Upfront Disclaimer: I do not speak for anyone on the board at Emergent Village, nor am I assuming the position of spokesperson. I speak from a position of proximity and friendship with emergent. And if you want to put a label on it (something I will hopefully make a point about), then by God, you can consider me emergent. I recognize up front and am fully aware that as with any group, the possibility for mistakes exist. So I am in no way in favor of giving Emergent “a get out of jail free card” from receiving criticism. I simply hope to push back against the criticism and remind everyone (myself?) of the spirit of emergent, instead of taking pot shots. I also will be careful of how exactly I capitalize e/Emergent, so please pay attention to my attempted nuance.
Let me begin by saying half of us wouldn’t be where we are today if it wasn’t for the conversations that emergent started and helped give shape to (since emergent isn’t an organized group – it’s almost impossible to say Who, What, When, or Where). So that alone should give us give us a bit of slack to play with. Sometimes I think we’re like the kid who got adopted and taken in by a loving family, only to grow up and leave them to go out and find their original parents as they got older. I for one and am proud that emergent took me in and gave me a safe place to BE.
With that in mind and with a posture of gratefulness . . . let’s critique the critique. The first one is the loudest and most frequent criticism of Emergent and it is . . .
Emergent is just a bunch of white guys sitting around and talking theology.
I can’t say that I’ve never thought this (casually or seriously). But I think it’s a faulty landing place for a couple of reasons.
For one, I don’t think it’s the fault of Emergent leadership. I’ve been involved in the late, great Christendom pretty much my entire life. And out of all the groups, denominations, traditions, leaders, and people that I’ve been around, emergents are by far the most diverse in terms of ethnicity and gender. Now that could be due to my own limited history, but in reading emergent books and being a part of emergent (I use this term every so loosely in relationship to a label in these situations) conversations, I find the group to be rather diverse. I’ve come in contact with more African, Latin American, feminist, and black theologians via emergent conversations and books than I have in any other place. Whether it’s a footnote in a book or a glowing recommendation over a beer, I’ve never heard the leadership of a “group” model and champion diversity as much as I have with Emergent.
In addition, I think something can be said of our insatiable desire for labels and brands. Those in Europe and Latin America don’t need the label Emergent to be emergent. And I have a strong hunch that those involved in leadership with Emergent don’t need the label either. So perhaps it is really only those of us in the blog-O-sphere and the critics on the outside that have defined ourselves by our homogeneity. I know for a fact that those in leadership with Emergent Village – the Board of Directors and the Coordinating Group – are way more diverse than the blogrolls of those raining down criticisms or the pews where they sit on Sunday morning.
In this vein, I do think a lot of people see Emergent as a brand or label (something I’ll devote tomorrow to). I did it in the first paragraph for crying out loud. But I do think it’s pretty simple . . .
I think those who see Emergent as a noun and adjective . . . are the ones who see it as “a white man’s game”.
And I think those who see emergent as a verb . . . see and know just how diverse the spirit of emergent is.
Now I hope Julie and Adam don’t get pissed, but when I hear a female say that Emergent is “a white man’s game” only to see them pick up their ball and go and do their Emerging Women thing, I have to think that not all of the fault lays at the feet of Emergent. But rather with those who continue to want to see Emergent as a noun and adjective.
At last glance, we now have 3 different sub-sects of Emergent – Emerging Women, Presbymergent, Anglimergent. I’m not sure why these 3 groups get a pass for their homogeneous nature and for appropriating theology in their specific contexts while Emergent continues to get slammed. I’m not bashing these groups. My only complaint is that no one has started a recovering Bapticostal-louiegiglioisgod-megachurchmergent group that I can join.
The beautiful thing about each one of these groups is that they are serving as on-ramps to many people who would never enter the conversation in any other way.
The thing that makes emerging women so great is that they are doing emergent in the context of emerging women. The thing that makes Presbymergent so great is that they are doing emergent in the context of Presbyterianism. The thing that makes Anglimergent so great is that they are doing emergent in the context of Anglican church.
The thing that makes Julie, Adam, and Karen so great for giving shape to their particular streams is that they know just how valuable doing emergent locally and contextually is as opposed to being simply labeled or defined as emergent.
Each particular group is deconstructing their theologies and practices in light of their postmodern context. Each group is then re-appropriating these theologies and practices against a new backdrop and in a new light.
They deconstruct and practice. Deconstruct and practice. Deconstruct and practice. And even then deconstruction can be construction.
Anglimergent, Presbymergent, Emerging Women. There really isn’t a problem with having these nuanced streams of emergent because they are all appropriating their theologies in different contexts. The only problem will come when one or all of these groups begin seeing itself as a noun or as an adjective as opposed to a verb. When emergent is a verb, you begin to see the spirit of emergent across various contexts. And what Emergent Village is doing is valuable for it’s context just as Presbymergent is valuable for what it is doing in it’s context.
I had a great conversation with DJ Chuang about this the other day for an upcoming podcast. He made an excellent point that what most white, male emergents are wrestling with and practicing is not the same type of things nor theology that 2nd generation, Asian Americans are wrestling with and practicing. But that doesn’t make them any less emergent. They are simply doing their theology and practicing their theologies in different contexts. They are not branded or labeled as Emergent, but rather they are doing emergent and are very much a part of the spirit of emergent.
But just imagine for a moment that we take everyone even loosely affiliated with Emergent away from the table except for the white men . . . wouldn’t they still be deconstructing their theologies and privileges from their heritage and traditions (20th century evangelicalism) and then re-appropriating that theology in their new context? If they weren’t and hadn’t been doing this all along, then would they have so many female and minority voices both leading and involved?
Although, to back track, I still don’t assent to the idea that Emergent is just a bunch of white men.
But if it were . . . and I’m not saying it is . . . then why is it that every other group gets a pass?
Blake stole my thunder a bit in the comments to the introduction, when he wrote “The white male critique could be aimed at almost any theological framework, especially in the US.” I find it funny that conservatives would stand on the outside looking in and say Emergent isn’t diverse.
Hmmmm . . . I’m glad we don’t look to Mohler, Piper, or Driscoll to be our models for diversity. The last time I checked the EV leadership was made up of both women and minorities, middle class folk and not-so middle class folk, suburbanites and city dwellers. And not only that, but they recognize their own limitations in perspective, whether they be male, female, white, black, rich, poor, suburban, or urban. Take those two things and add in the fact that the EV leadership sound are borderline Spartan cheerleaders in their books, lectures, and practice when it comes to diversity and you have a pretty compelling case that Emergent Village is a far cry from “a white man’s world”.
In conclusion, I think the problem lies less with the leadership of Emergent Village and more with the myopic, homogeneous circles of the critics.
Then again, I could be wrong. I am a white man after all.
*UPDATE: Mike Morrell reminded me that I forgot about some of the other Emergent “flavors” Submergent (Anabaptist), Convergent (Quakers), Emergent Nazarenes, UMerging doesn’t quite exist yet as a stable group, but it should….
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
94 Comments
O Aaron! Your words are beautiful! Praying for your continued strength! “believes the bible is 100% true and without error and believe that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ and faith in HIM. I believe that the Gospel speaks to all areas of life and is to be lived out amongst the least of these. This is the message I have for the hurting of this world. Christ is the good shepherd who saves us from our sin and ourselves and this world. If this is ‘emergent’ then call it what you will but I just say I am a Christian.”
@ sonja i’ve done my best to answer everybody. i’m sorry my answers weren’t “substantively” enough. i never intended to provide concrete answers that would resolve the problem. there is obvious a lot of work to be done. but i’d rather work towards it by providing a place of open dialogue instead of just throwing my hands up in the air and complaining. maybe that’s something that only my white privilege allows, but i’m going to try it anyway. to learn, know, embrace, and understand the other.
@ LISA what would you say about your boys calvin and luther? were they negative? deconstructing?
Blessings to you Josh to think I could form a scholarly opinion on anyone’s life! I just want to know Jesus and the fellowship of His sufferings. Trouble is, that selfish flesh of mine! I hate it!
Romans 12:1 “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. 3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith…9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; 11 not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; 12 rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, 13 contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality.”
@ LISA buzz off. you’re not going to make me feel guilty by throwing a scripture verse on the end of your comments that you think prove your point. it’s not a weapon.
I’m sure you’re about to get the “sword” verse.
Brother Josh,
Reread Aaron’s comment. #1 I was quoting Aaron, the black brother you ignored. It is pathetically sadly transparently hilarious how you only condemned the old white woman who’s quoting the black brother. #2 That you don’t know the “sword verse”…now that is terrifying! (Hebrews 4:12)
#3 I was making no effort “to make you feel guilty” – that is the power of God’s truth, His word.
#4 Britt was right-on with her comment, “The only problem is when you don’t combine what you believe with real, genuine action. That’s when a movement becomes obselete.”
And you demonstrated your beliefs in genuine action when you told me to “buzz off.” I don’t know a verse when Jesus ever told anyone to “buzz off”, but I know He rebuked the disciples for talking like that. Your actions demonstrate the point well that emergent means white man talking. It doesn’t have to be that way. I Timothy 6:18 “Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share”
Josh, in the end, it really doesn’t matter what I think. It matters that change happens. And that’s the problem. Change is not happening.
You see the real problem with keeping women and people of color on the margins is that it is not simply harmful to them. It’s also harmful to you, and all other white men. Your arrogant heart is ultimately harmful to you, just as it is to all others in the dominant culture that Christy spoke of. The current system is probably most hurtful to those in power, even though you do not see it. This is why Jesus said funny things like “The last shall be first.”
Think on that for a while … and how you yourself might be more embracing of this change in a substantive manner. What might that look like? And, why o why are these old white women dissing you so badly?
@ SONJA are you kidding me?! who is dissing me besides the old crazy lady who is a southern baptist? and she’s pissed that i banged on macarthur. and trust me i see my white power and it’s abuses and am more than an eager to change it and engage with it at a deep level. the females who are upset with me are pissed that i cussed cause they are conservative nut jobs who troll the emergent village website.
ask julie. ask helen. you have no idea about who i am or what i’m about. and it pisses me off that people like lisa would come in here and hijack a fruitful, engaging, give and take conversation between men AND women. so if lisa or anyone else leaves another dumbass comment that hijacks the conversation, it’s going to spam.
funny how all the intelligent, conversational women left this forum once all the nut job women jumped in.
Josh … whoa, hold up dude. I am sorry you took my last line so personally. I really meant it in jest. I don’t think you know me well enough from two comments to start calling me a nut job.
I made some observations about the fact that the subject matter was not being engaged in substantively and you are taking that very personally. Yes, you did summarily dismiss some fairly pertinent questions that were asked by people who entered the conversation and you took offense to that.
I asked you to embrace the change and consider how the current system was harmful not just to the marginalized but to those in power and how that harm might effect those in the dominant culture. I’m not certain what is offensive about that.
This is not a pretty or easy subject to discuss. There has been a lot of pain suffered and some of it is going to spew when it gets brought up. I’m sorry, but those of you who are white men cannot just say, “It wasn’t me, I don’t have anything to do with that,” and get a pass. You are still part of it, whether you choose it or not. This is in the same manner that I must own my part in racism and/or the slave history of this country even though I myself am not racist nor did my family ever own slaves. In fact, we fought and died on the side of the North in the Civil War. Do you see the analogy? I still have to own my part/role as a member of the dominant culture.
sorry sonjah. not you. lisa.
Josh,
I’d love to continue this conversation offline. Maybe me and a few of my peeps and you and a few of your peeps can get together over some strong African coffee (fair trade of course) and start a substantive, action-oriented conversation…
wow. a constructive comment. i was beginning to think those were nonexistent.
without reading all the comments, i think the “white man” label comes not from the people in there, but from my perception that if you want to go to an emerging gathering, you’re going to a coffee shop in the suburb with other middle class (ranging from lower to upper) EDUCATED folks. Is theology limited to those with college and graduate degrees? or is there something more accessible to everyone else?
@ MATT you don’t know many “emergents” then if that stereotype is your definition. you would know this if you had friends. and read any of the comments. way to stay classy.
Am obviously late to this rendition of the “conversation” but here goes anyway:
After reading this post and the intro. and ALL the comments I tend to lean with Dave Paisley’s thought that the criticism is more true than untrue. Thanks to vocies like Julie Clawson (and your engaging responses with her)it is at least not totally true. The fact that other versions of the Christian expression are more male and more white is irrelavant. A couple subtle indicators: the comment that no childcare meant women could not attend the conversation illustrates how deeply rooted we are in male/female divisions. And, while we can point to book publishers and say “they choose who to publish” we ignore the fact that publishing is a for profit business. If there were more demand there would probably be more books published by female authors. I’m only looking at my husband’s book self now but I think he may just be representitive. I count zero books by female authors. My bookself has a few but certainly more are written by men, white men both of us. Have you looked at your bookshelf lately?
Margaret’s comment reminds me of something I read from Simple Way (Shane Claiborne’s intentional community in PA). It was a recommendation to only read women authors for a period of time (I think he recommended one year). I thought about that one for a while, and discovered how backwards I still was when I said to myself “Sounds like a good plan, but I wanna get through some NT Wright and Walter Wink and so on before I do that.” Kind of sad… I don’t know any brilliant women theologians. I know they’re out there, but I don’t see them at the forefront.
Any recommendations would be appreciated…
you can’t go wrong with dorothy day. flannery o’connor is good. as is l’engle. and diana butler bass is good from the mainline. that’s about the extent of what i’ve got. sad too.
Is flannery theology or just a straight up writer? (And didn’t she have that one incident with the oven?)
Flannery O’Conner died of complications brought on by lupus at the age of 39 (at a hospital. Plath and sexton–both poets–were the suicides). O’Conner was a novelist, short story writer and essayist. Day and L’engle are also dead. None were theological per se. Humm…
wow, this post has generated a lot of comments. just wanted to point out the obvious.
Josh,
It’s cool to read the way you process through things and the way you can facilitate these big issue conversations.
Its a rare occasion when the fog in my mind clears out enough for me to write something with as much conviction as you do on a regular basis.
Cheers for that.
so because they wrote fiction or poetry their writings aren’t theological minnow?
female theologians? start with Sallie McFague, Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel,
Rosemary Radford Reuther, Dorothy Solle. Elsa Tamez critiques the inherent sexism in much liberation theology. ‘Struggle to see the sun again’ by Chun Hyung Kung is an Asian woman’s perspective on theology… read the bibliographies at the end of those books and see where they take you.
most of the comments on this thread seem to work with the assumption that women will have made it when they have a place in emergent village – when they are ‘let in’, as such.
to be honest, white, middle class, educated males are an anomaly in our world – most people do not fit into that category. i only read theology that comes from those who don’t. and i can’t quite see why it seems so attractive or important to join a group where the white, middle class etc. etc. perspective is the dominant one.
the gospels tell, over and over, of times when God’s liberation and redemption is uncovered on the edges of the in group, in the unexpected places. i’d rather go search for the tables elsewhere, where there are voices and stories i haven’t yet heard.
1. The oven thing (as I was corrected ever so gently by my wife) was Sylvia Plath.
2. I think my comment about wanting to read theology only is completely preposterous. We can find good information in just about any good book. You all have permission to literally smack me anytime I say something like that.
3. Dorthy Day is the next on my reading list (it would only make sense to follow Shane Claiborne with her).
4. I’ve decided that I’m going to go for a 1:1 ratio of old white guy books and non-old white guy books (but I guess again that proves how sad I am that I’m using old white guy as the variable).
Finally 5. Ellie, for me it’s not the fact that the authors are white or middle class or even dudes. It’s simply the fact that I know their names and I have a pretty good idea that the book will be at least a decent read. But you comment about the edges and other tables is convicting.
(I thought 5 would end it but) 6. Thanks to everyone for contributing to this conversation (and yeah… I guess I might actually mean everyone), while some comments have deeply amused me, some have convicted me and opened my eyes to how narrow (that at least) I’ve been looking. May you all find good books to fall into.
Josh,
This post is great, and you’re heading up an important conversation, so hang in there.
I’ve attended “national” Emergent Conversation, a few years ago, and once in the room, was immediately impressed by the sheer number of white males (~80%), followed in rough proportions by Asian women, Asian men-Latinos (not a single Latina…)- African-American women, and two African-American men. Sigh. As I listened to the “plenary-conversations” and the out-in-hall conversations, I could not be in more agreement with you about the label “a bunch of white guys sitting around talking theology.”
So, I initiated a couple of conversations with people about the remarkable ethnic proportions as well as the content speaking mostly to the white males in the room. One mentioned to me that this ethnic disproportion grieves the leadership, and they openly wonder how to address this matter. I only wished at that point that such openness would have extended to the entire gathering: but it did not.
Please don’t misunderstand that last observation: I don’t mean to condemn, but either the person speaking with me was ill-informed or did not know the real limits of the openness of the leadership with regard to ethnic disproportions and the subsequent influence on theological conversations. I would suggest that Eugene’s comments above regarding power and privilege would have found a remarkable opportunity for incarnation at the gathering I attended.
I hope that more folks like Josh will keep this conversation out in the open for everyone to participate in. Josh: Thanks again.
@Ellie: Let’s add Serene Jones, Emilie Townes, Sarah Sumner, and Nancey Murphy to the reading list…and just about anyone who is from outside of Europe and NA…
Thus my comment “None were theological per se”.
this is the problem with half the people that are upset . . . they still operate in the same binary, foundational way. read l’engle and tell me if she’s not theological. read o’connor and tell me if you don’t learn about the nature of humanity and god.
call me a lot of things. polarizing. extreme. rude. a cusser. but at least i make an attempt to see the world holistically and not in such dualistic, binary ways.
l’engle is theology. murphy is theology. day is theology. bass is theology. hell . . . lamott is theology. gilbert is theology.
I will check out some of the women who were suggested. But, on a quick check most look like they are feminist studies professors at fairly well know seminaries and frankly I’m bored with women writing/talking about quote women’s issues. I’ve been living many of those issues most of my adult life and am pretty talked out. Guess I feel it’s just time to live differently (and help those around me in more overt ways to live differently too.
Whoa–I said per se meaning I see that they are theological.
Not knowing you and not knowing how strictly you use definitions I thought I was making room not creating a box–please forgive me.
haha minnow. sorry. still a bit defensive with all the nasty emails i’ve been getting.
you could understand my confusion as for what you’re asking to . . . you said we should read more female voices. but now the ones some of us listed aren’t good enough? its an awfully fine line for us to walk so that we make you happy. not saying that’s your intent, but that’s where some of us get frustrated. nothing we do is good enough.
Point well taken. Again apologies. I was actually not meaning to suggest you need to read more women authors. What I was trying to point out was that our (your and my) tendancy is not to read women authors as much as we read men. Is it a chicken and egg issue? Who knows. Is it that women aren’t writing about the topics that interest the broader spectrum? I am seeing that which brings/brought me to my last comment about “feminist issues”. As a woman I would personally prefer to be part of a non gender specific conversation that may also include some of the struggles women have, just like it might include some of the struggles Native Americans face. Am I making better sense now?
@Josh: After five days of comments, I hope you realize that the assertion (myth) in your original post is, for the most part, not as much of a myth as you presupposed.
I would also like to point out that your habit of responding to commenters within minutes of them posting indicates that you don’t take the time to really read what they have to say and consider it in any meaningful way. You just shoot from the hip in a very defensive way with your replies (well, at least for those who dare to disagree with you).
Can’t wait to read your debunking of all the other myths…
Minnow, i’d suggest looking closer at the things the women i suggested write about. None of them are just writing about women’s issues.
Is our version of “inclusion” a self-placating myth?
I live surrounded by folks who like to think they are extremely liberal and inclusive in all aspects of their lives. They walk around with canvas shopping bags, ride bikes to work, listen to NPR and Democracy Now, display Obama and Clinton signs in their windows and attends MLK marches on the third Monday of every January.
They are white, well off, and have the time and money to sit down for a three-dollar cup of coffee on a regular basis.
I say all of this in an attempt to try and expand the frame of discussion. Would it not make sense that perhaps there isn’t a wider representation of minorities in the Emergent movement simply because they are too wrapped up in just trying to make ends meet? That is not to imply that all minorities in America are poor but only to suggest that perhaps those who are joining in on the Emergent Conversation are those who have the luxury of time to converse.
Does the Emergent church create space for the afore mentioned people? Does it offer the solidarity those groups need? How many Emergent churches can be found in the poorer parts of America? Are the main issues the Emergent church focus on even applicable to a vast majority of the minority population?
Ellie–Thanks, I wrote down names and am looking them up. I did a quick Net-check of the name (to get book titles) and thus my comment but I haven’t discarded any of the suggestions out of hand.
Hey Josh…I’m following the trail here from the Emerging Womens site…I’m not a regular there and not even sure how I ended up on this trail…one of those wrong turns I’m sure!
I’m not coming from a post evangelical background but do have many friends who struggle with this. As hard as it is for me to understand I can see how men would have difficulties with it for sure. I think it’s cool that you even touched on the topic.
After reading…yes, I went thru all the comments, what really jumped out at me was the need for intentionality. Diversity doesn’t happen on it’s own, at least I’ve never seen it but it takes an intentional push from those who have the power to start the ball rolling.
Contemporary women theologians who don’t just write about women’s issues? Just for starters, try Janet Soskice, Marilyn McCord Adams, Sarah Coakley, Anna Williams, Morna Hooker, Ann Loades, Jo Bailey Wells, Carrie Pemberton, Ann Nickson, Nancy Murphy, Letty Russell, Jacquelyn Grant, Catherine Pickstock. That’s just a few of the ones I’ve read, and they are all really good.
hehehe … Josh, the very people who are defining emergent are also using exclusively male voices to define it. Did you see this morning’s post at Jesus Creed?
that is just too funny sonja. and sad.
100 comments. epic.
I am far more impressed by the discussion, conversation, etc. here than the “map” that Patton put together. Especially after his bow to women with Ruth Tucker (who I would add to the generous list here, btw).
Josh, Josh, Josh, … Come on man. Can you please interact with some of the critiques that are out there from us folks of color. PLEASE! I truly did come here (because one of your buddies told me it would be good)to find some credibility to this “all white” movement but have to say that I am left with nothing. Help a brotha out man! Tell me why this isn’t a bunch of white guys calling something “new” that really isn’t.
I am trying to understand but everybody I talk to (all white men) will not deal with the issue at hand.
I tell you what… I posed this challenge to the guy who was trying (like you) to convince me that your movement isn’t a privileged homogeneous movement. Go to Google and type in the word “emergent” and then tell me what you find. Who pops up? Then come back and interact with me. I truly am listening man!
Couple more things… You guys are trying really hard to be “undefined” and this is truly funny. You wonder why folks don’t take you guys seriously when you try to be so mysterious. Come on dawg!That is some high school stuff. Almost like the whole “indy” rock movement.
Lastly… how is this not a extreme expression of post modernity. Here are some tenants of PM…
- tenancy to shed history and it’s impact
- always labeling and searching for something new
- dogmatic about others
- and once again very white:)
Help me out man! And save the cussing and tough guy stuff please. It does not work here.
Peace,
By the way I put my website and email on here so you can come and holla at me when you get a chance.
whoa.. over a hundred comments on this one.. kinda sorta struck a nerve, eh?
The ethnic-racial diversity conversation has been on-going for years now, and depending on which circles you run in, it is indeed wearisome b/c of such slow progress and little change. The same issues get re-hashed time and again.
And, I think the momentum of the Emergent conversation does weigh much more on theological, philosophical, social justice, and lifestyle issues, and not so much on ethnic diversity, racial tension, racial inequalities right here in the US of A. There’s an occasional mention of (a somewhat related topic) post-colonialism, but that’s essentially kept beyond arm’s length and good philosophical banter, but doesn’t impact much on the home front. And, that’s just where the conversation sits for now.
13 Trackbacks
[...] Brown has just begun a series called Challenging the Critiques of Emergent, which he will be addressing the common critiques of Emergent. The first post is called “A [...]
[...] it important to put some humanity on the history of this “thingy”, as Christy in the comments called it. Tony Jones gives a pretty solid history in his forthcoming book The New Christians (my [...]
[...] reality that we must anticipate in our ecclesiology. I know the emerging church isn’t simply a group of white-dude intellectuals, but I don’t see significant discussion about this. Most denominations and groups [...]
[...] One of the posts deals with the conception that Emergent consists of white guys, sitting around talking about theology. The post itself is well worth a read, as are the comments. One of the comments, from Julie Clawson, is what I want to look into, at the moment. [...]
[...] – An Introduction, 2 – A White Man’s World, 3 – [...]
[...] Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: A White Man’s World. The “emerging church” – same ol’, same ol’ or is there change happening? Is there room at the table for women and people of color? Not just at the table but even at the head of the table? For the record, I do acknowledge there’s some change…but not much. [...]
[...] Emerging Women pointing me to a somewhat lengthy conversation at Josh Brown’s place entitled Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: A White Man’s World. I came late to the conversation; Josh had put up his original post on Feb. 11 and I think there [...]
[...] A White Man’s World [...]
[...] I read posts such as Josh’s critique and participate in conversations about women in church, I often hear a sense of bewilderment and [...]
[...] – An Introduction, 2 – A White Man’s World, 3 – Trend/Denomination, 4- A Public Service Announcement on [...]
[...] Read Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: A White Man’s World. [...]
[...] – An Introduction, 2 – A White Man’s World, 3 – Trend/Denomination, 4- A Public Service Announcement on Friendship, 5 – We Hate [...]
[...] – An Introduction, 2 – A White Man’s World, 3 – Trend/Denomination, 4- A Public Service Announcement on Friendship, 5 – We Hate Scripture, The [...]