What does the term "emergent church" mean anymore? A blog roundup at Out of Ur suggests that many of the movement's proponents favor dropping the label entirely. The main reason they cite is that the term has been used to describe so many different strains of theology that it's no longer helpful, and might actually be getting in the way of clear communication.
Not the biggest news in Christendom, but evangelicals (and Christians in general) have plenty of experience with group titles that become so weighed down with cultural baggage that they're no longer useful or beneficial. So does anybody have a suggestion for a new, more accurate title for the philosophy that we used to call "emergent"? (Any takers for "Re-animated Church"? "Emergent Church Reloaded?" OK, I'll stop now.)
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (8)
The Gospel is its own marketing; human devices are a bore at best.
Of course our basic identity is "Christian," but there are a lot of different opinions and approaches within that broad framework. Labels can be divisive, but they can also be helpful in communication. If you tell me that you are a Christian of the Reformed perspective and I tell you that I am a Christian of the Eastern Orthodox perspective, we are quickly and easily communicating useful information to each other about our respective beliefs and ideas.
Used appropriately and without intent to divide, labels can be quite useful.
For another thing, it makes me wonder if the name of the thing is that big of a deal in the long run. I get the usefulness of labels, but re-labeling and re-re-labeling (just because you get some kooks in the movement; shoot, EVERY movement has its nutjobs) can be counterproductive. At what point should they just reform (ha!) the "Emergent" label rather than leaving it by the side of the road for the new hotness?
But, I guess time will tell…