DISQUS

I would dispute the suggestion that the Christianity 21 conference is a "ghettoization" of women, for the simple fact that it has never and nowhere been billed as a "women's conference", nor has any attention been deliberately called to the gender of the presenters. As far as I know, Tony and Doug have tried as best they can to present this as just the same as any other ministry conference. After all, if the conference were all men and one token female, no one would make a big deal about it, or call it a "mens conference", so why make a big deal about it when it's the reverse? It would only be "ghettoization" if people (men especially) actually stayed away because of the gender of the speakers, but I highly doubt that will happen. Speaking personally, all of the speakers on that list are dynamic leaders and thinkers and people I'd really love to hear from, regardless of their gender.

Dan,

We can all see that there are lots of women in the "support" teams. But Jonathan's question was specifically about the Core Team, your apparent "upper echelon" of leadership, and why there were no women there. I hope you'll be back to address that question specifically.

Thanks bro'

-Mike

Wow man, you totally called it. :)

Wow man, you totally called it. :)

And then you have Emergent Village moving away from building relationships into creating a publishing/speaking empire.

That's about the funniest thing I've read all week.

And then you have Emergent Village moving away from building relationships into creating a publishing/speaking empire.

That's about the funniest thing I've read all week.

Excellent analysis Troy! One of the things that seems to be missing from this firestorm about Wright's comments is the question of whether he is right about some of it. Certainly some of his comments were extreme and inflammatory, but does the fact that he is criticizing America necessarily make him wrong?

"One cannot market oneself as a spokesman for (Insert name of religious organization) and then say one speaks as a private citizen."

And who exactly is doing this? We don't have a spokesman Becky, and I don't think anyone is deliberately marketing themselves as one. If you think that's what Tony, or Brian, or anyone else is, well, then I think you're mistaking the nature of the emerging church for something far more institutional, which it decidedly is not. The old categories just don't apply.

Excellent article Tony. I think you've captured well the tension many of us emergents feel between needing to follow Christ's example by being engaged in transforming public life, while at the same time not wanting to be coopted by any particular party, or succumb to a naive utopianism that believes politics can solve all of our problems. I know I wrestle with this tension constantly.

Becky, do you really think that just because Tony, or myself, or anyone else in the emerging church movement announces on their personal blog or personal Facebook page, that this somehow equals an official "Emergent" endorsement? I don't think it's right to treat the emerging church as if it is the same thing as previous institutionalized forms of Christianity. We are just a collection of friends joined in conversation. Tony is not our leader, nor is Brian, or anyone else you might point to. So if a few of those friends, even the ones with books or speaking gigs, want to speak up and say "You know, I really like this candidate", well, isn't that actually an expression of the kind of "soul liberty" you were talking about? It's not like any of us are claiming that those individuals speak for all of us. It's not like they are giving an official institutional endorsement. They are just expressing their opinion, the same as any of us have the right to.

For instance, who are you leaning towards voting for Becky? Or will you not say. After all you are an author and magazine editor. Perhaps that means you shouldn't be allowed to speak openly and honestly about your political opinions? Or perhaps you should. I think so. As long as you're not speaking officially on behalf of the The Door, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't have as much freedom to express your opinions in conversation as anyone else.

Sorry, but I just don't think a few emergent authors, speaking out as private citizens about who they are voting for, is really a huge cause for concern regarding the separation of church and state, nor even about emerging movement being coopted by partisanship. After all, voting for a particular candidate doesn't automatically make you a supporter of their entire party across the board. For instance, I am supporting Obama, but that doesn't make me a Democrat.

Just my .02...

Anyhow, sorry for nit-picking Mark. I still appreciate your critiques even if I have my issues with a few of them. :)

Anyhow, sorry for nit-picking Mark. I still appreciate your critiques even if I have my issues with a few of them. :)

Anyhow, sorry for nit-picking Mark. I still appreciate your critiques even if I have my issues with a few of them. :)

I also kind of think the term "evangelical" has been spoiled for us by Bush and the extreme Religious Right. In the mind of the average post-Christian person these days "evangelical" is synonymous with these kind of politics. Even if I still personally agreed with evangelical theology I wouldn't want to own the label because of these connotations it has taken on in the broader culture.

I also kind of think the term "evangelical" has been spoiled for us by Bush and the extreme Religious Right. In the mind of the average post-Christian person these days "evangelical" is synonymous with these kind of politics. Even if I still personally agreed with evangelical theology I wouldn't want to own the label because of these connotations it has taken on in the broader culture.

I also kind of think the term "evangelical" has been spoiled for us by Bush and the extreme Religious Right. In the mind of the average post-Christian person these days "evangelical" is synonymous with these kind of politics. Even if I still personally agreed with evangelical theology I wouldn't want to own the label because of these connotations it has taken on in the broader culture.

Not to mention that Soularize really isn't that "grandiose". Last I heard they're probably not going to have any more people there than we had at our Midwest Gathering... and their reason for doing it in the Bahamas was to make it more accessible to internationals - i.e. the whole diversity thing you were just talking about.

Not to mention that Soularize really isn't that "grandiose". Last I heard they're probably not going to have any more people there than we had at our Midwest Gathering... and their reason for doing it in the Bahamas was to make it more accessible to internationals - i.e. the whole diversity thing you were just talking about.

Not to mention that Soularize really isn't that "grandiose". Last I heard they're probably not going to have any more people there than we had at our Midwest Gathering... and their reason for doing it in the Bahamas was to make it more accessible to internationals - i.e. the whole diversity thing you were just talking about.

#1 - If we wake up and find ourselves not Republicans anymore, it's not necessarily because we're just pissed off and swinging to the other side of the pendulum out of spite. Like Mak said, some of us are just realizing that we don't really agree with the Republicans like we were told we had to, and just never had the freedom to admit this before. And for many of us it's been a long and arduous process of weighing and wrestling and thinking through all of our opinions to get where we are now. If we seem more "liberal" than we were before, let's not assume that this long and difficult process was merely reactionary. It might just be that we actually happen to agree with more liberal positions.


#2 - Despite Scot McKnight's opinion, I don't actually encounter very many Democrats in the emerging church. I encounter many social progressives, even "liberals", but that's not quite the same thing. Most emergents I know would probably still say that they don't put their hope in any one particular party, and would probably agree more with those Sojo bumper stickers that read "God is not a Democrat or a Republican". Personally I tend to say that the Democrats aren't liberal enough for me.

#1 - If we wake up and find ourselves not Republicans anymore, it's not necessarily because we're just pissed off and swinging to the other side of the pendulum out of spite. Like Mak said, some of us are just realizing that we don't really agree with the Republicans like we were told we had to, and just never had the freedom to admit this before. And for many of us it's been a long and arduous process of weighing and wrestling and thinking through all of our opinions to get where we are now. If we seem more "liberal" than we were before, let's not assume that this long and difficult process was merely reactionary. It might just be that we actually happen to agree with more liberal positions.

#2 - Despite Scot McKnight's opinion, I don't actually encounter very many Democrats in the emerging church. I encounter many social progressives, even "liberals", but that's not quite the same thing. Most emergents I know would probably still say that they don't put their hope in any one particular party, and would probably agree more with those Sojo bumper stickers that read "God is not a Democrat or a Republican". Personally I tend to say that the Democrats aren't liberal enough for me.

#1 - If we wake up and find ourselves not Republicans anymore, it's not necessarily because we're just pissed off and swinging to the other side of the pendulum out of spite. Like Mak said, some of us are just realizing that we don't really agree with the Republicans like we were told we had to, and just never had the freedom to admit this before. And for many of us it's been a long and arduous process of weighing and wrestling and thinking through all of our opinions to get where we are now. If we seem more "liberal" than we were before, let's not assume that this long and difficult process was merely reactionary. It might just be that we actually happen to agree with more liberal positions.

#2 - Despite Scot McKnight's opinion, I don't actually encounter very many Democrats in the emerging church. I encounter many social progressives, even "liberals", but that's not quite the same thing. Most emergents I know would probably still say that they don't put their hope in any one particular party, and would probably agree more with those Sojo bumper stickers that read "God is not a Democrat or a Republican". Personally I tend to say that the Democrats aren't liberal enough for me.

Hey Mark, thanks for the friendly challenges! I just wanted to respond with a few thoughts on each:

1. This is good advice. However, let's be honest, there is an element of critique in the emerging conversation. There are some things that we are actually trying to emerge "out of" and "away from". It's hard to talk about things that we honestly think need to be improved in the church without using some kind of labels and being somewhat critical.

Also, some of us honestly are not "evangelicals" anymore (except maybe in a highly technical and overly broad sense) and don't want to be labeled as such. This is not being snotty. It's just truth in advertising.

2. There's probably some truth to this. Though again, let's be honest with ourselves, the emerging church is partially a critique. Controversy is therefore inevitable. But you're right, we shouldn't revel in it.

3. I'm with you there... but hey, we did put on a low-cost regional gathering this summer in Chicago and you didn't come. ;)

4. Speaking for the conference we put on this summer, we invited some of the "emergentsia" primarily just to draw the crowd that wouldn't have come otherwise (it's an unfortunate reality, but you do need to have some recognizable names if you want people to come). However, we were deliberate about putting them on first (so they weren't the "main event"), and at the same time, and spent the rest of the time highlighting lesser-known speakers (primarily women and minorities). The big name guys were really just the hook to get people in the door, and we told them this up-front.

And don't forget, we did invite you, and you couldn't make it. Of course, you're probably one of the "emergentsia" now too. ;)

5. Why don't we invite speakers from Guatemala, Liberia, Colombia or Palestine? Because none of us have the cash for it. We could barely afford to fly folks in from Grand Rapids and Minneapolis, much less internationally. But hey, I'm all for taking your suggestions next time around if you can figure out how to pay for it. :)

6. Maybe you're seeing different things than I'm seeing, but I'm really not feelin' you on this one. This whole "reactionary" accusation seems more like the kind of things I'd hear from those critics of the EC who don't really know many people inside of it. Just speaking personally, most emergents I know are highly thoughtful about their beliefs and are not simply choosing their positions just because they're pissed off. But hey, maybe you know different people than I do.

7. That's a very good reminder. Though to be fair, I don't think we've ever dropped more than 7 bucks per person on drinks when we get together to talk about justice. ;)

BTW, what's your eighth loving rebuke? I only see seven.

Hey Mark, thanks for the friendly challenges! I just wanted to respond with a few thoughts on each:


1. This is good advice. However, let's be honest, there is an element of critique in the emerging conversation. There are some things that we are actually trying to emerge "out of" and "away from". It's hard to talk about things that we honestly think need to be improved in the church without using some kind of labels and being somewhat critical.



Also, some of us honestly are not "evangelicals" anymore (except maybe in a highly technical and overly broad sense) and don't want to be labeled as such. This is not being snotty. It's just truth in advertising.



2. There's probably some truth to this. Though again, let's be honest with ourselves, the emerging church is partially a critique. Controversy is therefore inevitable. But you're right, we shouldn't revel in it.



3. I'm with you there... but hey, we did put on a low-cost regional gathering this summer in Chicago and you didn't come. ;)



4. Speaking for the conference we put on this summer, we invited some of the "emergentsia" primarily just to draw the crowd that wouldn't have come otherwise (it's an unfortunate reality, but you do need to have some recognizable names if you want people to come). However, we were deliberate about putting them on first (so they weren't the "main event"), and at the same time, and spent the rest of the time highlighting lesser-known speakers (primarily women and minorities). The big name guys were really just the hook to get people in the door, and we told them this up-front.



And don't forget, we did invite you, and you couldn't make it. Of course, you're probably one of the "emergentsia" now too. ;)



5. Why don't we invite speakers from Guatemala, Liberia, Colombia or Palestine? Because none of us have the cash for it. We could barely afford to fly folks in from Grand Rapids and Minneapolis, much less internationally. But hey, I'm all for taking your suggestions next time around if you can figure out how to pay for it. :)



6. Maybe you're seeing different things than I'm seeing, but I'm really not feelin' you on this one. This whole "reactionary" accusation seems more like the kind of things I'd hear from those critics of the EC who don't really know many people inside of it. Just speaking personally, most emergents I know are highly thoughtful about their beliefs and are not simply choosing their positions just because they're pissed off. But hey, maybe you know different people than I do.



7. That's a very good reminder. Though to be fair, I don't think we've ever dropped more than 7 bucks per person on drinks when we get together to talk about justice. ;)



BTW, what's your eighth loving rebuke? I only see seven.

Hey Mark, thanks for the friendly challenges! I just wanted to respond with a few thoughts on each:

1. This is good advice. However, let's be honest, there is an element of critique in the emerging conversation. There are some things that we are actually trying to emerge "out of" and "away from". It's hard to talk about things that we honestly think need to be improved in the church without using some kind of labels and being somewhat critical.

Also, some of us honestly are not "evangelicals" anymore (except maybe in a highly technical and overly broad sense) and don't want to be labeled as such. This is not being snotty. It's just truth in advertising.

2. There's probably some truth to this. Though again, let's be honest with ourselves, the emerging church is partially a critique. Controversy is therefore inevitable. But you're right, we shouldn't revel in it.

3. I'm with you there... but hey, we did put on a low-cost regional gathering this summer in Chicago and you didn't come. ;)

4. Speaking for the conference we put on this summer, we invited some of the "emergentsia" primarily just to draw the crowd that wouldn't have come otherwise (it's an unfortunate reality, but you do need to have some recognizable names if you want people to come). However, we were deliberate about putting them on first (so they weren't the "main event"), and at the same time, and spent the rest of the time highlighting lesser-known speakers (primarily women and minorities). The big name guys were really just the hook to get people in the door, and we told them this up-front.

And don't forget, we did invite you, and you couldn't make it. Of course, you're probably one of the "emergentsia" now too. ;)

5. Why don't we invite speakers from Guatemala, Liberia, Colombia or Palestine? Because none of us have the cash for it. We could barely afford to fly folks in from Grand Rapids and Minneapolis, much less internationally. But hey, I'm all for taking your suggestions next time around if you can figure out how to pay for it. :)

6. Maybe you're seeing different things than I'm seeing, but I'm really not feelin' you on this one. This whole "reactionary" accusation seems more like the kind of things I'd hear from those critics of the EC who don't really know many people inside of it. Just speaking personally, most emergents I know are highly thoughtful about their beliefs and are not simply choosing their positions just because they're pissed off. But hey, maybe you know different people than I do.

7. That's a very good reminder. Though to be fair, I don't think we've ever dropped more than 7 bucks per person on drinks when we get together to talk about justice. ;)

BTW, what's your eighth loving rebuke? I only see seven.