Emergent… it’s time to start looking for a saddle (a death of post)

There’s a couple things I want to mention before I start.

First, since my posts now go to facebook as notes, I’ve gotten some more personal responses from people that didn’t read my blog previously but have been following me since I started moving into the facebook area as well. To these people, and to a lot of my other facebook friends that come across this post, the subject matter may be a bit outside of your normal conversational topics. I’m talking here about a movement that isn’t well known amongst the laity at your everyday American church, but it’s influence, or I should say effect, is likely felt within your own individual church experiences. If you’ve ever seen artists on stage painting during a sermon, or been to a coffee house church, or perhaps your church sits in a circle with the presenter in the middle, these are a few examples of things that the emergent movement has brought to the forefront. (an aside, I’m not saying emergent created these things, did them first, or does them best, simply that the influence of the movement brought them out) If you want to know more about the whole deal, feel free to email me matt at themattscott dot com.

Second, I want to preface my comments to my emergent friends. I was hesitant about posting on the latest “death of emergent” for several reasons; one the topic is becoming redundant. Two, there are other more important things to be talking about (speaking of which, please help helping Haiti in any way you can).

Third, I hesitated mostly because I don’t know if I consider myself part of the movement any longer. I stepped away from things for a few months while I was dealing with some life issues (and by dealing with I mean going through various and increasing levels of hell until things got better), and during this time went through some large belief changes. I’m not sure if I still consider emergent my movement (not as in I controlled things, but as in I had a part to play in the [continuing] formation, at least on a local level) I now split my self between feeling that I am still a part of emergent and simply being a friend that wants to see things go well for them. With these things in mind, let chat.

In response to the recent “death of” conversation, I point to the following quote from the movie “Lucky Number Slevin”

My father use to say: “The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk, but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it’s time to go shopping for a saddle.”

I’m no emerging church historian, but I can think of three times this “death of” conversation has sparked up, while I wouldn’t say it’s time to go looking for a burial plot yet, I would say it’s time to start dealing with the fact that you’re being called a horse.

I think the reason these past couple critiques have stirred up so much more emotion is because they have come from within, instead of the normal attacks and critiques from the existing structures that “feel threatened.” While Emergent, as a movement, has been under constant critique from the outside for what seems like the entirety of its existence, and I think has benefited from such constant critiques, and they’ll likely continue for some time. Some have been valid, some have changed things that needed to be changed, some have been rightfully refuted, and some have been ignored, all without causing too much emotional repercussions and long term levels of hurt feelings. These latest critiques, however, the ones that have come from within, are starting to show strains and cracks.

These latest critiques (really the last two “death of” critiques) have elicited what can only be seen as a “circling the wagons” response, an immediate defensive position. The former coordinator of EV immediately bangs out a response to them, the satirical articles come, and then the critique is seen as “refuted” and life moves on, nothing really changes and no real benefit is seen from the event. I have a friend who has no problems calling me an ass when I act like one and I have another friend who tells me straight to my face when I’m about to do something stupid. I value these two guys, because I know they want the best for me, and if I ignore their advice it’s usually to my detriment. I hope emergent starts to see these inside critiques in the same light.

But hey, I’m just the little guy on the outside looking in, what do I know?

email2friend
  • Thanks for the post, this article says something, it will open up a lot of eyes and minds wants they read it. We at Reformed Theological Seminary are happy to see this article..thanks
  • truth teller
    I know about the Emergent circled wagons, all too well. Cult-like really...my tell-all book to follow.

  • Greg
    Happy bday
  • I appreciate this, but my response is basically the same has it has been for all the other critiques. More and more I think this has more to do with folks -- and I include myself in this group to a certain extent -- who are just plain tired of the emergent "brand" and the uber-idealistic goals that precipitated early on. In that respect maybe there is some truth to this. Maybe it is time to step out of the echo chamber and drop the trendy labels.

    But all the things that emergent/ing has always stood for at least in my mind (uninhibited conversation, pushing the envelope, imagining new possibilities for community and the like) will continue. They always have. And always will. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether we called it emerging, emergent, missional or nothing at all. It is still happening. So at the level of flash-in-the-pan trendiness maybe the death evangelists are correct. But at the end of the day it doesn't much matter to me. It just seems like a huge detour in missing the point and wasting time on semantics. All the things we've been talking about are stilling taking place and will continue. Maybe they won't catch the eye of the larger Christian sub-culture like emergent did early on -- and maybe that is a good thing! The idea that the core conversation is dead just doesn't seem indicative to my experience or the stories of the various collectives of which I am a part. In fact, this may be an opportune time to really experiment, now that the trendiness has died and all the superficial excitement dwindled. Either way, I will still be talking and collaborating.
  • Jeff S.
    The prophets seemed hold the edge of the "circle", with one foot inside the "church" and one foot outside. I think it was for good reason. I think you loose your value as a constructive critic if you are fully in one camp or the other - you tend to "cling" to your beliefs tighter, and become more defensive about them. See http://cacradicalgrace.org/resources/rg/2006/02_Apr-Jun/edge.php

    I agree with lizdyer that emergent/emerging/emergence is BEST kept as a conversation out of which things form. It seems that is has (though unintentionally) become a "movement" and "brand". I find it interesting that most in our Cobb cohort identify more with Nick Fiedler's term "hopeful skeptic" than they do "emergent" - I know that I do! Being an "emergent" implies that you are still "tethered" as a Christian in some form or fashion at the center. A "hopeful skeptic" can cut that rope and explore other faiths or NO faith. I think I'm ready to ride THAT horse for a while!
  • Matt, thanks for the reminder to listen for the truth in what our critics may be saying and to take that to heart.
  • lizdyer
    I don't believe that emergent is dead although I do think it is transforming. I know too many people who are just entering the conversation/think tank for it to be dead. The transformation (becoming less controversial and more accepted) shows that emergent has/is serving its purpose. IMO the mistake that many old timers make when thinking about emergent is two fold - (1) they believe that the emergent movement/conversation they have been involved in is a "main thing" when it is only one element of something bigger that is happening (Phylis Tickle calls the big thing: The Great Emergence) (2) they think that a handful of people in the US and Europe are determining the success/failure of emergent - when in reality this thing is happening all over the world in different shapes, forms and time tables - just because it hasn't unfolded the way some of the veterans imagined it would doesn't mean it is over and done with. I believe that it is a movement of the spirit and I believe there are many individuals responding to the spirit's promptings.

    Personally I never looked at emergent so much as a movement as a conversation out of which movements may, did and are arising. I certainly never looked at it as a church, denomination or religion. I do believe that one of the primary purposes of emergent is to have the courage and boldness to question the status quo and to provide a safe place for the average person to ask the same questions in order to lead to a transformation of the church and it's theology - and I believe that history will look back and see that the emergent conversation was a very important element in bringing about a major shift in the life of the Christian church in general.

blog comments powered by Disqus
ramblings-theology-my thoughts