Ok, I guess we are going to end up just disagreeing. However, I want to say this. I never suggested that anyone should cease to to critique. If you look back, it is quite the opposite. Further, if someone wants on the Coordinating Group, it is very easy. It is not an elite group ushered into an inner circle, but people will to put some time, energy and resources into something they believe in.

Did I expect you to take the post down or edit it? Of course not. I was simply trying to provide you with more information. I thought, perhaps, given a bigger picture, you MIGHT acknowledge changes in your position. Obviously that isn’t the case.

My suggestion that you give EV the benefit of the doubt is not “because of Jesus”, but rather out of basic courtesy. I understand you have had experiences that would predisposed you to this conclusion- as have I- but that does not mean you have to claim the worst before you know its true. You did not merely question the possibility of these problems, you claimed that as virtual certainties.

As for “hierarchy”, it was a frequent topic in the meetings I attended. You might find it interesting that there were people who sat in on the meetings (upon their own request) whose voice was as heard and given as much sway as anyone in the room.

I never said EV was “supposed to be all special” nor have I suggested it is “exempt”. Neither has the EV community. Yes, they are imperfect (as we all are) and have and will make mistakes. We need critics, desperately. However, the value of any critique is measured largely on its being based on actuality.

Thanks for engaging in this discussion with me. I’m happy to keep at it, but don’t feel any need to reply if you feel you’ve said all you need to on the topic.

Peace,
Jamie

P.S. I did notice that you removed the “elite” comment from the original post.

Let me start by saying that I think I am failing to get across my point, so I hope my “tone” is not coming across as harsh or argumentative. That is totally not my intention.

You can be as harsh as you like; the blog won’t break.

I can probably out critique the movement than you. I don’t say this out of some childish “one-ups-manship” or because EV is so screwed up. Rather, it is simply out of personal experience and familiarity. Further, I guaruntee Tony Jones could out do me in the critique department for the same reason.

I understand completely. More knowledge allows for a more in-depth critique. But does this mean that those of us who are not in the Cooridinating Group (see, right there, I wanted to say “inner circle,” but I know you’re sensitive about that) cannot critique at all? Or that we should be extra super careful not to step on any toes when we do critique?

My issue with your post is not the criticism, but the use of language and long-jump assumptions that are, in my opinion, unhelpful and inaccurate.

I understand this as well. And you have had the opportunity to explain your point of view in your comments and make your own corrections to my statements as you see fit. I’m not sure what you want me to do — take it back? Edit the original post? Because I’m not quite ready to do that.

I don’t think it should be about you being “convinced” this elitism doesn’t exsist, but rather that should be the assumption until you can personally attest to the contrary.

I’m sorry*, Jamie but this is definitely something I cannot do. My experience in organizations — both religious and non — makes an assumption of elitism the default. It’s something I would assume of any organization, and just because Emergent is supposed to be all special doesn’t mean it’s exempt. I hold it up to greater scrutiny because it seeks to overcome the old elitism. (Though I do wonder if there’s ever any talk of “hierarchy” in your Coordinating Group meetings, if that’s a word that’s even on the radar.)

I don’t really understand why you expect me to give Emergent the benefit of the doubt. So, why do you? Because of Jesus or something?

Thanks for the links.

I do live in Winnipeg. Thank you for your offer, I will consider it.

*I really am sorry. I don’t use “I’m sorry” as a turn-of-phrase like many people do to soften their arguments. I wish my experience led me to other conclusions

As I don’t want to hijack Jenny’s site for our conversation, I will try and contact you off list.

Peace,
Jamie

Let me start by saying that I think I am failing to get across my point, so I hope my “tone” is not coming across as harsh or argumentative. That is totally not my intention.

Here’s the bottom line: As someone personally engaged in the Emergent Village (if only to a small degree as a member of the Coordinating Group), I can probably out critique the movement than you. I don’t say this out of some childish “one-ups-manship” or because EV is so screwed up. Rather, it is simply out of personal experience and familiarity. Further, I guaruntee Tony Jones could out do me in the critique department for the same reason.

My issue with your post is not the criticism, but the use of language and long-jump assumptions that are, in my opinion, unhelpful and inaccurate. While EV is organizing more formally, it does not make them an institution. And frankly, the context you used the word “privileged” and “elite” were completely inappropriate- not because they are offensive, but simply because they are not accurate. I don’t think it should be about you being “convinced” this elitism doesn’t exsist, but rather that should be the assumption until you can personally attest to the contrary.

Are there people who are more in the know? Inevitably. Do I think this situation named above was handled poorly by EV? Without question. Should Emergent Village be evaluated and critiqued? Absolutely.

You asked what I meant by “affirm critic from within”. I apologize for the typo, as it was meant to say “an affirming critic from within”. By this I mean that I believe enough in the emerging church movement, and I believe enough in EV (don’t get the two confused) to lend some of my time and energy to. I believe that critiquing is part of that commitment. However, my critique should always be affirming, pointing out the problems with the hope for something better. My saying that I am doing so “from within” simply means that being a part of the conversation/movement and even the organization (again, the two should not be confused as one) my critique is something I share ownership in.

I was one of several people who blogged on the EVCG meetings. I don’t know the other links, but here are mine. Feel free to ask any questions for details or clarification:

http://emergentvoyageurs.blog.com/807714/

http://emergentvoyageurs.blog.com/811281/

http://emergentvoyageurs.blog.com/823065/

By the way, are you in Winnipeg? I’d love to chat over coffee sometime. Always great to connect. Let me know.

Peace,
Jamie

If you haven’t listened to our podcast interview between us and Tony, I think you might want to since we have a fairly decent conversation together regarding the issues we had surrounding the fund-raising. Also, I don’t think our criticism of Tony was inappropriate… and naming him a SCP isn’t simply name-calling for name-calling’s sake. There was a method to the madness…

So give it a listen if you haven’t since that would give you a better understanding of that particular issue.

As for this one… I understand wanting to keep confidential things confidential. But once the cats out of the bag… you have to face it head on and I think dialogue about it rather than trying to bury it and others. As Jenny points out, especially if that’s one of your founding principles, i.e. “conversation”. The way TJ and the Emergent crowd handled it seems an awful lot like how the Republican party handles it’s leaks. They made a bigger deal of it than it really is… even taken out of context.

The podcasts (Parts One and Two) are here:

http://www.stupidchurchpeople.com/2005/12/tony-jones-interview-part-1.html

http://www.stupidchurchpeople.com/2005/12/tony-jones-interview-part-2.html

What do you mean by that?

First, you call it both a movement and a conversation

Yes, I do. I think “movement” is the most appropriate term, but, as I said, “conversation” is Emergent’s term, not mine, which is why I pretty much always put it in quotation marks (a bad rhetorical habit). The word conversation applies literally to the situation with the leaked email, though.

The fact is that EV is an organization that facilitates a much larger conversation/movement (emerging church). EV is painfully aware of the cost of organizing, a choice they made only because they believed that the price was worth the benefits (and I agree).

I don’t really care that much whether Emergent organizes or doesn’t. My only affinity with Emergent is of intellectual interest, I guess, and I’m more interested in the implications of the movement. But I’m not the only one that has seen conflict between Emergent’s anti-institutional goals and its behaviour.

I’d love to see some of the Coordinating Group documentation you mention. I’m certainly open to being convinced that an “elite” does not exist within Emergent.

I am open to critique. In fact, I consider myself an affirm critic from within the “conversation” (see my blog for examples). However, I feel as though, if ones critiques are to be accepted as constructive, they must be far more intentional about the languaged used to communicate them.

For example, in your reply to me you said, “That said, for a movement which characterizes itself as a “conversation,” it seems quite disappointing that there is priveleged conversation among elite members of the movement that is not for the consumption of the rank-and-file.”

First, you call it both a movement and a conversation. This only goes to show you can’t simply characterize it as just one or the other. The fact is that EV is an organization that facilitates a much larger conversation/movement (emerging church). EV is painfully aware of the cost of organizing, a choice they made only because they believed that the price was worth the benefits (and I agree).

Second, using the term “members” is not fair either. EV has a legal board, as well as a Coordinating Group. The latter has close to 80 people on it and is open to adding to that list. Those in the group do not receive special treatment- in fact, a great deal more is required of us than you realize.

Finally, to call these people “elite” is, frankly, offensive. Our discussions at the Coordinating Group meetings have been widely blogged about, the meetings open to people to sit in on or question. I think that this specific situation was handled poorly on both sides, but to characterized the group meetings as somehow “priveleged” is simply a misrepresentation.

So please take this as an affirming critique. I think this issue does need more public discussion. However, in order for that to move constructively towards restoration (which must always be the intention), I would recommend that we all be careful in using terms that can be… misleading.

Peace,
Jamie

The EV Cooridnating Group is among the most self-sacraficial, generous group of people I have met, whose ultimate goal is to provide the best resources and opportunities.

I never question the motives of the Emergent leadership. In fact, what I always try to criticize is behaviour, not people. I know the Emergent leadership have their hearts in the right place, so to speak, but that doesn’t mean their behaviour can’t be analyzed. Or criticized — remember, Jamie, around here “critical” is not a dirty or negative word.

As for whether the confidentialization of statements does or does not equal institutionalization — I’m not sure I know what I think of that. Perhaps you’re right — it does not automatically create an institution; after all, I’ve been involved in communities where certain communication is private and we were hardly “institutions.”

That said, for a movement which characterizes itself as a “conversation,” it seems quite disappointing that there is priveleged conversation among elite members of the movement that is not for the consumption of the rank-and-file.

Michelle — yeah, this kind of thing is pretty off-putting, especially from a group whose public faces are generally male and whose stance on homosexuality boils down to, “Well, we’ll wait five or ten years and see.” (Which is not to say that Emergent is monolithic on its views on sexuality, because it isn’t. And of course the Christian right has the same criticism of their stance on orientation.)

However, having come to know the EV crew more, I think it is an underinformed perspective. To say that confidential statements immediately equal institutionalization is unfair. EV has an increrible diversity in its community, which requires care. Perhaps Tony’s response was overly strong, but the concern that someone within the “Village” to make unqualified and, if I’m honest, somewhat irresponsible statements is warranted.

As for EV asking for money, this is another common misrepresentation. Yes, they define themselves as a conversation wmong friends, but neither do they deny their organizational structure. It is a necessity, which (again) does not equal institution. The EV Cooridnating Group is among the most self-sacraficial, generous group of people I have met, whose ultimate goal is to provide the best resources and opportunities. What few people know is how much money (and it is alot) has been given without credit so that thousands of others could benefit with little to no cost.

So, while I share your concern about how EV & Tony might have responded to this issue, I believe that the critics at Emerging Women and Steve and Josh (to name two) were equally critical and inappropriate. Just my perspective. Thanks for open up the discussion.

Peace,
Jamie