Should "Emergent" (the organization) change their name?
Help me answer Tony Jones
Hey all...
Emergent (the organization) has made Tony Jones their new national director. In the comments section below the announcement, I stated (twice) that I think that in light of the confusion between Emergent the organization and the emerging church as a whole/a movement/a conversation/coffee klatch/whatever it is, in view of the reaction of both critics and "supporters", and in view of the fact that...
Emergent is not the emerging church...
It just seems like a good time to change the name and become an organization who is about serving the emerging church as a whole. I have a feeling that's exactly what they want to do anyway, but it seems like they constantly have to explain:
We don't speak for the whole emerging church
We are not the LEADERS of the emerging church
We're just a conversation
etc.
So- check me on this all you out there in the blogosphere... after I made my comment Tony Jones Hisself emailed me for "elucidation" (love that!).
Help me form my thoughts.
Should "Emergent" change their name?
Should I leave it alone?
Why, why not, etc?
Emergent (the organization) has made Tony Jones their new national director. In the comments section below the announcement, I stated (twice) that I think that in light of the confusion between Emergent the organization and the emerging church as a whole/a movement/a conversation/coffee klatch/whatever it is, in view of the reaction of both critics and "supporters", and in view of the fact that...
Emergent is not the emerging church...
It just seems like a good time to change the name and become an organization who is about serving the emerging church as a whole. I have a feeling that's exactly what they want to do anyway, but it seems like they constantly have to explain:
We don't speak for the whole emerging church
We are not the LEADERS of the emerging church
We're just a conversation
etc.
So- check me on this all you out there in the blogosphere... after I made my comment Tony Jones Hisself emailed me for "elucidation" (love that!).
Help me form my thoughts.
Should "Emergent" change their name?
Should I leave it alone?
Why, why not, etc?
8 Comments:
A few thoughts:
1. From what I've seen, heard and read, there seems to be a fear of becoming a marketable product, like a couple of prominent churches we've all taken jabs at have become over the last couple of decades.
Unfortunately, I don't think changing the name will remove that fear nor the potential to become a bag of tricks that pastors use to reach "the young kids". (I can already see the book saying Change "testimony" to "story", "christian walk" to "journey". Put up an abstract image on the screen and ask people to meditate on the truth in it as you preach. Light a bunch of candles and incense. ...)
2. People like labels because labels are a way to keep things safe (or dangerous, in our case) without having to engage them. If you change the name, people will just sratch out emergent and write in the new name on the same label.
3. As far as not having national leadership, I disagree with you and a lot of the other guys.
In the same way the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch began to be respected and listened to more than the other bishops of the early church, the guys that wrote the response to the critics are gaining prominence and are looked to for answers by the North American church.
If they are found guilty of some sin, we are found guilty by association. Our friends say they don't want to be the leaders and are just part of the conversation but their voices are the ones that are amplified over yours, mine and scores of other pastors. This is a frustration for Drew and I as we have to answer for people like McLaren or -to a lesser extent- Pagitt or Seay. When those guys speak, we all listen... as does the collective North American church.
The dilemma this leaves me in is how to describe what I do to other pastors. If I say "emergent" I get the guilty-by-association thing. If I say we are just another local congregation playing a part in the redemption of Louisiana people try to find my label (see #2) until I drop one of the aforementioned names and I am, again, guilty by association.
gotcha... more later.
in the meantime, this guy is kinda coming from where I'm coming from... Though I really liked the "Response to Critics"
http://www.e-church.com/blog.asp?EntryID=36859
I think I'm in agreement with you. Just the shear amount of confusion caused by the whole emerging church/emergent naming thing justifies a name change.
Thanks for the link, Bob.
He brings up some great points... mainly who appointed those guys to speak for all of us. This is where I point to the early church and the bishops that kind of rose up out of the chaos. Whether or not that is a good thing is definitely up for debate.
Another thought, kind of chicken-egg: Which came first "Emergent" or "The Emerging Church"?
I agree with you- they do kind of speak for us. When McLaren talks, or Pagitt or others, they have weight.
BUT
We're talking about an organization, not a movement when we talk about Emergent. And therein lies the confusion.
I love the movement. Don't care one way or the other about the organization. And I (sorry Tony) really don't want to put Tony Jones in a position to speak for me or my church.
Changing the name allows Emergent (the orgainization) to do whatever it wants. The critics will criticize no matter what- but right now, a lot of us "emergents" want to have a little distance between our communities and an organization we may or may not have anything to do with. Changing the name would, in a sense, be a favor to the emerging church as a whole, worldwide.
Also- on the bishops thing. They arose from the Apostles, who were appointed by Jesus Himself...
Yeah- there was a growth in respect because of the level of influence of their cities and what not, but I'm not looking for a bishop for my community :) At least not yet. And (again, sorry Tony...) I don't want Tony as my pope.
I don't think he wants that either, which is just another reason to change the name. If they don't, i predict we are mere months away from seeing, in the national press, "Tony Jones, leader of the Emerging Church Movement"... at which point we all freak out even more.
Tony's cool, Emergent is cool, but they don't speak for my emerging community. I want their help in making that disctinction clear.
What came first? Good question...
some new stuff posted over at the emergent us blog.
It may very well be that Emergent the organization wouldn't mind, at this point, being thought of synonymously with the emerging church.
If so, a lot of people are going to drop out...
If Emergent allows itself (intentionally or unintentionally) to be considered synonymously with the emerging church movement, I'm out.
I love Brian, I love Doug, I love the rest of them... But I want a collegial relationship with them, not an Official, structural one. If I wanted that, I'd be in a denomination... :)
Hmm... there seems to be an unanswered quesiton throughout all of this:
Is all of this leading by representation going to happen by default? Moreover, is it like the tide coming in- nothing we can do to push it away or pull it in? My early thoughts are, "yes."
To address the situation directly, is it inevitable that people (those opposed, unopposed, and neutral to the Emergent/emerging church soup) will mix Emergent and the emerging church together anyway?
Bob, your idea for a name change would seem to remedy this, but not in the long run. Our collective need to identify things isn't something I see us outrunning.
The similarities between Emergent and the emerging church is not the problem. To try and piece out all of the differences by distinguishing between "movement" and "conversation" doesn't really expose a giant chasm between the two anyway. Both are non-institutional, spiritual, journey-oriented, etc.
The true dilemma is that we don't want our churches to become institutionalized, especially without our consent. Which leads to the most haunting question: what if we are the new institution? What if the new institution is just non-institutional? Even though it's scary to think through, it's a question we must tackle head on.
Thoughts?
I would def agrree with you. I have been in a discussion concerning emergent, emerging, and postmodernity the past week or so, and it has been confusing. With so many similar terms and so many different meanings, I think that a name change would serve the movement and the org well.
Post a Comment
<< Home