Dear Emergent Guy,
I had the opportunity to hear you speak the other day on “Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier.” Let me first thank you for being direct, honest and prophetic, which many of us sorely need. In my experience of the conference up to that point, it seemed clear that many of us mainline folk persist in thinking that Emergent is a program we can plug into our churches to hip the place up, make it relevant to those cynical Gen Xers and millenials. Which is a sad caricature of what you all are trying to do, which is to introduce a flat, non-hierarchical, expansive, authentic, rooted yet contextual, practice-based way of following Jesus, in contrast to a Christianity that is often heady, bureaucratic, doctrinal-straitjacketed, modernist, and desperate. Kudos, my brother, and the Lord attend you on your way.
I write to you as someone who has been intrigued by missional church theology for several years and as someone who sees the collapse of Christendom as one of the most important and exciting opportunities to face the church in centuries. And while I had mixed feelings about Brian McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy, I heard him speak last October and called a friend afterward, a seminary classmate who’s been heavily involved in Emergent, and said, “I drank the Kool-Aid.”
Here’s what I liked about what you said:
First, I loved the thought that ecclesiology and theology inform one another and should be done in partnership. That’s huge. Our problem is, too often we’ve got innovative ministry going on in the church, and we’ve got innovative theology going on in the seminaries, and never the twain shall meet. I love the idea of wiki-theology, wiki-ecclesiology. It’s collaborative, it’s dynamic, it’s integrated. Cool.
Second, you helped remind us that while we may understand that there is no ontological difference between clergy and laity, our practice, liturgy, and “costuming” belie that to folks outside the church. Many of us don’t hang out with non-churchy types very often. We believe that a collar symbolizes servitude, set-apartness, the “yoke of Christ”; others see it and other trappings as symbols of authority, power, set-aboveness. We may wish this not to be the case, but it is what it is.
Even the wearing of a microphone during worship is something to consider—“Whose voice ‘deserves’ to be amplified?” you asked. (I like that you all use ambient microphones, and it makes sense since many people take part in the proclamation of the Word. We don’t employ this practice, which is a discussion in itself. But I will be thinking for a long time about the things I exclusively do as “pastor” and what that communicates unintentionally about the priesthood of all believers, or lack thereof.)
Amen and thanks for pointing out statements like “conservatives/evangelicals don’t give a damn about poor people” as the strawmen they are. Good Lord, I don’t agree with conservatives’ solutions to problems of poverty, but the stereotype doesn’t help anyone. While I am sure there are “conservatives” who don’t care about the poor, I am equally sure that there are “liberals” who don’t care about them either, who use the liberal label as a way of absolving themselves of further responsibility, an ideological get-out-of-jail-free card. Thank you for holding that to the light. When you said, “How we go about solving our problems is as important, or more important, than the problems themselves,” I wanted to jump out of my seat.
So. In short, I support you, I thank you, I am eager to hear more, I’m ready to click “Donate.”
However. I think you also blew it.
Consider these some suggestions from a supporter nestled inside the belly of the beast:
When you say that a fellow classmate of yours at P’snooty Theological Seminary (thanks will smama for the phraseology) claimed to be Presbyterian because “it had the best pension program,” and then you repeat it three or four times throughout the day, you create a caricature as insidious and sad as the caricature of evangelicals you decried. I don’t doubt that the person said this, but after 13 years in the PCUSA and almost 10 in some kind of ministry or another in this denomination, I have never, ever heard another person say this. It is so far out of the norm that every time you repeat it you give people a reason not to listen to you, to write you off as a clueless conspiracy theorist. Besides, I am about your age. Do you expect to see Social Security when you retire? I sure don’t, and likewise, any pension I get from the PCUSA will be an utter shock that will probably cause me to keel over on the spot.
Second, as you are someone whose practice of the Way of Jesus alleges to be about reconciliation and hospitality toward the other, I find your insinuation that the only/main reason one would remain in the mainline is for said pension plan to be, in a word, hyprocritical. Don’t my stodgy Presbyterian brothers and sisters deserve reconciliation too? I stay in the PCUSA because they are my family. They love me and I them, imperfectly, woodenly sometimes; they minister to me and I to them, within and in spite of the bureaucracy. Is that so difficult to understand? Or are we only called to be in relationship with certain kinds of others?
[While we’re on the topic of the other, taking a perverse pride in your church’s PowerPoint slides being hard to read (“people need to work for it!”) shows a stunningly arrogant inhospitality for those who are visually impaired, or God forbid, elderly. Or is the welcome to your church conditional? Are your doors only truly open to those who fit the mold? Where, oh where, have I heard that before? Oh yes, in your criticism of the mainline.]
Finally, when you say that “conservative vs. liberal” is a false script that doesn’t make sense anymore, I want to cheer and tear my hair out simultaneously. Cheer, because I am so, so, so, so tired of black and white constructs, and Emergent at its best provides a counter-testimony to this script. Evangelicals worshiping side by side with Jesus hippies. The kingdom of heaven is thus.
And tear my hair out, because I often hear that statement from Emergent folk as a way of suggesting that they are somehow above all that: while we cranky mainliners are arguing about meaningless trivia, you all are doing the authentic work of the kingdom. But guess what? If you’re seeking to pratice Jesus’ radical hospitality, and a gay couple comes to your church wanting to get married, you are in it. If I get up to speak at your church, and some recovering fundamentalist starts knee-jerking with the Paul quotes, you are In It.
Why am I writing all of this? If I didn’t think you were on to something deep and exciting, I wouldn’t bother. But how you talk to your audience, and about your audience, matters. Prophetic is great; you don’t care if we like you. I get that. But a savvy communicator cares how he is heard. I didn’t hear you well. And I really wanted to.
And the conversation continues.
23 Responses to “letter to emergent guy, early draft”
- 1 Pingback on Oct 27th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Leave a Reply
Search
Asides
» The latest on SBJ: at one year, he weighs 30.5 pounds (99%), is 32 inches tall (97%) and is 100% cute.
» I have been remiss in posting SBJ’s latest stats: 23 pounds and 27 inches at six months. Yes, I’ve got the big mama biceps.
» Aaaaaand little she-who-is lost another tooth this week!
Links
Join | List | Prev | Next Random | Prev5 | Next5
Skip Prev | Skip Next
Join | List | Prev | Next |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
love this.
Love it that you are so open, but not rosey eyed.
God knows - many of us need to brush up our communication skills - assuming that we do want to communicate /dialogue.
Bravo sis.
Like I know anything about the actual content–but I think the Powerpoint paragraph is too small an issue to go with the rest of it, and “blew it” should be an I-statement. A strong one–not defanging what you’re saying, but sharpening it, by showing the extent of your disappointment.
I’m in it for the pension plan (just kidding…sort of…is there something wrong with having a pension plan?)
What does he mean that liberals/conservatives don’t care about poverty? I shudder to think of would happen in DC (where my church’s located) if all the religious organizations shut down. In our liberal church alone we work alongside hundreds of people of faith to feed 200 homeless men and women a hot, nutritous meal every morning. And we’re certainly not the only organization in town. Our church is filled with people who are running shelters, writing policy, and working on housing issues. We care deeply about poverty.
Anyways, Reverend Mother, I hope you send it and I hope he reads it. You hit it. In so many ways.
Could be, and I may have sensed that when I put it in brackets. Though the way he crowed about it really rankled.
I think the back story on that is, he was suggesting that the mainline church is pretty irredeemable. And he has some experience in it, having spent many years in the UCC as a staff and ordained person. But one thing I think we do well is help open one another’s eyes to some blind spots. I have been to several General Assemblies and there’s almost always some presentation on disability issues, or racial/ethnic diversity, and it’s often boring, but occasionally it will cause someone (me) to say, “Hmm, I never considered how that practice might be inhospitable to someone who is different.” So that is one thing that denominations do for one another.
But I will think on it. And I will change the blew it line.
I don’t know what I will end up doing with this, but it was important for me to write it.
You’re not sending it?
PP, what he was criticizing was the old liberal (he said “inside the Beltway”) sound bite that conservatives don’t care about the poor, that only liberals care about the poor. I definitely hear that all the time. The old “Jesus was a liberal” thing. His point was that conservatives have solutions that they believe will alleviate poverty. We may disagree with their solutions but we shouldn’t give them horns and pitchforks just because they have their own way of thinking about the issue.
So I was agreeing with him while also admitting that there are probably people on both sides who say they care but really don’t.
Oops! Please disregard my poverty rant. I misread the letter!
Keith: Like, I don’t know whether I’ll send it to him, or send him a link and have him read it here, or send it to my friend involved in the Emergent conversation who would be more responsive to these concerns. Because some of these criticisms are more general.
Or more than one of the above.
Glad to hear it’s going off in some direction, anyway. If it was a personal expression and that was the end of it, my critique would have been inappropriate.
I think you should send him the link. I’d love it if he’d write back.
send him the link but also post it (snail mail)
i’ve belonged to 4 churches as an adult. in 2 of these churches the normative way to address the pastors was simply by their first names. in the other two churches, when one pastor referred to another pastor from the pulpit (or lectern) it was as “reverend first name” or “reverend last name”(as in reverendmother). i found it easier to believe deeply that we are all called to minister to one another in the churches where first names were used for everyone w/ no titles.
i notice lots of pastor and reverend titles used by folks who respond to this blog. but those who are teachers don’t call themselves “teacher first name” and those who are writers don’t refer to themselves as “writer first name” and most who have phds or mds don’t refer to themselves as “doctor first name.”
if God has called a person and set her/him apart for special service, isn’t that enough? does a person need to further set herself/himself apart by the use of such markers as revgalpals, painting pastor, reverendmother etc? it makes those of us who are called to other ministries in God’s plan feel (on a deep level) that our ministries somehow aren’t as important.
i recall years ago when “elder ____” and “elder ____” came to our door (mormon missionaries). my husband thought to himeslf (and said to me later), “i’ve never met one person named “elder” and suddenly i’ve met two on the same day.” of course these young men were just trying to put on the mantle of authority by the use of these titles.
consider whether you need a mantle of authority in your title? when God etched your name into the palm of God’s own hand is it “reverend first name” that God etched?
Thank you anne. That’s helpful.
I am in one of those “Rev. Firstname” congregations. I would just as soon never be “Rev. Firstname,” but as an associate pastor and one who is considerably younger than the pastor, I made a decision when I arrived not to correct people who called me Rev. Firstname. Associates are too often viewed as “not the real pastor,” which is a sort of justice issue in itself, though admittedly a minor one in the big scheme of things. If the paradigm were to shift so as to eliminate both titles, I would be overjoyed, but I don’t see it happening. Senior Pastor has “Rev.” on her checks!
Though, now that I’ve been there almost 4 years and feel like the “junior partner” issues are over, I’m starting to drop the Rev.
That said, I don’t think the comparison between blog pseudonyms and real life titles really works, since I know the people you’re talking about in real life and they do not introduce themselves as pastor or reverend. This just happens to be what we write and blog about most intentionally. Look at the subtitle of this blog. I write about being a pastor in full-time Christian ministry and being a mother. Seemed like a clear enough name to choose. I know knitters and musicians and academics who blog, and their blog names reflect that aspect of their life.
But maybe I’m wrong and this another example of the trappings of authority. “Pondering person” just doesn’t have much zing, but whatever.
I think you should definitely send it — with the “you blew it” part.
He would probably — almost certainly — write back.
Really fine letter, pushing the conversation to a much more honest level and one that rarely happens. In my experience, those of us in the mainline who appreciate the things you describe about emergent guy’s presentation rarely have the gumption to criticize what is missing for fear of revealing how unhip or afraid we are. I appreciate your spirit in this exchange too. I hope you send it and expect if you do, it will create a good conversation. or not.
I’m of two minds about “You blew it.” Here’s why I came down on the side I did.
Well, first, here’s what the reason wasn’t: Politeness. It’s overrated.
Here’s what the reason was: In this case, I think it’s less effective to point a finger than to reveal a pain. If the goal is to change someone else’s behavior, I think “Uh oh, I’m about to blow it again” is a less deterrant thought than “Uh oh, I’m about to work against my own goals AND hurt somebody unnecessarily again.”
If it’s just a venting letter, keep it.
If you want somebody to change, I don’t think it works.
And don’t think I’m not amused that the greatest number of comments on this post were made by somebody who couldn’t care less about the actual issues.
Isn’t reverendmother a character from Dune, anyway? I’ve never read it, but the guys at my house enjoyed hearing it was your handle. And where I use revsongbird as an internet or e-mail handle, it’s because Songbird is already taken. In person I always introduce myself as “Songbird,” never as Reverend Songbird, although some people still call me that, almost in the same way I called my grandmother’s friends Miss Margaret and my mother’s friends “Aunt” Mary.
I would like to ask, in these discussions about perceived hierarchies and authority matters, how much convergence there is between wanting to take the power structure down and women’s appearance in the power structure?
I also have a minor rant about the whole microphone thing. To my mind, it’s not about my voice “deserving” to be amplified but about the inclusion of those who don’t hear well. Working harder won’t turn a hearing-impaired person into a hearing person. And the voices that are harder to hear are higher-pitched voices, those usually of women and children.
I found it. It’s a little strange that you would blog publicly about me, wondering if you should inform me that you’ve blogged about me.
I think your criticisms are well-founded. But I sure don’t remember mentioning the pension plan 3-4 times — if I did, it was in different fora. And, I guess it just displays my utter dismay at that line (which I have heard many times from Presbyterians (USA)).
But, I take your criticism, and I’ll consider it. I realize you may not have liked that line, but we’re all acting/reacting on what we hear, aren’t we? I mean, you liked my push-back on the anti-evangelical sentiments that I heard during the weekend — someone else could have taken me to task that those sentiments are not widely shared. But, since you agree with my critique, you appreciate my comments.
Anyway, gotta go put the kids to bed. More later…
Well, thanks for listening and replying, Tony. As I said, if I hadn’t been so jazzed about what you had to say, I wouldn’t have bothered.
Yeah, I guess it’s odd to discuss how and whether to present it to you when you can just walk in, though I’m always amazed when people somehow find and read this blog, which is, as I like to say, off the dirt road and past the rusted-out gas station—that is, by no means famous or widely linked. I would love to know how you found it, though I have my suspicions (cough*jan*cough).
Regarding the 3-4 times, I don’t know. I heard it in the plenary at least once, then there was a question in the breakout from the woman who wanted to work on “change from within” her denomination, and I can’t remember how you put it, but it was a question about “if you really think church should work differently, I have to wonder why you’re still in it? for the pension?” or some such. The topic came up several times, if not the actual Presby/pension quote.
And if you’ve heard that from “many” Presbies, well you have different information than I do. You’ve made me want to do some research of my own, because it’s so foreign to my experience. I don’t know if that quote is a Princeton meme, or are people just more honest with you…? Have you heard the one about a Scottish accent adding 10k to the salary? I’ve never managed to confirm or deny it.
As for the Board of Pensions, geez, yeah, what a clusterf*ck. I have friends who have had ghastly experiences with them, labyrinthine voice mails and the like. I’ve had pretty good luck, and I always think of it as a taking care of the widows and orphans thing, while granting that it’s not the only way to do that. Or maybe even the best way, but it is what it is.
As for the hour-long coffeepot discussion, amen brother. Those meetings make me want to throw things. Except. Who cleans the coffeepot, and how, and when, are matters of hospitality. It doesn’t make the discussion any less tedious, but there is a dimension of theopraxis to it, isn’t there?
I heard Mike Murray (pastor and consultant from Texas) talk about working with city employees on some kind of mission/team stuff. “What do you do?” they were asked at the beginning of the day. “We fill potholes.” Asked the same question at the end of the day, they said, “We make the streets safe for people to get home to their families.” Intention is important. The tasks are the same. They’re not lofty and pretty. In fact, they’re frequently ugly and mundane. Incarnation, baby.
Finally, what I forgot to say in the letter, thank you for what you said about embracing paradox. I turned to Jan and said, “Thank God, the anti-Borg.” I like some of Borg’s ideas and he really set me free from some baggage I grew up with, but damn, not much in Borg’s theology that’s worth dying for.
Thanks again for your comments on Friday and here, today. God bless.
Thanks. It’s not Jan — it’s called “Google Blog Search.” One’s just got to know what to search for…
I hold the bureaucracy of the PC(USA) in no more contempt than I do of any denom. And, as I tried to state several times, all denoms were begun by earnest persons, trying to be faithful in their time and place.
Now our call is to do the same.
thanks for your thoughtful response to my comments. i popped back over today to see if you’d replied.
i often ponder what the first things are that people use in self-identifying themselves—body (as in sex, age, color, size, health, etc), mind, spirit, opinions, passions, roles, jobs, country of origin, etc.
Anne, at church I’m Carol. Always Carol. I don’t Rev anything. Although I found the parents were uncomfortable with children calling me by my first name, so kids call me “Pastor Carol.”
I picked painting pastor, because those are two things that I love doing–painting and being a pastor. No hierarchy intended. I’m a pastor, some people are dentists, others are fashion designers, others are…I’m sure you get the point….
Although, I have a friend, Cindy Rigby, a wonderful feminist theologian, who advised me at a crucial time, “Never let anyone keep you from your title!” I was thinking of not finishing the ordination process, of doing something else…and that was the kick in the pants that I really needed. So I got the title, and I keep it tucked away, but it’s in a shirt pocket, close to my heart.
As a woman who was told all of her life that women should always be subject to men and keep quiet in the church, it’s pretty important to me.
I’ll always be grateful to Cindy for that.