death-of-emergent

A "Hopeful Skeptic" is what I'll be regarding Nick's book, if I ever dare read it.

Apparently Emergent died while I was busy with other things for the last few months. I can’t believe it! I guess I’ll do my best to keep up with the post-mortem. Well, it’s post-mortem for a few, and in the opinion of Paul Glavic, those few should “get over it”:

I don’t think Emergent Village – or general emergence, for that matter – is fizzling out. I think it’s becoming more mainstream (not to be confused with mainline), and thus has lost its subversive feel. I imagine this annoys some who had followed the emerging conversation because it was subversive and not because of its theological and ecclesial implications. To that I say, “Get over it.”

Since I graduated from college I’ve been curious as to where all of the young, passionate emergents were. I didn’t see any in Dallas or Tulsa. Sure, it’s the Bible Belt, but for a movement so explosive, it wasn’t making much impact anywhere around me.

Eventually I met Mark Riddle during an interview process. It was nice to talk to a prominent name in the movement a bit (we didn’t really hit on any real emergent topics, but it was an undercurrent of our conversation), but I wasn’t really moved. Mark’s a smart guy, but there’s no meat to the philosophy…it’s empty calories.

It’s also a movement characterized by angst, immaturity, and naivete.

Angst

Movements born of frustration are the norm. But the real and strong ones are accompanied by a solid philosophical underpinning. The American Revolution was supported by the idea of self-government; emancipation by the idea of individual liberty; women’s suffrage and civil rights by the equal worth of all people. If a movement is to be successful, it needs this type of foundation.

Immaturity

What is supporting emergent? As far as I can tell it’s the fear of choices. Julie Clawson expresses some disgust at people “who left because emergent doesn’t 1. hate women like they hate women, 2. hate gays like they hate gays, or 3. believe in a certain type of hatred of God towards Jesus on the cross (or all of the above).” What I think that really means is that those people 1. believed homosexual acts to be sin, 2. believed in different roles for men and women, and 3. held to some idea of substitutionary atonement.

The language Julie uses reminds me of a child. She appears to have no understanding of a favorite liberal word: “nuance.” It’s not her language that’s at fault, but her apparent lack of understanding of people (on the other side) and their theology. If you think something is wrong, like female leadership or same-sex relationships, you must be a misogynist and a homophobe; there’s no other possibiltiy. Children see the world in black-and-white. Adults see the extremes where appropriate, but the world is mostly shades of  gray. These are noticeably absent from much of the commentary from inside the emergent community (they pop up occasionally, but not often…check out Glavic’s post, linked above).

Naivete

Every person I’ve spoken with who is part of an emergent group is a young, disgruntled evangelical or fundamentalist. And they all seem to have stunted thinking. Some know a lot of theology, historical and contemporary. But their own positions lack logical strength and cogency. When confronted with these criticisms, the responses vary from a) “You’re approaching a postmodern problem with a modern mindset. ‘Linear’ logic is overrated,” to b) “You just don’t understand because you’re blinded by ideology.”

These disgruntled exes are so averse to the theology of their parents that they are simply convinced that whatever makes them feel better about life, and reduces conflict (with everyone other than conservatives) must be right. They have yet to understand that no matter what people believe, they’ll still sin, and that sin will hurt others. They think they can, in a few years, outdo 19 centuries of theological inquiry and debate.  And they think that with this new theology, they will change “what it means to be”…something.

There have been some beneficial contributions from the emergent movement and it’s leadership. I remember loving Brian McLaren’s More Ready than You Realize as an undergrad, and pulling some pearls from Tony Jones’s Postmodern Youth Ministry. And it’s been a great adversary to resurgent and conservative evangelicals.

But I will not be mourning it’s passing. Perhaps with the loss of its image, it will be able to pass with dignity, rather than a fitful shudder.

Some Related Links

  • “The Great Disappointment (A post about Emergent)” – The post that apparently started it all, by aspiring author Nick Fiedler. The only advice I can muster is to remind you that “loosing” something means to release it. Nick means “losing.”
  • “So, You’re Disappointed with Emergent…” The response from Tony Jones (who’s really too high up in this movement to be responding to a virtual unknown like Fiedler), complete with the ridiculous notion that there’s “historical perspective” to an 11-year-old theological movement.
  • Jones aggregated the response to Fiedler. Most of what he posts is on the same side he is (against Fiedler), which isn’t a problem to me, because Fiedler’s a  bit unreasonable. But there’s a lot of anger there. Posturing, anger, and an attempt to convince readers that they don’t care what posers think of them, they’re in it on principle. I think they do care, though. Just a hunch.