In today’s parlance we can use them as synonyms. Please do not get your intelligence questioned when someone says “I’m not emergent, I’m emerging” as if there is any significant difference. As a matter of fact, neither has any statement of faith or doctrinal parameters with which to define them. So without any definition offered by those in the movements, I will now provide my own subjective definition while attempting to be honest in my observation. I realize ahead of time that many emergent types will disagree with everything but the most generous definition that doesn’t showcase the negative. I no longer care to waste time discussing the issue with emergents (those who I’ve designated as such).
So here it is. The emergent/emerging movement is a collection of people who have rejected the standard doctrinal truths, or at least have put everything on the table. Even when pressed about orthodox doctrines some of the more “conservative” wings reluctantly acquiesce to them but many times with some type of apologetic caveat, as if they are ashamed of espousing truth.
So as a point of order, all who have no doctrinal moorings, or who claim they do but gather with those who do not, or live worldly and careless lives, or who recommend books by professing emergents, or have emergents preach in their pulpit, or write forwards in emergent books, or who deny the “heaven or hell” gospel motivation, or any number of other manifestations that either now exist or will be spawned in the future, all of these I will collectively call “emergent”. See how simple?
So do not get caught up with the “But I’m not emergent” or “He’s not emergent” argument because it is another avenue of the discourse catacombs without any rationale or resolution. Just use the Frueh theological dictionary and call them/him/her “emergent”. Bell, Hybels, Warren, MacLaren, etc., etc., etc., all emergent. It makes it so much easier for a backward fundamentalist like me.
Posts
