He's Emergent (but doesn't care)

My online friend A.D. Hunt (www.theophiliacs.com/) wrote a post last month that I keep meaning to highlight. It's called "Why I am Emergent: From a Guy Who Really Doesn't Care."

Hunt really highlights an experience similar to mine:


...on the recommendation of a friend I read Blue Like Jazz. It was a refreshing book; and I still recommend it to people; but by that time I was already there. His jokes about beer, swearing pastor’s and weed were funny and not uncomfortable for me. In time, because everyone else was doing it, I read Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christian” and Rob Bell’s “Velvet Elvis” and had a similar experience...


Already being there isnt a bad thing. It's nice to resonate with something out there - connecting with a group or movement that validates us in some way. Emergent has been that for me, too. But there has to be something after Emergent, doesn't there? Not a conclusion. Not a resolution. But continued emergence!


Hunt writes:


I don’t want to constantly be talking about ‘who we are.’ I helped plant and fail a church, and for years all we could talk about is who we were and who we wanted to be. It got so incredibly boring and infuriating talking about it that it was part of the reason I left. That part of the ‘conversation’ is one that I just don’t care about.


I feel the same way. I don't want to keep talkin about "who we are." Isn't that a tad narcissistic? When do we move to "WHAT WE DO"? Or "HOW WE LIVE"? Or "WHY THIS IS GOOD" and "WHY YOU SHOULD LISTEN" and "WHY JESUS IS STILL CHANGING US"? I've said it before, but soul-patches and faux-hawks and candles and accoustic guitar aren't going to change the world. Love changes the world. And I believe that Jesus Christ is a singularity of incarnate love in human history and human experience.


For all that, however, Hunt also points out why he is Emergent, and why he believes the conversation is vital:



  • There needs to be a safe space for questions, legitimate doubts, non-confrontational conversation, ambiguity and grace. By (I believe) the grace of God, the EC has opened that space up. (I know Mainline, you’re tempted to say you can do that there, with that smug look on your face. No you cant’. Everything gets boiled down to heated and dirty exchanges over homosexuality and “inclusivity”... )
  • Critique of both right and left is needed in the Church, and EC is at its best, able to do this.
  • In my opinion, many attempts by Evangelicals to contribute to the EC are not brave enough to cope with the secular age. It is still strangely similar to just updating the clothing and relevance. For my buck that’s just not good enough. More radical changes are needed...
  • In my opinion, many attempts by the Mainline to contribute to the EC are not confessional enough. Gays aside, until the Cross and Resurrection are returned to the center of even our ‘enlightened’ care for the poor we are kind of not going anywhere. Let me be clear. 1 – Pentecostals and Nazarene’s were ‘ordaining’ women before you were. 2 – Evangelicals and Catholics were helping the poor, um, since the beginning. You did not invent social justice, get over yourself. 3 – You are no longer the only ones doing critical study of the Bible and theology. Time to get off the high-horse and participate in the larger church with humility...


    All that to say, I am Emergent. . . sort of

    Click here to read more.


Ha! I love it. Thanks Anthony (Hunt)!
Peter

3 comments:

A. D. Hunt said...

I'm glad you liked it!

lunchboxsw said...

:)

Brent said...

Nice!

Popular Posts