Sarah and Angelina Grimke - sisters born to an “aristocratic” Southern slaveholding family, who after converting to the Quaker faith became abolitionists and women’s rights advocates. They were among the first women to take a public stand against the oppression of women and slaves. Angelina lectured to legislative groups and Sarah wrote An Epistle to the Clergy of the Southern States (1836), urging abolition, and Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Woman (1838). Theirs was faith in action, bringing freedom to those denied a voice.

Ruby Bridges - for the sake of a better education for all this six year old became one of the first black kids to attend an all-white school. Even though she received threats, her father lost his job, U.S. Marshalls had to escort her to school, and she ended up being the only student in her class with the help of her family, her teacher, and psychiatrist Dr. Robert Coles, she stuck it out. And started our country down the path of freedom of (good) education for all.

Romeo Ramirez - the first American to be awarded (in 2003) the Robert F. Kennedy Human Right Award. Ramirez moved to Florida from Guatemala at age 15 in search of work. What he saw in the citrus groves and tomato farms — forced labor, armed guards in the fields, economic servitude — turned the slight, soft-spoken farmworker into an organizer and activist. He joined a group called the Coalition for Immokalee Workers, went undercover, testified in federal court, and helped put three labor crew bosses behind bars for the next decade. He is the face of those seeking freedom for the modern day slaves in our midst.

Who are your heroes? Who do you look up to in the fight to free others from oppression?

But watching these commercials from 20-50 years ago was disturbing. They were so far fetched, it is hard to believe that anyone ever thought that they might be persuasive in any way. There was one about fortified white bread that was presented as a documentary - explaining that fortified bread has improved nutrition so that children who eat white bread are smarter and better athletes. Or the McDonald’s commercials presenting a parade of uniformed, pretty, white women singing about how much they love serving a stereotypical small town. It was all about these companies providing helpful services that will improve our lives. Well, I don’t think anyone is stupid enough to believe that processed junk food has improved anyone’s life. And as Food Inc. shows, that sort of food is actually destroying our health, our environment, and our country.

So it was amusing to then pay attention to the junk food commercials I encountered over the next few days (which, btw, are all the food commercials, natural, healthy foods don’t have advertising budgets). Every single commercial was about treating ourselves - giving ourselves the break we deserve. No veiled lies to get us to believe that processed junk helps people, but simply the appeal to self-centered “it’s all about me” mentality. And I know how stupid it is to complain about commercials, but they have big money going into determining what people want to hear. Forget building community, or improving lives - that’s so 1978. Now its all about self-centeredness.

It’s hard not to get cynical when confronted with that attitude. There are people I start discussing my upcoming book on justice with, and I get a blank look in reply. I’ve even had people ask, “why should caring about the needs of others be my concern?” Or I stumbled across this book recently, which decries the evils of environmentalists who are “demanding that you turn down your thermostat, stop driving your car, or engage in some other senseless act of self-denial.” Apparently trying to save the earth must be fought because it threatens “the entire American way of life” and envisions for us “a grim future marked by endless privation.” Well, duh, of course it does. But apparently for some it is far better to be selfish jerks than to have to give up anything to help others. I know this isn’t widespread, but some days it sure feels that way.

But maybe 20-30 years from now people will watch our commercials and ask “how could people be so selfish and stupid.”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a Christ-centered faith. And unfortunately those of us who are uncomfortable with the document are now being accused of wanting to ignore Christ or question his divinity. So let me say upfront, that is not the case. Christ is central. Period. But the assertion that Christianity - the movement of the followers of Christ - is nothing more or less than the person of Christ just really seems to miss the point.

The attack and reason for the document springs from the talk about the Kingdom of God and social justice within emerging missional communities. Viola and Sweet insist that such talk turns Jesus into an abstraction and tempts us to ignore the person of Jesus. They say “Jesus Christ was not a social activist nor a moral philosopher. To pitch him that way is to drain his glory and dilute his excellence. Justice apart from Christ is a dead thing.” I’m sorry guys, but Jesus was both of those things. He can’t be reduced to those things, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t embody those things as well. To say that is all he was would yes, drain his glory, but to say he wasn’t those things too denies reality. What is going on here is really a discussion of which image of Jesus we want to embrace - a niche Jesus of one extreme or another or the full Jesus.  More on that in a bit.

My main problem with the document lies in their assumption that those of us talking about justice and the kingdom are doing so apart from the person and power of Jesus. That’s just plain and simply not true. But it has become the favorite straw man argument for the opponents of the emerging missional community. I think in many ways it is based on a misunderstanding of us that projects the theology and history of the classic liberal social gospel movement onto the missional movement. Len Sweet even admitted that the document sprung in part from the lessons he’s learned from teaching a class on the history of the Social Gospel movement in early 20th century America. And while that movement was influenced by theological discussions that questioned the divinity of Christ and sought to find the “historical Jesus,” it is unfair and inappropriate to assume the same thing of the emerging missional movement.

I don’t know how many times we have to stand up and say that caring for the Kingdom, seeking justice, and loving others is all about choosing to focus more on Christ. As Christians we believe in him and follow him. He said, if you love me you will obey me. Not “if you love me, you will worship a ethereal, conceptualized version of me that is disembodied from action and the world I came to save.” When following Jesus becomes simply about doing works or simply about standing in awe of a divine person then we’ve got problems - and a Jesus that has nothing to do with the Jesus of the Bible. Those images of Christ are dangerous, but what I see the manifesto doing is attacking a (projected) incomplete image in favor of another incomplete image.

While Viola and Sweet may personally think that following the commands of Jesus is part of what it means to be a Christian (although they say it is just about Christ), to tell others that talking about the commands of Jesus takes the focus off of Jesus is unhelpful in the extreme. I grew up only hearing about the person of Jesus. Jesus is divine, he did miracles, I am to believe and worship (be in awe of) him. Nothing more. Ever. It is naive to believe that just by presenting this Jesus, people will start doing all that he commanded if those commands aren’t allowed to be talked about. For instance, my daughter attended one night of a neighborhood backyard bible club this week. Her lesson was on Jesus serving the poor and healing the sick. The takeaway was that Jesus did miracles so therefore we have to believe in him. No mention at all of the “go and do likewise” aspect of being a follower of Christ. At this same club, the leader presented the Wordless Book, but after doing the Gold (heaven), Dark (sin), Red (Jesus), White (substitutionary atonement) pages she turned to the Green page and couldn’t remember what it was for. (the green page, btw, is the grow in one’s faith page). It was the perfect representation of a faith that focuses on the need to believe in the person of Jesus to the exclusion of following Jesus. This is the faith I grew up with - one that cares a lot about the person of Jesus but which doesn’t even talk about following his commandments. An impotent faith that essentially tells Jesus that we don’t love him enough to obey his commands.

It is because I love Jesus that I talk about and pursue justice and the kingdom. Even Viola and Sweet mention that “the teachings of Jesus cannot be separated from Jesus himself.” I just wish they wouldn’t falsely accuse us of doing that. And I wish they wouldn’t encourage these dichtomized versions of Jesus by criticizing the actual following of his commands. It is a step backward into the faith my daughter witnessed the other night at the Bible club, and truly unhelpful to the church in the long run. I love Jesus, but I want nothing to do with a faith that is disembodied, disconnected, and impotent. I want to believe in, worship, and follow Christ (since those are all technically one and the same). I’m sorry, but a real Jesus Manifesto wouldn’t be about such a one-sided incomplete image of Jesus. No - it would present Jesus in the fullness of the gospels and not be afraid to tell Christians that following Christ involves a heck of a lot more than standing there slack-jawed in awe of him. I’d love that message to get out to the world, but this, “A Jesus Manifesto” was simply a disappointment in that regard.

Of course, most of these good stories fall into the SciFi/Fantasy realm. There is something about that genre that allows for the unknown to be explored and tested. And there is something about those of us who are drawn to those stories that allow for them to be lengthy tales. Part of the magic in something like Lost for example is the convoluted drawn-out path the story has taken. Having cut our teeth on epic tales like Lord of the Rings or three part stories like Star Wars, we want worlds we can enter and stay for awhile. That’s why I think Deep Space Nine is my favorite Star Trek series - we got to see a continuing story of a community unfold. So it was sad to get caught up in the Firefly story and have it cut short before it even really began.

But it made me wonder why so many of us within the emerging church are caught-up in these sorts of stories. During the spring it seemed like every person on my twitter page was watching Lost as the mystery unfolded and deepened. I wonder if in part it is our affinity for these ever-developing stories that brought us to the emerging conversation in the first place. Too many faith communities act as if the story is over - as if the story of our faith was merely a static event of the past that holds no mystery or wonder for us now. That sort of story isn’t engaging or alive and can only be entered into in the most perfunctory of ways. But those of us who had an inking that there is some sort of epic tale unfolding around us and who believe that God in all his mystery is still at work in the world wanted to join our friends at a campfire and tell better stories. And we find ourselves watching together the good stories like Lost, or Firefly, or Lord of the Rings, or The Matrix because in them we see glimmers of the stories we want to affirm we are a part of. Or as Sam says in Lord of the Rings, “Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why.”

So what stories hold the mystery for you? What are the good stories you watch or read that go deeper than just entertainment?

“Compassion isn’t just a smiley-face emotion that blooms in giddy times when everything’s coming up roses. The literal meaning of the word comes from the Latin compatior—to suffer with, to feel with. It’s about removing that clanking suit of armor that keeps us from being touched, that blocks our authentic responses. I’m not sure people were more compassionate in the so-called successful economy. All those Darwinian TV shows: You’re fired! Get off the island! Triumph doesn’t necessarily make individuals kinder. But when things go downhill, community becomes less dispensable. If everyone’s feeling vulnerable, it can restore that feeling of ‘We’re in this together.’ Compassion grows out of a willingness to share the human condition, not just the pursuit of happiness.”

I am honestly sick of people making excuses for why justice or charity can’t happen in a recession, so to hear a reminder that compassion is active helps. It is hard work, it does require us to get over ourselves and think as a community. Contrary to popular opinion, I think the recession is the perfect time to jump headfirst into living the compassionate life - the needs are so much more apparent and we are all more aware of struggles. Recession shouldn’t be a time to bitch and hoard, but the chance to re-evaluate our lives and start focusing outward.

But that of course begs the question of the validity of using Twitter as news source. Just follow the hashtag for a few minutes and anyone can see that there is a lot of confusion about what is really happening. One person can say something and it gets re-tweeted hundreds of times regardless of whether or not it is true. And while we have all witnessed the ability of other open-source projects like Wikipedia to self-regulate, this Twitter revolution is too intense and caught up in the moment to do so well, if at all. So other media outlets are left trying to sort fact from fiction and have found themselves then attacked when they question some of the more emotional aspects of what is going on. Like - Was there really election fraud? How many protesters are actually involved? Were the election results really leaked? For those caught up in the momentum of the moment, those questions challenge the very thing they are fighting for.

So in watching this unfold, I have to wonder how much truth does matter when it comes to something like revolution. If the truth is that Ahmadinejad won fair and square and that there were only a small group of protesters, does that truth matter if the lies that were spread ended up being the catalyst that spark change on a massive scale? It seems to me that in situations like these, the details matter less than the cause. If the viral spread of information on Twitter - albeit unsubstantiated possible misinformation - ends up pushing people beyond the tipping point in the fight for freedom, can we really call that information bad?

These are just the thoughts that run through my head as I watch this whole thing unfold. I don’t know where it will lead, or if it is truly a revolution of any sort. But at the same time I can’t help but wonder how differently other fights for freedom like Tiananmen Square or even the Holocaust would have gone if the passionate yet unsubstantiated spread of information through Twitter had been around then. Would enough people knowing about them and getting angry have stopped them? Or for that matter why isn’t there the same passion and endless Twitter campaigns for other freedom issues like human trafficking?

The latest issue of Next-Wave Ezine is out with some great articles. My review of Will Samson’s book Enough is included as well.

And I have a new post up at God’s Politics - “Daddy’s Girls.” It’s for their series on fathers in preparation for Father’s Day and it looks at the important role of fathers in shaping their daughters into healthy whole people.

On one level the discussion asks the question if a person can feel welcome in a non-homogeneous group or if they are the minority. I’ve personally talked about how hard that can be for me when I feel like I am not even allowed to be myself in groups. I don’t like being the odd one out, and I know there are some that would rather not make concessions to welcome the other either. I recall a very awkward interracial experience I had a number of years ago in this regard. It was Christmastime, and this good Texas girl wanted her traditional tamales for Christmas Eve. So I headed over to a Mexican market in West Chicago to buy some. I was walking out of the store with my tamales when an elderly Hispanic woman stopped me at the door, gestured emphatically at me, and asked “what’s a gringo doing in my store? What do you want with us?” I replied something lame about the tamales and made a quick exit, but I had impressed on me the difficulty of crossing boundaries - especially the ones you barely knew existed. It is hard to feel welcome or to welcome the other when you really don’t know how to interact with each other.

Same thing with welcoming others into our homes. Sure we lay out the welcome mat and (at least here in Texas) hand ceramic signs that say “Bienvenidos. Mi Casa Es Su Casa!” on our doors, but do we really mean it? Do we really say “come on in, everything I have is yours” to just anyone or is that sentiment only reserved for those who are already our friends and family, or who are at least entering our house on our terms? I admit, I have good reason not to open my door to the creepy stoned guy who comes by selling seafood (like really, who buys from a door to door FISH salesman?). But I also am feeling very selfish with my home having not really done any entertaining since moving here nearly a year ago (a far cry from when we hosted a church out of our house in Illinois).

It’s that church element that theoretically should make all the difference. While cultural communities and our homes can be places of refuge from the world (for good or ill) where others aren’t indiscriminately welcomed, many churches on the other hand do attempt to in theory welcome the other. Of course, we all know that that offer of welcome is all too often accompanied with the assumption that resistance truly is futile, they will be assimilated. But other groups have strived to be truly welcoming - not just allowing, but celebrating differences.

This has been the way I at least have always seen Emergent as functioning. But for some it is that very existence of differences that becomes an insurmountable hurdle. In the rest of our lives, it is rare to associate ourselves with the other. From our cliques in high school, to the stores where we shop, to who we invite into our homes, to even the churches we attend we generally surround ourselves with others who think, look, act, and vote just like us. So Emergent with it’s “all are welcome” stance is a bit unsettling. It doesn’t fit our experiences to willingly associate ourselves with others who think differently than we do, much less truly welcome them. Yet that’s what we are trying to do. Beyond that, we talk about those differences, especially when those difference involve not just abstract ideas, but how we fulfill the call to love real people.

And yes, some have rejected that and us because we don’t reject others in our midst. In other words, that tension of difference is too much for some. What gets amusing then is when those that can’t deal with agreeing to disagree call us unwelcoming because all of us don’t completely agree with them. Or when I hear on the same day people complaining that they have no place in emergent because everyone there is either too liberal or too conservative for their voice to be heard. What I think they are often really saying is that they wish theirs was the exclusive voice that was heard and that all the other others wouldn’t be quite as welcome. You know, a “all emergents are equal, some are just more equal than others” sort of thing.

What is harder is welcoming all when the us verses them dichotomies are painful and real. In other words, it’s hard to be welcoming and honest at the same time. For many, beyond just disagreeing with evangelical theology, they have experienced real wounds within the evangelical church. That is part of their journey, and it would be dishonest and inauthentic to deny it. It might be easier to have relationships and welcome the evangelical if we all just pretended stuff like that never happened, but it wouldn’t be healthy to hide it. And for some people, in order to heal, they do need to establish healthy boundaries. But brushing up against those boundaries especially when they weren’t expected (like with my experience in West Chicago), can make it difficult for a person to feel welcomed. But I don’t think it is impossible. Having boundaries and disagreement with others doesn’t mean one is bitter and unwelcoming. As long as the other is given a voice and respected, then they are welcomed.

But it comes down to the question of whether or not the experiment of agreeing to disagree will really work. Of course we will always share our opinions, learn from and critique each other, and have to do our best to avoid hurting each other in the process, but to welcome each other will require living in tension instead of forcefully assimilating those not like us. And it is, of course, the far more painful path to follow. But there are those of us who believe it to be the better way and so attempt to follow that path.

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

Even as debate erupts across the blogosphere about whether Emergent is fizzling as a movement, those of us still committed to the friendships and ideas we’ve found here are going ahead with ideas for how to keep the ball rolling and continue to get more and more people connected with the conversation. A few days ago I posted a question here at my blog and at the Emergent Village Cohort Leaders Google Group about what Emergent Village could do to help emergent-leaning folks in rural areas get connected with one another and with the broader emerging conversation, whether through cohorts or other means. The ensuing discussion was very productive, and has resulted in a project to create a comprehensive google map of what’s going on in the Emergent Village world.

In keeping with Emergent Village’s desire to be a network of emerging people and communities, the goal with this map will be to create a resource to help network folks with what is going on in their own local area, or help them start something new if there isn’t anything already. This will include existing cohorts, as well as any “emerging churches” who don’t mind being listed on the Emergent Village website.* The map will also include individuals who are interested in being a part of a cohort, but don’t currently have one near them. Our hope is that as more people add themselves to this map, it will become a lot easier for them to find one another and start new cohorts.

We’ve decided to start by open-sourcing this map, basically letting anyone and everyone who wants to add themselves or their faith community - no gatekeepers or approval system, though those of us in the cohort network will help make sure it stays free of trolls. We’ll start passing the link to the map around through blogs/Twitter/Facebook, etc. (that’s where you come in and inviting folks to add their churches and cohorts (or themselves if they’re not yet part of one and want to be). Hopefully it will snowball, and in a few weeks or months we’ll have a thorough and exciting map of what is going on and where. How cool will it be to be able to see just how much this conversation has grown in the past decade!

So here’s the link again. I hope you’ll help us create this thing!

*Of course we realize that there may be emerging ministries out there who do not wish to be “affiliated” with Emergent Village in any official way, for any variety of reasons, even if just on a google map. Nonetheless, those of us in the Emergent Village are happy to partner with any faith community that doesn’t mind calling itself a “friend of Emergent Village,” and hope that many communities will choose to add themselves to our map.