Emergent Insiders?
So I am still processing the conversation from this past weekend at EVDC09 (and still trying to catch up on my sleep). One of the topics that keeps surfacing in discussions of Emergent Village is that of the inclusivity of all voices. Critiques have been made (with good reason) regarding how EV often seems like a club for insiders. Heck, I’ve even said that before – wishing that more voices could be heard as part of this conversation. And as I’ve mentioned before, this critique is not so often based on reality as it is on the perception of reality. So even if all voices/people have always been welcomed, that welcome or presence hasn’t been seen by wider audiences and so is perceived not to exist.
Even amidst the group gathered this past weekend we had to confront the feeling of being an outsider. On one hand we had to admit that from a certain perspective the 23 of us gathered in a room to discuss the future of Emergent Village screamed “insider.” Just the act of gathering like that might imply to some that we were on the inside of some secret society that held all the power. But in fact as we confessed to each other that first evening, we all felt like outsiders, wondering why we were there. This feeling is not something I am unfamiliar with at all. For a long while my interactions with emergent came through reading the books and occasionally going to hear some big-name author speak. Sure I participated in online discussions and a local cohort, but I didn’t feel like I had a voice within Emergent as a whole. My experience attending the 2005 Emergent Convention in Nashville only confirmed that outsider status. For reference, I attended with my three-month-old daughter and was under the impression that I would never again be a fully-functioning human being (much less get a full night of sleep). I recall attending the Emerging Women lunch and feeling very overwhelmed and worthless as all the other women at my table talked about their seminary experience and recent conversations on their blogs. So while I resonated and came alive with everything I heard there, I felt like I could never truly belong. Same thing at the 2006 Emergent Glorietta Gathering. I felt like I was crashing a party of really good friends. But after that event as I started connecting online with the people I had met at the Gathering, relationships were built. I slowly realized that being part of the Emergent conversation simply meant making the effort to be a part of it. So for better or worse, I jumped in – hosting blogs and events to help facilitate the conversation. Did that turn me into an insider? Maybe. To me it just felt like joining the conversation.
But at the same time I completely understand the barriers that are still perceived to exist. And those barriers were talked about this weekend. No matter how often we in emergent say we are open source or about shared power, if people can’t easily perceive and access that then our words have no value. So there need to be deliberate steps taken to listen to the voices of the many, to link to the diversity of voices within the conversation, and to make invitations to join the conversation (both publicly and privately) upfront and apparent. Unless leadership is transparent and invitations for involvement continually offered, the perception of a closed group of insiders will persist. Granted, there will always be some that will be angry about being on the outside unless they (or at least their special-interest group) is handed power, and that can’t be helped. But the truth is being part of Emergent often means being willing to put in the work of stepping up, using their voice, and working for the good of the whole. It’s about choosing to serve and share power – always extending invitations to the Other.
So of course we have a long way to go to reach a point of true openness, there is no denying that. And while we can say that all are welcome if they will just step up to the conversation, I think the burden on inclusion should be on us who are already comfortable as part of the conversation. We need to be the ones extending invitations, welcoming others in, and making it easy for them to be a part of the conversation. So while we may not see ourselves as insiders, we are at the very least in a place where we can at least blur the perceived line between insiders and outsiders. Because in the end those desiring to be a part of this conversation are all in the same place. We all struggle, we all question, and we all desire a community to do all that together with. I think Amy Moffitt described it best in her reflection on this past weekend -
“The truth, of course, is that there really isn’t an inside. There are folks who know a little more than other folks, but it became apparent –to me at least– that every single person there is an exile in some sense. We came together, believing in the real worth of Emergent Village, because it has served as a meeting place for us… a place where, for once, we could feel that we were accepted in our fullness without being expelled for failure to conform, where our desires to not only love Jesus but live with integrity to our particular experiences in and perceptions of the world is valued despite the theology that logically follows from this integrity… theology that upsets the apple cart in most denominations. I think I can say with confidence that this was a room full of People Who Can’t Lie Worth Shit… a bunch of people who have to call it as they truly see it, even if that gets them in trouble. And it has. And it will. And we can all pretty much live with that.”
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
one thing that may go a long way to changing this perception might be to make the invitation process itself more “public” in some sense.
i haven’t been able to attend any events yet, but i listen to a lot of podcasts and read a lot of blogs. and there is often discussion about the make-up of panels and speakers and the like. is it gender neutral enough. is it racially diverse. is it global. does it cut across denominational lines. these kinds of things.
and sometimes it is clear from the discussion that a particular event was purely white male protestant anabaptist purely by mistake and circumstances. many people from many demographics -were invited- but couldn’t participate. sometimes all we get is the complaints after the fact that “well, this was a great event, but still white male”. and we don’t know if those invitations to diversity went out, or not.
i know, as a Catholic, i feel very outsider. esp. when conversations frequently turn to critique and defense of positions in particular doctrines, and most esp. when the turf war between Emergent and Radical Reformed/NeoCalvinist/whomever crops up. i have -nothing- to contribute to that debate and no interest in reading/hearing it, because as far as i’m concerned you’re all schismatics who need to get off your high horse and come Home
i’m joking. but it is a huge fence and it doesn’t seem to have a gate in it. the recent event down at the CAC with Father Rohr went a long way to making me believe that Emergent is not just a new flavor of Protestant schism.
i was saying this on Twitter to Makeesha and Steve Knight yesterday. i’ve been dying to get into a cohort. but near as i can tell, all the Chicago cohorts are in the suburbs. there is, theoretically, one up in Wicker Park, but that’s a long way from Woodlawn. i have to assume there are at least two or three people at Univ. Chicago with at least some passing interest in emerging conversation. there are, i think, at least two seminaries here. but there doesn’t seem to be an obvious mechanism within EV to help connect the “loners” who are trying to find a pack to run with.
becoming much more proactive about trying to create and steer people into IRL groups and conversations will go a -long- way, i think, to making more people feel like EV is a big tent, with lots of insiders, instead of a small tent with all of us standing outside with our ear up against the flaps.
Julie, thanks for the quote! Wow that was really kind of you.
jhimm, I wish with all of my heart that you had been there. I was the “Catholic” in the room, but I have a few other identities, as well, and I’m not a cradle Catholic. I don’t know you and maybe you’ve been all over the EV world making yourself known, but my impression is that you basically need to keep speaking up… on the blogs, on twitter, on the EV site. Keep yourself out there… friend everyone that was at EVDC on Facebook… that’s how your voice gets heard.
“People Who Can’t Lie Worth Shit” — I like it!
I think early on there was an unspoken precedent that said “If you can make it to one of the big gatherings then you’ll be inside.” I admit, that could simply be my own perception, but it was a perception nonetheless. It was a tad frustrating because it sort of meant that if you could afford to take off a few days from life, pay for the flight, and the board, then you could be part of the in-crowd. I can’t afford to take my family on a vacation, much less be part of the big event.
Again, that’s my own perception. maybe it was unfounded.
And thanks for the reflections on EVDC09 too, everyone.
I would love to hear from those who feel like outsiders to help us understand what generates that perception and give us concrete ideas about how to fix it. As Julie said, we talked about this perception and all wanted it to change but I’m not sure anyone knows how to fix it -even the people who said they had that feeling. I’m the kind of person who inserts myself into a place where I want to be – invited or not – so this isn’t an issue for me. But I need to hear those voices … as long as there is something we can do to change it – something concrete and tangible.
Is there a cohort in Austin? I’m new to this conversation, but would love to meet some people.
“I slowly realized that being part of the Emergent conversation simply meant making the effort to be a part of it.”
perfect. that’s it, exactly, at least in my experience.
jhimm – i think we do all join in the conversations that speak to our experiences. As far as I know up/rooted Wicker Park is the only city cohort, but last I heard there was one starting in the nearsouth suburbs. Rebecca who leads the wicker Park one goes to UofC, but I’m sure there are others there who would be interested. We did talk a lot this weekend about making these connections easier. Mike I know has a real heart for streamlining that process as well. So we shall see.
Shawn – it’s true, there is something about connecting with people in real life to make those friendships happen. but i don’t think this has to happen at a huge gathering. Cohorts and regional events are ways to connect as well.
Rececca – there is an Austin cohort, I haven’t been there yet and have heard that it isn’t very active. I’ve heard that in cities with good emerging churches, like austin, the cohorts aren’t as active because they aren’t as needed. But i would love to connect with others in Austin for discussion and the like as well!
I thought it was just me who felt like an outsider to the Emergent conversation. Does it strike anyone else as odd that a group that has at it’s core a high value on community that people are finding it challenging to participate within community in Emergent? And that they don’t feel connected to the community?
jhimm – I’ve been on the EV National Cohorts Team for the past couple of years, and we definitely have a passion for getting people plugged into local conversations as much as possible, especially by creating new cohorts just as fast as people step forward to lead them. We’re doing that as much as we can, but unfortunately right now the process can be a little opaque and unwieldy. It’s mainly a technology problem, in terms of how the EV website functions. There’s not a good way to find out who else is near you that might want to get a cohort conversation going. Right now we just have to wait till someone contacts us through the website inquiry form and asks about a cohort in their area. Then those of us on the Natl. Cohorts Team try to connect them when anyone else near them who has inquired and give them steps and advice to follow on how to get a cohort going.
Anyhow, the best thing I can tell you right now is that if you’re serious about wanting to get a conversation going down there on the south side of Chicago, I’d be happy to give you some advice on how to do that, and I’m sure the other up/rooted leaders would be happy to partner with you and give you some support as well. It’s not as hard as it looks. When I started up/rooted.west back in ‘03 I basically just found two other people online who were in the Chicago burbs and talking about this stuff and we all showed up at a Borders and each brought three other friends with us. That’s all it took to start a new cohort. No reason you couldn’t do that too.
If you’re interested, just email me at mike(dot)clawson(at)gmail(dot)com.
I come from Southeast Asia– where Christianity is growing and thriving, but practically uniformly evangelical in nature, and so have been introduced to, and have interacted with, the emerging church movement and progressive streams of Christianity almost purely via the web.
I have always yearned for a more honest, less sanitized, less compartmentalised way of seeing, living out and thinking about the faith, a way that really engages with life, the world we live in and all its complexities and ways of being. Which I must say, the evangelicals seem to be embracing these days, albeit in smaller steps. In some ways, the overall culture of Christianity I was brought up in (though not necessarily the individual churches or groups I attended), to give an analogy bears a closer resemblance to the kind of cheesy communist propoganda in Chairman Mao’s China than the writings of Karl Marx.
So it was extremely heartening to realise that there were Christians out there voicing out exactly the same questions and frustrations I’ve had, groups of Christians who have felt they can’t fit into an overly rigid mainstream church.
Yet I must confess in many ways after setting aside preconceptions and exploring writings and such, I have, rather than finally found my place, felt an ‘outsider’ from the ‘outsiders’. I guess I’m one of those people who’s too liberal to be conservative and too conservative to be liberal. Perhaps my experience would be very different if I had met the faces behind the writings, but it does feel that in the end all my time trying to explore more progressive forms of Christianity have been taking up by me defending my more conservative fellow Christians all the time. While I myself can certainly attest to the limitations of more conservative forms of Christianity, I always end up feeling “othered” whenever I keep hearing the sentiment of “oh these narrow judgemental conservative christians..”.. it feels as though the general sentiment of more progressive Christians is that the world would be a better place if all theologically conservative Christians disappeared. When theologically conservative Christians are the ones you grew up with, are the ones you hear collectively described as bigoted fundies.. yet your experience of them has told you most of them would never hurt a fly… the ones who don’t get why you need to question certain things, but love you unconditionally anyway.. well, it does rankle.
I suppose the trouble is, deep down I am still theologically conservative– and while I can and am willing to engage with and question preconceived theological ‘truths’, I have to work with and within and from those basic premises first.. and I think certain issues are far more complex for evangelical Christians because there are certain theological ‘fundamentals’ (ah, the f word again) that they have to negotiate and work with one way or the other, which would be non-issues for theologically progressive Christians, and which is something I think progressive Christians and those in the emerging church tend to overlook sometimes when they see evangelicals taking baby steps towards certain issues. They need to look beyond just one narrow theological framework and see things on multiple levels, but they can’t just throw it out either.
I don’t know where I’m going with this… I do tend to ramble! but yeah.. this is not meant as a criticism of the emerging/emergent movement by any means! Just sharing my own experiences being caught in between the in between
Peace
Pippin, I think that’s a great post and am glad you spoke up. I relate very much to your experience, and think there are many others who can also. I hope such voices are heard within EV.
I like the point you make in your last paragraph about the complexity that comes when one has submitted to certain beliefs as true or authoritative. I think Alan Jacobs makes a similar point in this excerpt from his interview with PBS’s “Frontline”:
Q: … “I’ll ask it to you a different way. What I think is really curious is that I think one of the stereotypes about evangelicals is that evangelicals just accept the Bible as truth, and there’s no sort of questioning. There’s no wrestling that’s going on. You’re blindly accepting this as truth. You know God is speaking through this book to you. It just seems very simple, and especially the way that reporters talk about it usually is very simple. Talk to me about that intellectual process, and why it might just be really appropriate that someone like you would believe in the Bible.”
A: “It seems to me that the people who are really wrestling with Scripture are the ones who are taking its authority seriously. After all, if you don’t believe that the Bible is the word of God, if you believe that these are just historic documents with no particular claim on you or on anybody else, that doesn’t lead you to wrestle with anything. You can just dismiss anything in it that you see that strikes you as being alien or that makes you uncomfortable or that you feel that you can’t endorse.
“So it’s quite easy to read a passage of Scripture, decide that it’s not something that you buy into, and then put it aside, unless you have a commitment to the authority of that text. If you have that commitment, it actually pressures you. It puts the screws to you. It makes it very hard for you to have a simple response to it.
“Jesus talks to a man who is always referred to in the biblical literature as the rich, young ruler. He tells him, “OK, if you want what I’m giving, if you want the kind of life that I have to offer, then take everything that you have, sell it and give it to the poor.” And this young man walks away sad, because he had great wealth.
“I read that passage, and I have to struggle with that, because I’m thinking, “What is this passage demanding of me?” It says something to me, because I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that he is my Lord and my Savior. He says something like this. I have to ask myself, “What does it mean for me?” So far, I haven’t decided that it means that I have to sell everything I have and give it to the poor, but maybe that’s because I’m an inauthentic or disobedient Christian. Maybe I’m not taking my beliefs seriously enough.
“So I can say this is the word of God for me. But that’s only the beginning of my problems. That actually doesn’t solve problems. That creates a whole set of problems, because I have to work very hard to try to figure out what sort of demand this text is making upon me.”
Pippin – I think part of what you’re experiencing is the fact that a lot of this emerging thing is a journey, and not everyone is at the same point on the path, or on exactly the same path. There are those who have been questioning for a long time, or lots of different things, and others not so long, or who have different particular concerns. Emergent Village struggles with the tension of being a place for provocative, cutting edge theological questioning, and being a safe place for newcomers to the conversation to begin asking their questions. Often, unfortunately, the provocative stuff can scare off the newcomers. Someone might read “A New Kind of Christian” and really like what Brian has to say, but then they read his third book in the series and find out that he questions the traditional interpretation of Hell, and that freaks them out and they end up not wanting to engage with any of it.
Anyhow, I’m not saying that’s you, but I think it is a challenge for those of us who have been a part of this conversation a lot longer and who are comfortable with even the more “extreme” stuff, to still remember what it was like to just start on the journey and not expect everyone to just automatically be where we are at right away. (Or to ever get exactly there necessarily. Everyone’s journey is going to be different.)
Jacobs represents a more open-minded, progressive end of evangelicalism, and I respect him for that. And I agree, to wrestle with scripture one has to take it seriously. That’s one of the issues I have with some of the approaches I’ve encountered here at a relatively liberal seminary, where some are comfortable just disregarding the parts of the Bible that they don’t like. If one believes in the inspiration of scripture, then I don’t think that’s an appropriate response.
However, what Jacobs doesn’t mention is the further step that many conservative Christians take, which is not simply “the Bible is authoritative and therefore I have to wrestle with it”, but the (often unspoken) assumption that they already automatically know what the one, correct, inerrant interpretation of it is (”God says it; I believe it; that settles it.”). When that is assumed, then that can shut down any honest wrestling with the text just as much an extreme liberal position that denies any inspiration or authority to the Bible at all.
Personally I think a truly transformative experience of wrestling with scripture requires an acknowledgement of two things: 1) scripture is “God-breathed” and thus is, in some sense, significant/authoritative for my faith and practice, and cannot simply be disregarded; and 2) I don’t always know exactly what the text means, or what it means for me personally. Jacobs affirms both of these, from what I could tell, but he only recognizes the denial of the first (the “liberal” error) as a problem, without recognizing the denial of the second (the common error of his own camp) as equally problematic.
We know Jacobs is well aware of the fundamentalist tendencies within Evangelicalism. But he’s speaking to a PBS interviewer who, like many, is aware of only the more closed-minded, fundamentalist end of evangelicalism. He’d be preaching to the choir if he just started slamming the Falwellites right and left. So instead he is drawing the distinctions between fundamentalism and (more responsible) evangelicalism and emphasizing the possibility of a rational, open-minded, intellectually sound faith that is evangelical – which is of course what he represents and what he’s being asked about. It’s an interesting interview, even though several years old:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/jacobs.html
Mike, I’m glad you posted this: ” (Or to ever get exactly there necessarily. Everyone’s journey is going to be different.)”
Because without that acknowledgment the rest of your would have seemed to be suggesting that if one is willing to ask enough previously taboo questions over a long enough time, one will inevitably come to be as comfortable with the same level of theological innovation or jettisoning of the church’s historic interpretations as some of the leaders of EV.
That would remind me too much of the attitude of the leadership at the uber-refomed church we attended for a time. Anyone who hadn’t accepted their hypercalvinism lock, stock and barrell was just “at a different level of understanding” or “a different place on the road” or “hadn’t had enough time” (to read Calvin – or, actually Sproul and Piper – and listen to the pastor’s sermons on Grace as he understood it). Meaning of course, that full understanding, total enlightenment, and the only (or most worthy) end destination . . . was to come to embrace their Calvinistic systematic theology 100%. Anyone who disagreed just wasn’t as smart as them or just hadn’t gone far enough through the process of thinking it through yet. It was all very condescending, among other things.
Is there a danger of taking the same attitude with emergent’s approach to theology – implying that anyone who hasn’t gotten as comfortable with certain ideas as Tony Jones or Doug Pagitt or Mike Clawson are, or who doesn’t hold certain dismissive and angry attitudes toward evangelicalism in toto, just hasn’t walked far enough on the road yet? As opposed to saying no, maybe they’ve thought long and hard about it and wrestled with it as long or longer than I have and are aware of all the data and experience that I’m aware of, and they just disagree. I think that’s what Pippin and I struggle with when we say we feel too liberal for evangelicalism but too conservative for emergent. Not a matter of time or careful thought (I was wrestling with at least some of this stuff when you were listening to Rush), but a matter of disagreement or of being at a different place in the gut – and feeling like that places us on the margins or outside. And maybe that’s ok, maybe we are. I should probably talk about “me” rather than “we.” Sorry, Pippin. I don’t claim to know whether you would agree with all of that.
To be fair Mike, on looking at your comment to Pippin again I see that you qualified what you were saying in more places than the one that I quoted. So I’m not accusing you of failing to realize that some people may come to different conclusions or have different issues that are pressing to them. On re-reading my quick end-of the-afternoon post I again realize I may have jumped in a bit too hard. But I’d still be interested in your take on the general issue and whether there’s a danger there.
I added all of those qualifications (four distinct ones by my count) because, yes, I do agree that can be a danger.
However, I also think most of us in the emerging conversation (especially in the Emergent Village circles I tend to move in most frequently) do already realize that there are so many “streams” (as Scot McKnight would say) of the EC that none of us are on exactly the same path. There are so many who come to the conversation from the missional stream, from the social justice stream, from the alt.worship stream, from the post-liberal stream, from the Renovare/Spiritual Disciplines stream, from the organic church/simple church stream, from the neo-anabaptist/Hauerwasian stream, from the McLaren/Wright Kingdom theology stream, etc., etc., that I don’t think we’re in much danger of thinking that this is just a single, linear path that we’re all on. Not to mention the number of times I’ve heard emerging folks reiterate the point that it’s not about agreement, and no one in the conversation is expecting everyone have exactly the same theology about anything, no one is expected to totally agree with Brian or Doug or Rob Bell or whoever. That’s so not the point, and we all know it’s not the point, and I’m not really sure how many more times it needs to be said before people are actually able to hear that message.
In fact, sometimes I wonder if the feelings of exclusion for not being in complete agreement with other in the EC are actually projections from past experiences in more exclusivistic settings – whether liberal or conservative. Sure, you may feel more conservative than a lot of others in the conversation, but that honestly doesn’t matter here the way it might have in other settings. The only thing that does matter is that you’re okay with the diversity of opinions – that you don’t come to the conversation with an attitude of angry condemnation towards those who don’t think exactly like you. That’s really what ties all this together – not theological agreement, or being on the same path, but simply a relational commitment to one another and to the conversation regardless of the differences. If you’re looking for a safe place to ask the questions (whatever your particular questions happen to be) and be in conversation with others (and offer that safe place to them as well), then the emerging church is for you. But if you’re looking for people who think just like you, or who are only asking your particular set of questions, then its probably not.
I didn’t necessarily just have fundamentalists in mind. I know plenty of mainstream evangelicals as well who wouldn’t be inclined to admit that there is any ambiguity at all in discerning exactly what scripture means.
What you say is true Mike. With all those streams represented and with one of the main values being a lack of dogmatism, there’s usually more openness to disagreement in the conversations I have had with emergent folks, than there is among most evangelicals.
But there is also a strong undercurrent especially among the leading voices in the conversation that feels like the “most holy” or “most advanced” or “furthest along” or “most clearsighted” or “most honest” ones are those who have left the largest number of traditional beliefs behind or treat them as things to be lightly left behind. Maybe there’s some projection going on there by me, but I don’t think it’s all just projection and nothing else.
I also wonder how far that openness to disagreement goes. Does it apply on all issues? Would a strong complementarian be welcome in leadership at EV, if s/he wanted to be? A person who is pro-business, anti-labor and thinks the green revolution is a bunch of bunk? Or would they get the same vibe from emergent, that emergents got in more traditional evangelical settings? They’d be engaged with for a time perhaps, but probably not allowed in leadership? Eventually would they be told to Just Shut Up And Sit Down if they disagreed on those issues and Couldn’t Lie Worth Shit about that disagreement, but kept coming to EV gatherings to try to persuade others that they should see it their way? My guess is that most emergent folks would be nicer about it than many fundamentalists and evangelicals have been, but that at some point those voices would be told that they are outside the margins of the conversation, no?
You wrote: “I know plenty of mainstream evangelicals as well who wouldn’t be inclined to admit that there is any ambiguity at all in discerning exactly what scripture means.” I agree; the PBS knows plenty of those people too, and doesn’t need to be educated about them. But I also know plenty of mainstream evangelicals who would agree with Jacobs that scripture must be wrestled with and that it isn’t always clear what this authoritative text demands. The PBS interviewer (and the bulk of her audience) apparently doesn’t know much about those people or even that they exist, so I’m glad Jacobs focused in that direction in that particular interview.
(formerly jhimm, see recent blog post)
Thanks everyone for the responses.
To clarify, I’m about to move to Houston, so getting connected here in Chicago is no longer really the concern. I tried, about a year and a half ago, to tie into the Chicago conversations. The problem is, the highway system here is useless such that getting to anything that isn’t really in the city is not reasonable to do regularly, and the public transit system is such that attempting to attend something “across town” isn’t particularly reasonable, either. Anyone who’s commuting from Wicker Park to UofC on a daily basis is super-human, no question.
But to provide a real concrete example. There’s a link on EV website for EmergentHouston. It includes two names, each with an email address, and URL for a blog. The blog hasn’t seen an update in nearly two months. I emailed the two names, one bounced as a no longer existent account, and I haven’t heard from the other person, yet.
Maybe this is my “thing”? To help find the technology solution to allow EV central to “track” loners and interested parties and identify emerging quorums that can either be sent to existing cohorts or form new ones as needed? My suspicion is that the Google Maps API should make this not particularly difficult at all to do.
First, on how open Emergent is – I’ll admit that I often feel like an outsider. The thing is, I don’t blame that on EV, and don’t think it’s “their”/your/our fault (despite feeling like an outsider, I identify myself as “one of us” nevertheless…). I fear some of it is inevitable.
For example:
A) A *lot* of this conversation happens on-line. And the number of ways to be wired in grows all the time…and the thing is, they all demand a lot of time. If you’re part of the privileged group that can afford things like computers and internet connections, or live in an area where those are readily accessible, great, join the party.
But how many hours a day can you give it? Frankly, I don’t know how most of you maintain your blogs and your “real” skin-to-skin lives. I can give an hour, even two most days, to some web surfing…but that can all easily be taken up by Facebook. Or by reading and engaging in one person’s blog. For awhile I was a regular reader and commenter on Scot McKnight’s blog, and that was great. Scot and the others were most welcoming. But it was during a period where I was job hunting, and I had more free time than I wanted on my hands, and I could stay online and blog at all hours of the day and night. Now I’m working again, and I can’t do it.
So that’s the first challenge, if like me you’re a relative newcomer. Much of this conversation takes place on-line, and if you really want to join in, you need a lot of time. And it’s not as if you can go to one website or mailing list. Which blogs do you follow? Which posts do you respond to? How do you respond enough that you feel like you have voice, and how do you do it without taking too much time from your daily life with the living, breathing people around you – people who don’t seem nearly as likable or interesting as the people you might encounter on-line, but people who nonetheless you’re called to relationship with? How do you balance the personal desire to connect with these fascinating on-line people with the duty to find ways to connect with the real-life people nearby?
So if you don’t have the time, or feel obligated to spend that time in other ways, bingo, outsider looking in. But it’s not because people excluded you – time, money, and circumstances (and personal choices) do the excluding.
B) For the relative newcomer – at least for me – the other problem is that this online community, wonderful though it is, isn’t enough. You can’t hug, or laugh, or cry with, or yell at, or have coffee with, these people. You can read about people doing those things in one wonderful book or another, and long for it, and wish you could be part of churches and communities where such things happen…and voila, outsider looking in. And the more you search online, at least for me, the more you realize that words on a webpage don’t take the place of incarnate community. It’s not enough.
C) Corollary – for those who know each other in real-life, the on-line continuation of those relationships can be really fulfilling. But that means you’ve got to meet some of these people irl.
This is ridiculously long, so I’m gonna cut off and put the rest in another post. Which is also ridiculous – sorry.
Part II, with apologies for being so wordy.
I’ve said I’m a relative newcomer. I started reading some of the EV-related books about 3 years ago. Then I sought out a tiny local cohort in Columbia SC (but have unfortunately moved for my new job, now in Dunn NC, and am again cohort-less). I have attended a few gatherings, the Emergent/Mainline conversation at Columbia Theological Seminary 2 years ago, the EMC tour in Charlotte last year. I kinda know some folks irl and on facebook – and my experience of all of these events has been wonderful. I’ve participated fully and have felt like people were very open. At the Emergent/Mainline conversation, for instance, I knew no one, was brand new to Emergent, and wasn’t mainline – having grown up Southern Baptist and become a Baptist minister. So I was, basically, crashing the party, but people treated me like I was just joining the conversation – much as you said, Julie.
But when you’re an introvert in a group of a couple hundred folks that already know each other, it takes more than a weekend for relationships to gel. It was a great intro, and a powerful time…but I didn’t leave with great new friends. Mostly, I left feeling the potential for great new friends, and the relief of knowing there were other people out there asking the same questions I’d been asking. That was great.
However.
I was able to attend that gathering because, at the time, I lived only 3 hours away (could drive, in other words), and I had family nearby that I could stay with (no hotel cost, in other words). It was similar at the EMC tour in Charlotte last year – nearby, no hotel costs.
I’ve since, pursuing my vocation, been led “into the wilderness.” I’ve checked EV for a new cohort, am willing to drive a ways to reach one, but the two that are listed within an hour’s drive are inactive. The closest is therefore Charlotte – now 3 hours drive from me – and despite embracing the ethic of pilgrimage, I can’t drive 3 hours for a mid-week meeting that is over at 10-11pm and then drive back home. Nor can I afford to stay at hotels even once a month for such meetings. Nor do I know anyone there to stay with.
The other big events – which sound wonderful and I hear about them with longing – are too far away and too expensive for my very tight budget. I don’t wish to sound whiny, because on global terms I remain in the wealthy elite, and I’m certainly much closer than, say, Korea. But I still can’t afford to hop a plane, miss work, and pay hotel bills in order to participate in the big gatherings.
So, outsider looking in, but not because anyone at EV or in the broader emerging conversation have done anything wrong. It’s ironic, because some of EV’s chief concerns deal with justice and poverty issues, and those issues keep many folks from having the opportunities they’d like to participate more fully.) I’m hard-pressed to think of anything that can be done to fix this, though. (Unless all of you emerging folks would be willing to move here. That’d be nice. )
Do I wish I didn’t “live” so far out on the outskirts of the Village, and knew more of you “downtown”, or could come join you in the village square whenever you party or go to market? Absolutely, but in the meantime, it does my heart and soul good to know that people like the rest of you in EV are out there doing what you do.
Oh, and Karl and Pippin and others – I also think I’m more theologically conservative than most other EVers, but I also usually encounter accepatance regardless of that. And in fact, one draw to the conversation was my long-held belief that both conservatism and liberalism had equal and mirroring faults. One of my great joys has been finding other people who felt that, and who rather than be trapped between those two positions, have found ways to get outside that either-or polarization. I think it was Diana Butler Bass, at the Emergent/Mainline conversation, who likened this to two points on either end of a line, and then said that emerging folks have found that it doesn’t have to be a line – that it can be a three-dimensional construct rather than a two-dimensional one, and as you go to three dimensions you get the possibility of a sphere embracing lots of folks rather than a line no-one can cross. She also talked about the convergence(s) between “post-liberals” and “post-conservatives.” When we stop seeing everything in terms of liberal/conservative, we can find lots of areas to discuss and relate to each other in, in areas of missional life, poverty, justice issues, etc. – all questions of how we walk in the way of Jesus , for the glory of God and the good of the world.
Thanks for sharing your reflections Chris. I can sympathize (though perhaps not empathize) with your plight. I receive a lot of cohort requests from people who are out in rural or smaller town contexts and feel very disconnected from any other emergent folks. I’m not really sure what to do about that. And like you said, the online connections are only a solution in as far as you have time to engage. I know I haven’t had as much time for that myself either since starting up at grad school again.
I am encouraged though to hear how you were able to plug into some more regional type gatherings. That, in my opinion, is really where the future is at for EV. The big, national, annual events are great, but aren’t really financially or geographically accessible for more people. Regional gatherings have a lot more potential IMHO. I know Julie and I are currently plotting some regional emergent/social justice related gatherings in several different places around the country next summer, somewhat related to her book. Nothing definite yet, but we’ll keep y’all posted if we manage to get some lined up.
Quite honestly Karl, I think your guess is wrong. I’m just basing that off of what I’ve seen actually occur in cohorts, at gatherings, and in my own emerging churches, but I’ve never seen the kind of exclusion you describe actually take place. At Via Christus, for instance, we had several very conservative folks in the church (in regards to both gender roles and politics, among others things) and they were not marginalized in any way. They were integral parts of the community (leaders even), and free to express their opinions whenever they liked. Likewise, at up/rooted (the Chicago cohort) we would have plenty of more conservative leaning folks join in, and there was never any problem as long as they were okay with having a conversation with folks who didn’t see eye to eye with them. In fact, several of the folks who co-coordinated up/rooted with me were significantly more conservative in a number of areas. It didn’t really matter at all.
The only time I can recall when there was an issue with a more conservative participant in a cohort didn’t happen at up/rooted, but was a situation in one of the Michigan cohorts that I helped troubleshoot online. Apparently they had one very conservative guy who kept coming to the cohort not really to engage in conversation, but really just to condemn and convert those he saw as emergent “heretics”. But in that instance the issue was not with his conservative theology (the cohort leader expressed to me that he would have been fine with the guy if he had just come and shared his views as part of the group in a respectful and friendly way. The problem in this case was the lack of mutual respect for the others in the conversation. That’s why I say that the only “requirement” for participation in the conversation is that you be okay with the diversity of opinions you’re bound to encounter within it. And of course “being okay” doesn’t mean you have to water down your own views or hold back on them. It just means that when it all boils down, relationship trumps theology and love for one another is more important than total agreement. That to me is the soul of the emerging church.
Also, regarding the “not being allowed in leadership”, I have to point out that that is really such an anachronistic way of talking when it comes to Emergent Village. What leadership? And who, exactly, would be doing the “allowing”? As of right now, there is no official leadership of Emergent Village. And if anyone wants to do something in it, all they have to do is step up and do it. There aren’t really any “gatekeepers”. We don’t screen potential cohort leaders to make sure they’re not “too conservative” or anything. Anyone who wants to lead one can. And if someone wants to put on an event, or start a ministry and connect it to EV, they’re welcome to do that too. Anyone who wants to be a part of the friendship is welcome to be, regardless of their theology, and the only thing that can exclude them is if they decide they don’t want to be friends anymore.
(Case in point: even Mark Driscoll, who has always been a hardcore complementarian and militant Calvinist, was still considered an “emerging leader” right up until he gave the finger to all the rest of us and started trashing us publicly and calling people “heretics” every chance he got. No one excluded him for being too conservative. He just eventually chose to exclude himself.)
Encouraging possibilities re: possible regional gatherings, Mike – thanks. I also may have to do some serious thinking on what you’ve been saying about cohort leaders and the process for starting new cohorts. I may have to check into the possibility of “being the change I wish to see,” when it comes to finding a cohort in my area.
Karl, in support of what Mike’s saying about conservatives in leadership, the organizer of EmergentColumbia (where I was up until last September) is pro-business and is very skeptical about Global Warming. But he’s also pro-relationship and pro-conversation.
Thanks for posting this insightful comment about the insider/outsider sensibilities felt within the conversation.
My sense is that the strength of emergent is also its weakness. The reality that emergent village continues to describe itself as a “generative friendship” means that inherently there will be people who say, “does that mean if I don’t feel like I am friends with these people, I’m not in?”
I really appreciate the loose and open non-structure of EV. On the other hand, I think it also contributes to realities such as not having national support for local cohorts, not knowing exactly how to decide whom to invite to a national gathering to discern the organization’s future, etc., and folks new to the conversation not having a clear sense of how to get “inside.”
My guess is that if EV continues in its current non-structure, other organizations with greater comfort with structure will spring up, and I actually don’t think that is a bad thing.
Thank you for giving up your weekend to serve the conversation, Julie, and for posting these thoughts.
If that’s something you’d be interested in and have an ability for, I can put you in touch with the right people when the time comes (i.e. whoever is going to be working on the website once the new structure of EV is decided on).
I kind of thought something like the way Meetup.com works would be useful, where it keeps track of how many people from a given area are interested in a cohort and then allows someone to step-up and organize a “meetup” once there is critical mass.
Thanks for sharing that, Mike. That is helpful. I have spent enough time reading emerging folks who are really angry at more conservative communities that it’s not always apparent that the openness extends in both directions. I’m not sure that everyone draws as neat a distinction as you do between conservative theology and ideas, vs. what they see as meanness and closed-mindedness. But it sounds like there is more openness to allowing conservative voices to be a continuing part of the new conversations than I had perhaps perceived.
Hi – sorry for checking out of the conversation for a few days. But Mike’s said a lot of what I would say.
Jim – I forgot about the Houston move. But houston is like Chicago and could benefit from multiple cohorts/connections points. And while the future of EV is being determined, i am pretty sure the general cohort structure will remain and people are well aware of the need for a better system to connect people.
Chris – You are right, this is a conversation that only some can enter into in certain ways. But I do know a few people who have no computer or internet access who do blog and join in discussion with the free access they get at their local library. For better or worse this community exists and it exists online. as i’ve said before – as a stay at home mom who spends god portions of my day sitting on the couch nursing a baby, I would go crazy without access to this community. I can’t get out, I can’t spend time with friends. Sure I would love to go to cohorts, book discussions and all that but without childcare that is impossible. I have met friends in real life, and yes they are all over the country, and this is the only way to stay connected. As for events, those are my vacation. i’d much rather spend the time and money with a community I love than waste the time at say Disneyworld…
Pippin – in truth there is a wide diversity of belief within the emerging conversations. There are the traditionally liberal and conversative and a bunch of us who don’t fit either camp. I think where the issue lies is in allowing conversations to occur even if those conversations don’t represent everyone. Some of us do need to discuss why we are no longer conservative and to ask questions about our faith. let us be ourselves is important. Those discussions don’t define the whole of the conversation or create a dogma that must be believed to be emerging, but are a valid part of the conversation. And it is messy. Just having those conversations scares off some people. But should we stunt our spiritual development so that others wont feel uncomfortable? I say just speak up for what you believe, but be okay if that gets some push-back. That’s all all of us are doing.
Karl – while i think there are very few extreme complemetarians or anti-environmentalists who would be comfortable within this discussion, like mike said those opinions are welcome as long as they are respectfully delivered. Trying to convince me of their view is fine, telling us how evil we are for not agreeing with them would cause issues. It’s not the opinions themselves that are the issues, but the way the relationship is developed.
Julie, I should clarify, I don’t criticize the community for being on-line. I’ve plenty of access, through job and home, to the net. And even last year, while unemployed and job hunting, I stayed wired through free local library access as you said, and through access at church. It did a lot to keep me sane. Without the online community I would never have encountered some the of the most fantastic people I’ve ever met, people who give me hope by my mere knowledge of their existence and their attempts to walk the Jesus Way.
I guess what I’m groping towards expressing is not so much a critique, as the flip side of a blessing. (Every curse has a little blessing, and vice versa.) To me, it’s impossible not to feel a little like an outsider, because through the web you’re aware of far more conversations than any one person can ever participate in. And they’re all wonderful and hope-filled and inspiring, and I want to take part in them all, and the reality that I can’t leaves me inevitably wanting more even as I celebrate the bits I do get to participate in.
That said, good as it is, it’s still not a substitute for skin-to-skin relationships, not for me. Which is also not a critique, b/c EV recognizes that, and has adopted a value of pilgrimage, making time to meet in person.
All of that’s intended to say that I think EV could make not a single mistake, and still have people saying they feel like outsiders. Maybe we’re just wired that way – something to do with Augustine’s God-shaped hole.
Karl, I think everything you say in #28 is dead on target. There are emerging folks expressing that anger (and grief, I’d add – I’d guess that lots of those folks are just expressing grief in a form that feels safer to them). Not everyone makes careful distinctions. Plus, I think you’re right in #19 that there can be an assumption from some that after people have enough time in the conversation, they’ll reach the same conclusions.
And yet, there is more openness than you’ve yet seen, and I’m glad you’re seeing it here, and showing it yourself. Kudos, and welcome. (Says the outsider.
That reminds me of conversations I’ve had with a friend who (until recently) was a Unitarian/Universalist (he recently reconverted to Christianity, in part, according to him, because of his exposure to the emerging church). The UU, like the EC, also values diversity of opinions and multiple viewpoints. However, according to my friend, what this meant in practice is that any actual differences would be watered down to the lowest common denominator, or simply left unmentioned so as not to offend or make anyone feel uncomfortable. We determined that the difference between this and most emerging church settings is that ECers value the full expression of diversity. Rather than seeking unity by downplaying or avoiding differences, as my friend’s UU church did, we’d rather just lay them all out there and value them for what they are. How else could you have a conversation unless you have folks who are willing to express different points of view? For ECers (in theory at least, and often in practice in my experience) unity is based on relationship, not on agreement, and it is this relationship that makes it safe to express one’s questions and opinions, even when they disagree. It’s messier, but it’s also more fun and a lot more worthwhile.
I definitely understand the frustration by those who find themselves “stranded” without a cohort or other emergent community nearby. I would love to get involved in the emergent movement/discussion/whatever you want to call it, but there just aren’t many (any?) people around my area (Terre Haute, IN) with the same desire.
In any movement, there are always “insiders,” those who, by circumstance or preference, find themselves acting as leaders. It’s just the way it happens. But I think the emerging movement is at least aware of that and makes conscious efforts to open up the discussion and invite others in. I just wish there were more emergent cohorts throughout the world. Especially near me…haha.
Many people who might love to get more involved find ourselves stranded, either by geography or financial issues (I certainly can’t afford to just go to whatever regional/national gathering might be the next emergent event). Finding some way to help people connect with others in their area would be a tremendous step in establishing new and different cohorts. Perhaps the current Emergent leaders can find some way to help broaden the conversation and invite new voices via the website? Or something?