Comments on: Disappointed with Emergent?

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:30:39 +0000

I’m not quite sure what the controversy about the future or demise of Emergent is supposed to accomplish and how relevant it is in the first place. It seems to be more an emotional outlet mirroring the hopes (and subsequent disappointments!) we have put in certain individuals and identifiable groups and gatherings rather than a more constructive attempt to learn from what is taking place.

If we truly believe that the Spirit of God is at the heart of the changes we’re longing to see and at the heart of a monumental tidal wave and movement bringing about that change, then it is happening and will continue to happen, no matter what, and it will happen in whatever way and through whatever means God sees fit. Our faith is in Him, not in a label, certain leader figures, or in a timetable that we personally feel comfortable with.

Maybe the actual lesson here is to be less introspective when it comes to the evaluation of a particular religious and sociological phenomenon called “the emergent movement” and instead ask ourselves where we are placing our focus and our hopes. Everything else looks to me like an attempt to somehow control and move along something that in our opinion may have stalled but actually refuses to be controlled in this way.

By: Mike Clawson

Mike Clawson — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:28:59 +0000

possible stushie, though if you take that criterion too literally then you’d have to pretty much conclude that the Roman Catholic Church really is the One True Church after all – since they’ve got us all beat in terms of both numbers and longevity. While I know some here might be down with that (I’m looking at you Jim , I’m thinking a lot of Protestants here… maybe not so much.

By: stushie

stushie — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:59:02 +0000

How about finding a scriptural reason for Emergence fizzling out?

From the lips of Gamaliel -

Acts 5:38-39
Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

Maybe the whole movement wasn’t a God thing after all….

By: I Can’t Believe I Missed It! | POS 51

I Can’t Believe I Missed It! | POS 51 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:48:23 +0000

[...] is supporting emergent? As far as I can tell it’s the fear of choices. Julie Clawson expresses some disgust at people “who left because emergent doesn’t 1. hate women like they hate women, 2. [...]

By: Thoughts on Emergent

Thoughts on Emergent — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:11:06 +0000

[...] read Julie Clawson’s post, Disappointed with Emergent?, and followed the replies with a fair degree of interest. I’ve thought about what I might say [...]

By: Liz

Liz — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:44:54 +0000

Jarred – thanks for the apology and for clarifying. It’s so easy to misunderstand the written word.

By: Jarred

Jarred — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:22:37 +0000

Mike: Not being terribly well versed emergent conversation myself, I can’t say whether the snake-oil salesmen have taken over the conversation ro not.

However, I’d go the next step and argue that whether they have is actually irrelevant anyway. If people truly believe in the emergent conversation, they should stick to it and do their best to keep it going regardless of the snake-oil salesmen, whether they’re a tiny fringe group or the dominant force. After all, if they are the dominant force (may heaven forbid), there’s only one way to change that.

In the end, one’s participation in the emergent conversation should only be governed by one thing: one’s belief in its importance.

By: Jarred

Jarred — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:17:45 +0000

Liz: If my comment came across as condescending, I apologize. Condescension was not my intent.

Then again, I don’t consider myself Christian, let alone emergent, so you might not want to put too much consideration into my tone and how it may or may not reflect the overall mindset of a group I don’t belong to.

By: Liz

Liz — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:09:17 +0000

Julie – Thanks for the post – I was disappointed in myself for not commenting about Josh’s comment. His attitude about not wanting to help anyone else along was so offensive. It sounded self-centered, exclusionary and prideful – all the stuff we (emergent people) are wanting to (supposedly) abandon. I often struggle with feelings of inferiority when it comes to participating in the conversation because I am new to the conversation, I don’t have a M.Div and I am not in full time ministry. Half the time it is probably just my own junk that causes me to feel that way but the other half of the time it is because of things like Josh’s comment/ attitude (he’s not the only one who I’ve heard say something like that, but if you asked me to name names I couldn’t).

And in response to all the “bandwagon” talk – one idea is that maybe it isn’t “our” responsibility to try and figure out who is and who isn’t bandwagon people – maybe our responsibility is to treat all people the same. Jarred’s comment that “I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over them” sounds very condescending – again, something that I thought emergent people didn’t like about the churches they came from.

I mean here I am actually trying to have a chastened epistemology and a generous orthodoxy – I took all those emergent books blogs and podcasts seriously.

By: Mike Clawson

Mike Clawson — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:11:34 +0000

I agree Jarred, Josh seemed particularly upset with a few “snake-oil salesmen”. I’d say these are most closely analogous to Simon Magus perhaps. Anyway, where he and I differ is whether these “snake oil salesmen” have actually taken over and become the mainstream of the conversation or not. I’m just not seeing that to be the case at all (like I said, I’m barely even aware of these folks he’s so upset about), but in his context there in the heart of the Deep South, perhaps their influence looms larger.