E/emerg/ent/ing: Thoughts on Labels

There has been a huge amount of discussion throughout the blogosphere about the differences between Emergent, emergent, emerging and all other related terms. This is probably because all those who might be described by any of the above terms are thoroughly post-modern in their disposition, and as such, detest being defined and labeled. I've waded through blogpost after blogpost warning about the dangers and differences associated with each label, hoping to rise above it all. And I'm not totally opposed to a basic distrust of labels, necessarily. But from what I've seen, the pomo distrust is occasionally borderline paranoia. There is such a fear of institution and reductionistic lumping into pre-defined categories that tends to make us fearful of being associated with ideas, individuals or organizations that we'd rather not be associated with anyone.

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.