Emerging Pensees
thoughts on God, faith, life, and the emerging church... btw, "pensees" is French for thoughts. get your mind out of the gutter ;)
about


Name: Mike Clawson
From: Austin, Texas, United States
About me: A follower of the way of Christ, a "postmodern" Christian, an amateur theologian/ philosopher, a husband, a father, a student, a friend...
More..
Contact: mike(dot)clawson
(at)gmail(dot)com


My Facebook Profile:
http://www.facebook.com/ mike.clawson1
Blog Categories
  • - atheism
  • - book reviews
  • - emerging church
  • - Emma
  • - Aidan
  • - fun
  • - personal
  • - politics
  • - social justice
  • - theology
Are Emergents Merely Liberal? I'm looking forward to see your new blog! I checked this blog on a daily basis, even if I'm adding very little CC to my game. Thank you so much for all your work! It's VERY appreciated!
*+++++++++++++++++++++*
Inax
Inax Giá Rẻ
Thiết bị vệ sinh Inax
Inax Lavabo
Nice post. Thanks for sharing it.

Guardian Roofing
Hi nicee reading your blog Liberalism, Evangelicalism and Emergence Really good post Mike. Very helpful to me in sorting out the conservative, liberal, emergent labels. Thanks! the post is interesting. keep it up doing the good content. ab zone flex in pakistan | ab zone flex price in pakistan The Wild Goose as a Sign of Hope very interesting post. keep it up sharing good content with people digital marketplace | digital goods marketplace | digital products marketplace | digital download marketplace

Recent Reads

  • The Uses of Haiti
    by Paul Farmer




  • Putting Away Childish Things
    by Marcus Borg



  • An Unbroken Agony: Haiti, from Revolution to the Kidnapping of a President by Randall Robinson

  • Haiti in Focus: A Guide to the People, Politics, and Culture by Charles Arthur

  • Mind & Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness
    by Philip Clayton

  • Namaah's Curse by Jacqueline Carey



  • Watchmen by Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons




Friend's Sites
  • onehandclapping
    -Julie Clawson

  • fluctuating certainty
    -Karen Gerber

  • Danno's Dangerous Mind
    -Dan Horwedel

  • T(r)oy Marbles
    -Troy Cady

  • Anglobaptist
    -Tripp Hudgins

  • The Thinkulum
    -Andy Culbertson

  • A Little Off Key
    -Amy Toornstra

  • unconventionalwisdom
    -Jen Pare

  • (Not So) Straight from Seminary
    -Brandy Daniels

  • MattTheTroll
    -Matt Cavanaugh

  • Love is the most excellent way
    -Helen Mildenhall

  • Disonanz Cognitif
    -Derek Berner

  • Wild Rumpus
    -Rebecca Murphy

  • This Just In...
    -Inouye Family

  • Discovering Pathways
    -Laurel Dixon

  • Postmodern Questions
    -Thomas Just

  • Clawson Family Blog



Classic Pensees
  • - What is the Emerging Church?
  • - The Converging Church
  • - How to Read the Bible
  • - Did the Exodus Really Happen?
  • - Hell Q&A
  • - Three Approaches to Scripture
  • - Does Forgiveness Require Repentance?
  • - Emma at the Petting Zoo
  • - Biblical Support for Women in Ministry
  • - What is Sin?
  • - What Good is the Bible?
  • - The God of Thin Places
  • - Immigration: Real Solutions
  • - What is Postmodernism?
  • - V for Vendetta
  • - What is Justice?
  • - Roots
  • - If It's Good Enough for Kids...
  • - Aslan Is Not Jesus
  • - Community Transformation
  • - Theology is Like Designing a House
  • - When I Am Weak...
  • - Why I'm Not Patriotic
  • - What is Truth?
  • - What this "postmodern" journey is all about...
  • - The Relational Nature of Sin
  • - Caught In-Between
  • - Three Routes of Escape
  • - What If God Really Existed?
  • - A Tale of Two Churches
  • - Cautions for Emergents, Part 1
  • - Cautions for Emergents, Part 2
  • - We Were There First
  • - Take NAFTA for instance...
  • - Let Them Come
  • - A New Perspective on Jesus
  • - Was Jesus Political?
  • - Contextualization or Isolation: Then and Now
  • - A Tale of Two Movements
  • - Abortion: Talking Past Each Other
  • - Epistemology or Ethics
  • - Why Faith?
  • - A Failure of Compassion
  • - Parables Aren't Always About God
  • - Do You Have a Soul?
  • - Is it all just trivial?
  • - What about the Disturbing Parts of the Bible?
  • - Into the Woods
  • - American Exceptionalism or Imperialism?
  • - Why Believe In God?
  • - Owning "Emergent"

Previous entries
  • Are Emergents Merely Liberal?
  • Liberalism, Evangelicalism and Emergence
  • The Wild Goose as a Sign of Hope
  • Blog Hiatus... Obviously
  • Review of Marcus Borg's "Putting Away Childish Thi...
  • Favorite Austin Eats
  • Busy Summer
  • Escobar on New Men and Social Change
  • Walker Cleaveland's "Brief History of Presbymergent"
  • More Conferences


Friend of Emergent Village

Join the Emergent/C Mailing List
Email:












The Gross National Debt



Locations of visitors to this page

Recommended

Julie's Book!
Events


Big Tent Christianity
Raleigh, NC
Sept 8-9


Emergent Village Theological Conversation
Atlanta, GA
Nov 1-3

Sites
  • - Emerging Women
  • - Emerging Parents
  • - Emergent Village
  • - The Ooze
  • - Next-Wave Ezine
  • - NT Wright Page
  • - Disassemblance
  • - Dylan's Lectionary Blog
  • - Mustard Seed Associates
  • - Everything Must Change
  • - Via Christus Comm. Church
  • - up/rooted
  • - Wedding Pastors USA
  • - Shieldmaiden Designs
  • - Fifty Percenters

Blogs
  • God's Politics
  • Jesus Creed
  • Friendly Atheist
  • Reclaiming the Mission
  • Emerging CGGC
  • Out of Ur
  • Theolog
  • tallskinnykiwi
  • John Armstrong
  • Paradoxology
  • Bob.Blog
  • Kingdom Grace
  • Frenetic Peace
  • Decompressing Faith
  • iamjoshbrown
  • the carnival in my head
  • Tony Jones
  • Empire Remixed
  • brianmclaren.net
  • Revolution in Jesusland
  • With/out God

Political Stuff
  • - Sojourners
  • - New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good
  • - Progressive Christian Alliance
  • - Green Party
  • - Global Exchange
  • - The One Campaign to Make Poverty History

Books
  • A New Kind of Christianity by Brian McLaren


  • The Secret Message of Jesus by Brian McLaren



  • Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell



  • The Challenge of Jesus by N.T. Wright



  • The Gospel in a Pluralist Society by Lesslie Newbigin



  • A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren



  • Church Re-Imagined by Doug Pagitt



  • Traveling Mercies by Anne Lamott



  • Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis



  • Fear & Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard



  • Messy Spirituality by Mike Yaconelli



  • God's Politics by Jim Wallis



Articles
  • - What is the Emerging Church?
  • - Recommended Reading for the Emerging Church
  • - Emerging Church Resources
  • - Obama on Faith & Politics
  • - Mars Hill's Directions
  • - Profoundly Disturbed on the 4th of July
  • - 10 Key Values of the Green Party
  • - NT Wright on Penal Substitution
  • - Walter Wink on The Myth of Redemptive Violence
  • - Mark Twain's War Prayer
  • - Rebuttals to Richard Dawkins
  • - Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

Music

  • U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb



  • Green Day - American Idiot



  • David Wilcox - Into the Mystery



  • Caedmon's Call - Share the Well



  • Passion: Hymns Ancient and Modern



  • Jake Armerding




  • Tourniquet - Vanishing Lessons


Viewing

  • The Lord of the Rings



  • Star Wars Trilogy



  • Fight Club



  • Garden State



  • Saved!



  • Joan of Arcadia




  • Magnolia



  • Donnie Darko



  • High Fidelity



  • The Mission



  • Futurama



  • The Simpsons


Emerging Churches
  • Mosaic - Los Angeles, CA

  • Vintage Faith Church - Santa Cruz, CA

  • Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler - Chicago, IL

  • Wicker Park Grace - Chicago, IL

  • The Emmaus Community - Chicago Heights, IL

  • Fusion Church - Lake Zurich, IL

  • Life on the Vine - Long Grove, IL

  • Mars Hill - Grandville, MI

  • Waters Edge - Hudsonville, MI

  • Threads Church - Kalamazoo, MI

  • Solomon's Porch - Minneapolis, MN

  • Oasis Madrid - Madrid, Spain

  • Mosaic - Austin, TX

  • Vineyard Community Church - Shoreline, WA

Friday, August 05, 2011
Are Emergents Merely Liberal?
A mild debate has been stirred up in the blogosphere over a guest post by Brandon Morgan over at theologian Roger Olson's blog in which Brandon suggests that emergents are not critical enough of liberal mainline theology, and thus are in danger of not offering any meaningful alternative to liberal Christianity. Olson himself followed up Brandon's post by seconding his concerns and encouraging everyone to read it. A few days later, Tony Jones responded by challenging both Morgan and Olson to support their analysis with more than anecdotal evidence. Olson was apparently hoping for a more positive reception of Morgan's critiques and thus put up another post asking whether emergents are able to take constructive criticism. While I don't think I can give a response that is any more positive than Tony's (seeing as how I generally just disagree with Morgan's assessment), I did feel compelled to respond. The following is comment which I posted at Olson's blog and have chosen to also re-post here. If you wish to react to my comments, I would recommend that you do it over at Olson's blog rather than here so that it will be part of the wider discussion (since my blog doesn't get much traffic anymore.)

------

As a deeply involved participant in the emerging conversation, I will venture a response to Brandon’s initial post. My apologies for not doing so sooner, but it was only recently brought to my attention.

The part of Brandon’s post that I resonated with most was when he asked “Have Emergent folks succeeded in transcending the evangelical-progressive division in American Protestantism. Have they formulated a holistic theological approach able to include the benefits of both sides and jettison the negative aspects?” I like especially how he framed this in terms of keeping the good and rejecting the bad from both traditions. That, I feel is what the emerging church is all about, valuing all traditions, but not blindly or uncritically – what Brian McLaren described as “generous orthodoxy.”

However, I was disappointed that Brandon went on to frame the rest of his post around what the emerging church was (or was not) rejecting about the liberal/mainline traditions. He made it seem like unless we could show ourselves to be thoroughly different than liberal mainliners in all of the ways that he himself thought we should be different, we therefore simply were liberals who ought to just own it and join those denominations. But why such a heavy emphasis on difference? What happened to “including the benefits of both sides”? If emergents happen to be embracing some of the same themes and theologies and emphases as more traditional mainliners, what is so horrible about that? Aren’t there many good and important aspects of those traditions that need to be reclaimed by post-conservative emergents who were lacking those insights in their evangelical upbringings? Must we only ever be about critique?

But the fact that some of us are embracing some aspects of the mainline tradition doesn’t mean we have uncritically swallowed all of it. As someone who was raised in a very conservative evangelical background, but has also recently gotten a masters degree at a liberal mainline seminary, I have close personal experiences with both traditions – and I can confidently say that being an emergent was not just the same as being a liberal mainliner. In some ways I was still much more “conservative” than many of my mainline classmates. In other ways, I was much more “progressive”. For instance, both my “emergent” passion for mission and my openness to innovation and experimentation in ministry methods and liturgical practices, was rather different from much of what I experienced of the mainline approach. However, I get the sense from Brandon’s post that those weren’t exactly the specific differences that he thinks I ought to have had with my liberal mainline friends – which may simply reflect Brandon’s own personal opinion about the relative merits of the liberal theological tradition, an opinion which I and other emergents may or may not share. Ultimately, however, I think what set me apart as an emergent was not where I happened to fall on any particular issue of theology or practice, but simply on my openness to questioning and re-imagining all of it – theology, liturgy, ministry, whatever. Hence the inherently conversational nature of emergence Christianity – it’s not about where you land, it’s about whether you’re willing to place everything on the table and engage in the dialogue in the first place.

(BTW, I also want to note that I’m uncomfortable with how unprecise we’re being in throwing around this term “liberal”. As Roger Olson himself has recently noted on this very blog, “liberal theology” is a very specific thing historically speaking, and is really very rare among Christians these days, even in the mainline denominations. It properly only refers to the classic liberalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Most mainliners, chastened by the neo-orthodox critiques of the mid-twentieth century, have tempered or refined their theologies quite a bit since then. So if you want to accuse emergents of [merely] being “liberal,” I think you need to be a little more specific about which aspects of mainline theology you’re referring to with that term. It’s really a very diverse and nuanced tradition.)

Another factor that I don’t think Brandon recognized in his post was the reality that the emerging church is not exclusively a post-evangelical movement. Many emergents already are and have long been mainliners – people like Phyllis Tickle, Nadia Bolz-Webber, Carol Howard Merritt, Bruce Reyes-Chow, Adam Walker Cleaveland, Troy Bronsink, Karen Sloan, Ryan Kemp-Pappan, Nanette Sawyer, Karen Ward, Jonny Baker, and many others. That’s why it seems a little odd when Brandon asks why emergents don’t just join the mainline denominations – some have already been there there all along.

That being the case, I think it should be recognized that each of us are more qualified to critique what we know first-hand. Thus it is natural for post-evangelical emergents to be more critical of their evangelical background while withholding judgment on the liberal mainline which we are much less familiar with. I agree with Brandon that there needs to be an emergent critique of that tradition as well, but shouldn’t we leave that to those emergents who are themselves mainliners? It’s the whole “No one’s allowed to make fun of my mama except me!” thing. Just seems sort of rude and tacky to go tearing into someone else’s tradition when you aren’t a part of it and don’t really know that much about it firsthand anyway.

Anyhow, I guess you could say my response to Brandon’s post boils down to this: implying that emergents are [merely] liberal really misses a lot of the complexity and nuance of both the emerging movement and of mainline theology itself. Thus, as Tony Jones noted, Brandon’s claim needs to be based on more detailed examination and not simply anecdotal impressions, as well as more thorough definition of what exactly it means to be “liberal”. I think if one engaged in that examination, it would become clear that most emergents like some aspects of “liberal” theology, but have not embraced it in every aspect. In other words, we’ve been doing exactly what Brandon said we should, “including the benefits” and “jettisoning the negative” (though some of us may disagree with Brandon on what, specifically are the benefits and what are the negatives).

P.S. I do also want to highlight one other point Tony Jones brought out – Brandon’s odd use of “they” instead of “we” when talking about the emergent movement. If, as both he and Roger Olson seem at pains to emphasize, Brandon really is an insider to the emergent movement, why this distancing language? It immediately makes it feel like yet another outside attack rather than friendly constructive criticism from the inside. That was unfortunate, and probably contributed to the number of “defensive” responses you may have gotten.

Labels: emerging church

 
posted by Mike Clawson at 8:04 PM | Permalink | 3 comments
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Liberalism, Evangelicalism and Emergence
A friend of mine recently posted this article by Truett Seminary prof Roger Olson to my Facebook wall, asking for an emergent's take on it. Since I'm blogging again (for the moment), I thought I'd cross post my reply to him here as well.

Though you should read the whole article, here is the section of it that I especially had in mind in my response:

I think the liberal theological ethos is best expressed in a nutshell by liberal theologian Delwin Brown (a convert to liberal theology from evangelicalism) in his dialogue with Clark Pinnock in Theological Crossfire: An Evangelical/Liberal Dialogue. There Brown asks THE CRUCIAL QUESTION of modern theology: “When the consensus of the best contemporary minds differs markedly from the most precious teachings of the past, which do we follow? To which do we give primary allegiance, the past or the present?” Brown rightly gives the evangelical answer: “We ought to listen to the hypotheses of the present and take from them what we can, but ultimately the truth has been given to us in the past, particularly in Jesus, and the acceptance of that is our ultimate obligation. Everything the contemporary world might say must be judged by its conformity to biblical revelation.” (Of course evangelicals differ among ourselves about WHAT biblical revelation says, but all evangelicals agree that the revelation of God given in Jesus and the biblical message takes precedence over the best of modern thought WHEN THERE IS AN UNAVOIDABLE CONFLICT between them.)

Then, Brown speaks for all liberal theologians when he gives the liberal answer to the crucial question: “Liberalism at its best is more likely to say, ‘We certainly ought to honor the richness of the Christian past and appreciate the vast contribution it makes to our lives, but finally we must live by our best modern conclusions. The modern consensus should not be absolutized; it, too, is always subect to criticism and further revision. But our commitment, however tentative and self-critically maintained, must be to the careful judgments of the present age, even if they differ radically from the dictates of the past.” (p. 23)
Here's what I had to say:

Olson (whom I've met in person on occasion) is absolutely correct in his description of the liberal tradition as being significantly more specific and defined than the sloppy way we tend to throw around terms like "liberal" and "conservative." What I've discovered attending a mainline "liberal" seminary is that what is considered "liberal" within evangelical circles is still rather "conservative" within the mainline world. For instance, in the mainline world, neo-orthodox theologians like Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr, Jurgen Moltmann, etc. are considered to be on the conservative edge of things, whereas evangelicals wouldn't even consider reading these folks until just recently because they were thought to be too "liberal".

As for the "emergent" take on it, I can really only speak for myself, but I think that a lot of us would say this whole argument about "past" vs. "present" in terms of truth and sources of authority sort of misses the point for us. What ever happened to "All truth is God's truth?" If it's true, then who cares whether it comes from the past or the present. And if God reveals God's self in more than just scripture, if truth can be found in the world and in common and ordinary human experiences (i.e. what ever happened to "common grace" and "natural theology"?) , then why should we act as if there is some kind of competition between this truth and the truth of scriptural or incarnational revelation?

Furthermore, I think that Olson's dichotomy between "biblical revelation" and the "hypotheses of the present" frames the issue in entirely the wrong way. It makes it seem as if what we have to choose between is "God's truth" and "human speculation" (and framing it this way, who could possibly want to side against God's truth?) But that places too much faith in human ability to rightly interpret scripture. The real choice we face is between past (humanly created) hypotheses about how to interpret scripture (and other sources of revelation), and more recent (humanly created) hypotheses about how to interpret scripture (and other sources of revelation). It's all just human speculation. None of us, evangelical or liberal or emergent, has any right to claim unfiltered access to divine revelation by whatever means. The difference I see, then, between evangelicals and liberals is that evangelicals are those who are less willing to alter their previously held hypotheses and interpretations of the Bible in light of other, newer sources of truth, whereas liberals are those who are willing to do so.

Where the emergent Christian differs with both of these, IMHO (and just in my personal opinion), is in our relative comfort with ambiguity. Both conservative evangelicals and classically liberal Christians are involved in the pursuit of some sort of unshakable foundation for religious belief - whether in a supposedly inerrant biblical text, or a supposedly universal religious experience. The postmodern, emergent Christian, however, has given up on this Quixotic quest for certainty. We know that all of our attempts to get at deeper, religious truths - whether based on scripture or on modern learning - are limited and perspectival and error prone, AND WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT! We don't see that as such a bad thing. It's simply a part of the human condition, and it is one of the prerequisites of genuine faith, which is based not on certain knowledge but on hope and trust despite our lack of certainty. It is also a prerequisite of ethical action in the world, which requires not to impose our own absolutist visions of "the way things ought to be" on everyone else apart from a more specific and tangible concern for real human people, but rather to listen and learn from the Other in order to truly understand what it would mean to love them in the way they actually desire to be loved.

Labels: emerging church

 
posted by Mike Clawson at 11:37 PM | Permalink | 2 comments
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The Wild Goose as a Sign of Hope







I know this is long overdue, given that the Wild Goose Festival ended nearly three weeks ago. However, since I was busy traveling home from it for half that time (took a detour through Michigan on our way back to Texas), and having been in a French class since getting back, I haven't really had time to sit down and process all this until now. I also know that it's weird to be posting something on this blog now when I haven't really posted here in nearly a year. However, since I don't really have any other place to publish this right now, and I do actually hope to revamp this blog a little bit and maybe even start using it again occasionally, here it is anyway.

For the small handful of my readers who may still not be aware of this event, the Wild Goose Festival was four-day festival held at Shakori Hills, North Carolina (on a rural property just 20 minutes south of Chapel Hill), that focused on justice, spirituality, music, and art. It was organized and sponsored by a broad circle of progressive Christian leaders and organizations, and attended by around 1200 evangelical, post-evangelical, emergent, mainline, and none-of-the-above Christians (and a few others from outside the Christian category as well). Basically it consisted of all of us camping together for a long weekend, surrounded by a non-stop program of speakers, panel discussions, music performances, worship opportunities, and innumerable informal conversations. All while battling the heat, the ticks, the sleep deprivation, the rambunctious children, and the water spigots that were waaayyy too far away from the actual camping areas.

By this point, dozens of others have already put up their own reflections, too many for me to link to here, though you can find a good collection of links here if you're interested in reading more. (You can also see some amazing photos of the event by Courtney Perry here.) From what I could tell, both from the vibe at the festival and reading through the recaps afterwards, it seemed that there were a lot of different festivals going on for the different folks there. That is, I think the Wild Goose was experienced differently depending on why one came to it in the first place, what one hope to get out of it, and especially what circles one was a part of beforehand. For me, the Wild Goose Festival was primarily an "emergent" event, since those were the people I knew and connected with there. For others, however, I think the Wild Goose was more of a neo-monastic event, or a Sojourners/social activist event, or an event for the more innovative types among the mainline traditions, or maybe, for some, just a Christian folk music festival with a few talks thrown in.

For me, however, the best part of the event was simply getting to reconnect with friends, both new and old. It was great how many of my Facebook-only friends became real-life acquaintances at the Wild Goose. It got to the point where whenever I met someone new I had to ask whether we were already "friends" online or not. Of course, since my wife and I were juggling the care of our two young children the whole time, we had very low-expectations about how many of the sessions we would get to actually attend, and our experience did not fail to live up to our expectation. In all, I only managed to actually sit in on a small handful of the talks offered, and eavesdropped on a couple more while keeping one eye attuned to my kids playing on the other side of the field. That was okay though. I'd wholeheartedly echo the sentiment of Michael Toy who put it to me this way, "I'm just here to hang out with my friends. If I happen to hear some of the content too, that's just a bonus."

What I did get to experience of the event, however, was fantastic. I loved hearing from and having the privilege of briefly sitting down with Civil Rights leader Vincent Harding (former speech writer for Martin Luther King, Jr.), as well learning from current Civil Rights activist Willie Barber, head of the North Carolina NAACP. Richard Twiss' session on being both a Native American and a Christian was excellent, and Bart Campolo's story about how and why he stopped being a semi-important evangelical leader had me nodding at the similarities between his own experience and mine (though I was never "semi-important"). It was also extremely refreshing to see a church planting panel consisting of three middle-aged women instead of a bunch of young, goateed, hipster guys. Overall, I loved the diversity at the event. Besides all the white male speakers (whom I know and love but have heard enough times before to know exactly what they were going to say), there were also plenty of options to hear from those who didn't exactly fit into the white, male or straight categories - and those were generally the sessions I sought out. Along those lines, I was also thrilled to get to hear Jennifer Knapp, one of my favorite Christian artists back in the day, perform again on stage. I loved how she just stopped in the middle of her set and so non-chalantly asked "So y'all know I'm a lesbian, right? Hope that doesn't make any of you uncomfortable." Followed by an invitation to the whole crowd to help he make an "It gets better" video.

Speaking of that, one of the things I loved most about the Wild Goose was how openly issues of sexuality and other controversial topics (universalism, for instance) were able to be talked about. Childcare duties prevented me from hearing most of the formal talks on these subjects, but throughout the festival there was no sense (that I could perceive) of avoiding such topics, or of being afraid to express a particular position on them (whether conservative or liberal). I had been a little apprehensive about this beforehand, since some of the sponsors and organizers were still mostly in the evangelical world, and I wasn't sure if this might prompt them to avoid or ignore such litmus-test type issues. Fortunately this was not the case. That alone tells me that a tipping point has been reached among progressive evangelicals - most of us are way past the point of caring whether the conservatives are going to condemn us for our opinions and are just going to say what we actually think regardless. As Bart Campolo put it, it's amazing how much freer you are to admit both to yourself and to everyone else what you actually think once your career and income no longer depend on believing a certain thing - and, with some exceptions, I think most Wild Goose attendees were already in that place of no longer needing the approval or money of the conservative evangelical world.

Indeed, I think the Wild Goose Festival as a whole represents a kind of tipping point for the progressive/emergent Christian movement that has been building over the past several decades. While it was in vogue a few years back to proclaim the "death" of the emerging church, what I think the Wild Goose Festival demonstrates is that the emerging movement was not dead but simply growing in less visible ways as the mainstream evangelical marketing machine moved on to the next fad. That in itself was not a bad thing, as it left those of us committed to genuine emergence free to go on building something more lasting and substantial sans the hype. The Wild Goose Festival was the coming together, finally, after more than half a decade without any sort of common, nationwide gathering, of all these many bubbling, swirling, converging and emerging efforts that have been taking shape across the whole spectrum of 21st century Christianity - the emergents, the activists, the radicals and new monastics, the burned-out on church/religion/Christianity but still in love with Jesus, the ones full of questions who simply want to know they're not the only crazy ones out there, as well as those who couldn't care less about the labels and the controversies but resonate with an approach to faith that is big enough for love and mystery and joy and diversity and passion and compassion and creativity. There is a new kind of Christianity growing in our midst in this country and around the world, and the Wild Goose Festival was not the creator of it, nor the culmination of it, nor, but merely a sign of its existence and vitality. The people who attended were but a small fraction of those around the country - pastors, professors, lay persons sitting in the pews of all kinds of churches, or those who have simply walked away from institutional Christianity altogether - who resonate with this approach to faith. Each person there represented dozens, if not hundreds more who would have liked to come but couldn't or didn't for various reasons. Next year I would be surprised if the Festival didn't double or even triple in attendees, and after that, who knows. I could be wrong, but in the years and even decades to come, its possible that we will see the Wild Goose Festival grow into one of the most significant gatherings in American Christianity. And that gives me hope - hope for the future of our faith and for the mission of God in the world.


BTW, here are links to all the other Wild Goose SynchroBloggers - this doesn't exhaust the totality of people reflecting on the Goose, but it's a healthy start.

  • Anna Snoeyenbos – Wild Goose Festival – A Spirit of Life Revival
  • Lee Smith - Goose Bumps: Opportunities Everywhere for Offense. A Fair and Objective Review
  • Ryan Hines – 30 Years Later – “Controversy” at Wild Goose
  • Karyn Wiseman – Flying With the Goose
  • Kyla Cofer – I went to the Wild Goose Fest and came back in love
  • Brian Gerald Murphy – Born Again (Again) at Wild Goose
  • Chris Lenshyn – Chasing the Wild Goose
  • Cherie at Renaissance Garden – Wild Goose Return
  • Deborah Wise – Wild Goose Chasing
  • Custodianseed – “every day they eat boiled goose”
  • Will Norman – Back from the Wild Goose Fest
  • Martin at Exiles in NY – Greenbelt and the Wild Goose
  • Kerri at Practicing Contemplative – Waterfowl in My Life
  • Allison Leigh Lilley – Chasing the Wild Goose and Catching the Wild Goose: Thanks and First Thoughts and A Pagan Goes To The Wild Goose – Part One
  • Abbie Waters – Jessica: A Fable
  • Steve Knight – Why Wild Goose Festival Was So Magical
  • Tammy Carter – Visual Acuity and Flying
  • Michelle Thorburg Hammond – I heart Jay Bakker and Peter Rollins
  • Matthew Bolz-Weber – Remembering Wild Goose
  • Paul Fromberg – Celebrating Interdependence Day
  • David Zimmerman – Wild Goose Festival: A Recap
  • Unfinished Symphony – Wild Goose Reflections – Part 1, Wild Goose Reflections – Part 2 Making Art Collages, Wild Goose Reflections – Part 3 Photoblogging, and Wild Goose Reflections – Part 4 The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
  • Dan Brennan – U2, the Wild Goose, and Deep Freedom
  • Mike Croghan – The Wild Goose is Not Safe
  • John Martinez – The Table
  • Callid Keefe-Perry – Gatekeeping the Goose
  • Eric Elnes – The Inaugural Wild Goose Festival: Recovering Something Lost
  • Shay Kearns – The Power of a T-Shirt, Apologizing to Over the Rhine, and Public vs. Private (Part One)
  • Glen Reteif – Duck Duck Goose
  • Peterson Toscano – I’ve Been Goosed, What I Carried Into Wild Goose, and What I Blurted Out at Wild Goose
  • Seth Donovan – About More than “The Gays”
  • Exiles in New York – Greenbelt and the Wild Goose
  • Tammy Carter – Visual Acuity and Flying
  • TSmith – What I’ll Take From Wild Goose
  • Dale Lature – Wild Goose Reflection
  • Steve Hayes – Wild Goose Chase?
  • Minnow – Grace Response
  • Christine Sine – Encounters With A Thin Space
  • Jeremy Myers – Giving Up the Wild Goose Chase
  • Robert – Thoughts On the Inaugural Wild Goose
  • Anna Woofenden – Slippery Slope Reflections
  • Wendy McCaig – Loosing The Goose
  • Joey Wahoo – Into The Wild
  • Rachel Swan – goosed
  • Patricia Burlison – I Called Life
  • Jason Hess – While At the Goose
  • The Bec Cranford – Wild Goose
  • Anthony Ehrhardt – Chasing The Wild Goose on Independence Day
  • Joel DeVyldere – So Lost at Last-(In the Woods)
  • MK Anderson – Listening To The Wild Goose
  • Jamie Arpin-Ricci – Wild Goose Fest
  • Unfinished Symphony – #5 – The Last Post … for a while

Labels: emerging church, Wild Goose Festival

 
posted by Mike Clawson at 9:23 PM | Permalink | 1 comments
Layout design by Pannasmontata Header image © VladStudio