emergenting

re: emerging-vs-emergent-redux

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.

i am not emergent™

no sooner do i publish my nano-treatise lauding scot mcknight on his clear distinction between emergent™ and emerging, but emergent village™ graciously links to this review of "Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be".

ok obvious question; ok... no wait - obvious question before that one: why exactly should they be ... whatever it is they think they should be? you dudes think this is a demographic and you fit? dude, it's not a demographic - its a psychographic (credit: dee) and while the book has not yet been released, the interview bears this point out: that while we emergers are talking about new wine skins in order to save our own faith - these guys are quite comfortable walking another mile in the shoes of their forfathers. which is cool, except that...

during the phonecast they fail to recognize the emerging church is not any of these: trendy, edgy, cool or relevant (another ™). or liberal. or conservative. that's precisely the crap were critiquing too! well, that and pseudo-papal authority. (i'll slide solo scriptura and exegetical teaching in under pseudo-papal authority because while those sound good in theory - they play out differently in reality - kinda like the patriot act).

the agents of emergence actualize the priesthood of all believers (christianity largely pays lip service to this); and, we live out a kingdom of god that is upside down from mans' kingdom / corporate structure. and while you may not conceive that there could be a legitimate alternative. trust me homey, this a coup.

ok, and were prolly post-rational/modern too. but its another issue altogether that a flat earth doesn't sit squarely on the back of turtles. your argument is with reality-as-we-understand-it going-back-a-hundred-years now: which is, we each experience our own unique space-time thread - it is simply the nature of reality that the universe affords simultaneously different points of view (twins, one on a spaceship...). and on top of that, everything we experience is built on quantum uncertainty. and you want to be sure? ok. you'll want the blue pill...

personally i thought it was extremely thoughtful of moody press to underscore my point: if you don't understand the idea of emergence - you'll probably be sloppy with your terminology and critique the wrong thing.

i'm not emergent™ and you aren't either. yo tony jones isn't emergent™. if you've seen his facebook profile - for religion, where i have "christian", he has "emerging"... not "emergent". even emergent village™ describes themselves as "A Node in the Web of the Emerging Church" ... not the "emergent church". emergent™ has started no churches. when they do - then you can talk to an "emergent™ church", just like you would a "vineyard™ church".

if the book had been called "Why We're Not Emerging: By Two Guys Who Haven't"... we'd have a sound basis of discussion. but as far as i can determine, this whole exercise (and the book hasn't even been released yet!) is a gratuitous act of performance art by moody press just to underscore my point that scot mcknight is my fricken hero!! who knew they were so gracious? and so artsy! fabulousssss!

Scot McKnight is my Fricken Hero

i recently came across a PDF of of a talk Scot gave entitled "What is the Emerging Church?" delivered at Westminster Theological Seminary on Oct 26-27, 2006. on page 4 he states:

... constantly misused in the debate today are the terms "emerging" and "emergent". But, "emerging" is not the same as "emergent". Please listen. " emergent refers to Emergent Village - an official clearinghouse for this conversation where there are cohorts across the world who officially associate themselves with EV. Emergent Village, or Emergent, is directed by Tony Jones, a PhD student at Princeton, former youth minister and now an energetic traveler on behalf of EV.

"Emerging", on the other hand, is bigger, broader, and deeper. "emerging is connected to EV the way WTS is connected to Reformed Christianity in the world (in all its brands). So, when you say "emergent" you should be thinking of Emergent Village and Tony Jones; when you say "emerging" you should be thinking of ... well, that is what I have to get to...

he adds: [I refuse to give up on this one. In spite of my protest above, speakers at the conference continued to refer to the "emergent" movement and the "emergent" church.]

i am convinced emergence is the "wax-on wax-off" of the emerging church. understand the former - you'll accidentally get the later.
confuse it with a brand name (even a very good and aptly named brand name) - you're gonna add to the misunderstanding (i'm lookin at you facebook group - delete thyself!).

and today, Scot is still on message trying to add clarity.
thanks bro - you rock!

i am an agent of emergence