Considering challenge #1 (and by the way, I generally agree with you)… when I was at a conference in nashville, a joint “pastors” and “emergent” conference, the stereotype you mention in challenge #1 was pretty much it - white guys with some type of facial hair, messenger bags, jeans, younger, etc. Whereas the “pastors” were pretty much all white, khaki pants, cell phone on the belt, and golf shirts. You could spot each one all the way down the hall.
It seems Emergent is making some inroads, but the “up front” “famous” emergent people seem to be all white, and male.
So, I’ll be most interested in seeing how you handle challenge #1…I look forward to an insightful post from you (but then most of yours are)!

But Josh…its just so much easier to take the easy route and critique without being informed. If I really did the homework, it may make me an emergent too.

Looking forward to your posts brother.

Go get ‘em.

I’m looking forward to this as well - especially your response to #1 … since I am one of those who flip-flop between criticizing and defending EV on that issue

i’m interested to see where you go with this.

i can see where john and julie are coming from, and although i consider myself to be an “emergent” or whatever–in fact, the emergent movement saved christianity for me, so far–challenge #1 seems to be something worth discussing. frankly i don’t really give a damn about the other two. especially #2.

BUT, the white male critique could be aimed at almost any theological framework, especially in the US, save some of the “special interest theologies” (liberation, womanist, etc.)

so, if that challenge was coming from a conservative evangelical i would aim it right back at HIM (yes, him, by and large). but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be addressed. the overarching issue is one of inclusiveness and creating space for ownership within the community, which, in my opinion, isn’t really a problem among emergents. but then again, i’m a dude, so that comes automatically.

I think some of the more serious accusations are things like “Emergent is repackaged Protestant liberalism;” “the Emerging Church has accommodated to culture too much;” or “the Emerging Church is just the disenfranchised, bastard child of Evangelicalism and doesn’t actually have any positive effect in spreading the gospel.”

I’m not saying I do or don’t in any degree agree or disagree with these, but these are some frequent criticism I hear, and I would say I’ve read a number of books, blogs and listened to podcasts on both sides.

Anyway, glad to see you responding to criticisms. Too often people just kind of rally the troops and dismiss negativity.

Josh, like the others who’ve already responded, I too am looking very forward to reading your thoughts. Often times I read your writings and think you’re a kindred spirt. I’ve recently had some conversations with people who imediately dismiss the emerging church, and I’m getting really frustrated — because like you said, “They haven’t had the conversations, they haven’t read the books, they haven’t practiced the theology.”

I look forward to it!

this should be good. if nothing else this will give the critics some more fodder and maybe get some good comments or emails with links to chick tracks.

I’m also looking forward to hearing your thoughts, and like the others it’s #1 that interests me the most. I’m reminded of Donald Miller’s “Blue Like Jazz,” somewhere in the middle he says something to the effect of “You don’t believe what you believe, you believe what you do.” I think that’s a pretty profound way of stating where EC stands on the topic.

True, there are probably plenty of EC thinkers who like to carry on the conversation, but I think (hope) we have a fair number of unknown Claibornes out there who can counteract the ‘thinkers’.

Again- looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

I do love reading your posts. I tend to agree with Alan’s sentiments that there are more ’serious’ that it would be cool to see addressed. Having said that, I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter.

Seems silly to preemptively give my thoughts on the topics you’ve brought up, so I’ll wait with bated breath…

It’s kinda funny. I’m reading the books and blogs. I’m talking to people in my city. Maybe I’m reading the wrong blogs, but I find the traditional church is trashed as much as anything. I have a sense that the emergent church is a movement of renewal. I mean, there is only one church, right? I wish there was more “us” and “we”, than “them” and “you”. God is doing something… it’s kinda big.

Josh, would you consider adding to your list the criticism that Alan mentioned “the Emerging Church is just the disenfranchised, bastard child of Evangelicalism and doesn’t actually have any positive effect in spreading the gospel.”

you will probably deal with this but at an emerging church conference in ireland last year, one of the lectures/discussions was entitled . . “Is the emerging church really just a bunch of w**kers?”

While blake is right that the “white male” criticism is true of most of Western Christianity, I would disagree that throwing that back in the critics face is the right move. If it is a legitimate problem (regardless of whether it is exclusive to Emergent or not), it deserves addressing.

Peace,
Jamie

Josh,

One more question. Aside from the attacking critiques that are not constructive or accurate, you do believe that Emergent Village should be open to genuine criticism, right? I think I know the answer to this, but I thought it would be great to hear you affirm this (or not). Thanks!

Peace,
Jamie

jamie. let me clarify. i don’t believe throwing any critique back in the face of a critic is a helpful way of addressing said critique. i was merely going out of my way, and perhaps over the top, to point out that that critique is prevalent throughout mainstream christianity and that anyone who wishes critique a certain group should hold the same standard to themselves as they do to whomever they are critiquing.

sorry to be so late into this. had no idea we’d have this many comments on such a short intro.

jon. i’ll try to respond to that question.

jamie. i don’t think anyone is removed from critique. definitely not individuals and definitely not groups. did you forget about me calling frank out? i’m just not sure these 3 most popular criticisms are entirely grounded. but i’ll get to that. hopefully tomorrow.

and tall skinny, i’ll definitely address the wanker factor.

Josh,

Thank. I figured that was your stance, I just wanted to be sure. I know you are a good guy, so I didn’t want anyone thinking you were shutting down any critique. Some have had the experience that Emergent Village openly critiques the church, but refuses to be critiqued in return. I hope my question didn’t come across as combative, as I was trying to help make your point, not argue against it. Thanks!

Peace,

Blake- Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense.

I have been following the emergent movement with great interest and encouragement for a while now. I have read a number of the books. I did hear a great of questioning and criticism in the beginning but that seemed to have died down. Outside of Dricoll who does seem to like anything, where is the criticism coming from?

[...] An Introduction [...]

[...] 1 - An Introduction, 2 - A White Man’s World [...]

“It used to just be the crazy, old school guys like Dobson, MacArthur, and Carson. I think of these guys like my crazy uncle sitting in the corner who babbles on about conspiracy theories and minorities and the evils of the world. His behavior borders on tourettes and I sort of expect it.”

That seems unkind, and rather dismissive of people (especially MacArthur) who have raised some of the more substantive criticisms–criticisms that go beyond the mere pigmentation of the skin of EC participants and delve into its theological foundations.

“They haven’t had the conversations, they haven’t read the books, they haven’t practiced the theology.”

Would this include Driscoll? Or is he included in the “tourettes” crowd?

I heard Tim Condor of Emmaus Way speak at Duke Divinity School on the topic of emergent. He cautioned against viewing emergent as a “method,” emphasizing that emergent is simply being church.

Josh, 1st time on your site. I just hopped over from the EV site.
I’m a pastor, recent m.div grad and one who has been given hope and belonging from the emerging conversation. So, with that said, help me understand something.
Why are we investing this time in defending ourselves? I’ve noticed Doug and Tony spending a lot of energy/time on defensive matters. I feel like a lot of emergent is still primarily deconstructing, instead of building toward something. It seems McLaren is moving on toward the reconstruction, but Emergent as a whole is entering into a real defensive season.
I will acknowledge, I havn’t followed EV too closely but when I do pop in and out, this is the vibe I get.
Seems like it’s time to move on…

ryan. no offense dude, but 1) you either have no idea about the constructive stuff that many emergents are doing. this could be cause you keep popping in and out and have no real sense of deep friendship with those involved. at which point you would know that we aren’t bitching anymore.

2) you must not be aware of the nature of deconstruction. because most deconstruction is a form of construction.

and 3) i don’t see this is a negative post. go back and read the comments to the post on the “white men” thing. that was pretty constructive. and if somebody was saying shit about your family, your wife and kids . . . if you try to defend them by giving solid, logical thoughts . . . does that count as you being negative and deconstructionist?

probably not. so don’t just drop in and drop out every now and then. get your hands dirty in construction. you’re one of the guys that i am writing about. bandwagon jumping and banging on people and groups without knowing what the hell is up. so buzz off.

[...] Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: Introduction | IAmJoshBrown Intro to a series of posts responding to common critiques of Emergent. (tags: emergent theology) [...]

Josh, while I follow the emergent movement from a distance I do see the generalizations. But then isn’t that true of both sides? So, “they haven’t had the conversations, they haven’t read the books, they haven’t practiced the theology,” reads like a generalization towards all who are critics of the emergent movement.

To quote you: “Here’s the deal…the crazy, old school guys like Dobson, MacArthur, and Carson. I think of these guys like my crazy uncle sitting in the corner who babbles on about conspiracy theories and minorities and the evils of the world. His behavior borders on tourettes and I sort of expect it…The thing that bothers me the most about this is that those who are casually throwing their criticisms around are often stupid. I know, I know . . . I should probably say it nicer. But the loudest and most frequent critiques come from a group of people who are often just very ill-informed…I promise I’ll be nice and won’t attack anyone personally . . . but I think it’s time that some of these criticisms get challenged with criticism of their own. So I shall critique the critiques.”

If your behavior represents the jesus you worship, I don’t want him. Give me the Truth, the Way, the Light, the real Jesus! You sound like a politician speaking out of both sides of your mouth. And I personally am tired of the age discrimination against us elderly that I repeatedly find in the “discussion” at this site. Consider this a loving rebuke to snatch you from the consequences. Seek Him with all Your heart. Stop dividing the church. It’s ugly. And don’t give me the “just kidding” and “lighten up” speech. You are leading souls for Christ’s sake.

Lisa- you can’t really throw around the dividing the church comment solely at emergents. When entire books are written (Truth War) attempting to tear up the theology behind emergence it causes division. Or you can look at Doug Pagitt and John Piper. Pagitt requested that the two churches attempt to work together to fight issues in there local community. Piper refused because Pagitt doesn’t see the issue of substitutionary atonement like Piper does.

So is the dividing party?

@ LISA thanks for your thoughts lisa. i’ll do my best not to divide the church. god knows its in pretty good shape the way it is. talk to you later, i need to go read some macarthur commentary before i lay me head on me people.

Josh,

While I greatly appreciate your considerations of some of the more surface level critiques of the Emerging Church Movement (the white male one I got into an discussion over today, in fact). I am greatly troubled by your tactics in response to some of your comments. In particular your response to tell someone to buzz off simply because they asked a legitimate question. You wrote:

“you’re one of the guys that i am writing about. bandwagon jumping and banging on people and groups without knowing what the hell is up. so buzz off.”

before that you also wrote some comments that could be very offensive to a person seeking to try to understand the movement and turn them off from understanding.

The problem I have with all this is that if you are truly seeking to deal with some of the major criticisms of the Emerging Church Movement I would think you would consider using a more tactful tone. I can completely understand bring frustrated and offended by another person’s comments but we as Emerging Church Leaders (and yes I say we, I am an active leader in the movement) MUST be very careful in how we use our language to describe and defend our thoughts and theology. If we are trying to bring about a movement of hope, renewal and restoration to the WHOLE church then I would think we would want to look at ways to bring people into the conversation not offend them.

I conversations with Tony J. and Doug P. we have discussed clearly the importance of understanding this is a movement founded in conversation where we are focused on creating space for dialogue. Conversations must be considerate of all involved. This doesn’t mean being weak and unable to clearly defend ourselves when needed, there are times when we will need/have to draw lines in the sand and be very clear on certain issues. But we must use healthy, tactful language that invites future/continued conversations with those who are seeking to hold an opposing view to ours.

I agree we have done much construction as well as deconstruction and that there have been some that have been unable to see the construction. Perhaps this is because we as leaders have been forced on the defensive because of people like Carson, MacArthur, Grootius, etc. But there is much to be said in honestly looking at the thoughts and considerations of those who are just beginning to dialogue with the movement or have not taken as deep a drink of it as we have. I hope you heard the truth of Ryan Taylor’s question to you, perhaps he didn’t word it right, but I heard him asking if we are ever on the “offensive” verses the “defensive.” I think that is a legitamite question to ask if you are an outsider looking in and that is OK. We will be a flash in the pan if we aren’t careful to respectfully deal with questions like his. Look at his website and you might see that he is attracted to and very simular to our thinking in emergence.

I hope you see this as something encouraging to consider in this journey through understanding our WHOLE future as a people of Christ.

Just some thoughts…we are journeyers together through this thing and some day will get it right.

Thanks for listening to my considerations.

Jesus was very divisive when it came to truth versus lies. It is a powerful loving thing to do as it spares someone much pain and consequences. We are commanded to do the same. Let’s encourage each other to obey that tough order! Brother agaisnt brother was a tough call for Jesus to make in His own family. But those brothers eventually believed, served, wrote scripture and died for the brother they denied. (James and Jude) Interestingly, those two books written by Jesus’ half brothers are the most adamant about fighting false doctrine-”tear up the theology”. We are commnaded to break down those strongholds.
I don’t know about Pagitt and Piper. I only know Christ Jesus crucified.
i Corinthians 2:1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
That is a pretty tall order for us all! Be encouraged to speak the truth, and let go of the wisdom of men.

@mattscott

could you send me a link on the pagitt/piper deal? i’d like to know more about that. finitethis at gmail - thanks.

One of the great things about Emergent has been a willingness to dialog and be open to far reaching perspectives on the Gospel and the church. In response then, to these criticisms, I think the best way to respond is to take a long minute and consider the truth that they exhibit. There is probably elements of truth in each of them. Then we can say thanks, we appreciate your input and move on. Firing back at them, especially a criticism like “the crazy, old school guys like Dobson, MacArthur, and Carson. I think of these guys like my crazy uncle sitting in the corner who babbles on about conspiracy theories and minorities and the evils of the world. His behavior borders on tourettes and I sort of expect it.” just affirms everything they believe about us. I don’t think it honors Christ or helps bridge the gap between the two camps.

The truth of what is taking place in Emergent will only be seen 10 years from now. If it is more than a flash in the pan trend, it will be clearly demonstrated when long term faithfulness is evident. That is what keeps something from being a trend.

Thanks for the thoughts Josh. This is the first time I have read your blog.

Blessings-
Greg Arthur

Josh,
Look at my initial comments…
…and then you’re response. If I’m questioning Emergent’s defensive vibe, you’re response isn’t helping me out too much.
I’m a bit more in touch with Emergent than I portrayed and know local cohort leaders.
Yowza, man.

@ Becky i’m not trying to be tactful. the problem with running a blog is that you get some people who genuinely want to engage in conversation. and then you have trollers who just jump from blog to blog at anything that has an affiliation with emergent and they bitch and complain. they try to trap you into some polemical mouse trap at which point they can pounce. i have no time for that and i’m not interested in becoming the “on-ramp” to the conversation for those people. because honestly, they’re not interested in conversation but in nailing you some way. so i’ve got no problem saying “buzz off” and i’ve got no problem saying you’re an ass, you’re not welcome here. so if i come off rude to somebody who does that . . . oh well. consider me the ass.

ryan ryan i apologize if i jumped to conclusions. after a day of getting shit in my inbox and ken-silva-esque comments here all day, i may have reached my breaking point. if you’re here for conversation then i’m sorry. but i stand by my point that if you knew the emergent pastors like doug, danielle, tim, salmir, etc . . . you would know that emergent is in a very constructive phase right now. and we’re not still bitching. well except . . . for some people still in the blogosphere who are jumping on the bandwagon without doing the legwork. so if you’re not aware of all the constructive stuff going on with emergent and it’s friends . . . then i stand by my comment that you’re really not tuned in enough to offer an opinion. and i would say that this is because you keep popping in and popping out by your own words. i wouldn’t watch the election process by popping and popping out only to say that i think huckabee and guilliani are going to win today. you can’t make blanket statements while popping in and popping out. that’s where most of the criticism comes from. and honestly, i’m not sure you get a say in that instance. that’s the point of this post. you can’t slam emergent without knowing emergent. knowing a cohort leader doesn’t give you a pass.

@ D10 i’ll bring it to dinner friday night d10.

LISA Buzz off.

[...] Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: Introduction [...]

[...] 1 - An Introduction, 2 - A White Man’s World, 3 - Trend/Denomination [...]

[...] And then you read Josh Brown here. [...]

[...] Introduction [...]

Josh,

While I appreciate your candor and agree that there are many times when we must be blunt, straight forward and short with people you must remember that you are cited on the Emergent Village website - a VERY public domain - as a place to go for answers and discussion on the issues you are raising. I am sorry but you ARE going to have new comers who ARE just beginning the dialogue and maybe are only reading a blog on occasion at this point.

I am sorry if you feel like you are getting trapped sometimes, that’s not too cool. However, if you recall Matt. 5:43-48, Jesus asks us to “love our enemies” and that doing this is not easy. If we are truly going to love them then we must also treat them with tact and read all they have to say.

I know this sucks and is painful to do with a blog and all the comments you can get. I personally have been very hesitant to blog for this very reason. You have a great voice for our movement and words worth reading and listening too. Unfortunately you HAVE become an “on-ramp” because your blog is linked through the village. Take away the link if you want to change that.

I do appreciate that you apologized to Ryan. He seemed to be impacted greatly by the movement. There is much that we are constructing right now but there is little out in there for the general public in regards to this. If you follow movements well after the leaders have passed through the deconstruction stage and into the construction stage do the masses start to follow. Look at the civil rights movement, it really wasn’t until the 70s and 80s that we began to notice significant changes. Perhaps that is how things will go with us….

Thanks for your response back and willingness to look at my thoughts. I look forward to following your blog more, especially if you are planning on posting LOST theories! How cool is that?! Did you watch the enhanced episode tonight? And have you ever looked at lostpedia.com?

Most of the conversations I’m in don’t have the person I’m conversing with telling me to “buzz off” when I tell him something he’s a part of “has given [me] hope and a sense of belonging”. OUCH. I think Becky Pierson hit the nail on the head (2/13/11:47 AM and 2/15/1:27 AM). If you don’t want conversation with those of us who may be a little gun shy but want to be hopeful that the Church isn’t a total wash then don’t invite the conversation. It may be hard to believe but there are many of us over the 30, 40 and 50 mark who want to embrace the good in what we see but if we’re treated as if we have nothing to bring to the table we’ll take our mites elsewhere. As for your “apology” to Ryan. If “we aren’t still bitching” you might want to reread your posts to him.
Thank you Becky for letting the newbies on the block know Josh’s isn’t the only voice.

[...] 1 - An Introduction, 2 - A White Man’s World, 3 - Trend/Denomination, 4- A Public Service Announcement on Friendship [...]

[...] Read Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: Introduction. [...]

[...] 1 - An Introduction, 2 - A White Man’s World, 3 - Trend/Denomination, 4- A Public Service Announcement on Friendship, 5 - We Hate Scripture [...]

[...] 1 - An Introduction, 2 - A White Man’s World, 3 - Trend/Denomination, 4- A Public Service Announcement on Friendship, 5 - We Hate Scripture, The Bastard Child of Evangelicalism [...]