Maurice Broaddus has been continuing the conversation about my post emergent post cross pollinating on his message board. There have been some interesting thoughts added to the conversation. Thought I’d post some and my responses here.
Dark-skinned theologians???…wait…but…but….isn’t Jesus that pale-white, blue-eyed guy with the shag haircut from the seventies?
Laura
post-emergent. Is that like post-post modern?
Yeah, I’m kinda on the fence with this one as well. I’ve noticed the all-talk-no-action mentality, and the "we’re here to please everybody" kinda mentality, and the fad-ish mentality… the "we like this because it’s new". I’ve also noticed that a lot of the emergent movement has been born out of the church-burned, which, you know what? If you got burned by a church and you want to go on and do church differently, as long as you’re not contradicting the life and words of Christ, you have at it! It’s better than turning your back on God because of what’s happened to you. An awful lot of the emergent movement is simply an accepting that we’re stumbling and bumbling through this walk and we don’t always get it right. We haven’t gotten it right and we still won’t get it right, but we’ll at least try to do better than we have.
So I don’t have big qualms with the movement as a whole… it’d be difficult too, as it’s a little bit nebulous for that. I do have issues with a couple of people that I’ve met who call themselves "emergent Christian" who are really just trying to reconcile their beliefs with what they really would RATHER being doing. But the movement as a whole? No big issues.
~Crystal
I fail to see how terms such as "white, male and academic" are significant here unless Andre places more importance on race, sex, and IQ than the content of the conversation.
Reading NT Wright and using emergent-speak does seem to be a pre-requisite to credibility with the leaders of emergent. They don’t seem to value ideals or counterpoints of those who don’t share their lingo. However, the initial statement has nothing to do with "White Europeans" or their "theological framework". To insinuate that is racist. Language is not a product of skin color.
Diversity is at the core of emergent. Diversity in theology, practice, etc. But racial diversity is something I dismiss as outright racism. As if a person’s skin color, hair color, or eye color makes them special. It’s not our differences that bind us together, but our similarities. As long as we continue to make our differences the focal point of our relationships, we’ll never function together as one body. I propose we abandon "diversity" speak and learn to work together for a common purpose without regard to race, ethnicity, or nationality.
green19
Pointing out the skin color over and above the topic of "the conversation" goes beyond identifying the group. It assumes that because of the color of their skin, or racial heritage, their product will somehow be less than useful for anyone else. It also assumes an inherent bias toward non-whites by anyone involved in the conversation. This is pre-judging without sufficient evidence.
If I said that the NBA is 99% black therefore I’ll not watch the NBA nor have anything to do with it, I would be labeled a racist outright. The same logic should be applied to your statement.
Additionally, the bible was written by non-blacks. By the same logic the bible is not useful or meaningfully to people of african heritage or black skin. Therefore no black or african-american should subscribe to any bible-believing religion.
The issue of "diversity" as it is used in politics is hardly cherry picking. It is a morbid failure that should be obvious to any critical thinker without a political agenda. The rest of your statement lacks merit.
We don’t need black men in "the conversation" we need godly men. We don’t need representation of all races, ethnic groups, or nations, in the conversation, we need godly people. (On an unrelated topic, we need the views of the ungodly as well). To suggest that because the majority of emergent is white, therefore you don’t have a voice, is just plain silly. You and I are talking, there’s your voice. What, do you want to talk to Tony Jones or Mclaren? Guess what, I’m white and they don’t bother talking to me. (I don’t read NT Wright, and I’m a horrible writer. I don’t blame them for not hunting me down and featuring me in their latest book). You’re already IN the conversation, we just don’t agree. I could care less that you’re black. I could care less that I’m white. I don’t wear my culture on my sleeve. I don’t give a *expletive* about my heritage. My identity isn’t as important as the identity of "the body".
You want to know my personal rant? "Get rid of the *expletive* racist *expletive* and we’ll be able to see each other as people instead of skin". Problem solved. (and maurice calls me an idealist pfffttt)
green19
Green: Your posts are wonderfully idealistic and I am grateful for that. However I just don’t see that as the reality. Maybe I’ve been in this conversation too long and become to cynical.
Let me clarify what I’m saying. I’m not using diversity in they way it is used in politics, I’m using the way it is expressed in scripture. Jesus great commission is to go make Jesus followers of every people group. So if a people group (race or culture) is missing from the conversation are we being true to that calling? Are we really emerging into a new kind of church/christian?
Reading the emergent order as posted on emergent village there is a stated commitment to diversity beyond theology and practice.
[b]"To build friendships across racial, ethnic, economic and other boundaries"[/b]
So I’m not inserting anything that isn’t already there.
I’m not making race the only issue. What I am saying is by virtue of the participants the conversation undeniably takes on a particular tone and perspective. That’s true of any conversation. Beyond that, I am suggesting this; if the conversation can’t be enriched by having people outside of the dominant culture participate, then at least those folks should take time to look at the theological contributions of some folks outside the dominant culture to enrich the conversation.
maybe I’m wrong but the world isn’t color (culture) blind. Race may be a social construct and a horribly destructive one at that but to just say it doesn’t or shouldn’t factor into our understanding of the cultural context in church the church is emerging creates a huge blind spot (pun intended). Frankly I don’t want it to be color (culture) blind I want the conversation to be color (culture) rich.
You have the ability to say race doesn’t matter to you because you are white. In order to understand the problem or race and why I think racial reconciliation has to be a part of the emerging church conversation you will need to broaden your understanding or race and racism. There are elements of white privilege and power that you may not be aware of at work that make you way of thinking though wonderfully idealistic somewhat disconnected from the reality of those around you who aren’t white and aren’t interested in ignoring our heritage (or have the luxury of doing so). This is why I believe Brian McLaren has said we need to revisit the post-colonial story.
I am enjoying hearing your thoughts its adds to my perspective.
Andre
Popularity: 47% [?]
Technorati Tags: christianity, emergent, emerging_church, praxis, racial_reconciliation, racism
I just don’t get it. If you do let me know, clue me in.
I am not free if my sister is not free.
Loading ...
