brian hull at raging bhull has begun a 4 part series which is very interesting to me. it's a discussion i've followed with stephen shields, and one i look forward to participating in more. below are a few points biyan brings forward. the entire post can be found here. if you have interest, i encourage you to add your thoughts in his comment section.
"But if this truly is a conversation about re-imagining the present and the future asking these kinds of missionary questions, how come all of us in these conversations are educated, white, middle class guys?
1. I would theorize that there are a couple of options to this answer:1) This is truly only a conversation for those who can afford to have it. Meaning because we have financial resources to survive without the old we don’t mind kicking it around a bit, much the way a teenager kicks around the safest person they know (usually their parents) because they know somewhere deep inside that they may be the only people who would take it and keep on caring.
2. There are more people interested in the conversation, but they haven’t really been invited.
3. There are other people having the same kinds of conversation, but using different language and different avenues.
4. There are other people having the same kinds of conversation and we just haven’t really bumped into each other yet.
5. This is a conversation that has turned back into an issue of methodology and models which is the issue that always seems to push different people groups apart and never brings them together."
do you agree that this is a white, middleclass, male conversation regarding all things missional and emerging?
if you are outside of the united states, middleclass, white, or male, or know bloggers who are, could you mention them here?
No comments:
Post a Comment