Daily Archives: October 25, 2004

My friend Tony Jones  just posted a reaction to the Andy Crouch article in Christianity Today on the Emerging Church. While I agree with much of Tony’s post, I take exception with his comment on an unnamed blogger whose asterisks work out to be Maggi Dawn. Basically, Tony interprets a recent post by Maggi on the Crouch article as suggesting that the US form of Emergent is reworked evangelicalism, while the British version is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

First of all, while Maggi can certainly defend herself, I didn’t read her post in a way that was unfairly critical of the Emergent scene as presented in the CT article. CT is basically an evangelical rag, which then lends itself to focusing on the evangelical expressions of this thing we find ourselves in. Thus, it would be easy to interpret from that piece that Emergent is primarily Evangelical-Centric.

I also don’t think that Maggi was lifting up the British model as without fault and the ideal to which we should all aspire. She was commenting on the very real differences between the American and British churches, differences which we would be foolish to deny.

Having said all that, Maggi’s questions about the Evangelical emphasis of Emergent are not invalid. I write this not to critique the leadership, for they are friends and colleagues and very open to being in relationship with us heathen mainline liberals (post and otherwise).

Yet, several of us from the mainline have suggested along the way that some of the formal Emergent emphasis was so centered in evangelicalism as to marginalize our participation. It wasn’t intentional, for the reality is that we live in very different worlds. We attend different seminaries. We purchase books from different bookstores by different publishers. We have been mentored by different scholars, and thus our ability to speak a common language is often hindered when we move away from the big names like Hauerwas, Brueggemann, and Volf.

The reality is that some of us have been involved in trying to build relationships beyond the evangelical publishers into other realms. Yet, the mainline world doesn’t move as fast as the evangelical world. We are too hindered by our structures, our political realities, and that slowness seems like an eternity for folks in the evangelical world who readily change structures to meet missional needs.

What I am trying to say (as Tony clearly says) is that Emergent in the US is much broader than any 3000 word article can convey. At the same time, I think that we must understand that the US and British situations are radically different because of the radical differences in our culture. Neither form is univerally right or wrong, but each is appropriate for their world.

One last word on the inclusivity and exclusivity of the Emergent world. I have been working with several folks (Tony Peterson, Brian McLaren, Jen Lemen) to create a Critical Concerns Class for the Nashville Emergent Convention titled “The Embracing Church: A Spiritual Retreat on Life in the Expansive Kingdom of God.” We have been pulling this together as a partnership between Emergent/YS and the Upper Room (a United Methodist publisher) with the intention of modeling a relationship that transcends normal evangelical / mainline splits. Marko and others have been supportive from the beginning, and I believe that these types of partnerships will be carrying us to new places in the future.

After a long hiatus in writing, it seems only fair that I should get back to work. Of course, as we all attempt to do, it would be easy to justify myself as too busy to take on writing this blog. Yet that is really a cop out. I haven’t been to busy to play Top Down Baseball on Pogo or to partake of my political junkie fix via a variety of blogs. It really comes down the the notion that I haven’t had much to say, and frankly I didn’t have a need to write. But it’s time to get back into the discipline, so here goes.

We left off thinking about exclusion with a post from my friend Sue that touched the surface of theological exclusion. Those of us in the mainline church have been real faithful in dealing with issues of socio-economic and racial/ethnic exclusion. Likewise we have been out front (well, timidly a bit ahead) on issues of gender. What we have failed to talk about very much is the church’s ability to exclude folks from the table based on theological, political, and ethical beliefs.

Now at first glance, these areas may not seem connected. Yet, as I think we are discovering in the midst of this political season, one’s theology is closely tied to ones political and ethical beliefs, whether we want to believe that our not. Then again, maybe our theology is often more reflective our our politics than we would like to admit.

The way this normally plays out in the church is the divisions that we make between “conservatives” and “liberals,” or “evangelicals” and “mainliners” (and we don’t even know WHAT to do with the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox in there!). Very often, our identification according to these labels has less to do with our picture of God, and much more to do with our stances on a few key ethical or political positions.  Certainly, our justification for these positions is tied into our understanding of God. If our understanding of God is hierarchical, we might hold to certain notions of power and authority. If the God we place our faith in errs on the side of grace, we may be inclined to worry less about moral and ethical issues in the desire to welcome all.

The difficulty with these labels is our ability to transcend them in order to be in relationship with the other. Our culture is so focused on winning and losing that it seems irrational to suggest that relationship and reconciliation through the unity of Christ can be embraced by folks with such differing beliefs. “If you aren’t on our side,” we say, “you don’t belong.” If cuts both ways, in spite of liberal talk about tolerance. The reality is that we have a hard time embracing folks whose view of the world is so different from our own.

One approach to these differences is maintaining a degree of cultural purity. Thus we read blogs that support our world view, subscribe to magazines which reinforce our understandings of what is right, and basically surround ourselves with folks who agree with us.

There is a good reason for this . . . it’s safe. One morning the group of guys that I meet with each week were talking about this issue when one said, “I don’t really know that I can worship with someone who believes that I’m doomed for hell.” When our understandings and beliefs focus on judgment and damnation, the unworthiness of the other to enter the kingdom, then the ability to be a reconciled people is limited. Yet, is there a place where we can embrace others whose ethical and political stances are different than our own in love?

That is, I think, what was behind the animosity between Jesus and the Pharisees. While it’s easy to make analogies with modern day pharisees (and a cheap shot as well) the reality was that the pharisees were the religious elite of their day and were simply engaged in “protecting the faith.” Thus, when Jesus comes along and hangs out with the ethically and politically challenged (hey, the tax collectors were government lackeys and sympathizers) one could imagine their concern. These persons didn’t fit the established categories and put the well being of the community at risk.

This issue of theological / ethical / political exclusion is perhaps the most present expression in the story of Jesus. The tension between the religious and Jesus (a tension that would lead to his crucifixion) regarding theological and ethical categories permeates the story, and should be a place of conversation for us as well.

To be continued….

Now playing: Russ Barenberg – Return to the Brandywine