Great thoughts Josh. I wholeheartedly agree that there is a large focus put on understanding other cultures and backgrounds in a way that my baptist background never put encouraged from me. The focus is on understanding them, not just learning enough about other cultures to make Jesus relevant to them.
Your “Bapticostal-louiegiglioisgod-megachurchmergent” comment got me thinking… what would it look like if those (formerly) affiliated with that group attempted to bring in the same changes that the Anglican, Espiscipol, and Presbyterian churches did and continue to work within the baptist/nondenom category.

Good series Josh. BTW, though, I have to add a few more sub-sects to your list:

Submergent (Anabaptist)

Convergent (Quakers)

Emergent Nazarenes

UMerging doesn’t quite exist yet as a stable group, but it should….

How do I feel about all this? Ambivalent. On the one hand, I’d like to see denominations just go the way of the dinosaur. But on the other hand, if they’re gonna exist, emergent counterparts (and peace fellowships) are the way to go.

When people criticize an organization for the way it is, I think it’s only fair to consider:

Is it the organization’s goal to be this way or is this something they are not happy about either and something they’re trying to change?

If it’s something they’re trying to change, then the issues are:: can we see movement in the right direction? Are they trying hard enough? If things aren’t changing is it because they aren’t putting the effort in or is there some other reason which is not their fault?

In general I would say, imbalances that are the status quo don’t get fixed simply by people saying “yes, I agree this is out of balance”. It takes effort to fix them and change the status quo. Sometimes a lot of effort.

I’m too much of an outsider to have an opinion about whether the men leading Emergent Village are putting ‘enough effort’ into involving women more - assuming their goal is to be less male-dominated (I have no reason to assume otherwise).

Great thoughts here, Josh. You’ve articulated something more clearly than I could have–if one is ONLY looking at Emergent authors and those doing most of the ‘up front’ talking then maybe there’s some creedence to the critique you’re responding to. BUT I echo your sentiment that in my experiences being a part of meetings, regional cohort gatherings, and the like I’ve encountered much more diversity (race, gender, age…you get the idea).

And to piggyback on Matt’s comments, there’s such a feeling of living out a faith perspective in a missional way that is embraced in emerging communities (or at least the ones I know of) that is not in mainline protestant churches.

It allows us to understand that we’re all in the same basic condition as people, and it destroys the ‘us vs. them’ language that really lies under many approaches by institutionalized places of worship. I think we have the emerging conversation to thank for that.

i like what you say about race/diversity and it seems to hold true.

i am part of a pentecostal church so lack of diversity has never really been an issue, except for maybe lack of middle-class people. is that a problem?!

i was going to ask, what about the second half the criticism, ie. all they do is just “sit around and talk theology”? can you comment on this?

can’t really respond to everyone yet, i have a busy work morning. but i disagree a bit ryan. i think the up front people for emergent only come off as white. simply because they’re the ones the christian empire of the publishing world pushes the hardest. i don’t think it’s any fault of their own. i think the publishing world and “us” (the bloggers, those who buy the books, devour the keynotes) are the ones who push them into the limelight. which is something i’ll address tomorrow with the brand/denomination deal.

i think in the end (and this is where i land with all of my responses to all of these different critiques), is that it has more to do with “us” than tony, doug, brian or whatever other flavor of the month.

danielle shroyer would be huge except she’s too busy being a pastor and a mom to worry about “making it as a big timer”. the same for karen ward. or anthony smith is busy with work. diana with her work with the mainline. salmir being a pastor. there is plenty of diversity but because brian is a professional author and tony is the spokesperson, we assume that the leadership is just white men. when in reality the leadership is diverse. but both of them just happen to be the up front people by default of their occupation, professional author and spokesperson. doug is the exception because he’s primarily a pastor. but he’s a sought after speaker . . . which isn’t doug’s fault. if we really wanted more diversity, we wouldn’t pay doug, brian, and tony to come speak every chance we got. so again, the problem has more to do with us on the outside. rather than those on the inside of leadership.

does that make any sense at all?

ryan. don’t want you to think i was banging on your last comment. just wanted to clarify that thought a bit from my perspective. love everything else you said.

good point carlo . . . i’ll do that friday.

so the updated schedule is

tuesday: denonimation/brand
wednesday: we hate scripture
thursday: emergent is the bastard child of Evangelicalism and doesn’t actually have any positive effect in spreading the gospel.
friday: sit around and talk theology

that should give us a nice round conversation.

Josh wrote: if we really wanted more diversity, we wouldn’t pay doug, brian, and tony to come speak every chance we got. so again, the problem has more to do with us on the outside. rather than those on the inside of leadership.

Josh, if I might respectfully disagree - I don’t think a lack of desire for diversity is the issue - which is good because to me ‘a lack of desire for diversity’ is a polite way of saying people are racist and/or sexist. It also presupposes Emergent people are white males because otherwise, having a white male come speak would already be a choice to embrace diversity.

I think the issue is that people want to hear from The Leaders and The Leaders are white males.

Josh - thanks for your comments here. I agree with most everything you wrote, but I hope you don’t mind if I push back on a few things.

I agree with ryan in that the who the upfront published/speakers are does make a huge difference. Even if that small sampling doesn’t truly represent Emergent, it is what is perceived as reality and so therefore becomes reality for the average outside just beginning to look in. So if at first glance women don’t see themselves represented in a group they don’t feel welcomed by that group.

It took me awhile to realize that aspect of many women’s experience. When the first Emerging Women happened (6 years ago maybe) I thought it was a dumb idea that undermined gender equality in the larger group. Then I got to know some of those women. I heard over and over women say - “why would I want to be a part of something that doesn’t want me?” and as someone who likes Emergent and really appreciates all they have done - that bugged me. So I got involved with Emerging Women in part to help women see that they can have a place in Emergent. I still think there needs to be much more diversity represented in the “first glance” pictures of Emergent in order for this perception to ever change though. To help with that over at Emerging Women we will soon be starting a series of interviews with women in leadership in the emerging church conversation to help other women see that hey there are women out there doing this - we are a significant part and you too are welcome.

Okay this is too long already - but one more issue with how women are represented in Emergent. If you look at the women on the EV Board of Directors they all come from mainline backgrounds and haven’t had to struggle to be accepted by the church as a woman. The mainline women I talk to are shocked that “women’s issues” still exist in the church and see no need to waste time and energy helping women overcome that pain and feel fully welcomed. But most emerging folks are post-evangelical and so most of those women are dealing with (or are still stuck in) sexist church settings. That really colors our experience of the whole thing no matter what others may be hoping we experience otherwise. I think there need to be more post-evangelical women’s voices helping steer Emergent and helping improve how it is perceived.

True, Josh.

And not even close to feel like you’re ‘all up in my grill’

It’s true that the ‘us’ you talk about have put some of those folks into the limelight. I agree. That’s precisely why the critique exists on some level.

The other factor probably worth a quick mention is that when contraversy arises or there’s some sort of a ’special report’ to be done, media outlets tend to gravitate to the same folks. Frankly, they’re not interviewing any of those people you’ve mentioned on that large a scale. They go for the Tony Joneses, Doug Pagitts and Brian McLarens of the world.

Oh - and I hope you don’t mind if I link to this discussion from Emerging Women…

good point ryan. i find this to be a delicate struggle within even our podcast conversations. we simply line up the people that we’re reading and thinking through their thoughts. but it’s tough because there aren’t a lot of diverse ethnic voices that are talking about things that the publishing companies are interested in, so be default, i almost never read things outside of what gets pushed to me. that’s part my fault for being so myopic. but that’s also the fault of the publishing companies who still choose to put the white, man on the platform. there are some great female voices out there with karen sloan and becky garrison to name a couple . . . and what julie is doing with emerging women. but i tend to think most of the problem lays with the 95% of us (myself included) who just don’t take the time to develop nuance in what we read and how we see.

julie. sure thing on the link. as far as the distinction you make between mainline and post-evangelical . . . i think that’s spot on. us dirty evangelicals have a much sketchier past. and i can’t even begin to understand the baggage that comes with being a female in that context. so i probably shouldn’t even say anything . . . i wonder though if “people not feeling like they’re welcome” might at times (not all the time) be more of a knee jerk reaction the first time somebody looks at you the wrong way. i don’t want you to think i’m saying this is the norm. i just know my knee jerk reaction when i was first around emergent events and people, was that these are the most pretentious, stuck-up, elitist group of people i’ve ever been around. but i think that had more to do with my baggage from seeing my own tradition being fully of exclusive, elitist power plays. but in reality, once i got to know the people and got to be friends, i realized that i had a really distorted, stereotypical idea of emergent based off my own biases from my abused past and tradition.

does that make any sense? so what would you think about that if that did make sense? you’re obviously on the ground floor with emerging women. do you see any of it as knee jerk? and what of it is genuine, “we are white men and you don’t fit in here so go do your deal”. i hope that doesn’t sound sarcastic . . . but does that make any sense at all? i feel like i’m rambling.

To shift the conversation back toward semantics and grammar for a second…

I wanted to suggest that using the term “doing emergent” may, in fact, re-inforce the idea that Emergent is a noun.

Think about “doing laundry.” that’s an action, but it is based upon the understanding that the “laundry” is also a “thing.”

I realize you’re probably using the language of those criticizing the movement/conversation/action, but what would happen if you just said “emerging” instead? better yet, what “wouldn’t” happen?

definition is always a helpful thing if you’re trying to pin something down and understand it better, but when you’re dealing with “those who are like the wind” you’re probably chasing after something you’ll never really grasp.

In my mind, such is the emerging movement: it’s something many of us can see and feel and participate in, but it’s certainly not something we’re able to hold, contain or really direct for any substantial amount of time.

julie. i would also say that if emergent leadership is full of mainline women . . . and they seem to be fitting in fine and see themselves as equals . . . then why is that the post-evangelical women have the hang-ups? again, definitely not attacking. but if mainline women are fitting in and contributing and are seen as equals . . . then how is that not also possible for post-evangelicals? are their specific instances of when you or some of the other bloggers didn’t feel like they fit in? i’d be curious to hear the stories on this and to see if they are close to what i experienced in the beginning.

JAMES. i thought some more since our IM conversation.

what if you’re laundering clothes though. laundering becomes the verb and clothes becomes the noun. so what if you’re doing emergent. emergent is laundering and theology is the clothes. so you’re doing emergent.

and you make a good point about being able to pin it down, which is hopefully where i’ll direct tomorrow to. but i’ll say it publicly here what i told you in IM, that i chose EMERGENT as opposed to EMERGING, because i wanted to respond specifically to the criticism against EMERGENT.

good distinctions though.

JOSH. points well taken…the context of your posts (response to criticisms) is super critical and i don’t mean to downplay/ignore that.

i think what the movement needs is actually a lot more puns. they’re like analogies but they’re packed with a lot more dynamite and corn.

Personally, I think Julie makes a good point about the main people in the spotlight of the EC being white males. I’d never thought about it, but I can see how that could look, even if the constituency as a whole is more diverse. However, I still don’t know if I’ve ever actually heard this critique of the ECM. But, if it were true, Blake’s comment would be 100% correct–that would be the charge against most of Western Christianity. At least feminist theology or black theology has the decency to admit that is where they stand. Maybe we could start referring to Reformed theology as “old white dude theology,” and Evangelicalism as “middle-class white dude theology.” Kidding….sort of.

[...] 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 [...]

Thanks for the response. To address your first question -

Yes. Some of this is just knee-jerk reactions. It is easy to feel like an outsider in such a small group. The first time I went to the Glorietta Gathering I felt very much like I didn’t belong and had no right to be there - mostly because it seemed like everyone else had already been friends for years. I had to get over the “oh look there’s an in-crowd” feeling and just be myself and let things be what there were to have a good time. So I know there are women whose first impression of Emergent wasn’t good and so lacking any other more positive input they rejected it outright. And there are women who after years of involvement just got fed up with it and left.

I’ve been at Emerging Women gatherings that are angry at Emergent - some women do want to do their own thing. I don’t view what I do with Emerging Women like that (but of course I don’t speak for all emerging women). With Prebsymergent or Anglimergent, they are seeking to integrate emerging ideas in established separate groups. I see Emerging Women functioning as helping women (mostly post-evangelicals) integrate into the emerging church and doing what I can to make sure they feel welcomed there.
Personally I own the label Emergent and want to support it. But I’m no Condi to just rubber-stamp the status quo and not push for improvement. I like the idea of emergent but always emerging. I know I’ve been labeled as a trouble maker because I ask these questions, but really do push on these issues because I care about EV and want others to experience it’s benefits (sans roadblocks) - and yes I know that sounds really creezy. I’m not a leader, I just like the group and want to be a part of it.

Okay to address the hang-ups of post-evangelical women question…

Women who have been conditioned to act and think certain ways their whole life don’t just get over it overnight. Mainline women who have always interacted as equals know how to jump in on theological discussions and don’t need to be told that it’s okay to do so. Evangelical women not only have been told that they can’t do theology, many have never been part of groups where they could join in on conversations with men. “Nice Christian women” are taught to be polite, respectful, and submissive - very hard things to be if you ever want to get a word in edgewise in a conversation with men.

I saw this firsthand during the first year we led the local Emergent Cohort. The group consisted of mostly younger men and single women (wives never show up, what family shells out babysitting money just so the woman can participate in such things???). The group nearly fell apart after all the women left. They left because they never got a chance to participate in the conversation and constantly received the message that they weren’t wanted. If they tried to speak up, some guy would jump in and talk them down, and as nice Christian women they were “trained” to let that happen. The guys weren’t doing it intentionally or generally even aware of what they were doing, they were just holding a conversation like they had been trained to do. Even after addressing the problem and a few of us started moderating the discussion (which really really pissed the guys off) the dynamics didn’t improve and the group nearly folded. Today we have a much smaller group with all the same problems. To me this is an issue both sides need to address - just asking the women to start acting like men isn’t the best solution. But it takes admitting there is a problem and being willing to take the time to address it before things will change.

I see the same issue in EV. I feel like the male and mainline female leaders sometimes just roll their eyes at evangelical women and wish they would just get over their hang-ups. They don’t want to put the time or energy into making changes on their side so the burden falls on the already struggling and confused women to work out their own issues, tell themselves that this group really does want them, and jump headfirst into participation (often while continuing to be told at their emergingish home church that they need to fulfill the role of “good christian woman”). Honestly who wants to struggle against all that?

This isn’t the story of every woman, but it is a common story. It is an issue that needs to be addressed in order for these women to really enter into the conversation and help the stereotype of “Emergent white male” to truly disappear. But it will take work not just by these women, but by the male leaders and mainline women to not just pretend the problem doesn’t exist and to stop considering it unworthy of their time and energy.

JULIE. you shouldn’t even be allowed to vote so you’re lucky I’m even allowing you to leave a comment.

just kidding as always. just wanted to see what it felt like to be a white, male ass.

you’ve added some great value with the above thoughts. i’ve got to get back to work, but i’ll leave my reflections shortly. anybody else want to respond or add to julie’s thoughts?

“then why is that the post-evangelical women have the hang-ups?”

What I am finding as I venture down this path is that what we are raised with becomes ingrained in our identity and it is a very difficult journey to re-shape our views of ourselves. Our brain likes homeostasis and to introduce dissonance causes anxiety and distress. So when a person spends the majority of their spiritually formative years in a male only leadership paradigm it is very difficult to change especially on the emotional level. Many times things make sense in the intellectual but the emotions remain. On a personal note it has taken years from the time my mind accepted change to where the emotional triggers began to change and I truly saw myself as a leader in the church. And add to that the fear that I may be sinning against God if I go down this path…huge hurdle! There were many messages that I believed that God needed to redeem and it takes time. Women in the mainline faiths have not had to learn new messages about their identity in the church and more importantly their identity in Jesus.

I hope that is coherent!

@josh, great post. i’ve had a pretty hectic day and haven’t been able to weigh in, but this is a great, constructive conversation. didn’t mean to steal your thunder, but i agree; in fact, every time i’ve heard this critique of emergent it has come from a conservative, evangelical circle (not that they’re all homogeneous, but by and large i think it’s a safe bet). it’s almost like they’re looking for something to blow the whistle about, like they feel threatened or something.

@julie and tina, i agree with both of you and that’s why i think it is so, so important for any group to not only talk about inclusivity and acceptance and tout their “token diversity” (that’s what i feel like it is sometimes, though not particularly in emergent), but to also create intentional, genuine, and authentic space of ownership and community for whomever, in this case, post-evangelical women.

sometimes i get the feeling that some want to look diverse and ethnic or whatever, but don’t really want to take the time to meet those persons where they are.

Josh -

My training and experience is in sociology, the non-profit world, and community activism, and I’m a flaming theological and political liberal who was raised very fundamentalist in the Bible Belt - just so you know where I’m coming from. I would consider myself an interested observer, but not a participant in, the emergent conversation/thingy.

In your comments section, you and your commenters have just given an excellent description of institutionalized racism and sexism.(Publishing companies only wanting to hear from white guys, groups automatically gravitating toward inviting white guys to speak, no childcare at meetings and conferences, the dominant group being utterly unaware of the non-dominant groups experiences, etc.) These things don’t “just happen” - there are systems in place that favor certain voices over others, and if you are not intentional about challenging those systems, then nothing will ever change.

For example, if I might get personal, you said, “i can’t even begin to understand the baggage that comes with being a female in that [evangelical] context.” So here’s my question to you: Given the evangelical roots of the majority of the emergent conversation in the U.S., why don’t you understand? What efforts have you made to understand? Do you feel it is at all your responsibility to learn about the experiences of women in the evangelical church or the emergent thing? Do you feel like you have something to learn from women and women’s experience? (Substitute race for gender and you can ask yourself the same questions.)

Let me put these questions another way: Julie’s description of post-evangelical women’s experience is one that I’ve heard from a number of different emergent-y women over the past several years. For me, participating in the emergent conversation would require a great deal of effort on my part. There are aspects of it that interest me very much and ya’ll could damn sure use a sociologist or two, but it’s not my turf or comfort zone. Why should I make the effort to join your conversation on your turf if you don’t plan on making any effort to join my conversations on mine?

Just food for thought…

@ JULIE. thanks for sharing. very insightful stuff and feelings that i wasn’t even aware of. i guess i never had that much “oppression” (poor word choice?) layered on layered on me my whole christian life. it makes me feel horrible for the days when i was an old school fundie in youth groups. and i too felt like that at my first emergent event. i think i’ll share a bit about why i think that dynamic plays itself out that way tomorrow.

as to your concerns . . . i think you’re right in that it serves as an excellent on-ramp to the larger conversation. i think you’re right in that i don’t know if most women would feel comfortable jumping in as active participants and collaborators in emergent at first. i still tend to think that has more to do with the baggage and abuse from their previous traditions as opposed to the intentional devaluing of women in emergent. but either way, it’s a real issue that we need to be aware of. whether it be mainline women being aware of their “sisters” being left behind, or young guys like me who are just unaware of how deep the wounds and abuses of the past are.

again . . . i don’t think it’s necessarily intentional . . . but i think many of us are just unaware. that’s why i think when you say,

“They don’t want to put the time or energy into making changes on their side so the burden falls on the already struggling and confused women to work out their own issues.”

that its a serious call to the rest of us not leave you guys behind.

i guess my larger point was just that in general i don’t think the leadership of EV is to blame. but rather sort of those just recently jumping in on the conversation. or those who are just following loosely.

i could be wrong. but i just don’t see that type of minimizing, flippant attitude being something tony, tim, danielle, the sharps, doug, brian or any of the other de facto “leaders” would be representative of.

again, i think its probably more characteristic of everybody else not in leadership. and i guess that’s my point with all of these sort of criticisms of the criticisms. it’s become fashionable to turn tony, doug, and brian into scapegoats for everything. and to take shots at them. and i just don’t really think they are the ones at fault. but rather ill-informed guys like me.

anyway . . . as always thanks for sharing.

@ CHRISTY. i love the fact that you called it a “thingy”. seems about right. you’re spot on with it being more of a systems thing than an individuals thing. i don’t think any of us really want to come off sexist or racist. but i think we sort of just continue to spin around in the same systems that perpetuate the same myths. and when it’s reinforced by the media - in this case christian publishing - and wide-eyed college kids who think getting a picture with brian mclaren makes them cool. so i’m definitely for challenging the systems. i think a lot of what happens when the individuals reinforce it has to do with many people jumping on the “bandwagon” of emergent or the trend or the brand without doing the necessary theological and sociological work needed to understand the larger framework. in this way, people operate out of the same systems that their previous traditions operated out of. without doing the work on the front end of critical and historical examination of our biases, it becomes tough for us to see the value of females or minorities. hopefully, tomorrow’s discussion can tough on this as well.

as a side note, i do make an effort to understand. i’m constantly in conversations, learning, critiquing, bending, breaking, thinking, and acting in new ways that are open to the other. i only think it’s a shame that a couple of bad apples spoil it for everyone else.

thanks for stopping by christy!

Josh wrote: again, i think its probably more characteristic of everybody else not in leadership. and i guess that’s my point with all of these sort of criticisms of the criticisms. it’s become fashionable to turn tony, doug, and brian into scapegoats for everything. and to take shots at them. and i just don’t really think they are the ones at fault. but rather ill-informed guys like me.

I like how you don’t want to turn the national leaders into scapegoats as if any issues were all their fault, so it’s an issue concerning “us” not “them”.

However - and this might be about all the leaders, not just the national ones - isn’t it the role of leaders to lead in a) noticing what’s wrong and helping others notice b) addressing it and helping others address it?

Isn’t that what leadership is all about?

Julie wrote about a problem with the local cohort and she, as a local leader, didn’t just say “Wow, the members have a problem we leaders don’t have”. She intervened and tried to fix it.

Don’t the national leaders need to be equally involved - in whatever way is appropriate - if something is going awry among the non-national leader members of Emergent?

And even if the leaders don’t personally demonstrate whatever problem might be going on, the privilege and price of leadership is ‘the buck stops here’ isn’t it?

Or is that not how leadership works in Emergent? (I don’t know if it is or not - as I said I’m an outsider - I’m just saying, I don’t know of any functioning leadership which doesn’t work like this)

@ HELEN that’s a good question helen. i keep waiting for tony to pop his head in here and give some reflections. since i have the esteemed privilege of not being in leadership and get afforded the luxury of distance to take shots if i should so choose . . . i probably shouldn’t say.

i think a lot of this has to do with the fact that emergent doesn’t consider itself a denomination . . . again alluding to tomorrow’s thoughts . . . but most everybody in leadership is a full time pastor or a full time author. emergent is less something to control and “steer” so to speak as it is to sort of float along with it wherever it goes. i don’t want to speak for the leadership, but i would imagine they they’d be just as cool folding up shop and going home if it became a denomination or if it ever became dependent upon them to “LEAD” in a traditional, top-down way. i’m not saying it gives them a pass to not hear and respond to concerns from some people, in this case the post-evangelical women. but rather they probably don’t see it as their job to put out fires in the “group” when they’re hands are probably full enough putting out fires in their communities. so to speak. you know what i mean?

This conversation is excellent: it seems that if those critiquing the movement as a whole would just read this thread, and others like it, they wouldn’t have much to stand on (you’d think). In other words, this is precisely the work that makes the emerging movement tick. People, not afraid to disagree nor too prideful to admit ignorance on peripheral issues. Yet Christ at the center all the while.

Thank you Josh, and everybody - and I look forward to the rest of the week’s conversation.

Josh - no, not mad at all

I agree no one in particular can really be blamed in these sorts of issues. I see it like I do most justice issues. We can’t point a finger and blame one particular person for the world’s poverty or global warming - we share the blame collectively and have to each do our part to make things better. If we all go around thinking that someone else will deal with it, or that we are too busy to take the time to care nothing will ever change.

I agree with Helen that it takes the voices of the “leaders” to inspire and set examples. Whether they want to be leaders or not and whether or not they are part of the problem matters little when people still look to them to direction and advice.

Jacob: “it seems that if those critiquing the movement as a whole would just read this thread, and others like it, they wouldn’t have much to stand on”

Really? You think the profound lack of empathy and awareness displayed above is a good thing? I think the dialogue above is a pretty good indication that there are a whole raft of issues that have been completely ignored for years. Julie is making a valiant effort, but you have to wonder why there has to be an “Emerging Women” group at all - surely that’s just one more way of marginalizing women’s voices. Sure, it seems like a good thing on the surface, but if they can be made to play “over there”, the guys don’t have to deal with it. Go back and read Christy’s comment carefully, three times.

Julie: “I agree with Helen that it takes the voices of the “leaders” to inspire and set examples.”

Uh-huh. It seems to me that anyone that sets themselves up to be a leader of anything has the obligation to lead, and not just blow off some critical responsibilities. See Helen’s comment above:

“isn’t it the role of leaders to lead in a) noticing what’s wrong and helping others notice b) addressing it and helping others address it?”

Overall, I’d say this whole comment section has shown that, “Emergent is just a bunch of white guys sitting around and talking theology”, is still way more true than untrue.

@ DAVE with all due respect, i think you’re wrong. what jacob meant is that most of us are willing to have a generous open conversation without resorting to name calling. or negativity. we are all honestly talking about our concerns and hang ups with each other’s conclusion, thus growing stronger and deeper in the process. so i think jacob is right. why don’t you ask julie, helen, or christy if they prefer this type of open engagement as opposed to the alternative.

as for this whole comment section being indicative of the criticism, you must have missed some of the insightful contributions and emphasis that women brought to this discussion. so i’m not sure it’s a bunch of white guys sitting around talking. by my last glance, it looked like a lot of non-men left comments.

and nobody is advocating that the girls “go over there and play” so we don’t have to deal with it. with all due respect that’s a shitty interpretation of this comment thread. if anything we’re saying come back over to our sandbox and let’s collaborate together. come back over and let us listen and hear your concerns.

so no offense, but i think you’re off base man. and you either haven’t 1) been listening or 2) have your mind made up already, or 3) are just cocky enough (pun intended) to jump in on a conversation at the back end and assert your opinion as fact without attempting to join in the conversation, but rather just echo the points that you agree with.

you know what i mean?

Josh, yes I do - I appreciate leaders who want to avoid being overcontrolling. I’ve experienced more than I wanted to of the other kind.

But - I’m thinking even non-controlling leaders need to lead - in a non-controlling way. Maybe there’s a different word/phrase for what they do - like, guiding?

Also, maybe more of the people who have leadership abilities who aren’t officially ‘leaders’ need to step up and lead others into better awareness and better practices. Maybe that’s what you’re doing, right here.

Julie thanks for your comment about the voices of leaders.

The conversation on this has been great. I like the respect here. I came over from Emerging Women when Julie told us about this post, and I’m glad I did. I’m looking forward to the series this week.

I am still an Evangelical. I was lucky to find a denomination in my early 20s that had been ordaining women since 1903 (The Church of the Nazarene). It does take time to undo all the “male headship” stuff, and it wasn’t near as popular in evangelicalism then (1980s into early 90s) as it is now. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and the SBC were no not near as patriarchal as they are now. But Julie is right. It does take time.

I learned how to hold my own in college classes as a religion major and by seminary it was no problem to break into conversations and make myself heard. But you do have to rewire your brain and constantly tell yourself that your voice is just as relevant as anyone else in the conversation. It takes time, guts, and a lot of grace.

I have to agree with Helen also: it would be nice to see some of the national leaders begin to address this and call attention to it. I am very big on leading by example, so I think it would be great if this became part of the larger conversation.

Hey, Josh … coming to the party late, but I wanted to let you know this was a good article …
Although I’ve never heard this critique of Emergent, per se, but if it exists, it is pretty lame … there are many other denominations, groups or movements that are at least as guilty if not more so of being white and talking theology.

But I guess on one level, when a new movement (or whatever you want to call emergent) begins or continues, there is a necessary self-analysis that takes place. Every similar movement (every denomination started as a movement before someone screwed it up and had to organize it and further define it) has their spokesmen and theologians. The only problem is when you don’t combine what you believe with real, genuine action. That’s when a movement becomes obselete.

Peace.

maybe this is an over-simplification, but is it fair to say that each ’sub group’ (emergent women or _______-mergent) exist on some level for those that are struggling with the issues that are specific to one’s context?

For instance, Presbyterians are facing different sorts of friction doctrinally and from a tradition standpoint basically because they’re Presbyterians. Same could go for other groups as well I suppose.

It seems as though the problem isn’t that they exist per se, rather that others outside haven’t necessarily validated the struggle by listening to stories or entering into their dialogue. This would especially be true of EW ladies I suspect.

We probably have to remain careful that we not make some of the same mistakes that started some of this ‘post-evangelical’ dialogue–like expecting people to come on to our turf instead of meeting them on theirs…

Make sense?

Josh,

good thoughts and good conversations.

in my opinion, we need to take a [big] step back. while i do think the question about ‘white men’ needs to be addressed, there’s a bigger issue. and it’s the issue of white power and white privilege.

we live in a broken society with power structures. and so, when people are critical of the white men in emergent circles [as i have], i’m also asking…

“what are we doing to subvert the powers of race and privilege.”

to do nothing about white power/privilege is to simply comply with the current structures.

my 2 cents.

[...] 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 [...]

@ EUGENE. i think that’s a good point eugene. dj was talking about this to me the other night. that the larger problems is not so much with our nuances as it is that we have power and privilege issues. he and i argued that it’s not possible or even beneficial to simply abandon them. but rather think critically about how to share them and subvert them. so i’m with you. i just don’t know exactly how to do this. and i’m a bit reluctant to do this because i’d still be creating a solution coming from my perspective of power and privileges. any ideas?

@ HELEN i hesitate to even say anything because you say it so well and make the point better than i could.

@ SHAWNA thanks for sharing your perspective. i think a lot of men could go through a thorough rewiring ourselves!

@ BRITT you’re spot on about the self-analysis. i think it’s healthy but we have to move past it or we’ll stay infant-like. or just stupid.

@ RYAN good points ryan. i like to think of each group as an on-ramp. although i think some of the groups might even look to emergent as an on-ramp to their particular, local conversations. and i think there is some value to seeing the metaphor as working in both directions.

josh: hmmm. if i shared my ideas with you, i’d be blackballed. kinda joking and kinda serious.

absolutely not. fire away eugene.

*If they tried to speak up, some guy would jump in and talk them down, and as nice Christian women they were “trained” to let that happen. The guys weren’t doing it intentionally or generally even aware of what they were doing, they were just holding a conversation like they had been trained to do.*
See Julie, that’s exactly the problem. When we (guys) get together to midrash and dialog, we talk over each other to get our own view heard…and it IS the way we’ve been trained. There is always the struggle to sit still and listen and think about what the other person is saying before responding. We need to relearn the way we dialog if we are going to allow women to part of the leadership conversation.

Glad to hear that women (white and others) are included in the conversation. However - if one looks at the books which are published in the ‘emergent’ or PoMo stream, (or whatever you want to call it) a highly disproportionate number are still published by white men. The reason? The Golden Rule (”Them’s that have the gold, makes the rules.”)

And Julie, I’m with you. I stopped my seminary training last time around (25 years ago) because I was told that “true Christian women” weren’t supposed to be pastors. And dummy me, I listened. Then. No more. I may be the oldest person in my classes, but I’m there.

My other pet peeve? Being told that I have been asked to preach on a particular topic because “we think a woman’s point of view would be interesting.” Pardon me while I gag, but… since I hear a man’s point all the time, why WOULDN’T it be good to hear a woman’s ANY time?

OK… rant over.
Carry on.

Deb

josh: honestly, i just don’t have the energy to go deep into the conversation but it is a worthwhile conversation.

as i shared earlier, we’re talking about the emerging church context but we need to go deeper. we live in a white man’s world. there’s power and influence here so we have to ask how are we as revolutionary followers of jesus - who debunked the systemic structures during his life - working, living, ministering, writing, speaking and creating to work towards that end.

power, voice and influence is not easily pursued. it must be distributed from those who have that very voice and influence. and beacause it is so counter-cultural, we have to be that much more intentional.

as a male, i am embarrased at times at the manner in which we directly, indirectly, or systemically oppress our sisters. while there’s a legitimate female candidate for the president of this country, there are many who still wonder if women should be in leadership. i know that it’s a biblical issue and not a personal issue but why would women want to subject themselves to these questions again and again and again.

one last thought: my dining hall in seminary was unfortunately segregated. it’s not bad per se but it IS bad when it becomes the normative. in a conversation about diversity in a classroom, a white brother [with good intent] spoke about the dining hall to be a great place for people to integrate and grow in our unity and diversity.

it sounded great but then he went on to say: [paraphrase] “So, I want to invite you [speaking to the people of color and internatinonal students] to come and join us and sit at our tables.”

I can’t tell you the number of rolling eyes and expletives that came out of a few of us.

1 we have to be the ones to move.
2 we are and will always be - in some form, shape, or another - in a white man’s world - seen as the “other”

my word of “encouragement” to him was: “dude, you get up and you come to our table.”

it’s a worthwhile conversation for sure. but i will also say it’s an extremely exhausting one for some of us.

thanks for calling people to the conversation.

[...] 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 [...]

Wow, where to begin…?

I am a rabid blogger, much like many of you. I am a Christ follower, much like many of you. I am “emerging,” very unlike many of you.

It is absolutely arrogant for those in positions of racial privilege and power to assert that everyone else should own your pre-packaged label. Who cam eup with the terms “Emergent” and “Emergent Church?” Who branded them? Who wrote the first books that were published by Zondervan through YS? Who is getting PAID to travel and write and speak and blah, blah, blah about all of this?

The list is small and exclusive.

Adding women to the board and finding some empathetic people of color to sign on does not make this a movement that represents anti-racism nor racial reconciliation. The indigenously led Church that was borne in the midst of horrific racism and oppression - the Church that was founded in spite of broken treaties and racial Genocide in this Country - now THAT is an emergent Church! Without blacks and Natives in the Founder’s circle of this movement, what makes it any different than other movements that have claimed the same broad base of ownership? Where is the black Brian McClaren? The Native Tony Jones?

@ eugene no doubt dude. thanks for sharing. i’m definitely about moving across to sit at your table. but i often wonder how that plays out theologically. if you believe that all theology is local and contextual, which i do. i certainly don’t mind being shaped and challenged by other cultures (i.e. localities) but me becoming asian isn’t going to address the problems of my white suburbs. you turning white isn’t going to create change in your context. it seems to me like switching what table we’re sitting at is simply trading one end of the spectrum for the other. i wonder if we couldn’t just get rid of the tables all together and all recognize are limitations and abuses and value our diversity and localities?

@ CHRIS having a black brian mclaren doesn’t fix the problem of racial reconcilation? lets be honest, the issues are way deeper than that. also . . . i still think you’re seeing things way too black and white. women who want to get published get published. men who want to get published get published. i’m not saying their aren’t issues or baggage involved or systemic issues at play. but it’s way more nuanced than having a black mclaren and an native tony jones. perhaps women don’t see writing as a viable profession. perhaps they still HAVE to think of themselves as mothers first. i’m not saying it’s right. that’s why i’d rather deeply address the issues instead of just saying we need to add more women or color. the real issue is that women aren’t taught from an early age to be equals and collaborators. the real issue is that some minorities are too busy dealing with other injustices to worry about sitting around talking about theology. to them, their daily wrestling with injustice is theology enough. i’d rather be involved at that level discussing these things instead of just arbitrarily throwing out quotas that need to be met.

and i still think something can be said for different people operate and do theology in specific, local contexts.

I was referred to this particular by a guy named Mike who says that you are addressing the questioning of the emergent movement being that of “a bunch of white guys talking theology”. I think this has been an interesting discussion but the comments still suggest to me the same.
Maybe I have already made up my mind? Right now I don’t know if that is the case. I do know that I have grown tired of the “emerging” discussion. I really don’t have the energy to deal with it so your point about us folks of color dealing with a lot of other “stuff” is true.
But in all fairness I do think that I want the “emergent” church to join in with the rest of us (urban ministers both white and of color)so this is why I continue to half way have the conversation. I am just tired as a man of color of being invited to the meeting and to join. I have said before that I want to be in the meeting before the meeting.
You have to understand that it is really hard to join in on something that has already happened.Man bro I am trying. As I start a church here in the bay area I am asked by many outside of my city who want me to come and speak and be apart of their movement but my first initial response is (like Eugene)… “man I am not coming anywhere… you guys come to my neighborhood and let’s talk about how God has been and is at work in my community and that there is a lot to be learned from “the least of these.”
But again I just don’t have the energy so I just take their card and give them a hug and say “God bless bro!”
I know this is long but I just wanted to tell you how I feel. Take it with a grain of salt.
I will end with this. I really don’t even know what emergent means anymore do be honest. Like most movements it has become relative in it’s definition. Here is what I am… I am a urban pastor of color who 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.

Grace and Peace,

I am racially exhausted!

Wow … well, I’m coming to the conversation late because I’ve been out of the loop for a few days. But I’ll just make a few observations of a statistical nature, because that’s what I am … by nature.

First, it would do some good to look at the make up of the Emergent Board and governing bodies. They are overwhelmingly white men. The people who make the choices about who should fill those positions continually choose white men.

Second, yes, women and men of color get published. But who gets read and reviewed? Ahhh … that’s a different question. With a substantially different answer.

Third and, perhaps most pertinent to this conversation, I have read through these comments and noticed that the people who asked the most incisive questions, were not substantively answered or were summarily dismissed (Christy, Dave Paisley and Chris Brooks). Josh, I know you can do better than this.

This is difficult work, but it can only be accomplished when we fully embrace and engage with it. This conversation is simply paying lip service to the idea.

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.

[...] 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. [...]

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.

[...] - 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 [...]

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?

[...] A White Man’s World  [...]

@ 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.

[...] I read posts such as Josh’s critique and participate in conversations about women in church, I often hear a sense of bewilderment and [...]

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