Tuesday, February 10, 2004
I am dumb
Emerging church. I had always used the term to refer to the widespread cultural shift from modern to postmodern and God’s missionary desire to birth new life in new cultures. The church emerging, like a seed, from postmodern soil.
I’ve been reading the blogs and the discussion kept revolving around church. I couldn’t get it. Just read phil and dan/dan and phil and the penny clicked. I have been dumb. Apparently the term is to do with old and new ways of being the church. Duh. I do feel stupid.
OK, so to capture this missionary impulse I quickly need to find a new term and a new name for my blog. Cos I want to follow God in the culture, fan the coals of mission, see unchurched postmoderns find faith and community, not get stuck in dodging the flack and fire between different parts of the church world.
)
New name: EmergentEagle!
Nice triumphal, militaristic ring to it. They won’t dare criticise you now. 🙂
Seriously though, leave it how it is.
Comment by Stephen — February 10, 2004 @ 4:02 pm
I don’t think the name will make the difference as to whether you “get stuck in dodging the flack and fire between different parts of the church world”, nor about whether you would want to be involved in that conversation.
I think part of the conversation is about God’s power to birth new life, growth and missional innovation in church communities which have become isolated from their local culture.
Comment by dan — February 10, 2004 @ 4:33 pm
of course, emerging and emergent don’t mean the same thing, although most people in this conversation seem to use them interchangeably; for your particular purposes, emergent is rather a good definition. (unless, of course, like ‘consumptive’ we are once again “divided by a common language” (was it Churchill who said that? I think so)
Comment by maggi — February 11, 2004 @ 12:05 am
on second thoughts, I think it was George Bernard Shaw, not Churchill. Although more than likely Churchill quoted him…
Comment by maggi — February 11, 2004 @ 12:56 am
Rather than the Emerging Church, I prefer the term missional communities
Comment by dave — February 11, 2004 @ 11:13 am
Steve,
In keeping with Ward’s book, How about Submersible Kiwi? or Aquatic Kiwi? or . . . maybe you could leave it as is and define your terms, that’s what most of us do anyway.
Grace and Cigars,
ron
Comment by ron Willoughby — February 11, 2004 @ 11:45 am
Wet Kiwi!
Comment by phil — February 11, 2004 @ 4:50 pm
don’t think you’re dumb; just more optimistic than dan in her post. i linked and added a few thoughts of my own.
Comment by Bald Man — February 12, 2004 @ 7:33 am
thanks corey, that is a really helpful comment that clicks a few things for me.
Comment by steve — February 12, 2004 @ 7:59 am
The kiwi is nocturnal… but we want to bring light to the world… hmm… DiurnalKiwi? Doesn’t have quite the ring to it really.
As for you being dumb, I think in fact it is an interesting take on the issue. I wouldn’t drop your interpretation so easily. There is depth here.
Comment by duncan — February 20, 2004 @ 11:33 am