emerging mosaic

Feb 11 2006

why I’m post emergent

79 Responses to “why I’m post emergent”

1. # jazztheologianon 12 Feb 2006 at 5:41 pm

   welcome back brother!

   If you are going to come back with posts like this after time off, then take time off more often…this is truth.

2. # fatherneoon 13 Feb 2006 at 11:23 pm

   I resonate. NT Wright is pretty cool, though.

3. # Dan Rothon 15 Feb 2006 at 11:15 am

   I agree with the fact that the conversation is overwhelmingly white, male, and academic… then again, so am I. Dunno what to do about that.

   I think you’ve hit the nail on the head when you say that it needs to be about relationships. Academic frameworks have their place, but it’s relationships and practice that make the difference.

   I see it over and over again - racism is being overcome in our neighborhood not because of the right theory or theology — it’s being overcome because all the teenagers from different ethnic groups are having sex with each other and having babies together. Too bad it couldn’t have been overcome by a church worshiping and serving and growing together instead.

4. # Dan Rothon 15 Feb 2006 at 11:18 am

   p.s. just to be clear, my last post wasn’t meant to imply anything negative about inter-ethnic sexual relationships. In fact, it’s meant to encourage them, but within the context of marriage.

5. # Maurice Broadduson 15 Feb 2006 at 3:12 pm

   i think the term “integrative” describes folks that would be post-emergent.

   i appreciate the “talk” for now, but i’m going to see if the discussions lead to anything. plus, i’ve met quite a few “postmoderns of color” while engaging in the conversation. hopefully we’ll see more of our voices in the conversation.

   and our faith community, which is mostly white, is putting praxis ahead of talk.

6. # Andre Daleyon 15 Feb 2006 at 3:34 pm

   Thanks for th comments so far. A couple of thoughts in response

   fatherneo: I think NT Wright is cool as well I have even quoted him once or twice. But I fear that he has become to the emergent conversation what Calvin is to Calvinism. The dominant lens through which everything in the conversation must be viewed. I think we are better off with a broader theological framework.

   Dan: Thanks for the thought I got what you were saying. You can’t and shouldn’t be expected to do anything about the fact that you are a white male. No more that I should be expected to change the fact that I am a black male. But I can do something about the perspectives I open myself up to and the relationships I pursue. That what those teens you refer to are doing in their own way.

   Hey Maurice: Thanks for hanging with me in the absence. As always your comments are succinct and enlightening. Integrative is a great way to describe it. The language I have been using is that we need a generous orthopraxis to balance and bring wholeness to the generous orthodoxy and that just isn’t there yet. I’m impatient to see signs of it emerge before we complete the theological conversation.

7. # Anthonyon 16 Feb 2006 at 10:21 am

   andre,

   I agree that the conversation partners have been overwhelmingly white and male. I am not surprised by this. Most of American Christianity is white and male. Much of the theology done in black churches has its origins in the theologizings of white males. I actually expect emergent and those in the emerging church to have this white male dominanct perspective (which has to be nuanced…because there is plurality even in that reality). For instance the conversation tht comes out of N.T. Wright has better possibilities, in my opinion, than say a conversation with those white conservative evangelicals who are stuck in epistemological/theological ways of thinking and being that undergird racism and imperialism. Like you said N.T. Wright is cool. I think he is cool as well…but I also recognize that Wright is a more chastened white-male theology than other white male theology I have read (I won’t mention names here).

   In many ways Emergent could not help but be white and male from its inception. That pretty much seems to be the story of the American Experience. Take for instance prominent black church leaders in the media. Most of their theology and political affiliations come out of thought and praxis that is very white and male. Or more importantly imperialistic. But I do see in Emergent the possibility of going in a slightly different direction.

   Which is to say this. I have a profound appreciation with your deciding to be post-emergent. In many ways this could serve to be a reminder to those in the emerging church conversation who assume that the conversation is diverse ethnically that it is far from it. And many in this conversation i have had the opportunity to dialogue with heartily agree that it is…but like my man up top said…he has no idea how, as a white male, to move beyond that. This is why I am still emergent. I am the good samaritan helping my white male brothers out of the theological ditch of the symbolic universe of ecclesial whiteness.

   pax

8. # Andre Daleyon 16 Feb 2006 at 3:58 pm

   Hey Anthony,
   Thanks for the comment I too am not surprised by the whiteness of the emerging conversation either. I am surprised and disappointed that the frame of reference as well as the leading participants continue to be from the dominant culture.

   Maybe it couldn’t be helped that it started that way, but it can it be helped that it stays that way?

   Maybe I’m just not very theologically sophisticated but I’m not particularly engaged by a new theological framework that provides a more nuanced anglocentric worldview that still excludes the broader theological contributions of black theologians and I’m not talking about the TV preachers here. There are non Anglo theologians who have written about this stuff and connected it to praxis. But they are not held in the say kind of esteem that the Anglo theologians are. That is my disappointment and concern it is a kind of theological piety.

   I too hope Emergent will go in another direction but it hasn’t. I’m not convinced the isn’t awareness of how to move beyond the white cultural dominance in the conversation. I think there is not a will to move at this time. I believe there are many reasons this is so, reasons that are valid for some.

   But I am drawn to something beyond that. Beyond the exceptional theological discourse and interesting conversation. I am to drawn to emerge into generous orthopraxis that is for the moment is a post (beyond)emergent.

   peace

9. # Maurice Broadduson 20 Feb 2006 at 1:40 pm

   i really wish i knew how to use/do trackbacks so i could link you to the discussion going on on my message board.

   http://mauricebroaddus.proboards24.com/index.cgi?board=release&action=display&thread=1140030915
   i think anthony summarizes why i haven’t given up on emergent.  the voices won’t continue to diversify if we quit the conversation. 

10. # The Red Herringon 21 Feb 2006 at 8:08 pm

    Beyond emergent lies emerging.  The notion that history is always written in terms of the dominant culture is a powerful tool with which to recover alternative, earlier viewpoints. Andrew Jones, for example, has suggested that far from an experience that started in the USA, emerging churches actually began in Columbia (see http://www.harambee.org/av/andrew_jones_harambee_042805.mp3). One avenue of moving beyond white cultural dominance is to view emerging churches from a global perspevcive, in which voices from many cultures participate. This global reality can also be used to challenge the local dominance. Another avenue is to think about what emergent would look like if no culture dominated, then consider what steps would have to be taken by all involved to move towards that conclusion. Sorry if this is coming out too pedantically - blame it on overexposure to academia…  

11. # The Red Herringon 21 Feb 2006 at 8:12 pm

    Typo alert! I meant "Colombia" in my post.

12. # Andre Daleyon 22 Feb 2006 at 9:45 am

    Herring: I am totally feeling what you say. I think both of your alternatives would enrich the conversation. I’ve been trying to urge, encourage, demand? no can’t demand got no power, the emergent conversation to think globally in a theological way. That small step alone would enrich and change the conversation radically. Maybe that is the problem? Thanks for the Andrew Jones link and  emerging connexion site it is a needed resource I’ve linked to it here.

    Maurice: I’m not sure how track backs work blog to message boards either so sorry I can’t help in that area but I bee privileged to add to the conversation on your boards.

13. # Maurice Broadduson 22 Feb 2006 at 10:21 am

    cool, andre.  thanks.  your comments have been both thought provoking and challenging.
    i still have cautious optimism about the emerging church, and am waiting to see how the audience changes and the spokesmen change over the next couple years.  the conversation has supposedly taken off in south america, asia, and africa, and the hope is that the new leaders of emergent will come from these areas. 

14. # The Red Herringon 22 Feb 2006 at 3:16 pm

    No worries, Andre. You may also want to check out Jamie Smith’s comments on the economic location of the emerging churches at The Ooze. Maurice, Smith confirms exactly what you are saying that Christianity’s centre of gravity is shifting Southward. Although a 2003 article, Smith’s contribution seems to have been completely ignored in the wider conversation about emerging churches (or is this just my ignorance?). It hits the nail where it longs to be hit. In a related discussion, Spencer Burke has commented on the usual the exclusion of Native American voices here . If you want to forward names of people relevant to the emerging churches conversation to me that you think should be included on the emergingconnexion site  I would be happy to oblige. As you can see from the site, I am trying to promote the idea that this is a global conversation, and should be viewed as such.  I have also been thinking about how a global view could expand our perceptions of how we are enmeshed in relations of dominance, and how these can be turned into opportunities for liberating ourselves and others. We can start by imagining ourselves somewhere within number of concentric circles of dominance, in which we objectively and subjectively contribute to maintaining. Our location within these relations of oppression are not always of our choosing; moving beyond them does require our active participation, though. Obviously, if I have been born a male or white, neither of these are options that I had any say over. But I do have control over how I act as a male towards women, for instance. My support for, or silence about, comments other males make that denigrate women contributes or unmakes structures of male dominance. I can attempt to contribute to alternative occupational structures that prevent women from fulfilling their capabilities, or I can remain passive about the glass ceiling. In certain relational settings I can choose not to be dominant. I can also encourage women who hold on to images of their own subordinance to let go of these self-perceptions. And so on. I am talking here in systemic terms; we have to think about how we contribute to maintaining systems of dominance through our actions and perceptions. We need to see these systems as global, as closely linked to economic and political structures, but expressed in local ways. We also need to bear in mind that systems are constructed from the actions of individuals, and so can be deconstructed by the same actors. This insight prevents us from losing hope, and helps us recover a sense of our own power. I apologize if I sound paternalistic, as this is not my intention. Rather, I want to think through this for myself. Let us look at a different example. Consider how Anglo cultural dominance affects other cultures within the US. Then think about male dominance which stretches across, and is kept in place, by all male dominated cultural systems. Reflect on how the US dominates the world in cultural terms (music, videos, dress, sports, speech codes), to say nothing of military terms. So, while one may be dominated within the US, from outside the US one would be viewed as part of those who globally subject others to their way of life. I am not sure how we move beyond this. I suspect that at each level, those who dominate have to "repent" (reverse actions and thoughts) towards those that they dominate. I believe that in part the terms in which the dominant live out their repentance have to be set by the dominated, though, otherwise liberation does not occur. To make it concrete, if I am white, how do I repent of my whiteness? Obviously, I cannot change my skin color. But I can, first, acknowledge my own embeddedness in white dominance and the concrete ways in which this affects me and others. Second, I should express some regret towards those that I have directly affected (e.g. through racial slurs). Third, I must make some form of symbolic restitution towards those whom I have indirectly affected (contributing to an education fund for underprivileged students, for instance). Fourth, I must act and think differently about others over and against whom my social location have advantaged me. But then what? What if African Americans, or Native Americans, or women, continue to view me as part of the problem, despite my attempts to change? Or, what if they continue to see themselves as dominated? Here is where the terms of my repentance need to be set by others, and accepted by them. Otherwise, we are into an eternal destructive cycle, in which our objective repentance is undermined by others’ subjective perceptions of who we are. I guess this is a long-winded way of trying to think through how one could merge a theology of incarnation (identifying with the dominated), repentance (acting to undo the structures of domination), and justification (accepting that what little one can do is not enough, but awaits the acceptance of others over whom one has no control). Ultimately, our sense of powerlessness forces us to acknowledge that this is a project that we cannot achieve by ourselves. We need to be embedded in a community which helps us, particularly a community of those whom we dominate. Of course, our actions of undoing need to address individuals and systems at the same time — not one or the other. I have repeated these thoughts at The Red Herring site.

15. # The Red Herringon 22 Feb 2006 at 5:41 pm

    I am cross-posting this from The Red Herring. 

    I have also been thinking about how a global view could expand our perceptions of how we are enmeshed in relations of dominance, and how these can be turned into opportunities for liberating ourselves and others.

    We can start by imagining ourselves somewhere within a number of concentric circles of dominance, which we objectively and subjectively help maintain. Our location within these relations of oppression are not always of our choosing; moving beyond them does require our active participation, though.

    Obviously, if I have been born a male or white, neither of these are options that I had any say over. But I do have control over how I act as a male towards women, for instance. My support for, or silence about, comments other males make that denigrate women contributes or unmakes structures of male dominance. I can attempt to contribute to alternative occupational structures that prevent women from fulfilling their capabilities, or I can remain passive about the glass ceiling. In certain relational settings I can choose not to be dominant. I can also encourage women who hold on to images of their own subordinance to let go of these self-perceptions. And so on.

    I am talking here in systemic terms; we have to think about how we contribute to maintaining systems of dominance through our actions and perceptions. We need to see these systems as global, as closely linked to economic and political structures, but expressed in local ways.
    We also need to bear in mind that systems are constructed from the actions of individuals, and so can be deconstructed by the same actors. This insight prevents us from losing hope, and helps us recover a sense of our own power. I apologize if I sound paternalistic, as this is not my intention. Rather, I want to think through this for myself.

    Let us look at a cultural example. Consider how Anglo cultural dominance affects other cultures within the US. This is effected by males and females, and their participation in political, economic, religious, and social systems. Then think about male dominance which stretches across perceived boundaries of race, and is kept in place by the underlying cultural systems. Reflect on how the US dominates the world in cultural terms (music, videos, dress, sports, speech codes), to say nothing of military terms.

    Or think about our participation in global economic dominance. All who live in the the US passively benefits from exploitative actions undertaken in "our" name, through the cheap prices obtained by "our" multinationals, for example. Obviously, through the manipulation of the political system, the economic benefits do not extend equally to all, as much of these actions worsen the condition of those at the margins of society (read both Barbara Ehrenreich’s detailed firsthand descriptions of life as a blue collar and as a white collar worker). But, we all do benefit - regardless of ethnic identity, gender, or class - when we buy goods from companies that exploit their own employees, or get goods through "third world" sweatshops, or pollute their communities.

    My point is that while one may be dominated within the US, from outside the US one would be viewed as part of those who globally subject others to their way of life.

    I am not sure how we move beyond this. I suspect that at each level, those who dominate have to "repent" (reverse actions and thoughts) towards those that they dominate.
    I believe that in part the terms in which the dominant live out their repentance have to be set by the dominated, though, otherwise liberation does not occur.

    To make it concrete, if I am white, how do I repent of my whiteness?

    Obviously, I cannot change my skin color.

    But I can, first, acknowledge my own embeddedness in white dominance and the concrete ways in which this affects me and others. Second, I should express some regret towards those that I have directly affected (e.g. through racial slurs). Third, I must make some form of symbolic restitution towards those whom I have indirectly affected (contributing to an education fund for underprivileged students, for instance). Fourth, I must act and think differently about others over and against whom my social location have advantaged me. But then what? What if African Americans, or Native Americans, or women, continue to view me as part of the problem, despite my attempts to change? Or, what if they continue to see themselves as dominated?

    This is where the terms of my repentance need to be set by others, and accepted by them. Otherwise, we are into an eternal destructive cycle, in which our objective repentance is undermined by others’ subjective perceptions of who we are.

    I guess this is a long-winded way of trying to think through how one could merge a theology of incarnation (identifying with the dominated), repentance (acting to undo the structures of domination), and justification (accepting that what little one can do is not enough, but awaits the acceptance of others over whom one has no control). Ultimately, our sense of powerlessness forces us to acknowledge that this is a project that we cannot achieve by ourselves. We need to be embedded in a community which helps us, particularly a community of those whom we dominate.

    Of course, our actions of undoing need to address individuals and systems at the same time — not one or the other. This involves political, economic, social, and religious actions in which we participate with others across the globe. The undoing of apartheid in South Africa can serve as an example of what is required in practice in the undoing of a systemic evil.

16. # rickon 26 Feb 2006 at 8:58 pm

    I think you nailed it in five short points.

    I went to the SD emergent convention two years ago and discovered a huge crowd of white evangelicals acting like evangelicals always have.

    This “conversation” seesm to be some former youth pastors who are burned out on doing church in a gym and have discovered NT Wright, who for the most part is considered evangelical by most real scholars in the world. Or some baptists who discovered the Book of Common Prayer and candles.

    This isn’t intended to be “critical” but merely observational. I am very bored with what I hoped would have been something mmore. This doesn’t mean that there are not some good things happening with some good folks, but for the most part it’s some evangelical who have for the first time have discovered mainline theology and think they are the first to do it.

    Mark my word, you are right and others will eventually catch on as well.

17. # Andre Daleyon 26 Feb 2006 at 10:34 pm

    Hey thanks to all for the recent comments. I’ve been taking them all in and thinking about what you all are saying some thoughts in response:
    Red Herring that’s for the link to Jamie Smith post I actually know Jamie our kids go to the same school and we have had conversations about exactly this. I am particularly intrigued by your comment.
    "I guess this is a long-winded way of trying to think through how one could merge a theology of incarnation (identifying with the dominated), repentance (acting to undo the structures of domination), and justification (accepting that what little one can do is not enough, but awaits the acceptance of others over whom one has no control). "

    I think this is what I am getting at in pursuing reconciliation as a spiritual practice.

    Rick: It is encouraging to know that others have observed the same. I’ve been discovering others who are expressing the same thing. Still I’ve felt a cold win blowing from some corners since I made the post. I suspect there is a real hesitation (maybe resistance) to talking about the race and similar practical social issues among some in the emergent conversation. As you correctly observed some of it comes from "church burn outs" and other unhappy with the status quo. I like you just wish for more and I’m disappointed that we can’t seem to have a conversation about moving to wards that.

18. # Josh Kaufman-Horneron 27 Feb 2006 at 2:17 am

    Here is one option for orthopraxis. We’re seeking to confront structures of dominance on multiple levels. There are no candles involved but other emergent/post-emergent might still be interested.
    Josh - http://www.eucharism.org 

19. # rickon 27 Feb 2006 at 8:32 am

    Thanks Andre,
    I think part of the issue is that most of the "conversation" is mainly from white evangelicals who haven’t been exposed to much scholarship outside of their evangelical circle.
    I think  that there is a hunger and movement within the church to truly "emerge" or better yet, "merge into one".  Folks are hungry for diversity and living out the call. Honestly, I get a feeling that some of what is called "leadership" is very little more than serving the ego needs of a select few. Again, I know there are some folks doing some great things, but for the most part I am embarrassed for some of these folks and embarrassed by how the "groupies" follow.
    These guys are coming from a very narrow background and probably think they are "emerging", but compared to many urban churches and even basic mainline theology they are not.
    I never hear anyone quote Howard Thurman or a female theologian. And the reason is, they haven’t read any. 
    Again, not a criticism just an observation.
    Peace,
    Rick 

20. # Nuno Barretoon 27 Feb 2006 at 1:13 pm

    If that’s what it takes to be post-emergent, then I’m post-emergent too. I think we talk too much and act to little.

21. # Andre Daleyon 27 Feb 2006 at 3:04 pm

    Josh: I too hope others will see the need to confront the dominant structures and powers (event those in the emergent conversation) and join the in spiritual practice of reconciliation. I appreciate your concise and pointed contribution to this conversation.

    Rick: I think you nailed it folks just don’t know. Now, in and of itself I don’t have a problem with that. What I am troubled by and wanting to pursue is the question of why there seems to be such a limited desire to know. Brian McLaren has been talking about looking seriously at the post colonial story for several months now. But that doesn’t seem to have much traction in the broader conversation.

    I’m not looking to the emergent conversation to single handedly accomplish racial reconciliation. But I do think it is fair to expect that it be more open and intentional about adding the theological voice of people of color and women not just having people of color and women who have to speak with the while male voice to be heard.

    Since I don’t want to fall into the same pattern I’m choosing to pursue the post emergent spiritual practice of reconciliation. I hope others will join me.

    Nuno: Thanks for the comment. So as not to fall in to the talk pattern, what do you think can be done to move the conversation beyond talk to a generous orthopraxis?

22. # dhon 27 Feb 2006 at 5:39 pm

    I read all of the posts too but couldn’t the NT Wright thing on the New Perspective of Paul might not just be new but be wrong? Just wondering. With regard to non-whites. Why is it that they need to read NT Wright to have credibility when there are many other scholars that are just as credible. I know many non-white preachers I look up to who don’t adhere to Wright and boy do I value them. I guess I’m wondering what is so special about NT Wright as compared to RC Sproul, Josh MacDowell, John MacArthur or Kay Arthur (to show betond sex as well). Maybe it is the politics that makes some African Americans, even though theologically they agree with the Evangelical, to seperate from the rest of them. We shouldn’t let this be the case if there is agreement with the foundations.

23. # Andre Daleyon 27 Feb 2006 at 9:00 pm

    dh: I’m certainly more resonant with NT Wright than I am with those folks you mentioned. I don’t necessarily believe that Wright is wrong and I’m not advocating a return to foundationalism in our approach to theology. What I hope for is a broader theological framework. It’s not an either/or, black or white proposition for me, it is a both/and situation. I believe the whole conversation is  enriched by opening up the framework.

24. # Rhetton 28 Feb 2006 at 3:50 am

    Hey there Andre.

    I discovered your blog through Alan Hartung’s blog.

    I found this post of your particularly fascinating. So fascinating in fact, that I’ve replied on my own blog. You can find the post at

    http://rhettspect.blogspot.com/2006/02/post-emergent.html

    I don’t believe I am qualified to try to give any answers or arguments to your points, but I’ve done it anyway. I’ll probably regret it ;).

    Anyway, if you find the time, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

25. # Frank Ritchieon 28 Feb 2006 at 4:35 am

    Can I just remind people that the "emergent conversation" isn’t just an American thing? Take a look beyond your own horizons and see the impact your thinking is having around the world. You may think you haven’t achieved much, but you have. The conversations you have been having have made faith exciting for people such as myself again as it has trickled down beyond white american intellectualism. Thank you. Don’t stop doing what you do. What you and others have sparked is a drive in people like myself to show Jesus to the world as he really is. Because of that I have gone beyond my comfort zone and am doing things I never would have done.
    And since I work in radio and get to talk to thousands of people every night, your emergent conversation is having an effect on them as well.
    Once again, thank you.

26. # Frank Ritchieon 28 Feb 2006 at 4:39 am

    By the way, I live in NZ.

27. # Frank Ritchieon 28 Feb 2006 at 5:07 am

    One of my friends here in New Zealand just put a response to your post. We’re not as academic as you guys… but you never know what may say something to you. Check it out http://rhettspect.blogspot.com/2006/02/post-emergent.html

28. # Brad.Boydston.uson 28 Feb 2006 at 8:14 am

    POST EMERGENT The Emerging (church) movement has already run its course — it’s so yesterday. Now we’re in the post emergent era.Well, at least Andre Daley says that he is post emergent. Wow, I’m exhausted just thinking about it. I’m still a pre-modern quasi-mystical Luth-Angli-Wesleyan Pietist in outlook — trying to figure out how to relate to Modernism. Then Leonard Sweet comes along and tells me I need to listen to U2 and get

29. # The Colour & the Shapeon 28 Feb 2006 at 8:25 am

    I came across an interesting post via Alan Hartung’s blog today. Inthis post, Andre Daley (a Jamaican born church-planter who is one of the leaders of Mosaic Life Church) outlines five reasons why he considers himself post-emergent . It was a thought-provoking and challenging read. Andre seems to have at some point

30. # The Pontifications of Maurice Broadduson 28 Feb 2006 at 8:28 am

    band who has the volume set to 11). And I shouldn’t have to constantly sit through a series of Celtic influenced services where I come away thinking that Jesus was actually the Lord of the Riverdance. Maybe it’s just me. Or maybe not. My friendEmergent Mosaic poses some interesting points illustrating his frustrations and concerns and thus why he’s leaning towards becoming post-emergent. I love the phrase “a generous ortho-praxis.” ### Since I don’t know where you are reading this, the best way to guarantee me seeing your comment is to post on my message board. Or simply drop by to say hi.

31. # Jamie Arpin-Riccion 28 Feb 2006 at 10:09 am

    I will need to give this some thought, but I wonder where we would be if, throughout Church history, people would so quickly "leave" for lack of very quick change.
    Peace,
    Jamie 

32. # Tim Samoff // Weblogon 28 Feb 2006 at 10:20 am

    Post-Emergent?…

    Andre Daley has decided that he’s “post-emergent.” He brings up a lot of really good points, like: 4. Talk, talk and more talk. My experience is we love to talk about this stuff but other than retro worship stuff we don&#0…

33. # randy buiston 28 Feb 2006 at 1:47 pm

    pedantically?  i have no idea what that word means even after seminary… 
    I think you are so right that too much has stayed the same, but at the least I see some movement (although slight at times) in the right directions…
     Blessings Friend!

34. # Jim Watterson 28 Feb 2006 at 2:17 pm

    What an excellent summation of the current state of affairs in the emerging church, at least from my vantage point.  Thanks so much for posting your thinking in such a concise and clear manner.

35. # Christyon 28 Feb 2006 at 2:43 pm

    Hi Andre -
    Just in case you wanted to hear from a white girl - I think you are absolutely right, and what you said is precisely why I never got on board with the whole "emergent" thing in the first place.  Like every other manifestation of Christianity, there are some great people doing innovative things, but most of the good stuff is happening beneath the radar.  The public conversation - at least in the U.S. - is very narrow, and I see the same disheartening refusal to listen to other voices that I see in the white evangelical world.  Point that out, and the response is exactly the same as the response of the white evangelical world when you address race, class and gender.  It’s hard stuff and requires real and painful change, so I guess that shouldn’t be suprising.
    Anyway, very wise post, and blessings on what you are doing. 
    And Jamie - there is no point in trying to point out the way to change for people who don’t want to.  You can beat your head against a brick wall and give yourself a headache or you can find a space to live out your calling.  If you’re not a white guy, the white evangelical/emergent world as a whole won’t really listen to you.  I think Andre’s strategy of maintaining individual relationships but not legitimizing the whole "emergent" thing by identifying with it is the way to go.  Just my two cents.

36. # Chrison 28 Feb 2006 at 3:42 pm

    I am new to this ‘conversation’ but I am struck by a few things.
    1) It seems to me that emergent/emerging/whatever is primarily a conversation, not necessarily a movement, though much moving takes place as a result of the conversations.
    2) With the idea of conversation in mind, I wonder how it is one can be post-’conversation’.  One either has to abandon the conversation and possibly start another conversation or one has to join the ongoing conversation and possibly enlarge its focus.  What I see you doing, Andre, is one of those two things.  It matters very little whether you see yourself starting a new conversation or enlarging the current one.
    3) On a broad level, this emerging/emergent stuff can be little more than conversation.  The orthopraxis is something that has to happen more often at the local level.  In some ways, I see the emerging ethos as a take on the ‘Act locally, think globally’ tagline.  You say, "I want to be the church and act like the church not just talk like the church."  Yes, me too.  I’ll make a deal with you.  I’ll do my best to be and act and even talk like the church (whatever we mean by that word?) here in my corner of the world.  I will trust that you are doing the same in your corner of the world.  We, all of us, can then continue to converse and share about the local being and acting.  I think we will find in that conversation moments of camaraderie, challenge, and growth.  I think we will also find that, in the end, we are striving at our local levels for similar things, things that we hope to see happen on the broader global level.
    4) You are absolutely right about the need for various voices in the conversation.  The framework need not be set by any one group.  Credibility does not come by what one has read, but rather by how what one is being and doing contributes to the conversation at the global level.  As well, and in an effort to avoid appearing as if I think our actions only have local siginificance, I should say that the local efforts of being and doing, if done with global awareness, can and often do have further-reaching significance than in just our particular corners.  With all that being said, many times what we read and with whom we talk will affect who we are and how we act.  So, as you’ve implied throughout the comments, reading NT Wright is not necessarily a bad thing (it can be, in fact, a very good thing).  But, I also need to read and hear what Andre Daley (and other people of color who care about these ‘emerging’ issues) has to say.  If I am going to BE better and DO better, or better yet, if I am going to be more like Christ and act more like Christ, I must read and listen to all others who are striving for the same.  The centripetal force of the emerging conversation is that it is a group of people discussing the ways of being, doing, talking and thinking that are different from many other Christian conversations.
    I guess, in the end what I am trying to say is that whether you leave the emergent tag for others or embrace it with vigor you are and should be a part of the conversation.  That’s all it really can be is a conversation.  Please don’t leave it for a bunch of white guys reading NT Wright (and each other!).  If you feel constrained by the framework, work toward broadening that framework (what I believe you have done with this post!).  If you feel as if you are not being heard in the conversation, SHOUT!  If you are still not heard, keep talking to whomever listens; a new conversation will no doubt spring up.  You can call it whatever you want.

37. # Andre Daleyon 28 Feb 2006 at 4:39 pm

    Jamie: I don’t see myself as leaving in fact I  hope to go the Emergent Conference this May. But I do feel drawn to move beyond where the current conversation is. Since I have not experienced any willingness to act on broadening that conversation (Brian Mclaren excluded) I feel I have to follow another emerging path that is beyond the "emergent" one. Maybe that will change at a later date, I don’t know.

    Frank: I think I/we need to be reminded all the time that the emerging church is not American. Just as I tell folks that African Americans were postmodern long before it was cool. As The Red Herring has pointed out that global perspective is important if we are to move forward. I’m not sure the US conversation can really be global in perspective if there is not room for the voices that come from our own back yard. Its kind of like the modern church ("the old conversation") being eager to fund foreign mission and ignore poverty and mission here in the U.S.

    randy: I do see movement locally with people like you and EWM that is  is very hopeful. But I fear that is greatly lacking in the bigger conversation which is what many people are hanging their hats on. Thanks brother, I value your openness and EWM for being my relational partner in the journey and conversation.

    Christy: Happy Birthday! I’m excited to here from an anlgo woman, I do feel that there is resonance there. You highlight one of  my main concerns.
    "Point that out, and the response is exactly the same as the response of the white evangelical world when you address race, class and gender"
    I hoped/expected we were beyond that but sense we are not. 

    Finally I got an email this morning giving me a heads up that I seemed to have hit a nerve with this post. Still I wasn’t ready for all the comments today, gotta do the work of church planting. I will try to respond to each as I get a moment to read and think carefully about the thoughtful comments so please be patient.

38. # rob laneon 28 Feb 2006 at 10:11 pm

    I am so glad that you have addressed this ‘as an issue’, that is, a huge issue. I believe that talk (conversation) is needed, BUT praxis is still very much lacking. It seems much easier to talk about it; much harder to just do it- experiment, test, lab work. Maybe we feel like we ‘will fail’ at what those before us have attempted. Then again, in my book, failure is only what you do not attempt. A diverse praxis (culturally relevant in its context) is desperately thirsty and hungry- and much needed, unfortunatley not invited. A truthfull post that still needs to be talked about-more importantly, reports of what is being done about it.       

39. # Jamie Arpin-Riccion 28 Feb 2006 at 10:19 pm

    Andre,
     I understand what you are saying, but I still think it seems somewhat condescending (I don’t mean to sound harsh, just the best word) to "move beyond" the conversation.  The word "post" in this context certainly draws a line.  I think, perhaps, it is too easy to keep changing names to identify (or not) with different groups that don’t meet our expectations or standard.  I can think of many by the name "Christian" who I would not like to be identified with, but we do not have that luxury.  I know it differs somewhat in this situation, but I think there is something to be said for solidarity grace, and patience.
    Peace,
    Jamie 

40. # cherylon 01 Mar 2006 at 12:41 am

    jamie
    liberation theologians and feminist theologians too, have been having the conversation that the emerging church is having, but for decades. should we be holding back waiting for the emerging church to finish discovering it?  It seems to me that anyone who isn’t white, middle class and male has had to walk the line of solidarity, grace and patience for a very long time… and  there comes a point where the pressure to walk that line becomes oppressive - or at the very least, stagnant.

    the emerging church has always had the opportunity to decide who it wants to listen to. it still has that choice. Andre’s had the courage to name the reality, as he sees it. it’s up to us to respond to the challenge.

41. # Rich Johnsonon 01 Mar 2006 at 7:07 am

    Andre Daly (Emerging Mosaic) posts onwhy he is post-emergent. I, like Jordon, suspect he is offering a pretty accurate assessment. I never really considered myself “emergent” so don’t feel the same level of dismay. Andrew Jones (Tall Skinny Kiwi) posts on prophetic words warning of a flood risk to London

42. # Jamie Arpin-Riccion 01 Mar 2006 at 10:58 am

    Cheryl,
    Please know that I understand what you are saying, but just don’t believe it is completely fair.  I do not think Andre (or anyone) should be held back, but neither do I think that moving forward requires no longer identifying with the those who have not moved so far.  To suggest that the emerging conversation is becoming (or is already) oppressive is simply unfair and untrue.

    It wasn’t just that Andre has named the reality- he has, as has many others (including white males) and they  are right.  What we need is for people to model the change from within.  That is why my plea to him is to stay within the "emergent" identification (whatever that means).  We need him.
    I would also like to point out that there are thousands of white males who are not being "held back" or are not listening.  It seems that, in order to inspire or provoke action to change, we need to paint a bleaker picture than is accurate or fair.  This does the Church a disservice.  The Church has come massive distance in the last century, even more so in the last few decades.  In 2000 years of Church history, Christianity (white males included) have spiked the chart of change.  Let’s not forget that.
    In the end, I am not angry or upset by Andre’s choice to identify as "post-emergent", as I am not sure how important such identifications ultimately are.  However, implicationally, I am concerned by the choice to use such identifications to define oneself (or others) as being of a certain quality (and let’s not ignore that this is happening).
    Peace,
    Jamie 

43. # Janet Piccoloon 01 Mar 2006 at 1:45 pm

    Hi Andre- Yep you touched a nerve, but not mine! I met you at EWM  when Isaac spoke about his ministry. I guess I felt the same way which is why I haven’t bothered to come to more EWM meetings. It was discouraging to me that the only other women in there was your intern and me with my big mouth.  I personally don’t care about identifying myself with anything anymore- emergent or pomo. Do I have permission to follow Jesus and be about my Father’s business? Yep, where it gets sticky is that I want to be in a community that blends believers and non-believers. I guess I’m naive and impatient. Anyway,  thanks for your post and the responses et cetera.   Janet

44. # cherylon 01 Mar 2006 at 3:44 pm

    Jamie -
    i didn’t mean for it to sound that the emerging church was oppressive, rather that being asked to walk the line of patience, solidarity and patience becomes oppressive.
    it was a more general historical comment about the way people in "minority" groups have been required to participate in culture and society in order for ‘progress’ - i’m sorry i wrote it in a way that could be understood differently. I don’t mean to question your integrity, i’m trying to understand Andre’s frustration.

    which i’ve done by talking all over it. i talk way too much. this is not my conversation to be part of. andre, i’m sorry i have been one who hasn’t listened well (probably even to this post).
    peace

45. # Jamie Arpin-Riccion 01 Mar 2006 at 7:12 pm

    Cheryl,
    Thanks for the clarity.  The irony is that I share Andre’s frustration (as much as a white male can -wink).  I live & minister out of an inner city community that the church has literally abandon save a brave, committed and over taxed few.  As frustrated as I am, I also take encouragement from the fact that 15 years ago I was reprimanded for raising questions that are now common in the Evan church, in part due to the the emergent conversation.  We have come a long way.
    Peace,
    Jamie 

46. # Terribly Poeticon 01 Mar 2006 at 7:56 pm

    Five reasons why this guy is Post Emergent. 1. The conversation still looks to much like the old conversation, white, male and academic. The dominant culture still dominates. 2. The values behind the conversation aren’t readily expressed in actions. No generous

47. # The UmBlogon 02 Mar 2006 at 2:26 am

    a Jamaican church planter’s reaction: why I’m post emergent

48. # Andre Daleyon 02 Mar 2006 at 8:15 am

    Cheryl:

    Thanks for the comment. It is your conversation! That is the point I’m trying to make unless the conversation has many voices it will not be rich and the outcome what ever it is will suffer so I hope you continue to comment whether you are or not.

    Jamie: let me say for clarification. I beleive the emergent conversation has awakened some good things but as Randall Jelks points out unless the convesation is able to speak to the larger issues at hand it may become as irrelevant as others have been to the reality of all but the folks of color who are patiently waiting in the conversation. I belief you and others in emergent are genuininely concerned and frustrated as I am but you have to know that to hear "be patient" when I’m not asking for the world but that the theological voice of others from outside the dominant culture be added to the conversation begins to feel very maniputative and self serving. I do not believe that is intentional but that is what it feels like. I hope emergent folks can come to grips with that and receive it not as a slap at emergent but as a expression of one person’s (among others) experience. 

49. # Jamie Arpin-Riccion 02 Mar 2006 at 12:15 pm

    Andre,
    I completely hear you.  However, first, I do not think you have painted an accurate picture of the level of inclusion.  I believe there is a serious increase in this area, if looked at in the big picture.  No, it has not gone far enough, nor perhaps fast enough.  However, a call for patience is not  a call to sit and wait.  Stir things up!  Call us out!  Fight tooth and nail!  But know that you will have far more authority to do so if you do so without choosing to unidentify with the people you most want to inspire.
    Peace,
    Jamie 

50. # Janet Piccoloon 02 Mar 2006 at 4:15 pm

    Jamie, in response to your call to Andre to fight tooth & nail… I am sorry if I sound strong or if I insult- I speak only for myself and not Andre, but  I would say that sometimes it gets old having to be the one "fighting for" and wasting precious resources on stiff necked white people. I guess I feel like Jonah.  Why waste my time in Ninevah? I know that Jonah eventually moves his butt and does what God requests but, jeesh!   That’s how I feel sometimes as a Latina. My whole life I  have been asked to be the "bridge" to build understanding between white folks and hispanics. I am useful because of what you can get out me for yourselves. I am useful because I know English & Spanish.   I am useful because I am an organized women. I am useful because I have empathy skills.  I am useful because I can stay focused and on task. I am useful because I am not afraid to meet people.  I am useful for what you can get from me, but what about what God wants? What if God wants reconciliation in a different way? By de-emphasising the how I am marketable to your campaign for emergent and emphasizing how I love Jesus and am doing my part in an organic-not commited to your labels- way?  Why do I have to join the fraternity to be qualified to preach or teach or be in leadership? Why do I have to drink the emergent kool aid to have the ability to discern?    The answer: I don’t.     Also I am tired of waiting for the powers that be to decide when I get to participate. I am tired of not seeing strong intelligent ethnic or not - women being excluded from the meat & potatoes table. I am tired of being handed hors d’oevres and told that I can be sustained with a taste or a nibble. I am tired of being told to wait.  I am tired of being treating like I’m a bad child for wanting more and asking questions. I’m starting to believe that the church today is a fraud. I’m tired.
    Rant over.  I am sorry if my comment is not quite related to the topic? I felt that it was. I am often wrong. I am often angry.  

51. # Jamie Arpin-Riccion 02 Mar 2006 at 6:58 pm

    Janet,
    I want you to know that I hear your frustration, and as much as I am able to, I share your frustration.  I assumed your "rant" (your word, not mine) was directed at the larger church culture, but your statement in the middle "By de-emphasising the how I am marketable to your campaign for emergent and emphasizing how I love Jesus and am doing my part in an organic-not commited to your labels- way?" made me pause.  Surely your comment cannot fairly be leveled at the emerging church movement at large?  I also struggled with your use of the word "you", as the comment was addressed to me.
    If you do believe your comment is true of the emerging church movement (or me), I would ask that you qualify it, as it is a very serious accusation.  Thanks for your vulnerability.

    Peace,
    Jamie 

52. # Andre Daleyon 03 Mar 2006 at 12:27 am

    Jamie:Janet appropriately expresses my frustrations. I shouldn’t have to keep saying this but I appreciate the emergent conversation for raising up some important questions and I know it serves an important role for many people who are detoxing from the destructive patterns the modern evangelical church. i know it has been a point of transformation for many others enabling them to look at faith from a new perspective. But I have come to believe that I cannot be fully me within that conversation.

    I have tried to stir things as you suggest for some time now. been in a cohort and all. But the dust settles and the conversation drifts back to the default. Maybe I don’t have the patience of some of the people of color in the conversation. Maybe I’m not wise enough to sit back, lower my expectations and wait to eventually be heard, Maybe I have the spiritual gift of irritation. ;)Whatever it s I just don’t have energy any more for challenging those in the conversation to live out something that it supposed to a part of our shared values. That’s not my idea of how I want to inspire. The experiences I have had with the emergent conversation so far have not validated a continued push in that direction.

    Giving credit where credit is due , some members of the local cohort that I  participate in has made a real effort to look a this with me and for this I am grateful. I have heard responses to my concerns from Brian McLaren but  not a whole lot beyond that. I should probably be satisfied with that.

    In the final analysis I just feel it was something that needed to be said and I needed to say it. I’m not looking to start another movement or hijack the current conversation but I need to express my commitment to the emerging church values in a that was fully me by moving beyond my perceptions of the limitations of the current emergent conversation.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful comments

53. # Jamie Arpin-Riccion 03 Mar 2006 at 12:42 am

    Andre,
    Thanks for your honesty.  However, in the end, I feel you are being premature and unfair with some of your evaluation.  Far be it from me to try and talk you out of something you have such conviction for.  Thankfully, emergent or no, we are both part of one Body, in which I am proud to call you brother.
    Peace,
    Jamie 

54. # Urban Onrampson 03 Mar 2006 at 4:21 am

    This one, among others. At some point, Andre, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on A Generous Orthopraxis.

55. # ellieon 03 Mar 2006 at 5:14 am

    jamie,
    i really like what you have to say in the emergent conversation. i think you’re compassionate and committed and thoughtful (and i really hate that there’s going to be a "but" at the end of this)… but what would make it feel like emergent respected the views of Andre, and others who have commented, would be if people said  "i’m so sorry… i didn’t realise it was like that for you… what do you think i can do differently… go well, go with our blessing, i can’t wait to hear what it’s like for you…"
    in a christian community the onus is always, first and foremost, on those in the dominant paradigm to listen for the voice (even if it’s a whisper) of those who aren’t, and to create community around them. In many ways, we do that out of purely selfish reasons - historically, God seems to speak, almost without exception, through the voices of those who society and culture would keep silent. Listen to those voices, and we just might have the chance to hear God.
    to me, it would make all the difference in the world to hear people in emergent say "i’ll do (this) differently, because i’ve been challenged by what Andre has to say)."

56. # Emerging Church Blogson 03 Mar 2006 at 7:28 am

    Andre Daley has decided that he’s ”post-emergent.” He brings up a lot of really good points, like: 4. Talk, talk and more talk. My experience is we love to talk about this stuff but other than retro worship stuff we don’t get around to acting on it. Even so talk about diversity has never come to

57. # Janet Piccoloon 03 Mar 2006 at 10:04 am

    Jamie- I think I am not accusing you personally.  Although you are a representative of the emergent movement, you are considered one of the big guys or at least an apologist for the emergent movement. Whether that is a reality or not, I cannot truly say because my entire experience of you has been through your blog-site and the testimony of certain people that I respect who call you friend.  I like what you have to say. I like that you are so optomistic about this thing and I know I am not being  fair. Life is not fair. I can’t qualify my feelings toward Church in America, or the Emergent movement with fairness. I am not picking on you, per se, but I reacted to your comments to Andre about fighting tooth & nail ( see comment #43). I think Ellie really said it best. AND she did it in a way that wasn’t near as provocative as my reflexive anger.  

58. # graceon 03 Mar 2006 at 10:21 am

    Amen to what Ellie just said.
    I have hoped that emergent would deal with issues of power, influence, and leadership differently than we have seen in modern evangelical circles. 
    Sometimes I wonder.  Conversations like this are often an opportunity for those with dominance to humble themselves and serve.  Does that happen?

59. # Maurice Broadduson 03 Mar 2006 at 10:22 am

    wow.  this thread has certainly taken off since i last checked in on it. the thing is, while it sounds like andre is being premature in some of his criticisms, the fact of the matter is that he is still a part of the conversation.  let’s face it, this post struck a chord and i’m betting that a lot of the emergent "big wigs" (such as can be found in a conversation) have taken note of it.  and have probably noted for themselves.
    i think what you are seeing is the natural evolution of things.  once the intellectuals and philosophers have wrung out their ideas, they are eventually disseminated on down.  right now, the ideas are filtering to the story-tellers (writers, pastors) and the worker bees. 
    there’s the rub.
    the worker bees, once an idea has been embraced, need to go do.  to apply the ideas to where they are.  and despite our claims to postmodernism, we are still quite modern in our "end result" mindset.  we need to see pay off, action, something which translates into measureable results. 
    (and i’ve recently discovered james cone and have been reading on liberation theology.) 

60. # Jamie Arpin-Riccion 03 Mar 2006 at 11:41 am

    Ellie,
    Excellent point.  I wrongly assumed that this would be done with those Andre was in personal relationship with, but this was a false assumption.  Thank you for the reminder.
    Janet,
    Thanks for the very kind words.  I think what is interesting for me is that I am not as much part of the emergent community in the US (though I consider many in it close friends), but more rooted in the Canadian experience.  Perhaps that is why I am more optomistic, as I am seeing a different dynamic than in the US.  I apologize for no recognizing that dynamic earlier.
    Maurice,
    Well said. 
    Peace,
    Jamie 

61. # Andre Daleyon 03 Mar 2006 at 2:10 pm

    Jamie: I think you are on to something with your observation about approaching emergent from a Canadian perspective. The global conversation seems broader than in the US. I see that every time I read Kester Brewin’s blog and in his book. I too feel you are my brother and I have appreciated your thoughts and want very much to keep talking.

    Jim & Rob: Thanks for stopping by and sharing your feedback it is an encouragement.

    Cheryl, Grace, Janet, Ellie: I feel such a deep solidarity with you and your yearnings to find space in the conversation I wish we were having this one face to face. Thank you so much for sharing from your hearts it has blessed me.

62. # Anthonyon 04 Mar 2006 at 9:38 am

    Andre,
    I am beginning a series of posts responding to your prophetic call.
    ant 

63. # Emerging Graceon 05 Mar 2006 at 5:39 pm

    have mixed feelings about leadership. Most don’t openly aspire to leadership, at least not “the strong, dominant leader” model. In fact, a person who identifies himself or herself as a leader too openly is viewed with suspicion. There have beenseveral discussions recently about inclusion in the emerging movement. I found this discussion of the “emergentsia” interesting, especially the expanded conversation in the comments about the power of influence.

64. # Subversive Influenceon 08 Mar 2006 at 12:55 am

    The other dayAndre Daley posted about why he now considers himself “post-emergent,” to which Alan Hartung responded, taking a difference of opinion over the advisability of a “post-emergent” label. I think I’m with Alan on this one.

65. # faithCommons.orgon 08 Mar 2006 at 1:19 pm

    Post-Emergent…

    What exactly is Emergent church? Is it a conversation? That would restrict emergent to those doing the talking, or at least those being heard by the most listeners. Or is it a phenomenon? I think it is the latter and that some Evangelicals (should I s…

66. # Cogitations of an Armchair Theologianon 08 Mar 2006 at 3:36 pm

    why he is post-Emergent. Here are his basic five points: The conversation still looks to much like the old conversation, white, male and academic. The dominant culture still dominates. The values behind the conversation aren’t readily expressed in actions. No generous

67. # A Different Perspectiveon 27 Mar 2006 at 5:34 pm

    Post-Emergent: Why that doesn’t make sense to me…

    Andre Daley - Post-Emergent
    Tim Samoff pointed out the above linked blogger who is “Post-Emergent.”
    I have some thoughts about the whole “post-” thing and applying it to Emergent. For one, I’m a little weary of adding the…

68. # Blogger: Post a Commenton 28 Mar 2006 at 6:50 pm

    [...] Bethany,It’s also worth asking, when looking at the list of Emergent leaders, where the people of color are. Given the values they espouse, we expect to see them. But not so much. I know of one particular pastor — one who you know well, Ms. Keeley — who has said ’sayonara’ to the whole emergent conversation for precisely this reason. He’s now “post-emergent.” Check it here. [...]

69. # Reflections of a Jazz Theologian: Emergent Churchon 29 Mar 2006 at 4:02 pm

    [...] Andre is back at Emergent Mosaic after a little blogging haitus and recently posted Why I’m Post-Emergent.  I couldn’t have said it better.  Check it out and welcome back Andre! [...]

70. # Musings of a Postmodern Negro » Racial Constantinianism and why Andre is post-Emergent (Part I)on 29 Mar 2006 at 7:12 pm

    [...] My friend Andre Daley has blogged about why he is post-Emergent.  Here are his basic five points: [...]

71. # naytown: The Post-Emergent Conversationon 05 Apr 2006 at 10:17 am

    [...] There’s an intriguing blog debate going on this week. It was started with this blog by Andre Deley who declares himself to be post-emergent. His reasons for this are interesting, and I think some of the responses he is getting are very interesting as well. Enjoy. And let me also take this occassion to mention that Brian and I are down to 95 days until the wedding. Woohooey! [...]

72. # Evangelical Resources » Is Postemergent Emerging?on 12 Apr 2006 at 3:38 pm

    [...] Andre Daley recently made a fascinating series of posts, the first being why I’m post-emergent, (thanks to Urban Onramps for pointing this out) in which he expressed the following concerns: [...]

73. # My life as a Christianon 04 May 2006 at 3:01 am

    , which I think refers to how in this ultra modern world, people are trying to go back to the book of Acts. Now there are emerging synagogues? Amusingly, I’ve even found that some people are alreadypost-emergent. Confused? Me too! I was very relieved to find this article: Understanding the Emerging Church which then groups all the differing approaches / opinions / strategies into three categories: – Relevants.

74. # ReligionLink Publicon 09 May 2006 at 6:28 am

    [...] LEADERS TRYING TO DIVERSIFY THE MOVEMENT • Blogger Elizabeth Potter is the co-founder of (f)emergent, a network of female emergents, and is part of the Emergent Coordinating Group. She writes about her emerging community, her work as a local ecumenical activist and church planter and her life as an ordained minister in Grand Haven, Mich. Potter wonders: As one weary of being directed to the “pastors’ wives’ luncheon,” do I and my fellow (f)emergents break off and do our own thing? Or do we hang in there, hoping that enlightenment and intentional inclusion happens before emergent becomes emerged and … the next fresh movement of God’s Spirit in the Church? For now, many are choosing both. Contact elizabethepotter@yahoo.com. • Karen Ward is abbess of the Lutheran-Episcopal Church of the Apostles in Seattle’s hip, urban Fremont neighborhood. She can discuss the emerging movement within the Episcopal denomination. The African-American woman pastor can discuss the quest for diversity among the largely white, male-led emerging movement. Contact seattlerev@yahoo.com. • Andre Daley, an African-American evangelical, calls himself “post-emergent” because he has not seen the racial, gender and cultural inclusiveness that he had hoped for in the emerging movement. Contact andre@mosaiclife.org. • Kelly Bean is pastor of a Portland, Ore., house community, Third Saturday. She is a member of the founding team of the Emerging Women Leaders Initiative and serves on the board of directors of Off The Map. Bean’s history included a painful departure from a beloved conservative congregation that excluded women from leadership. She says: The territory is often uncharted for women leaders. Even so, many gifted women are pioneering in the emerging church. Change still is needed, though, for men and women to minister as equals. Contact Redwarior7@aol.com. [...]

75. # emerging mosaic » Blog Archive » post emergence is no fluke!on 24 May 2006 at 1:03 pm

    [...] In my recent web browsing of things emergent . I came across some posts that suggest that my post emergent perspective is not a fluke. [...]

76. # emerging mosaic » Blog Archive » emerging church dead end?on 20 Nov 2006 at 9:44 am

    [...] That has unfortunately caused some to step out of or beyond “the conversation” having become frustrated with perceived the intransigence of the emergent hierarchy, (yes there is a hierarchy) around these issues. Thanks to Jason for being a bold and prophetic. Maybe his voice will be heard and stimulate where others have not.  Tags: ancient church, church catholic, emergent, emerging church, emerging church, faith, jason clark, postmodernism, post emergence, theologyTechnorati Tags: ancient church, church catholic, emergent, emerging church, emerging church, faith, jason clark, postmodernism, post emergence, theologyPopularity: 1% [?]Bookmark & Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

77. # emerging mosaicon 20 Nov 2006 at 2:43 pm

    having become frustrated with perceived the intransigence of the emergent hierarchy, (yes there is a hierarchy) around these issues. Thanks to Jason for being a bold and prophetic. Maybe his voice will be heard and stimulate where others have not.  Tags: ancient church, church catholic, emergent, emerging church, emerging church, faith, jason clark, postmodernism, post emergence, theology Technorati Tags: ancient church, church catholic, emergent

78. # INtake: The Blog Squadon 24 Jul 2007 at 3:31 pm

    [...] I had been frustrated by the emergent conversation in that I have seen a lot of talk, but not enough doing, especially in terms of racial inclusion. I get what Spencer Burke was saying when even asking the questions and having the conversation is important, but I was feeling Andre Daley when he was exclaiming why he was post-Emergent. So my second highlight/lunch came as an answer to prayer. Tony and I had a long conversation about black folks in the conversation and the next day I am introduced to Alise Barrymore and James King of The Emmaus Community. That conversation will be reverberating with me over the next few months as I continue to digest and learn from it. [...]

79. # Andre Daleyon 02 Aug 2007 at 9:08 am

    Maurice,
    I had hoped to get to the Midwest Emergent conference but ministry got in the way. So I’m glad to hear you comments

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail