I have a new article in this month’s issue of Next-Wave Ezine on Emerging Parenting. It explores some of the struggles we parents who are trying to work through our own faith with fear and trembling face when it comes to the spiritual formation of our kids. Check it out, and if you are interested in emerging parenting come join the conversation over at Emerging Parents.
Category: Emerging Church
Changes at Emerging Women
So last week I annouced the relaunch of the Emerging Parents blog. Today I want to (finally) announce that the new Emerging Women site. We now have a cleaner more navigable look and are hosted exclusively on our own domain. So head over to www.emergingwomen.us to check out our new site and join the conversation there.
Besides a well needed redesign, this change was prompted by the need to move away from a membership style blog. We had simply grown too big for that format to continue to work for us. From now on we will be accepting submission for posting, but will attempt to remain as open source as possible. We also hope to serve as a resource connecting people in the emerging conversation to the voices of the women in its midst – so check out the community page!
I look forward to continuing to explore the emerging church conversation with others who care about the distinct voice and concerns of women at the blog. I encourage everyone to drop by and comment on what you would like to see as we move forward with this new site.
Listening to Pete Rollins
I spent Saturday at the Journey Warehouse getting to hear from Pete Rollins. In all, it was a fantastic day. Besides getting an entire day to hang out with adults (without the kids) and getting to listen to Pete, I got to hang out with really cool people. It was great to see Laci Scott again and to finally meet Glenn Barbier, and Adam and Brooke Moore. Good times.
But of course the point of the day was to listen and learn from Pete. Which was of course amazing. It was refreshing to be around someone so unapologetically intellectual. At one point I asked him how those who aren’t intellectual or cultural creatives find a voice in his community Ikon and he simply replied that he just makes them that way. That he believes that all people are capable of creativity and thinking, all they need is encouragement. For once it was just stinking nice to not hear excuses or apologies for thinking deeply. And there was a lot of deep thoughts being thrown around yesterday. I’m not going to bother trying to summarize his talk – just highlight a couple of things.
I loved his portrayal of the church as a fetish. He describes our approach to church as like a child to a security blanket – something that protects us from dealing with life as it really is. We use church to escape from reality instead of engaging that reality. So we sing with certainity about justice but don’t actually do it. The church is actually what stands in the way of our transforming the world. Pete insists instead that church needs to become the place where there is no certainty – where we are free to doubt and question and seek. But that as we enter the world we are to live with certainty – to live as if God exists (no matter what we believe) and to live by his call to justice. It is our everyday lives that should be lived radically for transformation. We need to get over church as an impotent force that inhibits life, but make it alive by making it unstable and unsure.
I also was intrigued by his challenging of fellow Belfast native C.S. Lewis (and Chesterton) on the subject of longing for God. As Chesterton suggested that every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God, but Pete asked “what if he is really just looking for sex?” He explored how we often use God as an excuse for our longings. We desire comfort or meaning in life and so find that in church but give it the name God (relating back to the fetish thing). This actually dismisses God and belittles him. The point isn’t that we all have a “God-shaped hole” that causes us to long for God, but that when we long for God he shows up in the form of the God-shaped hole. The idea isn’t “seek and THEN you shall find” but that the seeking is the finding. The need for God is created by the desire for God. The illustration Pete used was that of parents who say their life was incomplete before they had kids. But technically before that point their life wasn’t really incomplete. We can’t go around saying that single people are incomplete because they don’t have kids. But the statement is true in that once the couple had a child, the incompleteness appeared retroactively. Once they have the child, and only then, they can truly say that their life was incomplete before. Once we seek for God we start seeking him. I liked this take on things because it helps get around many of the imperialistic overtones to evangelical discourse. Instead of telling people that we understand their desires better than they themselves, we can start to understand them as they are. It moves us from a position of superiority to that of friend. But at the same time I find it so hard to question ideas that are so ingrained in evangelical thought (especially for a post-wheatie) that they are assumed to be biblical.
Okay I should probably stop rambling and butchering these ideas and just tell you to go hear Pete or read his books. What he’s saying is brilliant – it challenges assumptions but also pushes us out to live rightly. This is intellectualism – but real life intellectualism. Thinking deeply about real life and how we live – this is the stuff we all need, even when it shakes us up.
Relaunching Emerging Parents
I just wanted to let everyone know that the Emerging Parents blog is getting going again. We have moved to www.emergingparents.com and are looking for submissions to help get the conversation there rolling again.
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!
Emerging into Leadership
Over and over again in my conversations with women in the emerging church movement, I hear the story of women awakening to themselves. They realize that as women they too are created in the image of God and so in theory can serve their creator faithfully in whatever way they are called. Intellectually, they understand this. They want to engage theology, attend conferences, interact online, and visit discussion groups. They want to have a say in the direction of the emerging conversation and lend their particular understandings to shape the movement. They see in this emerging moment in time an opportunity for them to be fully alive as women, to grow their faith in new ways, and to be truly respected in the church. But at the same time they have difficulty actually doing those things.
The problem isn’t so much women being told that they can’t participate or lead, although there are churches in the emerging movement that still set limits on women, for the most part women are fully affirmed. The men in the conversations wish there were more women contributing their voices and stepping up into leadership. But while such stepping up might seem perfectly natural to these men, I’ve encountered numerous women who feel they just can’t do that. Even if they believe they can be leaders, the message that the church and their culture has imparted to them over the years is that nice Christian women just don’t do things like that. They don’t assert themselves. They don’t impose themselves on others. They don’t show up where they haven’t been invited. They don’t make a scene.
So in the very open source emerging network this creates a problem. Women are affirmed, but with no one to officially invite them into the conversation, many women just don’t join in. This of course creates a cycle where, because women don’t see other women in the conversation, they assume that not only are they not invited they are not welcome in that world. So some women reject the movement in anger and others resign themselves to remaining on the outside simply wishing things could be different.
As a woman engaged with the emerging conversation, it is my hope to hear more women’s voices represented there. But I do understand the psychological constraints many women face. I don’t believe that they simply need to get over who they are and step up anyway. I think men and women need to work together, mutually making sacrifices, to ensure that the conversation is a welcoming place for all. Men should take the time to extend invitations to women. They shouldn’t just assume that if women aren’t showing up to the conversation that they don’t want to be there. Taking the time to make room for women, going out of their way to extend invitations, and showing a willingness to learn from women are just the sorts of encouragements that many women need. But women too need to stretch themselves – not to lose themselves, but to examine what baggage is weighing them down and holding them back. Women can help each other leave behind such constraints and develop into the people we long to be. We can encourage each other and affirm to those who need the reminder that Christian women can be strong, engaging, and dynamic while exploring theology and stepping into leadership.
As much as those of us in the emerging conversation value natural and organic development, I think we all need a reminder that some things, like having women’s voices heard, take deliberate planning. We must be aware of the needs of women who are struggling to overcome years of messages that convinced them not to step up. Including these women isn’t something that will just happen, it will take work. Constant awareness, intentional invitations, repeated encouragement, and the courage to take risks. But these women are worth it. We will all benefit from adding their voice to the conversation.
Reading with Discernment
Apparently Lifeway Christian Stores has created a cute little (trademarked) label for certain books sold at their website. The “Read With Discernment” label applies to authors who “may have espoused thoughts, ideas, or concepts that could be considered inconsistent with historical evangelical theology.” Naturally, Brian McLaren and Rob Bell are on that list. Lifeway still chooses to sell these books “because we believe the books do present content that is relevant and of value to Christians and/or because pastors, seminary students, and other ministry leaders need access to this type of material, strictly for critical study or research to help them understand and develop responses to the diversity of religious thought in today’s postmodern world.”
While on one hand I find this amusing. Does Blue Like Jazz really need a warning label? You’ve got to be pretty sheltered if you find that book dangerous. But on the other hand I’m disturbed by the unspoken implication that the other books sold at their website don’t need as much discernment while reading. Apparently, if something agrees with historical evangelical theology then it gets a pass on reading with a critical eye. We only need to be discerning about those that are discerning about historical evangelical theology since such opinions are only valuable to those those who engage them “strictly for critical study and research.” So if an author encourages us to love others, portrays God in feminine form, or narrates a road trip with friends we need to be extra discerning. But if Beth Moore takes every other verse out of context then it’s all good because we don’t need to critically engage with someone safe.
I’d say either drop the label (or replace it with the “This Book is Dangerous” label they seem to be intending) or stick it on every book. I’d love to see extra discernment and critical thought applied to the typical devotional or Woman’s Bible Study. Discernment shouldn’t just apply to things we disagree with. We are instructed as Christians to be as wise as serpents at all times – not just when the authorities tell us to be.
(HT – Jeromy)
The Emerging Crossroads
So if you haven’t read it yet check out Stephen Shields’ article in Next-Wave Ezine Ten Years Out: A Retrospective on the Emerging Church in North America. It’s a good overview of the state of the emerging movement these days from some of its major leaders. And while I am increasingly uncomfortable with the growing tendency for some of the leaders to toll the emerging death knell themselves, the movement is obviously at a crossroads. And personally I’m torn regarding that crossroads.
On one hand, I’ve always enjoyed the diversity of the emerging conversation. The ability for people of different denominational heritages or theological traditions to come together as part of a conversation. People came to the conversation for a variety of reasons, but as messy or awkward as it sometimes got, everyone had a voice. But then it got too messy for some and perhaps to passe for others.
So I’m torn. While I want to retain the diversity, its hard to do when you are repeatedly told that you’ve pushed the conversation too far – made it too messy. It’s hard to respect the needs of others to express who they are and what they are comfortable with when they don’t want to talk with you anymore. Should we just part ways – each respecting that the other is different and let that difference define us? Or do we remain in community, agreeing to disagree and perhaps work through those differences? No one is going to stop being who they are just so other people will like them, but there are other ways to be in community. When God got ahold of us all and pushed us to grow and stretch the false boundaries of our faith, it wasn’t a one time event where we all ended up at the same place after asking a series of appropriate questions. It was a process that of course looks different for all of us. So I can’t be pissed off that others aren’t asking the same questions I am, but it would be really nice if they respected my need to do so as part of the ongoing conversation.
I liked what Tony Jones had to say about this in the article – “It concerns me when leaders who were formerly friends of mine back away from me and from emergent because they find my theology too risky. I think that’s sin, plain and simple. Friendship should trump doctrinal differences, and I’m quite sure that Jesus would agree with me on that”
I would love it if emergent could retain its diversity instead of splintering. I want it to be like the coffee shop I often go to work at. On any given day I can hear at least 5 or 6 different languages being spoken there. I love that. Too often we can just stay with those who speak only our same language and not expose ourselves to the diversity of the world around us. So even if we don’t always understand each other in the emerging conversation, I wish we could be willing to at least be part of the same conversation.
Love and Sin
I grew up having the doctrine of original sin hammered into me. People are sinful – rotten to the core from conception. As a result, I always assumed the worst of people. Sin was a person’s defining character trait. And above all else they needed redemption – at whatever cost. So in interacting with people one focused on their depravity – seeing how they were sinful and even making sure they knew that as well.
The problem with that stance is that it makes it really hard to love one’s neighbor. And I mean really love them – not some silly “tough love” line about loving them too much to allow them to continue in sin. But loving them even amidst the mess. So in this mindset, when it was brought up that we should care for the poor who lost their homes in Katrina we were told that some of them are poor because of their sin. Or when its suggested that illegal immigrants should be treated with dignity and respect, some horrendous anecdote about a criminal act committed by an immigrant is mentioned. Or when its suggested that the homeless get fed, they are written off as undeserving addicts and alcoholics. The idea seems to be that if some sort of sin can be pinned on a person that gets us off the hook for having to love them.
But it can be dangerous to fall out of the habit to love. When we chose not to “in humility consider others better than ourselves” but instead dwell wholly on their faults we end up resorting to doing most things out of “selfish ambition and vain conceit.” Our needs reign supreme when we readily find excuses not to love others. Loving our neighbor then becomes a foreign concept.
Perhaps I’ve been too long in the emerging church world where loving others is just a given. Or perhaps spending the holidays with my family who thinks I’m an idealistic freak was a wake-up call. But it still shocks me when I encounter people who are genuinely confused as to why caring for the needs of others would be a motivating factor for doing anything. I want to believe love wins, but then I encounter so many people who can’t even fathom the concept. It’s just difficult when even the basic aspects of the faith can’t even be agreed upon.
Hierarchy, Freedom, and Emergent
I was out shopping recently and saw a baby boy onesie (it was blue, so in the strictly color coded baby clothes world, it was intended for boys and boys only…). On the front was the phrase “Second in Command After Daddy.” Now as a good feminist that pissed me off. Who in their right mind would stick that on their baby, even as a joke? Even tongue-in-cheek promotions of such family hierarchy encourage the myth that having a penis somehow makes you more important than women.
If you haven’t gathered it by now, I’m not a huge fan of hierarchical leadership (even when it’s not based on gender). I prefer flat networked structures that allow for input from all. And in truth, it’s less about equality or sameness and more about simply respecting people as people. Letting voices be heard and appreciating contributions for what they are.
So on one level, I appreciate that fact that Emergent Village is transitioning to a more decentralized structure. While some may be heralding Tony Jones stepping down as National Coordinator to symbolize the dismantling of Emergent, it was meant as an opportunity to allow a wider variety of people to step up into leadership positions (as the amusing series of I Am The Emergent National Coordinator videos demonstrates). And as Tony mentioned on his blog yesterday, “Any time you can dethrone an overeducated, loud, brash, white man,people just feel more openness for their own voice to be heard.” It’s all about reducing hierarchy and opening up the conversation.
But will it work? In brief discussions with other women leaders in the emerging movement, I’ve heard the question raised if the lack of a central leader will actually help women become more involved in the conversation. Many post-evangelical women still struggle to jump into the conversation, much less assert themselves as leaders. For good or bad, they still seek invitations to come alongside and be a part of the in-group. With no one to officially offer that invitation, the question remains if the women will step up or just remain on the sidelines peeking in. I honestly have no idea. It would be easy to say that women just need to get over it and assert themselves, but that would stray into dangerous psychological territory and miss the point. I don’t want to need a man’s permission to do anything, but an invitation (from someone) is still what many women are looking for.
So I’m curious to see how the decentralization of power affects the presence of women in Emergent. I’d of course like to see a vibrant representation of women in Emergent leadership. I’m encouraged to hear from some that at The Great Emergence event men at times seemed like the token voice. But to the best of my knowledge, I haven’t seen any women making national coordinator videos. That’s not a criticism, just an expression of curiosity of where this will lead. I hope the speculation of other emerging women will be wrong and we will see an increase of women’s voices in Emergent. But at the same time be proactively aware that the opposite could just as easily occur.
Faith, Truth, and Sola Scriptura
So yesterday I was able to get out and go hear Phyllis Tickle speak at St. David’s church here in Austin. It was nice to get out of the house and pretend for a few hours that I am still a thinking adult and not just a spit-up depository. Phyllis discussed the ideas in her new book The Great Emergence (which I blogged on recently here). She of course is brilliant in her understanding of religious trends and the transformative impact of historical events. I am really looking forward to reading the book, and wish I could attend The Great Emergence conference in December to explore these ideas further.
One thing she brought up yesterday that really stood out to me was the idea that the major controversial issues the church deals with (slavery, women’s rights, homosexuality…) are significant mainly because they challenge the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura. For most people it doesn’t matter if their reading of the Bible on those issues is perhaps wrong or biased – they interpret the Bible a certain way and anything that challenges that interpretation is a direct challenge to scripture. One could argue until one is blue in the face that the Bible really doesn’t condone slavery or support the subjugation of women, but any challenge to their preconceived notions is a death blow to Sola Scriptura. There are of course all sorts of discussions regarding foundationalism and theories of truth that relate to this idea, but her discussion connected to me on a more visceral level in relation to basic underpinnings of faith.
Recently Mike and I have had numerous conversations on how one approaches the Bible. In seminary he is mildly irritated at the either/or approach one is offered when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Either one is a literalist or one is a historic liberal. It’s one or the other. Which is of course annoying to those of us who take a slightly more middle ground. But in discussing the good parts of historical source criticism, I’ve seen that often my gut response is not to explore the truth behind such claims, but to react to how they change my faith. The good moral lessons or words of encouragement that I was taught were the core meaning behind certain bible stories no longer exist when those stories are approached from a different perspective. I find myself uncomfortable not because such things challenge truth, but because they challenge the cultural trappings of my religious tradition. I have to ask if my faith is truly in God or if it is in the presentation of the christian faith as it has been given to me.
I have no problem exploring that question and rethinking what I believe. But others see such questioning of biblical interpretation as questioning the Bible itself. It is all about our faith in Sola Scriptura as Phyllis mentioned. It is about an idea – a constructed way of being – more than it is truly about the Bible or truth. Questions and doubts challenge the superiority of our intellect and undermine our egotistical perceptions of self. We spin it other ways, but it comes down to basic posturing and the inability to admit we are wrong.
So I have to ask myself if I would rather place my faith in a false god than have that faith challenged. Is my comfort with the familiar more important than following and serving God?