emergenting

re: emerging-vs-emergent-redux

i think its incidental that emergent is both emerging and missional in that venn diagram. its a compliment to emergent - but its not the point.

i would like to see emergent acknowledge its identity rather than try to blur the lines between emergent and emerging.

to do so adds clarity! to acknowledge and know and embrace who you are - is healthy!

you say your a node - right up there. so say it! loud and proud! youre a node. youre an organization. you have a logo. people can put a gif on their blog. you have no reason to hide from that.

its not creating artificial seperation and fragmentation. even bush knows the difference a letter makes can mean attacking the wrong country.

to blur it may fit better your discomfort with brands and identities. with walls and borders - however porous. or maybe there isn't a border and people orbit your node - thats how we think of it. but i dont' see how its integrous to resist embracing your node-i-ness and pretend you have cloud-i-ness.

you knew you were starting a something when you started emergent village. embrace that. you guys are a great organization! and the way you run it so loosely is awesome! your a great leadership model for other to look at and learn from.

but - youre a degree of freedom away from the beginning, and blurring this issue allows those who are just discovering the emerging church (sans logo) to think were based on emergent village (mit logo), rather than the root concept of emergence. and that misdirection and loss of richness of understanding is incalculable in my estimation.

say youre a node. say the emerging church is a cloud. end the confusion.

gangstagrass

what does dobro, banjo, steel guitar, hillbilly yodeling, and fiddle have to do with urban beatz, gangsta rap and prodigious use of the n-word?

well not much if we are knowledgeable of the context and culture of appalachian bluegrass and urban gangstarap respectively. but if - while appreciating both - we can recognize these categories to be only arbitrary - the idea of any "real" or absolute walls between the two fall away. that is, while genres are not true - i think the music of gangstagrass is. (more on my take of arbitrary vs. true)

(download gangstagrass free - you might need a meal or two before it finishes downloading)

while it is important to appreciate the context, culture and story of genres (styles), i think there is a huge difference between (particularly the integrity of) recycling old ideas/formulas just because thats the way its always been done (or worse because it sells); and respecting the heritage and stories of the past, but creating something new with integrity that reflects your story, or a new story, or a new take on an old story.

(as a groove-challenged caucasian i can do those links better with bluegrass than i can with the gangsta / urban side of things).

while listening to gangstagrass - its is difficult to conjure up the circumstances by which this music would've emerged organically. there is a convergence of elements here that don't correlate to anything we know about (earth's) history: black urban america doesn't use acoustic instruments - and the downward spiral of urban decay and drum machine beatz has no meaning where there is little infrastructure.

still - after listening, we might begin to consider that a dobro can sound as badass as a drive by shooting... and we might start to think that rappers have a thing or two to learn from the machine gun timing of an olde timey auctioneer (track 15). and we might even begin to see commonalities in these respective stories: that the hard times in urban america and the hard times in rural appalachia are both born of pain and truth and expressed in sounds that resonate - with each other.

and thats the magic - i think - when an appreciation, mutual respect and a bridging happen.

so anway - i could be talkin about anything - but last night i was talkin with some friends about rethinking worship & arts & integrity & church & tradition & respecting historic christian modalities...

Scot McKnight is my Fricken Hero

i recently came across a PDF of of a talk Scot gave entitled "What is the Emerging Church?" delivered at Westminster Theological Seminary on Oct 26-27, 2006. on page 4 he states:

... constantly misused in the debate today are the terms "emerging" and "emergent". But, "emerging" is not the same as "emergent". Please listen. " emergent refers to Emergent Village - an official clearinghouse for this conversation where there are cohorts across the world who officially associate themselves with EV. Emergent Village, or Emergent, is directed by Tony Jones, a PhD student at Princeton, former youth minister and now an energetic traveler on behalf of EV.

"Emerging", on the other hand, is bigger, broader, and deeper. "emerging is connected to EV the way WTS is connected to Reformed Christianity in the world (in all its brands). So, when you say "emergent" you should be thinking of Emergent Village and Tony Jones; when you say "emerging" you should be thinking of ... well, that is what I have to get to...

he adds: [I refuse to give up on this one. In spite of my protest above, speakers at the conference continued to refer to the "emergent" movement and the "emergent" church.]

i am convinced emergence is the "wax-on wax-off" of the emerging church. understand the former - you'll accidentally get the later.
confuse it with a brand name (even a very good and aptly named brand name) - you're gonna add to the misunderstanding (i'm lookin at you facebook group - delete thyself!).

and today, Scot is still on message trying to add clarity.
thanks bro - you rock!