The other day Andre Daley posted about why he now considers himself “post-emergent,” to which Alan Hartung responded, taking a difference of opinion over the advisability of a “post-emergent” label. I think I’m with Alan on this one.
Still, there’s some weariness afoot with the whole emerging conversation. Jordon Cooper expressed some similar sentiment today as well. Scot McKnight, in while reviewing the National Pastors Convention discusses how the emerging conversation is very concerned about theology right now, and little else. He casts this in a positive light, referring to how an emerging theology is beginning to, well, emerge. Unfortunately, some of those who have been in the conversation are starting to grow weary with the talk.
Personally, I think this is a good descriptor for what’s ahead for the emerging church in 2006. I had meant to do a whole lengthy post on this to describe what I feel is coming down the pipe this year and to review how accurate my similar post was last year. This being the end of February, I’m not sure I’m going to get the more extensive post done, so here goes.
2006 will, I think, be a year where the emerging conversation starts to crystalize some of its theological common ground, but a lot of the emerging voices who have been at this a while are going to become less and less concerned with doxis and more and more concerned with praxis. That is to say, emerging churches that have been doing are going to start talking even less and doing even more. Some of this is characterized as weariness, but at a deeper level, I believe it’s the stirring of the Holy Spirit in these leaders. Seems he too is becoming concerned more with what we’re doing than what we’re saying. 2006 is shaping up to be a transitional year for the emerging movement; 2005 saw it transition from a conversation into a movement, and 2006 will, I believe, see a further shift toward an emphasis on praxis. In true emerging form, the account of what’s happening will come forth as stories, which will fuel further conversation, but overall things seem to be moving toward talking less and doing more.
I hope you’re right! I think that would be a great thing for the emerging church movement.
I think it would be a great thing, too. Part of it is probably inevitable, though: to know what your praxis should be you need to have thought through quite a few things theologically (which has been happening). That theological grounding needs to be in place, because otherwise praxis decisions will gravitate toward what traditional chuch culture assumes. Conversely, emerging church praxis will very often cut against the grain of traditional church structure and praxis, and there needs to be more of a reason behind it than “I’m sick of doing it the old way.” I think some slowness in the process is actually very appropriate, gives people time to think through theological issues, as well as personal motivational issues (don’t want to start a new church just to spite the old).