Defining 'emerging church'

On Matthijs' weblog a whole discussion is going on about 'emerging church'. The one who comes up with the best definition (in Dutch) will get the incredible reward of 12,50 euro, and not even in cash. That's peanuts for a lot of brainwork that has to satisfy even outspoken critics like Bram Krol; a typically Dutch kind-of-prize if you ask me.

I already suggested that 'emerging church' is undefinable anyway, so why waste time on a description. If you're really postmodern, you're not bothered by lack of definition, are you. To be honest, i find these discussions quite boring. Yes, I've been there, seen it, bought the t-shirt. Now let's move on. Let's look at the fruit of the various new expressions of church. Perhaps the essence of 'emerging' is that we stay sensitive to what the Spirit is saying and doing, and the cultural context in which we live and work. That's all. Nothing new. And if we do this well, we'll keep on 'emerging' until Christ returns. Amen.

Comments

[David]

Marc,

I totally agree with the last part. It's the fruit you have to look at, not the definition. In fact, I think emerging churches shouldn't be a separate part of the body of Christ. All churches should be emerging.

[Tim the Enchanter]

There....you couldn't resist a shot at defining it in the end could you Marc?

[Rudolf Roos]

"Perhaps the essence of 'emerging' is that we stay sensitive to what the Spirit is saying and doing, and the cultural context in which we live and work. That's all. Nothing new. And if we do this well, we'll keep on 'emerging' until Christ returns. Amen."

Nothing new - I like that. The history of 'alternative christian groups' (see for example 'the pilgrim church' by e. h. broadbent) confirms that. For 2000 years being christian has been about Jesus, and whatever we call things now and how we define our labels (emerging, post-modern, traditional, evangelical etc. etc.) doesn't really matter: whatever is not build out of Him is worthless anyway.