Emergent Huh?

I'm going to be talking about the new Emergent What? site, but first I'll tell you how I wound up there.

When I first googled "Emerging Church" I came across a few sites. Ok, I came across 9 million sites. But there some at the top that caught my eye, and like any savvy (read: lazy) netsurfer I decided to check out the first ones I saw.

On the "pro" side were Andrew Jones, The Emergent Village, and the people I eventually hooked up with (and can be seen on the links sidebar). On the "con" side were the popular Emergent No and the slightly less credible although more humorous Slice of Laodicea. I checked both sides out. Just to be sure. I'll be honest; from the beginning I was concerned that this whole Emergent phenomenon would turn out to be just another fad, and I could do without that. Remind me to tell you about my experiences in Deliverance Ministry circles.

Nope, I was not at all interested in "the next big thing."So I started with the Village's blog, and began reading the comments there. I was impressed at the willingness to talk and share that I found, and after creating a persona I became involved in the conversations -and eventually lives - of the people there. Some of them (like Jamie and Robbymac) I'm still friends with. But I knew I couldn't spend all my time with one side, and so I made my way across no man's land to find the other trenches. I arrived at E-No and was pretty shocked at some of the anger and hate I saw flying both ways. The writers were sarcastic and bitter sounding, and I tried hard to ignore it so I could listen to the criticisms they were making.

I saw some merit in what they were saying. They were noticing alot of the "fringe" aspects that many had also noticed - the side that wanted to throw out the concept of sin/absolute truth, elevate other spiritual texts to the level of the Bible (or take it down a few pegs) and have "free love" or whatever else. We were recycling hippies, I swear. Anyway, I saw Emerging Christians also notice the negative aspects and speak out against it. But few of them would do so at E-No, which I thought was a shame because the majority of the "Emerging Christians" that stopped by would generally be the extreme cases. Some even sent crude or explicit emails to Carla, one of the site's moderators.

I began commenting there in an attempt to be a balancing force. I guess I thought highly of my arbitration abilities, and that maybe Emergent and her critics could come to some kind of middle ground. I spent a frustrating few months there, having a few decent conversations and a whole pile of negative ones. As soon as I was identified as an "Emerging Sympathizer" I was blasted from every angle. I tried to reason with many of them, and some were willing to start from an assumption of mutual respect. Tooaugust/littlec in particular I maintained an email relationship for several months, and Kerri was another that, even though we disagreed, we didn't hate on each other. But many of them weren't and my frustration soon gave way to deep sadness. I couldn't keep going the way I was. Oh yeah - I received crude emails as well. Several of them.

Eventually I gave up, and wrote a farewell post to explain my absence. I let them know that I wouldn't be returning, and that (ironically) they were part of the reason that I now identified myself as emerging. As expected I was maligned for this, although a couple with whom I'd clashed expressed sadness that I was leaving. To my surprise, Carla (who has always been the more moderate of the 3 contributors) thanked me for participating and wished me well in the future. I was pleased to be able to leave on relatively good terms.

I haven't had much chance to engage with the critics of the EC recently, and that has made me sad. But just the other week I found a post on Robbymac's site about a new Emergent No at www.emergentno.com. This one wasn't owned or run by critics of EC, but instead was operated by Justin Baeder. I found this to be confusing, as I knew Justin to be a supporter of the emerging church. But what Justin had done was set up the site to receive all the posts from both the original E-No and Slice, and allow people to comment without fear of being banned for supporting the EC (apparently several supporters had been kicked off the original sites for disagreeing with the site owner, although I'm sure that there have been many who were banned legitimately because of their language or conduct). The name of the new site (when you reach the page) is Emergent What? I chuckled when I saw that because I remember suggesting that name to Jamie a while back for my new blog.

My reaction was mixed at first - the owners of the original site were crying foul, and while I found it humorous that they would accuse someone else of slander I could see how they would feel about it. The URL's are very similar, and there were some copyright issues that still are up in the air. But having a chance to comment on the criticisms levied, and maybe even engage again with some critics themselves? I missed the Village's blog since it shut down, and this looked like it could be a replacement.

Because let's face it - we still need criticisms. We need people who are watching us and keeping us accountable. We need outsiders to look in on us and challenge us. And we need to test our theology and reasoning; what better way to do so than with people who are passionately committed to the Bible and sound doctrine? If we can withstand the criticisms, then great. If some areas of our reasoning are flawed, they will be uncovered. And I hope that my interactions at Emergent What prove as fruitful as some of the others I've had in the past.

What do you think about the new site? Will you check it out? Care to share your stories about your interactions with/as an EC-critic?

Continue reading...

I am a Samurai

Honor: You are an honorable person who is firm with
his/her beliefs and treats others as you are
treated. People would consider you humble at
times and very respectful, and someone to
definitely respect back.


Which Characteristic From the Samurai Code Matches You Best? (You may find out your best trait)
brought to you by Quizilla

I dunno, guys, is this me?

Last quiz for a while, I promise. New post coming by Wednesday, then next week the final Ishmael post. I hope.

Cheers.

Continue reading...

On (Mis)Communication

Recent comments on my Anne Rice post have caused me to think (again) about this precarious mode of interaction we have here on the Net. We are a collection of individuals from all walks of life, brought together by the connection of information flowing between our computers. More specifically, we've encountered each other on a particular form of interaction called Blogging. Blogging is a great tool for dialogue, an excellent way to post one's thoughts about life, philosophy, whatever. As many have said the emerging church may not have existed without it. But let's face facts, people - it's crap when it comes to communication.

When I was studying Social Psychology in college, we had a class on Symbolic Interactionism. This class discussed the use of symbols in language, and how meaning was transformed from our minds into symbols and back again. Simply put, we studied communication. I'll spare you the Social Science rundown of the issue. But I will give you the basic description of what communication is, and why Blogging is really quite a poor place for it.

This example is off the top of my head, so be gentle. I have a thought in my mind. This thought has meaning to me. It could be any thought, but let's just say that the thought is, "I'm hungry." Simple, no? Now supposing I'm on a date, and I want to communicate this to my date and let her know it's time to eat. I take the thought ("I'm hungry") and I put it into words - I encode it in a language common to us. But just saying "I'm hungry" isn't going to tell her what I want to do about it. So I choose to say, "Do you want to get something to eat?" The message, heavy with meaning for myself, is encoded and sent out.

My date receives the encoded message. Now she has to decode it. She takes "Do you want to get something to eat?" much differently than I meant it, though. The meaning that she receives is, "You're fat, do you want to go somewhere where you can stuff your face?" This meaning was not encoded in the original message. But she received it anyway. Now she throws her drink in my face and storms off. This confuses me greatly, as I thought I was communicating my hunger to her. She is now hurt because she thinks I was communicating dislike for her physical appearance, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.

Of course, that wouldn't happen. Not to me - I'm far too smooth. Or rather, I'm not just communicating with my words. The tone of my voice - light questioning as opposed to heavy sarcasm - my body language - casual, relaxed instead of bracing myself for physical violence - and my excessive salivation will all be adding to the words, "Do you want to get something to eat," and increasing the chance that the correct meaning will be perceived - namely, that I'm hungry, and I just want some chicken wings.

In the movie Hitch Will Smith's character states, "60% of Communication is Non-Verbal, 30% is Tone." While I'm not sure where he gets his numbers, I have to agree with the sentiment. So much of our communication is dependent not on our words but on how we say them. Take sarcasm for example - a simple statement such as "I'm sure you will do the right thing" can be either encouraging or biting depending on the tone it was said with. Our body language adds a great deal to our coded messages. I actually have a natural ability to read body language, one which I've cultivated over the years. In my line of work (YFC drop-in for troubled teens) I often learn more from the posture, walk, hand movements and muscle state from a teen than I do from what they actually tell me. It's like there's a hidden meaning in everything they say that I have to wade through conflicting signals to get at.

In Blogging/text-only communication, we have none of that. In Hitch terms, we are relying on the 10% of communication that includes no non-verbal cues. This creates ample opportunity for miscommunication, or for people receiving meaning from a message that was not intended to be sent. In Blogging especially (where high-intensity issues are often discussed) that means many, many chances for people to get hurt. My wife once pointed out to me (after she'd been following some of the blogs I frequented) that half the conversation was spent trying to explain "What I meant when I said that a few comments ago and why you needn't be upset" instead of actually talking about the subject at hand. Once misunderstandings happen, it's easy to have the conversation derail.

On a side note, part of the problem is that even our words don't mean the same thing to one another. "Fundamentalism" means something castly different to an Emerging Christian as opposed to a Reform Christian, or to a Sociologist. Words can have different definitions for people depending on their upbringing, socialization and current field(s) of expertise. When we don't have a common definition for a term or phrase, the chance of clear communication diminishes even more.

I do know that there are those who actually want to be insulting, who are actively trying to hurt or put down others. But I try not to assume that someone is. I think the best thing to do in any case is something that I struggle with doing - having the patience to back up, take a deep breathe, and ask for clarification. Saying, "I think you meant/implied this when you said X. Is that correct?" may prevent further miscommunication. I know it's not always easy to do (especially when tensions are high) but having patience may prevent more hurt and misunderstanding in the long run.

I enjoy Blogging, but I know there are pitfalls. In my opinion this is one of the more major ones, especially when hurt starts to happen. What about you guys? Any stories of crossed wires? Other drawbacks to text-only dialogue? Grey Owl wants to know.

Continue reading...

What Tolkien Race Are You?

Numenorean


To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla


I'd say my results make sense, except for the "tragic" part. Although there was that time I killed the king of Scotland at my wife's urgings...

Continue reading...

Well, I Didn't See This Coming

I'm speechless.

You've probably heard of Anne Rice, author of the wildly popular Interview with the Vampire novel and it's sequels. Christian groups have renounced these books as heretical, evil, and the usual labels we tend to stick on literature that displeases us.

I've been a fan of these novels for some time. I read Interview long before I became a Christian. I read the following books much later, after I was a Christian and married. My wife didn't like it when I read those books, I don't think. I tended to get way too involved in the characters (although contrary to popular rumor I never did try to drink someone else's blood).

So imagine my surprise when I discovered that, apparently, Anne Rice is re-embracing her Catholic Christian roots.

This is very interesting for me. Some of my greatest faith questions came after reading Rice's novels. The character of Lestat, for example, I identified with quite strongly. His existential questioning culminates in the second volume of Rice's vampire novels in what Lestat describes as, "The Dark Moment." Here are some excerpts from that portion of the book:

"I realized aloud in the midst of saying it that even when
we die we probably don't find out the answer as to why were we ever alive. Even
the avowed atheist probably thinks than in death he'll get some answer. I mean
God will be there, or there won't be anything at all. 'But
that's just it,' I said, 'we don't make any discovery at that moment! We merely
stop! We pass into nonexistence without ever knowing a thing.' I saw the
universe, a vision of the sun, the planets, the stars, black night going on
forever. And I began to laugh. 'Do you realize that! We'll
never know why the hell any of it happened, not even when it's over!' I shouted
at Nicolas, who was sitting back on the bed, nodding and drinking his wine out
of a flagon. 'We're going to die and not even know. We'll never know, and all
this meaninglessness will just go on and on and on. And we won't any longer be
witnesses to it. We won't have even that little bit of power to give meaning to
it in our minds. We'll just be gone, dead, dead, dead, without ever
knowing!' But I had stopped laughing. I stood still and I
understood perfectly what I was saying! There was no judgment
day, no final explanation, no luminous moment in which all terrible wrongs would
be made right, all horrors redeemed. The witches burnt at the
stake would never be avenged. No one was ever going to tell us
anything! No, I didn't understand it at this moment. I saw it!
And I began to make the single sound: 'Oh!' I said it again 'Oh!' and then I
said it louder and louder and louder, and I dropped the wine bottle on the
floor. I put my hands to my head and I kept saying it, and I could see my mouth
opened in that perfect circle that I had described to my mother and I kept
saying, 'Oh, oh, oh!' I said it like a great hiccuping that I
couldn't stop... I ran to the window, unlatched it and swung out the heavy
little glass, and stared at the stars. I couldn't stand seeing them. I couldn't
stand seeing the pure emptiness, the silence, the absolute absence of any
answer, and I started roaring as Nicolas pulled me back from the window-sill and
pulled shut the glass.... I stared at everything, seeing behind every
configuration of colour and light and shadow the same thing; death. Only it
wasn't just death as I'd thought of it before, it was death the way I saw it
now. Real death, total death, inevitable, irreversible, and resolving
nothing.... And I knew it wasn't going to pass, and nothing for the moment could
make me forget, but what I felt was inexpressible gratitude for the music, that
in this horror there could be something as beautiful as
that. You couldn't understand anything; and you couldn't change
anything.... nothing natural seemed beautiful to me now! The very sight of a
great tree standing alone in a field could make me tremble and cry out. Fill the
orchard with music. And let me tell you a little secret. It
never did pass, really."

pages 65-70 The Vampire Lestat

Second Volume of The Vampire Chronicles

By Anne Rice

I don't mind telling you that moments like this in Rice's novels filled me with the same kind of terror that her characters felt. Even if it was only for a moment, even if it was only while I was reading the book I felt the same kind of despair as a set of imaginary characters. Sometimes these feelings would last until I could sit down with a good friend and talk them out.

You see, I've struggled with depression my whole life. The concept of being lost in despair is very real to me. Even after I became a Christian there were moments when my faith seems so small and the darkness seemed so big. I remember describing those moments to a friend as, "Walking in a snow-covered field, listening to the wind howling in the great emptiness of the overcast sky above." You prairies-folk know what I mean. It is a wholly terrifying feeling. But it never lasts, and when I come out of it the sun feels warm on my face and I put Rice's novel or whatever it was that triggered these feelings on the shelf. I remember that God is real and he loves me, and then I usually go out for chicken wings or watch a funny movie.

The thing is, feelings of despair are incompatible with the love of God. I'm not saying you'll never feel sad or lonely if you are a Christian; rather, that the message of Christ is one of hope and love. The despair for me only came when I doubted that, when I doubted God existed or loved me. When I was truly looking at the basis for my faith I had to admit that God was a God of love, and he would not abandon his children.

One particular quote comes to mind: "And when the hourglass has run out, the hourglass of temporality,when the noise of secular life has grown silent and its restless or ineffectual activism has come to an end, when everything around you is still, as it is in eternity, then eternity asks you and every individual in these millions and millions about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.-- Soren Kierkegaard,"The Sickness Unto Death"

I find it fascinating that Rice can write what she does and still come to faith in God. I pray that this change would be genuine and life-lasting for her. I'm looking forward to her new book, and I'll review it here when I get my hands on it.

Any other Rice fans out there? Let me know what you think of her books. Is there anything a Christian can learn from them?

Continue reading...

On Criticisms of Emergent

Good gravy, it's been a while. The last month has been one of the most out-of-control months of my life. But I suppose it's been reminding me that I never had control in the first place. Which is a very, very good thing.

So. I'm back, and I've got all these thoughts bouncing around in my head like 6-year-olds at Topo Gigio's. Sorting them out will take some time, but I have a general idea of what I want to say. Let's leave the environmental hot-topic for now, and move on to something else near and dear to my heart; Emerging Christianity.

Emerging Christianity, for those of you who don't know, is a movement within evangelicalism (mostly) that appeared on the scene a few years ago and set some kind of land-speed record for being condemned by the conservative evangelicals. Emergent was unique, however, in actually asking for criticism from Christians in general. The condemnation was in many cases fast an wildly inaccurate, although highly entertaining. After a short time, however, some serious critics emerged (heh) and the dialogue was on.

My experiences with both sides of the debate began when, after reading A New Kind of Christian, I did a Google search on the Emerging Church. I wound up at the old Emergent-US blog, started reading the entries, then began commenting (as Dan-D from Canada). At the time I had a rather naive idea about the Emerging Church and the general public attitude towards it ("Wow, everyone is going to love this! Christianity that puts an emphasis on love! Hooray!"). I was shocked to discover that, apparently, not everyone was as enamored of the movement as I thought they ought to be.

This did 2 things for me. It made me slow down and more closely examine the whole Emergent phenomenon. This was great, because I did start to notice some of the more extreme aspects that have been associated with it (universalism, for example - while not something that McLaren, Miller or any other have even remotely supported there are some who would want to have Emergent hold this view). I became a great deal more cautious with my support, examining the claims of the authors instead of saying, "He's an Emerging Christian, I must agree with what he says!" I began to appreciate more fully what Emergent was actually about rather than the common perceptions/misconceptions. I knew that whatever Emergent was trying to do, it would have to follow the Bible and rely on God to accomplish it.

The second thing it did for me was open me up to dialogue with many, many learned people. I was forced to examine scripture, theological traditions, and philosophy like I hadn't since college. On both sides of the debate I made friends, friends who would challenge me and uplift me. And I found an intellectual community of believers that I felt a part of. Even after I had made the decision to throw my lot in with Emerging Christianity (a decision made largely due to the actions of several critics of Emergent) I kept in contact with several people who were critics. I've been very blessed by those relationships.

However. One thing I've been disheartened by is the actions/words of some critics. I am the first person to admit that there ought to be people watching and making sure that Emergent does not alter the gospel or the person of Christ to be "cool" or "attractive" to people in our age. And this must be done by observing the scriptures and traditions of the church. But some critics have been unnecessarily harsh, sarcastic, and cruel. Even the graciously worded and delivered "Response to Criticisms" that Emergent-US put out was treated with disrespect (or, in the case of Emergent-No, borderline paranoia). And it's not just the critics - both sides have acted disgracefully. What ever happened to "They will know you by your love for one another?" The excuse I've heard from some critics has been that Emerging Christians are heretics, not true Christians, so there's no reason to respect/love them. That makes me very sad.

This is my question: how can we as "Emerging Christians" graciously respond to the sarcastic and hateful criticisms that often come? Where are the thoughtful and constructive criticisms that we've seen in the past? And is there any common ground that we can reach?

I sincerely hope that some genuine, loving critics see this post. We need that dialogue.

Continue reading...

So I've been... busy...

Hey all,

I'm still alive, just had a crazy couple of weeks. It all culminated in burning out from work and developing a respiratory infection (somthing my family is prone to). I've been mostly out of comission for a while, and now the infection is nearly gone but the pills I'm taking are giving me wicked bad side effects. So a post is being slowly written and should be up by this time next week, and I'll probably see all y'all on your blogs by then too.

Cheers,

Grey Owl

Continue reading...