And I won't deny that our language is important. The terms we use articulate the faith and philosophy that we hold. And yet, we are often perhaps too insistent on our terms, particularly in this recent E/emerg/ent/ing debate. Some prefer to avoid the conversation altogether and allow the cards to fall where they may (HT: Kevin Corcoran). Others want to decide between the two and pick the most inclusive (HT: Nick Fiedler). Some might say that association with the terms themselves is not bad, but over-defining is a waste of time (HT: Tony Jones).
It goes without saying that Emergent is a term that describes an institution, but the terms emergent and emerging are not necessarily. Some have argued that since orally, Emergent and emergent are indistinguishable, it might be wise to disregard the term itself, and stick strictly with emerging.
But for me, the problem with all this defining and line-drawing is that it necessarily adds a flavor of organization and institution to a conversation that is innately anti-institutional. That's not to say that we don't operate in the midst of structures and sometimes even institutions that are the instruments and vehicles of our faith expressions. But these terms, for me, are expressions of my own faith. So, to answer the question of my own "association," I think of myself as a participant in the emergent conversation of Christians hoping to live faithfully in post-modernity. My faith is emerging from the work of God in the midst of my community and context. These words for me are not associations with some formal organization, but are rather adequate terms for my own experience of faith. And I use these terms because they do connect me with other Christians with similar struggles and hopes. And by throwing around the language of emergence and assuming that it necessarily lumps us into a labeled category, the issue is being forced. If emerg/ent/ing do truly indicate loyalty, then we must be loyal to something.
If only we could simply speak and so be. If only I could describe my faith without being lumped into an institution that doesn't really exist. If only we could enjoy our conversations without these silly dissections.
4 comments:
yes. indeed. so apparently there's this cool thing where people you don't know google your site topics and leave you comments as if you really care about what they say, especially considering you have no idea who they are in real life. and by cool, i mean "Lame". (i hope that's not a label.
Your post is pretty much dead on. There's always extremes and the "labeling" question is no exception. There's a temptation to "over-label" and put everything in boxes...(ever read anything by Macarthur on "Emerging"? He practically includes Rick Warren in the same box!) and those who so "resist labeling" to the extent that we could never figure out what they believe or how they live it out because they're so amorphous.
I think those involved in the theological conversations need to be vary careful of labeling as a cheap substitute for thinking through the complexities of various issues and viewpoints. However, if labels can be found that are helpful, especially as pastors, we find that most of our congregants have little time to research all this stuff (in between soccer practice, and dinner, and kid's homework and those pesky job thingys). The best way to avoid a dangerous labeling is of course, to use your words carefully in articulating what you are all about, a form of self-labeling as it were. but who knows?
slow to speak. quick to listen. slow to anger. I think i heard that advice somewhere.
"I think of myself as a participant in the emergent conversation of Christians hoping to live faithfully in post-modernity."
I like that stance, however in my little milieu, that could get a guy's head chopped off. But, they haven't gotten around to me...yet.
Couldn't agree more with your comments on the flavor labels add.
Though I think that even though they are helpful for people who won't do the research, we shouldn't resort to them. We should prod others to do some more thought on it, if they don't have time outside their time with us, then we should rethink how we use our time with them.
Does that make sense?
it makes much sense.
i appreciate the comment, and i think it is true that our language, no matter how meaningful it is to us may not speak to someone with an entirely different understanding of the world. we've got to learn to communicate across all of our distinctions.
Post a Comment