Wed 17 Jan 2007
I wonder if the emerging church movement has become too intellectual for its own good.
After World War II the evangelicals - Barth, Bonhoeffer, Moltmann - came to fore with a new contextual theology that grew out of their experiences of atrocity and betrayal in Europe that told them that rational does not always equal moral, that strong faith really does require suffering, and at the centre of all experience was the Triune God. The discoveries and challenges of these thinkers were welcomed by the Church of the day, in the midst of a continent trying to rebuild itself.
So these thinkers were offered seats in our universities, given the space to develop their thoughts to pass on to students who would become academics who would teach more students who, in turn, would teach and write and develop new interpetations of faith in the world, new theories.
And while we remember with admiration the struggles in which these theologies were forged, we also recognise their irrelevance or inaccessibility today, where we sit on the margins of academic, systematic, rationalised theological discourse, and we look for a new contextual theology - something that gives life and meaning to living today on the fringes of both church and society.
Are bloggers of the emerging church movement headed towards the same fate? Those who see themselves on the fringes of the established church and looking for a new way of living in faith in this world, engage in the development of a new contextual theology, born out of being “postmodern”, of living in a secular and pluralist world. But are bloggers becoming trapped by their own blogopshere, where their experiences of emerging church are being seen through the lens of other bloggers, where the list of subscriptions on their RSS reader becomes the main context in which their contextual theology is developing?
Web 2.0 has been successful, so far, in bringing theology out of the seminary. Are we in danger of trapping it in the blog, where the printed word is still the dominant medium, and where the most authoritative bloggers are tertiary educated, well read, and not afraid to engage in intellectual debates?
I’ve been doing some interviews with bloggers over the past few days and have found a reluctantly positive answer to this question in our conversations. Some find EC bloggers their only experience of the emerging church, and the most reliable source of tools with which to make sense of their offline world. Some accept that the emphasis on text makes some blogs too intellectual for a wider audience, while others still are put off by most EC blogs, too involved in themselves and their creation of buzz words and concepts that are “cool” but irrelevant to local (emerging) church life.
If those in the EC see the steady decline of mainstream church (Church 1.0) attendance as a sign that something new will rise, perhaps we will see similar challenges happening in Church 3.0. Maybe we can expect a “post-emerging” expression of religion?
Or can Web 2.0 offer a more malleable, responsive and attentive relationship with the EC offline than the academy had for churches in the late modern era?
Technorati tags: emerging church, religious discourse

January 19th, 2007 at 21:26
I believe your questions/comments/observations hit the nail on the head. When I started blogging, I was part of an active emergent/missional community. Creative director of gatherings, communication coordinator for the group and it’s associated community centre, and so on.
However, my blog was not established to “talk EC”. While I enjoyed connecting with and reading other EC bloggers, I soon found it was simply “more of the same,” in a different medium. A bunch of people talking the talk, with only a few of them actually walking it.
Emergent and missional became the latest trendy tags. Anyone who wanted to be someone was hustling to get on the band wagon before it hurtled past.
Perhaps I’m a contrary soul, but as soon as something has become a bandwagon, that’s the time I jump off! Besides, I’d rather be out doing it than sitting around talking about it.
January 20th, 2007 at 13:35
I’m finding that the bandwagon thing is being recognised by nearly all EC bloggers, even by those accused by others as driving the bandwagon.
January 20th, 2007 at 14:28
The concept of ‘movement’ I think is really important here - When a lot of us started on these sorts of roads I think we saw ourselves as part of a movement - fluid, dynamic, changing, new, exploring. But perhaps now EC is a position - with prescribed parameters written in books and taught at colleges. Perhaps inevitable for any movement, that it will eventually have to stop somewhere - but that can be hard for the explorers and nomads amongst us.
For me it was more exciting when we were part of something new and undiscovered - writing our own scripts, making our own worship and finding our own feet. And perhaps when that stops a lot of us lose heart and have to start finding new ground.
It’s interesting as when I blogged about this EC thing this week someone commented on how a good thing about being identified as EC is that you can realise you’re not alone - ironically when I discover that what I’m doing isn’t new and has been ‘defined’ before, I get tragically disappointed!
Nicely written up Paul - look forward to the next instalment!
January 20th, 2007 at 15:54
Your last comment reminds me of the old EC slogan: “Once it has a name, it’s no longer emerging!”.
Not sure what the next instalment will be, Eddie, but thanks for the encouragement.
February 6th, 2007 at 02:21
I suspect there is a lot to what you are saying. I feel rather uneasy when I see ec bloggers using other ec blogs as their best window to the outside world. There is no substitute for primary source research and face to face engagement with culture.
On the intellectualising. Yes that is a problem and one that, alas, I have been guilty of too. But I do try and balance it out with satire, art, poetry and storytelling. I say balance because I believe there is danger in the other direction too of course - anti-intellectualism. It often rears it’s head in ec discussions on this very subject. So I think more clarity on deliniating between post-intellectualism and anti-intellectualism.
Beyond that, so what if some are intellectual. I think it is valid to persue niche contextualisation. I was recently reading a book descibing the the importance of the long tail (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail) in this emerging culture of ours. Having a wide audience is not the only criteria to measure success by. The critical question is whether all niches are being covered. My observation is no, so I think the real question is why is the ec locking itself into such a small subgroup of niches. Back to point (a) I think.
February 6th, 2007 at 17:07
Excellent points, Matt.
I agree that intellectualism aint all bad, and I am guilty of that as well (or at least I will be when the course is over).
I reckon your use of the phrase niche contextualisation is spot on. Intellectualism is one thing, but to promote yourself as the intellectual for an entire movement when you only know so much of it is another.