Emergent (Village) is not a Conversation

(clarification... I am speaking more of the Emergent Village brand here as opposed to the wider, broader emerging church. thanks to jamie for caring enough to have me be more clear.)

I've said it over and over that this whole "open conversation" thing is just not true. It's only open if you agree with them. That's really no different than another group of people. They bemoan the "us and them" language of evangelicals and then set up their own version of it.

Read the below reaction to Mark Driscoll's chapter in "Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Churches". It's proof positive that this is no "conversation".

Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Mark Driscoll | pomomusings | progressive theology & design.

Comments

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

In fairness, can you use one example and judge the whole movement as being non-conversant? Frankly, I expected more from you than this. Of course there are elements that are less conversant than others, but if you look at the global emerging-missional conversation, you will see far more openness than you are suggesting. Apply the same standard to Christianity and no one would be a "Christian". I think you have a fair critique of this particular post (and others like it), but you invalidate your own voice with such sweeping generalizations. Just a thought.

Peace,
Jamie

[rich]

I haven't posted about this recently, but everytime I have run into this (it's been mutiple times and multiple people... Mclaren, Jones, Padgitt to name a few) I have posted about it here. I am careful to point to THE Emergent and not emerging. So it's not as sweeping as it seems. Adam is the very person who told me I should have a "Friend of Emergent" badge if I was going to critique the "conversation".

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Thanks for the clarification. I think your comment should read:

"Adam is the very person who told me I should not have a 'Friend of Emergent' badge if I was going to critique the 'conversation'."

Something similar was suggested to be about the Friend of EV badge, but I chose to keep it on. Sorry if I seemed harsh.

Peace,
Jamie

[Kerry Doyal]

Interesting. But, I don't want to converse about it ;-)

Sometimes what groups work hardest to not be becomes a betrayal of who they are in part. (I not sure I follow what I wrote there, but just wanted to join the conver... ;-0

Seriously, some good observations.
I like the sleeping photo too
Evette take it?

[Kerry Doyal]

Uh, well, I, err, uh . . . read that Be BE was the photog!

Good Job B B Queen!

[Bob Robinson]

I think you have a legitimate beef here.

[John Lunt]

I love Jamie, but I have to agree a bit more with Rich on this one.

When I was more active in the emerging church conversation because I thought it was a valuable conversaton for the church, I expressed a more conservative view than most. I was often blasted.

My support for Israel ended up with me being labeled on one blog a radical zionist.

The fact that I would not agree with the whole idea that religious right =bad religious left=good / Republicans=bad, Democrats = good got me kicked off the emerging church info site.

I had lots of good experiences in the conversation, but I had a whole lot of negative experiences as well. I don't expect agreement, but I've found that many inside the emergent conversation are not nearly as interested in conversation than they are indoctrination of certain views.

My beef is not specifically with emergent village. Some were part of that - some weren't.

Jamie was always gracious even if we disagreed, however, the same can't be said of many "within the conversation."

My main focus now is the missional movement. So I don't read as many of the purely emerging blogs as I did. It's a good conversation as long as it remains a conversation. But when it tips to indoctrination, it's useless.

Jim Wallis is fond of saying the monologue of the right has ended a new conversation has begun. I was hoping that would be the case. It's not. Now there's just two paralell monologues going on.