Poll: Do you consider yourself to be part of the emergent church?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Do you consider yourself to be part of the emergent church? Why or why not?

[Bob Hunter]

Scott,

I consider myself sympathetic to many things I see in emergence Christianity. More focus on Jesus, less on institutional welfare. Yeah, count me in. But I tend to think of the emergent Church as a phenomenon and not something that has precise descriptions or defined theology. The emerging Church is kind of a misnomer. What is emerging to me may not be to others. And so it goes. I am all for getting back to missional Christianity and focusing more on Jesus and his life.

[Dale Cozby]

I didn't see my answer: Yes/no/maybe/sometimes/sort of.

[Jim Chabot]

I checked the No box, emergent christianity is not for me. I would explain why, but that would open the door for those who say that emergent christianity cannot be defined, or that what I find objectionable isn't really part of the whole conversation.

[Steven Martinez]

I voted no because I have never even read anything of the authors who classify themselves as emergent. Personally, I am coming to the opinion that most of the "emergent church" is simply a Baby Boomer response to their previous attempt at doing church... the Seeker Sensitive movement. Essentially I see the "battle" over the issue as the same battle with the Seeker Sensitive approach. In other words, the battle is not theology or based upon God; rather, it is a battle about what makes them feel better or what gives them the most benefit. So I continue to do what I have always done and blame my parents for ruining everything. I am a little cynical though.
So I guess I will cal myself post-emergent in that I have already there doing what most emergents say what we ought to be doing because my generation were to naive to know that one could try Christianity without being incarnational.

Edited to add: Also I do not own an iPhone, iPad, iBook or iMac so I think I am disqualified for being emergent.

[Jim Chabot]

You are scaring me Steve. I have an Ipod. Am I in danger?:praying:

[Steven Martinez]

You are scaring me Steve. I have an Ipod. Am I in danger?:praying:

Everyone has an iPod. However, if you can watch videos on your iPod then you are in danger.

[Bob Hunter]

Everyone has an iPod. However, if you can watch videos on your iPod then you are in danger.

You also need a goatee and black rimmed glasses, then you can be emergent.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Emergent? . . . from what?

[Greg Farra]

Even though I'm a hipster, I said no. I'm just me.

[Marsha Lynn]

Do you consider yourself to be part of the emergent church? Why or why not?

Uhh ... maybe????

I find much to like in the emergent church. I think I could be comfortable in such a setting. I enjoy and benefit from the model of preaching that seems associated with the emergent church. Not all of the emergent model resonates with me, but enough does that I think I could find a home there. Perhaps in my soul, I identify with "emergents" at some level.

However... the church I call home would never be described as emergent. We've spent the past few years emerging from 50s-style worship into a more contemporary style. We haven't burnt out even one bulb on our projector yet. Our most liturgical addition to the services is one scripture reading apart from the pastor's text. I'm certainly not part of an emergent congregation.

And yet... I think I'm part of something emerging within an established church. It's not quite "emergent" but there's definitely a postmodern feel to it and it could go that direction.

[Larry Parsons]

I don't know if I'm one or not and since I'm not sure I may not be! Can anyone tell me if there is any false teaching in the emergent church movement?
Larry

[Cam Pence]

i voted no simply because it is hard to say you are or are not something that really cannot be defined as anything concrete. when it is truly all in the eye of the beholder, it makes it difficult to really hold on to anything solid. for instance i may fully support something that i may consider emergent, but it is very likely that someone slightly more (or less) "emergent" than me might disagree.

[Billy Cox]

Do you consider yourself to be part of the emergent church? Why or why not?

If I had a choice between two Sunday School classes, one that looks positively on the emergent conversation and one that looks negatively on it, I would be at home in the former and an ambassador in the latter. I have read a couple of McLaren books and I resonate with much of what he says. I suppose that makes me emergent, although my home church is not emergent, and the pastor is dismissive of the whole emergent thing...to the point of contempt I think.

[John Kennedy]

You also need a goatee and black rimmed glasses, then you can be emergent.

I have the goatee, but not the glasses. I guess that makes me indeterminately emergent. I think I was really happier as a zen mennonite.

I, along with several others on this thread, probably owe Scott an apology for turning him into a cyber straight man.

[Dennis M. Scott]

As of this moment, fewer than 15% on this board consider themselves emergent, and this board probably is more open than most groups of which we are a part. Consequently, I suspect the other 85% has little to worry about, unless that group just insists on conformity.

[James Diggs]

Do you consider yourself to be part of the emergent church? Why or why not?

The terminology came about as a way to put a handle on what some were observing as budding new growth for the church within what they saw as a transition period of the church in the context of modernity fading away and something else (called post modernity for lack of knowing what it will become) beginning to blossom. The imagery is meant to be organic, it reflects something new budding even as older growth around it has run its course and now falling away all within the same regenerating system. The church has been "emerging" for centuries and will keep on "emerging".

People seem to get upset with the idea that the emergent church is presented as a "conversation", but that is all it really is. It is just a conversation where people are talking about where they see the church going within this new post-modern context. This doesn't mean that surrounding this conversation there aren't various things really coming onto the Christian scene; some of this may be on track of where we need to go as a Church, and some of it may not. But regardless, the church is continually emerging- working through all the good and bad of all this kind of stuff just as it has done all along.

I am disappointed that "emerging/emergent" has become a brand and label. I am sure I unintentionally contributed to that. When I named a blog "emergent nazarenes" over six years ago I was just using short hand to see if there were other Nazarenes out there that were having this same kind of conversation too. I was pleased to find some and to see more and more participate in the conversation over the years. But I wasn't pleased to see it turn into other things that those of us having the conversation never wanted it to be. Of course we all knew that people would try to make "emergent in a box" stuff and try to sell it- and those most involved tried to resist that- yet many of the same ones also sold a bunch of books with best intentions.

I used the term a lot on the web, like the blog and here, and I have participated in local "emergent cohorts" over the years, but honestly the term has very little to do with my local context and ministry. I used the term once when referring to our dream for a church plant at a District Assembly in 2006 when the term was not polarizing and our "church" was just an idea. The term never made it to our church, and if you ask people in our community if we are an "emerging church" (or even if we were post-modern) most of them would have absolutely no idea what you were talking about. It's nothing more than a term that is useful (or used to be useful) for ministry geeks like us. Again, the term is descriptive not prescriptive.

If I started a multi-contribitor blog today I would NOT name it "emergent nazarenes". The term has come to mean something else today for many who want to either sell it or attack it as if it is this monolithic idea or thing rather than a diverse conversation. The term is now more harmful for the conversation than useful for it. Still, from my own choices in the past, I am to some one of the poster children of the movement within our denomination, so like it or not, I feel some responsibility to try and protect the best intentions of it all and those who have participated in the conversation over the years.

Do I consider my self part of the emergent church? I guess I can't really say no even though lots of people mean things by the term that I would not associate with myself. Still, I clearly am when it comes to the best that term has to offer- In this way, WE ALL are part of the emergent church as we live into the ever expanding kingdom of God and continually press on into new context and territory with the gospel.

[David Troxler]

I voted "other" primarily because I could agree with just about every comment above, except for John's on being a "Zen Mennonite."

Put me squarely in the "Yes, No and Other" category.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I don't know if I'm one or not and since I'm not sure I may not be! Can anyone tell me if there is any false teaching in the emergent church movement?

No, no more than there is among traditional Nazarenes, Southern Baptists, or Roman Catholics. "False teaching" tends to be (and has tended to be historically) defined in terms of what other people believe with which I or we do not agree, especially if I or we have the power to exclude them.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Kevin Rector]

I voted no because "emergent" is so five years ago.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I voted No response/Other . Partly because Emergent has become too trendy, adopted for consumerist reasons. I do like some of the aspects of the conversation.

[Hans Deventer]

No. I attend a very regular church. I probably am somewhat post modern, but I'm not a part of the emergent church. If there were any in my neck of the woods, I might want to join though.

[John Kennedy]

I voted "other" primarily because I could agree with just about every comment above, except for John's on being a "Zen Mennonite."

Put me squarely in the "Yes, No and Other" category.

This is not a threat......however, Vinnie and the boys from the ZMADL (Zen Mennonite Anti Defamation League) may be around to conduct a personal witnessing workshop.....

[Ian Gentles]

I voted No, as it seems just a fancy new thing we christians are famous for.

[Jim Chabot]

Everyone has an iPod. However, if you can watch videos on your iPod then you are in danger.

Oh good, I feel better already. I would need reading glasses to watch video's on my Ipod.:)

[Jim Chabot]

This is not a threat......however, Vinnie and the boys from the ZMADL (Zen Mennonite Anti Defamation League) may be around to conduct a personal witnessing workshop.....

You mean Abel and the boys will be over, It's a pretty safe bet to say that there aren't any Zen Mennonites named Vinnie.

[Shea Zellweger]

For simplicity's sake, I voted yes. According to Christianity Today, the "five streams" of the Emergent Church (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html?start=6) are :
Prophetic (or at least provocative)
Postmodern
Praxis-oriented
Post-Evangelical
Political
I am comfortable identifying with 1-3, and not particularly bothered by accusations of 4 and 5. Does that make me a 5 point emergent?

[Bob Hunter]

I am getting really uncomfortable with this thread, most people are voting NO to the emergent thing. Don't you know that this is going to confuse the Concerned Nazarenes? They have pretty much written the NazNet community off as a hot bed for emergents. No I just don't know what to think!?

[Billy Cox]

As of this moment, fewer than 15% on this board consider themselves emergent, and this board probably is more open than most groups of which we are a part. Consequently, I suspect the other 85% has little to worry about, unless that group just insists on conformity.

It could also be that 'emergent' is a term most typically applied by scoffers to those who ask unfortunate questions. It would be kind of like going to Daily Kos or an ultra-liberal forum and asking how many of the people are pinko-commie America haters. There would be a percentage would answer in the affirmative, but most wouldn't take the bait.

[Billy Cox]

I am getting really uncomfortable with this thread, most people are voting NO to the emergent thing. Don't you know that this is going to confuse the Concerned Nazarenes? They have pretty much written the NazNet community off as a hot bed for emergents. No I just don't know what to think!?

I don't think this thread is fooling anyone.

[John Kennedy]

You mean Abel and the boys will be over, It's a pretty safe bet to say that there aren't any Zen Mennonites named Vinnie.

Hey, I have a dream of a richly, culturally and ethnically diverse bunch of ZM's. You go to your church and I'll go to mine.

[John Kennedy]

Well, the encouraging thing about the self-ID of emergence is that the participants are probably not out stealing hubcaps.

[David Graham]

From the few emergents that I know who are absolutely "humourless", my sick sense of humour would surely disqualify me from being called emergent..... however, sometimes I light a candle when I pray so does that mean anything????????:praying:

[John Kennedy]

From the few emergents that I know who are absolutely "humourless", my sick sense of humour would surely disqualify me from being called emergent..... however, sometimes I light a candle when I pray so does that mean anything????????:praying:

I think there's a place for laughing at things you consider useful and considering things you laugh at to be useful.

[Ryan Scott]

Nope.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think there's a place for laughing at things you consider useful and considering things you laugh at to be useful.

I am certainly glad that this is true, elsewise I might have to admit to being a bit disturbed.

[John Reilly]

From the few emergents that I know who are absolutely "humourless", my sick sense of humour would surely disqualify me from being called emergent..... however, sometimes I light a candle when I pray so does that mean anything????????:praying:

Hi David, If you light more than one candle when you pray you are emergent but if you light just one candle then you are Catholic. If you light no candles you are a conservative Nazarene missing an opportunity to save on electricity. I attended Jacob's Well several times in Kansas City and they light too many candles to count; big ones, fat ones, thin ones, tall ones, short ones, hundreds. A loved the worship service, the teaching was Biblical by Pastor Tim Keel, the music was truly contemporary Christian as we sang scripture, the sacrament of communion was offered in every service. Grace was offered and grace was received.

[John Reilly]

Do you consider yourself to be part of the emergent church? Why or why not?

Hi Scott, I think we need to define emergent. I think of emergent in general terms describing the current changes taking place in the broader general universal church "The Mystical Body of Christ." I think Phyllis Tickle helps us with definition. PHYLLIS TICKLE, founding editor of the Religion Department of PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, the international journal of the book industry, is frequently quoted in print sources like USA TODAY, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, NY TIMES as well as in electronic media like PBS, NPR, THE HALLMARK CHANNEL, and innumerable blogs and web sites. Tickle is an authority on religion in America and a much sought after lecturer on the subject.

In addition to lectures and numerous essays, articles, and interviews, Tickle is the author of over two dozen books in religion and spirituality, most recently The Great Emergence, How Christianity is Changing and Why I think the trends Phyllis identifies in her book helps us to see emergence as a description of change rather than any specific style of worship or church organizational design.

[Shea Zellweger]

Hi Scott, I think we need to define emergent.

Good luck!

[John Reilly]

Good luck!

I think the church, that is, "The Universal Mystical Body of Christ" is in the midst of a significant transformational renaissance, a crucible of sorts, and that the church will emerge or evolve, whatever word is most appropriate, into something God has ultimate power and sovereignty to shape the church for his glory. This emergence of the church, unlike in past history, has no one specific spiritual leader like Martin Luther, nor is there a group of gathered theologians as in the Councils of Chalcedon and Nicea, but seems to be a grass roots movement within the church as well as influences from secular culture shaping the sacred. The church wlll emerge from its current shape and form and it will emerge reformed as in past crisis. I think this current crucible of change is opportunity for John Wesley's Theology of Love to emerge as a significant and profound Spirituality recognized by the world because of the powerful transformational witness of Christians actually living it out.

[Bob Hunter]

There is a sense in which we must join the emergence, however that is defined and whatever that might mean for us, or get left behind. I fear that large segments of the CotN will get left behind. This may take 20 years to shake out, but we'll see who's still standing in 10 years, 20 or so.

[Billy Cox]

Well, the encouraging thing about the self-ID of emergence is that the participants are probably not out stealing hubcaps.

Plus the fact that the hubcap business isn't the racket that it used to be.

[Billy Cox]

There is a sense in which we must join the emergence, however that is defined and whatever that might mean for us, or get left behind. I fear that large segments of the CotN will get left behind. This may take 20 years to shake out, but we'll see who's still standing in 10 years, 20 or so.

I have been surprised at some of the people in this thread who typically talk and think like postmoderns, but who tersely say they are not emergent. I suppose that for the time being, postmoderns are vastly more employable if they speak modernism as though it was their first language.

I also am intrigued by the impatience with coming to a consensus on a working definition of 'emergent'. Without a shared definition, we are left with caricatures - such as the one that sees emergents as so-called christians who drink alcohol, use foul language, distrust evangelical authority, and ask irreverent questions.

[John Kennedy]

Would emergents ever be able to agree on a working definition?
Would there be any advantage for them in doing so?

Who is most advantaged by lack of such an agreed working definition - the pros or the antis?

[Hans Deventer]

There is a sense in which we must join the emergence, however that is defined and whatever that might mean for us, or get left behind. I fear that large segments of the CotN will get left behind. This may take 20 years to shake out, but we'll see who's still standing in 10 years, 20 or so.

I would not want the whole church to become emergent. I would rather see that we define our essentials and let each pastor and congregation look for the best ways to reach their community, within those essentials. If in some corner, a 50's style church service does it, great! If somewhere else, it's going to be a "ancient future" style, fine. If still somewhere else it's Southern Gospel or mainstream evangelical, great!

The key, as it was from the beginning of the CotN, is unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all. The only thing is that nowadays, we must define those essentials for two reasons:

1. The church is developing in very different ways. We need to be clear on what unites us and must keep uniting us and where the limits are.
2. We need protection from false accusations of "heresy".

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Hi Scott, I think we need to define emergent.

One of my goals in this thread is to let self-identified emergents define for us why they think of themselves as emerget. I can promise you from past experience that if I started a thread "this is an emerget, does it describe you?" that the entire thread would be about my definition. :)

[Marsha Lynn]

I would not want the whole church to become emergent. I would rather see that we define our essentials and let each pastor and congregation look for the best ways to reach their community, within those essentials. If in some corner, a 50's style church service does it, great! If somewhere else, it's going to be a "ancient future" style, fine. If still somewhere else it's Southern Gospel or mainstream evangelical, great!

Personally, I have a problem with the 50s-style model being submitted as a viable option for today. As a librarian in a small town one task that often presents itself is that of resisting pressure to turn the library into a museum. Ah, the good old days when the librarian shushed children and opened doors into the world of reading, when the building was full of BOOKS instead of overrun with computers and videos. Why don't we keep the old card catalog, do things the old comfortable ways, and let some other institution provide computers and internet access? If some libraries don't want to change with the times can't we be tolerant and allow them to preserve the glory days of books?

Museums are good, but communities need libraries as well as museums. And, the truth is, today's library needs to provide its community more than books. The library never was about books. It was about introducing local residents to a world beyond themselves. As one library motto says, "Books are only the beginning." It takes computers and internet access to do today what was done with books in the 50s. Many reference works from the past aren't even in print today. For example, I have kept the last bound edition of the Indiana State Law on the reference shelves but it is now dated enough that even the most technophobic library patrons are going to appreciate someone bringing up the latest version on a computer and being able to quickly search out the exact statute they need to see. A library without computers would have no access to the latest changes in the law. (In fact, writing this makes me realize that the time has come to finally give up that last print edition from 1992.) We still offer books but have different criteria for selecting them and supplement them greatly through resource-sharing with other libraries. Those who want to use the library for books can still do so, but they will need to adapt to a computer-based "card catalog" if they want to do their own searches,

It's not a perfect analogy by far, but at some level there is a need to insist that churches resist the pressure to become museums. Can we afford to put the eternal God in a box that spans so short a time as the era of American revivalism? We need to incorporate ancient forms of worship into what we do today, but we also need to be cutting-edge worshipers as a service to the people around us who have to live and worship in the here-and-now.

Those who have claimed here that we are all part of the emergent/emerging church make a good point. We can't stand still in time without becoming a museum -- an interesting place to visit and gawk, but with nothing except the lessons of history to offer to today's world. We must move into the future together.

Marsha

[Bob Hunter]

I would not want the whole church to become emergent. I would rather see that we define our essentials and let each pastor and congregation look for the best ways to reach their community, within those essentials. If in some corner, a 50's style church service does it, great! If somewhere else, it's going to be a "ancient future" style, fine. If still somewhere else it's Southern Gospel or mainstream evangelical, great!

The key, as it was from the beginning of the CotN, is unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all. The only thing is that nowadays, we must define those essentials for two reasons:

1. The church is developing in very different ways. We need to be clear on what unites us and must keep uniting us and where the limits are.
2. We need protection from false accusations of "heresy".

Hans, I think we are basically saying the same thing, hence the reason why I am careful to say "however that is defined and whatever that might mean." I have a Pastor friend in Tennessee that pastors very differently because of his particular culture. What is considered emerging in rural TN is going to look quite different than what I might consider it to be here in Oregon. I think we have to determine what it means to do ministry in our given context and start there. But we have little choice when it comes to being emergent. The train has left the station my friends, post modernism is here to stay. Putting our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

[Hans Deventer]

Those who have claimed here that we are all part of the emergent/emerging church make a good point. We can't stand still in time without becoming a museum -- an interesting place to visit and gawk, but with nothing except the lessons of history to offer to today's world. We must move into the future together.

I don't know. If some folks would like to become like the Amish, am I the one to say that they cannot? I simply don't want to prescribe HOW people should worship God.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Those who have claimed here that we are all part of the emergent/emerging church make a good point. We can't stand still in time without becoming a museum -- an interesting place to visit and gawk, but with nothing except the lessons of history to offer to today's world. We must move into the future together.

I like your library/church analogy. Being married to a librarian, I've heard the pros and cons of the subject.

I also agree that to some extent we're all a part of the church that is emerging. In fact, I think that growth, innovation, re-examination have always been part of Christianity with one flavor of the Church at times surging forward while another flavor lags behind.

The wild card is, apparently, a culture sea change that is, reportedly, major and accelerating. A certain amount of stress is introduced as the Church absorbs this change, allows itself to be influenced by it, and at the same time keeps checking to be sure its anchors are still in place that its not just being swept away into being something other than "Christian" by the cultural tide.

It's a challenging moment. The church, in general I think, senses that it needs to respond to a big cultural change. However, at the same time, it knows that there are some absolutes that (culturally acceptable or not) it must not abandon. It knows that how the Gospel is put in play must be reconsidered and that how its doctrines are stated needs to be reworded. It realizes that mainly it's the youth of the church who best understand these things but it also knows that youth sometimes goes too far and might just give away too much.

Because of these things I tend to feel hopeful but cautious as I deal with some who are on the front lines of the church-that-is-emerging.

[Marsha Lynn]

I don't know. If some folks would like to become like the Amish, am I the one to say that they cannot? I simply don't want to prescribe HOW people should worship God.

I was reading an article recently about how the Amish population in the US is growing and expanding into new areas. Almost 100% of that growth is biological. Converts are extremely rare. Any church resisting change that strongly will need to either drop the label "evangelical" (or "missional") or accept year after year of failure to live up to that label.

Unlike the Amish, we in the Church of the Nazarene do not have a good record of retaining our offspring in the church. There are multiple culture-based reasons for that. However, what it means in this discussion is a local church must change with the culture or die. We can't depend on the biological growth the Amish are experiencing.

At some level I agree with you that if a church insists on dying, we should allow it to happen. On the other hand, are we also letting go of our corporate influence on the community where that congregation meets? Do we have any obligation to maintain a sustainable presence in that place for the sake of the lost and dying there?

I'm reluctant to grant approval to those around me who are committing suicide regardless of how slow a process they choose. When their death means a significant loss of life-saving capability in their community, it bothers me even more. However, my main response is to learn from what is happening to them and work on avoiding the same path in my own community where I might have hope of making a difference.

In the library world, the state has stepped in to make sure libraries keep up with the times for the sake of the community residents where those libraries reside. We don't have an equivalent level of authority in the Church of the Nazarene. But it still bothers me to see someone offer "no change" as an acceptable option for a church, to see the life-endangering choices of a congregation needed by its community as simply an alternate lifestyle of no concern to the rest of us.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

I'm reluctant to grant approval to those around me who are committing suicide regardless of how slow a process they choose.

I think we're coming from different directions. You see old style worship as a slow death. Could be, but it might also be they serve a community that simply likes to worship that way.

The Amish should at least be respected for their non-violence. At least in that respect, there is life there.

Anyway, the point is moot, for whether you are reluctant to grant permission, and I am happy to do so, reality is that nobody will ask our permission and chances are, we're not going to change people who have their mind set in a certain direction.

In fact, it seems that even God Himself rarely does so. Pauls conversions happen, but are rare. Usually He will let us have our way. He simply starts anew with the people who are willing to listen. Until they themselves start to care more about tradition than the Word of God.

[Marsha Lynn]

I think we're coming from different directions. You see old style worship as a slow death. Could be, but it might also be they serve a community that simply likes to worship that way.

Theoretically, yes, as long as the community is made up of old-fashioned evangelicals who don't care about reaching anyone not already part of the church subculture. Are you aware of any churches that fit that description? I'm not sure such a church exists. I have been in an old-fashioned church with a 50s air, but I certainly didn't find much contentment or potential for long-term survival there! Rather, there was much frustration concerning our inability to make disciples who would appreciate and help preserve our old-fashioned ways.


Anyway, the point is moot, for whether you are reluctant to grant permission, and I am happy to do so, reality is that nobody will ask our permission and chances are, we're not going to change people who have their mind set in a certain direction.

Where's that laughing smilie? Since when is this a criteria for discussing something on NazNet? Have you been over to the current events board lately? I'm pretty sure that world leaders don't really care about our opinion on what's happening in the world either, but it certainly doesn't keep people from beating subjects to death!

:smilies1722:

Marsha

[David Pettigrew]

I consider myself part of the Church, at least on most days. I consider the church emerging, though some are being dragged along kicking and screaming. Therefore, we are all part of the emergent church. There's only one church and there's only one Jesus.

[Billy Cox]

I don't know. If some folks would like to become like the Amish, am I the one to say that they cannot? I simply don't want to prescribe HOW people should worship God.

I don't think of emergent in terms of style, but rather as an open-ended conversation in missiology and spiritual identity.

Maybe emergent is an urban thing and rural/small town churches are a shelter for people fleeing those changes.

[Bob Hunter]

I don't think of emergent in terms of style, but rather as an open-ended conversation in missiology and spiritual identity.

Maybe emergent is an urban thing and rural/small town churches are a shelter for people fleeing those changes.

A sure sign of Christianity emerging and adapting to post modern culture is growing diversity. The Church of Nazarene in some respects functioned as a monolith as many denominations did decades ago. We had a hymnal that set the stage for worship, denominational wide Sunday School programs, Missions events, etc. We basically applied the same formula everywhere. Now it seems we have quite a diversity within many of our Churches and hopefully that reflects what society is becoming. For example, there are some Nazarene Churches that are borderline charismatic, others that are presbyterian like, some that Southern Baptist, or maybe even Amish (just kidding), Liturgical, Seeker sensitive, etc. And I don't know if you have heard or not, but we even have reformed Nazarenes. All kidding aside, I think diverse expressions of what it means to be Nazarene are healthy for our denomination. Maybe we are more emergent than we care to admit. Or maybe I'm confused. I just know that society has drastically changed, my community is quite colorful and culturally diverse.

[Billy Cox]

I consider myself part of the Church, at least on most days. I consider the church emerging, though some are being dragged along kicking and screaming. Therefore, we are all part of the emergent church. There's only one church and there's only one Jesus.

In my experience, it's not so much about dragging people kicking and screaming as much as a gradual acquiescence as people realize that most of the reasons to be afraid were totally unfounded.