Do you consider yourself to be part of the emergent church? Why or why not?
Yes
No
No response/Other
Do you consider yourself to be part of the emergent church? Why or why not?
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.
I didn't see my answer: Yes/no/maybe/sometimes/sort of.
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.
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.
You are scaring me Steve. I have an Ipod. Am I in danger?
Everyone has an iPod. However, if you can watch videos on your iPod then you are in danger.Originally Posted by Jim Chabot
You are scaring me Steve. I have an Ipod. Am I in danger?
You also need a goatee and black rimmed glasses, then you can be emergent.
Emergent? . . . from what?
Even though I'm a hipster, I said no. I'm just me.
What is wrong with this woman? She's asking about stuff that's nobody's business. 'What do I do?' What do I do, I do here. I should have written it down. 'Qua' something. Quaaa. Quarr. Quab. Quall. Qwer. Quobbity! Quobbity assurance!
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.
"If God is love, it is only among people animated by mutual love
that understanding of him can be advanced.
To admit acrimony in theological discussion is in itself more fundamentally heretical
than any erroneous opinions upheld or condemned in the course of discussion."
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
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.
"Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?"- John Wesley
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I voted no because "emergent" is so five years ago.
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.
'As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.’
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.
God says: "You don't get to define who I am, I get to define who you are" (Roland Hearn)
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.....
I voted No, as it seems just a fancy new thing we christians are famous for.
Oh good, I feel better already. I would need reading glasses to watch video's on my Ipod.
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.
For simplicity's sake, I voted yes. According to Christianity Today, the "five streams" of the Emergent Church 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?
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!?
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.
I don't think this thread is fooling anyone.
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.
Well, the encouraging thing about the self-ID of emergence is that the participants are probably not out stealing hubcaps.
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????????
I think there's a place for laughing at things you consider useful and considering things you laugh at to be useful.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????????
Nope.
...just my $.02.
I am certainly glad that this is true, elsewise I might have to admit to being a bit disturbed.
'As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.’
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.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????????
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote