Part the problem, I think, is the way that the stuff of "emerging" has been equated with postmodernism, and that itself has been equated with the phenomenon which is the world-wide-web, and more particularly, Web 2.0 and the interactive world-wide conversation.
But these are all different things. Postmodernism, strictly. is a rather academic notion, some would say something of a spent force, a self-limiting somewhat over-ironic commentary on 20th century self-importance. Now, I tend to see some of its themes impacting on wider society: the lack of a privileged metanarrative; the preoccupation with the medium as much as the message; an aggressive kind of relativism, and so on. Whether these are properly described as postmodern is perhaps moot. Undoubtedly, society is undergoing (or has undergone) some profound changes: but how far-reaching are they? I don't think anyone can say.
On the other hand, I think there is a consensus that the creation of the web is on a par with the invention of the printing press. The effect on society, in the long run, is probably as profound. And it is a truly global phenomenon, though it has to be admitted that language barriers (and to some extent, cultural barriers) mean that much of the interaction is actually limited to a collection of largely non-overlapping (albeit very large, in some cases) online communities.
What does all this have to do with the emerging church? Well, it's evident that there is an emerging, community, web 2.0, kind-of spirituality (if not theology). And it's easy to make over-blown claims about the stuff you are at the centre of. But does it add up to a whole heap of beans?
3 comments:
One thing I've noticed within the Emerging Church movement is that you should "judge" each community on its own and not lump them all together. Where many are linked by their philosophy, some are theologically different.
Like you, I'm trying to navigate the murky waters of the Emerging Church. I love my community (Ecclesia) and the church as many Emergent "friends", but some are as different as night and day.
I hope that makes sense. It's very late!
Thanks Shae. It's certainly important to take each group/writer as you find them. My background is a tradition ("Christian Brethren" / "Plymouth Brethren") where each congregation is very much it's own community. The name was given by outsiders, rather than by those different groups particularly wanting to be identified with each other. And they certainly can be as different as chalk and cheese. I should write a blog post about this...
I can't wait to read "chalk and cheese." :)
I read an article recently where Rick McKinley said "It equally important that we help the emerging church grow up into “Adulthood” not “Dragons”, but as we do it is just as important that we give them space to grow up into what God is “emerging” in them."
Too many people like to label and since most of the traditional churches don't know what to do with emerging ones, they lump them all together.
The rest of the article is here.
http://www.rickmckinley.net/2007/10/18/my-thoughts-on-the-emerging-church/
Post a Comment