised as people care about what is at stake.
I could of course have misread the situation!!!
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
7.02 am on 27 Sep 2008
I think there are many readings, and your one is a good as many I have read, thank you.
You said “How to manage this converstion/debate/interaction about these rival competing visions will be a real challenge as it is liable to generate many sharp disagreements about both important theological and practical issues affecting the future direction of many groupings”
Any ideas on that?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katharine Moody
4.03 pm on 27 Sep 2008
In what ways do you see them as rivals?
I’m finding that an agreement regarding notions of “truth in action” and “justice” means that even so-called ‘diverging’ trends come together in these respects.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
6.18 pm on 27 Sep 2008
I think you are asking Rodney about the rivals…
What do you mean by ‘truth in action’? Is that a hermeneutic?
Jase
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katharine Moody
4.30 pm on 29 Sep 2008
I explain my cryptic comment a bit more in a comment below responding to Charlie. Hope that clarifies a bit? Katharine x
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Reply here
Comment by Dan Wilt
8.42 pm on 26 Sep 2008
In a process of discovery, varied theories and approaches are tossed to the side - but the learning associated with them never vanishes.
In this sense, though approaches all label themselves with the same terms - “emerging” in this case - the search goes on, as “emerging” in spirit as any of its incarnations and experiments.
I.e When a fad diffuses, it does not mean that all that moved it was lost - it means that a wave hit the shore, and it’s friends are close behind.
I smell no stench of death, but rather “feel in my bones” the ongoing equilibrium, tension and release of the process of moving forward. “Emerging” processes remain, and will be continually newly embodied.
Thanks for what you do in all three of these stages, Jason - celebrating healthy equilibrium, creating necessary tension, and challenging release by asking the right questions.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
7.03 am on 27 Sep 2008
Hi Dan, you said “celebrating healthy equilibrium, creating necessary tension, and challenging release” , kind affirmation, and boy I hope so. That’s something to aspire to in this process.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Charlie Boyd
4.03 pm on 29 Sep 2008
Katherine you ask in what way various Emerging leaders can be said to be rivals? I would recommend the writings of Rene Girard on mimetic desire and model obstacles to shed some light on why we are all so rivalous especially when leading a ‘new’ movement.The rivalry may not even be conscious but on the level of desire which always leads to breaks in relationships and expulsions.I have seen this process time and time again within church culture and I guess the Emerging church movement is no different.Established heirarchy is a religious way of keeping rivalry under some sort of control but when this is removed and differentiation disolves then all hell can break loose.The answer is the Kingdom and mimesis with Christ who is outside rivalry.To me the system of mimetic desire and the resulting scapegoat mechanism is the Elephant in the room that Christians ignore at their peril.We must understand the dynamic of this Adversarial kink in our natures that Christ designates Satan.I personally believe the more we move from the basic metanarritive of Scriture and it’s powerful revelation of violence at the heart of culture we will find subliminal rivalry at work amongst many of the Emerging Church’s spokesmen.Who sells the most books,has the trendiest blog etc.
Charlie Boyd
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katharine Moody
4.29 pm on 29 Sep 2008
Hi Charlie,
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of Girard and mimesis. I haven’t delved into that at all, so thanks for the heads-up.
Rodney suggested that the counter trends that he sees are rivals, but I’m not so sure. In my research (which explores how truth is conceptualised within the UK emerging church and what the implications of such conceptualisations might be) I’m observing two strands with regards to the philosophical and theological implications of their understandings of truth.
One is theologically realist, often universalist, epistemologically humble, and sees deconstruction as phase which must be passed through in order to reconstruct Christianity for a postmodern culture (and here there might well be differing visions for the future - but they don’t necessarily have to be competing as Rodney suggests).
The other understands deconstruction not as a method to undertake but as something that happens within language (and therefore within everything) such that even Christianity is auto-deconstructive. Deconstruction isn’t something which one does in order to reconstruct, but something that happens to you. It’s not a “phase” you get out of. This means that this strand are more comfortable with undecidability and a/theism than the first.
But I don’t see why these two strands have to be competing rivals as Rodney suggests.
In an earlier comment I said that “I’m finding that an agreement regarding notions of “truth in action” and “justice” means that even so-called ‘diverging’ trends come together in these respects.” While these two strands differ philosophically and theologically (I can’t give away ALL of my thesis just yet!!!
) they converge again ethically and politically. A concern for justice, kingdom-living, whatever you want to call it, rises above the need to settle theoretical differences concerning “the truth.”
This finding is a major reason that I don’t see why differences betweent those within the emerging church (or between the emerging church and other Christians) has to necessarily lead to rivalry. But maybe I haven’t read enough Girard to loose this idealism… I’ll check him out.
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
11.59 pm on 29 Sep 2008
‘violence at the heart of culture we will find subliminal rivalry at work amongst many of the Emerging Church’s spokesmen.Who sells the most books,has the trendiest blog etc.’
My impressions is that one aspect of how different groups/leaders actually interact on the ground in the EC world in the USA and the UK in their relationships probably mirrors something of this statement from Charlie. The intellectual element of having different theological outlooks gets mixed with an element of internal personal rivalries/clashes/difference of approach etc which is why I use the word ‘rival.’ As the ECM is always evolving there is a struggle for which theological vision is the most plausible/dominant etc . However this dynamic to me is part of the everyday life of any social network where they are different opinions - to me it is just part of being human . Girard certainly helps to shine a powerful spotlight on this area with his mimetic rivalry insights.
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katharine Moody
11.34 am on 30 Sep 2008
I think you are right, particularly to note the “branding” exercises of publications and blogs within the emerging church. Like so many other areas of life, you’ve got to sell yourself. Public lectures… Book tours… Workshops… But I’m still going to hold out hope that even those within the emerging church that are offering different visions of the future are able to hold it all together within friendships rather than rivalries. Idealistic, probably, I know. But this is what is being hoped for by the emerging church.
Those who are published within Emergent Village vary greatly amonst themselves in terms of their position (philosophical, theological, political) but wish to hold it all together in friendship, as Tony Jones has frequently mentioned (for example, here at http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/05/is_emergent_the.html where he says: “We are a group of friends—about 20 in 1997, and now in the thousands—who are committed to doing God’s Kingdom work together, regardless of our theological, ideological, and political differences. Are we friends with Jim Wallis? Yes! And are there Bush-loving neocons among us? Yes!”
Below, Charlie says: “Girard would say that the seeking or desire for an object (even truth or justice or amazingly God) forms a triangle of desire wherby others seeking the object will eventually rival - as time progresses the original object is no longer important as the new object becomes the ‘defeat’ or ’subjection’ of fellow seekers.”
Its a really interesting way to look at what might be going on between emerging church folk with differing visions for the future beneath the surface emphasis on friendship… I’ll have to think more about this!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Charlie Boyd
4.35 am on 30 Sep 2008
Katherine it sounds like there could be a market out there for Girard’s primary work ‘Things Hidden From The Foundation Of The World’.It’s expensive but worth it’s weight in gold ( can one say that as the world economy goes down the toilet?)- especially Book 2 that talks about mimesis within the Judeo Christian Scriptures.I think that Rodney is correct in his observations -our problems are interpersonal and not primarily of a philosophical nature.Girard would say that the seeking or desire for an object ( even truth or justice or amazingly God) forms a triangle of desire wherby others seeking the object will eventually rival - as time progresses the original object is no longer important as the new object becomes the ‘defeat’ or ’subjection’ of fellow seekers.A deep but hidden truth of which all of us should be aware.This idea of a model rival/obstacle was found by Girard much to his surprise throughout the Gospels in the use of the Greek word ’skandalon’ which he suggests always refers to a person.It has been translated many ways by translators ( snare,stumbling block etc) which has thrown us off the scent and lost its significance in interpersonal relationships.Jesus himself calls Peter a ’skandalon’ as Peter opposes His decision to go to Jerusalem and die.The shocking truth is that Peter’s relationship with Christ even after 3 years of discipleship was a rivalous one!By the way Rowan Willams and James Allison are admirers of Girard’s observations.Hope this is helpful.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katharine Moody
11.26 am on 30 Sep 2008
Thanks again Charlie.
Your points that “our problems are interpersonal and not primarily of a philosophical nature” and “as time progresses the original object is no longer important as the new object becomes the ‘defeat’ or ’subjection’ of fellow seekers” are really interesting. In terms of my thesis I think this would indeed be a very useful way of looking at pro- and anti-emerging church literature, particularly regarding the ways in which each constructs the other as, as you say, “stumbling blocks.”
Hmmm… cogs turning… brain working…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Charlie Boyd
9.02 pm on 30 Sep 2008
Katherine I forgot to say that Girard has a more recent book that spells things out very clearly - its ‘I saw Satan fall like lightening’.Yes we are surrounded by warring brothers ( Cain and Abel,Joseph and his brothers etc) and they become monstrous doubles often killing each other.There is a great Greek myth where 2 brothers fight and simultaneously kill each other - it may be in Sophocles.This tendency within us to rival shows it’s insidious nature when we can even use the theory of mimetic rivalry as a weapon to scapegoat others - in other words we scapegoat the scapegoaters.How we need the Salvation mimesis of Christ.Here is a wee thought - Atheism needs sacrificial christianity and sacrificial christianity needs atheism - warring brothers - the very thing Christ came to expose.Keep up the research and good work.
Charlie
Reply to this comment