(e)mergent Voyageurs

Recently, like many others, I have been noticing an increasing pattern in the blogosphere in which people are becoming more intentional about differentiating between "emerging/emergent" and "missional". Many are even choosing to identify with the latter to differentiate (and sometimes even distance themselves) from the former. As the emerging/emergent church increasingly is more narrowly defined (often, though not always, more closely resembling Emergent Village), some feel that the larger, more general understanding is being lost, thus no longer feel as though they fit. For some it is a matter of politics, for others theological revisionism and others with national/contextual differentiation.

So what do we make of all of this? Is this a schism within the emerging church? For some, it might be, though I would suggest it is too young and undefined a movement to contemplate something of that level. Should it be resisted? Some believe so, while others think it is semantics and yet others who think it is long overdue. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I think you will agree that it is significant enough of a trend for us to spend some time and energy exploring. Many have already, such as an excellent discussion at emergesque, as well as some interesting posts by Robbymac and The Blind Beggar. I don't want to duplicate what is being done at their sites, but I wanted to post just some of my reflections on the issue.

One question that has been raised has been whether the seemingly inevitable discussion of taxonomy when addressing emerging church topics is necessary or helpful. Without question, it is far too easy to avoid engaging the realities of this issue as we become bogged down in semantics, camps and teams. If taxonomy is being used to alienate, reject or discredit another group, I believe that it will ony contribute to the deterioration of larger Christian community. This isn't to say that we should not be vigilant and cautious, throwing wide the doors of unqualified inclusivity. However, it is too easy to use taxonomy to dissociate from other Christians because it is easier than having to answer for them.

For example, I am part of the international Christian missions organization Youth With A Mission (YWAM). Much has been done and continues to be done by YWAM that I would not want to be identified with. Whether it is the larger mistakes in the early years of our mission or more current allignment with partisan and nationalistic politics, the name YWAM carries with it a burden of mistakes, failures and even bad theology. So why do I remain a part of the organization? Because it is also responsible for representing some of the most beautiful and powerful aspects of the evangelical tradition I have ever encountered. It is, despite it quirks, innovatively missional. We have affirmed indigenous leadership and women in leadership for nearly half a century, despite the criticism and rejection it earned us from much of the Evangelical world.

But more than this, I have to consider that far more has been done under the name and banner of Christianity. I cannot deny the part the Church has played in so many horrific deeds throughout history. Can I deny the title of Christian as a result? No more than I would expect anyone else to take the name on the merits of my own faith. To that end, we must affirm our unity, even when it means standing alongside mistaken sisters and brothers. Unless we are ready to denounce their salvation and place in the community of faith, we cannot and should not seek to better our own position by taxonomical distance.

However, that being said, neither should be dismiss taxonomy as distracting or divisive. Rather, it is an important role that God has mandated humanity to from the beginning of Creation: "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." Genesis 2:19 (NASB). By our nature, God calls us to share with Him in understanding and defining the beauty and diversity of His Creation. In the same way, I believe that redemptively, the differentiation within the emerging church conversation has the promise to help us recognize the intended and essential differences that make up the Body of Christ, offering mutual accountability, support and celebration.

Notice how Adams vocational role of naming the animals came within the larger context of seeking a mate? Here I see God affirming that, above and beyond our diversity, our unity must be forged upon our sharing the image of God. Diversity is never meant to alienate or fragment us, but rather to allow for a greater capacity to celebrate the broader vocational purpose of His Church to all Creation.

To that end, I have little problem affirming the emerging/emergent church conversation, even identifying with it. I also affirm Emergent Village and their important and significant role in the movement. While I increasingly find greater resonance with those who lean towards the "missional" taxonomy, this is not a move of distancing or judgment, but rather an affirmation of my own place within the larger and necessarily diverse community of faith.

UPDATED: 6:34pm, Sept. 26 - It should be noted that I did not intend to suggest that "Friend Of Missional" was trying to be divisive. Quite the opposite. I see it as intended to unite and compliment. Further, I think Robbymac & emergesque are also responding to this very responsibly. In no way did I intend to suggest anything specific of anyone. Hope that clears things up.

Emerging Church Missional