Or you can look at the reformation and the restoration and those movements were “kinda big”. I think that in 30-50 years from now, you will take a look at the emergent and you will compare it to the REFORMATION.

Yes, the “traditional” church will still be around; just as the Catholic church is around but there will be a “new” form of church.

I do not think that we know what that new form will be.

I am sure that back in 1520’s; the “reformationalist” had no idea what would transpire over the next 500 years and I am sure the CC thought that they would just quietly go away.

great insight…I’m a Calvary Chapel pastor. We aren’t exactly known for being all lovey dovey with the EC but I have learned a great deal by reading some of the authors and observing some of their practices.

We are not emergent…although some of my peers give me a hard time about crossing over to the darkside :)

at least in our theology…we are very fundamental in our theology continuing to teach through the Word and holding to all the major tenents of the Christian Faith.

However in our praxis we might be considered a tad emergent…thus the dark side reference. But if feeding the homeless, reaching out to sinners, and embracing the culture rather than hiding from it means “emergent” than so be it.

I resist titles…but I’m trying to get my peers to see that you can have it both ways…you know have your cake and eat it too. :)

You can remain solid Biblically and reach your community effectively. It doesn’t have to be either or. We can equip the saints without being isolated in our little bubbles.

blessings…ryan

The great Emergence is the content of seminars phyllis is doing right now and it will be the topic of a book being published in late 2008.

I think you’re right. I’m looking at the movement side of this and seeing the influence that McLaren, Jones, Pagitt once had in evangelicalism beginning to wane.

At the same time, on the conversational end, evangelicalism has begun to change (I think for the better) as we incorporate important biblical aspects from the conservative Emerging/missional (whatever we want to call them) side.

The Jesus Movement (as a movement) did indeed fade, but it left us with a different kind of evangelicalism. The Emerging Movement (as a movement) is fading today, but it is leaving us with a shift in evangelical identity.

The critique of evangelicalism from within (the conversationalists) are encouraging us to a better, more robust understanding of our missional identity. The critique of evangelicalism from outside (the Emergent crowd, though they began their critique from within) is no longer as influential. That is the movement that is receding. Driscoll & Dever, Patrick & Keller, etc. are just getting started.

The conversation/movement question is crucial to this. The conservative end of the EC has never been about a movement outside of evangelicalism. It’s always been about a better evangelicalism. So in that sense it’s intended to be a “conversation” about how the Christian movement needs to change, and therefore rightly called a “conversation.” The more liberal end of the EC is a movement because they not only protest the current state of the Christian movement, but find it uninhabitable even with some changes. It thinks of itself as a movement that redefines the authority of Scripture, theology, ecclesiology, missiology, etc. So while the conversation end can and is changing the current state of things, that doesn’t mean it’s fading. It’s being embraced. The conversation has never been merely protesting what’s wrong. It’s about discussing what’s best, what’s biblical, what not, etc. Evangelicals are talking about having less programs and more relationships, the need for authentic community, being missional not merely sending missionaries, and so on. This isn’t a fading conversation, but an increasing one.

The evidence on this is, for example, Mark Dever at an Acts 29 boot camp and Mark Driscoll at a Desiring God conference. Dever’s 9 Marks has been talking about missional theology and contextualization and such. His topic at Acts 29 was church planter evangelism which included a prominent section on the church as corporate witness, a big EC topic! Driscoll is often speaking on Reformed theology and complementarianism. So while you see it as fading or waning, it’s actually blending in with some parts of evangelicalism, which means we are more likely a hybrid whether we admit it or not.

As for the movement end of the EC, it’s fading because we found the part of the EC worth embracing and listening to and conversing with as we work “together for the gospel.” That makes the influence of the movement side wane because they are asking many of the same questions as the conversation side, and the conversation side is working with the larger Christian movement to find the answers together.

By the way, did the Jesus Movement fade? Or did it blend with the larger Christian movement? Didn’t the Jesus Movement spark Calvary Chapels? I hardly see that it faded. It just blended in the good parts (and bad…CCM!) which changes the Christian movement as a whole. You seem to want to retain a pure evangelicalism that outside things influence rather than seeing them as things that are really influencing from the inside, which then changes evangelicalism. I think the latter understanding is the only way to actually make sense out of all this.

The reason it seems that it is ‘winning’ is because the world is progressing through this emergence.

Wishing for an end to conversations seems to me just a signal of insecurity with the motion of the world. We all wish things would just go back to being easy, but on the other hand, where is the fun in that?

Frankly, I couldn’t disagree with you more about this perceived waning of emergence. There may be temporary stillness in the movements where you are situated, but overall, the progression is going to happen; both inside and outside of the church. Keep your head up!