An interesting conversation on 2005 being a watershed ‘year of the emerging church. Here’s a quote from one site:
“2005 will be the year the shit hits the fan. emergent has been around long enough for people to figure out what’s up, or at least the parts they were never going to like in the first place. prepare to be excommunicated by some and misunderstood by others. it’s excruciatingly painful, but it’s the way it’s going to be.” – http://www.jenlemen.com/
On commenter posted, “”i’m so glad i’m post-modern and not emergent. maybe i won’t get hit by the shit ;-)”
I may be wrong but I look at post-modern church as reacting against the modern. It’s deconstruction of what was. Emerging is an attempt to make a positive step forward. It’s paving its way to being ‘a new kind of Christian’ and no longer is defined by a reaction against something. The question is what will the emergent church look like? Which paths will people take? What will continue to be Christian and what will become just another form of new age spirituality? (see: rch Teachings vs The Bible’s Teachings I disagree with these definitions because I believe there are a lot of churches who hold scripture to be the authority and are emerging in a missional, non-traditional context.) I ran into this at TallSkinnyKiwi:
“The emerging church around the world shares a number of common characteristics, including in most cases, an emergent vocabulary, synoptic outlook, creative expression, organic resourcing, fluid strategy, decentralized leadership, holistic expression, fluency in new media, postmodern sensibility, structural simplicity, countercultural origins, an upfront missional focus, modular church expression rather than singular, a deep ecclesiology, attendance at particular yearly festivals, a greater ecumenical commitment and social concern, and so on.” (link)
I can relate to this much easier. There are points I’d shrug about or maybe clarify but for the most part its a place to start.