girl growing

and a space for her to play in

Wednesday, December 27, 2006


there is no case for the emergent church...
someone should tell mr. strobel to get on that, he might be able to make a bit of money.
i stumbled upon one of ryan's friends blog this week.
he had some interesting things to say about us 'postmodern/emergent/anti-traditionalist/church-critiquing brothers and sisters'....
what he said was's true that our perception is our reality,
but as i mentioned in response to him,
i was a little hurt.
i'm not really sure which is worse, being invisible or being misunderstood.
ryan's friend is a smart boy and has a ton of good things to say...
i like him because he listens.
ken has always told me that i should never argue but strive to dialogue...
but then who gets to fight for those of us out here???
who represents US?
and WHO IS US?
ryan and i had a long chat about it last night...
and i'm beginning to realize how much i don't argue about these things anymore.
what others think and critique about the movement are becoming background to what we're really trying to do...
it's when i poke my head up and see who's paying attention to us that i get in trouble.
there are people out there that are claiming to represent the 'emergent' group (whatever you call it) and are doing a really poor job...
they are angry and reactionary.
and that really pisses me off,
mostly because i used to be that way.
people like ryan's friend have no choice but to believe what they're hearing...
and i suppose all we can do is try to pay enough attention and try to interject when we can.
i have been guilty of painting the whole traditional, conservative, modern church with huge brush strokes...
and i guess i shouldn't expect anything else from the other side of the fence.
for some of you out there, none of this is really a reality...
for others of you, you get bombarded more than i do.
it's a tricky thing...
knowing when to discuss and when to shut up.
i'm learning :)
and i'm trying really hard to just...'be'.
"the 'emerging church' is a label which is being stuck on anything that is outside the 'norms' of the Church as most people know it; whereas the Emergent Church is specifically about the principles of the science of emergence to church growth."-brewin
perhaps we're putting too many churches into these categories...
and maybe the categories don't matter at all.
we're gonna screw up...
that's the reality,
and i suppose all we can do is try.


Blogger josh said...

This mysterious friend of a friend, who could he be??

I sometimes feel caught between hating labels, and finding them necessary. For instance, I see this Emergent movement which I have a lot of respect for, but at the same time have concerns about, and as I say that I realize this is probably how you feel about "traditional" churches. Which begs the question "what is a traditional" church. Is it a structure, a mentality, and is it possible for it to look "traditional" from the outside but from the inside be vibrant and effective and full of God's power?

But then the counter-question gets thrown back at me, "what is an emergent church"? And my concerns, are they over a structure, or a mentality, or what? And if I'm honest I really can only say that when I say "Emergent" I'm simply thinking of people I know and things I've seen or read, and these things may not be an accurate depiction of the whole.

Maybe labels are in many ways no good at all. They are sloppy, and not all-encompassing even a little, and bound to make people feel stereotyped and misundestood.

So I suppose I should use them carefully, as a way of generating dialogue and not as a way of defining sides. I should seek to understand, not alienate.

And truth be told this was the point of my subversive little blog -- that none of us should let defending our side become the primary goal.

Wow, this was quite the ramble. Is a comment allowed to be longer than the original? Is that bad etiquette? ;-p


9:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home