Adding my two cents into the “disappointed emergent” conversation.
So, every few months we manage to find one post and it creates some massive waves around the emergent/ing blogosphere. We (at this point in time I speak for emergenT) seem to really like the posts that have to do with emergent dying. I wrote one of those myself (unfortunetely all the comments were lost when I transitioned over to disqus, a rather unfortunate event, there were some good comments there).
The flavor of the month this time? “The Great Disappointment” by Nick Fiedler, of “The Nick and Josh Podcast” fame. Nick’s been out of the country lately, and was disappointed with the lack of change within the emerging movement since he’s been gone. And who can blame him? While the change has seemed rather large to me, I can see from another vantage point, that of one who has been part of this conversation far longer than I, where it wouldn’t seem like much change has come.
Beyond just this one post, we have some interesting “waves” working their way around the emergent/ing blogosphere, but there are really two (perhaps three) sets of accusations being lofted.
The first, which you can see run a bit through Nick’s post, and then a bit harsher through Josh’s response, is “The ‘leaders’ of the ‘movement’ have failed us, they have sold out, they blog/write/speak for money.” (I may be considered one of them, as I do use advertising on my blog, but I would hope that my readers understand my advertising is to help pay for hosting fees, and I don’t even make enough to cover those!) My response to this argument (if I’m not considered one of the sellouts… though I was never, and will never be, a leader in the/this movement): They aren’t the leaders anymore.
Harsh? Probably.
This conversation should have never turned into a money making opportunity, but it did. I understand the desire to make a little money off something you enjoy, but you lose a fair bit of prophetic ability when you start relying on sponsors to support you. It cuts off your ability to speak out, it, to use Josh’s words, neuters you. Game over.
But, on to my point. They aren’t the leaders anymore. (On a seperate issue, who “they” are is up for debate, I probably wouldn’t lump McLaren into that pot) New leaders will/have emerged, and the fuel that keeps us going, our networking ability, has continued without those leaders. (Forgive me for falling into a bit of “us vs them” mentality, I still consider “them” part of “us” but feel that “they” are not the leaders, that’s all).
We knew this moment would come. We’ve been talking about it for a while. I remember all those posts about what happens when “the emerging church” becomes sustainable and loses it’s ability to speak prophetically. The solution? We acknowledge this has happened, but continue to embrace new “leaders” that will continue to speak prohpetically. Leaders who would refuse that term.
On the other hand we have this whole “new crowd” vs “old crowd” thing going on. (blog posts on this here and here, original comment that started this here) I don’t know what that’s all about. In fact having to use the terms “new crowd” and “old crowd” when talking about emergent pisses me off. I guess I’m part of the new crowd, I’ve only been part of the “conversation” for two years now, but I’ve looked up to and respected those who have held this conversation for longer. I’ve learned from them, I’ve hoped for patience from them as I rehash things they’ve already covered, and I’ve hoped that they’d keep me under their wings and offer a little protection as I ask the questions I have never been allowed to ask.
For two years I’ve gotten that, and it’s been great.
Now you wanna bring in new vs old?
Sorry, but that won’t work with me.
We (the emerging church) have always accepted new guys into the fold, this was never ment to be members only club, and if someone acted out of hand they weren’t rejected, they were loved. Now you want to start talking about new guys pushing you out of the circle? What the hell, we don’t even like cirlces here, and if we do draw them, we make them so effing big we put people in them that don’t want to be.
To all the (other?) new guys: You’re welcome here, I’ll make some room at my table, we’ll call it the “kid’s table” it was always more fun there anyways. Besides, I think we have some good people willing to sit at the kids table already.
A few notes before I close
I mentioned before, emergent can die. If this movement ends, we’ll carry on. My cohort friends will keep meeting, I’ll keep working on the communal theology project, I’ll keep networking via the blogosphere. It doesn’t end with the leaders, it wasn’t their movement to begin with. And for my official input on the topic: Emergent is not dead, nor do I think this will kill it, we’ll move on, we’ll keep embracing the new guys, and we’ll keep working for change in the mainstream.
EDIT:
Ok, maybe Tony Jones is still a leader.
email2friend