The Timley Death of Words: the failure of language to capture the life of a movement
On September 1, Andrew Jones (aka Tall Skinny Kiwi) hosted a poll in which 60.8% of respondents said it was time to dump the term “emergent.” A month or so back I read a post by Dan Kimball about the changing definition of emergent and the move by some to dump the term in favor of something more apt. Andrew continued the discussion later that month with two interesting posts, one of which was an international (yet still English speaking) perspective piece.
The discussion centers around whether or not emerging accurately describes the state of this movement [of churches/theologians/thinkers/etc.] who are exploring Christianity beyond Western Modernity. Maybe terms like Post-Modern or Post-Colonial are more familiar to you than emergent, but both (all three for that matter) imply simultaneously a movement from and a reliance on the Modern (Colonial). Some, myself included, have embraced terms like missional, for it’s ability to stand on its own and act descriptively rather than adescriptive. Missional is however limited in its usefulness. This term serves no benefit in describing the broader philosophical and social threads at play in the “emergent” movement.
Is there a solution to this “dilemma”? Who knows.
This caused me to think. “Why do we insist on labeling everything?”
Why do these terms break down? Because they are no longer allowed to serve as descriptions, but are forced beyond their inherent limitations into becoming titles. When did the word “emergent” become the word “Emergent”? According to emergentvillage.com, “In English, the word ‘emergent’ is normally an adjective meaning coming into view, arising from, occurring unexpectedly, requiring immediate action (hence its relation to ‘emergency’), characterized by evolutionary emergence, or crossing a boundary (as between water and air).” What happens when the Emergent Movement stops emerging? What happens when it itself becomes a system? (I would argue that in many ways, it has. A notable example to me was when the website emergentvillage.com’s primary function was no longer to serve as a discussion board for those wrestling with nagging, unanswered questions of faith and became a sounding board for the new found expertise of the likes of Brian McLauren.) People begin to question the use of the term “Emergent” in search of a suitable title to slap on their movement, much like what we see today.
Another example of this, which may only be appreciated by those of my particular faith tradition, is that of the “Restoration Movement.” Sometime back, a group of disenchanted American Christians broke free from denominational restraints in an effort to “restore” the ancient (New Testament) church. With the book of Acts as their model, they made great strides in going, in many ways, well beyond their reforming predecessors. Today, you do not hear the term “Restoration Movement” very often. I would argue that this is not because restoring is no longer needed, but rather because this is not what this movement is doing. One might even argue that the term “movement” is not appropriate. More common terms today are Church of Christ/Christian Churches, or independent Christian Churches. Some have even adopted the title “Stone-Campbell” in memory of some early pioneers in this movement. I don’t like that term, but it, in many ways, is a more accurate description of these churches than “Restoration Movement.”
Why do we insist on titling everything?
I believe this tendency even effects our reading of Christian texts. The ancient church was known as the Way and we assume they made signs and had t-shirts printed. They were first called Christians in Antioch. Someone in Antioch as really clever with marketing.
Is it possible, this type of language was intended to be descriptive exclusively? I think so. And I’m not sure that calling them Christians was intended to be flattering. What about the word “church” or the term “church of Christ”? Other ecclesiastic terms like “deacon,” “elder,” “pastor,” and “evangelist” come to mind.
I’m not sure what, if any, ramifications this might have on theology. I do think however, we have put way too much stock in language. Words, in and of themselves, are not capable of truly capturing the life of something like spiritual movements.
church, emergent, language, theology
| 
church, description, emergent, label, language, restoration movement, title, words
I don’t know if it’s so much the language that fails or the people who bend it (perhaps this is your point?). I think there’s some theological significance here; after all, words are all we have to reference the faith we’re supposed to live. Of course, I don’t place the “emergent” “dilemma” in the same category as trying to define “the kingdom of God.” With a very limited knowledge of the discussion about the term “emergent” breaking down, seems like “leaders of the movement” ego’s have caused the discussion.
@Rob that is exactly my point. when we change what we expect the word to do, it falls short, brings a lot of baggage, and eventually becomes outdated.
the emergent issue just brought the other thoughts to my mind.
Yeah, that’s a good call. It’s too bad we don’t have Bill and Ted’s phone booth.
[...] Hirsch Defines “Missional” ?On October 24, 2008 I posted “The Timely Death of Words: the failure of language to capture the life of a movement” about the drawbacks of attaching a title to a movement. Movements and words are dynamic and nuanced [...]
Richard,
I appreciated the definition of emergent in the blog. First time I have been able to figure out what “emergents” are trying to get across with their verbiage. As for me, I think of myself as more “regressant.” Thanks, Ed