Experience and Words
some really random thoughts that have been swirling around in my head the last few days …
So during this whole discussion regarding whether or not Emergent is dead, I've been intrigued by the significance of the language we use. And I don't mean the emotional tenor of the posts either. This whole thing began as an emotional confession of sorts – rooted in personal experience – for of ranty, wounded words. Nick gave his perspective and a bunch of us responded out of our experiences. My post on the topic, for example, fit into the whole "when you say this, I feel this" category. I think the issues arose when others determined their experience to be normative. Sadly, the posts are turning into "you're experience is different from mine, so therefore I am going to call you names" category. I've even had people around the blogworld quoting my post implying that I am saying the exact opposite of what I originally wrote and then claiming that I am trying to tell everyone what is normative for the emerging church. That was never my point, and I wish we could discuss each others experiences without twisting things further.
But the language issue that's been bugging me through this whole thing is how each of our own experiences color which metaphors we are comfortable accepting in this discussion. Some who are of the more anti-institutional bent get really riled up when language that hints at establishment arises. They want no "selling of products" or "packaging of ideas." They want things to be organic and grassroots. Instead of leaders they want gardeners. Instead of products they want artifacts or conversations. But as I was thinking about that, I started wondering how different truly are "sellers of the product" and "curaters of the artifacts?" They basically seek the same goals, just use different metaphors. I know language holds power and conveys feelings as well as ideas, so that, yes, there are nuances of meaning distinguishing the ideas. But in many ways they are just different metaphors for how this conversation gets passed on. Why should one or another have to be normative?
I think I've made it clear on this issue that I am a very pragmatic person. I've got no problem with packaging ideas in a book/podcast/blog and selling it. I've got no problem with barnds and labels because they help people understand who you are. I'm really bad at art and creating metaphors – but fortunately the people who are good at those things also happen to be the ones who hate the ideas of packing/buying/selling/branding. They can create new language and move the conversation forward in different ways.
So I think there is great value in discussing our experiences as well as our hopes and dreams for this thing called emergent. And of course those are going to clash as our experiences reflect differently. I would just hope that our use of metaphor and how we shape this with our words doesn't get in the way of understanding.* Or that differences of experience put an end to discussion just because disagreement might possible occur.
* and I totally know that this is not just all about words, but I've discovered that a lot of it is
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
There is always going to be a tension present when we have a desire to make other people aware of what we see as valuable to their lives. Especially as we become increasingly conscious of the need to share our good news in such a way that it remains good news to those who hear it. There is, on the one hand, a strong desire to avoid putting a price tag on it. Ironically, our capitalist, consumerist culture teaches us that ideas which must be sold are somehow less valuable than ideas that freely propagate. And so if we -market- our good news, we appear to cheapen it. On the other hand, if we become so concerned with keeping the good news from being reduced to a commodity that we hog tie ourselves into a position from which the only people we can reach are people who already know it, we render it nearly worthless.
The problem, I think, occurs when those who see books as a form of distribution get judged by those who see it as nothing but sales and/or when those who see art as a more genuine expression get judged by those who see it as a voice without an audience.
One thing I find fascinating is that the Bible tells us nothing about how Jesus got his ministry off the ground. Aside from very brief words about calling fishermen right out of their boats, and launching his public life by improving the prospects of a really good party, we have no sense of what it was that helped him draw those early crowds. We know that nothing draws a crowd like a crowd, and so once he's off and running it is easy to assume that word of mouth was sufficient. But how did it start? We don't really know.
And I think this is from where our troubles come. We don't have any clear example of how to strike the balance between confidently asserting the value of our good news, getting it into the ears of as many people as we can, and not "selling out" that good news in exchange for a paycheck.
I chimed in over at my blog…
http://www.anglobaptist.org/blog
Thanks for all this, Julie.
I don't think this is about leaders vs. gardeners. Nor do I think it's necessarily the artists among us who love to create. I get this impression that those who are most offended at the direction Emergent has taken are the ones who lavished, early on, in its exclusivity, thus taking on a form of theological and spiritual elitism. Yes, I realize this is a cynical and ungracious point of view. But, I believe, to these folks, Emergent was a way of saying "fuck you" (pardon my french) to the mainstream Christian worldview (Evangelical, Mainline, etc.) and feeling really special in doing so.
I have personally experienced moments of 'otherness', not because I'm Korean-American, but because I didn't know the in-talk; the lingo. Not necessarily theologically, but regarding who said what, who knows who, and meeting some intellectual marker for conversation. I would go as far as to say that these people would need the "newcomer" to be some proto-liberal who already shares their view or is at least open to accepting wholesale what they have to say. Clearly, that's changing/changed, but I think the change is the very reason why some of these detractors are annoyed. Because it's ACTUALLY giving life to mainstream churches who otherwise might be faltering in their self-absorbing ways.
I've had a great morning catching up on your more recent posts. I read your blog a lot, but don't comment for whatever reason.
I find that lately I'm asking, "what does this (insert idiom/metaphor/brand here) mean to you?" I think that alot of what the Emergent mission has been to me has been listening; making it possible for 'the other' to be heard. I've noticed that when 'the other' feels heard/understood then a new expression of action is possible and maybe even unstoppable.
All that to say that, while how we say what we say leaves an indelible mark on our relationships, how we hear what we hear does as well. "Emergence" has equipped me with new ears in a lot ways. If Emergent is a conversation then all this is important.
Thanks, Julie, for your soul-filled and always articulate contribution to the world that is blog!
Jim – so true about the tension. And we have ample examples from church history of the failure of both ways. we do have beliefs/convictions/passions and imho those are pretty worthless if we don't do anything with them or act upon them. it's the how that gets confusing.
Tripp – thanks. your post is helpful and adds a needed perspective
Dan – I agree, change is the problem. I would add though that I don't think all of those who are disappointed now started in an angry rebellious mode saying FU to the evangelical church. Some did, but I think for others it had more to do with growing up and healthy relationships. As they matured they couldn't maintain intellectual integrity and stay within evangelical churches. To grow up and become adults they had to leave and find honest expressions of faith. So it is hard to see others who haven't matured or gone the same route in their maturing process joining in what was a very significant rite of passage for them. And others still had to leave the evangelical church to remain emotionally healthy. Their experience of church was at best damaging and at worse abusing – to be a healthy, whole person they had to break ties with evangelicalism. So having others keep trying to reforge those ties is unsettling.
Chris – good point, expanding our vocabulary can only help us in building relationships.
It's been interesting to follow this discussion.
Julie, your comments to Dan reinforce my feeling that despite the insistence of Mike and others that it's fully possible to be both evangelical and emergent, there is a strong undercurrent of opinion within emergent that in fact the two are incompatible and evangelicals are unwelcome. Indeed, even reforging ties with evangelicals is seen as unsettling. Shades of second-degree separationism.
Like commenter Pippin in his comment #11 to your "Emergent Insiders?" post, I can relate to the frustrating feeling of being "too liberal to be conservative and too conservative to be liberal" while at the core, remaining fairly conservative theologically, at least by emerging or mainline standards. It's an uncomfortable place to be, and it's too bad that emergent doesn't convey a more consistently welcoming a vibe for such folks than does your local Baptist church. But maybe that's asking the impossible.
Karl – I think I should clarify that that is the journey of SOME withing the emerging church and why difficulty can arise. Of course it's going to be uncomfortable to love and trust those who kicked you out, called you names, and questioned your salvation. yes, in theory perhaps emergents should just forgive and forget and welcome all with open arms, but in practice it's hard to truly get over deep wounds. Does that mean in the slightest that evangelicals aren't welcome? no not at all. Just that sometimes history will have to be acknowledged and dealt with. what bothers me is the idea that if people express any sort of disagreement at all then they can't work together. I see this often among evangelicals who say that emergents disagreeing with them at all equates with them being unwelcoming. Welcoming doesn't equal agreement in my book – it's just that most people really can't live in the tension.
Hey Julie!
Long time no "talk"!
I realize it seems for both of us we find ourselves opposing one another. I've just been kind of lurking and reading your thoughts. I just wanted to say something real quick and no it isn't bad. 
you said to Dan, " I agree, change is the problem. I would add though that I don’t think all of those who are disappointed now started in an angry rebellious mode saying FU to the evangelical church. Some did, but I think for others it had more to do with growing up and healthy relationships. As they matured they couldn’t maintain intellectual integrity and stay within evangelical churches. To grow up and become adults they had to leave and find honest expressions of faith. So it is hard to see others who haven’t matured or gone the same route in their maturing process joining in what was a very significant rite of passage for them. And others still had to leave the evangelical church to remain emotionally healthy. Their experience of church was at best damaging and at worse abusing – to be a healthy, whole person they had to break ties with evangelicalism. So having others keep trying to reforge those ties is unsettling."
I appreciate this. This is true and right on. I couldn't have come close saying it better. It is exactly, for better or worse, where I'm coming from. So thank you for saying that so well. I appreciate it!
I want to affirm/reiterate what my wife said here. I wonder if some of the reason some evangelicals feel "unwelcome" among emergents is because they are applying their own standard for acceptance and fellowship, i.e. total agreement on core doctrines, to this conversation, without realizing that those standards are not relevant here. If your whole experience of church to this point has been "conform to the party line/statement of faith or get out", I can imagine how it might be really difficult to grasp that not all faith communities have to operate that way. It could be really hard to believe that a lack of agreement does NOT have to equal a lack of friendship/fellowship, etc. If all you've ever known is exclusivity, maybe you just project that onto every other community you encounter as well, even the ones that are trying as hard as they can to be radically inclusive.
(BTW, I'm using a generic "you", not talking about anyone in particular.)
I agree that the mere fact of disagreement on issues that are important to me can sometimes make me feel unwelcome or unsettled. As much as I love ideas and discussion, I am basically conflict-averse. I don't think I'm all that unusual in this regard.
But what I was talking about isn't just the discomfort that comes from realizing not everyone in the room agrees with me and that varying viewpoints are represented. What I'm talking about is entering a room that is full of "us vs. them" language and realizing that in at least some ways I'm one of "them." Given the amount of personal pain involved on the part of so many, maybe it's asking too much to suggest it should be any other way.
But I prefer, for example, the approach of RJS at the Jesus Creed blog when she talks about evangelicals, fundamentalists, young earth creationists and complementarians. As a female university professor with a PhD in chemistry a life of faith experience, if anyone would have reason to be bitter and nasty toward them, she would. But she consistently eschews that kind of talk and thus creates a much more welcoming environment for dialogue. She even at times defends fundamentalists or complementarians against people who post nasty, dismissive things about them (though she disagrees with them and many of them have said and done hurtful things to her). That's attractive and Christlike, IMO.
So, are we struggling with the various kinds of "fundamentalism" that runs amok in our traditions. Note: there are liberal and conservative forms of fundamentalism.
So musing with you Julie about language. I have been seeing correspondence between the fear and argument around commodification and selling out with a discussion that goes on all the time in what I have taken to call "urban subcultures" (Goth, Punk, various art scenes, whether centered on poetry, or folk music, or visual art). There is this obsession with valueing the subculture and its artifacts without them becoming a commodity, and success of an artist or band often comes with accusations of selling out. Or a certain trend in the larger popular culture or use of elements of the subculture in the dominant culture leads to people seeking something new.
this along with some people feeling that some of those who are discontented are those who came to emergent when it was small and new and edgy. I wonder how much both in language and attitude many of those who have identified as emergent have intentionally or unintentionally been functioning as an ecclesial "urban subculture". It would explain alot of both this discussion and peoples disappointment and views of commodity and selling out.
I have other thoughts but they may be more a blot post than a comment on your post.