From Conversation to Movement

I wrote this as a comment earlier, but was encouraged by a close friend to make it a post. 

Everyone keeps throwing their hands in the air over emergent because we evangelicals are taught to look at something, shrink it down to it's essence, find the glaring problems, and then speak out against the problems. Emergent is a conversation that hasn't gelled yet, so it's near impossible to shrink it down, put it under the microscope, and write a paper criticizing it. It includes Catholics, universalists, Calvinists, and all sorts.

It's so hard for people to see that it doesn't have to be something concrete yet, and that's okay for now. 

My take (I could be wrong): it will gel at some point and become a movement. Then it will splinter into different pieces according to more traditional divisions. But the changes it will bring to traditional structures will be crucial, which is why I think the conversation is so important now. 

Why not let it be diverse for now and when the rubber hits the road let us go the ways we feel are most consistent with God's revelation?

Comments

[Jon]

Steve - just stumbled across your blog so I really should read a bit more before I comment but thought I would throw out a thought before it disappears - I wonder if what you describe above is a characteristically "evangelical" reaction or a more particular Southern Baptist reaction. To provide some context for what I'm thinking - I'm a Southern Baptist who attends Fuller Seminary and over the last few years I've been amazed at how "broad" (I realize broad is a bit of a loaded term but I'm using it in the most positive sense here) the evangelical world is and simultaneously confronted with how narrowly we Southern Baptists have traditionally tried to construe it - I realize that there are a lot of things that feed into that particular interpretive lens which I won't go into here but my point is to say that there are large chunks of the evangelical world that are very open to the emergent movement. Case in point is the Anglican/Episcopal Church - a denomination even more steeped in tradition and traditionalism than the good old SBC - which under the direction of Rowan Williams has been very positive and open to seeing the benefits of the emergent movement in the UK (admittedly a bit more mature movement than its US counterpart), by the way if you can get a copy of their official report "The Mission Shaped Church" its definitely worth a read. I'm rambling here but my point is to say that there are traditions within the broader evangelical family that are more open to ambiguity and questions and sitting within periods of liminality (read exile?) like the one the church currently finds itself in and that these are the voices that are currently speaking into the movement. The SBC continues to be shaped in more ways than one by the regionalism that gave birth to the denomination and any time an institution/organization principally defines itself (either implicitly or explicitly - and I think much of what goes on in the SBC at this point is implicit) over and against that which is "foreign" then anything new is by its vary nature viewed as suspect. This is unfortunate both for the SBC and for the emergent movement as I think that there are things to be learned moving in both directions - emergent needs SBC voices in the conversation and Lord knows the SBC needs to have emergent voices speaking into it - body of Christ anyone? Just some thoughts.

[Steve McCoy]

I don't quite know how to respond Jon, or if a response is even needed. Some good thoughts here.

There are all sorts in the SBC just like in evangelicalism. I know it's different, no doubt there. But I guess when I say "evangelical" I'm generally speaking to conservative, inerrantists who think like James Dobson, Al Mohler, etc. I think you find that at many SBC churches, but also many Bible churches, independents, efrees, etc.

Now I'm rambling too, but trying to bounce off your response. Good to have you here Jon.

[Michele]

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that James Dobson is not an inerrantist or very much of a conservative. he is a neo-Evangelical. He does not believe that the creation acount in Genesis is true.