1) In all of the above comments, we have actually used many different understandings of “tradition”. Tradition can refer to practice, belief/theology, behaviors, local customs, organizing structures, etc. Each of these things is thought of as the purview of "traditional". Another Tickle reference: if you look at her quadrants (liturgical, social justice, charismatic, and conservative), each one would define tradition differently and would have a different set of traditions that must be defended. This has meant that the most popular arguments against emergence have come from the conservative quadrant and deal with conservative theology (and whether or not we subscribe to Reformed theology or whatever). I would contend that we should identify the different parts of tradition and deal with each separately. For instance, the structure argument: In the Episcopal Church, we have some pretty convoluted structures that actually prevent many Spirit-led ministers to seek ordination. If we are able to deal with our understanding of “tradition” as it relates to Holy Orders, then we are better able to deal with the presenting problems.

Tripp: you make an interesting suggestion about evangelicalism. I would contend that you are half right in that Protestantism doesn't exist without evangelicalism. I would contend that historically, evangelicalism is the central motivator for the Reformation, and therefore transcends denominations. At the same time, Protestantism is not only rooted in evangelicalism, but almost defined by it, forming a synergistic relationship.

2) I believe Julie’s original post had to do with the relationship of being a new creation in light of inherited institution. Do we need to be aligned with institutions and/or practicing historically-rooted/consistent practices? This discussion seems to have already addressed this idea: No we don’t have to, but the conversation is deepened by the presence of historical practices and the thinking of historical practioners.

3) The primary arguments about EC and tradition have to do with liturgical practice and theology. As we know this is actually the same terrain, except that many seem to define traditional liturgy as ‘the precious practices that I learned in my local church as a child’ and traditional theology as ‘the beliefs articulated in creeds and affirmations by men that are long dead’. None of us would assent to these definitions, but these are the operating assumptions of the discussion. The more we are able to discuss liturgy and theology in the ways our favorite practitioners describe them, the more “traditional” emergents are, and the more fringe its opponents are.

Sorry for the rambling, but great conversation so far!

there is yet another tradition that is being ignored here – the free church. While the "low church" tradition has been mentioned, it has been implied that it includes only the very conservative wing of the church. This isn't true. Indeed, some of the Baptists, for example, have been very liberal/progressive through the history of that tradition. Some of the folk on the left there would even argue that that is the most authentic expression of that tradition. One of the early heroes – Roger Williams, went on to become a Unitarian Universalist. There are still some American Baptist Churches that are dually aligned with the Unitarian Universalist denomination.
Beyond that, it seems to me that there are streams in the free church tradition that are extremely amenable to emergence. Some parts of that tradition are encouraging of questions, expect contextualization of the gospel, and require a sensitivity to culture that many of the liturgical traditions discourage.
All of that is to say that is is probably much easier to have a foot in some traditions than others.

However, there is also a strong "hybrid-mergent" stream, which is all the many, many folks in existing denominations and traditions who, like yourself, feel no pull to leave where they're at, but would like to work from within for reform. There are Presbymergents, Anglimergents, Luthermergents, Baptimergents, etc., etc. A LOT of the emerging folks I know are in one of these streams. For instance, the Emergent cohort that meets just up the road from you in Wheaton is often frequented by several committed ELCA pastors, and the one down in the city (Wicker Park actually) is led by some PC(USA) folks. None of them have felt the need to trash their own denominations in order to be part of the conversation.

I think that your quest and my quest at this point are similar. The way that I approach theology certainly resonates with the emergent ethos, even if my positive experience with the traditional church and my desire to stay there doesn't necessarily fit the emergent mold. My first experience with emergent was one that hurt me deeply, but I have been trying hard to learn what I can from emergent and to contribute what I can to it…and hoping that I might yet be accepted by it even if I don't fully become it.

And I'm sad for you that your experiences with the traditional church have been ones where you don't feel accepted! You can come to my church – we'll love you, I promise!

(Actually, my church is in Naperville, so near your old stomping grounds!)

I'm sure that Nadia didn't mean that phrase to be condescending – but I think there is a great amount of misunderstanding happening between traditionalists and evangelical/emergents. There is the stream of emergent that is anti-institutional, but even amidst that there is very little anti-tradition. At the same time I've found any questioning or critique of traditional church structures is taken by those within such structures to be anti-institutional. That is really not where most of us are coming from, but it is a hard misperception to overcome.

And I am really curious about your perception that when evangelicals or emergents use tradition or liturgy you see us as believing we are the first to ever do so. I've never encountered that attitude. I've always seen it presented as finding respect for the traditions of the church. Those of us who grew up in the evangelical church were often taught that those in denominations weren't really Christians and that liturgy was part of satanic ritual. So choosing to respect the traditions enough to learn from their practices is new within many evangelical streams, but not at all a claim that we have invented something from scratch. For most people I know, it is all about finally opening our eyes to the entire history of Christianity, not just the last 50-100 years.

At the same time many of us are not ready to fully switch identities into the tradition. We want to learn from but not join. That is where I've encountered the most resistance. People are offended that I would make use of their practices without buying into everything that they are. They see it as disrespect, but most emergents mean it only as a sign or utmost respect. Therein lies the communication problem.

I like the pilgrim/nomad metaphor. Like I mentioned above, I feel like I am visiting another country when I interact with traditional denominations. I know I am visiting, but I want to be a respectful tourist, learn what I can from this culture, and let it change me in the ways it can. Even if that just means that I adopt the surfacey cultural elements like holidays and food, I still see it as a way of respecting and admiring the culture. I'm not going to immigrate and go native (at least right now), but I still want to be changed by the culture. The question is will I ever be accepted by a culture even if I never fully become one of them? Will a learning, cosmopolitan posture be ridiculed and spoken of condescendingly, or seen as just another way of being within the church?

And Melissa, thank you very much for your thoughts as well- you touched on an idea I was pondering while reading Julie's initial posts and various responses. Let me focus on an absolutely relevant word you used in your reply:

"Nomads."

Metaphorically, I think this an apt description of the current relationship between the two camps as we see them at the moment. Another word we could use is "pilgrim." If we could think of emergents on a pilgrimage of sorts, where journey is an inherent part of the spiritual process, and those involved, or grounded, in tradition as caretakers of the various shrines, monasteries, or holy sites in which a pilgrim visits on his/her travels…hmmm, does any insight comes from this picture? (I'm really thinking out loud at the moment)…

The pilgrim has a different set of concerns on his journey- how much is in his backpack, does he have enough water, what is the terrain like?

The caretaker of the shrine or monastery wonders: Are there enough beds? When shall we light the candles? How many will come to dinner tonight?

Each is relevant to the other: the pilgrim shares what he has seen on his journey, the caretaker offers a place of quiet and rest and restoration for the seeker.

I certainly understand why such a statement could be interpreted as condescending, but I'm guessing it wasn't intended that way.

My first experience with anything emergent was in seminary, when a friend of mine put together an elaborate alternative worship experience that at once both utilized ancient prayers and rituals and also proclaimed fairly explicitly that the point of emergent was to stand up against the so-called traditional church.

I admit that it has been slow and difficult for me to get on friendly terms with anything emergent, emerging, or otherwise, because my first experience was one that told me that I was wrong for being part of an institutional, "traditional" church. But at the same time, this emergent experience was utilizing ancient prayers and practices familiar to my own liturgical background…and patting itself on the back for being so novel by doing so.

I think that Nadia's sentiment is reflective of frustration rather than condescension. For those of us for whom the ancient prayers and rituals of liturgy are part of our deep-seated Christian experience, it feels like a slap in the face when emergents or evangelicals or really any Christian group starts using these practices believing that they are the first or only people in our day and age to do them.

I don't think there's any question that I fall into the category of "the tradition," though I would nuance it to speak in broad terms of Christian tradition, not as the tradition of one particular denomination or another. But I guess that insofar as you are struggling with your feelings that "the tradition" is not taking emergents seriously, so also am I struggling with feelings that emergents have not taken "the tradition" seriously.

So whether or not one comes from a tradition, and whether or not it is appropriate for you (or others in your situation) to speak of keeping one foot in the tradition when you might never have had a foot in any sort of tradition to begin with…I don't argue with any of what you said in your initial post. I would just like to wonder out loud about whether it is possible – and even necessary – for emergent and for Christian "nomads" to at least acknowledge the traditions of the church in its various manifestations.

I've worked hard to get on board with emergent, and I like a lot of what is going on there. Unfortunately, I'm not yet convinced that emergent has thought to give me the same respect….

I guess that we've all been burned at one point or another, haven't we? Some of us by the traditional church, some of us by emergent…and we are all still nursing those wounds. So I wonder where we all go from here…

Greg – In many of the older church traditions that identity seems to be very important. Mike speaks of his friends at seminary that have to adhere to Calvin even if they have to interpret him in some really twisted way – because they are reformed and therefore cannot disagree with Calvin – that is their identity that cannot be challenged. But one of the core values for many emergents is the ability to question everything – to not have truth hindered by such pre-assumed identity. We lose a heritage – but possibly get a more authentic identity in the process. I guess the question becomes which do we value more.