There was a band of people that collected together under banners of Christian sub-culture. My friends, and people like us, found a safe haven in the Emergent Conversation that was becoming it’s own entity from it’s small gatherings at Youth Specialties Events, and starting to host it’s own events.
My friends and I believed that there was a massive tide of change coming. We believed that everything was going to change. We found more and more people reading books by McLaren or others and we thought the interactions with these books would change the world. We knew that there would be this new kind of Christian. We believed that Christianity was on the cusp of evolution.
I can only speak for my group, but we left the church. We didn’t want to be in the reform game and we decided we would let the change come to the church as we gathered outside, if this wave hit the church, we would rush back in and embrace it, but we couldn’t deal with Christianity in it’s present state and these Emergent Conversations were our only way to hold on to Jesus at all.
We didn’t want Emergent to become the new club, but we wanted it to organize so that through gatherings, cohorts, and online social networks it could create it’s own grouping and lovingly force some voices out into the open. That happened a little. But it seems that recently we have lost hope in the Emergent movement. It took it’s hits from the conservatives and instead of coming out stronger for it, it sort of fizzled.
The great bloggers stopped adding content or positioned themselves so that they could be paid for blogging and it seems like something was lost. I don’t blame the bloggers for loosing steam or finding a paycheck, but things just changed.
I guess it is like believing that one President can change everything in 100 days.
Emergent is de-centralizing, loosing leadership, and ten odd years into it, it still hasn’t been able to define itself completely. As it struggles to define itself, some of us loose faith in it.
So what am I saying, that I don’t like Emergent? No. Just that I guess some of us where hoping that everything would change, and it seems that the only thing that has changed is we have seen the group get dispersed and less potent.
Maybe it’s our fault for not putting in our two cents early on. Maybe it’s the fact that the leadership of Emergent was too accommodating to really define themselves in a way to produce a movement. Maybe I was stuck on the idea of revolution and movement, and it was only a conversation.
I guess I am just tired of the conversation, maybe tired isn’t the right word. Maybe I am hoarse. Maybe we decided we didn’t need another de-centralized conversation, we just wanted to act. Granted we are acting out of lot what we read from sources early on in the conversation, but we lost our interest. The conversation helped us gain a few friends, and it brought some dynamic literature into the game, but now, it is struggling to redefine itself without a co-ordinator, and outsourcing it’s gatherings. And it just feels sort of disappointing.
Bravo to those of you who are still active and pushing for redefinition, I wish you the best. I can’t explain how much the writings of McLaren and some others have helped me, but I also just need to express some disappointment now.
Tags: disappointment, emergent, emergent conversation, emergent village, redefinition, revolution
Hmmm. I can certainly agree that things seem to have gone off the boil a little. And it seems possible that the whole thing will fizzle out: not unlike the postmodernism that my academic colleagues tell me is a spent force.
And yet, if McLaren is right and there’s a one-in-four-hundred-year change in Chrisendom taking place, there are going to be lots of blind alleys, lots of ebbs and flows, lots of periods when the tide seems to be going the wrong way. A grassroots movement thrives on diverse activity, not on strong centralized leadership, surely.
Then again, I was never that convinced by McLaren…
I, too, have a disappointment about the fizzle of what I had hoped would be a lasting evlution on a large scale. At the same time, I am grateful for having been part of something that has (I hope anyway) forever changed my own understanding and vision for my journey towards and with God. Because of the conversation, I, and many of those we share our life with, will never view our passage through this life the same as we did before those conversations took place.
i don’t fault emergent per say. i do fault the bloggers that sold out for a dime. or allowed their subversive voices to fade into the static, but that’s neither here nor there.
i think that emergent has and always been a vehicle for a conversation. a good conversation. but a conversation doesn’t last forever. i think its a great onramp and vehicle for newcomers to a conversation. but like any good dance, it can’t last forever. or either it can, but that it just has different partners that tap in and tap out at different points in the dance.
i’m not bitter. but i do think emergent for me has lost its momentum. or rather its value as a reciprocal of a conversation. to be fair, i think it happened for mclaren 3 years ago and tony and doug a year and a half ago, and for others within this last year. conversations have short shelf lives. you say what you have to say. you listen to what you have to listen to.
and then . . . there is nothing left to say.
maybe it’s selfish on my part, but i just don’t feel like helping anybody else along. it seems irrelevant and pointless to be having some of these conversations that tony jones and others are still having on their blogs. its not that i fault tony or others, but to me it’s like “no duh”. and so i applaud tony and others for being able to still have these converting conversations with those at the beginning of this journey. but for me i just have nothing left to say. and maybe it’s because i’m just selfish and don’t feel like saying anything to these people because it doesn’t benefit me in anyway.
what the hell do i know anyway. i guess for those of who are standing so far on the outside now, that looking back in, even on the others straddling the fence just seems boring. for one more bad analogy, it’s like a group of kids who just got finished playing kickball for 7-8 years straight. and now a new group of kids from another school just showed up and want to play again and act like kickball is their idea and their game. and a bunch of media conglomerates show up and slap logos on the kickballs. and they bring in announcers. set up all of their bleachers and stuff on our home turf. and try and start a game of kickball with us.
it just seems laughable.
I’ve had this same sort of feeling for the last six months or so. I think most of my disappointment has to do with the conversation not evolving or progressing. I feel like many of the leaders are having the same sort of conversations and arguments with the same sort of people. It hasn’t really gone anywhere. Just around in circles. I’m bored with that part. I think it is (and has been) time to take something else on.
Incidentally, I had a seminary class with Tony this past semester and I voiced some of those concerns. I think his hope was that the evolution and change would happen through the grassroots. I get that. But he and Doug (and others) are the perceived leaders. If anyone is going to cast vision and shift the conversation it’s them. And they haven’t. That disappoints me.
But at the same time and not ready to completely give up. I think Phyllis Tickle is on to something with her idea that deep change occurs every 500 years or so. And I do believe we are on the cusp of one such watershed period. I think what I’m coming to understand now is that emergent doesn’t (and never did) have the corner of the market in creating space to nurture those changes.
And maybe those changes are happening much slower than many of us want or anticipated. I don’t really like that, but perhaps that is what’s happening.
So maybe this “brand” or form of the conversation is over. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe it is in the process of changing and rebooting itself altogether in order to continue to push the larger envelope. Or maybe it’s just becoming another static part of the “noise.” I don’t know.
Whatever it is or has become I can affirm that it has been helpful for a time (at least). I’d like to hope that it can mutate and evolve into the dynamic catalyst for change that it once was and aspired to be. But if not, I’m sure another form will emerge (no pun intended). And when it does that is where I will find my home for a time…until the next one and the one after that. And so on.
Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate knowing that I am not the only one feeling this.
I don’t feel that we are saying anything against emergent, in fact each one of us has found that it has been so formative in our lives, I think that that formation has been past tense, whether by our own involvement or by, as you mention Blake, there has been no vision casting, and the conversation has been mostly rehashing.
It looks like Tony, Doug, et. al. either accepted leadership or were named as leaders and then, as leaders, they backed off it, “oh no, it needs to be grassroots, etc.” It’s like they wanted this movement/conversation but didn’t want to lead it forward. From someone who just barely dipped his toe into the emergent stream, it looked kind of lame to see them switch back and forth like that. Isn’t leadership and direction what a “national director” is supposed to do?
I do think it got a lot of people talking about things they previously didn’t talk about, and it has introduced me to people like Nick and Josh, which is neat.
As far as Christian leadership goes, I really love when Rollins says that the Christian leader should be the one who refuses to lead. A leader that pushes back on the followers, sort of like the relationship between a psychoanalyst and a patient where as the analyst is really there to refuse to analyze. By pushing back and refusing to lead, the Christian leader therefore creates the priesthood of all believers.
As far as emergent goes, I have always seen it as a changing process. I have never thought of it as providing any definitive answers or solutions. I think Ghandi has it right when he says we are to “be the change we want to see in the world.,” We don’t have to wait around for someone to lead us there.
I’ve lost track of the number of conversations I’ve had with people who are expressing similar sentiments. Just got back from Book Expo 2009 – publishers have ZERO interest in Emerging/emergent/emergence branded material. And that’s reflected in the sales. Meanwhile, even in a down market, a book like “The Furious Longing for God” that seems to be doing very well sales wise. (The book I’d keep my eye out for is “The Future of Faith” by Harvey Cox when it comes out in October.)
Here’s the challenge – we are undergoing a massive sea change on many front. To cite one small example – the Internet is changing how we communicate similar to how the printing press transformed not just the church but the culture at large. The challenge is to remain faithful during this transition as we work together to try follow the Way as Christ followers instead of chasing after the next big thing, worshiping some religious rock star or throwing in the towel.
Funny, folks are quoting Doug P and Tony J as saying the reason they stepped away was to allow it to become more grassroots. Whether they said that or not, I find it ironic. If grassroots really is the way of change as we Emergents so often claim, why is Doug P running for Minnesota state legislature, and why did Tony start blogging with Beliefnet? Those means seem to betray a philosophy that change comes from the top-down. (Perhaps it’s a both/and kind of deal.) And Doug and Tony (with whom I am friends and whose personal decisions I respect) continue to plan and lead Emergent events (Great Emergence, Moltmann Conversation, etc). Are things really that decentralized? I still look to all the aforementioned guys as leaders…
Not too long ago, I sat in the backseat of a car listening to our friend Brian McLaren attempt to persuade a pastor friend to become a politician. Out of love and full respect for Doug, Tony, and Brian, I say all this to ask, are we selling out on the grassroots vision of Jesus for a new (left) version Christendom?
I just wanted to comment since this seems like a popular post. I never really got into Emergent, maybe because recently I have uncovered psychic abilities that allow me to predict things that will one day be lame. I would rather talk about toe-jam and Bear Gryllis than anything Emergent. I thought the skydiving post was wayyyy cooler.
Unfotunately some of the emergent major names became more motivated by how to make money via book deals, conference fees etc and by trying to build an image of being a cool celeb within emergent networks – calculated self -marketing and establishing a brand name took over…. all the galling as they often champion counter cultural kingdom values in books and interviews etc
I would echo the challenge in Beckies post as the important one
I agree that they created their own identities and they became the rockstar types, but I don’t think that they could make a living off their books and conference fees. I mean I probably could, but people with families and houses, I don’t know.
I guess my disappointment is that the group as a whole hasn’t been utilized to do some of the proposals that we read in the books, does that make sense?
For example, I made a suggestion once that they have some sort of unemployment for pastors that got let go because of theological reasons. I don’t know how that would work, but that is something that I see as playing out the conversation into a tangible way.
Nick – Pre-financial crash, one could make a sizable chunk of change in the Christian author/speaker cottage industry if one was a white male who knew how to work the evangelical market. A few small examples: a person planning one of those “new forms of church conferences” told me they had to deal with an emergent leader who requested (and didn’t get) $10,000 and business class travel as well as hotel and food in order to participate on a panel. (We’re not even talking the keynote speaker here.) Another religious rock star who asks for a grand for each one of his performances. In both these cases, the money goes to fund a lifestyle that’s beyond the means of most folks working on the fringe. (Having said that, I know of some communities who charge say a fee for them to do workshops with the money going back to support the community’s ministries or people like Andrew Jones who don’t ask a fee but accept donations to support his missional work.)
I’m not saying people shouldn’t be compensated for their services. And we’re not talking the megabucks demanded by the evangelical superstars by any means. But you’re right night – the talk doesn’t match the walk.
See Andrew Jones’ post on this topic: http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2008/11/recession-proof.html
interesting thoughts, here, nick.
I can’t really explain why, but I’ve never felt apart of any of the emergent stuff. maybe its because I felt like I was already organically having some of the conversations I read about with my friends (in and outside of church). maybe it was because I was a few years too old. maybe it was because I was holding onto the hope that the church needed people to stay in.
but more than anything, I think I never was able to get past the term. “emergent” always sounded so arrogant to me.
and also, it always has seemed obvious to me that the emergent church, at least right now, isn’t in the US.
it’s in africa.
oh and I totally love what leslie said.
Oops – my bad – the book title is “The Furious Longing of God.” Still a great book though.
Nick–I enjoyed your candor.
I can’t help but consider Emergent, and perhaps what has been considered to be a whole emerging Christianity, as a great example of the “flavor of the week” that is no longer sexy. It has become something that has history, that is artifact, it is no longer tabla rasa. There are now mistakes and failures that have to be accounted for, battles that have already been fought over it, and casulties that have been carried away from the field. It is a known entity.
One of our dominant cultural myths, that of progress and new-thing-solutions, moderates this conversation I suspect. Many of the ideals that shaped the emerging conversation became the quick fix solutions–and now their solvancy has been tested. it is not that they don’t work–but rather the myth of progress is a false one. it continues to leave a wave of dissapointed in its path. “Things will change if we do this new thing…” (even if this new thing happens to be the old thing, ironically).
I find myself realizing that much of the movement we’re speaking of has enjoyed the success that comes with quick fix status and the heartbreak that comes when it fails to live up to its false promise. I’m not sure if abandoning “it” per se changes the cycle. I suspect it simply feeds into it.
I don’t know…I mean, I’m doing a lot of processing on this same stuff–and that’s what I’m wrestling with right now….
-b-
Brittian, first let me say, that no one has every said to me that they enjoy my candor. I will treasure that. (I am serious).
I agree with you, but in part my frustration isn’t that I saw that there was a ‘quick fix’ mentality. Rather, my frustration is that I actually believed some of the propositions being made, but I don’t feel the vision or follow through that would be necessary to actually effect change in Christianity. Does that make sense?
i was helped once when i heard a talk on john the baptist and disillusionment. the point was if you are disillusioned you better ask what the illusion was. it sounds like some great hopes have been placed on a few people to solve the massive shifts taking place in culture and church life. was that ever going to happen?! it’s a much longer trajectory we are in and i suspect we’re still quite early in the process. i liked the way emergent blew open a conversation in the US and gave permission for questions. to be honest it was a conversation we’d been having in the uk for about 1o years before but it was always about networking, practice at the grassroots, and working out what it meant to follow in the way of christ in your (postmodern or whatever) locale. if you are disappointed fair enough. but get some people together and live some stuff out and connect with some others doing the same thing – that’s it!
re people making money – maybe the US is different but there’s no money in christian books or blogs in the uk trust me. if there is it’s small change. it’s a cheap shot at bloggers. i’ve never made a penny – it’s about the love!
i blogged a while back saying that this whole thing has only just begun – see http://jonnybaker.blogs.com/jonnybaker/2008/10/its-only-just-b.html
that may not be a popular view right now but i am in this mission in culture thing for the rest of my life. i see plenty of places that have a long way to go. ok so emergent may have made some wrong moves but haven’t we all? i hope that what you are doing proves hopeful and wish emergent the best as they seek to reconfigure for what’s next…
peace
To stay with the wave analogy, I think the wave crashed, but the wall didn’t give. It may have cracked, and some bricks may have loosened, but its a big thick wall. I know, I slammed into in that wall and I’ve had to reevaluate a lot.
Its going to take years maybe decades of waves crashing against that wall before it wears down.
I’m one of those bloggers who’s fallen off the scene. My reason: When I give my time and devotion to the relationships in my home and church, I rarely have time to blog about it. Perhaps the quietening down of emergent voices is a sign that we are owning our relational responsibilities to the spaces we inhabit. We’re doing rather than ranting about in the blogosphere.
a) If you think things have gone soft of gone off the boil, you’re reading the wrong people.
b) If you think two millennia of church crystallization could be over turned in 10 years you’re not optimistic you’re pie eyed.
This work is going to take a long, long time. It is going to be slow. It is meeting a great deal of resistance and it takes time to construct a response to the resistance that remains true to the intent and it takes time to help that resistance see the err of its ways.
This movement -should- be de-centralized and without leadership. The internet has proven that peer-based network structures are infinitely more powerful than mainframe-terminal structures. The church has been a mainframe-terminal structure for 20 centuries. This is clearly a big part of the problem.
I think much of what I see in the emerging conversation is a desperate attempt to -avoid- becoming a movement. Movements need manifestos and consist of people who are in and people who are out. I think this conversation wants to be a ground swell, not a movement.
I also think that this conversation is bigger than just reform. We know already that reform won’t work. The church reformed 500 years ago. It is a mess all over again. It had reformed several times before that. It became a mess each time. If we focus exclusively on reform, we’re not really going to actually do any good in the long run.
I suppose I’ve never seen Emergent Village as THE expression or even hub of the emerging missional way. One of them with particular networks it could provoke or sustain, yes, and a valuable one at that.
I’m with Jonny on this. The challenge of missional rather than attractional and incarnational rather than extractional ways of forming community that bears witness to and sometimes incarnates God’s reign… that is ever before us… still alive, quite vibrant.
Jim, do you have some reading suggestions?
Jonny – I appreciate what you said. I think that you guys had it right to center all around the idea of networking. That is the part of emergent that I think is alive and well. As it is I think that the local cohorts are amazing, and I support them fully and will attend one when I get settled back in to living here in the states. And I think disillusioned is a good term. Like I said, I think I own most of this disappointment because I had unreal expectations. It was sort of like following the people marching at the g20 summit in London, I just sat there and watched these kids yelling saying they wanted anarchy, and thinking “hmmm really?”.
So I guess it is just cathartic for me to write this. And the truth is there is only a handful of people from the emergent world that read my blog, more that listen to my podcast I guess. And I don’t intend on using the podcast as a platform to express disappointment, but I thought here would be appropriate. Allow comments and keep it small. Keep it in the blogging world.
So yeah, I think I developed some unreal expectations early on, and I should have spent the money on going to conventions. I should have still read the books and joined my local cohort, but not thought of the time we were in as a time of massive change, rather small change from the little guys.
I’m so glad that Jonny Baker chimed in here. Read and re-read his post, because he makes a lot of important points.
In particular, while I want to have empathy for feelings of disappointment, I have to say, most times when I’m disappointed in something, it’s because I had some broken expectations. A few times in this post, you said that you and your friends were hoping for this or that, and were looking to EV to cast vision, etc. I don’t mean to be harsh, but it’s quite possible that you had the wrong idea from the get-go.
I’ve never felt disappointed in EV because I never really expected much from them, other than to maybe provide a gathering point for people to meet each other, share ideas, and encourage one another. Any sense of negative feeling I’ve had toward EV is that they were doing too much to focus the spotlight on a few names/faces, and not redirecting the conversation out to the grassroots where the real stuff was going on.
A lot of the early bloggers that you mention that seemed to disappear actually did so in order to focus themselves more fully on their local expressions of faith. They knew the “big” conversation was helpful, but only for so long – eventually, the only way to see if these seemingly new ideas really work is to test them out where you live.
I’m sorry you’re feeling disappointed. Or maybe I’m not. If EV, or any other group had fulfilled your expectations, it likely would have meant that “we” traded the broken systems we were leaving with another structure that was bound to give us false hope.
With respect. Thanks for sharing.
I think though there was always a wish to express that they weren’t a movement, with the sort of publishing and conferencing that they did. They became one, and everyone knew it even though we were all saying “It’s not a movement”. Whereas I don’t really have any disappointment in TheOoze because I never felt that it was a movement, it was a website, that made connections, and occasionally throws a learning party.
Hmm, I don’t know why the two are so different for me.
Nick,
I think you were writing your response to Jonny at the same time I was writing my comment to you. I didn’t mean to be redundant there – I think you got what I was going for. Sorry to make it look like I was piling on.
I had a conversation last night in a similar domain that mirrors this conversation. And my response was that I can’t walk away from something that is inherently valuable.
What if the conversation requires us to move forward? Because if we walk away, we’re the ones missing out.
2 qualifiers: First, I understand and appreciate and relate to your disappointment Nick, so anything I say is from that place. Second, in the interests of full disclosure, I’m one of the 24 who met in DC recently to try to hear the future for Emergent Village.
…my comment got way too long, I’m posting it on my blog instead
I’ll look for it over there. Thanks.
I would echo a lot of these comments (beginning with Jonny) about moving forward and the evolution happening slowly.
I guess my biggest concern is that I feel like many of us are having the some conversations and the same arguments with the same critics. I’m ready to move beyond that. The rehashing and spinning of the wheels doesn’t seem very useful to me. Granted, a lot of that has taken place among the big figures, but some of it mirrors across the board, I think. I guess I’m just ready for the next step in the conversation, to move on to something else, to engage with different critics and different people. I’m tired of talking about the same thing.
Blake, I think you are really onto something. I guess it is disillusionment and I think it happened because I left the country for 15 months and when I came back I was reading a couple blog conversations that were exactly the same as the sort of stuff when I left. Evolution is a slow process, but man. . . maybe I am just emotional about the culture shock.
Mak already said exactly what I wanted to say (and said it a lot nicer than I would have.) So I want to just give a “hear, hear” to her, and refer you all over there.
Here’s the thing. Your post just strikes me as highly ironic. You (and a most of the other commenters there) ARE already part of the emerging church yourselves (maybe not Emergent Village, but EV was never the point anyway), so if you don’t like how it’s been going so far, then get off your arses and do something about it, not just point the fingers at “those people over there” who let you down. Brian, Tony and Doug were never in charge of this thing, anymore than anyone else was. If you won’t join in the effort, no one else is going to do it for you.
But you’ve already admitted that your MO is not to actually do anything. You said your approach was to just leave the church and let someone do the dirty work of actually changing it. And your podcasting buddy, Josh, admitted that he wasn’t all that interested in helping anyone else along the same journey that we all have been on this past decade. So all I can really say is that if y’all are going to be that lazy and unmotivated about it, then what kind of results did you expect in the first place? You want the revolution just handed to you on a silver platter, or do you want to actually work to bring it about?
(See, I told you I wouldn’t be as nice about it as Mak was.
Thanks for your thoughts Nick. I appreciate your honesty. As someone who’s just getting into this conversation you and others bring a breadth of knowledge and understanding from the beginning.
But I understand your frustration as well. While I don’t necessarily share your frustration with Emergent (perhaps because I haven’t invested as much), I feel the same frustration in other communities from time to time.
There is a time for conversation and a time for action. Perhaps after 10 years of conversation, it’s time for the later now.
I remember late last year when everyone wanted to jump up and say, “I’m the new national coordinator for Emergent Village.”
I loved it – priesthood of believers stuff! But then what?
Now that you’ve claimed your title – what are you doing and going to do with it?
Shane Claiborne reminds us, “Quit complaining about the Church you’ve experienced and start being the Church you’ve dreamed of.”
I’ve always taken that to be referring to the traditional, institutional church – but I think it can refer to the Emergent conversation just as quickly.
We can complain about leadership (or the lack there of) all day long – but what are WE doing? Are we going to point fingers or get out and something?
We all have visions of what we want to see – and not surprisingly – it’s something we can usually all agree on. So let’s create it! In our neighborhoods, in our communities around the world. Let’s inspire others not by our conversations and our finely worded blogs – but let’s inspire them by our actions.
Lindsay Cofield told me last year (something I go back to over and over and over again) “The simplest definition of Church is a group of Christ followers who believe, function and understand themselves to be the Body of Christ in their sphere of influence.”
If each of us took that to heart – it wouldn’t matter what happened with Emergent, any denomination, or any other group. We’d simply live out the Missio Dei. And Everything WOULD Change.
But of course “its easier to blame others than to look inward.”
I think whenever we put our faith in a movement that we hope will change things to fit our picture, we will either accept being letdown, or we will grasp onto our ideology of what we think reality should be at the expense of the change we hoped to see.
my advice to you is that if this has let you down, make something of it. do something to make the kingdom of god revealed in your areas of influence in the best way that God can use you. that’s after all what we are here to do and all social structures are tentative media for that purpose. perhaps EV served its purpose and can be discarded. that’s a good thing. that means it was successful – ironically enough.
Mike, no worries feel free to be as nice as warranted by the tones here.
Mak did have some great comments.
Drew and Jonathan, thanks for the comments. I agree I need to make something out of all of this, and I intend to.
It has been a process for me, one of the parts was finding a label for myself and finding out where I fit. Now I am formulating what that means for me and what changes I want to see.
It seems that the tone has become defensive of emergent, and I hope that that can be staved by me saying, the problem is with me. I will still podcast as I have since the beginning and I will still cohort. I am not walking out because I hate it. I just needed to voice something.
Then on the flip side, this is the most comments that my blog has seen in a year. The trick is say something pro or con emergent and you have a popular blog post.
Nick,
haha! for you it’s say something emergent and get tons of conversations going – for me, it was a random post about the local news anchor leaving
I just want to point out that people like Jonny (as well as Steve Knight, Andrew Jones, Brian McLaren, and a bunch of people that are not well known because they are living and doing art and changing the way they do church) have been around the emerging church a lot longer than Emergent Village has. EV has been around for a decade, and most of us haven’t been a part of it for that long anyway, so we have no perspective. It would be very easy for us to say that we have hardcore emerging experience because we started a blog in 2003, for example, because within EV we think that is a long time, whereas even in the broader emerging church, that’s not long at all.
We can remember the words of people like Steve and Jonny and Andrew – and start listening to people like Brad Culver and Pete Grieg and Jay Bakker who are speaking, and ask people like Peter Wohler and Bruce Wright to start speaking – about the broader sense of what we are trying to do. The alt.worship movement, subculture churches, 70s/80s/90s house churches, and so on have vast amounts of wisdom to offer to us, and they are the reason any of us are talking about this stuff in the first place. I’m convinced that their wisdom, their experience, their perspective can help us figure out what we’re doing and what our place is in this thing.
While Blake has a great point up there about moving forward (which I think includes figuring out what we’ll do about buildings and ordinations and apostle/prophet/etc ministry roles and so on), we can do well to look back a bit, as well.
[...] a metaphor for what veils God from direct access to human rationality. Makeesha offers a comment to this post regarding the apparent fizzling out of Emergent Village and perhaps even the somewhat abstract [...]
I am someone who has come to the conversation later than most of you – about 2 – 3 years ago and you can’t imagine how many don’t even know what emergent is…so I appreciate people like Tony who are still willing to engage in “the same old conversations” I think what you are feeling is normal – the disappointment that you don’t see more fruit being produced from all the labor – but that is the way of the world – things change slowly and at times they even regress. Even when you don’t think you are making a difference you may be but you have to continue to stay engaged even when it doesn’t feel as good or as exciting as it did in the beginning. Perhaps there are some spiritual disciplines that would be helpful at this time – perhaps it is even the HS that is stirring up this lack of satisfaction you are feeling in order to prepare you for the next thing. And as far as the massive tide of change that you were looking forward to – well, I believe it is happening – one person at a time. Being one of those people who have changed because of EV and people like you that have embodied the conversation/movement I want to say thank you for what you have put into it because you made a difference in my life and I have made a difference in someone else’s life and on and on and on …….
I know I sound really defensive of EV and that really isn’t my intention but I do want to point out that Tony stepped down as national coordinator quite recently. We met in DC just at the end of April.
Yes, EV is changing, Yes, it’s lost momentum – we get that. But please, give the thing a chance. EV has been declared dead and people are even performing postmortem examinations and it’s still dancing on the morgue table.
We live in such an instant gratification age that we expect church culture and climate to change overnight and hopefully with as little involvement from us as possible. I was born into the church in the 70’s, grew up in it in the 80s, came of age in it in the 90s and essentially left all I knew in the 00s. I don’t expect everything in me that existed that long to end overnight nor do I expect it to in the American Church as a whole.
If EV isn’t your thing, whatever, it’s only a small piece of the whole movement of christianity anyway – but there’s no reason for anyone to distinguish themselves APART from EV. I have seen quite a few “oh by the way I’m not Emergent anymore” posts lately and I don’t feel offended, I just think it’s weird. ok, so you’re not emergent anymore, SO WHAT? What the hell ARE you doing?
(this is now about more than just Nick’s post by the way, this is directed at the whole of the conversation – I realize he’s not attacking EV).
What *if* Emergent Village ceased to exist tomorrow – are all of you just going to go back to the status quo, lamenting what “could have been”? If that happens, it’s because people have been blind to all that has happened and have set themselves up as “buy the church off a shelf” consumers from the beginning. That would be incredibly tragic to me.
Mak, I completely agree with this idea that it’s stupid to call the thing dead. EV isn’t by any means dead, nor is it on life support.
And if people want to stop being ‘friends of emergent’, great, move on do your own thing. Don’t bitch – do! I got my little bitch out. And I don’t plan on moving on, I plan on recognizing my disappointment, and moving to local conversations. For me moving on is grabbing the grassroots and taking that route.
For me there doesn’t need to be a national group, maybe that’s what I am realizing (maybe that’s how it is retooling), that the idea of national gatherings and structure seemed to get grafted on and that put it into movement status. A gathering of the grassroots, now it seems to be going back to the grassroots part.
So maybe I am all about the grassroots, but got disappointed that it swelled to something national and now its dissipating.
Does that make sense? Am I thinking something happened that didn’t actually happen? Was it grassroots, then national, now back to grassroots, or am I reinventing the history here and jaded?
We really must keep moving toward the Kingdom of God, whatever that means for each of us individually. Emergent has awakened me to much, and although I am Emergent to the core, my life is still my life, my calling is still my calling, and my dreams are still my dreams. I must forge ahead with what I have received and continue to let the Spirit of God guide and direct me. After all, what is Emergent other than a vast array of people who are hearing from God that he has given his Bride a heart transplant, but that many parts of her body have rejected it. Will we now reject what God is doing? No. Will we stay in one “new” place, one conversation, and become stale? No. The people who are known for being emergent because they are vocal, famous, etc, are still people following God’s call in their lives. We must be the same. What are you doing to make sure you do your part to help “everything change”? And how long do you think something like this might take? Surely more than ten years. A heart transplant is a lengthy, costly procedure. The goal is not the transplant though! The goal is life. The heart facilitates that, but the heart is not the prize. Life is. Life more abundant. Life in the Kingdom, today, and tomorrow, and forevermore.
I must say the most disappointing thing I read were the comments from Mike C and Makeesha (mike was especially unhelpful and personally negative and somewhat attacking). I feel a bit of defensiveness where there should be absolutely none. Yes, we know 1 of you went to DC and the other had a spouse attend. So, yes you feel connected to something you feel you must defend.
However, do not fault someone for his feelings on this. They are valid. Just because you disagree with his feelings does not give you part and parcel to dismiss them.
EV does not need your defense re what Nick is expressing. Nick needs those that feel the same to comfort and be in agreement. He needs those that disagree to keep that in mind and actually be helpful to the situation, which is totally valid… and a pastoral.
I am leaving this anonymous because I feel divulgence of who I am would not help the situation at hand. it would only hinder the conversation.
Please, if you disagree because you are part of an “in” group, take a moment to walk in the shoes of someone that may feel left out or left behind before commenting.
It is what Emergent is supposed to be about… empathy and walking in the shoes of the other.
As someone part of the whole Emergent thing since its very beginnings in 1998, I must say I resonate with what is being expressed here. I have come close to blogging about some of this, but due to my relationships, I have chosen to keep myself quiet.
One of those that is part of the EV leadership told me he considered me Post-Emergent (or post- EV). I thought it was strange at first, but ended up taking it as a compliment and deciding that may be a good designation of who and where I am.
So, Nick come over from the Dark Side, that is EV to the even darker side that is Post-EV. We await you.
“Thanks Nick” – you seem to be misunderstanding the intent of what I and Mak both posted. We weren’t “defending EV”. Quite the opposite actually: we were pointing out that it was never about EV in the first place. And I’m sorry if you felt like my tone was too attacking, but I think Nick can handle it (and I wasn’t trying to be mean either, I like Nick and what he’s contributed to the conversation thru his podcast and his book). I’m not attacking him personally, but I am calling out the “hipper-than-thou” crowd that think it’s cooler to simply trash those of us who are still in the trenches digging, than to actually grab a shovel and help. And I’m not necessarily saying that’s Nick, but that is the tone that I’m getting from quite a few of the comments here.
It’s easy to look at Emergent Village alone during its current transition period and say “well, I guess the movement has fizzled”, but that does a disservice to the thousands of us who have been doing the on-the-ground work of the emerging church for the past decade (whether connected to EV or not). There’s a whole lot going on that is a lot bigger and a lot more widespread than just a handful of well-known authors and speakers. Don’t disrespect those of us doing the hard work just because it isn’t getting done as fast as you’d like.
Not sure what generates the comments. I have said lots of stuff that have been highly critical of EV and somewhat laudatory even as I largely identify with more aspects in the conversation that I oppose! We criticize those things in which we are invested for different reasons.
I call my own niche as trying to find a way to be meta-denominational as a way to add to our denominations, not to subvert them, but to help them. this is slooooow stuff. so it takes patience and perseverance. sounds like you might do well with a step back to take an account, but i would urge you to get slogging again when ready. the comments here should be evidence that this is still something with quite a bit of vitality in other corners of the world. that should be a comfort to you and all the other folks here!
Hey Drew, this isn’t the proper thread for this, but I just wanted say that I resonate with your “meta-denominational” posture. I myself am part of such a tradition and I am constantly torn between it other emergent-esque expressions. Guess I have a little ecclesiological schizophrenia going on. Anyway, I look forward to connecting with you in the future. It seems our trajectories are very similar.
[...] am following these emerging conversations, which are pretty interesting. In the comments of the initial blog post, one of the [...]
Exactly Mike. I have tried very hard to validate Nick’s feelings. They ARE INDEED VALID. Very much so. I have them often and relate to where he’s at on many levels.
AND, I’m not saying that his reservations and critiques aren’t also valid.
And yes, you’re right, I love the people in the conversation but as I also said (I sort of feel Thanks Nick, that you didn’t really hear what I was saying), I feel no need to defend Emergent Village (TM).
Some of my point, as Mike said, was that this whole emergence thing isn’t about EV and the impetus for change is not generated by a trademark but by people who are invested in the work of the Kingdom and the Cause of Christ.
So…if those things aren’t happening or don’t seem to be happening, perhaps talking about what’s wrong with Emergent Village – which isn’t a homogenous institution isn’t really the right way to go.
Just so I’m clear – AGAIN…the Christian Emergence is not EV. Disappointment over the current state of the Body while it’s in the throes of radical change cannot be projected onto EV – well, it could but it wouldn’t be accurate and frankly would be pathological.
And AGAIN, I’m not saying this about Nick, I’m saying this in general to the many voices I’m hearing out there, blog conversations are after all, group conversations, not just one-way monologues. I think Nick has communicated that his disillusionment is more about him than anything else – and that’s ballsy of him to own up to.
Rick – I would suggest that EV itself is post-EV….at least many of us feel that way. And frankly, I think it would be tragic if you just packed up your bags and started a new “post emergent” thing…maybe you just need to raise your voice and tell your stories and share your ideas….be that prophetic voice. Send a blog post to Steve Knight about why you think you’re “post emergent”… you might find that more people than you think WITHIN Emergent Village feel the same way
Nick – I completely missed your comment, I’m sorry. I think what you said is awesome
I have always played down any “larger entity” (which there really isn’t one by the way) and played up getting involved locally…because that’s really where it all happens anyway 
I love that you have been brave enough to process this with the masses and gracious and patient enough with those of us who are meddling
Thanks Nick. Now, as the loud mouth in the group, I’ll shut up for awhile 
BTW, I do want to add that I can sympathize with Nick’s feelings to a degree as well. I’ve never been one of those on the anti-institutional/anti-structure end of the emerging church. Nor have I been one of those who trash book deals and speaking gigs as “selling out”. (Interestingly, on more than a few occasions it has turned out that the people I encounter who criticize the EV folks for having these are actually just bitter that they themselves weren’t offered the same.) I’m all for good leadership. I’m all for structure. I’d even be happy if EV was a little bit more of an “institution”. (For instance, I know a lot of church planters who could really use a little institutional support for what they’re doing.) I’d love to see Emergent Village take on more shape and definition in these areas.
However, the fact that it hasn’t evolved along these lines doesn’t mean that none of it is happening. The revolution is still occurring, it’s just happening in different places, and in a less centralized way. It’s maybe not the way some of us thought it would look initially, but it is happening. It’s happening in the hybrid-mergent groups within existing denominations. It’s happening with the hundreds of church planters who find other ways to support their emerging church plants. It’s happening in “church-within-a-church” models, and in pastors who are patiently guiding their traditional congregations into more emerging ways of being. It’s happening in the explosion of interest in the neo-monastic movement, especially among younger Christians. It’s happening in the growth of “social justice Christians” (a la Sojourners). It’s happening in a diversity of networks that share some basic emerging tendencies, but develop them according to their own particular focus (e.g. Off the Map, the Origins Network, etc…).
It is happening. It just doesn’t look like what some of us expected.
“the point was if you are disillusioned you better ask what the illusion was.” (jonny baker)
What were you expecting? Revolution? Change? Growth? Celebrity? Acceptance?
Personally, I see Emergent as relevant to me today as when I first dicovered it. Perhaps vision has changed, focus is different–but that’s EV, not Emergent as a concept. As long as we have a need to relate to one another, have conversations, be part of community, Emergent (or should I say emergent with a small ‘e’) will thrive. When we start looking to the ‘leaders’ of Emergent (or EV) it ceases to be about us and relating to one another and starts to be about Celebrity, Bigness, and Institution.
And if Emergent as an Institution died, bravo! You did well. R.I.P. Now, perhaps, we can learn how to really be emergent in the way it was intended.
As someone who’s come to identify with the ideas popping around under the label “emergent” just within the past year, I want to draw attention to Liz’s post, and to say something I said at the EV gathering in DC: “this” is NOT ABOUT YOU. or me. or any one person. For me, the beauty of EV, and the blogs, and the books, and the cohorts, is that they are DESCRIPTIVE, not prescriptive, of larger changes occurring within Christianity. I read the blogs and go to the conferences and I know I’m not crazy. My own journey is validated by these interactions.
I also know that every one of us has more work to do to actualize the values that are key to most folks who identify as emergent… and that we’ll never arrive. But of course that’s not the point. The point is to say to each other “yes, yes, this is the Holy Spirit. Yes, you are right. Yes, you have to keep going. Yes, there is a place for you to live out your spiritual journey in community without feeling like a complete fake and liar.”
it’s still working for me, ya’ll.
how the hell can you see all the comments? i only see 3 at a time? ganked up theme.
i’m with nick and mak. i don’t think EV is dead. but it has and always been a receptacle for conversation. just because the “loose leadership” has decided to let the thing trickle out to form and reform, is no fault of their own. conversations are very “phoenix” like. having the ability to be consumed and burned out, only to reform in a different shape although carrying the same tone and nature.
i think nick’s (and i know mine) frustration is that it’s just funny how outside of a few pockets, the majority of the conversation has been co-opted by logos, book deals, and ad space. it’s not that we’re selfish mike, although i do think there are probably some trace elements of that. it’s that i’m not going to be a part of a “conversation” that is rehashing the same stuff over and over again. nor am i interested in listening to people who are getting paid to say something (http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2009/04/27/further-context/).
i’m just ashamed that it took me 8 years to realize that people like andrew jones are a lot closer to the incarnational, grassroots conversation that all of the other paid bloggers and paid speakers are talking about.
i think the emerging church conversation would grow leaps in bounds if everybody would just shut up for a few months and quit blogging, tweeting, and podcasting. and start pouring big stout glasses of wine and having slow dinners with their neighbors.
dr. oz and his ad space can just suck it.
@josh
“i think the emerging church conversation would grow leaps in bounds if everybody would just shut up for a few months and quit blogging, tweeting, and podcasting. and start pouring big stout glasses of wine and having slow dinners with their neighbors.
dr. oz and his ad space can just suck it.”
haha. love it!
late comments… sorry!
my beef with this post… lots of mostly unhelpful talk about what “they” are doing wrong.
but thanks for writing it nick! seriously. i appreciate your honesty. not enough of it out there.
it is interesting that the same “defining ourselves by what we are against” that summed up the early stages of emergent seems to be describing this recent “post-emerging” splurt. i think it is probably the necessary first step for those who need it and i am really interested in what will .. ahem .. emerge from it.
——-
josh said “…nor am i interested in listening to people who are getting paid to say something…”
heehee… does that include the owner and proprietor of this fine blog?
Mike you mentioned centralization. You said, “The revolution is still occurring, it’s just happening in different places, and in a less centralized way.” I like that. I love it because it means we are not just another club, another denomination. Thank God, the gospel is not a small, centralized thing.
this is a comment i left on julie’s blog in response to mike and julie. thought i’d pimp it and cross post it here since she linked her thread to yours. thanks buddy.
“julie . . . just a quick clarification. my “selfishness” has nothing to do with you. or many of my other fine friends across the blog-o-sphere. i still think you are one of the top 5 thoughtful bloggers still out there and one who hasn’t sold out. you along with blake huggins and a few others are still blogging great content and using the medium in a helpful, and formative way. when i scaled back my 200+ feeds in my RSS reader, yours is one of the 10 that i left.
with that being said . . . my “selfishness” has less to do with wanting to stay connected in conversation with folks like you and has more to do with my recoil towards the bandwagon jumpers that are all about the “conversation” these days. i know it makes me sound like a spoiled brat. but it’s like a bunch of douchers showed up at our party and started calling the shots when we’ve been playing on the playground for years. it’d be one thing if non-douchers joined our little game. they had been doing that for years and we welcomed them with open arms and gladly moved our chairs over at the table to let them join in.
but sadly “emerging church” became mainstream and when it did part of it died in my opinion. it lost it’s subversive voice. it lost it’s luster. it lost it’s power. what we have now is a not a conversation. but a neutered, regurgitated rehashing of the same old same old. while there is still plenty of fresh thought (i.e. you and blake to name a few), the larger momentum of blogging and podcasting has faded into a moot static.
our beef is not that other people have decided to join the conversation. our beef is that the protectors of the conversation sold out. and in turn, the conversation was hijacked. sure it still manifests itself in some surprising, subtle, and beautiful ways. but let’s keep it real . . . today folks like beliefnet, catalyst conference, ed stetzer, and all the other mainstream conservative kids have jumped on the bandwagon and spit out the good parts and diluted everything else down to a lowest common denominator let’s talk about how to “rethink church” bull shit.
you know why you never hear hardly anything about the bronsinks, and the samsons, the sharps, and the tall skinny kiwis . . . because they are living it without having to tell everybody about it on their facebook, twitter, and blogs. at the end of the day, that’s my point about the larger conversation. it’s a bunch of cyclical talk, with very few folks who are knee deep in it.”
I think the thing is that it isn’t just happening in EV, it is with all those who were in the conversation in its beginnings. Those of us who were pre-EV I think feel this even deeper. We were before the fancy churches and pre “emergent” words. I was recounting when the word “emergent” came around and how many of us gasped. It was then, at that moment I did a count down. It was at that moment that we in the conversation started to grab for something on the more “organized” format. I wish that had never happened and the deep following of the “friends” would have stopped. Maybe the bomb needed to go off. Maybe we all needed a moment to realize it was never about the books, it was never about the deals or the fame some got, but about a deep passion to see us go further in our journey.
The biggest thing is to realize it isn’t just EV experiencing this. There are other places with in the conversation it is happening. EV is only one part and one I never really was a part of. It was always the more “organized” part I didn’t really desire to be a part of.
I left the conversation for a couple of years and recently decided to reenter it. I’ve been kind of in shock over what less then two years away has done. I’m not scared about it, I’m a bit confused by it, but I’m also in a “told ya so” mode too. I think it is time for us to get back to the roots of the conversation and get back to its organic form. And do something. Stop waiting for those you labeled and held high to come off the mountain top, but to be the ever flow of the conversation and the light the conversation said it was to the world.
[...] Nick has kicked up a little ant bed which has been fun and reminded me what the bad boys of summer used to accomplish back in our glory days when we used to piss people off for fun. [...]
Yes, landings are important and eventual…emerging church is a seedling yet…important to express dissapointment…wait too, be patient…be curious about what God is doing, pray and whisper what you desire
remember the Phoenix and entertain possiblity for the church, the very kingdom of God
I’ve offered a reflection on the growing sense of Emergent disappointment here: http://ministryintheuk.blogspot.com/2009/06/im-not-disappointed.html
I’ve commented on this growing sense of Emergent disappointment at the link above.
The UK ‘emerging church’ senario is a completely different context so the comment I made about book deals/branding dies not apply.
If the major motivation for some emergent leaders for organising a national conference is to attract punters who will buy my book or deliberating writing a controversial book is in order to boost sales then the whole credibility of the emergent network is called into question – which is totally unfair considering all the good work being done at grass roots level.
BTW Mike – I am not a writer, do not have a blog or am in any kind of church leadership so have never been turned down for a book deal!
Erika, thank you.
[...] then yesterday someone I’ve never heard of posted this http://thehopefulskeptic.com/blog/?p=54 about how he’s “Dissapointed with Emergent”, and many of the comments on it, and [...]
[...] 2009 June 5 by Jules I’ve been following a conversation on a blog. It is called the The Great Disappiontment. As I have read it and followed the other blog responses to his blog I have come to a conclusion. [...]
Josh – I’m not really sure who or what you’re referring to regarding all the “mainstream” “selling-out” stuff (if you’re talking about Stetzer, Catalyst, etc… well, I never really considered them “emerging” in the first place, so it might be somewhat unfair to hold them up as examples of the whole movement going wrong), but I think I probably just have a basic disagreement with you about whether stuff like “book deals” and “speaking gigs” (and even “logos”) and all that is really “selling out”. Many of us came to this conversation through books or through hearing someone speak. I don’t know where I’d be today if someone hadn’t recommended “A New Kind of Christian” to me all those years ago. Especially for folks who are isolated from others like them (I’m in a conversation right now on my blog and the EV Cohort Leaders Google Group about what we can do to help rural emergents), books and conferences can be a literal life-saver. So I’m thankful for the publishers that put out the books and the groups that organize the conferences.
And as someone who has been a financially struggling church planter, I don’t fault the people who can find a tiny bit of income from their efforts as well. It’s all nice and idealistic to say that writers ought to put their books out there for free, or speakers ought to forgo their fees (I know you didn’t say that, but that’s where this train of thought often goes), but that’s not actually fair to them, and someone else (usually their families or faith communities) often ends up paying the price for your “freebies”. Many of these folks need this little bit of cash to even make it possible to do what their doing. Even “organic” requires a little bit nourishment (sunlight, water, soil) to get anything to grow. C’mon, even Spencer has to find ways to pay for theOoze somehow.
You do realize, of course, that no one is getting rich off of any of this, right? Contrary to the accusations, no one is making a killing on their books or their speaking. There’ s not actually much money in the Christian publishing business. As I’m sure Nick can tell you, most publishers are just hoping to break even on a book, and a lot of authors are lucky if they see any royalties over and above their advance (which, for the amount of effort put in, usually means they end up working for something like 1/3rd minimum wage). Same with conferences. Unless you’re a Willow Creek or something, most conferences aren’t cash cows. Jim Henderson has told me that his OTM conferences typically just break even, and I know the conference we put on in Chicago a few years back cost the planners several thousand dollars out of our own pockets.
Anyhow, my point is that structures, and systems, and income and institutions aren’t all bad. They aren’t necessarily “selling out”. They are simply necessary and unavoidable, and often helpful in making the conversation/movement accessible to many more people than it would otherwise be.
Don’t worry Rodney; I wasn’t talking about you. I had very specific people in mind who are very consistent in their trashing of emergent book deals and speaking gigs, but who, when you scratch the surface, are actually just bitter that EV didn’t help them promote their own book, or invite them to speak at whatever conference.
[...] flavor of the month this time? “The Great Disappointment” by Nick Fiedler, of “The Nick and Josh Podcast” fame. Nick’s been out [...]
What a cynical perspective! Are you willing to actually name names and tell us who you are accusing of doing this? These are people many of us have personal relationships with, and I don’t think I’d be comfortable attributing these motivations to any of them.
[...] Nick Fiedler – The Great Disappointment (A post about Emergent) [...]
Maybe the problem isn’t the motivation of speakers and writers, but rather the fact that “celebrity” voices tend to dominate the public conversation and the focus turns to conferences and away from the actual grassroots movement of relatively unknown individuals at the local level.
There seems to be a tendency to default to the voice of experts and become distracted by the culture of leadership events rather than to glean from both experts and from one another and then stay focused on the mission at hand.
@mike
I don’t think books are bad. Hell, I’m like you and wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for books. I don’t think anybody is getting rich and I don’t think people should quit writing. That is as long as they have something new and substantial to write about. Let’s keep it real though and say that 80% of the books and conferences out there are nothing but rehashed drivel. And while I don’t consider stetzer and Catalyst and others to be emerging or are even on the same page as half us. But the reality is they are the ones that have taken over. And a couple of years from now it’s only going to be worse. My only point from the beginning is that the days of “emerging church” being a receptacal of fruitful, formative’ subversive dialogue are over. I don’t fault tony or nick or julie or anyone for that matter writing when it is unique and helpful. And making money off of it. I could care less if they did indeed get rich off of it. As someone who still to this day receives 2-3 shitty books a week for review under the banner of emerging church, I just don’t think that’s the case.
on speaking about books, I did not get into the conversation by a book. matter of fact, there weren’t any books at the time really to speak of. I came into the conversation by…*drum roll*….by conversation. Just a thought, it was very organic in nature, my thoughts matched to those talking and they passed me to theOOZE. Which to this day Spencer laughs at because I was told of theOOZE at a One Day pre-event back in 98. I share that because I’m in a rural area, very rural and was even back then. It comes through talking and being exactly what the conversation says it is or at least was. Although I understand the affection for books and McLaren (whom I still have never read, I tried, but nada), however I think the deep roots of the conversation are just that, IN the conversation.
Mak,
Did I say I was starting a post emergent thing? Hah.
Why in the world would I want to start something new, for goodness sake.
“Come on over to the darker side” is a joke. Post-EV is for people that are tired and want to have a beer.
So, yes I will be starting a post-EV group. It will be for anyone that is ready to talk about something else. Subjects will include:
1) a discussion of the possible ingredients in whisky, barley vs. rye vs. corn.
2) A discussion of the wierd names associated with the Democratic Party of Minnesota and what Doug knows about farming.
A submeeting will discuss whether Doug should remove his facial hair for the remainder of the campaign.
Another meeting will discuss Doug’s selling out by using an acronym for his campaign (SMART) if there is interest.
3) A discussion of Tony Jones’ book on the didache, followed by an intervention to force Tony to write about something that will pay the bills in the future (novel, tony, novel).
4) why do so many of these Emerging Christians have such poor taste in movies and music. Why do they listen to so much whiny crap by whiny white guys with guitars?
5) why Lebron James is not a king, but more of a Little Lord Fauntleroy. Ohio residents are not invited.
6) Who is more emergent? My previous listing is required reading (look it up).
7) A discussion of why so many in Emergent (not the “leaders”) are so self serious and have no sense of humor, especially when the mockery is towards them.
9) a study of justice issues and politics from a pragmatic and realistic realm, with no white guilt involved… ok maybe a little.
10) a discussion of officiating in major sports. We will invite Tony to discuss what makes a strike a strike. this will not be a metaphor for Scripture, but focus on the issues of real importance, such as NBA officiating, the debacle of officiating in the Super Bowl and the strike zone. No discussion of soccer or NHL allowed.
and beer will be involved. Lots of beer. And no Vegans are invited. Sorry, but I would not want to offend you. Also, if you think we should follow Kosher laws regarding shellfish and pork, you will have to begin your own group.
Lets all beging our own groups. Then groupings won’t matter. And then if we invite each other to be a part of them, we can add them to our resumes so we can actually get a job.
How about this?
We’re really ranting about nothing. Emergent isn’t anyones. Right? Isn’t that what we’ve been saying all along? Isn’t Emergent also the high-school aged Korean-American Christian who feels something wrong with their faith? Or the poor Latino mother begging for justice? Or the Black prison minister who wants to give gospel life to inmates? Hey, John Caputo would agree wholeheartedly. As I think would Pete Rollins. OMG! How many of us here own $1200-2500 Macbooks ?
Let’s be careful not to sound like idiots here. There really is nothing new under the sun. And I want to echo and affirm what Makeesha said about us wanting things to happen so quickly.
And yes. I agree with those who say: BE the change. BE the gospel. BE the absurdity. Don’t just talk at bars or on podcasts.
@ricky ricky timbo – haha. well said. especially numero siete.
@everyone else – all the shit that has been exploding in the blog-o-sphere lately is exactly why i don’t’ give a shit anymore. for the love of god this is the most self-serious group of people i’ve even been connected to. you can’t lift your skirt and moon anyone unless said person is on a preapproved mooning list. all this cyclical talk and defending of white elephants reminds me of what i grew so apathetic towards the evangelical church as i left that “group”.
on a side note, i’m starting a new group called THERE IS NO SPOON, INC!
Josh – aren’t you scared that while the sacred cow jumps over the missional moon, the faith fork might run off with the spoon? (big grin)
Here’s the Q to ask (semi-serious) “Jesus Died for This?” I sure as hell hope not.
Strange conversation- I suspect a lot a strong and deeply felt emotion behind the sarcasm, i don’t give a shit and other comments….I live a continent away in Northern Ireland but really do wish I could go out for a beer or 2 and have a yarn with some of the people who post here as I am interested in their comments
Perhaps on reflection I should have shut up and not posted in the first place…..it is tempting to take up Mikes challenge but I will not.
I am very curious about all the personalities of the people who have contributed here but alas we will probably never meet!!
Rodney
i like fig newtons and curry.
Strongly resonate with comments by jonny b, becky g, and Jim Marks here.
Have no idea why anyone is still thinking that some formal organization or inherited affiliation is going to engender serious ecclesial change.
the nature of change itself is changing – a result of emerging social tools / technologies – connecting people and ideas in ways that have never been known, until now. Grand schemes and central planning / planners are becoming somewhat irrelevant. importing constantinian religious leadership models into a shared virtual-physical world will one day look very silly (like the tail fins on a ‘59 caddie).
this emerging glocal / distributed resonance will take time – generations. i’m convinced that the leaders who will be remembered from this period of upheaval will be the greatest servants, and will only vaguely recall the leadership models that exist today. Gandhi’s plea to BE the change you want to see is no more fitting than today. stop looking for someone, or somebody, or some group, to set the agenda or make things happen.
Nope, sorry, that doesn’t count. Spencer has supported theOoze through advertising for years now. That makes him a sell-out, right?
I also wanted to make one more sort of tangential observation. It kind of sucks that so many people are wanting to pull the plug on Emergent Village right when so many women and minorities are just stepping up into leadership (e.g. the recent DC gathering). The big white males that y’all have been complaining about so much are stepping aside/making room for these others, and that’s when you decide to leave the party? Kind of ironic, don’t you think?
(BTW, just a disclaimer, I’m not directing this at Nick specifically, but just throwing it out there in general.)
[...] There is something larger going on with this whole “tired of talking” thing that apparently ruffled some feathers. I think for many of us we are realizing that our online personas have become something larger than themselves, even caricatures in a way. Which is why many have started pulling back (MarkO and his cancelation of Facebook, Twitter, and blogging / the Tall Skinny with his slow ride into the sunset / and my own context for why I landed where I landed). [...]
Emergent was never a revolution…but it also doesn’t have to remain merely a “conversation” either.
I think emergent should be a CENTRALIZED conversation, not one that happens on the fringes. Of course, this is much messier than creating your own community of like-purposed people.
Emerging and established churches are in symbiance with one another…they need each other to fully exist. The principles that emergent adheres to need to be applied in existing congregations in order for a true movement to take place. This is the road less traveled…but it is the one that makes all the difference.
In the end, we are talking about RENEWAL and not DEVELOPMENT. People with emerging sensibilities need to invest (or re-invest) in their own congregations and renew what already exists…not leave and create a new church.
To quote the wisdom of the fictitious Jimmy Dugan in A League of Their Own:
“It’s supposed to be hard…the hard is what makes it great.”
Emergent will only be great if it takes the hard road of renewal. I pray, for the sake of the church, that it will.
As a Latina woman, graduate of a “won’t mention postmodern thought seminary in Seattle”, I think emergent has lost its steam because its move away from the themes post-modernity calls us to…for example..race, class, art, history, sexuality, mass media and feminism-instead what emergent failed to do was to really bring in the “other” voices that post-modernity is about…until emergent can realize that, it is a group of people from the dominant culture who “know” they need the voice of the “others” but can’t stop talking to themselves to realize they are still talking to themselves. Emergent will and can become if it is wiling to risk losing its safety in conversation and try moving into risky actions of undoing systemic oppression in the USA and dealing with real injustice in our communities. The conversation is over, our Nation is moving faster than the emergent village is now, so its losing its hype. If emergent would have dealt with race, oppression and injustice from the beginning it would have been, today in 2009 , a lot more than a conversation and much more a wave of beauty in our land…I applaud Doug for moving into politics, he is keeping the pace of our Nation, hence could potentially model emergent and its essence in a brilliant way.
Mike:
Actually, I bemoaned the books. Especially the ones that brought in more conservative voices. Drove me nuts. Still does. Now, getting support from the community that gathers there, never have had a problem with that because it went with the “experiment”.
PS: Mike, I love ya brother, always have. Something about reading your posts always makes me smile.
And yes, I’m being sincere and not sarcastic.
Very similar.
Yes, I know you, and many others at theOoze back then, did. But of course the anti-institutional church crowd has only ever been just one stream of this conversation. An important stream, no doubt, and one I have increasing sympathy for the further away I get from traditional church structures, but not the only stream certainly. Y’all weren’t necessarily here “first” either, though even if you were, that doesn’t mean that you own the conversation, anymore than the rest of us do. There are plenty of us who have been around just as long who have never been that interested in just scrapping the institutional church or going completely “organic” (whatever that means).
Frankly, this language of exclusion, of “we we’re hear first and we’re pissed that y’all came and ruined our thing”, is kind of a problem I think. For instance, check out Carol Howard Merritt’s post about how unwelcome denominational hybrid-mergents can be made to feel by the anti-IC crowd if they’re not automatically willing to give up the churches and structures that have nourished them in their faith. Personally I’m more interested in a broad conversation where many forms of doing “church” are welcome at the table, than a more purist, anti-IC, anti-structure conversation. But that’s just me.
I’m also not entirely clear on which stream Nick is actually advocating here. I read him more as wishing for more centralization, definition, leadership, etc. in the emergent movement, not less. It seems to me that Josh is the one saying more of what the anti-IC stream wants to hear than Nick is, but I could be wrong.
Good afternoon! Escort girl information there. beautiful girl Kyivska men. Your Kyivska prostitute Rybka. You can visit my blog.
There are a few points that Mike has made that I resonate with…
1. the emergence started from within and continues to grow in or with support from institutionalized structures (ultimately, we could probably trace our particular expression here in the US back to the Anglican expression in England and Au/NZ). I know some of you, including me sometimes, hate to own this fact but we don’t come from nowhere and we don’t grow from nothing. As Mike said, the hard core anarchist thread is one voice within this conversation and a good prophetic one – - but let’s remember it’s only one voice of many.
2. This vitriol against emerging now simply because some people have co-opted the term is unfortunate given that EV (one small part of the emergence) is starting to gain some traction in expanding beyond white middle age men of power.
3. EV has no money and no one is getting rich and powerful off of it. There will always be “Christian leaders” who are powerful, well known and wealthy – sometimes in spite of themselves. Just because some of them happen to be doing it now has very little to do with Emergent.
I’m getting the impression that there have been some behind the scenes bitch sessions about particular people that I have not been privy to and that subtext is being carried over in these blogs. I’m sensing that certain people who are talking about “emerging” are actually referring back to those other conversations…which is making it very difficult to have any kind of cohesive conversation.
My final point in this regard is that these conversations only sprout up and explode (and has this EVER exploded – wow!) when people talk about emergence as if were a thing instead of a conversation made up of people.
Even more importantly – The Church starts having problems staying true to Christ’s call when we talk about “the church” as a club, organization, trademark, brand…instead of as people.
[...] Steve Taylor, was er unter emerging/emergent versteht. Nick vom netten »Nick and Josh Podcast« drückt seine Enttäuschung über EmergentVillage aus und Tony Jones antwortet. Zwei [...]
I got this link off of one of the bloggers I read normally… Bob Hyatt of Evergreen here in the Portland Metro area in Oregon.
I read your blog and while I get with where you’re at, there is to me some glaring questions with why you’re done with the church until the storm has passed and secondly, why you’ve grown hoarse from the conversation.
Emergent, Emerging… whatever the hell you want to call it is NOT a movement. I am sick of people saying that it is… was or will be. The shift of going from a drone worker bee in the church today into someone who stops and asks the question “why?” doesn’t in whole or in part (in my opinion) support a label of “movement”.
That aside, I also think that while this conversation of rediscovery of church and what it means to be the body of Christ started 10 years ago, people who have been involved with it for close to a decade that are (much like yourself) burned out over, realize that people every day are just hitting this point in their life where they become part of the crowd… asking “Why and what is my faith?”
You talk about McLaren of which— I gotta be honest… don’t know who that is. Probably from the sounds of it, has written some good books on what the emerging culture/emerging church should look like… but from my limited scope of reading (Donald Miller, Tozer and N.T. Wright), I believe there is a whole generation of people saying something to the tune of this creed:
“Just because it has been… doesn’t mean it needs to continue.”
That’s where I think the in part…. the shit hits the fan… the rubber meets the road…. life becomes not so clean anymore. If by you saying that you’re leaving until the church figures out how to do that… to me that just says you want the reward without doing the work. Maybe that’s a totally overstated analogy but to the point at least.
My wife and I argue… maybe debate is a better word…. over the emerging church conversation quite a bit. For the past year or so now… I have lived and breathed what I believe church to be and I see change happening. From maybe a nobody, outsiders perspective of some guy in Portland, Oregon like myself… this post is a word of encouragement for you because while I don’t think it’s a movement, church culture is changing.
-Aaron
Can we move up to this post, and re-tool the conversation
http://thehopefulskeptic.com/blog/?p=58
thank you, thank you, thank you, nick.
As someone who was along early in the emergent movement, who saw the movement grow through marketing, money, and selling out–I grieve for what could have been.
The original “emergent” ideas helped ease me back to God by crashing down perceptions and old doctrine. I think, in many ways, emergent saved me. (I was given the chance to see outside the evangelical box and see that there were other possibilities).
But then it became Something. It was marketed, authors grew famous. I’ll never forget the first Emergent Convention. It filled my soul, past overflowing. There was dialogue and connection and it was beautiful.
But in the end, it became about body count and marketing and money. Trust me, the speakers and writers make their fair share of it.
I still hold onto the piece of emergent that embraced me, that piece which helped change my perception of God. It’s not gone. I just have to pass that piece on to others. The movement is now US. Hand to hand, piece to piece, we build the fabric of something that needs no committee, no director, no marketing, no rules.
Just us. We are emergent.
[...] 7, 2009, 7:43 am Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: A29, Church, Emerging Seems there’s some dissapointment growing with some within the Emerging Church conversational side of things (h/t Matt), as it seems [...]
[...] of the Emerging/Emergent Church. Nick from the Nick and Josh Podcast voiced his disappointment here. Josh chimed in here. Tony Jones has a response [...]
This is so funny and ironic…mourning that Emergent failed to take of but ignoring that emergent is really just a re-packaging of hte Liberal/fundementalists split of the 30’s as near as I can tell.
How can there be a movement? Movement needs a center, as Pete Rollins says emergent has no center…people don’t rise up and fight for nothing, they don’t riot for nothing. Movements need to be about something, Emergent is the Seinfeld of church happenings, it is about nothing. I have no idea what it is that I should do if I want to make a movement of Emergent…what the frick does that movement look like?
If emergent could have worked then mainline churches themselves would not have been dying a slow death, because essentially that is what it quickly became, a disenchanted group of former fundies who were re-creating the mainline.
I was all about Emergent for a couple of years, but when push came to shove i had to throw in with Jesus as I watched many do the opposite.
[...] the post (and the comments) by Nick Fiedler that started it all, whether he wanted it too or not: “The Great Disappointment (A Post About Emergent). To be fair, Nick has further clarified his feeling in a later post, and perhaps best in a video [...]
[...] Fiedler perhaps unwittingly began a fruitful conversation last week regarding the supposed "death" of emergent Christianity for which Tony has [...]
or…the emergent movement has pretty much up and died because it is shallow and unbiblical and weak and whiny? i’m glad it has died. score!
[...] terms of all this stuff that my cohort inadvertently stirred up last week, I think what Nick, myself, and others are trying to say that Emergent is kind of like [...]
[...] phone with the previous national co-ordinator of the EV, Tony. He blogs and said some stuff about my blog over on his [...]
The Emergent movement was doomed to failure when it’s biggest supporters couldn’t withstand the criticism from conservatives. Another portent of doom, bloggers wanting to get paid instead of doing it out of a sacrifice to God. Hmm, seems like I heard somewhere that you can’t serve God and money, if I could just remember where…
[...] I even wrote a post about it called “Emerging Cliques” (which as since been deleted, but I’m trying to find a cached file of). It got one response. I guess I should have waited to voice my feelings. I could have gotten in on the recent bruhaha. [...]
[...] response “So you’re disappointed with emergent…” (see Nick Fiedler’s The Great Disappointment), I couldn’t help but come back a couple different times to a curious paragraph he wrote [...]