I really appreciate the grace and balance in your words here. I think that in some ways EV has become the victim of her own ‘brand’ and thus is hung by the caricature of it – a bunch of young hipster Christians talking a lot and doing little. On the ground it’s always looked different for me – Emergent cohorts in Atlanta and Raleigh have been the only local venues wherein I can discuss and enact my passions for knowing God via contemplative prayer, combating human trafficking, starting sustainable agriculture initiatives, and dreaming about the future. I might be able to find five different groups (not all of them with Christians) who would be interested in any one of those endeavors, but all five? It’s a rarity, and a gift I’m still grateful for.

As Steve intimated, I think that some of the deepest soul-searching is going to be the relationship between e/Emergent and publishing. As someone who works in publishing, I’ve learned to see authors are ordinary people who don’t really make much money publishing (contrary to popular belief) and don’t get really famous doing so either (ditto). So I think it can be unfair to think of somebody getting rich and famous from their book deals about following Jesus among the margins – if that actually happened, I could see why it would be a severe affront to a conversation/movement founded on authenticity. But I also understand the shadow-side of this argument – just because writers haven’t gotten rich and/or famous from publishing, doesn’t mean they didn’t *want* to – it doesn’t mean ego *hasn’t* reared its ugly head. And we, like God, want to resist proud movements and shower grace on the humble ones. Amen and amen. But unlike God, I hope we can hold our judgment in abeyance unless we’re actually close personal friends with said authors whom we might otherwise judge were acting from egocentric motives.

Eh – all that to say, I could care less what labels survive or die – I hope that people continue finding ways to explore ideas AND live them out – but I *am* concerned about some of the relational fallout that seems to be arising from declaring things dead and/or insisting they’re alive. // Lord, have mercy. //

Finally, I hope that I haven’t been *too* responsible for the crap you’ve been sent to review! : (

Thanks for this reflection — and for your ongoing friendship (despite the communication breakdown

I just wanted to respond on a few of the things you said:

“Tony and Doug had a conference had a conference to promote and I take that statement as nothing more than that.” — Thank you! I think Andrew took some promotional copy written and attributed to Doug and took that as an official statement from all of Emergent Village. Another lesson learned, I guess. You’ve got it right. Andrew got that one wrong, IMHO.

“Emergent Village’s desire to be a promotional commercial vehicle of a flavor of the emerging church in the United States was a flaw from the start” — There’s been a lot of discussion about this in EV over recent months, and I think there’s a general consensus that not everything that’s come of the publishing partnerships of the past has been good. But I think, for a lot of us (myself included), a lot of good has come from those early decision — books that have challenged and inspired and sparked a lot of great thinking and conversation. So maybe it was “flawed,” but what isn’t?

“While emergent talked of this being a global conversation, they never realized how incredibly American they are.” — Gosh, I hope that’s not true! But I’ll have to take your critique and really try to take it to heart. In my experience, there’s always been a consciousness about how culturally situated we are. Has everyone in Emergent always been sensitive to the broader global conversation? Certainly not. Perhaps there’s been too much of a focus on the U.S. context and not enough concern/interest/listening to the global voices.

“… the discussion of the emerging church has been more about language than it is has about incarnating the gospel for a long time.” — I think this is the crux of the matter for Andrew and why this departure from his association/affiliation with EV sort of makes sense. Andrew said (in the comments on his blog) that he doesn’t see the emerging church movement as being “primarily a theological movement,” and a lot of the energy in Emergent has been toward creating space for theological reflection and asking questions and exploring ideas. So there’s this tension, as you describe, between “language” (the theological reflection) and “incarnating the gospel” (the doing of the stuff, the grassroots missional action).

“Andrew is … a voice that is needed in Emergent Village, even if the North American church doesn’t realize it.” — I absolutely agree, and the irony is (as Mike Clawson put so eloquently in the comments on Andrew’s blog) we’ll still be listening to Andrew and crashing his parties, because many of us do recognize he’s an important voice in the conversation. That’s not really going to change.

“When the conversation becomes more compelling, I’ll start paying close attention again.” — There’s plenty of compelling conversation out there, in a lot of places, all the time. At least, that’s been my experience. I don’t think the compelling conversation has really stopped, but I respect when folks like yourself pull back and settle in and re-invest your energy in other things.

I know you’re doing some great missional work up there in the Great White North, Jordan. I hope you’re encouraged.

Shalom,
Steve K.