Mar 04 2006
post-emergent where do we go from here? Chaos or community, inclusion and embrace
At the risk of becoming what I have critiqued I think I ought to suggest what can happen beyond the talk about post emergent. A speech by Dr. King Where do we go from here: Chaos or community? that later became a book has formed a good starting point. The question of whether the conversation dissolves into chaos driven by neophilia (as "The project, the vision, the great new thing collapses.") or moves to a new place of community driven by the practice of reconciliation is at the core of any next steps. Here’s Dr. King’s which is insight still relevant today.
One of the great problems that the Negro confronts is his lack of power. Now, power properly understood is nothing but the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political, and economic change.
You see, what happened is that some of our philosophers got off base. And one of the great problems of history is that the concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites, polar opposites, so that love is identified with a resignation of power, and power with a denial of love. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and that love without power is sentimental and anemic. (Yes) Power at its best [applause], power at its best is love (Yes) implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love.
Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds.
How do people of color achieve purpose in the emerging church conversation? Is the conversation anemic in limitation of speaking the language of love without addressing the realities of power? Are we so satisfied with the recapturing of the historic creeds that we not sought to live them as deeds?
I humbly suggest that the way forward is not only to ask the question Exclusion and Embrace? as Volf appropriately does. But to move toward inclusion and embrace. By this I mean that for the emerging church conversation to forward it must do more than include people of color and those outside the dominant culture in teh conversation. It should embrace our world view and theology as equally valid in the conversation and not a secondary thought.
Some ways this can be expressed concretely follow.
- Pursue a generous orthopraxis alongside the generous orthodoxy already being pursued. One should not be separated from the other it s a both and not either or.)
- Include more of the issues of people on the social margins in the conversation.
- Listen more to the voices speaking for those on the social margins and outside the dominant culture.
What ideas do you have for the way forward?
Popularity: 36% [?]
Loading ...
I like your list of expressions.
I wholeheartedly agree with the first. The pursuit of a GO only makes it very easy to hole up with others like us.
Your second expression gets to the heart of what bugs the most about the whole emergent thing. There is plenty of talk about the social margins but little understanding of what the social margins are. All the pictures and video and what not of those on the leading edge of emergent are still white and middle class. Diseffected middle class white folks who have been abused by the church can certainly be on the social margins, but if the definition ends there, they commit the same sins as the church who abused them.
Your last really hits home. I am not a part of a minority, but know that not all voices are heard. As a white male, married to a black female, living in the south and technically on the poverty line (I say technically because God has blessed us well beyond what we have) we are a different sort of voice and definately outside the dominant culture. Nearly every time I enter the conversation from that perspective, I get smacked down.
I think my fatal mistake is believing the hype that it is a conversation where all are welcome. That is not true. All are not welcome. There are groups on both sides of that line that are not welcome in the conversation. Conversation implies no agenda, and we know that isn’t the case.
It’s a movement and there are ‘movers’. I could name the names, but we know them all. My one suggestion of a way forward is for those ‘movers’ to start being held accountable. They espouse lofty ideals but there is little follow through. They do lots of talking about minorities, women, and folks in the margins, yet their efforts to include fall flat. They speak from their places at large private universities, large churches, and well read blogs and are rarely called to task by those they would ‘lead’.
I’ll stop here. I didn’t mean to post such a lengthy comment. Sorry. Thanks for your post. Very thought provoking.
this is excellent, thought provoking stuff, andre.
i wonder whether it’s time to bypass ‘the movers’, and for people of colour, and others in the margins, to start the new conversation about what the shape of christian community could be like, so the conversation begins from this point, rather than having to be stretched to include it. that’s not to exclude other voices, but to privilege the voices of the non-dominant paradigm. that’s not out of political correctness, but an understanding that God has repeatedly spoken through the voices of those on the margins.
(sallie mcfague, in her excellent book "Life Abundant" asks the question whether white, middle class north americans are actually able to do theology - she comes out saying yes -and so would i - but only with qualifications. it’s an interesting and challenging thought)
what’s a good reading list, andre?
Andre,
Now you’re talking! Well said. I have struggled with this one (in a good way) for some time now. Interestingly, my shift towards the emerging conversation can be largely tied to the impact that indigenous theology has had on my faith, especially First Nations (Native American). Further, reading the blog of Anthony Smith was the next step in convincing me to engage.
One my difficulties is this: How can I pursue this inclusive and embracing faith & practice without being seen as trying to "steal" it? On one hand we need to be more inclusive, but on the other we are accused of expropriation.
I would value your insights here.
Peace,
Jamie
I mentioned the other day about Andre Daley being post-emergent, and it turns out he’s caused quite a little stir in ec-blogdom. He continues theconversation a little further over a few posts. There’s some interesting further thought there, but the overall tone seems to be a kind of “Hold on a minute, we’re not quite done with the emerging church just yet.
post emergent pt III - sharing the wealth
[...] This entry was posted on Saturday, March 4th, 2006 at 2:54 pm and is filed under emerging church, spiritual practice, diversity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. [...]