A truth that I’ve repeatedly been reminded of this past year is the utter inappropriateness of basing one’s identity on the belittling of others. What it means to be a man of integrity cannot be defined through the mocking of Asian culture. What it means to be a Real Man cannot be defined through the debasement of women. And what it means to be a real 21st Century Christian cannot be defined through the dismissal of the entire Western church.

So I am having a hard time with Soong-Chan Rah’s and Jason Mach’s article on the emerging church, even as I believe they are addressing a vital issue. Let me say upfront that racial reconciliation needs to happen in the American church, and that to be healthy the church must start listening to all of its diverse members. I have no quarrel with that message in the article, I just don’t understand why Emergent must be the sacrificial lamb in this conversation. After reading Rah’s chapter on the emerging church in his book, The Next Evangelicalism, I, with others, wondered at the caricature he presented of the emerging conversation. In order to support his thesis that the white western captivity of the church must come to an end, he presented a picture of the emerging church as a bunch of trendy looking white guys who deliberately exclude racial minorities. A portrayal that resembles no part of the emerging world I have ever seen. I know he was repeatedly called out on this very issue, so I had hoped that in this article there would be a bit more journalistic integrity. But once again, we have the same skewed stereotype of emergents (even as the article exclusively quotes women and racially diverse emerging leaders who are seemingly counterexamples to its thesis). This inaccurate portrayal thus functions as a straw man that can easily be attacked and dismissed as standing in the way of a more global and diverse emerging Christianity.

The article asserts – “In truth, the term “emerging church” should encompass the broader movement and development of a new face of Christianity, one that is diverse and multi-ethnic in both its global and local expressions. It should not be presented as a movement or conversation that is keyed on white middle- to upper-class suburbanites. … If the label of the emerging church is to have a future, then the term needs to be reclaimed and disassociated from the specific brand of Emergent, and applied much more broadly to the church around the world”

Here’s the thing, every emergent and emerging Christian I know would agree with most of that statement. We know this is about a broader, global movement and have no delusions that white suburbanites are its center or future. And almost all of us agree that we need to intentionally listen to and learn from a wide diversity of voices within the church. We are part of the same team, working towards the same goals. Of course, Emergent is not perfect or above critique. Of course, it isn’t the sum of the emerging conversation. No one ever said it was. Emergent serves to network and resource the emerging conversation, doing its imperfect best to make this shared vision a reality. So why throw us under the bus and say we need to be kicked out of the conversation?

The thing is, I get where the small kernel of truth in their stereotypes came from. Over the past 15-20 years, the church has been attempting to make sense of the shift worldwide to a globalized, post-colonial, post-modern culture. Although this shift manifests differently around the world, we are all too interconnected to not be affected in some way. Early on in the contemporary Evangelical church these shifts were seen as simply a generational phenomenon prompting discussion on how to make church relevant to young people. Many churches jumped on the bandwagon of how to do trendy church, and yes, publishers attempted to capitalize on it as well. Since the money in the evangelical world in America historically supports charismatic white men, they became the poster children of the conversation. But as the conversation matured, others realized that what was emerging in the world was far more significant than generational trends, and so started to ask questions about how the church is held captive to culture and modern philosophies. Dialogues across diverse Christian traditions helped begin to heal wounds caused by racial and denominational divisions. These new relationships blurred boundaries both in and out of the church, making it impossible to quantify the number of churches participating in the conversation.

These emerging conversations and relationships brought renewed faith to some, but frightened or didn’t go far enough for others. Many of those (including publishers) who were simply riding the waves of cultural trends jumped ship and moved on to the “next big thing” (New Calvinism anyone?). This rejection of what was emerging worldwide was often rooted in a rejection of the very outside perspectives and theologies now beginning to be heard from women, racial minorities, and Queer believers. The reality is that the conversation is diverse (imperfectly so, but diverse nonetheless), and to dismiss it as being all about hip white males is hurtful to the rest of us contributing to the conversation who don’t fit that stereotype. Pretending we are invisible simply perpetuates the myth that we don’t exist at all. Sure, it is still a daily struggle be heard in a world that often clings to the vestiges of patriarchy, racism, and bigotry, but our voices are still there (even if marketplace Christianity isn’t throwing money our way).

I am Emergent and I don’t fit their stereotype. I am about the most un-hip person in the world. I might be white and youngish, but I am also physically handicapped and female. I am not one of the pretty people, I have no sense of style, I don’t listen to cool bands, my hair is a disaster, I am awkward, introverted, and a total bookworm. In most emerging communities I have participated in, I am generally one of the youngest people there. My friends are culturally, racially, generationally and theologically diverse and are (mostly) as uncool and imperfect misfits as myself (sorry guys, you know I love you, but it’s true). But we care about what God is doing in the world. We care about justice, we care about racial reconciliation, we care about making sure we listen to previously marginalized voices (and we continue to fight for them when they are not heard). Some of my friends have never heard of the term “emerging church” and some of us volunteer our time to help support this conversation through the network of Emergent Village. We have a lot to learn and a long way to go. I know that none of us desire to cling onto power for the sake of white western culture, but we also feel no need to utterly reject and condemn that entire culture. Healing and emergence in the church will never take place through the silencing of voices we don’t like or the caricaturing of those we don’t understand. There are wounds dealt to persons of color, to queers, and to women that the church universal must work to heal. But if we share the same dream of healing those wounds, why can’t we stop fighting amongst ourselves and figure out this emerging thing together?

In the lead-up to the conference I was part of numerous discussions regarding the need to give the stage so deliberately to a group of women. I get the desire to be at a point in the conversation where women's voices don't have to be highlighted but are just a normal part of things. Or to be at a place of if there is a Christian conference where the main speakers are women people don't assume that it's a women's conference. I'd love that, but we aren't there yet. I think C21 moved us forward in that direction, but women's voices had to be highlighted this time in order for that to happen. And I love that men who typically speak at these sorts of conferences came instead to serve at this one – doing all the behind the scenes stuff that we women often end up doing. Jay Bakker, Shane Claiborne, Spencer Burke, Mark Scandrette, and Gareth Higgins came to serve and help out. And as Doug Pagitt joked, to see the end of their careers as the privileged ones given the microphone at these sorts of events. Bono is right – women are the future and after this conference there can be no excuse for not inviting women to lead sessions at conferences because gifted intelligent women are out there. (and as a total aside the money quote from the weekend came from Shane Claiborne. I was talking to him about how he had "killed" my husband in a game of assassin as Wheaton College and he said "I love Assassin, I have to get my violent tendencies out somehow!" Awesome.)

The conference itself was intense. There was little down-time, little interaction or workshop time, just rapid-fire hearing from the presenters on what they see as important things to consider for faith in the 21st century. Granted, this wasn't back to back lecture after lecture. There were some lectures of course, but there was also the telling of stories, short dramas, spoken-word poetry, musical pieces, times of prayer and reflection, conversations on stage, and a fast-paced group presentation pairing reflections with visual images. And as one of those presenters – let me just say that 21 minutes is a really really short time to try to do anything (especially when it is further broken apart into even shorter segments). Hearing a new idea every 21 (or 7 or 5) minutes is intense. With no time for interaction or question, jumping from one idea to another hardly gives one time to wrap ones mind around any given idea. So I am having a hard time summarizing what any one person talked about. I know Sybil MacBath did her thing about praying in color, Alise Barrymore did an amazing poetic speech about growing down. Seth Donovan pushed us to let people show up at church decompartmentalized from our identities and labels. Phyllis Tickle and Nadia Bolz-Weber chatted about the future of the church. Lauren Winner gave a killer list about what Christianity will be known for by the end of the 21st century. And Debbie Blue talked about roadkill and Jesus having an anus (it was beautiful, seriously). I remember the moments and that it was beautiful. And for all the controversy leading up to the event, this was one of the most Christ-centered, Bible and church affirming gathering I have been a part of in a long time.

As with most emerging conferences, one of the best parts was just being able to connect with people. I loved meeting friends from the Emerging Women blog and sitting down for drinks with someone I used to argue with all the time at The Ooze some seven years ago. I loved hearing people's stories and what brought them to the conversation. I even got to spend the plane ride home continuing the conversation with new friends. I was blessed to learn from the Queermergent folks (and I totally apologize again for ditching so early, I was so falling asleep on the couch…). I enjoyed making new friends and getting to reconnect with old members of my tribe.

And I'm sure my rambling here makes sense only in my head, but I just need to get my thoughts out (as discombobulated as they are). But I do know that something significant happened this past weekend. And I was blessed to be a part of it.

Other people who are sharing about the experience -

Christina Whitehouse-Suggs on Drunk on the Wine of New Love

Danielle Shoyer gives a recap

Imago's blog's reflections

Tony Jones looks back at the event.

Seth Donovan talks about starting in a new place.

Pam Heatley compared C21 to a tropical vacation

Shula at Sensuous Wife blogs her reaction to the event.

Don Heatley has created an amazing highlight video from the event that really helps capture some of the themes that emerged there.

For more fantastic pictures from the event, visit Courtney Perry's Christianity 21 photostream (the pictures here are hers, excepting the panorama which is Jake Bouma's )

and if you want to witness for yourself the amazing live sketching Paul Soupiset did at the event, watch them here, here, here and here

Oh, and I'm super excited about the new publishing house, Sparkhouse, which launched recently. They created a video at C21 about sparking new life into faith communities, it's pretty neat (I'm the space-y one in it).

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

Christianity 21: Faith in the 21st Century
21 Voices
21 Ideas
21 Minutes Each

We live in a time of epochal change.

Many find this change exciting; for others, it’s a challenge. Call it globalization, pluralization, or postmodernism, this change affects our economy, politics, government, and education—all of society. And, of course, our faith and our churches are not immune to change.

So we have gathered 21 of the most important voices for the future of Christianity—21 voices for the 21st century—to speak into our future as people of faith in this age. They represent a diverse array of backgrounds, interests, and passions, and they will provide a wide range of innovative and challenging presentations.

Christianity21 is less a conference and more a happening, an event—a gathering of voices and ideas that will shape the future of our faith. And to the 21 voices, we want you to add your voice, whether you’re a seeker or skeptic, leader or layperson, disciple or doubter.

We hope you consider joining your voice to ours at Christianity21.

Friday, October 9 – Sunday, October 11
Colonial Church of Edina
6200 Colonial Way
Minneapolis, MN 55436
$195

I am really excited about this event. I'll can't wait to hear from these presenters, and I get to join them as I will be speaking on "seeking justice in the everyday" I think this will be a gathering where we can really dig deep and explore where faith is headed in the 21st century. We can't ignore that changes are happening around us, and I appreciate the opportunity to think out loud with others about what this all means. So stick it on your calenders and plan on join us in October!

As I posted on the blog –

This blog originally emerged as the result of a conversation at the 2007 Emergent Gathering. While many of us were eager to explore our own faith and dig deep into the hard questions, we were less sure about what that meant for our kids. Do we just continue molding their faith in the traditional ways even as we question those very traditions ourselves? How do we integrate our values of justice, sustainability, and simplicity into this fast-paced consumeristic world? What does it even mean to raise kids in a connected pluralistic world?

We all realized that navigating our way through these questions is something that must be done in community. We can bring our questions to each other, share our ideas, and be there to encourage each other along the way. Having the space of a blog to do that seemed like a perfect way to connect with each other. And over the past year this blog has served to host such discussion and provide that encouragement.

So to help spark the conversation anew here, we are relaunching the blog in this new format. I (Julie Clawson), Sarah-Ji, and Brett Watson will serve as moderators to help bring meaningful topics and resources up for consideration here. But this will still be a space fueled by those interested in exploring parenting in this emerging postmodern world. We need your input and submissions to create the conversation here. So send us your stories, articles, pictures, book and movie reviews, and questions. Write about that conversation you had with your preschooler before bed or ways you see your teen reaching out to others. Tell us about that family activity or what you’re struggling with. We make this conversation what we want it to be. (send any submission to emergingparents (at) gmail (dot) com).

So drop by the blog and join in the conversation there!