Jacob’s Well « IAmJoshBrown

Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: The Bastard Child of Evangelicalism.

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.

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

I’ve lost all kinds of momentum with this deal if you haven’t noticed. Some people just know how to suck the fun out of things. I really only intended to write the first 3. But some of the commenters in the first post asked if I would respond to this criticism . . .

Emergent is the bastard child of Evangelicalism and doesn’t actually have any positive effect in spreading the gospel.

I’ll admit that I’ve only heard this criticism a couple of times and it mostly comes from those ultra-fundies standing on the outside lobbing grenades over the fence, so I don’t want to spend too much time on this one either. Even those who aren’t fans of Emergent but who still have some sort of intelligence don’t even think this.

I think what people mean when they say this is that we’re it’s just a rehashing of the Protestant liberalism of the late 20th century. That we’re all just a bunch of liberal hippies who don’t want to believe in miracles or anything supernatural so we have to deconstruct everything. Again, I think this has to do more with misinformation and fear. So it becomes easier to just dismiss Emergent as some bastardized version of christianity. Meaning it’s a lot of fluff but not a lot of substance.

I couldn’t disagree more.

I suppose the majority of this criticism comes because it’s so hard to exactly pin down what emergents believe. In the case of politics, most of us all over the map. In the case of economics, we’re even more diverse. And don’t even get us talking about theology. Emergent is just such an extremely diverse group.

For example, my best friend and the better half of our podcast, Nick is all about some Jesus Seminar stuff. He loves Spong, Borg, Campbell, and Ehrman. He doesn’t jive with miracles or the supernatural. He’s a skeptical un/believer. He thinks of himself an agnostic. But between us girls, I think that part is just for shock value. Just kidding.

But Nick is really interested in historical and textual criticisms. By most people’s account (not mine) . . . he plays pretty loose and liberal with his interpretations and approach to the bible.

I couldn’t ask for a better friend. Nor do I know of a nicer person. Or someone who believes and practices making the world a better place in the here and now. Nick is about as “christian” as it gets.

Me on the other hand, the Jesus Seminar kind of makes my stomach turn. I think it’s built off of the same absolute, foundationalist approach that the religious right use, only on the other extreme. I still believe in the possibility of the supernatural and miracles.

But the beautiful thing about us and our friendship, is that we’re both “emergent” in the sense that we believe strongly in friendship and believe that living into the way of Jesus is one of the most provocative ways of living in the here and now, and in any possibility of the future.

We are emergent. By all popular definitions of standards. But we are pretty different in theology and practice.

So I think what rubs most people the wrong way about emergent is that because we’re not clearly defined, nor do we have a black and white, concise doctrinal statement . . . that somehow we must all be raging, flag burning, bastard children of the evangelical church. The natural consequence or progression of what got spit out of the seeker-sensitive/megachurch movements of the 80s and 90s. While there may be some merit to that history influencing where we are . . . I think it’s a gross overstatement to think that we’re all just some homogeneous group that you can pigeonhole.

And furthermore . . . that because we’re not some homogenized group that the logical conclusion must then be that we’re some deformed, stunted, reject movement.

The problem is that many critics jump to that conclusion. That because there is no doctrinal statement, and because we’re all pretty diverse . . . that we must be some deformed, stunted, rejects. And if we’re deformed, stunted, rejects then obviously we don’t play a positive role in the advancement of the gospel.

That last phrase could take me forever to unpack, but just a quick side note, I wonder what some one means when they say advancement and what they mean when they say gospel. That’s part of the problem there is that we have different starting and working definitions of that idea.

I think to assume that it’s a bad thing to be a diverse group is a faulty premise. And to assume that Emergent must then be some sort of “bastard child” or deformed, theologically stunted group is a faulty premise. And to assume from that we play no role in the gospel (God’s hopes and dreams for the world) is a faulty premise.

In the end, most of these critics have never been to a church with an emergent flavor. Or have met an emergent-type person. Or have ever really deeply considered influences on an emergent theology. It’s no wonder that they come to such faulty conclusions.

If you met Tim Keel and went to Jacob’s well, you’d be hard pressed to not see the gospel being realized in it’s community. If you went to Freemont and visited with Karen Ward and her friends, you’d find it difficult to ignore the gospel coming to life in it’s midst. If you were at a cohort in Chicago or Boston, you wouldn’t be able to ignore the possibilities that are being awakened by the imagination of the gospel. If were at a conference in St. Petersburg, you would see the gospel taking shape in late night conversations and gracious hospitality.

But you’d have to get involved to know this. You’d have to get your hands dirty.

It’s much easier to stand on the sidelines reading a few blogs here and there. Or turning Doug or Tony or Phylis or Brian or Spencer or Diana into caricatures. But if you got to know the people, if you got to be a part of the communities being shaped by the conversation, if you got to be a practitioner alongside some people . . . you wouldn’t find it such an easy thing to gripe and moan.

Listening: American Idiot by Green Day

19. February 2008 | 5 Kommentare »

Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: We Hate Scripture.

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

For those who haven’t noticed, I ran out of a bit of steam last week. I probably bit off more than I could chew and leaned to far towards my ambitious side. I also relied to heavily on my optimism in reason and friendship, thinking that they would help give some people the benefit of the doubt. I guess I didn’t realize just how opposed to both of those things some people are. Oh well. The first two criticisms, A White Man’s World and Trend/Denomination have for the most part come from friends or at least sympathizers with Emergent. The next two criticisms (We Hate Scripture and We Are The Bastard Child of Evangelicalism and Lack Any Real Effect In The Spreading of the Gospel) come more from the angry, conservative branches of the Christian right. So I’m bracing myself for a different kind of commenter. And if any of you have the time or feel like entering the fray this week, now would be a good time to share your thoughts on these, so I don’t have to resort to my own angry, cursing sailor self. Cheers.

Here is today’s criticism . . . Emergents hate scripture and don’t believe in God’s word. Or something along those lines.

The topic of scripture is something I’ve written about extensively on this blog. I even did a series of collected thoughts that you can find here. So I’m not going to get into an exhaustive(ing) discourse of the academic, narrative, spiritual, intellectual, and historical work that I think is necessary to understand the finer points of many emergents and their perspectives on scripture. Including my own. You can read my thoughts at the above link or you can read or listen to where I got my thoughts from with McLaren, Jones, Pagitt, Butler-Bass, or any of the other leaders who have written on the topic.

Bottom line . . . never in my short heretical life have I heard any emergent-esque person or friend say they hate the bible. In fact, I’ve never heard anybody even speak derogatorily about the narrative of scripture, outside of a few of us who tend to work ourselves up into a dither when talking about Paul’s own set of issues that he brings to the table. But that’s another story.

I’m not just saying this because it makes my point, but I’m in a lot of conversations in person and around the web and I never hear anyone talk disparagingly about scripture.

Listening to the critics you would think that we all get together to drink a few beers in a bar and decide to all take out our pocket new testaments out for a quick page tearing. “I hate the bible! I wish I could get rid of the pages that I don’t like so I can marry people of the same sex!” Or, “Screw this damned leather bound student edition of the bible so I can have sex with my college girlfriend!”

Contrary to popular belief, it doesn’t exactly go down like that.

I think there are a growing group of people (with which emergents are just one group) who are simply trying to be honest in our approach to the text. This is something that many in the mainline have understood for a while, but something that many of us post-evangelicals are just beginning to rediscover.

In the past, many of us approached the bible like a black and white text book. We read it like science. And we stripped mined it for “resources”, which is a nice way of saying “proof-texts that agree with our perspective or reinforce our theologies”. We read ourselves into it acknowledging our own local, particular place of perspective.

We still read ourselves into the story but now we attempt to do better at recognizing our own limited and biased perspectives. We now read it with all of it’s nuance. It’s not just black and white science but poetry, romance, history, imagination, discourse, personal letter, family journal.

I think that metaphor works best for us. That of family journal or photo album. If my grandmother was a famous lecturer and specialist in her field . . . I could learn about her by reading her lectures, articles, books, and theses. But if I relied on that to learn about my grandmother, I would never “know” her. I would only “know about” her. To truly know my grandmother, it would make sense to be in relationship with her. And if by some chance she had passed on from this life . . . then I would get to know her by getting to know the people that knew her. I’d spend time talking to her friends. I’d listen to their stories of her. I’d read her journal. Or her love letters to her husband. Or I’d flip through a scrapbook of her pictures and of her travels. In a sense . . . the community of my grandmother. That is the home in which my grandmother makes sense.

This approach to my grandmother would give me a much fuller and richer understanding of her.

It is to this way that many of us approach the text of scripture.

We aren’t attempting to refashion our “grandmothers” into our context. We’re simply let our “grandmothers” be what they are . . . full of beauty and peculiarity. The value of the text then moves away from abstract, detached “truths” and towards local, honest narratives of our family’s history. Stories of how our family/community related to God and how God in turn related to them. In this light, the idea of narrative is not some idealistic way for us to diss scripture.

It just means that it’s value is rooted in something entirely different than right or wrong assertions to truth. It’s value is in that the community has claimed it as it’s story. Sharing it. Giving it. Receiving it. But never owning it.

If this means we “hate scripture” or “twist it to fit our culture” then I suppose we’re guilty as charged. I just happen to think it means that we appreciate it for what it is, the story of the community of God with all it’s flavor, diversity, and nuance.

Again . . . I’m not going to write some lengthy response to this criticism because many other people have done a much better and more comprehensive job of it. Tony Jones’ banned lecture at Wheaton being at the top of the list. And partly because nothing we say will appease the critics on this one. I will add one last thought though . . . I think what “side of the fence” you come down on this is incredibly foundational to wherever you go from here. I think this is why there is such a great discrepancy among christians when it comes to war, atonement, ecclesiology, end-times, salvation, and Jesus to name a few. So I understand why so many of the critics are concerned about “the slippery road” as they perceive it.

Listening: Before The Dawn Heals Us by M83

17. February 2008 | 34 Kommentare »

Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: A Public Service Announcement on Friendship.

1 – An Introduction, 2 – A White Man’s World, 3 – Trend/Denomination

I think it’s important that we take a brief interlude from this deal. I didn’t post yesterday when I intended to do so because I was so exhausted putting out fires from some red-eyed commenters who were going off about my eternal security and some stuff about the bible. It’s all a blur and I can’t remember exactly what was written, but I just checked out. I don’t know how guys like Brian and Tony do what they do when they get so much shit thrown at them non-stop. I’m thinking about starting an army like Dumbledore’s Army if anyone wants in?

I’m all about non-violence when it comes to war but I’ve got way more violence in my heart than I thought when visions of me doing round house kicks into people’s neck meat became more and more frequent.

So sorry for not continuing yesterday like I had planned and promised. But I needed a break without looking at comments and getting pissed. I know I should just put on my big boy pants and let things go. But some people just suck the fun out of generous, engaging, fruitful conversation when they try to back you into a corner with their polemical bullying, and then throw some mashed up scripture verses on the end to make you feel guilty for being an ass.

Maybe it’s just my youthful nature, or the fact that I still suck at living into the way of Jesus, but sometimes being an ass is the best I can muster. So now that I got my “I’m a poor martyr, please feel sorry for me” speech out of the way . . . I’d like to rephrase my trend/denomination thoughts.

Friendship isn’t an ideal. Or a cliché. Or something that is just a cursory mention.

Friendship is all there is. If you take away friendship, Emergent doesn’t exist. There is nothing left.

It’s not a feel-good phrase. Or a cute little way of couching things. It is what gives everything in Emergent it’s flavor, it’s depth, and it’s life. You take it away and you have nothing but a bunch of insecure people on the outside looking in who are pissed that they feel that they aren’t cool and think they should have a book deal. A good majority of the criticism directed at Emergent comes from people who feel like they were the last ones picked for an elementary school kickball game. It comes from people who are envious that they didn’t get picked to sit at the cool table.

For example . . . this Tucker Carlson knock-off whose to scared to say shit (he says ’scatology’) and his 50 sermons on why he thinks Brian is evil. It sort of just comes off pathetic.

And so instead of giving some people the benefit of the doubt, and realizing that maybe . . . just maybe . . . they’re not the spawn of satan but rather absent-minded humans at time . . . instead of making an effort to get dirty in friendship (that should be the name of a christian rap song) . . . they check out, pick up a few rocks, grab a few nails and hammer, and go about the business of dehumanizing people.

I know I easily fall into this trap on a regular basis (especially when I’m baited into it). But I don’t want to live there. Others do.

I have a lot of people that I strongly and foundationaly disagree with. But bottom line . . . we’re friends. I’ve got friends who dig John Piper and who love reformed theology. I’ve got friends who think W is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And I’ve got guys who have made capitalism an idol. I’ve got friends who make a butt-load of money and I’ve got friends who have little. I’ve got friends who pray every freaking day for hours on end and I’ve got friends who still like to sing romantic love songs to Jesus. It kind of makes me want to throw up in my mouth a bit but they love it. Just as I’m sure my “limp-wristed” theology wants to make them toss a few cookies. But we are friends first. And we deal with other’s “baggage” not because we have to or because we’re “called” to, but because we’re friends. We don’t just tolerate each other. We know each other.

That’s why Julie, Helen, Tina, and Christy to name a few can push back, and push back hard against my thoughts . . . but can still be friends. Because they are generous, they are open, they are thoughtful, they are engaging. And somebody like Lisa can come in and be a robotic, disconnected nut job. Some are committed to friendship, learning, openness, and conversation. And some just want to be right.

And before you start pulling out a bunch of proof texting talking about loving your enemies and all that jazz . . . Jesus wasn’t so patient with the religious leaders of the day. He gave his real enemies . . . Pilot, Rome, and others a pass . . . they knew not what they did. But the religious leaders . . . I think it went something along the lines of BUZZ OFF.

Friendship is only possible when you’re open to the other. Most of us “emergents” are willing to meet you half way . . . but if you’re going to be closed off from the start . . . and jump right in with your ridiculous polemic . . . well then I’m not going to waste my time.

Emergent is friendship. Period. It started that way. It’ll end that way. The second it moves from that to something else . . . a trend, a denomination . . . it’ll disappear. And there are way too many people jumping on board who want some faux-liberal-I-want-to-feel-like-a-rebel-for-10-minutes feeling. But they aren’t willing to examine their foundations. They aren’t willing to open themselves up to the other. They aren’t willing to engage in deep friendship.

It’s no surprise then that some people just don’t “get it”.

Nothing is clearer than this than when a bunch of friends are having a nice, robust, formative conversation and then it gets hijacked by a bunch of fundies who troll the Emergent Village site (I got linked the other day) so they can pounce and flex their midget muscles.

Again, I’d like to reiterate this one thought . . . those who are committed to friendship don’t have a lot of complaints. And if they do, they are able to deal, process, and hold them within the tension of the friendship. Those who live on islands by themselves (or an island with only like-minded believers) are the ones who have the problems. So before I begin again (tomorrow?) with the rest of my reflections . . . just be forewarned . . . Pharisees aren’t allowed. So don’t bait me or you’ll end up in spam-aradise. Amen? And no more nasty personal emails while we’re at it.
Listening: Tinariwen by Aman Iman

14. February 2008 | 13 Kommentare »

Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: Trend/Denomination.

1 – An Introduction, 2 – A White Man’s World

I think this criticism is closely connected to the first and naturally, I think the response should be similar. Ultimately, I don’t necessarily think it’s the leadership at Emergent that is at fault, but rather the ill-informed people at the edges. This is not to give Emergent a pass, but rather to think comprehensively about these issues in such a way that a scapegoat is not necessary. And this may not be the type of response that most people are looking for because it sort of became my my biased historical interpretation.

Today’s criticism . . . Emergent Is Just A Trendy Brand/Flash In The Pan That Will Eventually Become A Denomination . . . And that’s what the leaders want it to become or are pushing it to become.

First of all, I think 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 review here), which fittingly enough releases today on Amazon. It’s worth the price of the book alone. But I think he misses an important part of the history, although what do I know . . . I wasn’t exactly there. But in the beginning, Emergent gathered shape and substance (ht: Josh Case) primarily due to the lack of a peer group. In the late 90s and early 0s (?) many of the now Emergent leadership, were busy planting and pastoring churches in new and innovative ways. People like Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren, Danielle Grubb Shroyer, Dan Kimball, Tim Keel, etc, were planting and pastoring churches. They were some of the first people (in the States at least) that were practicing these things. By default of not having any other “peers” many of these leaders forged friendships with each other in order to think and practice together.

This history can’t be glossed over. Emergent began and has at it’s roots in peer-to-peer networking, which is a formal way of saying friendship. This value of friendship drives everything about Emergent. Not just its generous posture for theological conversation but for the entire tone and nature of the “organism” itself.

I’ve heard way too many people assume that it was created as an organization in reaction to modern Christianity/Mainline/Evangelicalism. It never gained it’s shape and substance by beginning that way. It’s shape and substance has always been rooted in it’s friendships. This is why it’s not cliché or cursory to talk about a deep commitment to one another. They were a group of rag tag practicing pastors. And not a group of pissed off ex-church workers looking to create the next “thing” in reaction to their past. They were fresh, thoughtful, provocative, practicing friends. This was and has been the spirit of emergent.

So with that history in mind . . . and knowing the nature and intent of the shape and substance that was emerging (pun intended) from this group . . . we can begin to think about how we got from this little small group of friends almost a decade ago to this growing empire (sarcasm implied) with it’s various genres or flavors (Emerging Women, emerging church, Presbymergent, Anglimergent*, Convergent, etc).

I have a hunch that in the beginning many of the Emergent Village leaders never thought that they would grow this large (i.e. that people wouldn’t think they were crazy and actually want to jump on board). But people began to listen and engage with the thoughts and practices that were emerging from these young churches. As these ideas started resonating with others, momentum continued to swell forward and more and more people came on board. I was a late comer, although I can brag with confidence that I use to go daily to the now defunct Emergent Village message boards and stir the pot with my fellow heretics. Many of the people that jumped on in the beginning years began doing the theological legwork that the rag tag group of pastors had done when they started. They began to arrive at the same type of conclusions that the early/first group did. They began with a healthy diet of Wright, Newbigin, Bosch, Guder, Brueggemann, Hauerwas, and Moltmann to name a few. By reading these books and engaging in lengthy conversations about the nature of their thoughts and conclusions . . . everybody was on the same page about what Emergent was and would be. Perhaps not necessarily at homogeneous conclusions, but rather about the spirit and friendship of Emergent.

At this point my history lesson gets a bit on the biased, snarky side. Take it with a grain of salt.

But then something happened. Some people decided that friendship wouldn’t be the primary value. Thus Driscoll (and others) ran off to do their deal. When this happened, a lot of people quit letting friendship be the defining value and begin to pick and choose the things they liked and didn’t like. At this point, a lot of people also began to see the “conversation” as one that didn’t necessarily involve foundational, theologically different starting points. But rather just aesthetic changes to style.

This opened up the “conversation” to a whole different group of people who didn’t or wouldn’t do the theological legwork. They jumped on because it became fashionable. Or cool. Or trendy. The National Pastors Convention began hosting emergent-esque conversations and seminars and this gave every youth/college pastor with a soul patch a reason to feel “liberal and risky”. They could come and listen for a couple of days and then go back home and say just enough in staff meetings or to their pastor that made them feel like a rebel. But they never did the theological legwork in the beginning. They never deeply thought or practiced the theologies that were emerging. Rather they jumped on the bandwagon because it became trendy. Or they thought candles would be a cool way to add more people to their contemporary service. Or they picked and chose what they wanted from each camp.

The day of friendship was dead, except of course for many of the people in the beginning and a smaller group later on that “got” what Emergent was about.

Now I’m fully aware that this is probably an over-simplified history and diagnosis of the problem. But I think there is a lot of truth to the fact that once Emergent (or emerging church) became popular, that many people jumped on board without doing the theological legwork. And I hate to keep bringing this up . . . but I’m under the impression that those who have read and been in deep conversations about the theological foundations are much more generous to Emergent than many of the critics who for the most part have no idea what they’re talking about half the time.

This is why so many crazy-eyed college kids think that getting their picture made with Brian McLaren is the end all be all. Or why backing Doug Pagitt into a corner after a keynote to pick his brain is borderline stalker-ish. When you’re not after the next trend or bandwagon jumping, you realize that people with no names have just as much to say and just as much value as any of the “big-timers” do. When you don’t do the theological or sociological work needed to understand the larger framework of Emergent, you lose the friendship and get the trend.

In this way, people can continue to 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 foundations.

Now what in the world does this have to do with the criticism presented in the beginning that . . . Emergent Is Just A Trendy Brand/Flash In The Pan That Will Eventually Become A Denomination . . . And that’s what the leaders want it to become or are pushing it to become.

I’ve got this sneaky suspicion that Tony Jones (National Coordinator for Emergent), the Emergent Board, the Coordinating Group, or any other Emergent leader would just as soon pack this whole thing up and go home before they became a denomination or an organized group that seeks to expand it’s empire. For them, it always has been, should be, and will be about friendship.

Again, most of these leaders are first and foremost pastors. Emergent is not their “main thing”. They don’t have the time or the desire to want to expand Emergent or make it into a brand. They’re too busy trying to keep their church’s head above water, pastoring, counseling, preaching, leading, thinking, writing, shaping.

I think the ones who are doing the criticizing are the same ones who are perpetuating these themes of trendiness, flash-in-the-pan, denomination-esque organization.

They are the ones who are asking for Emergent to create a doctrinal statement. They are the ones carbon-copy-catting Solomon’s Porch and Jacob’s Well. They are the ones cornering Tony and Doug after conferences looking for the next great “fix”. They are the ones lurking around to get a picture with Brian McLaren. They are the ones who have taken a regular, normal, everyday radical like Shane Claiborne and deified him on college campuses as some sort of “hot commodity”.

The leaders, they’re too busy pastoring and practicing to even sit around and wander if Emergent is a flash-in-the-pan. It’s a moot and irrelevant question for them. They are simply doing and practicing theology in the context of their local communities.

Meanwhile, guys like me, who sit around at home all day blogging, are the ones that turn ideas into trends, people into brands, and friendship into denominations.

* I even noticed that Ian Mobsyby is asking similar questions over at the Anglimergent site about the differences between Anglimergent and Anglicanism.

Listening: Carnival II Memoirs of an Immigrant by Wyclef Jean

12. February 2008 | 35 Kommentare »