I often think David Fitch says it well and he does again with his comments on whether the whole ’emerging’ scene is dead, sick, passe or whatever.
I really couldn’t give a rodent’s posterior whether nametags gain traction or die, but that the church is renewed and re-inspired to focus on the things that are close to God’s heart… well that’s a biggie.
I was a missionary before I knew about emergent, missional, organic churches and I don’t think anything is going to change that. I have been blessed to be heavily involved in the conversations, training and agitating to see the church re-imagined, but I’m not going to die for a brand or a name tag.
In fact the need to sustain a brand is in my opinion one of the potential undoings of any move of God. We then ossify what was once dynamic and in doing so drain it of the potency it once held.
Let’s keep focused on the stuff that matters and that gives shape to the kingdom and let’s not waste time on the stuff of ego and empire.
I’m not even sure the Church has declared to the world what the Kingdom of God is, I’m not even sure the Church has declared to the world who Jesus is … what the Spirit once did programs now do – you tell me who is sick and dying?
i agree…. the emerging thing was a great awakener for many but I’m convinced that focussing on becoming more Christlike is what doesn’t get old, no matter the changes.
I remember Mike Frost talking about his fear of the “emerging church” being a whole bunch of cool people who still didn’t get it! he beseeched us to grow some spiritual muscle and focus on being more like jesus. Epic.
(see that perfect use of beseeched!!)
‘beseeched’ – nice Dave!
I agree – Frostys message was a great one
You know, it’s almost as if we’ve come full circle. After the hype the real work remains.
Re: “You know, it’s almost as if we’ve come full circle. After the hype the real work remains”.
Matt and Hamo: Do you now think that the emerging Church movement that you were part of was a cult or fringe movement?
What the?… Are you serious LF?!
I don’t think it is either of those. I believe it is a prophetic voice within the church challenging the church to consider its missional impulse.
A cult – where the hell does that come from?…
Based on Matt’s comment “w’eve come full circle – after the hype etc”.
Was reading it as you have returned to the organised Church to do the real (mundane(?)) work after being seduced(?) by the hype.
There is always hooplah and excitement / contention / debate / argument etc surrounding new (old!) ideas and prophetic challenges.
Some people listen and act, some people flake out, some decide they don’t agree, etc. etc.
I think that Matt’s point was that after this initial part of the “movement process” has subsided a bit and people have been convicted / or had a revelation, or whatever you want to call it, it’s resulted in a crystallisation of the central message – that is, we need to be better disciples of Jesus whereever we’re placed. Surely this is omething to celebrate and champion.
I think a lot of the emerging debate was a catlyst for many people to snap out of unquestioned tradition/dogma…
It could mean “returning to the organised Church to do the real work…” but it could also mean sticking with the new communities that have been formed and “are doing the real work! – whatever that is…?”
I’m one of the latter and it’s hard work; sometimes feels like you’re getting no where, but it’s still “real work” – often the idea of going back to “normal” church would be the easy option!
Dave – that’s a great way of putting it.
LF – I’m still stunned at the cult comment though!
I was asking a question on my reading of Matts comment – not making a statement. 🙂