Is the emerging church a movement?
Alan Creech has posted his views on the emerging church saying
" It is an illusory notion that there is some unified ecclesiastical "animal" called "the emerging church" which has some kind of common voice and authority of some sort. That is simply not so".
Some disagree, and say it is a movement. I think the emerging church is a movement - of sorts, but it is not a unified collective with a common voice, despite some people viewing Brian McLaren as the spokesperson for emergents the way some people saw Bill Hybels as the brains behind the seeker service movement and Rick Warren as the head of the purpose driven "movement" - and Martin Luther King as the spokesperson for the civil rights movement. Yet these men - and yes they are MEN, never WOMEN - did not set themselves up as spokespeople - and in fact they probably rejected the tag. We'll I think I read somewhere that Brian McLaren did, despite him being a keynote speaker at the emergent Mayhem gathering earlier this month.
The fact is that each movement wants to look for leaders representing the collective of a common voice. So-called emergent leader who see themselves as part of a collective that doesnt exist are no different. It's the ones ( like Alan, I suspect) that have a true emergent leaders heart. Sure, Alan sees himself as a role model among emergent types ( I'm sure he wrote that somewhere) - as I guess others like him do - but a role model is not a spokesperson, is it?
The Emerging Church doesn't have, want, or need a spokesperson, purely because it is not a movement with a common voice. Some have compared the emerging church movement to the church growth movement. I don't know so much about the church growth movement, but, as a "movement" I see the emerging church as different, to say, the charismatic movement.
It's different because the emerging church is more of a mindset and an outlook, as opposed to a movement or a collective. Its certainly not a unified voice. Well, thats what I think. So there you go.
You've only got to read some of the bickering in the weblogs of so-called "emergent leaders" regarding, for example, the role of women in the church (see an earlier post) to see the differences in so-called emergent types.
Perhaps some take the view as noted by
Adam Omelianchuk who commented that some people in the so-called emerging church: 1) think they are really profound, 2) are anti-historical, 3) are marked by a "we don't want to be like our parents" mentality, 4) say systematic theology is out and art is in, 5) think that celtic crosses make you "authentic." 6) think worship is whatever you want it to be 7) the Bible doesn't matter that much, 8) the church has completely failed God in every generation for all times and places, 9) "modernism" is the devil, 10) "community" is all that matters.
If you are reading this post, and consider yourself as an emerging leader, and can say yes to one of the above points - there's only two things to do - change, or quit referring to yourselves as emergent. I think some aspects in the the above list may well relate to some of those who are leaders in emerging churches - to a degree.
I wonder if some (
not all) so-called emergent leaders - many who see themselves as having a post modern outlook, armed with a post graduate degree from seminary, many of whom post messages on each others internet blogs - spend more time posting messages and reading other blogs as compared to time spent reading their bibles and praying?
And a final thought, if I may: Are some "emerging church" gatherings merely smaller,groovier, less structured versions of the kind of modern churches and house groups that are attended by people who leave their Bibles at home?