Cheers,
sweethomeimprove.com

That's true. We'll keep meeting, and hoisting a pint as we discuss our “dangerous ideas,” and challenging each others' faith, and lifting each other up in prayer, even if Emergent Village disappears.

So true. Haha.

Perhaps I am not speaking to anything you were thinking about. But thanks for provoking this in me

peace,
Chad

I know you have taken Tony to task in depth on the denomination/ordination think and I think both you and he make some good points. I tend to think the problem is not with authority per se, but rather the way(s) in which authority is channeled. Though I (and you) are part of a tradition that uses a different approach, I am really drawn to the radically decentralized and collaborative way of channeling power and authority in a more egalitarian manner. Now, I know that gets really hairy really quick when it comes to things like ordination and I'm to quite sure where I find myself there. But that's neither here nor there for this thread.

What should we do next? I haven't really fleshed this out much (maybe that's potential blog post), but one idea that I have is engaging the “edge” with hardcore liberal fundamentalists (yes, I think there are two kinds) who tend to think they have a monopoly on the prophetic voice. Because of its evangelical roots, I think Emergent has naturally had to deal with one side of the spectrum first, and that's good. But I'd like to see some serious dialogue and critique on the other side, because I think it can be just a myopic.

I don't know, just thinking out loud there.

a) Emergence isn't anything like mainstream in any sense of the word, regardless of how much membership seems to have grown recently. The overwhelming majority of Christianity still regards this conversation as a heretical splinter sect.

b) If by some miracle what we're all talking about is a good idea, how on Earth can it possibly be a bad thing if more and more people discover that it is a good idea? Does their discovery of it somehow negate its value by moving the idea from the fringe to the middle? That's a shift of demographics, not a shift of ideology or doctrine. The meaning of the conversation can remain radical no matter how many people join in.

To use a mundane example: If, in 2000, Ralph Nader had, instead of getting 4% of the vote, gotten 74% of the vote, would that popular groundswell of support somehow transformed his political platform from one or radical politics to one of centrist politics? Of course not.

Yes, had that happened he would have then faced massive pressure to -become- centrist. And so yes, emergence needs to resist the pull back to mediocrity as critical mass makes radicalism difficult to maintain. But if maintaining a radical edge is the goal, then how can it be a bad thing if there are people who remain in the place where it began, rehashing those conversations for the people (in or out) who still don't get it? If they are rehashing conversations, the conversations they are rehashing are the radical beginning of the movement that everyone seems to be lamenting the loss of. I don't follow. If there are still people on the outside arguing about how this position is incorrect, then it isn't like Tony's stuck in a place of -comfort-, neh? It looks a whole lot to me like he's doing his best to keep it real, doing his best to hold the party line against the massive crush of pressure from outside to give it up. I have a really hard time seeing that as a problem.

It seems like there is this assumption that keeping it real means being always in motion. Moving from one set of ideas and actions to the next, never repeating, never still, always restless and eager for something novel. That's a trap. Look at the history of 20th Century art. The quest for novelty is a trap. It leads to “art” that consists of basketballs floating in an aquarium half full of water. Why? Because no one had ever done it before.

We should never confuse novel for radical. Jesus wasn't Jesus either because he was radical or because he was novel. Jesus was Jesus because he lived a life of love in service to everyone he met. Obviously, any faith conversation has to be self-critical. I don't hear anyone advocating an abandonment of critique. But any faith conversation centered around Jesus has to voice that critique with love, not with “I don't care if its selfish, I don't want to help”. If that's what being a radical, old skool, emergent Christian is, I don't want to be one, or know one.

Thanks, Matt, for this post. Good stuff.

peace,
Chad
http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com