Scott I do think you are expressing a fear many of us share. On the one hand there is so much about the “emerging church” I find drawn to but I remember the profound unease I had when reading Eddie Gibbs book about the movement, many of the people he interviewed seemed to shy away from any sort of “proclamation” of the Gospel and by that I don’t simply mean preaching but challenging people as to the reality of the Kingdom of God and their place within it. I think there must be more to mission than just presence.
I know from talking to him and Eric Bryant that Erwin McManus has always tried not to identify Mosaic with the emerging movement over this very issue.
It seems to me that some in the emerging movement are in danger of operating with a mainly Old Testament model of mission which is predominantly centripetal, at least when it comes to evangelism. Its not enough to engage with culture, we are called by mission to some extent to transform culture and that involves challenging its social evils but also personal evils, the reality of sin in the individual.

hi scot,
i sent you an email before seeing this post so i’ll ask you my question here. i’m assuming this new network will have a website and i’m wondering if there will be a message board as well. while i have been on the boards at the ooze for 3 years the conversation there has really deteriorated and it would be wonderful if this new network would continue the conversation on a new forum–in addition to blogs of course.

Scot – couldn’t agree more with this. If emerging churches quietly downgrade the importance of evangelism, they will simply feed the ‘neo-fundamentalist’ reaction you talk about, and the middle ground will shrink. We need to find ways to avoid replaying the big splits of the early 20thC, when liberal evangelicals drifted off towards theological liberalism and conservative evangelicals towards fundamentalism.
One big difference today, I think, is that the charismatic/Pentecostal sector is much bigger than in the early 20thC, and perhaps surprisingly, tends to act as a mediating force that resists both extremes. That’s certainly true in the UK, where charismatics (like Nicky Gumbel of Alpha course fame) hold the centre ground between open evangelicals and conservative evangelicals.

Scott McKnight: Emergent Church is Evolving « The Theological Ramblings of an Anglican Ordinand

[...] Scott McKnight: Emergent Church is Evolving See the full post Scott McKnight post here Full circle: like ???fundamentalism??? and ???evangelicalism,??? the words ???emerging??? and ???emergent??? have become a liability; it has become a term that needs ten minutes of explanation before it can be used. Many are just confused about the meaning of the term. Then two fellas wrote a book that dramatized it all, contending that they were not emerging when by all accounts they should be. Well, I said to myself, this just proves that the term no longer makes sense. [...]

I love what you and Dan are doing. It is been my belief at times that the emerging/emergent crowd risks becoming a holding ground for disgruntled evangelicals rather than a truly Missio Dei oriented movement. Thanks for breaking free of that stagnation.
Many criticize the denominational model. I do wonder if we can indeed look to those convergent individuals that embrace the cultural transformation taking place and who also have a strong background in holistic evangelical methodology as a corrective means?

Scot,
A wonderful post. You speak my mind.
Anyone who says there’s no emerging conversation driven by a longing for deeper connection to the church and the Church didn’t read the overwhelming response to your post on the Eastern Orthodox Church.
And yes, the word “emerging” has gotten smeared and twisted.
As I read the comments on the OE the other day, and dwelled on my own attraction to high church Anglicanism, it became clear to me (again) that any movement that strays too far from the creedal core of Christianity and loses a sense of awe about Jesus … is doomed to irrelevance. We long for the real thing and nothing else can satisfy for long, because the rest is junk food.
I also get fearful that all the KOG glories and truths brought by the Protestant churches, be these churches mainstream, evangelical, Quaker or whatever, will be lost because these churches have strayed too far from the core doctrines and beliefs of the Church. Much as I respect the OE and RC denominations, I wouldn’t want them to be the only thing standing in 200 years … and yet they may be, because they are, to my mind, the ones who have stayed strong on all the core doctrines. If you have that spine in place, you can carry just about anything along with you.

Just a short notice from Norway: Thanks for giving words to some of my own conserns and theological struggles with the Emerging movement.
This gives me hope.

Scot, I’m not sure I understand all of what this change will mean but I sense it is big for you and I will be praying.

Scot:
Thanks for this, and for your continued friendship. I, too, as you know, care very much that people come to Christ, commit their lives to him, and surrender to his will. I think this is evangelism. And, as you know, many have come into just that kind of relationship with Christ at Solomon’s Porch, my faith community. So, in that sense, I’m sure that we’re on the same page.
I grieve that emergent/ing has become contentious, but I suppose that was inevitable. As you also know, most of us hold that term loosely. And changes are afoot in how EV in particular is structured. All we’ve ever wanted was for it to be a catalyst for Kingdom-oriented change in the church and the world.
I applaud your new network. I am quite sure that you, too, will get attacked by the orthodoxy police, whether or not you affirm a statement of faith. I’ve affirmed my own historic orthodoxy many, many times, but it’s never good enough for the already-convinced.
In the end, the entire EM is about putting relationality at the center of all Kingdom endeavors. So, in that sense, whatever the various networks are called, my ongoing and committed friendship with you and others trumps and of the doctrinal triviata that comes up. I pray that our friendships will last long after the networks fade and the websites are turned off, because if they don’t, then this is all for naught.

Scot,
You said So, Carl Henry stood up in the 50s and 60s and said something had to be done and out of his famous book (Uneasy Conscience) arose a new movement: ???evangelicalism.??? Fundamentalists at the time called it ???neo-evangelicalism??? and that was no compliment. But the movement survived the early attempts to smear it.
Historically speaking, didn’t Ockenga coined the term “new evangelicalism” in order to distinguish this new movement from the “old evangelicalism” or the fundamentalists from whom they were separating?
I don’t think the term new evangelicalism or neo-evangelicalism was an attempt to smear the movement. It was a self-designation for those who split off from the old evangelicalism.
Marsden’s book is the best on this, and is worth reading.
But like emerging/emergent, the terms evangelical, fundamentalist, etc have become just about all things to all men, to the point that it is almost impossible to use them without making them die the death of a thousand qualifications.

I was intrigued by the blog proclaiming the death of the term “emerging.” But you are correct, it may be the death of a term but in no way the death of the movement. I agree that the critics have had much to do with the death of the term. However, I wonder if there is another take on why the term is dying:
You state, “I have for some time been saying that most of us are tired of describing what emerging is.” But based on the published literature, it seems that only recently is emerging really getting into their own definition. It seems to me that most of the emerging church movement’s life has been spent as a reactionary movement. This is why nearly all (no exaggeration) the early books focused on modern/postmodern differences and, frankly, tore to shreds the modern church/church growth movement. This is evident in the pre-2006 books of Kimball, McLaren, Pagitt, Jones, Tomlinson, S. Burke, etc., etc. They began as reactions and often described what emerging was against. Yes there was some practical ecclesiology, but not much more theologizing (the theologians, such as Grenz and Franke are exceptions). What has happened recently is that the emerging church is beginning to define its beliefs in more of a prescriptive way rather than pure reaction – hence the new books by Pagitt, Jones, etc.
I think this is why there are some friendly “splits” in the movement that will continue. People that were unified in the reaction are not unified in the new prescription. The card-carrying evangelicals, such as myself, align more with you and Dan than some of the other streams of emerging. So each of the streams will begin to define themselves uniquely, but will maintain the emerging church movement ethos.

Thanks for this post, Scot. Passionate and clear, evangelically-rooted.
I do wonder, though, what prospect such a new network has for actually avoiding the pitfalls of former networks. Is it not in the nature of networks to become inwardly-focused and mired in misunderstanding and controversy? This may be especially the case in a context where evangelicalism has become such a politically charged battleground.
I certainly hope not, but I’m just wondering what steps can be taken to safeguard against this.

Here’s a joke that I’m told was a favorite of Abraham Lincoln’s:
Q. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
So much for nomenclature.
Scot, that “long-ago CT article” of yours pointing out the five streams in Lake Emerging is what drew me to this blog in the first place. I had never heard of you, googled (or maybe that’s Googled) your name, and voila, my next mouse-click brought me here.
Larry (#10), the term neo-evangelicalism, regardless of who coined it, was definitely an attempt to smear the movement. I was deep into fundamentalism and dispensationalism in the early 60′s. As proof, I read John R. Rice’s newspaper The Sword of the Lord religiously (you should excuse the expression) and hung onto every word Dr. (forsooth) Carl McIntyre ever said. He sneered when he used that word.
I must stop using so many parentheses.

Scot,
Thanks for sharing this. After reading the Ur article I was more intrigued about what you were planning than I was convinced that the emerging movement is waning. Will your new network be open to local manifestations? I am working on creating a Missional Coalition here in South Bend, IN, working with local churches and ministries on the very things you discuss in this post, and I’m just wondering how this “new alliance” might be instrumental in what we are doing at the grass roots level.
As an aside, do you think the term “missional” will have the same fate as “emerging” in the coming years?
Thanks.

Larry,
Yes, Ockenga was part of the forming of “new evangelicalism” — the famous meeting in St Louis being probably the singular event. But I was referring to how fundamentalists saw that new group forming; for them “neo-evangelicalism” was a departure.
Tim,
Yep, this concerns me. We are forming a new network and we will be considering just this sort of thing.

Tony,
Love you brother; thanks for your comment.

DC (#14). The Blind Begger blog recently (June) gathered 50 responses on the term missional and its future. You can read that missional is already engaging the discussion about its terminology. You can see all the responses here: http://blindbeggar.org/?p=609.

Larry (#10) and Bob (#13), it may indeed have been Ockenga who first used the term, calling for a “new evangelicalism” in one of his addresses in the 1940′s, but it fairly quickly came to be used as a smear by fundamentalists.
It was used by fundamentalist leaders to incite fear and suspicion among otherwise well-meaning evangelical lay people, and to build rhetorical walls around camps while ensuring a steady supply of financial support to fight against a constructed enemy. The rhetoric functioned to gather together into one group of enemies neo-orthodox, neo-evangelicals, and German higher critics.
The very same thing has happened today, as Scot pointed out. The rhetoric is used to gather together a group of enemies that stand arrayed against the truth, which increases the threat level and the felt need for fundamentalist warriors (who need your $$, by the way) to do battle against them.

Mission, Missional, and Missionary « Emerging Chaos

[...] ***Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed posted on Emerging and Emergent again. (9/24) [...]

Scot: I entered into the emerging conversation big time, two years ago, as much through your blog and books as through Brian McLaren???s. I???ve found both of your voices (and others, Bell, Willard, etc.) incredibly enriching. We just started an ???Emergent Church Cohort??? three months ago locally which has gone well. So, being a relative ???newbie??? this topic suggesting an ???emerging schism??? is a tad unsettling. I???ve been following this development as it comes up in blogs (including the discussion about which is ???broader,??? emerging or emergent? That was a bit weird) and here???s my take: I agree with so much of what you are saying, and I agree with Tony Jones??? comments. In the end, no single network or group of voices can have a monopoly on something as supposedly ???organic??? as the emerging church movement. There should be room for many networks and expressions. I have the ???Friend of Emergent Village??? graphic and link on our group blog, and I see you still do on yours. We should both keep them, and add other good ones as they come along???Just my two cents.
Thank you all for following Christ, and showing us some new ways, as best you know how.
Steve

There is an article in the recent EFCA publication that asserts that the phrases “emergent” and “emerging” now have negative connotations (not the same ones) of that of “evangelical”.

The EMC as an NSM « Tony Jones

[...] 24 September, 2008 by Tony Jones Lots of talk around the blogosphere in the last couple weeks about the goodness or badness of the terms “emerging” and “emergent.”? To be quite honest, as I sit at our family cabin by the lake, listening to Canada geese fly over head and thinking about where I should grouse hunt today, it all seems rather silly.? Indeed, I’ve long held that this is an internecine debate.? I realize it seems earth-shatteringly important to some, but not to me.? As Scot pointed out in his post today, where we all go from here will have more to do with that to which God is calling us than to any labels. [...]

it is so important that if the ‘emerging’ church wishes to continue its revolution in the 21st century, it must become more internationally and missionally focused. basing your new network on the lausanne covenant is a smart move.
as trendy as it may be to reject formal documents as a foundation for a movement, i find it to be incredibly necessary. for such a global era, there couldn’t be a better confession than the lausanne covenant.
as this movement continues to grow, i wonder what kind of impact the 2010 lausanne congress in cape town, south africa will have.

Scot,
As always, well said. Concise. Penetrating. Helpful.
Like others, I share your hopes and concerns for the future of the church. However, I would like to push some on one phrase that both you and Brian McLaren used – “card carrying” evangelical. I don’t doubt that in the least, but I’m having some difficulty these days determining what makes someone a “card carrrying” evangelical. Or even how helpful an enterprise it is to determine who has the card?

Scot,
I’ve been reading Phyllis Tickle’s new book. Wondered what you thought of this new movement eventually turning into a 4th stream of the Church Universal. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant being the first three. She makes an interesting point, that reformation has never killed that which is being reformed – but made it stronger and more viable to continue and continue to transform people and the world – i.e. the Roman Catholic Church was forced to re-form in some significant ways in the 1500′s and is absolutely still viable and alive despite what evangelicals might think. It is very intriguing to me to think we are living in a time of reformation that will lead to this fourth stream.
Jason

TJC,
I probably should have just stopped with our being evangelicals. “Card-carrying” sounds a little too official. Good push-back. (I don’t like the conversation about who is and who is not an evangelical.)

jason smith,
As you can tell from your dust jacket, I blurbed Phyllis’ book. I like big theories that put things together; sometimes they are wrong; they are often a little too neat; but they give us categories to think with.
If she’s right, we’re in the middle of something. I think we are in the middle of something; whether it is the fourth stream I don’t know. If there is anything really big to come of what I see going on now it will be the reformulation of a bigger more robust gospel. Time will tell. I sound like Gamaliel in Acts 5 don’t I?

Another white male evangelical offshoot?

This is so interesting to me. What is a name anyway but a label, and a socially constructed one at that. If someone wants to immediately discount what I say or think because I tell them my journey is “emerging” into something more holistic, that’s on them right? It’s unfortunate that we don’t take the time to get to know folks beyond the labels placed on them. Personally, my emerging faith is one that wants to see people come to know Christ…it’s just a difference of opinion as to what it looks like to introduce a postChristian culture to Christ.

My observations are that EV segment began to rewrite or write off historical theology in attempts to offer an emerging “post-Christian” theology. I am not saying that theology cannot and should not be reformed and re-visioned. It seems that the ancient/future creative tension was jettisoned by EV for just future (innovative) stuff. This led to all kinds of qualifying conversations about “emergent” versus “emerging.” Those of us who were drawn into the bigger conversation for missional and ecclesiological reasons had to joust with critics over ideas we did not necessarily endorse (though we did not care that those ideas were “emerging”). EV got linked to the “stars” who did the speaking and who wrote the books. I found myself saying to many questioning friends, “That handful of white guys do not speak for the global, emerging conversation. They speak/write for themselves.”
Regarding “neoevangelical.” I was in Bible college and seminary in the late 60s, early 70s and “neoevangelical” was used perjoratively as almost an equivalent to “neo-orthodox” which was very loaded, fear-inducing term.

Scot, this discussion has been going on for some time among academic and church leaders, but I wonder if some of the recent questioning is coming from the trickling down of this terminology to the masses? Or would you say most people who attend what we would call “emerging churches” are clueless about this terminology? I wonder how many “emerging churches” make any reference to such terminology in their weekly messaging to their members? You say, for the last year and a half I have spent far too much time explaining the terms ???emerging??? and ???emergent??? and I???m tired of it.
As publishers are dropping the term for marketing purposes, and academic and church leaders are tired of talking about it, will this terminology fade into history? Perhaps it well should, and to borrow a metaphor from the recent book you recommended called Chrysalis – emerging happens and then what emerges takes form and hopefully, takes flight. Here’s to the many beautiful butterflies that are taking flight after this formational time of emerging…

a new community for emerging christians « scottball

[...] check out scot mcknight’s blog where he’s spills the beans on his new, still unnamed network for emerging christians that he’s putting together with dan kimball and others.? the network will root itself confessionally (for lack of a better term) on the lausanne convenant.? if the emerging movement wants to gain some traction, it needs to root itself in some sort of confession–and the lausanne covenant, a theological document with a missiological focus, is as good as anything else to act as a common ground for emergent church leaders. [...]

Jason and Scot –
I’m really intrigued by this last bit. A friend of mine keeps telling me that I am “so very emerging.” I’m from a liberal-leaning Catholic background (and keep in mind that the issues which identify liberal Catholics from conservative Catholics are not the same questions which identify liberal Protestants from conservative Protestants) and much of the emerging conversation sounds to me very much like “liberal Catholic except in institutional affiliation.” So to see emerging described as the beginnings of a fourth stream sounds very odd to me.
Or maybe I’ve gotten everything entirely wrong. This is all very confusing.

Scot — wow. Honestly, I dunno. Two major concerns:
– I LOVE the missional movement’s emphasis on a holistic gospel and I LOVE that the missional movement is willing to think more deeply about how God may already be graciously working in parts of the world where the gospel is not yet heard. Is this return to an emphasis on “evangelism” just a code word for a return to old-school evangelicalism’s emphasis on “personal” salvation as an escape from the sinking ship and to “missions” as an effort to collect souls? Of course the answer is “no,” but really?
– I LOVE the missional / emerging movement’s willingness to ask hard and often taboo questions about what we mean by the inspiration and authority of scripture and about hermeneutics. The Lausanne Covenant explicity upholds the inerrancy of scripture “in all that it affirms.” Doesn’t this drop us right back into the nitpicking and endless arguments about what we mean by “error,” the tortured attempts to marry scripture with modern science, the accusations about who really “affirms inerrancy” and who doesn’t? Please, please tell me how this is not so.

great post and good conversation — thank you! I sent a link to many of my reformed-pneumacentric-ecumenical-evangelical, ancient-worship-loving conservative-leaning pastor and missionary friends

Emerging Over; A New Network? | Through a Glass Darkly

[...] Posted on September 24, 2008 Scot McKnight posts about a new evangelical network he is helping to found that will distance itself somewhat from “emerging” / “emergent.”? Interesting. [...]

jose,
with that descriptive phrase, i’m sure we have all the same friends.

Scot,
Best wishes for this. Looking forward to it.

Scot,
As we all know words have multiple nuances, and thus this is true of emerging and emergent, along with missional. As a progressive mainliner seeking to be missional, I have struggled with how these movements fit with a more progressive view of the church and the world. Is missional simply another expression of evangelicalism or is it broader? The same can be said for emerging/emergent. To add to this confusion, note that Marcus Borg and others speak of an emerging Christianity. Borg isn’t an evangelical by most definitions. And yet he appears regularly with Brian McLaren.
The further issue has to do with evangelism. I’m not sure I understand how evangelism/proclamation is excluded from being missional. I’m assuming that as we are at work in the world, participating with God in God’s mission, we will be sharing our faith and inviting people to join us as disciples of Jesus. Now, is this evangelism of a “rescue the perishing” type, probably not. We mainliners are learning that we must share our faith stories and invite others to join us in walking with Jesus. Missional involves, in my mind, telling the story of faith, inviting into discipleship, and engaging in acts of social justice.

Great job Scot.

yes, we probably do Steph … I have had the problem of needing 10 minutes to explain what kind of group I was part of for 30 years … we were edgy, innovative and heavily criticized back in the 1970s when we were talking about small groups, relationships, the kingdom and community back then.

Weird — I posted a comment that didn’t go through. Probably got stuck in a filter.
Well anyway, here’s my biggest question Scot — the Lausanne Covenant is a fine document, but its very strong on Biblical inerrancy. If the basis of this new network is subscription to the Lausanne Covenant, doesn’t this exclude those of us who appreciate emerging/ emergent / missional’s willinginess to ask uncomfortable questions about inerrancy? Doesn’t this just throw us back into endless debates about what “error” means, what the Bible really “affirms,” who is really holding to inerrancy or not, and so on?

RJS #28…I saw your comment sister…. I’m hoping someone responds. Scot?

Scot,
The reason I frequent this site is for two reasons:
#1 – At the constant urging of my brother in law Rob (comment #29) whom I Love dearly.
#2 – Your balance! I sent Rob and email about this post and would put myself in your category of thinking concerning this issue. Although I would probably not state it as eloquently!

I’m in if you have room for a youth pastor who wants to plant a church (in Canada) based on these ideas.

I’m not quite following the parallels. You compare the term emerging to fundamentalist and evangelical, and yet each of those are descriptive terms, whereas the term “emerging” is not so clear of a descriptive term, can someone add a description for me? What are you emerging from?
Also, I find it interesting that I see the terms “conservative” and “liberal” in the comment thread, can someone explain a little more about what those terms are referring to?

dopderbeck,
I agree – this is a key issue and causes some concern because of the “baggage” attached. The plain meaning is not the nuanced meaning. Yet another word we should do away with in the process – emerging, emergent, fundamentalist, evangelical, intelligent design, …

About 8 yrs ago I joined postmodern christian email groups to learn what postmodernism was about. I found people desiring things I desired and found in our house church, 31 yrs ago. I was discouraged to find some of the ocnversations to be against mainline church or just against vs being for something. If I understand correctly, postmodern is not emergent/emerging, but to me they look much the same. I did not get stuck on the term because what I found, or heard, were people stating their desires for their christian life shape. And I found it was not a heretical thing among those who held the conversations I was priviledged to peek in on.

links on the emerging/emergent/missional conversation « my contemplations

[...] September 24, 2008 Those following the blog would have read about the current conversation surrounding the term emerging. Scot McKnight blogged about it today, and confirmed that they will be starting a new network commited to the Lausanne Covenant, according to him this will still be part of the broader emerging conversation, but as missional-evangelistic evangelicals. Tony Jones also blogged about this today, saying that the Emerging Church Movement is part of what is called New Social Movements, and that even if terminology dies, the movement will continue. [...]

Scot and Tim,
There is no doubt that fundamentalists and evangelicals (new/neo) both use the terms to paint suspicion and to smear the other side. One of the frequently used tactics, IMO, that is used is to tar someone as a “fundamentalist.” I think that is a cheap and easy shot at someone that really doesn’t address what they believe in these days and times. “Fundamentalist” means everyone from D. A. Carson to Fred Phelps, from Jack Hyles to John MacArthur. And such a broad term can have relatively little meaning.
FWIW, I think the same thing about “new (neo) evangelical.” It too is applied from D. A. Carson to Joel Osteen, from Al Mohler to Brian McLaren. And as such, it doesn’t say much.

I share the same concerns as Dopderbeck. The phrace “without error in all that it affirms” is quite unclear as to whether it is a simple, clear statement, or a more nuanced understanding. Using the idea or term “inerrant” just seems troubling in a time with this giant shift towards neo-fundamentalism and could possibly exclude not only those who are sympathetic to the Emerging idea of questioning certain aspects of scriptural inerrancy but ALSO those of us who come from denominations that do not uphold a total inerrancy of the scriptures, but rather only those parts that pertain to Salvation and God’s Character?
The other question I would ask, is the covenant’s statement of Christ’s “visible return.” If I have understood you correctly it would seem you are somewhat of a Partial Preterist, but what does this document do or say to those who are Radical Preterists? Does it also exclude/alienate them?
Just a couple of my concerns.

Scot,
Having been emerging/missional for ten years, before anyone knew what to call it, I have a few questions:
1. Some of the problems with the word ‘emerging’ have nothing to do with internal definition, but with the external, often uninformed, criticism of the gatekeepers of evangelicalism… How does any movement maintain language for more than a ‘blog-cycle’ without being co-oped and redefined by these forces? Yes, Lausanne Covenant helps, but I would guess it’s not long before you get push back on even that!
2. Aren’t some of the cries of ‘death to emerging’ just those who are uncomfortable with change?… Frankly that’s what I got from the CT article. And though some use the word ‘missional’ I think it’s much different than missional/incarnational as expressed by Frost/Hirsch and others… Missional is not just going back to modern forms of evangelism… for most those are not helpful.
I know these are not you or Kimball… but I hear from some (even on this blog) that concern me.

#34 – Yes, I share those concerns as well. Thanks for stating better than I could.

#51 – great questions about evangelism/missional. Here’s my take:
I think it’s a mis-characterization (and painting with quite a broad brush…which can marginalize) to say that those in the emerging conversation don’t care about “evangelism”. I think missional living incorporates much of what people mean when they use the term “evangelize”, but it looks different than people are used to under a Modern paradigm (relational and inviting to the journey as opposed to “winning” souls or rational apologetics).

Rob/#53,
That’s my take as well… and thus part of the concern. Emerging/missional are good terms (though open to the misunderstandings of all language). And I see some of these ‘language wars’ as people pushing back because they wish we could just return to a “modern paradigm” of church and mission… at least that’s been some of my experience.

#54 – “And I see some of these ???language wars??? as people pushing back because they wish we could just return to a ???modern paradigm??? of church and mission??? at least that???s been some of my experience.”
Agreed, but to be clear, I do not see Scot proposing this type of return.

Scot, Thanks for sticking with the tiring discussion as long as you have. You’ve helped me understand things. This post helps as well.

Scot,
Wow! What a fantastic post – it resonated deeply with my ambivalence toward all things emergent ™ And this coming from a young post modern preacher who should fit the emergent mold….not that emergent types have a mold as molds are modern structures needing to be….well you know how it goes.
Your description of language change (fundy, evangelical and now emerging/Emergent) reminds me of another evolution of language:
I used to be religious, but then I called myself a Christian, because, you know, relationship verses religion and all that. In 2008 the term “Christian” is SO 10 years ago. Now I’m a Christ follower because a Christian has cultural baggage and a Christ follower is actually cool…and so it goes on.
One day my kids will say, “Dad, remember when you actually called yourself a Christ follower? That phrase has so much baggage which is why I tell people I’m religious.” I’ll smile and wonder at each generation’s need to reinvent and reinterpret.
I think one of Emergent’s great failings is its constant deconstruction of all things modern while availing itself of modern systems like the publishing industry and speaking circuit. If I hear another hip post modern conference speaker tell me that I can “continue the conversation” with him by buying his book, I might have to resort to violence.
All the discussion about labels and movements makes me think of the church movement I’m in. My background and training comes from the Independent Christian Church. “Independent” may well be one of the worst describers for a church movement ever, but I like the “Christian” part very much. Alexander Campbell, one of our founders, was an “Old Light, Anti Burgher Seceder Presbyterian” minister. It was the same frustration over scism and hyper nuance that caused him to start a movement simply called “Christian.” Of course, we’ve had two splits in the last 100 years and hair splitting is alive and well among us.
at any rate, I’ve long appreciated your irenic approach, and Dan Kimball’s and I’d love to be a part of your new movement. As for names, I really like “Red Letter Christian.” Its taken of course, but its a great name for a movement.
sorry for the long post, but your post sure struck a nerve. thanks for sharing it with us
Steve Cuss

Anyone who is called “Pastor Cuss” must be ok

All in all i think this was an amazing post. I’m very excited to see the work that You and Dan are engaged in coming to life. I think you all have your priorities well in place. It is good for the whole Christian community in my opinion.

Becky #48,
please email me at ldamesATpacificDOTnet and let me know how you are doing!!!
RJS & Peggy,
still no answer…
WRT a missional-evangelistic thrust, that’s great, but… we need to announce what the good news/gospel actually *is*. As was said elsewhere, the “Gospel” study is the mother of them all. After being churched all my life and a self-identified Evangelical for +20 years, my big theological re-think ten years ago began with the question, “What is the Gospel?” I couldn’t tell anymore…
Dana

Larry (#50), I completely agree. It seems to me that gospel-shaped people get beyond labels and understand people as people, and positions for what they are and what they can contribute to the conversation. Labeling in order to dismiss is an act of violence and a gross betrayal of Christian conversation.
This is not unrelated to evangelism, by the way. Robust evangelism is ‘perichoretic’, lingering long with a fellow human to genuinely hear their story and to plunge the depths of all that they are, no matter how long that takes. Christian sympathy in the truest and most thoroughgoing sense — it can be applied to evangelism or theological dialogue . . ., sorta the same thing, eh?

Scot – just a couple of questions from someone who has no problem with emergent.
- Why are you guys willing to claim “evangelical” as a term but not “emerging/emergent” if both terms have issues?
- what happens in a year or so when whatever name you guys come up with is the new maligned subgroup that the critics are wishing were already dead?
- how will this help build unity and move the conversation forward?
I understand how this group will meet the needs of a certain subset of people who may be kinda post-evangelical but want to shy away from association so-called theological heretics. That’s cool and everyone needs safe place. But I’m having a hard time seeing past the division this is creating.

Scot,
Very interesting! My wife Rose and I are pastors of a Vineyard Church in Seattle. We have been a part of the emergent, missional conversation for about 10 years now. It has been a great influence on our community. Todd Hunter and Brian Mclaren have been good friends to us and a great help. We have settled comfortably into identifying ourselves as an incarnational missional community. We want to participate in the whole gospel of the present and future Kingdom. We engage the community around us for the purpose of serving. We are evangelical but want our lives to be our message. It has taken years of engaging our community for the relationships we offer to be trusted. Scot, you were with us a while back, you must return, and we read you all the time. We want to be informed about anything you are a part of. We need language and modals for our time and culture. We want to be clearly known as followers of Jesus without alienating those who are not followers yet. Keep helping us be better followers.
Your friend in Seattle, Rich

Missional that leads to evangelism, that is a good posture. I appreciate an anchoring under the Lausanne Covenant. It is broad and formed in a missional setting, which is where our theology needs to be articulated. I look forward to hearing more.

Scott-
Lots of us in the conversation have been focussed on figuring out how to do evangelism in this new setting and I don’t think we’ve gotten there yet. This network could be a really important step. Count me in.

I’m so excited about this new network. I’m glad you and Dan are collaborating. So excited…

Thanks Scot,
This is a much needed move.

Excellent clarification…I hope that the nuances that are made in this post (and many other place on the web & in print) fall upon the ears of those who use them erroneously.

I remember hearing Erwin McManus (who I respect very much) express his shock that the Emergent group seemed to only want to go back 1000 yrs. His comment was “they need to go back another 1000!” People like him and Tim Keller and others (Dan Kimball falls into this same group for me) give me tremendous hope for the future and guidance for how to minister among truly unchurched people.

Scot,
Thanks for the thoughtful response to the Out of Ur piece.
Whatever the future holds for the emerging church, whatever its lasting impact and whatever name it assumes, I’m very optimistic that leaders like you, Dan, and Erwin are the right people to be guiding it.

Parchment and Pen » The Second Coming of Emergers

[...] Some are proclaiming the death of the emerging church, saying “The emerging church is dead???at least in nomenclature, if not in spirit.” Others such as Scot McKnight, Andrew Jones, and Dan Kimball are calling this a nominal death, believing the name itself is no longer descriptive of the original intent of the group, but that the principles expressed will move on. Scot’s post had the spirit of a “call to arms” of the emerging ethos. Others, such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones seem to be holding on to its designation with some hesitant resolve (if you you will allow me to combine those two words). [...]

Well said Scot,
I didn’t read through all 71 other comments so I’m probably just saying the same thing as most everyone else, but I resonate with what you are saying and am excited to see things unfold with this. I’ll be watching and supporting from afar…

Is the ‘religion without religion’ deconstructive theology of Jack Caputo/Peter Rollins not a growing influence on the Emergent Village network which will take this grouping in a completely opposing and contrary theological direction to any network based around the Lausanne covenant(leading to increased tensions due to fundamental theological divergences). Pete Rollins fresh thinking about ‘religionless Christianity’ will I think generate a lot of controversy/discussion when he comes to the States in his forthcoming tours.
Rodney

Reasons to consider keeping the word ???emerging??? in a new network:
??? Branding: Although the movement has been around for 10 years (?) and has taken on some negatives, my perception is that it has more positives and generates excitement with many like-minded Christians and among many of the ???un-churched.???
??? Clarity & Consistency: Although it has taken years to ???trickle down,??? I perceive that people are starting to get it. It may be harder to explain what a new network/movement is apart from emerging than to explain the nuanced differences.
??? Re-claim the word: A friend of mine says we need to re-claim words of the Christian faith that have taken on negative associations. A quick example that comes to mind in the word ???holy.??? A very foundational concept that many have come to confuse with detached, legalistic, etc. when in fact it is about living the Jesus Creed in its many facets.
There may be more. Just some more thoughts???

Well, this happens with all movements. First, there’s the initial phase of excitement, energy and creativity. Then, some questions arise, cracks appear in the unity of the group, and new leaders attempt to displace the initial leaders. Then the movement institutionalizes, codifies its practices and beliefs – and both sides have done this: Mark Driscoll and the Resurgence on one end, and Tony Jones/Brian McLaren with Emergent Village on the other. So it’s interesting to watch or participate in a movement as it goes through these different stages on its way into becoming a footnote in Evangelicalism’s history textbook.
I remember how Christianity Today described the Vineyard movement/denomination kicking the Toronto Airport Fellowship out of its communion in the 1990′s. They quoted a sociologist that talked about the institutionalizing process that movements go through, and how the Vineyard had gone from being this wave of energy into an institutional organization that was drawing up lines and shoring things up.
This past summer, I read the book Beijing Coma. Although it’s long and difficult to get through, it describes how the student leaders in the 1989 Tiananmen protest went from being this energetic, spontaneous movement to a group filled with conflict as its leaders jockeyed for power, weakening them in fulfilling their original purpose.

RJS.. inherited systems doing what they do best..

Steve #70 – I resonate with both of your posts! I try and scope out all “movements” with a discerning and prayerful spirit and thoughtful reflection. I tend to not leap into something just because it reflects change or the future. I am huge advocate of Legacy and what it means. It encompasses our Past, our Present, and our Future and we in my humble opinion maintain balance with respect to those three. We cannot forsake our past for the hope of the future and be so worried about the future that we forget the present.
Regardless, I look forward to this network and the discussion/direction it will generate!
Richie

RJS,
A few months back, Rich Meigs (Blind Beggar) facilitated an email dialogue with a group of women who would fit either the “emerging” or “missional” crowds to discuss what barriers there are for women to lead in these movements. The discussion was interesting (I was a participant) and I thought he was going to make that conversation public in some format–not sure if he ever did but your comment reminded me of our discussion.

Daily linkathon 9/25 « BrianD blog

[...] linkathon 9/25 September 25, 2008 Posted by briwd2006 in Uncategorized. trackback Think the emerging church is dead? Michael Patton argues otherwise. Ed Stetzer weighs in. ScotMcKnight writes about the split-off of the emerging church he and Dan Kimball are co-heading. And Andrew Jones talks about the demise of the term ‘emerging church‘. [...]

RJS, I missed that little gem. For some reason it made me think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdfze6zGdbQ
As if the rest of us move and live and have our being …
where the boys are.

The Post-Modern Post-Emergent Post-Evangelical Post-Charismatic Post-Fundamentalist Post-Label : Subversive Influence

[...] It’s gone so far now that we’re blogging about how we’re tired of talking about the topic we’re blogging about. Again. Oh, don’t worry — I’m no better. So here we go again, but this time it’s Scot McKnight posting on the latest bruhaha with some new info, or new perspective on old info. I bring this up not because we need to say it once again that there’s discussion about the continued use of the term “Emergent,” or for that matter, “emerging.” [...]

Emerging Church is not dead at Deep Church

[...] Scott McKnight has a great short post, and in particular comment no.11 by Brian McLoughlin, was most helpful to me, in explaining what might be going on for some of us. [...]

In the Blogosphere « Kingdom People

[...] Scot McKnight is forging a new alliance with Dan Kimball – one that is committed to some of the basic principles of evangelical theology. [...]

I???ve blogged about all this here at http://opensourceresearch.blogspot.com/2008/09/emerging-church-as-barrier-to.html asking if the language of ???emerging church??? and the meaning which critics have constructed for it is a barrier for participation in emerging church as a resistant social movement

David Bosch on the Lausanne Covenent « my contemplations

[...] September 26, 2008 With Scot McKnight, Dan Kimball, and others starting their new network based on the Lausanne Covenent, it might be a good time to again reflect on the thoughts of David Bosch on the Lausanne Covenent. This was written in 1974, so Bosch knew about it, and wrote about it quite a lot. Regarding the current conversation about the term emerging, let’s just say that I don’t think the term is dead, and others are starting to say similar things, and that coming from different sides of the conversation. [...]

What is the/a Missional Church « Triangular Christianity

[...] What is the/a Missional Church September 26, 2008 — Brian McLaughlin This week has seen an interesting discussion on the viability of the phrase “emerging church.”? At the same time some are debating the viability of the phrase “missional church,” arguing that the phrase either lacks or has lost its distinctiveness.? I want to argue for the validity of the phrase “missional church” by attempting to truly understand the theology of the missional church and the practice of a missional church. [...]

Prolegomena » Blog Archive » Words, movements

[...] There’s been a fair amount of buzz over the supposed ‘death’ of the emerging church; or at least a lot of fanfare because of the Out of Ur blog’s premature post. Scot McKnight has responded at Jesus Creed, and I had the following to say in a couple of forum comments over at Resonate: [...]

Scot,
You can count me in. I, too, am tired of being the guy in northeast Ohio who people come to in order to explain “emerging.” I’m sick of taking so much time explaining and want to spend more energy on actually pursuing church and ministry change in order to reach people in the 21st Century. I don’t care what you call me, as long as you call me a totally devoted follower of Jesus!

links for 2008-09-26 « Natanael Disla

[...] Jesus Creed » Emerging and Emergent: Our New Network Scot McKnight ha anunciado la formación de una nueva red que enfatizará el evangelismo misional, junto a Dan Kimball, Erwin McManus y otros. Se adhieren al Pacto de Lausana. (tags: iglesia+emergente missional) Filed under: Enlaces de interés   |   [...]

» Responding to the Out of Ur post, “RIP Emerging Church” »

[...] For a better reply, check out Scot McKnight???s comment (about six or seven comments down) and the post on his blog. [...]

Emerging church- a review from the blogosphere… « this fragile tent

[...] Scott McKnight [...]

Meanderings « emerging toward something redeeming

[...] Scott McKnight on emerging past “emerging.” ? Tony Jones counters with emergence as a NSM. [...]

Linkorama uke 39 « Guttegarderoben

[...] * Scot Mcknight og Dan Kimball har et nytt nettverk på gang. [...]

What is meant by emerging neo-fundamentalism? And why should we be concerned by it?

Todd,
You might look at this post I did:
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=3108

thanks Scot very helpful read.

Coffee Break « fresh expressions…

[...] Scot McKnight has one of the best posting on the whole should we shouldn’t we abandon the term “Emerging Church”. [...]

EMC – A new Emergent Term (At Least to Me) « Emerging Conservative

[...] September 28, 2008 by tsfgodguy I don’t know a lot about Scott McKnight but after reading his latest post (recommended by taddelay, a blogger I casually follow and has posted here before), I want to know a little bit more about him. It appears that he and Dan Kimball (one of the only ones in the “Emergent” movement that I have liked some of his writings) are doing some new things together. I have plenty of more research to do there of course. [...]

Linkage | Solar Crash

[...] Jesus Creed » Emerging and Emergent: Our New Network – [...]

Word on the street… « Mike At The Moment

[...] Great article on it all at Jesus Creed. ? Check it here. [...]

Linkathon 10/2 at Phoenix Preacher

[...] Think the emerging church is dead? Michael Patton argues otherwise. Ed Stetzer weighs in. Scot McKnight writes about the split-off of the emerging church he and Dan Kimball are co-heading. And Andrew Jones talks about the demise of the term 'emerging church'. [...]