Over at TallSkinnyKiwi there is yet another conversation brewing about the age of the revolution that is (or has been according to The Kiwi) the Emergent Movement. The debate is whether or not it's a "revolution" anymore. My frustration is that I don't think it's ever been a revolution and that particular rhetorical turn is simply, well, bombast. Well intentioned, enthusiastic, creative and even fun at times, but still...Maybe I am being harsh, but it's not been a revolution everywhere. In some places it's simply been a description of what has been at work in church for a good while.
But first, before I really sound like a jerk, let me share some links with you.
Danielle thinks that perhaps the movement has "lost its sexiness." I have to say that this is a great response. Give it a go.Too much of this conversation has been about transformation, an intentional movement of what must happen, or is the product of some network or gathering and too little of it has been about what simply is happening all on its own without the aid of publishing houses or creative websites.
Tony Jones is working through some stuff as well. He sees some interesting posturing among Vineyard and other such movements.
Josh Brown is pretty well convinced that institutional Christianity (other than friendships and families) is done. We'll see how this plays out, but it's not an uncommon statement.
Nick Fiedler is tired of all the talk with little action. I guess there's not been enough change for him.
I posted a while back about my understanding of this whole mess. The church that is emerging is emerging from the existing structures, institutions, and communities...liberal or conservative, mega church or mainline. It's not as if these conversations and the related actions have appeared ex nihilo. They have been nurtured. I, for one, have been nurtured within the older forms and encouraged into what some wish to call new, radical, or emergent. But they aren't really. Fosdick, Coffin (Jr), even Jimmy Carter and Billy Graham are examples of Emergence. Moody? Perhaps. New forms, odd places of worship etc. Heck, some could even include Methodism in this line of thinking and transformation.
So, not to sound ungenerous, I would love to know how emergence is a revolution. Perhaps I am too much in Phyllis Tickle's camp on this one, but I think it is only one small iteration of what is simply happening across the board. Acceptance and embrace of what has is what we need and not revolution. It can still be exciting and even sexy. Heck, why not? Get creative. Change everything that won't keep up with what is changing. That's fine. But recognize that we are simply part of something larger, something more pervasive than a revolution powered by certain personalities.
I don't know if this makes sense, but let me know your thoughts.
Posted by tripp at December 30, 2009 08:42 PM | TrackBack