_______-ymergent
Hey friends and fellow post-restorationists,
I’m playing with this idea and thought I’d kick it around. After taking an Emergent Village survey earlier this evening, the idea of creating an emergent-ish network from the Churches of Christ heritage re-emerged in my mind. You know, there’s Anglimergent, Cathlimergent, Methomergent (no, not a new drug), Presbymergent, etc, which are national networks of those sharing a kindred heritage and aligning with the Emergent conversation.
When I was last in Abilene this past May, Mark Love and I briefly batted the idea around after the graduation ceremony. The conversation was encouraging. Thinking back, initially I gravitated toward Adam Ellis’ “Post-Restorationists” however no linkage to Emergent is inherent in the title. And with the old podcast and the Facebook group, The Post-Restorationists in some ways has become its own thing, so I don’t want to co-opt anything.
So in the vein of getting the name just right, the following are some ideas of what we could call ourselves…
Stone-Campbymergent. A bit of a mouthful, but this helps distinguish our heritage from others and gives us a historical context. But who would have thought that such a democratized, grassroots, commonfolk movement would be best remembered for two (or really just one) figureheads?
One True Emergent. Betrays the orthodox belief that we are the only ones, and if not, that we’re at least the closest to getting it “objectively” right. However, I’ve learned that we were not the only ones to think we were the only ones. Perhaps this title is not distinct enough, but it’s got a tickle of sarcasm.
Christimergent. Appeals more to the broader Christian Church-DOC/Indie/CofC heritage and traces our streams to the hopeful fountainhead of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Although these groups went very different directions (one in an urban direction, another in a rural direction), it would be good to bring our conversations back together in this way. However, the word Christi unfortunately reveals the Latin word for Christ, thus disqualifying this title for being “too Catholic.”
Arminimergent. Upon de-constructing the outdated metaphors, philosophical determinism, and mechanistic worldview of Calvinism, our religious ancestors gave us a valuable way forward with a more generous and open view of God. This is something I have come to truly appreciate about my heritage. In the midst of what I perceive to be a sizable movement that is militant neo-Calvinist with a postmod dress, I’m grateful to come from a tribe that has positioned us beyond such theology.
Fundymergent. While acknowledging part of our fundamentalist background, this title again fails to distinguish our heritage from other fundamentalist groups, of which there are plenty. This submission reminds me of TSK’s other emergent groups: Neveremergent and Shuttheheckupaboutemergent.
CaneRidgeymergent. That’s where it all went down, folks. The Holy Ghost was in the house. There were barnyard noises coming from humans. Holy laughter. Jerking exercises. The glory of up yonder dreweth nigh. In true postmodern historical analysis, this title reads the margins, bringing to light our formative beginning at a wild gospel revival in KY. What was once swept under the rug is now exposed by the light.
Immersemergent. Baptism, baptism, baptism. With a rather selfish hyper-concern for personal salvation that saves us from the fires of hell, our movement turned the start line into the finish line and used this issue to divide more than save. As a result, many turned away, and for many others the journey of faith ended at the epic decision-making age of 12. We replaced the grace of God with a legal bath. It reminds me of an old avatar I created (which I can’t find) for on some old message boards. It was a pic of a Campbell’s (changed to Campbellite) soup can with this bold phrase stretching across the label: “Just Add Water.” [ok, I'm being a bit harsh here. i do deeply appreciate the attention our tradition has given to baptism, as well as holy communion.]
Scottymergent. Who’s that, you ask? Well, none other than Walter Scott, known best for his five-finger exercise, which the Churches of Christ later turned into the five rungs on the salvific ladder. This title also incorporates our Scottish Presybyterian roots inherited from the Campbells. “But,” asks one concerned reader, “you’re saying we have a traceable history?!”
Oh, wait a minute. I couldn’t find any of the above titles in the Bible. Well, I guess it’s back to the drawing board. But no so fast—that leaves us with one final submission:
Biblimergent. We’ve rescued the Bible out of the hands of the clerics and delivered it into the hands of the plebeian folk. Now it’s time to start proof-texting, ripping things out of context, and claiming to have an objective reading of the Scriptures. Ah yes, “No creed but the Bible” was our sola-scriptura creed, and this title certainly gives attention to that bulwark of our heritage.
So what do you think? Any new suggestions? Is there a common lean toward a certain title? Once we agree upon something, perhaps we could have our first convention in Nashville in the shadow of the World Convention July 30th-August 3rd. To really connect with our heritage though, I was thinking we could meet in David Lipscomb’s old log cabin off of Granny White Pike. As apolitical as he was, something tells me old Dave, as well as many other Restorationist innovators (JW Garrison comes to mind especially), would have joined the Emergent conversation had they been around in our day. Or would some instead have said, “We’re Christians only”?
Filed under: ecclesia |
Tags: Churches of Christ, emergent, post-restorationist, stone-campbell movement
Tyler,
You know I’d be in. Of your options, I think I really like Immersemergent. (I’m wonder if a term like “Biblimergent” might be taken as arrogant by people who don’t get the irony.) Let me know if I can do anything to help.
AE
I like One True Emergent. And since the Presbymergents seem overly concerned about their logo, you should work harder to find the Campbell’s Soup avatar. That way you guys can move on to greater things instead of logo-quibbling.
What about Restoramergent?
I like Greg’s idea. And I’d totally be there in July/Aug if schedules work out. Keep me in the loop! I’m going to link this post to my blog for others to read. Great ideas.
And we could put a sign up on the door that reads “No Girls Allowed!” I have a great tree in my yard and some boards! Oh and we’ll need a secret handshake! And then we can…
Adam, Great to hear from you. I like the ring of Immersemergent. But it seems Greg’s heading seems to be taking off after reading Mark’s post here: http://godgrown.net/blog/2008/06/10/restoramergent/
Jason, glad you’re with me on the One True Emergent. I’m doing some work in Photoshop at the present.
Rick, that’s pretty clever. Your description sounds a lot like a traditional church as I’ve known it. actually, as opposed to most traditional hierarchically and patriarchally arranged religious institutions, the emergent conversation (in addition to exploring feminist theology) welcomes women into the flat-structured treehouse (even reformed folks! See http://www.reformergent.org/ ). Peace.
Rick, LOL!!!!!!!
Great ideas…I find value in each of them.
Maybe some others that are funny to me but would certainly be too esoteric for many to have any great attractional value…
1. 728b-mergent (you have to say it quickly to get the full effect)
2. guide-guard-direct-emergent
3. nextappointedtimemergent
4. readyrecollecti-mergent
5. Acts2:38 Emergent
OK, I am out of ideas…I am only allowed 5 per day. Maybe more after midnight.
yes, the campbell’s soup thing was funny. can you believe that was three years ago?!
anyway, even though i am a former wannabemergent, i wanted to play along or help out or whatever. i came up with a few suggestions, but decided not to share them here. i felt a disturbance in the force warning me of possible censorship or banishment.
so i am keeping my smart asparagus comments to myself. (de nada, mi curita rojo.)
——-
in all seriousness, i would like nothing more than to have a real conversation with someone about emergent matters, provided the conversationalists will agree to exchange ideas and opinions without suffering an emotional meltdown.
i am genuinely curious about one thing: *why should anyone be emergent at all?* asserting that emergent is good and non-emergent is bad is not persuasive.
if there are legitimate reasons for being emergent—theological, biblical, historical, whatever—then i would like to know what they are. email: jomato42 at gmail dot com
come let us reason together. until then, i will continue on my retromergent journey.
[i hope no one gets defensive: if someone were to ask me *why should anyone be a reformed neo-calvinist at all?* i would gladly offer several reasons, all or some of which the inquirer could freely accept, deflect, or reject.]
I was going to suggest Acts238emergent, but Blake beat me to the punch - thanks for sending this post to me, Blake. How about
MOTCemergent (Member of The Church)
hilarious stuff Blake and Dr. Butner–keep ‘em comin! seriously, this is fun.
Jomato, I would love to see this discussion take place publicly. Oh well (sad, crying presbymergnostic waits patiently until the force is balanced).
Marq,
Ah yeah, the whole Campbellite soup thing went down in the upstairs conspiratory of the casa. Those days were much fun. Btw, you should throw out there what you’ve come up with. No censorship here. In emergyspeak, It’s a “generative conversation” and we “welcome our critics to the table.” Good to be in dialog once again with you.
Why should anyone be Emergent? Well, the question doesn’t sit right with me. I don’t want to be–or hope that I am not–an emergent proselytizer. I’m just talking with like-minded folk already heading in that direction. If one doesn’t desire to be a part of this conversation, there’s not much I can do but keep a chair open at the table. On that note I do think Emergent needs its critics. It’s a necessary corrective. While I hate to see the spirit of division that has arisen in the midst of all of this, I sense the Spirit of unity that has resulted is greater than the latter.
As for answering your question, I’m not sure any amount of reasoning/information/dialog between us could draw you to the “dark side.” There are plenty of logical arguments supporting each of our represented perspectives. I just don’t think it will come down to who “wins” an argument. I can think of books that speak to the major categories that give reason to “emerge” and a large part of it depends what we see as the stuff that we must emerge from. (aside: Derek Webb’s song I Don’t Want to Fight comes to mind here)
For me, another important piece that it comes down to is our formative experiences, which includes our educational formation. although within the same tradition, we come from different schools of thought. I think that’s been a tough divide for both of us to attempt to bridge. i’ve been really ugly trying to do it at times. for that I am sorry.
Ok, It’s late, I’ve been up since 4, i’m getting too confessional, and I need sleepage. pax
and then there’s acapellamergent…
thanks tyler. as i have written and spoken many times, i believe there are many things to admire—even adopt—-about the emergent church. and i also believe there are some troubling things.
sooner or later, someone besides me is bound to ask “why this instead of that?” what would you tell a random guy about the EC if he asked the kind of question i posed? (you don’t have to answer that here for my sake, but i think you owe it to yourself and your hearers to think about it.)
paul could say “follow me as i follow Christ” and here are some important reasons. i confess that i was hoping for an answer like that in response to my question. no need to argue, i just wondered how emergent folk might give an answer for the emergent hope within them.
one last thing: since we are confessing, you should know that i care for you deeply, not like a drunk uncle cares for his nephew, but like a big brother cares for his kid brother. so when i asked, why should anyone be emergent? i was not picking a fight. deep down, i really just wanted to know why being emergent is so important to you, and if it should be more important to me. i mean, if it’s such an important matter, perhaps you should be trying to draw me and others to the “dark side”.
but if it’s just a matter of taste and preference, then i prefer something else. one man’s junk is another man’s treasure.
by the way, acapellamergent is classic.
Jason, it seems that you perceive the emergent thing to be something completely different from what I understand it to be. There is no “emergent hope” as I see it. I don’t even think it is about “being emergent” - as if that was a religious club to be part of with its own doctrines, etc. It is not holding certain positions, embracing a set of practices, or following methodologies. I would never even try to conivnce anyone to “be emergent”. To think that people in an “emergent conversation” should be able to have their own reasons for being emergent that parallels Paul’s reasons for following Christ is to make it sound like emergent is something . . . well, in competition with following Christ.
To me “emerging” is a term that recognizes the non-static nature of our world, and hence of theology. That there are those who talk about how to understand God’s revelation and be Christian in this dynamic world of culture, language, ideas, and traditions, is a conversation that I have always been in even before it was called “emerging” or “emergent”. In the 80’s it might have been simply called ethnotheology.
Do those of the Stone-Campbell tradition need to discuss the non-static nature of theology in light of culture? Sure. It is what any missionary in any time has ever done. Here’s where emergent conversation touches into the missional conversation - which is all about understanding how theology must always be worked out in context, rather than ahistorically and acontextually be promoted as a view from nowhere (from no time and place, as if we could stand in such a place a speak coherently).
I have no apologetics about emergent conversation other than how I would contend that we are by nature contextual/cultural beings who live in a historical context, into which God breaks and has broken to reveal himself, and because of which we constantly seek him within those contexts. The emergent conversation is among people who are wrestling with faith in our time and culture, though they are certainly not the only ones who are doing this.
In so much as emerging identifies this search, I am “in” it. In as much as it identifies a set of static practices, ideas, styles, etc. - I am not in it.
Hope that helps define at least my way of thinking about how we ought to be “emerging”.
i believe Greg’s comment was not intended for “Jason” but “Jomato” and in response, I offer a “tru dat.”
Darn. And I was about to argue that Greg was completely misrepresenting everything I said up there.
[Dammit, Neal! The name's Nuwanda.]
Thanks for the reply Greg.
If I may, I would like to respond to two points.
1. Greg wrote: To think that people in an “emergent conversation” should be able to have their own reasons for being emergent that parallels Paul’s reasons for following Christ is to make it sound like emergent is something . . . well, in competition with following Christ.
My point was not to pit them in competition, but to illustrate the fact that we all have reasons for being and doing what we are and do. We may not feel comfortable sharing our reasons, but we have them.
Okay, so you say it’s not about “being emergent” and you have no apologetics about emergent conversation. But there must be some reason(s) for being emergent ro doing emergent or just emerging, otherwise you would not be emerging or doing emergent, or do be do be do.
2. Greg wrote: The emergent conversation is among people who are wrestling with faith in our time and culture, though they are certainly not the only ones who are doing this.
I appreciate this recognition very much. It is not uncommon for emergents to throw out the baby with the bath water on this and other points, as if the EC alone wrestles with faith in our time and culture. Perhaps the EC feels it is engaging, wrestling, and transforming better than non-EC, but that is beside the point.
Again, when I posed the question *why should anyone be emergent?* I was just asking someone to offer a few reasons for being emergent, doing emergent, or whatever. I really appreciate Greg for sharing his perspective with me.
I think I like “Restoramergent” (or Restoremergent?). It puts us in our context as a tradition, something we need to come clean about a little bit better than we have before.
I’ve been pretty resistant to take up the name “Emergent” in the past, even though I would stand behind 89% of the things the movement is trying to achieve. But I do like this idea you’ve started here, to identify a group of people who share a way of thinking within our tradition. I guess I’d like to help show that there is a different way of being Church of Christ, and that you don’t have to abandon your identity to the pool of anonymous evangelicals out there to re-imagine how to be the church. And I think labels - as much as we love to hate them - help get this conversation started.
So I guess you could say I’m on board, Tyler.
I am going with any varaint of Restoramengent
1. Restoramergent
2. Restoremergent
3. Restomergent
I am leaning toward option #3.
Thanks for stopping by earlier. I was wondering if you ever got this new fangled blog fixed up where the common folk could respond. Guess you did, so thanks.
Are you returning back to the ABI area?
Your blog claims that you have 24 comments. Where are the other two? After I post, it will probably claim you have 25 comments, when in actuality, you’ll only have 23.
Agent B, not returning to the ABI area any time soon. But hope to look you up the next time I’m in the fair mother land. Seriously this time!
Jason, I think if you look at the bottom of the comments, you’ll see some links and pingback stuff. it’s counting those as comments as well. gotta pad the stats for my ego, you know.
Maybe you already have one, but a few of my friends in Nashville started an Emergent Church of Christ Facebook group. Your welcome to join, or let me know of another that’s out there. We just wanted a forum for basically just that, members of the Church of Christ who have thoughts teetering around the ‘emergent realm’.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26951519408
“EstablishedInAD33emergent” anyone?
Maybe, “FirstSecondAndLastStanzasemergent”?