I have been facinated by what I’ve been hearing about “the emerging church.” This seems to be where much of what is exciting in the life of the church is happening today. Nadia Bolz-Weber of The Sarcastic Lutheran has her own definition:
“So, what IS the ’emerging church’?”
If I had a dollar for every person who has asked me “So, what IS the emerging church?” we could meet our budget this year. Here’s my own definition, and it is just that – my definition. Not the definition. When I use the term “emerging church” here’s what I mean by that. (I feel like I’m walking into a mine field, but here we go….)
Emerging Church:
Christian communities that emerge out of very particular cultural contexts where the traditional church is basically irrelevant. These cultural contexts are more often than not urban, youngish and post-modern.
If you want to see more, click here.
Advertisements
March 28, 2009 at 2:20 am
I like the picture.
March 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Thanks. It’s Nadia’s photo (and definition). I just liked it enough to share. I jumped to your sight (http://khanya.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/making-sense-of-the-emerging-church-movement/) and saw that you were also, in a different way, thinking about the emerging church.
March 28, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Yes, I saw the picture on her blog when I jumped to it from yours. There’s indeed a lot of talk about “emergi8ng church” and it seems that everyone has their own definition.
It makes me think of the saying “a torpedoed cathedral sinks rapidly into the earth”, and so I picture the emerging church as doing the opposite, something like a surfacing submarine.
April 15, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I keep using the term Emerging Church when I refer to people who love Jesus but don’t go to church and don’t think any denomination has the corner on the Truth!
I do like your version!
April 10, 2011 at 10:40 am
I think part of the emerging church is an attempt to treasure those parts of religious tradition that is old, of righteousness and obedience, while being open to that which is new, of grace and mercy. What do you think?
April 11, 2011 at 8:26 am
Certainly what I know about the emergent church (which manifests in a number of different ways) suggests that many manifestations value tradition and inovation. Roots are important and grounding. Inovation engages us with what’s happening around us (in terms of technology and social witness and how spiritual life is understood and lived). I think it’s about helping to connect received tradition and the world we live in. But I have to admit, I’m in no way an expert on the emergent church.
April 11, 2011 at 2:18 pm
I am learning, also, that there are many different styles and practicies of emerging church. I would think that the innovation of technology would definitely help people to consider their spirituality in new, different ways. I agree that one part of the direction of Emerging Churches is to help connect tradition and the world we live in. Maybe we are connecting head and heart, so to speak. Thanks for your comments.
April 12, 2011 at 9:02 am
There is clearly a lot of variety in what calls itself the emergent church — different points of emphasis. And I think you’re right, that technology helps people practice their spirituality in a wide variety of different ways. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
April 12, 2011 at 10:21 am
It seems that several years ago when some members in mainline churches were growing concerned over shifts in worship accompanied by dissatisfaction with continuing the usual approach, some described this as a desire to re-visit the types of behaviors, disciplines, and relationships of the early church. Do you think an approach to theology that is less ‘concretely’ reliant on classical views, and more interested in hearing what God is saying right now to address a particular situation is healthy and even something mainline might benefit from?
April 14, 2011 at 12:47 am
Certainly (from what I understand) one strand of emergent church is focused (in large part) on how we worship. From what I have seen, this often involves mixtures of very old and very “out there” worship. The concern with roots often has people using very old services (or pieces of services). The need to connect with how people live often has very non traditional services (or pieces of services) — I’ve been to services where the whole congregation gives the sermon (and I know that some Native American services which may not consider themselves emergent do this) and I’ve been in a lectionary study with a Pastor who’s home congregation does various pieces of their service at the same time in various worship “stations.” (Some parts of this later service are done in common. but folks decide both which parts of worship they will experience on a given day and also choose among options about how they will experience them.) People are also far less tied to “standard” answers (which they often don’t find authoritative — i.e. they do not seem to speak to their life experience). Tradition (as far as I can tell) is not trashed — it’s valued, in so far as it seems authentic. So folks are looking for roots, and authenticity and relevance — and have no loyalty to institutional answers (as such). They are looking for community and dialogue and hearing what God might be saying today in their community. This may be the only way to connect with many people today. And if we aren’t connecting, why are we here?