Well, it had to happen.

The emerging church is no longer ‘the new thing’. In fact it might well now be the old thing.

Does that mean that we have now emerged, and so do not need the label or the ‘conversation’ any more?

Here are some links to blogs that wrestle with this issue- if you are interested in this issue, then these guys are well worth reading;

Jason Clark blogging at deep church

tallskinnykiwi

Scott McKnight

I have posted two earlier discussions in this vein too- here and here

So what do you think? Has the term become a liability- something to be defended, but useless as point of definition?

If so, why do I feel a sense of loss?

I think, for me, it has been a useful portal to a whole set of thoughts, challenges and concepts that have turned me upside down, but have been a real blessing in my life, and in people all around me.

It has also been a way that our small and isolated group could reach out to people in the wider world,and find support and common understanding. Does our planned but as yet unrealised) ‘Emerging Scotland Network’ (see here) need a new name even before it begins?

And if the label is dead- what next? The emerged church? The missional church? The new monastics of Dunoon/Watford/Wherever?

I suppose in others, I still wonder if this is a movement towards something, or away from something else? And whilst the journey may be life long, then there are still fellow travelers, and way side inns- otherwise who will survive the journey?

In my self, I just kind of feel that I have lost a lifeboat, and it’s back to swimming again.

So I will use the term for a little longer… how about you?