Julie Clawson

So I was talking with Mike the other night about if there exist any safe places for “emerging” conversation. We have been interested in the ideas wrapped up in the emerging church for the last 6 years or so. Its not so much that we were convinced to join a movement, but that in the emerging church conversation we found others who were asking similar questions and approaching scripture in a deeper more wholistic way. We went through (and are still on)a long journey of examining the assumptions of faith and interpretations of scripture we had been exposed to. The process caused us to change our opinions on certain issues, become undecided on others, and as a whole deepened our faith. We identify with the emerging church and Emergent not because they are “it” or have got it right as organizations, but because they represent people who are on the same page as us.

But as the emerging church conversation has grown, it has made its fair share of enemies. It became the easy whipping boy for many evangelicals. Many who refused to read anything by emerging authors would read a critique in some magazine and assume they had it all figured out. Most weren’t even interested in discovering what “postmoderns” or “emergents” really believed – they just made assumptions about stuff they didn’t like and projected it onto us. So in our churches and ministry groups real conversation was impossible and you had to be careful about who you would offend if you thought too differently than they.

For awhile it seemed like online places like blogs, The Ooze, or emergent village were safe places for conversation. But then they were overrun by critics who came to show us why we are all wrong. On one side you had the atheists who were there to tell us we were all stupid and wrong. On the other you have the fundamentalists/evangelicals who were there to tell us we are all stupid, wrong, and going to hell because of it. None of them really want conversation, just to tell us we’re wrong.

Even the gatherings and conventions weren’t safe. I remember at the emergent convention in Nashville in 2005 how hard it was to hear a deeper talk. The convention was concurrent with the National Pastors Convention. So at it there were sessions for Pastors, them Emergent on-ramp (for beginners) and fast-track (for those already involved in the conversation). I attended mostly fast-track sessions hoping to hear deeper theological/philosophical/cultural discussions that went beyond the questions I was asking 6 years ago. But instead there always showed up the critics who came to throw questions as accusations and traps (or perhaps they thought by just asking the questions they would enlighten us to or stupidity and wrongness). Every time one of them would ask why postmoderns don’t believe in “absolute truth” or something else that completely missed the point, the room would groan and mourn the fleeting chance for intelligent conversation.

Its not that I think debate and conversation are bad. There are people asking questions and at all points of discovering their faith. There need to be places to engage ideas and debate. But there also needs to be places where people who have been on the journey and part of the conversation for awhile can safely converse. Where ideas can be brought up and not automatically condemned. Where issues can be pursued and practical expressions of faith explored without one being told they are going to hell. Where the same 3-4 questions are not the ONLY ones brought up. Where being “different” or “outside the box” isn’t an issue or are even categories.

Anyway… just wondering and dreaming…