Is the emerging-emergent-emergence church movement dead?

What if the emerging church stops…well….emerging?

No more candles and couches? No more tragically hip pastors with tattoos who blog on their Macs? No more soul patches and craft beers at gatherings? Do we have to stop saying “relevant” all the time?

Please read  Cheaper than Therapy‘s premature yet highly entertaining blog essay (<<CLICK ON) over this topic.

Why does the church best thrive in temporary movements?

And why do most congregations get identified with one or another of these movements?

There are movements and the inevitable reactions against them. Personally, I would rather catch these waves than to pick them apart. There is good in all of them.

Some of them have a long lifespan (e.g. Calvinism); some have less “shelf life” staying power (e.g. Promise Keepers).

But there certainly is a product life cycle curve for all of them.

One of the toughest jobs in ministry is trying to slow the decline of a movement on the “back nine” of its lifespan. I have had the exhausting (paid) job, at times, of propping up entropic Lutheranism, the Charismatic Movement, and the Church Growth movement. “Back Nine” movements have more money saved up–so there are actually jobs there.

I would rather put my energy into a legit move of God on the “front nine” of its existence, regardless of the uncertainty.

For whatever reason we seem to be in a “lull” season for new, momentous, traction-getting church movements right now. It’s as if no trains are leaving the station.

Perhaps you can start one :-).

You could say: “I want to do pure church free of movements.” The problem is, those churches don’t “move.” 🙂

In any case, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, especially if you have had some experience with the emergent/emerging movement. Or if you’d like to talk about movements in general.