Brian McLaren Reflects on the Emergent Summit

Reflections on the Emergent Summit

by Brian McLaren

I left the June 05 summit with renewed excitement about the direction and potential of emergent.  We all sensed a growing passion in two areas that are especially important to me.

First, we have been increasingly concerned about diversity for a few years.  Fortunately, there has been denominational diversity among us since the beginning - and it has grown steadily in recent years as emergent has become a "post-liberal/post-conservative" common ground. But the "white maleness" of almost all Christian leadership networks has been of concern to us.  (I was not surprised to learn from Tony Jones that 95% of Evangelical pastors are male; I was surprised to learn that 85% of mainline Protestant pastors are male.)  We talked at length about how the Emerging Women's Leadership Initiative has helped the emergent community seek to make progress in this regard.  But EWLI has also helped bring diversity in other areas to the fore.

I'm very optimistic about what will happen as increasing numbers of First Nations, African American, Latino, Asian, and other leaders bring their leadership to emergent.  When progress in this area is combined with progress in our global network (where exciting things are happening - stay tuned for amahoro.info) - our potential will multiply.

Secondly, and not unrelated, I'm thrilled to see concerns for justice and peace rise in importance in the emergent community.  The idea of missionality that has become so important to us means that God cares for our world; God is not just interested in helping some of us escape it to a pleasant hereafter so all our troubles are "left behind."  Our call is to join the "missio dei" in doing justice and loving kindness as we walk humbly with God.  So, I don't have a lot of interest in religious movements that do not produce positive social change – and I'm thrilled to see this concern grow in emergent.  In our highly partisan political context, the church has too often become captive to the polarization and paralysis of left and right.  We're committed to seeking a third way beyond this polarization.

For example, quite a few emergent folk have joined us in Washington, DC, for Worship in the Spirit of Justice (info at crcc.org).  Hundreds of us are coming together for five Sundays of public outdoor worship on behalf of people suffering genocide in Darfur, Sudan.  We are experiencing something important in ourselves as we seek to draw attention to the world's greatest humanitarian emergency:  when we worship a God who cares for the oppressed, the poor, and the forgotten, we become more like the God we worship.  (Sadly – the converse is also true: when we worship a God who is eager to get this world over with so a nice, quiet eternal rest can be enjoyed - we are also transformed into that image.)

These emerging priorities don't minimize previous concerns – about worship and liturgy, about evangelism, about new forms and approaches to church, about the need to grapple with issues of modernity and postmodernity.  But in many ways - in my opinion at least - they point to a telos beyond ourselves and show why those previous concerns truly matter.

Comments

[Sivin]

indeed we live in "unprecedented" times ... after meeting with at 4 American friends who visited us the last week, i've grown to appreciate how Emergent has "blessed" them and given them a "bridge" towards the future. How we walk together globally will be a most interesting adventure.

[Matt]

I've noticed the "white maleness" that is still present in Emergent. I know that this will eventually change, but for now, it seems mostly status quo. Part of me thinks that there is enough stereotypical white males involved for now. But there's another part of me that doesn't see it as a problem, because as a white male, I hope that I am still allowed to contribute to the conversation!

[Bill Easum]

Brian, what Im seeing with the mainline women clergy is that they are more focused ondenominational matters than on growing congregations. Of course, this is not everyone, but the majority of what I see. Im sure they would not agree.
Also, Im seeing fewer women in the pentecostal areas aa well.
Add to that there is still the feeling among too many pastors that ministry is a male thing.
All of this has been very diappointing to me. You may recal I said in my book "Leadership on the OtherSide" that women would be the dominate force among clergy by the midpoint of this century. I dont see that happening at the moment.
One of the reasons is that the future of Christianity depends on the number of churches that are planted over the next few decades and women seem to shy away from being planters. If women clergy are to be more numerous it will have to be in the planting arena because the vast majority of the present day mainline churches ,where most women clergy are found,will disappear over the nex two decades due to decline and aging congregants.

[Ben]

When I went to the Emergent Convention in San Diego in February, I must say I was quite discouraged to see that I was one of only a handful of non-white attendees. I love the Emergent conversation, but I wonder sometimes how much of it is a Anglo conversation, springing out of White American culture. I think the conversation would be significantly different if other cultures (ethnic, bi-cultural Americans) were represented -- I honestly think that "postmodern thinking" plays itself out differently in Black, Latino, and Asian-American settings. As an asian-american, in Evangelical settings, I am used to feeling like I must conform to some kind of predominant White christian culture, and I was disappointed that I felt the same feelings at Emergent.

[RevLisa]

Brian: Thanks for your awareness of issues of diversity. The 50 percent of us who are female are seriously underrepresented in church leadership, and there are systemic realities at work there. I have appreciated your voice and work. (In fact, your books have assured me that I am not alone in my thinking and theology. I'm not crazy! (well...at least not about being missional Christians)

Bill: I am a female pastor in a mainline denomination and I really question your generalization about mainline clergy women. Virtually ALL of the women clergy I am acquainted with are extremely missional and focusing on larger kingdom issues in their ministries. They may not be focused on "growing congregations" if by that you mean focusing on the numbers. But they are highly concerned that the people in their congregations "grow" as followers of Jesus. And they are very engaged with the world outside their churches. They tend to not care about the politics within our denomination, except where they feel they must stand up for those who are under-represented or oppressed. Personally, I would LOVE to be part of a church plant, but I see no open avenues that are supported by my denomination at this time. I love my male collegues and many of them have been quite supportive of me in my ministry. At the same time I realize that I have not developed a lifetime of relationships within the "good old (white) boys" network -- therefore at this point I do not have the connections and influence I need to be trusted to do a "new thing" (like a church plant). I still think God is leading me in this new direction, so I'll wait and see what God will do. But please, please, please do not paint women clergy as only interested in keeping things as they are. Things as they are have not been very supportive of women in ministry. We of all people want to see that changed so ALL people can be included in the work and play and journey and joy that is before us.

[Angela]

I'm glad to see commentary on the seemingly homogeneous nature of the emergent leadership. Sally Helgesen made reference to "The Female Advantage: Women's Ways of Leadership" in the early 1990s. She said that women tend to lead through a "Web of Inclusion," which was the title of her follow-up book. Perhaps one of the reasons why there appears to be a lack of women assuming leadership in the emergent community is because women tend to lead in and through their relationships with others, so it is not as visible as other leadership methods. As for having fewer people of color, I believe that there needs to be room made for other cultures and ethnicities to be present at the table. While in the majority culture it may be perfectly acceptable to take an available seat at the table, other cultures prefer to be invited to sit and to sup - not as a group representative, but as an individual who brings thoughtful insight (challenge and support) to the discussion. Sometimes, it takes extending the invitation more than once before it is accepted.

Much of my own leadership within the emergent movement takes place outside of my duties and responsibilities in a church setting, but not outside of my vocation in discipleship through formation and spiritual direction. While I've had the church leadership experience, I'm less interested in establishing a work than I am in being a servant in whatever arena I find myself. So, when I'm with students helping them to explore the relationship between their faith, loving God and loving neighbor and how they live their lives in practical, everyday ways and situations, I'm preparing them to emerge as leaders wherever they find themselves professionally.

I'm an African American woman, and I can tell you that we're leading...quietly and steadily...and we're waiting for an invitation to both deepen and expand the conversation. Thanks for letting me add to it in this forum. I look forward to seeing you this week at the Sudanese embassy for the fourth service!

[jan]

Thanks, Lisa, for a needed corrective to Easum's post. And having been woman my whole life and clergy for 25 years, my observations mirror yours. Patriarcy is still very much alive and well, even among mainliners who speak the inclusive rhetoric. Mainline churches are also highly caucasian, though we all know exceptions to the rule (thank God!). I am frankly delighted to see lack of inclusivity at this "early" stage in the emerging church's conversation; it fills me with hope that perhaps we will reflect Christ's vision for a rainbow church while earth remains!

[Holli Adams]

Brian,
You have been a source of hope and healing for many of us women...Finally we have a male brother whose willing to speak up for us in truth and help make right the oppression and exclusion the american church has participated in. I was so grateful for the women leaders I saw at the emergent convention in Nashville. It showed me that the leadership truly cares and isn't just talking the talk. As we follow Jesus, I am hopeful that He will bless us with relationships of all colors and genders and that emergent will become a face that resembles God's love of diversity.

[Wes Roberts]

...I'm also intrigued that the diversity mentioned is seemingly lacking in the diversity across the generations...I some times feel, via age difference, what women and those of other ethnic heritage must feel. Ethnicity, gender, age...all need to be allowed to be emerging. At least I long to be at the ripe olde age of 63 (even though I can be easily put in my place as white and male). Heaven help and of us if we cannot be authentically committed to changing and growing and being transformed day by day.

[Billy Jo Jimbob Slim]

Of course emergent is going to be dominated by white males because it is from north american protestant evanglical churchs from which it springs. Likewise, the 'base communities' within the catholic tradition are predominatly south american becuase that is the context from which it springs.

Emergent needs to recognize that it is not one movement above all which will eventually unite all cultures, movements and denominations. But rather, emergent is a particular movement in a particualr context with a particular culture in a particular place at a partiuclar time. it is just a mattter of time before emergent realizes this and becomes a denomination like all the rest of them.

So emergent is christianity for white folks who don't like their evangelical churches anymore. so what? What is wrong with white folks? You speak as if whiteness is bad.

[pastor-robin]

I think the conversation about main-line denominations and women is very interesting since I am a main-line clergy woman (ABC). Brian, your comments about the economic justice issues around women in ministry (Generous Orthodoxy) need to be seen in the reality of the future leadership of the church. If we as women are still not seen as "real" or "good enough", then we will never have a chance to move into important ledership positions within our repsective denominations.
Beyond basic leadership issues, I think there is a real suspicion around women as church planters. What kind of churches will women plant? How can the institutional structures get behind churches that are planted as non-traditional and inclusive from the get-go? I have many women colleagues who would love to plant a church, but the profound lack of support-emotional, spiritual, structural, and FINANCIAL-keep them locked into caretaking type situations, cause, you know, that's what we're good at.
Like anti-racism work, if the people in power (white males) are not willing to do their work and then do the advocacy around being more inclusive of women and other under-represented groups, there will be no change.
I am hopeful in that the emergent idea has seen fit to create a women in leadership group.

[tooaugust]

So let's get this straight. Emergent emphasizes the social gospel, elevates piety over theology, tends to be liberal in political views (I know this may not be an important point, but I always wanted to know how many ecer's voted for Bush), has an inclusive ecumenism of all denominations (except for the ones that contradict it) and even many religions and is egalitarian in its view of women. Umm . . . post-liberalism what? I really want to know what is different from old liberalism? From what I can tell it simply is the same old liberalism thing that has shifted to post-modernity as opposed to its older modern leanings. Honestly, what's the difference? If you guys want to be liberals, then good. Name it and claim it, but this mouth service that claims you're something different is absurd.

[Another Jan]

Hi -- I also speak as a mainline clergywoman. I attended the Presbyterian Church (USA) new church development conference earlier this month in Utah, for NCD pastors and those interested in/pondering God's call to plant new churches. While the men clearly outnumbered the women, I was heartened by the increased number of women who are new NCD pastors or are open to that call. I'm also finding that several of my female colleagues are looking to new church planting/emergent church as a way to reach people turned off by traditional worship/Christianity in general. Note to Brian: during my recent sabbatical, I worshipped with CRCC several times and every single time I ran into at least one other mainline clergywoman.

[PastorB]

I can't say how grateful I am to have heard the female voices in this conversation. I serve on a staff with a number of female clergy and am constantly impressed by their zeal and ability. It is truly "the spirit in a man/woman and the breath of the Almighty that gives understanding."

Sadly, in our context, women in leadership is a daily battle. I have seen clearly the obstacles that my co-workers face because they are female. But they are serving out of love and willingly walk into those wounds trusting that on the other side of them Jesus offers something better. Our ministry would not be complete without their beautiful contribution.

At the same time, I can see how it is true that the Emergent movement is on the whole a white conversation springing out of white evangelical churches. But the whole idea of a movement is that it is going somewhere...becoming something that has not yet been. I am so compelled by the idea of becoming fellow learners with those in different cultural contexts.

[Billy Jo Jimbob Slim]

TOOAUGUST

you bring up a good point. This is one of the problems of emergent...they claim newness in things like theology, social justice and politics...but it's the same old stuff in different clothing. They are a baby denomination that will grow up one day and look back at their days of youth and chuckle.

Although I'm not much of a politician, I do recognize traditional orthodox and catholic theology being reclothed and called "new" when really it's not new....why not call it what it is?

-bjjs

[Ben]

Billy Jo, there is nothing wrong with white folks, and being white shouldn't make you feel guilty, but just remember that whether they like it or not, white folks are in a position of privilege from the get go. But I don't want to get into some big discussion about race. The point is, it's fine that Emergent was started as a "movement" within White evangelical circles, but if Emergent's aim is to be missional in the current American culture, it MUST become something that it has not been, because take a look around. America is moving farther and farther away from being predominantly white. It's a hodgepodge of diversity, which I think fuels many of the cultural values of postmodernity. Isn't the point reaching today's people and being God's people in today's world?

[Jake the Snake]

Jaime told me to check out this website:

My first question
What is Emergent?

My second question
What is church for Emergent?

My third question
What is the emergent church?

[BJJS]

Ben

good thoughts. I ask you though, "if Emergent's aim is to be missional in the current American culture," as you say and "it MUST become something that it has not been," because "America is moving farther and farther away from being predominantly white. It's a hodgepodge of diversity," why then not let the diversifiying happen gradually with the culture? Why force it? And why are all white folks born with privlege from the get go? Tell that to my grandfather who pulled up his boot straps and slung 90 hour weeks at the town mill...but, as you say, we are not here to discuss race...

The fundamental question is, does the church critique culture or does culture critique church? Maybe it a mutual exchange? I think emergent needs to seriously ask themsleves "what is church?" Can someone tell me what emergent ecclesiology is?

-bjjs

[RevSherri]

I attended the '05 Nashville conference with great expectations of women being not only included but an equal part. Nodda! The EWLI was so marginalized ... I thought I was at a Southern Baptist convention! Hey .. if this had been the first Emergent conference...no prob. But, the third year and they are relegated to some 3rd floor conference room as a "focus group", or some such thing. Really! Pretty pathetic.
I showed up to join the conversation only to find the EWLI was hosting it's own funeral! Guess I'll have to be part of a Resurrection Committee now!
BUT ... moving on and letting the dead bury the dead ... maybe out of the EWLI leadership's exhaustion and frustration something new may yet be birthed.
I am a Church Birthing pastor in Virginia Beach ... church planter for all ya traditionalists out there.:-) I'm totally devoted and passionately determined to host conversations that lead to action when it comes to the real possibilities for women to birth new churches. I think the 21st century and emergent imaginations are perfect for women to take the lead in creating and nurturing new Christian communities of faith. As an MDIV alum of Regent University here in VA Beach, I am opening this conversation this fall at the seminary level ... a seminary rich with diversity and perhaps a "Resurrection Host" for the EWLI?

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

BJJS, I would like to know more specifically what you mean by "ecclesiology". Are you looking for a unifying concept of theology and methodology that is representative of emergent as a movement? If not, please let me know.

If so, I am not if there is one. I'm not sure that emergent is calling everyone to exchange or abandon their ecclesiologies for "theirs". Also, the expression of emergent-us is great, but not reflective of emergent as it has emerged and is emerging in other cultures and countries.

As to race and your grandfather, I do not think anyone means to dimished the hard work and serious disadvantages of white immigrant, the poor, etc. This should not be forgotten in this aspect of the dialogue. That being said, even with all those devastation, a simple socio-historical study plainly demonstrates that there were (and are) very real advantages for white people- or perhaps more accurately, fewer disadvantages.

The complexity of these issues demand serious examination, in which your questions and perspectives are important. I worry that there can be too much emphasis on the rhetoric of "making room" from popular opinion. However, I am heartened by many who are leading the way to into this complexity, men, women, young and old, of many races.

[bjjs]

jamie
by ecclessiology i mean what makes a church a church? What is church? origin, mission, purpose, etc? If emergent is proffering a new way to be "church." then it is imperative that they start with defining church.
bjjs

[chris lancaster]

tooaugust:

So let's get this straight. Emergent emphasizes the social gospel,

That is a mischaracterization. As Brian said, emergent emphasizes that as the church lives and and preaches the gospel, that gospel must include an element of social change--the church can't be a "pie in the sky"/"when we all get to heaven" church but a "get your hands dirty" church. EC is pushing against the gnostic tendencies which want to make it exclusively spiritual and saying that the church has to be more holistic. That is a far cry from the "social gospel" movement or anything like it. What is wrong with empahsizing balance?

elevates piety over theology

Nope. It says piety must be a compliment to theology. Too often, theology dominates at the expense of piety, as is often demonstrated in your caustic remarks on this site.

tends to be liberal in political views

As Brian said, "In our highly partisan political context, the church has too often become captive to the polarization and paralysis of left and right. We're committed to seeking a third way beyond this polarization." He's very clearing emphasizing that emergent doesn't engage in partisan politics, but the church's politics. The church should transcend the liberal/conservative-left/right distinction.

has an inclusive ecumenism of all denominations

Kind of like when Jesus prayed for his followers that they be "one"....guilty as charged.

and is egalitarian in its view of women

Unashamedly so. Guilty as charged.

Umm . . . post-liberalism what? I really want to know what is different from old liberalism?

Among other things, classical liberals (a) often abandoned the deity of Christ; (b) rejected the scriptures as authoritative; (c) often rejected the Trinity; (d) had a weak doctrine (if any) of supernatural divine revelation; and (e) rejected the notion of miracles, the sacraments, and tradition. Most in emergent, by contrast, share none of these characteristics.

Don't bother with an angry reply asking me a bunch of questions--you want an argument and an enemy to beat up on, and you're not going to get that from me. Feel free to leave your usual insults and the like and then move on to other prey.

--cl

[ashley bunting]

Hi! I'm a female church planter with a FABULOUS team - altho it is in Switzerland, so doesn't necessarily apply to the conversation concerning the American church. But just to say there are a few out there! :)

Again, thanks to Brian for pointing out these two weaknesses; they've honestly been at the heart of my fears about Emergent - that it would be a lot of talk and no follow-through on what they really wanted to be different. So I'm glad it's being recognized and addressed.

I really can't stress this point enough, tho - It will have to be the white males that elevate people in ministry of other races and the female gender. An initiative highlights the problem, but doesn't solve it. Some white males in the Emergent leadership will have to be intentional about finding "emerging" leaders, developing them if at all needed, and then giving up their seat in the leadership in order to make it happen. As Emergent is expanding its leadership teams, this may not be needed that much, but at some point, at the top level, seats will need to be given to others, and I hope those in the Emergent leadership have enough courage to do it (as it definitely takes courage to give something you love and have worked on so hard over to someone else!).

Thanks so much for all that's been done so far! Emergent has saved me on so many levels... Much love, Ashley

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

From my perspective, I do not think there will be an ecclesiology as cohesive and unified as you would find in an organized body, such as a denominations, etc. There will probably be more definition in time than there is today, but I doubt (and hope) that it won't formalize.

Rather, I think that emergent is best in revitalizing, shaping, in-forming, etc. existing ecclesiologies. I am not sure by repeating what others have said frequently (and far more eloquently) will help, but I think it can't hurt: emergent is NOT present itself as "new" in that it is unprecedented in all respects, but rather the newness refers to the dialogue and ensuing transformation that is taking place.

In all fairness, there is a tendency within evangelical North America to make global generalizations about our experiences, as though we represent the whole Body of Christ. While I am confident that this is largely not done with intentional arrogance, but rather out of ignorance and imbalanced enthusiams- nonetheless, we must be aware of this tendency and the damage it can do.

That being said, Rome was not built in a day. Whether you a fervent emergent supporter of a passionate critic, we need to patient, gracious and humble thoughout this process. To critics, give us time and grace. Offer you criticism with the understanding that we are at the beginning of a journey. Hold to the humility that your perspective, while important, is as limited as our own.

To the emergent journeyers- the voyageurs- recognize that as exciting and refreshing as this process is, it is but one path whose sign we only partially understand. Be patient, with the knowledge that this journey will take a long time- that this is a task that will likely take several generations to get greater clarity. Ask yourself, should you truly be committed to this journey, are you then willing to invest in a dream that is unlikely to reach fruition in you lifetime.

This conversation is not new in the strictest sense- it is older than emergent, older than the Reformation, older than the Catholic and Orthodox church. It finds its root beyond the early church, the lives of the apostles and even before Christ walked this earth. It is a journey of reconciliation and intimacy that began near the time of Creation.

I did not intend to wax poetic, but felt strongly to share this, come what may. Thanks to those with the patience to read through it. Peace. -Jamie

[tooaugust]

Chris, you just proved my point. thanks again.
A. You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think ec is only saying that piety compliments theology. Really? Duh! Everyone I know says this. EC is about diminishing theology to the elevation of piety. This is the Anabaptist/old liberal background of it, and I'm sorry if you want to now escape it, but that's the fact jack. Liberal
B. The ecumenical movement then follows on the heels of diminishing theology's importance. Without this dimishing, ecumenism cannot happen. Christ states that He wants all of His people to be one in the Gospel of John which is all about unity with God and love of each other in the truth. To take out the truth factor and make oneness mystical is Liberal.
C. Egalitarianism stems from Modern arguments of human rights intrinsically connected to human "sameness." So you're right, You are guilty . . . of being a Liberal.
D. Yeah right, ec transcends the liberal/conservative paradigm, but just falls almost completely on the liberal side (but it accepts the deity of Christ so I guess it's a trinitarian liberalism---BTW every liberal i have ever read claims that the Bible has authority, they just redefine like you guys what that means). I want to know from the ec leaders politically, how many voted for Bush?
E. You have the irrational emotionalism of a . . . that's right, Liberal.

But Chris, I'm sure your above this paradigm. You're not light or darkness, good or evil, true or false. You're the other thing that isn't either one of those. You know, that third way which doesn't exist. It's simply either all or most of one or a mixture of the two. There is nothing new under the sun.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

I would like to add a recommendation to this comments re: leadership & gender. First is the excellent book "Why Not Women" by L. Cunningham & David Hamilton. Excellent introduction to a theology supporting this needs restoration.

For those wanting serious meaty fare, I would recommend David Hamilton's Masters thesis, entitled "I Commend To You My Sister" (787 pages, mostly appendix). It is considered one of the most thorough treatments of the subject of late. It is funny that I should recommend this very inductive study of the subject, having recently posted a blog myself cautioning the over-use of inductive method. However, I highly recommend it. Let me know if you would like the PDF.

On a side note, my wife & I co-direct our inner city ministry here in Winnipeg. My wife is the primary leader of the centre, with myself in a more supporting role. Of the 5 on site staff we have here at the moment, I am the only male. The rest are amazing women who are leading, discipling, teaching, evangelizing, etc. I look forward to the day when this scenario is just as common in local church settings as it is in other ministry contexts.

[tooaugust]

Here are some good books:

Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15
by Andreas J. Kostenberger (Editor), Thomas R. Schreiner (Editor), H. Scott Baldwin (Editor)

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Paperback)
by John Piper, Wayne A. Grudem (Editor)

And the always good Bible edited by God

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Not to monopolize, but I would like to recommend an amazing leader/minister who can speak to both aspects of the issues raised by Brian: Anita Keith. Anita is an ordained First Nations woman (Mohawk/Algonquin) is the North American Institute for Indigenous Theological Studies (NAIITS):
http://www.firstnationsmonday.com/NAIITS.htm

She teaches worldwide on Native issues and Christianity, having published three amazing books, found here:
http://www.healingtheland.com/publishing/authors.html

She is worth adding to this dialogue.

[bjjs]

i agree with tooaugust

yes ec is liberal, but not really...we don't want to label church movements with political tags do we? ec is liberal like the catholic church is liberal...there is nothing wrong with this. i think this is a step in the right direction, but i still fail to see the differnce theologically between emergent and catholicism...either way i think it's great...call it what you want but it's not oringially emergent...it's cahtolicism and eastern orthodoxy

[Tara]

I tried to go to the Women's site linked in the blog and it hasn't been updated in a while plus I tried to add my address to be emailed for information and it wouldn't go through, so....anyone know where a girl can get some info??? :) I just moved to Cali from Baltimore on a temporary (well, as far as I know right now, lol) move for graduate school at Fuller Theological Seminary (Master of Arts in Christian Leadership). Anyway, I'm kinda new to the whole emergent scene, although I think I may have been a part of it before "it" became anything...if you catch my drift. Anyway, my 2 bestfriends live in New Orleans and Indy but we are always having conversations on the idea of BEING the church versus DOING church and how we as women can continue to, how do I say this, AFFLICT THE COMFORTABLE AND COMFORT THE AFFLICTED!!!! Kind of a life motto...because some people definately need their comfortable christianity afflicted and shaken up, while many, many people need comfort that we are passing by every day...it's a practical thing. Anyway. Side tracked....I just want to know more about the women's stuff with Emerging Women Leaders, anyone know??? Thanks bunches

Tara Lynn

[Tara Ben]

Glad to see such great conversation on such an important and relevant topic. I co-pastor the aforementioned VA Beach church birth. This has been an amazing experience in a female lead/driven church. Since we are 'starting from scratch' per se, it has been interesting to see how different the structures within our church are from other male lead/driven churches. I encourage the female pastors/clergy who have on their hearts to plant a church, not to wait for their demoniation to catch up, but rather to forge ahead with a partner or two. The experience will be amazing and the converstaion will be unfogettable!

[Adriene]

Its tough to be a woman in the church - especially the evangelical/charismatic church in a very conservative state. Just this week I had a conversation with a (white male) pastor. He had asked if I was looking for a full-time ministry position - which suprised me, because I know he's not an advocate of women pastors. I sent him my resume anyway - from which he gathered that I'm seeking a pastor/teacher/leader role. That wasnt what he had in mind. He gave me reasons why women don't preach in his church, like, 'insecure men have a really hard time learning from strong women.'
Yeah. I'm strong - which if I was MALE would be a leadership gift, and a GOOD thing, but in a women its intimidating or worse. This isn't the first time I've heard that either - and strong as I am, it still hurts. I can't decide whether to be pissed off or to give up.
Even in churches and groups (like emergent)that talk about affirming women in ministry, there is still a 'stained glass ceiling' at some point - a line that cannot be crossed by a woman. And yet I still believe that God called me to that place. Its just so discouraging some days. Every so often I wish I was a Methodist or something.
It takes talking about the problem, (thanks to the MacLaren's and co.) but it will also take those in the positions of leadership actively opening the door for others. I'd like to see some action following the conversation between women. Any suggestions?
Adriene

[bjjs]

Jamie,
in short, emergent should dismantle itslef, send everyone back to the denominations they came from and encourge them to have their denominations become more "emergent" in and of themeselves instead of starting a new denomination (emergent church) which only adds to the problem of segregation and divisivness. Emergent shouldn't be a church, a culture or a movement - it should be more like a Bishops that seeks to keep existing churches in communion with one another...the fundamental error of emergent is that it has it's own churches. They should be disbanned and I think emergent would start receiving much more postivie responses both on the part of the conservatice evangelcial wing (tooaugust) and the more liveral catholic/orthodox wing (myself). My plan is simple...it's a swiss watch.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

BJJS. Thanks for you answer. While I disagree with your suggestions, I feel it was the most clear and pointed contribution you have made.

While there may be emergent churches (or churches that call themselves such), from my understanding and experience, emergent exists for the very thing you mentioned- to be agents of change within their existing churches.

Anyone else want to comment on this?

[Kevin]

BJJS:
I am rather new within the last year to this conversation of emergent. I maybe mistaken, but I am quit sue that emergent is not interested as being touted as a "new" denomination. I have visited brian McLaren's church and he makes no mentioned of it, nor are their any sign-post or mention of an emergent orientation in any of their literature. I agree that emergent should be aiding the present denomination to become emergent. That is just the point, and I believe is the goal of emergent as a conversation.Emergent is not a church as I have experienced it. The simple swiss watch to referred to is running quit smoothly. Take a closer look.

[bob Hyatt]

churches which consider themselves "emergent" are to be found within many, many denominations, and even in the "non" category. emergent/emerging is an adjective, nothing more... It describes church communities in the process of rethinking methodology, ministry philosophy and theology, with a view towards ministry in a postmodern context. Many are linked, many are not. It's not a denomination and it's larger and broader than any one organization.

And changing the name of the organization, or at least filling it out a little ("Emergent Village" vs "Emergent") would still be a swell idea... and would cut down drastically on the need for conversations just such as this one.

[merm]

Race and gender are such difficult issues.

Personally I doubt that "God" looks at emergent and classifies it as "white" or "male" or "heterosexual" or "western" or "large breasted."

I really want to develop in myself a character that doesn't look at skin color, or economic status, or breast size (or any other obsurd, arbitrary external feature that one has no choice over,) but at the heart - and through relationship.

I think it's important for emergent to focus on being as inclusive and open-minded as "God" is, and to cultivate diversity. But we live today in a world that is more than black & white, left & right, male & female. We live in a full spectrum, "third way", trans-gendered world.

Diversity, in my opinion, cannot be achieved by identifying the two extremes (male & female for example) and then insuring there's an equal number of each on the ends of the "balancing beam," but by cultivating an environment in which people see each other based NOT on arbitrary skin-deep classifications, but on the heart; as I believe "God" sees me. I think it's a prime time to leave the "balancing beam" mentality, and embrace something that fits our emergent theology better.

If emergent happens to be mainly white and male I personally don't feel threatened. I don't look at the emergent community that way.

Instead of solving any percieved imbalance in race, gender, sexual-preference, economic, geographic, style-of-dress, body mass index, "beauty", denominational, music style, hair length, etc, by continuing to classify and propagate these stereotypes, (the "let's hire a hispanic man for this position to 'balance' it out" mentality) let's work on creating an atmosphere and culture (paradigm) where all people of any experience or background feel compelled to engage the whole, to enrich and be enriched, not because of their "classification," but because they see themself as part of the group organically.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Merm, while I agree that "balance beam" diversity is not a healthy motivation, I think perhaps you are mssing the approach and intention emergent is trying to take.

As you say, God does not look at the outward appearance, but at the heart. However, I believe this refering to judgment and value. For us to generally dismiss diversity in all its forms is foolish.

While we can go over-board in our characterizations of diversity, thowing "breast size" into the mix is irresponsible. There are millions of people who have and continue to suffer from the lack of diversity that we discuss here. We should try to keep that in mind.

I do seek diversity because I see a need for balance or quotient equality. Rather I hunger for diversity for I believe that God has hidden treasures- aspects of Himself- in these very differences. I need diversity to bring forth the mosaic church of Christ, what Desmond Tutu calls the "Rainbow People of God".

So, I am not at all "threatened" by the current lack of diversity, but rather I am hungry for the beauty of diversity, the richness of what will emerge, the promise of something greater than we have seen already.

[Darren]

Brian,

Thanks so much for your voice. And I join my own with Angela's above as an African-American who's waiting for an invitation to "deepen and expand the conversation". Cohort anyone? :)

By the way . . . Jamie, I love the way you so beautifully articulate what's in my heart. :)

[BJJS]

Mark my words....Emergent will become a denomination....it will start in the various denominations with people within the congragations breaking away because they consider themselves "emergent" "progressive" and "postmodern" and the original denomination will not be willing to bend that far so these people will break away and start their own church but they won't refer to it as "emergent." First they will call it "non-denominiational" or better yet "inter-denominational" and both of these are, for all intensts and purposes, denominations themselves....these churches will be goverend by the emergent conversation and everyone will refer to them as emergent even though the churches themselves won't. They will just keep saying, "we are interdenominational, we embrace all traditions" But by embracing all traditions they have alinated themslves from all traditions and in so doing have started their own denomination.....you heard it hear first folks....

[Jake the Snake]

Furthermore,

If emergent is just trying to be the bishop among churches trying to mediate dialogue among demoniations then what, i ask, is the point of giving the conversation a new name (emergent), a national director and struture? Why not just call the conversation what it has always been called: ecumenical dialogue. Why does emergent insist on controlling this conversation? As soon as a someone tries to take control of and dominate a conversation it ceases to be a true conversation and dialogue...what you get is more of a lecture....as if emergent holds the keys to the mystery of God. I sincerely do not think this is the intent of emergent, but they need to understand that it looks like this for many many people.

[Thomas]

Tooaugust,

As someone also coming from a Reformed background who has been studying th EC, I really feel a number of the criticisms that you raise show a real lack of any attempt to understand the language/paradigm being presented by the EC. In response to your specific points -

A. Piety vs. Theology. If you limit the term theology to simply referring to the forumlation of systematic theologies as have been drafted by various Reformed denominations over the past 500 years. Then yes, it would be fair to say EC has diminished the importance of that style of theology. However, that methodology of theology is certainly not the only one that has existed throughout the history of the Church, and in many way the EC theology I have seen with it's emphasis on mystery over codified explanation is a reclaimation of an older style of Theology that far predates the sysematc formulations of the Reformation. You may not feel this a good direction to take theology, but to say the EC dempasizes theology in general simply isn't an accurate reflection of the literature it has produced to date.

B. Ecumenical Movement. Again, what you sight here shows a very real danger of the ecumenical movement, but not one that has to exist. Ecumencism can be about conversation and understanding differences while not trying to pretend they don't exist or remove them. While it is very true that the process of ecumencism has at times taken the Church down the path of relativism, it's not something that is a foregone conclusion of that process.

C. Egalitarianism. Now, this one I don't even know where you're coming from. While egalitarianism can stem from humanism, it can just easily stem from recognition of people posessing intrinsic value as God's creations. Even starting from a Reformed paradigm it's a logical conclusion to reach that as no one other than God knows his "elect", then all should be treated as equal as no one has any ability to view one person as intrinsicly more valuable than another.

D. Liberal and Conservative are utterly meaningless terms with no qualifying context. That said, EC holds a mixture of what would now be regarded politcally in the US as Liberal and Conservative values. However, contrary to what you're saying, their axiomatic stances on things like the Trinity and the inspiration and importance of scripture fall far more heavily on the conservative side spectrum. Now while at times what they build upon that foundation may lead them to beliefs that are currently considered politcally liberal in the early 21st Century US, that baseline is far too grounded in church history and tradition to properly call them Liberal and the term to retain any meaning past "stuff I don't like".

E. As this is an ad hominen aimed at Chris, I have no particular comment on it past pointing out the irony that such logical fallacies are by their very nature irrational and that you should perhaps show more caution to not to be guilty of precisely what you accuse others of.

Finally, I'd like to make note that your final paragraph demonstrates another very serious logical fallacy. As Conservative/Liberal are by their very nature relativistic tmerswhile light/darkness, good/evil, true/false are absolute, To equate is them is therefore, rather irrational. All the while, you seem rather emotionally charge about the whole subject...would this mean that by your own logic, that you are in a Liberal? :-)

[tooaugust]

Good one, Thomas. My final two paragraphs aren't arguments. They're just playing off of Chris's statement that I was going to prey on him and attack him, so I went ahead and gave him what he wanted to believe about me and his version of piety.
However, the light/darknesss--liberal/conservative statement in our context is true. It is true in the sense that the labels describe a position one takes on certain issues. They are only labels for THESE issues. One is either conservative or liberal or a mixture of the two because what we mean by those terms is how one falls on certain issues. EC wants to get past this, but it is still falling on those issues in one camp or the other (particularly in the liberal camp). That is the contradiction I was pointing out and the impossibility on THOSE issues to be something else than liberal or conservative historically.
The two issues you pointed out were strange since I already pointed out that ec is "conservative" on the Trinity, but so what if it takes an overly transcendent view of God like liberalism does? In other words, the Trinity doesn't make one orthodox. It is simply one of many aspects of the doctrine of God. A Mormon has some aspects of God that are correct as well, but that doesn't make them an evangelical does it? Likewise, a liberal can have certain ideas of God that are "conservative" but that doesn't make one conservative.

Your point on egalitarianism I think proves my point that the modern individual can't talk about equality of value without talking about equality of position. This is very much an Enlightenment idea, so maybe this is something to explore for you.

The ecumenical movement is more than understanding where one is coming from, Thomas. You shouldn't redefine what is going on with some idealized version that doesn't exist (nor is intended to exist by the ec). This is connected to the idea that theology itself (not just methodology) is not so important that the "church" (ec begging the question as to who is the church of course) should be divided over it. That is a diminishing of theology and the elevation of piety (which is redefined not as Biblical morality one practices, but as how nice and affectionate you are toward someone). I am not saying ec people don't think theology is important. They just don't think it is important enough to divide over. That is historically the nature of pietism and basically flips off the Church that has always cared enough about theology so as to elevate over piety (thus Arius was excommunicated even though his piety equalled Athanasius's). The Church has always disagreed with creedalism and pietism but has seen theology as primary and producing piety, not the other way around and not happening simultaneously.
And I'm not talking about just the reformation. I'm not sure why you think systematics is no older than the reformation. What do you think the creeds of the Early Church are? The only thing i can think of that you may think predates the reformation is the Medieval period. The Early Church predates that. In any case, I don't really care how one does theology as much as the theology that is produced from what they are doing.

Finally, I think the biggest issue is that the ec is anthropocentric like liberalism is. By this, i don't mean it doesn't care about God or say that they want to put him first, but instead defines its purposes around where man is going at this time and seeks to adjust. That is what liberalism does because if man dictates what you do, then staying where God tolds us to be 2,000 years ago seems archaic and bad.
BTW, the last comment was more of a joke on how the liberal romanticists (which is all postmoderns are) diminish thinking and elevate emotion. Therefore, they tend to be a little on edge. They should all wear signs, "Egg shells here. Walk softly."

[tooaugust]

BTW, why did you not correct Chris on anything? Here again we see this us against them mentality that is typical of the conservative/liberal debate. Just admit that this is the situation we are in and you do fall into one or the other.

[too aghast]

tooaugust/little c

okay... you found us out. We're all a bunch of relativists... heretics too. liberals in sheep's clothing. We want to tear down the true church! You are so right- I can't believe you saw through us.

Whew... feels good to get that off my chest! Keeping that secret was killing me.

I guess your work here is done, right?

[tooaugust]

Thanks for finally admitting it. It's so refreshing to find honesty among a movement that in the beginning claimed it was all about being genuine. I just want to really thank you for this and . . .Oh wait, you're not making a funny are you?

Who said anything about relativism? Maybe if you stopped imagining I was your dad, who told you not play in the street because cars go there, and you got ticked and said, "Oh yeah right, Dad, you're not the boss of me!" you might be able to listen to what I said and not make up things I didn't say. But this is what i would suspect from a liberal. Guess I broke too many shells.
I guess I wasn't chosen to play the kickball conversation. Boo hoo. I'll have to go and let ec die on its own. . . Oh wait, since it's a conversation, I think I'll go ahead and stay so that you can talk to someone other than everyone that already agrees with your presuppositions. You may not learn anything, but maybe someone somewhere will be actually able to read what I said and not project their emotional baggage onto it. Now go hug your father, tooaghast, and tell him that you really don't know what your talking about, and you serioulsy need his guidance as well as his affection.

[Thomas]

Tooaugust,

See in that case what you're really talking about isn't liberal/conservative but rather orthodox/unorthodox. Because of their strong ties to amorphous yet highly-polarized political movements, especially in the US, Liberal/Conservative often bring to the table way to many innapropriate connotations to be useful in really evaluating theology anymore.

Now then, in terms of the orthodoxy of the ECs view of God, I've yet see anything in my reading that brings their views into real conflict with the ancient creeds (Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedoneon) which at the very minimum bring their view God to the same base level of orthodoxy as the more traditional Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant. This is a very big difference between EC and what has traditionally been called "liberal" Christianity.

Moving then to systematic theology, there is an enormous difference between the scope and purpose of the ancient creeds (ie: The Nicene Creed) and modernist systematic theology (ie: Westminster Confession of Faith and Longer & Shorter Catechims). It's like comparing a scalpel to a broadsword. The first was used to cut away a narrow, particular heresy and thereby heal the Church, the latter was used to try and pin down every imagineable bit of doctrine and then wielded as a weapon to fight anyone who disputed even the most minor point.

As for the comment about the EC being anthropocentric, I don't see them being so in the same sense that the "liberals" of the past the few centuries. There's a big difference, between saying "You know people really don't seem to like this doctrine, so I guess we'll change it" and saying "When I'm out trying to talk to people about Jesus, this doctrine seems to be a real problem for them. I think should go back to scripture and make that this both what it's really saying and that it's really essential". I've seen the latter rather than the former amoung the EC.

While I certainly don't agree with every position I've seen reached, I have a hard time calling any position reached, based on scripture, which doesn't violate those basic creeds unorthodox or even liberal. There's a big difference between not caring what God said 2000 years ago and using scripture and Church history to go back and make sure that what the Church is currently teaching is actually what He said. And again I see the latter rather the former with the EC. (Although at this point I must state that I've primarily read McLaren's work, so perhaps there others that go further afield that I'm as yet unaware of.)

Last bit, diminishing certainty =/= diminishing thinking. In fact often times, admitting to a certain level of uncertainty (without going so far as relativism) can actually encourage thinking. If everythings already pinned down and certain then we don't think anymore. We just memorize and repeat.

And yeah, I was hoping that bit was tongue in cheek so I was trying to respond in kind. :-)

[Thomas]

Tooaugust,

I responded to you rather than Chris, because as I've scanned through your posts I noticed that you also seemed to come from a Reformed background like myself and therefore and it was on that basis I had something to say.....

[snake jake]

If emergent is just trying to be the bishop among churches trying to mediate dialogue among demoniations then what, i ask, is the point of giving the conversation a new name (emergent), a national director and struture? Why not just call the conversation what it has always been called: ecumenical dialogue. Why does emergent insist on controlling this conversation? As soon as a someone tries to take control of and dominate a conversation it ceases to be a true conversation and dialogue...what you get is more of a lecture....as if emergent holds the keys to the mystery of God. I sincerely do not think this is the intent of emergent, but they need to understand that it looks like this for many many people.

[bob]

too august-

Your ability to gently answer those who oppose you and bless those who persecute you is astounding.
Thanks for the example...
Perhaps if you had to put your real name down you'd speak differently? If you really want to dialogue, why don't you come out from behind the pen name? Otherwise, it would be my suggestion to everyone to simply ignore whatever comment you choose to make until you can own it.

[tooaugust]

Thanks "Bob" now that we all know exactly who you are because you told us your "Bob." You all know Bob right? It's Bob. That defines him and every single person in the world can now go to "bob's" house and keep him accountable. Let's stop being stupid about the name thing.

Once again, your amount of fairness (i.e., justice/righteousness) is astounding, since you said nothing to "tooaghast" who supports your opinions, but instead went on to attack me (one who responded to an ad hominem attack with truthfulness---most of you are holding emotional baggage and take it out on your EVIL ENEMIES the conservative evangelicals). Bob, you can ignore all that I say, but take the log out before you do.

[tooaugust]

By the way, blessing is not speaking nice to someone or else Christ doesn't bless His enemies (neither do the apostles) and no one is ever told to gently answer a rebellious heretic. Gentleness is for the ignorant. Those who know better get the slap.

[Ochuk]

Tooaugust,

You made the following comment:

Your point on egalitarianism I think proves my point that the modern individual can't talk about equality of value without talking about equality of position. This is very much an Enlightenment idea, so maybe this is something to explore for you.

I think you are wrong. What egalitarians are NOT saying is that the sexes are merely physically different and that there are NO differences in male and female beings. What they ARE saying is that female being is not the decisive factor in excluding someone from a position, for example, in the church.

When you say that a modern Enlightenment view of equality is something that requires equality of position you are trying to poison the well and not deal with the issues raised by egalitarianism. Instead you hold to contradictory belief that women and men can be "equal in being, but unequal in role." This position is absurd.

For example, Al Mohler is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Thomas Schreiner is a professor there. The egalitarian logic allows for Mohler and Schreiner to be "equal in being and unequal in role", because they have entered into such a contract. The scope of the contract is in the realm of SBTS's order and needs, yet it does not extend beyond that, say for that imagination's sake Schreiner was Mohler's pastor at church. But, if the analogy of Schreiner's subordination was constituted in the same categories as male and female subordination it must be said that Mohler is President by virtue of his "Mohlerhood" and Schreiner is subordinate to Mohler, by virtue of his "Schreinerhood." Therefore, if Schreiner were to be Mohler's pastor they would be violating the essential "differences" between "Mohlerhood" and "Schreinerhood." Likewise function inexorably follows being in female subornation because it is said that it is fitting for "womanhood" to be subordinate to "manhood" (see your Piper & Grudem book)

In short your belief that women and men can be "equal in being, and unequal in role" is nonsensical. A woman is said to be equal in her essential being, but is made subordinate by her essential being. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that egalitarians reject your view because they with liberalism, but because they do not cohere with logic.

Adam Omelianchuk

[Ochuk]

Sorry. there was a typo in the last line of that post. It should read:

Therefore, it is not accurate to say that egalitarians reject your view because they do not cohere with liberalism, but because they do not cohere with logic.

[bob]

Fine.
My name is Bob Hyatt.
I'm 35. I'm the father of Jack (who is 15 months) and the husband of Amy. I'm the lead pastor of a church in Portland, Oregon called the Evergreen Community. I'm a graduate of Western Seminary.
I'm hugely offended by the way you speak to people here, because whether you consider them brothers and sisters or not, you go out of your way to be harsh, and it is wrong no matter how you justify it to yourself.
Now come out from behind the warm, safe cloak of anonymity or get gone. Own your words or stop talking.

[Peter]

tooaugust-

does this apply to you?

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

[tooaugust]

Peter, yes it does. When speaking to unbelieving authorities that I am under. Please read the context of Peter before you proof text.

Adam, when did I say that women were equal in being? If by equal you mean the same, I don't believe that. So you are arguing a strawman. I am saying that women are equal in value, not being (if you are using being to mean the same). Therefore, you are arguing a strawman. The woman is designed differently than the man so that she glorifies God through her role as the man also is designed differently so they he glorifies God in his. One taking on the other's role destroys this fulfillment and the restoration of the other: "Women shall be saved through child-bearing." So do you not accept 1 Tim 2:11-15? It uses a priority argument which by its very nature displays that what Paul is saying is not limited to culture or geography. You think you are helping women by saying that they can take on the male role, but all you are doing is being a male chauvinist because you have been brainwashed that the man's role is better and therefore women are less if they don't take upon that role. Her ontology tells us that she is made for something different, and different isn't bad. She has great value in her role, but in the male role she is bird with broken wings.
BTW you have also proven that you cannot separate value from ontology and from position by your argument. An Enlightenment hangup.

[tooaugust]

Bob, calm down. Maybe you should go to your pastor about your anger problem. Oh wait, you are the pastor.

"I'm hugely offended by the way you speak to people here, because whether you consider them brothers and sisters or not, you go out of your way to be harsh, and it is wrong no matter how you justify it to yourself."

Wow, that was harsh. I'm hugely offended by the way you speak to me here, because whether you consider me a brother or not, you go out of your way to be harsh, and it is wrong no matter how you justify it to yourself. Pot meet kettle.

While we're on the subject, Bob, this is a tenet of your religion, not Christianity. Please show me where in the Scripture that being "harsh" (i.e., telling people they are wrong and that they are saying and believing stupid things) is wrong. Or is this one of those ec experiential things again? I keep trying to tell you, Jesus is not Mr. Rogers no matter how much you want him to be. Please place your trust in Jesus, Bob. PBS can't save you. The Bible is our authority, not people who speak nice things (which BTW is what the false prophets are always characterized as doing, "speakers of smooth/soothing/non-harsh things." Interesting how many would claim the prophets and Christ and would have thrown them out of the conversation for the way they spoke to them. You do not know what spirit you are of.

[darren]

my, my . . . don't we like to argue? :) i guess everyone involved is somewhat guilty of bringing emotion into the conversation. though i'm not sure when that became a bad thing.

it does make me wonder, though, why one would approach a bunch of "on edge" people w/ such heavy "emotional baggage" with sarcasm in an attempt to be contrary. you wouldn't happen to have some emotional baggage of your own, now would you, tooaugust? ;)

nah. probably not. you're a model vulcan.

hey, i can be honest about some things. i have emotional baggage. and i'm more than happy to bring it to the table. sometimes it helps the conversation progress in ways that chucking them at the door wouldn't.

and i can also appreciate your views, tooaugust. personally, i'm thankful that you are here right now. as you astutely pointed out, it's not really an interesting conversation if everyone at the table agrees. the minute that happens, the conversation sort of fizzles.

so i both respect - and even agree - with a lot of what you're saying. i hope we can keep it up . . . baggage and all :)

[Ben]

Goodness gracious. I think these arguments/comments are pretty ridiculous...and just reading them gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. It turned from great dialogue amongst people who didn't necessarily agree but wanted to learn from each other to mud-slinging, personal attacks, defensiveness, and biting sarcasm. There's a way to disagree and dialogue and even rebuke without being sarcastic and hurtful.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

As I read this thread, I notice that voices on both sides of this conversation-turned-argument have become harsh and lacking gentleness. As I consider how the best to respond, I am left with some difficult questions.

First, I believe that the emergent journey is one that is frought with dangers. We risk the twin extremes of reckless abandonment and paralysing fear. Our awareness of this reality should give birth to humility and care.

Second, I truly believe that emergent needs the critics for it to remain true, even when those critiques are communicated inapproproately (this is not a shielded reference to anyone specific). However, once again we find ourselves between the dualing tensions of open dialogue that edifies and distracting conflicts that are simply "sounding gongs".

Finally, I am torn by the nature of inclusivity in this dialogue. While I avoid censorship with great conviction, believing that all voices should be heard, I wonder if this blog and others like it- dedicated to the forward development and maturation of the emergent journey- are appropriate places for the dissent of those not sharing this commitment.

The questions remain for me: what is the purpose of this site? Was it created with the presupposition that those utilizing it are already more or less committed to this journey? If so, while constructive criticism and caution is welcome, should it come only from those with a commitment to this end?

If it was not created with these presuppositions, then the issue become how to better deal with these exchanges. What I would hope to see here is a greater sense of civility to one another from both sides, including a more gracious scrutiny of the words being read as well as those being written. In fact, I believe it is more important for those of us who believe this movement represents us to hold ourselves to an even higher standard.

We must also be very careful not to justify hostile or harsh retorts by citing Biblical examples of godly rebuke. While Jesus and the Apostles did speak correctively to others, we lack the nature of their tone and the equivelance of their context, not to mention their proven authority.

For myself, if I have been guilty of this at this site, my site or anywhere else, I am truly sorry and ask for the forgiveness of those I may have hurt, as well as of God whose name I am meant to represent. I remain hopeful.

Peace, Jamie.

[Bob Hyatt]

Too august-

if you can't see plainly that since gentleness is a part of the fruit of the Spirit, and Peter commands us to answer everyone with gentleness and respect, then I'm sorry. That's Christianity and that's God's Word.

Tell us your real name. Own your harsh words or go elsewhere.

[Billy Jo Jimbob Slim]

I agree with Jamie...this argument between captain evangelical conservative tooaugust and captain "jesus is my luvy duvy buddy and we should all be progressive" hippy pastor from evergreen - this argument is ridiculous and makes fools you both of them and emergent. However, i think emergent has a way of doing that on its own.

I have raised very real and concrete issues (along with this guy Jake the snake) that emergent shouuld be concerned with but i now realize that this forum is not the proper place. it is filled with rambling idiots. I thought this was a the official emergent site but i am beginning to wonder if there is any intelligence in emergent. I know there is, but where to find it is the problem. Do the smart one's know that these blogs are full of idiots so they stick to other forms of conversation?

So far Jamie is the only one to actually engage in true dialogue, but the rest of you just add fuel to idiot fire known as "tooaugust" and in sodoing you just give him what he wants: to hijack this website. Don't you see what he is doing? He is pushing all of your buttons and by responding you ignore the intent of the original poster (or posts that actually raise real concerns) and thus he has successfully hi-jacked the thread because he remains at the center....

[tooaugust]

Oh Brother, Bob, don't you know that gentleness is non-violence, not being nice and saying non-harsh things. You are redefining it American style. Do you therefore think that Christ did not have the fruit of the Spirit when He called the Pharisees a brood of vipers and children of the devil? You are interpreting the Word to contradict itself.

I'm Frank, you know, Frank Torletti of the San Francisco Torlettis. You know, the ones down on 4th and 8th? We're always out playing kickball by the old well. Well you all know Grandma Jenkins who lived by Mary on 7th. She said that I should tell you, Bob, that your dog barks to much at night.

Really, Bob, whether i give you my real name or a nickname, you would know me the same as before. I do own my comments. I put my nick on everyone.

Thanks for having a REAL intention to be in conversation with alternate opinions. May you live long and prosper.

[tooaugust]

that last comment was for Darren

[tooaugust]

BJJS, i think you're the only one here who has thus far called people a name.

[bob Hyatt]

It saddens me that you can't even see how far from a Christlike attitude you are... and that you would actually use Christ to justify your sarcastic and biting remarks is beyond the pale. Please take the Scripture seriously: "Instead, they should be gentle and show true humility to everyone." Titus 3

Apologies to everyone here. I'm done talking to tooagust and I'd suggest you all ignore him as well. He brings nothing of value. There are critics who help... he's not one.

"If anyone is causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with that person. For people like that have turned away from the truth. They are sinning, and they condemn themselves."

[BJJS]

I will call names: Tooaugust is a loser and a phoney.

[BJJS]

furthermore,
I agree with Jamie...this argument between captain evangelical conservative tooaugust and captain "jesus is my luvy duvy buddy and we should all be progressive" hippy pastor from evergreen - this argument is ridiculous and makes fools you both of them and emergent. However, i think emergent has a way of doing that on its own.

I have raised very real and concrete issues (along with this guy Jake the snake) that emergent shouuld be concerned with but i now realize that this forum is not the proper place. it is filled with rambling idiots. I thought this was a the official emergent site but i am beginning to wonder if there is any intelligence in emergent. I know there is, but where to find it is the problem. Do the smart one's know that these blogs are full of idiots so they stick to other forms of conversation?

So far Jamie is the only one to actually engage in true dialogue, but the rest of you just add fuel to idiot fire known as "tooaugust" and in sodoing you just give him what he wants: to hijack this website. Don't you see what he is doing? He is pushing all of your buttons and by responding you ignore the intent of the original poster (or posts that actually raise real concerns) and thus he has successfully hi-jacked the thread because he remains at the center....

PS tooaugust is still a loser

[tooaugust]

Once again, interpreting Scripture against itself when you interpret gentleness as not being harsh. BTW, schisms are caused by those who do not teach sound doctrine--one of the qualifications for an elder (Titus 1).
I have to apologize as well to everyone. I thought talking to Bob might show people that there is a distinction between what we think Christianity teaches about something, and what it actually teaches. I believe many things we condemn would condemn Christ as well, but I was wrong in talking to Bob about this. He is not ready. Perhaps, if Elijah were to mock is unBiblical notions, he would have listened. Perhaps if Micaiah had sarcastically answered him in order to mock his misinterpretation of an issue, he would have listened. Perhaps if Nehemiah pulled out his hair in rebuke or Paul had called him a whitewashed wall or Peter would have called him an unreasoning animal, he wouldn't have made the claim that they are just justifying their attitudes and words that are really by nature inherently evil? I guess we'll never know. Maybe he can go back in a time machine and be teachable to them, or he can stay in the present and learn to be teachable to those who respond like them. The world will never know.

[tooaugust]

I am but a mirror to those who speak to me.

[Mary Poppins]

Tooaugust, this is what you are:
1) a loser
2) a phoney
3) some jackass who just earned his lame M.Div degree from some nonesense school like Fuller, Westmont, Bethel, Gordon, BIOLA, Wheaton or the such...go shout Bible verses at someone else...they don't impress anyone here

PS you are still a loser

[Ben]

I feel like I'm in a forum for middle schoolers now.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Sigh... Sorry folks. I am afraid I am out of this thread once and for all.

[tooaugust]

Mary/BSjj, I know you're trying to scare me away with your spoonful of sugar, but I completed my "M.Div" a long time ago and so I'll stay and put my nonsensical graduate degrees to work. What elite college did you go to that puts all others to shame? Or do you deride all scholastic training because academics interfere with your brilliance? It's funny though since I went to none of those schools, but you just degraded half the people on this site who did. I really want to know where you went and what degrees you have, since you brought it up.

[Billy Jo Jimbob Slim]

Yes, this is a forum for middleschoolers...I'm out of here

[tooaugust]

We are considered the dregs of the world
To those who are perishing we are a stench of death, but to those who are being saved, life.

[BJJS]

I knew it. i knew you had a phoney MDiv degree. Those are so junior varsity. Go play scripture games with the other Mdiv's...i'm out of here

[tooaugust]

"Tooaugust, this is what you are:
1) a loser
2) a phoney
3) some jackass who just earned his lame M.Div degree from some nonesense school like Fuller, Westmont, Bethel, Gordon, BIOLA, Wheaton or the such...go shout Bible verses at someone else...they don't impress anyone here"

Like I said, a mirror.

[tooaugust]

Actually, I had the M.Div in quotes. I don't have one. I did that in my undergrad. I have four other graduate degrees. Like I asked, where did you go and what degrees do you have?

[bjjs]

Well, I have five graduate degrees. So there. You must be very proud of yourself...you loser, I am only 14 years old, so who ever said that this like a forum for middleschoolers, you wern't far off. I am actually out of school for the summer.

Tooaugust, congratulations on all your degrees. Go tell someone who cares. I've got to go get ready for soccer pratice.

[tooaugust]

Really? I'm only 10. I'm advanced for my age. See you later. I've gotta go to karate to learn how to beat up all the soccer players at my school.

[charles]

you look older...

http://www.aplacefortruth.org/ketoctin/sitebuilder/images/biggsman.4-190x270.jpg

[charles]

too august/little c unveiled as...

Rev. Charles R. Biggs

Pastor Biggs was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia and is a graduate of Oglethorpe University in Atlanta where he studied the liberal arts, and of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA where he studied Theology, Biblical Studies, and Church History. He is ordained in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

KETOCTIN COVENANT, 441 E. Main Street
Mail: P.O. Box 628, Round Hill, 20142

biggs.1@opc.org

I think it really does help to put a face with a name...

[Harvey the Rabbit]

ha! That's beautiful.

Pastor Biggs/too august - whatever the hell your name is...i can't wait till everyone in your congregation reads all these posts....you really are a loser

and Oglethorpe University is right on par with Devry University. You really must be very proud. You're laughable man. and a phoney.

Thanks Charles...

[Harvey the Rabbit]

ha! That's beautiful.

Pastor Biggs/too august - whatever the hell your name is...i can't wait till everyone in your congregation reads all these posts....you really are a loser

and Oglethorpe University is right on par with Devry University. You really must be very proud. You're laughable man. and a phoney.

Thanks Charles...

[Porky Pigg]

PS you look like a dueschbag in that bowtie...someone who thinks they are smarter than the rest of the world...the picture fits with the emails.

[charles]

dude... chill.

[bjjs]

Too August(Rev. Biggs), HarveyRabitt, and Porky Pig,

You three need to heed charles advice and take a chill pill. Let's keep this on a professional level and get back to the original intent of Mr. McClaren's post. Thank you and have a great Independence day weekened (for all of you who are in the USA)...

i ONLY post this here because this is the only way i know to contact bjjs. i tried reaching you off-blog at your e-mail address since my comment/question was not directly relevant to the topics here. i got the following message:

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----