Claiming Emergent
So apparently the trend this past week has been to publicly declare if one is in or out with the whole emerging/emergent thing. I have a mixed reaction to the discussion. On one hand I want to admit that yes, I am Emergent and have no problem supporting that group. But on the other hand, I find the whole process of drawing lines and declaring teams to be a bit silly. So in my near incoherent ramblings that seem to be my modus operandi these days (getting computer time in 5 minute snatches is starting to get annoying…) I’ll try to explain what I mean.
I’m Done With Pretending
I’ve spent far too much time in recent years playing a role that was not who I am. I existed in church circles where I let others assume I was just like them. I knew who I was (my politics, my theology, my cultural habits) did not fit into their box of what a good little suburban evangelical woman should be. So I let them assume lies about me instead of rocking the boat. I’m done with that (okay, I’m attempting to be done with that). I am part of this emerging/emergent conversation and I am not going to hide from that. Sure I could use whatever euphemisms I desire, but in all truth the emerging/Emergent label fits who I am. Sure there are numerous people out there that don’t understand what those things mean. They hear the term “emerging church” and assume we burn our bibles, worship Satan, and eat or children (or something similar). Do I choose to lie to make up for their stupidity, ignorance, and closed-mindedness? I will try to be upfront and transparent with what I believe, if others would rather believe hearsay about me, then that is their problem. All too often we emergents are accused of not caring about truth - at this point I’d rather be truthful about who I am than let the misunderstanding and judgements of others force me to hide.
This is My Tribe
I am at home with the emergent crowd. For the most part I agree with the books written by Emergent leaders. I’m not following them with mindless devotion or joining a personality cult as some have accused (in order to dismiss the whole idea and avoid real discussion). But I like the ideas that they are discussing and have resonated with their faith journeys. I’ve appreciated the resources provided by Emergent and have benefited from the networks it created. I have my criticisms of Emergent and have even expressed them here. But I like to think that I do so as part of the group not as an outside critic. I have found a community with Emergent and want to help shape it into the best it can be.
I am not afraid or organization but neither do I see Emergent as my church or denomination. The fears that others have expressed on that issue are lost on me. I am very low church and have never been too fond of denominations (possibly the result of my non-denom Bible church upbringing). By affiliating with Emergent I am not joining a new denomination, but neither am I abandoning any other (since I have none to abandon). There has been much talk recently about the need to just bring the emerging conversation into existing congregations and denominations. Phyllis Tickle recently wrote about -
…churches and congregations that are moving to embrace emergent Christian thought while melding it with extant and/or historic expressions of the faith. They are known as the hyphenateds. They are the presbymergents and methomergents, the luthermergents, and the baptimergents, the submergents and the anglimergents, etc. They fascinate me more even than do completely emergent congregations, because they seem to me to be engaged in the more difficult task of bringing to the party the best of two worlds, the ancient and the future. They are hyphenated, in other words, because they seek to meld the DNA and passion and post-modern theology of a new form of Christianity with the extant body and operative history of an established tradition.
As much as I love Phyllis Tickle, I do not see myself in her description of churches. I don’t have a tradition to meld and am really not interested in joining one for the mere sake of claiming a tradition. So while others can have a great time being hyphenateds, I am a low-church mutt who has no problem calling gathering with other like minded believers “church.” I’ve found where I belong and I am going to claim it. I don’t fear too much or too little organization nor am I wary of labels. I just want to be part of the community.
I Like Diversity
Missional, Emergent, emerging, ancient/future… Do we really have to each be separate and distinct groups that have nothing to do with each other? Sure there are widely different expression of faith among each of them, but do we have to build walls and delineate boundaries so intricately? I know that this might just be me, but I’m okay with ambiguity. I like agreeing to disagree. A huge value in our old church was that it was okay to disagree with each other as a worshiping community. I didn’t have to have my identity spelled out for me by someone else nor was I afraid to associate with people who weren’t exactly like me. I like being part of the emerging conversation where some people are experimenting radically with worship, others exploring what it means to live missionally, and still others digging deep into theology. Some of us are doing all of those things (and more), others simply desire to engage in one or two aspects of the conversation. But we are all part of the discussion, repeated for every generation and era, of what it means to be a follower of Christ in our world. I’d rather us coexist than have certain streams take their ball and go play somewhere else. In the past I’ve heard people reject the emerging church for theological reasons, recently I’ve begun to hear people reject us because of our infighting. They see a splintered group with various factions seeking dominion over each other. So instead of unraveling into such rigid and modern subsets, I’d prefer us to accept postmodern ambiguity and coalesce as a diverse and inclusive (albeit hard to define) community. Would loving and accepting and supporting each other really be that difficult?
So I claim the term Emergent, but find this whole labeling war a bit silly. Does it really matter who’s in or out? Have we abandoned humility and love of neighbor so that we can each get our way? Of course all of this is messy and awkward. Of course we will disagree from time to time. Of course we will have to be generous and understanding with each other. But isn’t all that just a normal part of being a Christ follower trying to live faithfully each and every day?
(and yes, I see how these thoughts could be called merely naive. I’d prefer to call them simply frustrated but hopeful…)
Tags:
Julie Clawson
Topics: Emerging Church |
September 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Wow, Julie, as a fellow “low-church mutt,” I completely resonate with what you’ve said here. I love what Phyllis is talking about, but don’t forget about us evangelical emergers who have no denominational roots to hyphenate ourselves with!
I also understand the concern over what will surely be perceived as Dan Kimball and Scot McKnight (and others, including Erwin McManus, I believe) for “drawing lines” and separating themselves from Emergent Village. But it seems to me what they’ll be doing is establishing a new network for a distinct purpose (to support pastors and church planters, perhaps?) that will then allow them a platform to produce resources and foster conversation about those things in the way that Emergent Village has done over the past several years.
It forces Emergent to become more focused, perhaps, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. And whatever those guys end up doing, I would hope Emergent (as a network and a generative friendship) would be a good partner for them. As far as I can tell, we can still all be friends.
And I think the development of new networks like this can probably even a sign of maturity for the emerging church movement. So that’s the positive side of it, anyway.
Those are just some of my initial thoughts. I hope you start to get more than 5-minute opportunities to write! I love reading what you think.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Well said, Julie. Thanks. I too am glad for a place (obviously imperfect) where we can bring all of our similarities and differences to the table.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
well, you know the saying. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…well then, its a duck.
Of course, there are people who show all the signs of emergence. Go to emergent conferences. Hold the same views most emergents do. Write for emergent blogs. But then claim NOT to be emergent and in fact get very very offended when evidence is presented to the contrary. I mean, what’s in it for them to deny it that they are walking, talking and waddling like a duck. They may as well just admit that they are a duck. What’s the difference between an emergent who has claimed the label and one who hasn’t? Not much. Critics of emergent have said that one problem is just how slippery emergents are when pinned down about where exactly they are coming from. This adds quite a bit of evidence to the pot.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Great post Julie, ty.
I like diversity too. I’m glad that people can say heh i like this, this works for me and maybe it’ll work with you, without trying to set it up as the only way that will work.
That is the great beauty of the church, like minded but flawed people meeting together to undertake the mission of christ. Who cares if that looks like a duck or a platypuss??
September 10th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
This is an interesting discussion, and I suppose (guess, really) that all the negatives associated with denominationalism is to blame for people not wanting to be named (??). I guess I would officially be, “Anglimergent”, but I can completely identify with the low church mutt comment, too (as a relatively new Anglican). All the emergent stuff out there has been very inspiring to me. It gives me hope. I’ve never called myself “emerging” and I’ve never called myself, “not emerging” (or emergent?). But, I do know that I am blessed to have emergent others as part of my journey.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:09 am
um, my duck comment was in reference to a popular saying. My point was that if you hold down all the characteristics of something, why evade being called that? It seems like a rather slippery tactic to me.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Hi Julie,
I just posted on Mike’s blog and then read yours. I always appreciate reading what you have to say. I can say in regards to part of your post, that there is nothing about who is “in or out” as you put it. It is about focusing around aligning around something(the evangelistic commands of Jesus). Focusing on evangelism isn’t an “in” or “out” conversation. There can be a lot of diversity around evangelism. With the network being discussed, we most likely will be using the Lausanne Covenant as a description of what we are rallying around in terms of evangelism. But if you read it, it is a globally and multi-denominationally formed document and has a lot of diversity for those who are part of Lausanne.
Anyway, wanted to just add some thoughts and thanks for sharing yours in your blog.
Dan
September 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
This is why Christian has always been the only label that felt comfortable for me. I don’t mean that as the snide indictment or naive statement it might sound like. I just mean that while I have tendencies that are emergent and tendencies that are Catholic and tendencies that are Protestant and tendencies that are Church of Christ (the non-denominational denomination that I grew up and left behind), the only thing I hope I’m really shooting for is Christlikeness. Which I think is true of all of us, but it’s why I get uncomfortable with the “emergent” label. Not because it’s something I’m trying to avoid, but because it isn’t something I’m trying to pursue. Christ is. And so Christian is the only label I’ve ever felt right about embracing.
Man, the more I write this the more I see how it could be misunderstood. I’m not accusing any who self-affiliate “emergent” as being less than Christian or pursuing something other than Christ. I know that isn’t so. In fact, my experience with emerging/emergent has been very similar to yours. I just avoid the emergent label for the same reason I try to avoid other denominational or doctrinal labels, because people begin to assume all sorts of specifics that may or may not be true. Christian means I’m affiliating with Christ. And I want people to assume that.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:03 am
I think in the future the growing influence of the deconstructive theology of Jack Caputo/Peter Rollins on the Emergent Village networks in the US (and the subsequent ripple effect in the UK) will create ongoing tensions especially with the formation of a new grouping led by S Mcknight. E Mcmanus etc based on the Lousanne Covenant (classic evangelicalism and ‘religion without religion’ liberal theology make very uneasy bedfellows). My take on the future of the emerging church conversation but I could be wrong.
Rodney
September 25th, 2008 at 7:18 am
From the beginning emerging has been about conversation. I don’t think Scot or Dan want to end this conversation, but from the responses I have seen from others they are rejoicing in the chance to stay relevant but avoid theological conversation. I’ve got a real problem with that. It’s fine to disagree with say deconstructive theology, but box oneself in so that one doesn’t ever have to engage those ideas is disappointing. I think most of the issue is that the classic evangelicals are so suspect of exploring this theology that they have failed to realize that it is different from classic liberal theology.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Hello Julie
I am not so sure that deconstructive theology is different fom classic liberal theology but that is a whole vast subject in itself. I like your blog and checking in regularly.
all the best to you, Mike and Aiden
Ps - if you get a chance to hear Pete Rollins in his US tour he is well worth it
Rodney
September 25th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Julie I have mixed reactions to what seems like the raising of conversation to the status of the highest good or as the defining trait of a movement. Evangelicalism in many of its forms has been way too closed and unwilling to engage in conversation. The move toward more openness, less of a defensive posture, more conversation about more things is a good one in my eyes. But at the same time, ought everything always be up for debate within a community? I don’t think so, personally. I don’t think that’s possible.
People will differ re. exactly what is non-negotiable or what should be treated as “settled and agreed upon, at least for now” within the movement. But everyone has their non-negotiables. And if my non-negotiables are constantly treated as negotiables about which we need to have more conversation, I am going to look for another group with which to identify myself, even if I do so humbly and am willing to remain “in conversation” with people who disagree with me about what I see as non-negotiable. That may be because I have my head in the sand. But it may also be because I’ve been open minded, thought carefully through the issues and come to a conclusion I believe in strongly and don’t want to keep re-covering the same ground within the group I primarily identify with.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
[…] Claiming Emergent from Julie Clawson at One Hand Clapping […]
October 1st, 2008 at 7:27 am
Nice post Julie.
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
[…] I’ve digested the viewpoints of Tony Jones, Bob Hyatt, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Andrew Jones, Julie Clawson, and Dan Kimball on this subject. At the heart of each person’s view was a desire to make people […]
November 6th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
[…] Tickle Gets Blogged on: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33, 34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50, 51,52, […]