themattscott

I had nothing to do with the creation of this paper. I’m posting it here so I can have an access point to reference in a response I’ll be writing. The original piece was published on Facebook, so I asked Derek’s permission to put it here. Obviously permission was granted. Also, I titled the piece myself, Derek would have probably titled it something different, so that might change.

-Matt

What follows was reproduced exactly from the original document available to me. No changes have been made in any way.

Read the rest of this entry »

Worst of all, while it opens up a radical prospect by acknowledging the authenticity of other voices, postmodernist thinking immediately shuts off those other voices by ghettoizing them within an opaque otherness, the specificity of this or that language game. It thereby disempowers those voices (of women, ethnic and racial minorities, colonized peoples, the unemployed, youth, etc.) in a world of lop-sided power relations. –David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity

Before I begin, let me first state this essay (?) is foremost a history of the transition in my own personal thought, and not, as I would normally write, a (pure) philosophical exploration. That said, feel free to both assess and comment on the philosophical aspects of this piece. Indeed, there are several voices that I’d be greatly interested in hearing from, so if you have thoughts, throw them out there. Ideas are social, founded in discourse, and weak when not challenged by others.
The path of postmodernism is a tempting one for any who have trudged the same roads the entirety of their lives. The walker sees off to the side a new path, takes it, and realizes that this new path is beautiful, perhaps not of it’s own innate accord, but because the walker has grown tired of the same scenery. The walker continues to discover new paths, seeing the beauty in each, until s/he finally claims “They are all of equal nature, intrinsically beautiful; indeed they are all of the same nature, who am I to say which is the better path?” In being so taken with the newness of things, the postmodernist begins to back away from any hard claims of ‘better’ paths, instead s/he is content to wander along, experiencing the beauty of each path, without having one for his/her own.
I think it’s a scant held secret that I found myself fully immersed in the world of postmodernity for several years. In the rejection of the conservatism of my youth (perhaps my ‘younger youth’ would be a better term), postmodernity offered the quickest route to the possibility of freedom from the same chains of thought that held me narrow sighted and immutable, and I jumped aboard that ship setting sails for shores unknown to me at the time. The years took me from a believer (in Deity) to an agnostic, from a neoconservative to libertarian to post-liberal, from convinced I knew (and was uniquely qualified to tell) absolutes to positive that of both the unimportance of and my personal inability to utter most absolutes. It is this last point, of absolutes, that I found myself hitting a breaking point.
I mentioned, via the briefest twitter/facebook status, several weeks ago that I was growing increasingly discontent with postmodernity; I felt I could no longer continue on a path in which any truths were treated as the same as any other truths. Indeed, I think many of my friends from that journey hold some personal level of disdain in the possibility that (their) ideas of justice are impugnable, but assert the postmodern relativism that they have found personal comfort in. The (unintended) consequence of the acceptance of the validity in cacophony of ideas results in the taming of ideas. It takes the revolutionary thought and castrates it, defanging it and making just another piece of the strand. Ultimately the postmodern ethic fails to allow the assessment of the validity of each idea on it’s own merit, it instead encourages acceptance for pure acceptance’ sake.
In the end, the system finds itself entirely unsustainable. This is a known problem within postmodern circles, though it’s not openly acknowledged. Instead the conversations always circle the idea of “what is to come” after postmodernism. It’s more than just the realization that systems change, that thoughts gain hegemony and lose it, but it is, I think, a verbal manifestation of the postmodernist realization that the system (or lack of system) cannot hold them, sustain them, or give them any sort of hope.
Sometime within the near future, I’ll talk about where I find myself now, as a pragmatist, but this is about all I have time to put out there at the moment. –Comment, disagree, whatever, let me know what you’re thinking.

This is half joking. Half. Actually, after going back and rereading this, less than half.

Accusations have been tossed, rather frequently at times, that emergent was comprised of mostly the hipster generation of pseudo intellectuals trying to retain a bit of their religious background while still continuing to buck the system as their non-religious fellows do (I’d use the word brothers, but I think the hipsters would kill me if I did), but having seen a fairly large spectrum of emergents I dismiss this notion as unrepresentative of the actual group.

But it did get me thinking.

Emergent… it’s the equivalent of the hipster movement within Christianity.

Philosophy/Intellectualism
Hipsters largely cling to the existential movement as a guiding philosophy, then throw around the buzz words just enough to make it appear as if they have a grasp of the philosophical system, but were you to ask them if essence or existence precedes the other, most of them would be lost. Indeed, it is a sort of gilded intellectualism that makes the movement appear fully intellectual, when in actuality it’s not, it’s about counterculturalism, but more on that later.

With emergent the philosophy revolves around postmodernity. Having been in the emergent circles longer than I’ve been exposed to the (new) hipster generation (yes that was an ode to Kerouac), I can say that there are those that will openly admit that they are far from intellectuals, however, the vast majority of the movement offers a greater portion of respect for the intellectual based leadership. When the requirement comes down, however, a working grasp of the concepts in which one claims to be rooted are often found lacking, or if concepts are being discussed online, the obvious quickly wikipedia’d tone shows that the original speaker did small diligence toward understanding, but was not originally speaking from a place of understanding.

As a side note, a contingent of emergent hails from within the seminary, I have found these, as well as the actual leadership, to be versed enough in the concepts from which they speak. Also, I will fully admit to having wiki’d things before.

Originality and borrowed trends:
Both movements practice the art of borrowing from past times. While the hipster generation pulls from within the frame of decades, the emergent movement is forced to look further back (since the church is slow to change). Both movements draw from these old trends and add a modern flair to them, adapting them to fit the needs and the wants of the moment. While the hipster movement pulls these things in an attempt to show off the materialism still pervasive in the culture while appearing to reject it, the EC pulls from older movements in an attempt to fulfill that deeper connection with the(ir) divine being. Both hold their trends as a rejection of the mainstream culture, yet both show how beholden they still are.

Which brings us to
Trends/Aesthetics
Hipsters are named thusly for their trendsetting. Ironic 80s tees that stock the shelves of your local Wal-Mart and Target? You can thank the hipster trendsetters circa five years ago. The craze for chunky glasses? Hipsters (watch out, the current trend is toward 60s Buddy Holly glasses, you’ll see those pervade the marketplace in the next year or so). After each trend catches on to the mainstream the hipsters move on, briefly voicing the fact that “they had done it first” before giving up on the entire trend.

Within the EC (and forgive me here if I lump the British Fresh Expressions movement in with the EC proper) the same aptitude for trend setting is the very thing that has thrust the movement onto the larger scene. Candles? Yeah, thank that emergent church thing. Incense? Damn, EC again. The use of art (actual painting and such) poetry, and other spoke word? Emergents. Yet each time these trends catch on the EC seems to come up with a new twist, or flavor, on the “experience.” This will inevitably catch on and work its way into the church as a whole (yes, yes, there are holdouts, I know).

Get to the point.
The hipster movement is quick to vault themselves up as different, as change, as the future, yet in actuality they offer the same heart in a different package. They trade the apparent commercialism and materialism of their parents and trade it for a hidden one, a gilded protection that hides their true heart. They then align themselves in many ways with “hippie” movements, movements where rejection of materialism is an actuality, in an attempt to further cover up their real lack of change.

As for the EC, I see this same trend. Where their evangelical brethren were loud and proud of the emotional connection they felt, and quick to continue seeking that high, the EC worship experience makes the seeking of this high less apparent via the use of varying forms of expression (spoken word, changed up lyrics, and the felt lack of things). In the end, they offer a different feeling package of the same. As with the Hipsters, the EC aligns itself with the missional movement (here I should note that many consider themselves part of both movements, and I give credit to those that actually are. They do exist, unlike the hipster/hippie intermingling), giving an air of authenticity to change. Yet… it’s not quite there.

Oh hi there, you didn’t know I still existed did you? But, alas, the ex hasn’t managed to kill me yet, and I’m here for yet another sporadic blog post.

I got a message yesterday from someone I don’t really know that well. I know this persons family pretty well, and I like this person, but this isn’t someone “near” to me by any stretch. Anyway, the person brings up a couple of things, misconceptions, really, that surround me and my movement away from belief.

1. I haven’t been burned by religion.

While there are many forms of Christianity that I take exception to, and I vocally rail against, there are incredibly refreshing forms out there. In some ways I still consider myself part of the Christian community, in the end, the ideals of Jesus are something I can completely get behind, and love. This, of course, begs the question, who’s view on the ideals of Jesus am I working from? I think I’ve done a decent enough job at categorizing my views on that point (click “Social Justice” under categories), so I won’t go into that here.

Suffice it to say, I’m not against religion in general, but will openly point out those spots which I do stand against. I think it would be a tragic loss if religion were to be removed from the world, I see that people need religion, or at least think they need religion, and that’s fine. Personally? I don’t see a need for it, and I’m not going to try to get you to run away from religion.

as a side note here, I do enjoy asking provocative questions that make you think more about what you believe, that could easily be seen as me trying to “deconvert”, but it’s not, I try to get people to think

2. Having an open mind

While many people undoubtedly believe they have an open mind about things, they don’t, and I’m not sure if I fall into the category of close-minded or not. Honestly, I don’t think I am [close minded], but I’d be hard pressed to argue either way. In this respect, I think one needs to defer to the opinion and judgement of others, if I’m being consistently told I’m close minded, then it’s probably valid.

As it stands, I’m not being told that, and I think as much honest self assessment as I can muster on the topic leads me to believe that there are only a few areas that could be construed toward me being close minded, and religion is not one of them.

side note 2: I’ll probably sit for a bit over the next few days and question myself in this regard. I doubt a lot, even the things I say, and I find it hard to believe that a doubter could be consistently close minded. Maybe. We’ll see.

3. The final comment I got was “we don’t know what we don’t know”

I’m not certain if this was more of a “understand what you don’t know,” or a “there are things we don’t know what we don’t know.”

In the first sense, I completely agree. I Don’t Know about God. I’m not an atheist, I’m not willing to stand and say “There is no god” or “There is a God,” because I understand that I don’t know.

I understand that I know very little in the great schema of the universe. I’m ok with that. And I think the converse of this statement needs to be thrown out there, “Know what you know.” In that vein, I’m always learning, always seeking to gain new insights, and only willing to fully stand on that which I know I know.

As far as the second form, “there are things that we don’t know we don’t know,” and again, I agree with this. The goal should be to continue to strive toward the enlightenment of that which we know and that which we do not know (and thereby the increase in knowledge by learning what we do not know).

I talked a bit yesterday about the need for a constant outlet of doubt, and I had intended today to talk a bit about the political changes that my agnosticism has brought about (not idealogical changes but changes in how I approach differences/“the other”), but after yesterdays post, a comment by a buddy on Facebook, and a bit of rumination on the topic, I’ve decided I’m going to continue on the path that I started yesterday. Deconstruction and Doubt.

I affirmed the need for doubt yesterday, and in my own life doubt led to a fair be of deconstruction. I went from having established and set moral, theological, and social “laws” in my late teens and moved to a place where I doubted each of those systems. Sometimes I would question each in turn, sometimes I would sit and wonder if I actually trusted any belief I had ever established in my life. In essence, I spent a couple years deconstructing the entirety of my life, it was a time in which no established part of me was safe. I think the aspect of questioning everything terrifies a lot of people, but, again, for me, it was refreshing, invigorating, and a part of my life that I really value.

During that time I was reading a lot by a(n infamous) Post-Modern Irish Philosopher, Pete Rollins, who called deconstruction the lava that keeps the flow of ideas going. I remember a conversation I had with my now estranged wife while driving around on day, at the time about how I didn’t think there would ever be a time in which systems were ever going to be rebuilt in my life, nor that systems should exist in any life. I look back on that time as my life-anarchy stage, because a lot of systems I had inherited or picked up along the way were “off mark” (that’s being charitable) I wanted to throw out the entirety of them, a baby with the bathwater sort of issue. In essence, that’s exactly what I did, I overturned most of my life, holding on to only a few pieces from the construction I originally stood on (or under?)

Here I am, now several years removed from those comments, and my views on Deconstruction have changed more than I thought would happen (isn’t that always how it goes?). I still value the art of deconstruction and doubt, but now I’ve begun the art of constructing. I know the objections I would have had several years ago, but I now see that you cannot ever actually “stay” within the world completely deconstructed, you will always have some foundation from which to work, whether acknowledged or not.

I now stand at a point where I have begun reconstructing my life, I look around and see the scattered bits and odds and ends from my life previously deconstructed and can now comfortably sit and say, “Does this piece fit? Is there reason for this to be included? Do I value this?” and so on. Nick Fiedler talks about a similar act in his book (which you should buy). Nick talks about looking over his beliefs and deciding which ones to bring along as he and his wife, Leslie, begin their world tour. It’s a brilliant metaphor for the act of deconstruction while retaining structure.

It is this attitude that I take with me as I begin the art of reconstruction while holding to deconstruction and doubt. Each piece should be constantly assessed to see if it fits (understanding that the criterion for “fitting” also change), taken out if it does and kept if it doesn’t. That part is easy, the harder part is keeping the pieces that challenge the “core” that I use to assess the other pieces by. This is the true heart of constant deconstruction.

Religion

I’ve been sitting with this whole “agnostic” label for a few months now, I had finally reached a point in life where I said “I don’t know if God exists in any way, I don’t see it, and I’m ok with that.” I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the reactions I’ve garnered, for the most part people seem to accept it and move on, I haven’t been vociferously preached at by anyone, or really hit with any negatives. I’m fairly certain I broke my mothers heart, and I did have a lady at work ask me not to talk about my religious viewpoints in front of our staff-members (I’m not really out and vocal about what I think theologically at work, my close friends know, and most of my staff know, but for the most part I don’t talk about it. If someone brings it up, sure, but I’m not shoving agnosticism down anyone’s throat like she seems to think I’d do). It’s nice to finally feel like I’m being honest with myself about where I stand and what I think.

Most people, I think, are unwilling to live with that sort of uncertainty. They either need God to exist or not exist, they need to have some solid ground to start from, some dichotomous point of entry into a deeper theological or philosophical place. For me, it’s the uncertainty that invigorates me, I no longer seek certainty, no longer feel comfortable stating anything, philosophically, in a place of certainty. Both the atheist claim that god doesn’t exist, and the mystics claim that god absolutely exists bothers me. Even now, I won’t sit here and say that I’m going to sit where I am for the rest of my life, I won’t deny that tomorrow I could embrace the certainty of the non-existence of god, nor the certainty of god. Of course, I don’t think I’ll ever sit anywhere with certainty, even if I once again sit in the mystic camp, the existence of (a) god will likely continue to be dubitable to me.

I think most of my friends that have had conversations with me about certainty become a bit perplexed at my comfort with uncertainty. I remember a rather large discussion I had with a couple friends several years ago about doubt and faith, even back then I felt like true faith required some level of doubt, stories of doubting Thomas be damned. I still hold to that point, we, as humans, need to explore our ability to live a healthy life of doubt. My friends that still reside in Church owe a fair bit of their philosophical undergirding to Descartes, the master of doubt, yet still insist that doubt isn’t healthy, that not everything should be doubted. No, I must use Descartes own phrase, de ornnibus dubitandum, everything must be doubted. Instead of insisting that there are those things that should not be doubted, our teachers (be they parents, clergy, professors, or friends) must encourage that all doubts should be explored. If you doubt god, then doubt god, don’t let another tell you that you must have the certainty that god exists. Indeed, it is that which we hold to most strongly that we should doubt most highly.

It is the sign of not only a good philosopher, but of a good intellectual, to actively engage with the framework of doubt around the ideals they hold most highly. When I meet anyone that cannot explore the possibility of either their religion or their politics as being wrong (not in the sense of absolute right and wrong, but in the sense as “what if my current standpoint were ”false“) I find myself railing against them. I realize that many people aren’t at the level in which they can explore doubts, but I begin hoping that they are helped to a level in which they can begin to doubt. (This is all in the assumption that doubt is indeed healthy, a supposition which itself must be doubted!) I think it shows the ultimate level of self acceptance when one opens up to the realm of systematic doubt.

I’ve rambled for a bit now, I think I’ll call it a day here, and pick up tomorrow (maybe) with the side effects this lifestyle has had on me (politically, mostly).

Written via my iPhone. Forgive any typos, grammatical errors, or punctuation mistakes.
All ratings are out of five stars.
Name *
The first thing I must mention is the terrible name, I think everyone agrees on this point, except, apparently, Apple themselves. While iSlate was an ok name (I wasn’t thrilled) iPad just makes me cringe. A buddy of mine threw out the iBook name ressurected, which would have been a much better name. Now the name iPad doesn’t really change the abilities of the device itself, but it does set the tone for the whole venture. Dissapointing.

Sexy ****
Yeah, this oversized iPod touch is sexy, there won’t be an argument from me on that point. Apple is incapable of making a device which doesn’t carry itself with a high appeal in the looks department. The sleekness of it is the future of computing styles, but I don’t think anyone expected any different. The only issue I take is the LARGE amount of blackspace around the display itself. I’m wondering if this was necessary due to the component structure or a rare design flaw for Apple.

Newness **
Here’s where the problems start to play. We weren’t really given anything new. I think most of us were ezpecting this design, but with some enhanced multitouch capabilities, some brilliant software capabilities, or something else to point to other than “look, sexy.” As it stands, we don’t really have that, we have an iPod touch with a big screen and a bit more power.

Price ****
499 is a decent intro price, and hundred dollar increments for each increase in memory makes the higher level systems greater values. I understand the high cost of flash hard drives, but it seems that not many people would be able to get by with a mere 16 gig hard drive, 32 should have been the baseline, and I imagine that’s the direction that most users will head. 130 addon for the 3g card seems ok to me, but I’m not familiar with those prices so that’s a bit of guesswork for me.

Functionality***
Here’s where things get more interesting. The iPad packs some punch to it, that’s for sure, but the issue is utilization. From a students perspective I look forward to two things the most (from the iPad): the abolition of my textbooks having them all in digital format, and iWork. The ability to cut down on how much junk I lug around campus is key, if I can live off one device then it’s worth the $600 I’d plunk down to get it. The problem is that, at least to this point (Which mean early adopters are likely to NOT see this implemented) there was no mention of running multiple apps at the same time. Meaning I can’t switch between the text I’m reading and Pages (the apple word processor) with, oh say, the swipe of a finger, meaning I’d still need to carry either my laptop or my books, so how much is this actually saving me.
Where is the camera? That shouldn’t have even been a question of implementation, it should have been a given. Yes, I want to video conference from my iPad, and I think that’s a common sentiment.
I didn’t mark of for this next part, but thought I should address it. Many peope, including my somewhat technologically slow to adopt family, felt that the tablet should be the ultimate all-in-one and would have removed the need to carry any other devices, from phones to laptops. This notion is a bit ridiculous, and anyone dissapointed that they’d still need a phone was thinking a few too many years in advance.

Potential *****
Yes, I gave this section the highest possible rating. Most techno nerds knew going into this announcement that the true potential in the tablet didn’t lie in the device itself but more in the doors that have opened. The most encouraging sign was the New York Times inclusion of in line video, these sorts or new media implementations need to be picked up by the dead tree industry in their transition to digital media. They need to begin thinking in new ways to harness the power and opportunity provided to them by the tablet. The dead tree industry stands to gain as much benefit from the tablet as the recording industry gained from the iPod.

Final thoughts
I won’t be an early adopter. I remember to clearly the transition from the iPhone 1.0 to the 3g. I don’t mind waiting a year to see the implementations that the second generation of the tablet will gain. On top of that, I don’t mind waiting until the third party aspect of the tablet had grown a bit and it’s potential is brought to bear. In the end, I simply see no benefit to getting a first gen tablet. Hopefully I’m proven wrong.

Eh, this was all written via my iPhone and transferred over to wordpress, forgive any typos/grammatical errors/punctuation errors. I didn’t check for them (not that I ever really do).

I’ve been away for a while; I find myself distracted often by books, music.  These two distractions I don’t mind so much… they’re productive and I “live” when I partake in them. Some other distractions, however, are more amusing since they show my utter ineptitude in certain fields. (Let’s just say, laughably pathetic)

Since it’s been a while since I’ve written anything (at least publicly, I’ve become semi-prolific within the realm of my moleskines) allow me the brief repose of my meandering thoughts put on screen for your further clarification of how my mind works (or doesn’t work).

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about two things, “forever” and dreaming.

To the former, I sit and wonder how our concept of forever became so terribly impotent. Actually, I wonder this about every infinite concept, but forever seems to be both out most commonly used and easiest to exemplify our ineptitude with. Forever is the one term that we seem utterly incapable of removing from our vocabulary. We use the term forever, and it’s antonym, never, in an almost laughably frequent way (in fact it would be laughable if it’s over usage wasn’t so tragically causing increasingly precarious levels of insensitivity to the gravity of such a concept).

I am part of an online community known as tumblr, which is comprised mostly of people who fancy themselves artists of some capacity (guilty as charged). A popular bit of typography I see on tumblr has the following phrase:

“You say you’ll love me forever, just warn me when forever starts to end.”

I think this brilliantly captures the crime we commit on an almost daily basis. A crime which I am certainly guilty of myself, having gone further than most in such assertions of eternity, only to realize we both knew forever ended long before we openly acknowledged it. This same notion carries not just in love, but friendship and devotion as well. While I’ve never used the phrase “best friends forever” I have carried those sentiments around for a few years, only to have that particular friendship begin to dissolve (due in no small part to the previous example of forever ending).

On the other hand is the notion of never. I can think of specific things I thought I’d never like or do that I currently love or am doing. Things like wine, poetry, writing, and art, I thought I’d always ignore these, yet I find myself strangely awed, intrigued, and impassioned by these things now. Then, I never thought I’d reach a point where the base belief in god was even a question in my life (ironic side note: I have the name YWHW tattooed on my back) yet here I stand embracing agnosticism and finding comfort in it.

Alas, it seems I have yet to find any notion of forever on which I can solidly grasp. In reality, I’m ok with that; there are only two notions of forever that I wish to grasp: love and friendship. Give me those and take away the world and I’ll be perfectly fine.

Now that I’ve depressed you, allow me to express my hopeful side. I think “forever” (and by forever I mean for the rest of life, and not the purely literal eternity) is innately possible, but requires determination to allow things to continue. Whereas “never” would require determination not to change things IE: “I’ll never forgive him” is a personal determination to never overcome an adversity. So, I fully believe I’ll reach a point with someone where I’m comfortable in stating “forever” again, because I understand now that forever requires far more determination than had been put into things that have ended.

Which moves to the second problem plaguing me lately, my unstoppable desire to dream. I am capable of dreaming crazy things based on but the slightest provocation. I can dream up entire lifetimes in a moment, enjoy the vast grandness of a relationship that doesn’t exist, see bright futures full of hope and beauty even while my present sits dark and despairing. I have what can only be deemed as a limitless capacity for hope. My unending imagination coupled with my innate propensity to hope has caused both a rather amusing comedy of errors and a series of terrifying responses that drive me to ever doubt hope. I find myself reaching the point, nearly every other week, in which I say to (probably my best friend) “I’m done with hope. Hope only screws me over.” These hopeful dreams, they haven’t lead anywhere good so far, in fact, they normally just end up with me getting hurt.

Hopes a fucking scary thing.

Fucking scary.

So that’s where I’m at right now, I’ll restart my talk about god tomorrow.

There’s a couple things I want to mention before I start.

First, since my posts now go to facebook as notes, I’ve gotten some more personal responses from people that didn’t read my blog previously but have been following me since I started moving into the facebook area as well. To these people, and to a lot of my other facebook friends that come across this post, the subject matter may be a bit outside of your normal conversational topics. I’m talking here about a movement that isn’t well known amongst the laity at your everyday American church, but it’s influence, or I should say effect, is likely felt within your own individual church experiences. If you’ve ever seen artists on stage painting during a sermon, or been to a coffee house church, or perhaps your church sits in a circle with the presenter in the middle, these are a few examples of things that the emergent movement has brought to the forefront. (an aside, I’m not saying emergent created these things, did them first, or does them best, simply that the influence of the movement brought them out) If you want to know more about the whole deal, feel free to email me matt at themattscott dot com.

Second, I want to preface my comments to my emergent friends. I was hesitant about posting on the latest “death of emergent” for several reasons; one the topic is becoming redundant. Two, there are other more important things to be talking about (speaking of which, please help helping Haiti in any way you can).

Third, I hesitated mostly because I don’t know if I consider myself part of the movement any longer. I stepped away from things for a few months while I was dealing with some life issues (and by dealing with I mean going through various and increasing levels of hell until things got better), and during this time went through some large belief changes. I’m not sure if I still consider emergent my movement (not as in I controlled things, but as in I had a part to play in the [continuing] formation, at least on a local level) I now split my self between feeling that I am still a part of emergent and simply being a friend that wants to see things go well for them. With these things in mind, let chat.

In response to the recent “death of” conversation, I point to the following quote from the movie “Lucky Number Slevin”

My father use to say: “The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk, but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it’s time to go shopping for a saddle.”

I’m no emerging church historian, but I can think of three times this “death of” conversation has sparked up, while I wouldn’t say it’s time to go looking for a burial plot yet, I would say it’s time to start dealing with the fact that you’re being called a horse.

I think the reason these past couple critiques have stirred up so much more emotion is because they have come from within, instead of the normal attacks and critiques from the existing structures that “feel threatened.” While Emergent, as a movement, has been under constant critique from the outside for what seems like the entirety of its existence, and I think has benefited from such constant critiques, and they’ll likely continue for some time. Some have been valid, some have changed things that needed to be changed, some have been rightfully refuted, and some have been ignored, all without causing too much emotional repercussions and long term levels of hurt feelings. These latest critiques, however, the ones that have come from within, are starting to show strains and cracks.

These latest critiques (really the last two “death of” critiques) have elicited what can only be seen as a “circling the wagons” response, an immediate defensive position. The former coordinator of EV immediately bangs out a response to them, the satirical articles come, and then the critique is seen as “refuted” and life moves on, nothing really changes and no real benefit is seen from the event. I have a friend who has no problems calling me an ass when I act like one and I have another friend who tells me straight to my face when I’m about to do something stupid. I value these two guys, because I know they want the best for me, and if I ignore their advice it’s usually to my detriment. I hope emergent starts to see these inside critiques in the same light.

But hey, I’m just the little guy on the outside looking in, what do I know?

My friend, Nick Fielder, recently released his book, “The Hopeful Skeptic“, and he’ll be speaking at the Cobb Emergent Cohort tomorrow.

I bring this up for a couple reasons, one because I like Nick, I drank his booze and swam in his pool once, but mostly because I’ve been talking recently about my own agnosticism quite a bit lately, and Nick also approaches the topic in his book (albeit from a more… hopeful [that pun was too easy] standpoint). Nick and I share some of the same views on the topic, so if you’re interested in hearing where this neo-Agnosticism is headed, come check things out tomorrow (Jan 12th) at 7 at Johnnie MacCrackens.

Here’s the facebook event link, if you prefer that.

Also, buy the book.

Also also, I’ll review the book sometime.