i am not emergent™

no sooner do i publish my nano-treatise lauding scot mcknight on his clear distinction between emergent™ and emerging, but emergent village™ graciously links to this review of "Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be".

ok obvious question; ok... no wait - obvious question before that one: why exactly should they be ... whatever it is they think they should be? you dudes think this is a demographic and you fit? dude, it's not a demographic - its a psychographic (credit: dee) and while the book has not yet been released, the interview bears this point out: that while we emergers are talking about new wine skins in order to save our own faith - these guys are quite comfortable walking another mile in the shoes of their forfathers. which is cool, except that...

during the phonecast they fail to recognize the emerging church is not any of these: trendy, edgy, cool or relevant (another ™). or liberal. or conservative. that's precisely the crap were critiquing too! well, that and pseudo-papal authority. (i'll slide solo scriptura and exegetical teaching in under pseudo-papal authority because while those sound good in theory - they play out differently in reality - kinda like the patriot act).

the agents of emergence actualize the priesthood of all believers (christianity largely pays lip service to this); and, we live out a kingdom of god that is upside down from mans' kingdom / corporate structure. and while you may not conceive that there could be a legitimate alternative. trust me homey, this a coup.

ok, and were prolly post-rational/modern too. but its another issue altogether that a flat earth doesn't sit squarely on the back of turtles. your argument is with reality-as-we-understand-it going-back-a-hundred-years now: which is, we each experience our own unique space-time thread - it is simply the nature of reality that the universe affords simultaneously different points of view (twins, one on a spaceship...). and on top of that, everything we experience is built on quantum uncertainty. and you want to be sure? ok. you'll want the blue pill...

personally i thought it was extremely thoughtful of moody press to underscore my point: if you don't understand the idea of emergence - you'll probably be sloppy with your terminology and critique the wrong thing.

i'm not emergent™ and you aren't either. yo tony jones isn't emergent™. if you've seen his facebook profile - for religion, where i have "christian", he has "emerging"... not "emergent". even emergent village™ describes themselves as "A Node in the Web of the Emerging Church" ... not the "emergent church". emergent™ has started no churches. when they do - then you can talk to an "emergent™ church", just like you would a "vineyard™ church".

if the book had been called "Why We're Not Emerging: By Two Guys Who Haven't"... we'd have a sound basis of discussion. but as far as i can determine, this whole exercise (and the book hasn't even been released yet!) is a gratuitous act of performance art by moody press just to underscore my point that scot mcknight is my fricken hero!! who knew they were so gracious? and so artsy! fabulousssss!