"Emerging" vs. "Emergent" Redux

After a quick read, it looks way too much like Christianity 101, where we put everybody into little groups so that we can study them. It concerns me that we are moving away from a fluid conversation and into a stagnant category. I realized that those looking at us are trying to make sense of what they see and maybe we are, too. But isn’t that the mystery and adventure of being a follower of Christ. You never know what’s around the next bend.

I am a student at Biblical and have the utmost respect for Dave Dunbar. He was one of the first in the seminary world to guide an institution into postmodernity. I feel like he is drawing lines show some doubters that they can still trust Biblical and their teaching. Pray for biblical as they wade through the transition into the postmodern context.

I’m a former student at Biblical Seminary and took a course with Dave, so as I read this article I’m seeing the same thing as Jim. Dave isn’t interested in categorizing just for the sake of putting emergent under the microscope. He’s trying to give everyone at Biblical a rough handle on what these rather fluid words mean. He ends by saying it’s just an approximation.

Keep in mind that Dave’s passion is the missional approach to ministry. Last I checked Biblical has partnered with Allelon to train missional leaders, and so he’s approaching the emerging church as part of the broader missional movement, which I think is correct. He’s also trying to explain the missional/emergent/emerging groups to some fairly conservative pastors who have most likely read disparaging reports about McLaren and the emerging church in general. I don’t think this pdf document is anything all that new for the broader conversation other than the paragraph quoted above with Dave’s analysis. Andrew Jones has said as much about terminology, as have many others. Dave quotes many of the same sources that Jones and others have cited. The significance is that Dave is trying to bring everyone at Biblical onto the same page with the same terminology, not to mention dispelling incorrect rumors.

It’s no doubt a good summary. Diagrams can always be picked apart, but for people who are completely new to this, as some at Biblical will be, it helps.

My thoughts were too long. Had to do an entire post on it.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi Shahinian

I really hate when people use liberalism as if it is the evil polar opposite of religious fundamentalism. The opposite of religious fundamentalism is actually secular fundamentalism (militant atheism). Those are the evil twin step children of modernity. Religious liberalism is a postmodern product incorporating the best discoveries of modernity without throwing away our sacred stories.

Yes, post modernity has undermined both forms of rigid fundamentalism, but it has only served to reaffirm a healthy religious liberalism. If we somehow exclude critical thinking (liberalism) from the debate, then we create some kind of “soft-fundamentalism” that still defines faith by a doctrinal litmus test, but merely changed the parameters of the test. Is that what we want? Maybe that is what people like Dan Kimball want. At least that may explain why they want a different term.

i think its incidental that emergent is both emerging and missional in that venn diagram. its a compliment to emergent – but its not the point.

i would like to see emergent acknowledge its identity rather than try to blur the lines between emergent and emerging.

to do so adds clarity! to acknowledge and know and embrace who you are – is healthy!

you say your a node – right up there. so say it! loud and proud! youre a node. youre an organization. you have a logo. people can put a gif on their blog. you have no reason to hide from that.

its not creating artificial seperation and fragmentation. even bush knows the difference a letter makes can mean attacking the wrong country.

to blur it may fit better your discomfort with brands and identities. with walls and borders – however porous. or maybe there isn’t a border and people orbit your node – thats how we think of it. but i dont’ see how its integrous to resist embracing your node-i-ness and pretend you have cloud-i-ness.

you knew you were starting a something when you started emergent village. embrace that. you guys are a great organization! and the way you run it so loosely is awesome! your a great leadership model for other to look at and learn from.

but – youre a degree of freedom away from the beginning, and blurring this issue allows those who are just discovering the emerging church (sans logo) to think were based on emergent village (mit logo), rather than the root concept of emergence. and that misdirection and loss of richness of understanding is incalculable in my estimation.

say youre a node. say the emerging church is a cloud. end the confusion.