Jesse A. Schroeder

I read this article last week on my way home from Costa Rica, and I was struck by the parallels to The Great Emergence conversation. Writer Jefffey Rosen points out that President Obama is not following the typical progressive/liberal track, and he is also not a conservative, but rather is "looking to synthesize and transcend the established legal categories —
articulating a genuinely new vision for what it means to be a liberal
justice in the 21st century."

The author quotes from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," in which he says that "democracy not as a house to be built, but as a conversation to be had." In regards to the Supreme Court, the new understanding is called "democratic constitutionalism" and seeks to remain faithful to the constitution within the current American context. Essentially there is an ongoing dialogue between the popular opinion and the values of the Constitution, as well as between the President, Congress and Supreme Court. A more full description:
"courts and political movements [are] partners, influencing each other and
society as a whole. Courts sometimes act boldly and sometimes
cautiously. Constitutional change ultimately flows from the bottom up,
not the top down (which results in “democratic
constitutionalism”), but the courts play an important if subsidiary
role in codifying and extending values that the American people
themselves have come to embrace as fundamental (which results in
“democratic constitutionalism”)"

The parallels with emergent Christianity and the Great Emergence as a whole seem evident. First of all, moving beyond the old dichotomies of liberal and conservative; embracing a conversation that is more ambiguous that clear cut, but is deeply concerned with the concerns of the common person (I think the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is absolutely beautiful in this regard). And finally, an approach that will lead to change within the institutions that will reflect the change that is already happening within the popular culture.