An Emergent Politics Primer: Part Two (by Tony Jones)
Emergents seek a theological rationale for their political engagement. The thing is, that rationale varies from issue to issue, which makes the emergents an infuriatingly moving target for those with more traditional political viewpoints. For instance, the Christian speaker Len Sweet, a longtime friend of Emergent, recently spoke out against the movement in Relevant magazine, saying:
In the article, Sweet charges that emergent Christians are nothing but the New Christian Left, based primarily, it seems, on Brian McLaren's increasingly political writings. But to those inside Emergent, the criticism missed the mark, as do the protestations of the lefties when emergents don't play by their rules either. For gathered around the Emergent table are Republicans and Democrats, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, laissez-faire free-market capitalists and communitarian socialists. There is no ideological requirement to join, just a shared commitment to robust, theological dialogue about issues that matter.We got to this point in the '70s where you could not tell the difference between the Democratic Party platform and the Church's portrayal of the Kingdom of God. I think that any intrusion of Christianity into politics—whether right or left—is ugly. So I don't see Jesus as coming with a political agenda. Yes, there are radical social and economic consequences to His message, but to claim that Jesus' message was a political one [is incorrect]. It's Jim Wallis's evangelical updating of the Social Gospel movement, or liberalism's liberation theology of the '70s and '80s.
And surely, most emergents vehemently disagree with Sweet's claim that Jesus' message was apolitical. This school of thought—that Jesus was interested in the kingdom of God, not in the machinations of human politics—is not shared by emergents. The emergents are activists—even political activists—just not in the conventional sense. If "politics" means the way that human beings collectively make things happen, then this supremely interested Jesus.
But where Sweet is right is to claim that Jesus was not co-opted by any of the political parties of his day. Emergents have grown up in the dire shadow of the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, who too closely allied with the Republicans in the 1980s and 1990s. From the emergent perspective, this partnership was a match made in hell, a marriage in which one partner (the Republican Party) will inevitably corrupt the other (the Christian Right). Thus in my travels, many emergents have expressed to me great hesitation about the building momentum of leftward or progressive groups (such as Tikkun magazine, Sojourners/Call to Renewal, and FaithfulDemocrats.org). Their fear is that these groups will make the same mistakes that their conservative brethren did 30 years ago: lose their independence by aligning with a political party. Politics is a dirty business, which is why political scientists refer to the compromises required as the "theory of dirty hands." In other words, for politics to work in a liberal democracy, elected officials cannot stand unbudgingly on principle. To get things done—like getting legislation passed—politicians have to compromise. That's just how it works.
But this very compromise has drawn the ire of Stanley Hauerwas, dubbed by Time magazine as America's most influential theologian (and known by many as the theologian with the saltiest tongue). Looking back on the 20th century, Hauerwas is supremely disheartened by the compromises of his coreligionists. The American mainline—Hauerwas is a Methodist—forsook many of their distinctives in order to have influence in society. Many flowery prayers have opened the session of the U.S. Senate as a result, but the radical and liberating gospel got lost. Hauerwas and his legion of acolytes respond by saying that Christians operate according to a rationality and language that is mutually exclusive from the compromises required in a democracy. Hauerwas himself has gone so far as to say that Christians should not run for political office.
While the Hauerwasian position appeals to many emergents, others find it an overreaction and agree with the Princeton University philosopher Jeffrey Stout, who charges Hauerwas with creating a "Christian enclave theory." Emergents seem stuck in a no-man's-land: on the one hand, they're committed to a deep, political engagement in American society, but on the other hand, they vow not to be co-opted by a political party. This is driven both by the belief that the national parties are ultimately concerned with self-perpetuation (not a gospel value) and by the clear inference in the Gospels that Jesus remained independent from all of the political parties of the day: the Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and Herodians all appear on the biblical stage, yet Jesus identifies with none of them. The one thing predictable about Jesus' interactions with the powers that be: he was predictably unpredictable.
Consequently, emergents are looking for a couple of things. First, they're intent on finding and supporting politicians who will change the political landscape, those who will resist doing business as usual. This may not differ appreciably from many politically engaged Americans, but the emergents may be the generation of Christians to represent a critical mass, a tipping point to upset the political apple cart. Second, emergents will look at political engagement as an art rather than a science. Therefore, they will artfully look for points of intersection and moments of potential cooperation with politicians on both sides of the aisle. The junctures of the gospel and political engagement are myriad, and they will surely not line up exclusively with the ideology of one political party. But the independence of emergents does not preclude activism. In fact, it begets activism.
Tony Jones is the national coordinator of Emergent Village. This post is excerpted from his new book, The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier. In the book, Tony gives an insider's view of the emergent church movement and an analysis of American Christianity as a whole.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"But to those inside Emergent, the criticism missed the mark, as do the protestations of the lefties when emergents don't play by their rules either."
I don't hear a lot of protestation by the lefties, to be honest with you, with the exception of hard-line atheists. I would be interested to take a straw poll amongst an emergent gathering as to who intends to support Barack Obama in the upcoming election vs. who intends to support McCain. I am guessing the ratio would exceed 9 to 1.
Either way, why is it always that case that criticisms of emergents miss the mark. Do those leary of the movement NEVER make a salient point? Is there any time when there is cause for genuine reflection? If a movement is that difficult to criticize accurately, then is it really standing for anything?
Many criticisms are unfair, but what of the fair ones? Does iron sharpen iron, or does iron perpetually miss it's target for lack of nuance and understanding?
Sweet's concerns, by Jones' admission, stem from McLaren's increasingly political writings, which are often featured on leftist blogs such as this one. Sweet does not express concern that the emergent movement is beholden to a party, but rather to an ideology. Are any prominent emergents featured so regularly on conservative leaning blogs?
At the ground level, the movement is less political, but McLaren is not a sidebar to the emergent conversation. He is an outspoken leader of the movement, who actively seeks out press opportunities. If Dobson gets to define conservative Christians, certainly McLaren defines the emergents. I have heard numerous criticisms of Dobson coming from conservative evangelicals, but I have never heard even one criticism of McLaren from an emergent.
I do credit Jones for even acknowledging the criticism, and not misrepresenting it. Maybe that is the first step toward truly becoming an accountable movement that is capable of Godly growth and change.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 19, 2008 3:54 PM
If Tony is so concerned about the leftward leaning of groups like Sojourners/Call to Renewal, then why has he (and other emergents) endorsed Obama for President? I got it Tony Jones/Emergent Village = Obama in the same way James Dobson/Focus on the Family = Hubckabee.
Posted by: Another concerned Christian | February 19, 2008 4:02 PM
"Tony Jones/Emergent Village = Obama in the same way James Dobson/Focus on the Family = Huckabee."
Let's not forgot that Dobson was a day late and a dollar short in recognizing Huckabee, to say the least.
Posted by: I and I | February 19, 2008 4:43 PM
Christians willing to abandon politics for fear of losing something essential to their identities as Disciples of Christ, should be just as willing to reject the bounties of technology and the systems of economics...as well as the arts, literature, sports, culinary cuisine, media entertainment, academic study...all of which pull Christians into dangerous contact with idols of many shapes and sizes.
Christians should not abandon the world, nor should they submit to it, nor should they seek to master it: they must love it.
Posted by: Shannon | February 19, 2008 5:11 PM
Does the emergent movement have enough mass to be tip the apple cart? (as Tony says) I've been to the Minneapolis Cohort and it seemed to be a small group of mostly disenfranchised mega church refugees. Don't get me wrong, they were a nice sincere group of guys (Tony included). I just wonder if the movement has as much mass as Tony believes. In the same way I doubt that Wallis' belief of a progressive groundswell is real happening. Still I will listen to emergent and disagree with much and be challenged by some.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | February 19, 2008 5:34 PM
Interesting
Posted by: Nate Elarton | February 19, 2008 5:47 PM
I am for Obama,as opposed to MCcain a GOP war Hawk. I am not a puppet for the GOP. I am a conservative born-gain believer,who believes in the Great Commission for the body of Christ. We are to fulfilled our calling,and pray for our leaders,and vote. Being a puppet for any political party is a sin. Remember the saying" Give us a king like other nation"
Posted by: LJ | February 19, 2008 5:58 PM
I am for Obama,as opposed to MCcain a GOP war Hawk. I am not a puppet for the GOP. I am a conservative born-gain believer,who believes in the Great Commission for the body of Christ. We are to fulfilled our calling,and pray for our leaders,and vote. Being a puppet for any political party is a sin. Remember the saying" Give us a king like other nation"
Posted by: jay | February 19, 2008 5:59 PM
I do not have unrealistic expectations for Obama as regards the Iraq occupation ending. Realistically, to be elected President of this country, you're going to have to "stay the course" set by the financial elites of this nation. It's a course that also owes a lot to the general way of life in America and it's economic standing and military pre-eminence. It's not likely that the establishment built the largest embassy the world has ever seen in Baghdad in order to withdraw from trying to control the fantastic wealth and power of the oil prize.
It's not now possible to fix things as if they had never gotten to this point. Unfortunately, you cannot get elected telling people even more unpleasant news is in the offing.
As for McCain - as honorable as politicians get. One never knows, but that the tough reputation would actually make it easier for him to accomplish the right things. At least he's been tougher against torture than any of the would-be leaders of his party, and that is no small thing, to stand tall against the perceived political benefits of pandering. You will also recall that although he's a bona-fide conservative, he refuses to make conservatism allied with the anti-immigrant racism of our own version of Europe's caucasion skinhead factions.
It might be that those who distrust political alliances that are either Republican or Democrat might be moved to favor the Democrats over Republicans this presidential election.
That is no slight to McCain, or to principled Republicans, but the fear that a Republican victory would never be able to sweep away all the terrible policies or reveal the wrongs that need to be exposed, and that unless it's an opposition party in control of the White House, needed corrections will simply not happen.
Conservatives ought to have a deep distaste for many of the Republican follies and ideological departures of the last years, which are indeed indicative that the primary purpose of either party is self-perpetuation, rather than the core values we thought we were buying with our votes.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 19, 2008 6:25 PM
"If "politics" means the way that human beings collectively make things happen, then this supremely interested Jesus."
--I think you probably understand what he meant by "politics," and this isn't it.
The key for emergents (and Sojo) will be whether they actually affect politics or whether they will become a voting bloc that is used simply to help get more Democrats elected. Color me impressed if you at least get Democrats to moderate their abortion policies (e.g., not using govt funds to pay for them). As much as the religious right is maligned on this site, you'd have to admit that they were at least effective in getting different agenda items passed.
Posted by: jesse | February 19, 2008 7:30 PM
What I don't get here is what's so different from mainline folks who "want a theological rationale for their political involvement" and who also want "politicians who will change the political landscape." Why do emergents think they are the only ones who get it? It seems to me that they are finally getting it! Read EJ Dionne.
Posted by: Anne | February 19, 2008 7:53 PM
"As much as the religious right is maligned on this site, you'd have to admit that they were at least effective in getting different agenda items passed."
Uh, which ones? The ones our secular allies - the jingoistic hawks and corporate elite - wanted, or ours?
We've been more effective in helping those who opposed our agenda raise a lot of money by citing us as bogeymen than in actually convincing the Republicans to follow through.
I'm one who expected far more from the support I gave to the Republicans than lip service. ("These people praise me with their lips, but their hearts are from me.") They've had 28 years - not exactly 40 of keeping us in the wilderness - but getting mighty close. About all they've accomplished is to give corporations and country club America everything they ever wanted from their dream list and to heap up coals on the military-industrial-congressional pork nexus.
And send out a heck of a lot of direct mail telling us to support them or else Satan was about to triumph.
Guess those mailings was right 'cause ol' Nick has as firm a grasp on the levers of power as ever and is sure wiggling them back and forth to keep the maximum amount of torment going in our poor world.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 19, 2008 8:21 PM
Disagree, but I appreciate your thoughtful dialogue. It is dangerous to be for something just because its new. We must learn to think through the issues through a Christian World View (something I think the Religious Right of the Past did not do... they just followed the Reagan Conservatives blindly) and filter all issues thorugh the Scripture and use proper hermeuntics to deceide what opinions we are to have. We as Christians are NOT ALLOWEED TO THINK INDEPENDENTLY, we are make every thought Captive to Christ and base are opinions on good solid exegesis of scripture.
I find it ironic that most so-called Conservative Christians oppose liberal political activism in things like poverty when you look at the great Calvinists of the past such as Abraham Kuyper (who was also a politician), John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Jonathan Edwards, and ect... were all very liberal and believed all people had a right to a basic quality of life financied by the government.
On the other hand, the emergents continue to ally themselves with people, I as a evangelical, cannot work with. I will not work with a universalist, open-theist, anti-trinitarian, ect... even if it is for a good cause if it is done in the name of Jesus. I do not consider them Christians and that has been the historical teaching of Christianity. Working with a roman catholic is one thing, working with Doug Pagitt is another.
If the Emergent church want to move beyond a loud voice among white middle class-upper class mainsteam to somewhat evangelicals and actually make a difference there will come a time when they have to make harsh truth claims and unify under the horror or horrors some sort of creed or statement of faith. It is just a reality. A good one in my opinion. No one will want to support long term something that they dont' know what they teach. Why would I support a medical missionary if I know he won't also minister?
The age of the religious right is coming to a close and I would agree this may be good. But moral truths do not change. Abortion is murder and the pro-choice posistion is evil and as much as I like Barak Obama and want to see change there is no difference between McCain whose pro-war stance has cost how many lives and Obama's stance on abortion which has cost many more. Iraq cost the lives of what maybe 600,000? How many babies died because of medically (not mentally) unnecessary abortions? The new religious conservatives think through complexities and apply biblical principles. The new religious conservative care more about life and the environment because its hurting people (bad environment policies that is) that it does about protecting profits of CEOs. We have a different political triage than that of our brothers from the past.
Agree? Disagree? Want to chat? e-mail me at: jgrig2@gmail.com
I want to hear your thoughts.
Posted by: Joseph Grigoletti | February 20, 2008 1:48 AM
I feeeeeeeeeeeel like spiking in parabolas!
Time magazine is a money worshipping pop rag and most Americans and most preachers have never heard of Hauerwas. He that hath of him let him refrain himself from mentioning therof.
Dobson and his little helpers helped bring in the worst president in American history and now we have abortion, plus torture plus war plus bankruptcy. But thanks to his valiant efforts families all over America are healthier happier and holier. Let's all drive down to Wal-Mart and watch the happy smiling families cruising the well stocked isles and reflect on the glories of the Reagan revolution. Now if we can just get rid of that pesky libewal wabbit. Brother Maynard, bring up the holy hand grenade and open the book of armaments.
There was in that neighborhood a neighbor who spent more money on weaponry than on his children, and more than all the other neighbors for hundreds of miles and that neighbor owed millions of dollars because of his delight in high tech explosives and smart bombs. Who among you would say he was the greatest neighbor in the whole neighborhood? For he that loveth annihilation shall have abundance of annihilation without measure pressed down with military bases for all.
Trying to reform healthcare while leaving a huge greedy bureaucracy dedicated to profit in place is a really dumb idea and not in the best interest of the country. Doctors and Hospital managers should be the best paid people in healthcare, not corporate executives. For he that hath not a pre-existing condition needeth not a physician.
When I was a child we sang sweet land of liberty. But it was really automobiles and TVs that people were into. A world of huge roaring steel coaches, synthetic rubber tires, asphalt roads, TV antennas whizzing past at 70 miles an hour. Turns out suburbia was a bad idea, and we're almost out of gas. Then came the oil producers unto them and sayeth unto them. If thou wilt drive SUV's thou must pay, yea even through thine own nose. And the oil producers built great air conditioned ski lodges in the desert and much cool architecture and Halliburton executives said come let us leave the land of lawyers and travel afar unto the welcoming city in the desert of Dubai, and there they counted much taxpayer money and were glad thereof.
Disconnected ideas? Yes. I guess what I'm trying to say is how about talking about something real.This article is not a good selling point for Tony's book.
Posted by: jonabark | February 20, 2008 3:07 AM
I am pro-life too. But the fact is that freedom of choice does not compel a woman to take her child's life. It is her choice, not Obama's. The people of Iraq, Haiti, Vietnam, Nicaragua etc. had no choice about the lost lives of their children.
Posted by: jonabark | February 20, 2008 3:31 AM
Solomon said "There is nothing new under the sun".
I think this applies here, as well.
What I'm about to say, a good many people will probably call "cynical". I prefer to call it "an unsophisticated obviousness".
When as Paul described it "I am determined to know nothing...But Christ and Him Cruicified.." becomes a little stale, uncontroversial, or perhaps dull and a little less interesting, there's always an interesting and provocative, interest inspiring topic to discuss... Politics.
History is repleat with such diversions. Many an ecumenical effort eventually retreated to the point of being little more than political alliances. Some of them have had some rather seriously disastrous results.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 20, 2008 3:53 AM
I am pro-life too. But the fact is that freedom of choice does not compel a woman to take her child's life. It is her choice, not Obama's. The people of Iraq, Haiti, Vietnam, Nicaragua etc. had no choice about the lost lives of their children.
The people of Iraq truly had no choice about the millions of murders committed by Saddam's regime. It remains to be seen if they can grasp the concept of self-governance and turn this chance into a system that does allow them the choice of living, and rejects the terrorism being marketed to and against them by thier neighbors. You might say that as of now, they DO have a choice, and at least recently, they seem to have started making some pretty commendable choices about whose ideas are better, and began turning on the murderous thugs of AQI, etc.
The people of Vietnam, Cambodia, etc, also had no choice in the millions of deaths that resulted from the rule of Pol Pot, and his ideological soulmates. Would they have been better off had we simply decided to WIN and never allowed the outcome that eventuated? The presupposition that peace and light and respect for life and the people would have had a choice about thier own lives, had the Vietnam war never occurred, hardly seems any kind of even remotely possible outcome.
Again, in the case of Nicaragua, one can hardly make the case that a lack of "interference" on our part would have created a just society, defensive and protecting of all life and liberty.
Which leads me to question exactly what your intent is when you made the statement above. I don't see you promoting the defense of life, merely attempting to make convenient political rhetoric without a substantiated foundation.
I do believe that WWII was justified, in every sense of the word. And I say that fully cognizant of the horrendous human toll it exacted upon EVERYONE involved. To blame that toll solely upon the allies is to entirely abandon all we know and understand about the nature of the parties in conflict.
To do the same for Iraq, Vietnam, etc, is no less an exercise in myopic navel gazing.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 20, 2008 4:15 AM
Yep, comments section on SoJo still unreadable.
Posted by: JimII | February 20, 2008 10:50 AM
Is anyone else confused about what an "emergent" is? Or is it a formalized organization called Emergent with a capital E? Then there is the "emerging church" which, I gather, is something different... According to Wiki (not always the best source), the emerging church doesn't always want or like to be affiliated with McLaren's cause. Obviously there is something called Emergent Village, which seems to lead this movement and allows Tony to tell emergents what they will believe.
Do you have to be politically active to be considered emergent? Is being a Christian and politically active all that is required to belong to the emergent movement? If so, how does that differ from any other politically active Christian? If not, what else do you have to believe? Is being an emergent defined by being a Christian of a certain generation or age? It seems like that is implied by a statement like "Emergents have grown up in the dire shadow of the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition...".
I'm asking these questions not as a criticism, but to gain information. Can anyone fill in the blanks here?
Posted by: Eric | February 20, 2008 11:18 AM
"Is anyone else confused about what an "emergent" is?"
Yes, because part of the emergent paradigm is an intentional effort not to define the paradigm. As they tell it, even emergents are confused about what an "emergent" is.
In some respect, it is helpful to examine what emergents oppose. They stand opposed to the prosperity gospel, and a number of their members once belonged to the seeker-based evangelical movement. The movement has strong roots in opposition to both.
Some members of the movement have been critical of the political and theological trends within the movement. They wish to retain the original inspiration of the movement, but have been critical of McLaren in particular.
Marc Driscoll of Mars Hill church is one notable example, and some like him have tried to preserve the nomenclature of the movement by describing themselves as "emergING" while opposing the direction of the "emerGENT" movement.
The emergent church itself is essentially a body of churches, not unlike any denomination or church movement with multiple locations. Some within the movement have tried to say that all young Christians are emergent by definition, or that those seeking a change from the traditional evangelical church are emergent, but that is not a common definition.
You don't have to be politically active to be emergent, though I have yet to meet a Republican emergent, and they tends to be pretty active politically (hence their presence here) so certain people are unlikely to be comfortable in their churches.
As for membership, one need not be a Christian to be a member, though the movement itself affirms that it is a pretty good idea to have some relationship with Christ. Generally, the leaders are Christians affirm the veracity of the Bible, but that is not a membership requirement to my understanding. The church allows homosexuality and divorce among its membership, for example.
In practice, the movement tends to appeal to a very narrow subset of the American populace. Young, relatively wealthy recent college grads with left-leaning politics are the sweet spot.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 20, 2008 12:25 PM
Thanks, Kevin. From what I've read and heard about the topic, I think your explanation is at least fairly close to the reality.
The emergent/emerging thing is something that was a bit new to me a few months ago. Since then I too have wondered exactly where they stand and what they believe. It does seem to be difficult to locate them on the theological map, and it does indeed seem that this is the way they want things.
Nevertheless, I don't think they, or any other group of Christians, deserve the kinds of vicious attacks from some quarters that we have been reading about (such as what we read about in the recent God's Politics thread about Shane Claiborne's cancelled invitation to speak at Cedarville College here in Ohio).
At the same time, those elements of the emergent movement that appear to be most attractive to me, such as some of their devotional practices, are fully available in other Christian traditions that have a far longer track record. So for me, the emergent movement is a curiosity but not a lot more. For myself, I prefer a more traditional church structure with some clearer and more objective theological and doctrinal foundations.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 20, 2008 12:59 PM
Jonabark!
What a post! Loved it.
"..come let us leave the land of lawyers and travel afar unto the welcoming city in the desert of Dubai, and there they counted much taxpayer money and were glad thereof."
And so on.
"Then came the oil producers unto them and sayeth unto them. If thou wilt drive SUV's thou must pay, yea even through thine own nose."
Sure it was disjointed, but it was inspired, true, and it made us laugh.
You get a "Sojourner" for Best Post (ever)!
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 20, 2008 1:14 PM
Trying to reform healthcare while leaving a huge greedy bureaucracy dedicated to profit in place is a really dumb idea and not in the best interest of the country. Doctors and Hospital managers should be the best paid people in healthcare, not corporate executives. For he that hath not a pre-existing condition needeth not a physician.
We have seen the light...
Trying to end hunger, while leaving a huge greedy bureaocracy dedicated to profit in place is a really dumb idea and not in the best interest of the country. Apple Pickers and Shelf Stockers should be the best paid people in the industry, not farmers and grocers. For he that hath never been hungry needeth not food.
Trying to end homelessness, while leaving a huge greedy bureaucracy in place is a really dumb idea and not in the best interest of the country. Framers and landscapers should be the best paid people in the industry, not contractors and electricians. For he that hath never been cold or wet, needeth not a home.
Down with greedy Safeway and Krogers, down with greedy home builders and developers, down with greedy farmers and grocers!
Viva la Federal health services, Viva la Federal Food service, Viva la Federal Home service!
Paradise has arrived, AT LAST!
Posted by: The Watcher | February 20, 2008 1:45 PM
Thanks for the explanation Kevin. From what you say it appears that "emergent" or the "emerging church" means different things to different people, but that Jones, McClaren and others involved with Emerging Village are trying to take this term and use it for their purposes and solidify into something more organized (perhaps into a political movement). There are others who consider themselves part of the emergent movement that don’t like this.
A question for the group… Is there anyone here who considers themselves part of the emerging church? If so, how would you define it?
Posted by: Eric | February 20, 2008 1:52 PM
quick question: under what period in world history was poverty any better and there was less war? I am not a bush supporter (I supported Ron Paul) but to blame him and the religious right for all the problems in the world (And america in general) is just not fair.
Posted by: Joseph Grigoletti | February 20, 2008 3:46 PM
Kevin,
Maybe I just don't get out enough, but I've never heard a conservative criticize Dobson. They do, however, all know who he is.
No offense to Brian or even Jim, but I know quite a few folks who find the ideas of "Red Letter Christians" or "emergent" politics to be quite appealing, but have no idea who might be the "leader" of a movement with these ideals. You can't be a spokesman for people who don't know your name.
Posted by: Sarah Caldwell | February 20, 2008 3:53 PM
quick question: under what period in world history was poverty any better and there was less war? I am not a bush supporter (I supported Ron Paul) but to blame him and the religious right for all the problems in the world (And america in general) is just not fair.
Your question is open ended and the answer to that has been the subject of debate and will continue to be until such time as the topic has lost relevance.
I would say that we live in probably the most monetarily prosperous time in the world's entire recorded history.
So, how do you compare "poverty" today to ... 300 years ago? What do you call "Poverty"?
Much of history, until very recently, subsistence lifestyle was considered the norm. Only the very few had such wealth as to be able to use it obtain, without physical exertion, all the available answers to their needs.
If that was the case was EVERYONE in poverty in 1700, because there was very little effective health care services available? Not even vast sums of money would buy you even the most rudimentary of services and treatments available today at prices that those considered poverty-stricken today can actually pay.
Today, statistically, "poverty" is defined by a math equation consisting of income and household size, with adjustments.
Again, it hardly seems like a real definition.
Perhaps if we defined it as being in a condition where a person or family is unable to obtain or maintain the "usual and customary" needs and services that are obtained by thier peers, we might make more headway.
Suppose we lived in the nation of El Cheapistan, where nobody earns more than $100 a year. But even a family of 7 can have every normal comfort and need, between a combination of subsistence living and economic trade. Are they in "poverty"?
Or, if we lived in "El Knuckleheadistan", where everyone earns $100,000 a year, but pays 99.975% taxes, and has to rely on distribution by a central government for EVERY need. Would they be in "poverty"?
I submit to you, the former would not be, the latter would. And yet that violates the monetary income definition.
So, would it be out of line to define poverty as being in a condition where an individual or family cannot provide thier normal needs for themselves?
Under that definition, it would seem that "poverty" is on the low side, yet there's evidence to say that there's been times when mass subsistence living all but eradicated that kind of "poverty".
Posted by: The Watcher | February 20, 2008 4:11 PM
Under that definition, it would seem that "poverty" is on the low side, yet there's evidence to say that there's been times when mass subsistence living all but eradicated that kind of "poverty".
Mark, good to see you again, dude.
Posted by: bud duncan | February 20, 2008 4:43 PM
"Maybe I just don't get out enough, but I've never heard a conservative criticize Dobson."
Welcome to the brave new world.
http://theproblemwithkevin.blogspot.com/2008/02/go-back-to-five-and-dime-jimmy-d-jimmy.html
Posted by: kevin s. | February 20, 2008 5:12 PM
I have been a big "emerging church" supporter for quite some time. I have also enjoyed Tony Jones' teaching and writing. "Postmodern Youth Ministry" was huge in my formation as a 21st century pastor. However, I really think the stink of death is starting to rest on the whole "emergent" thing. I believe 10 years from now we'll be able to point to the formation of the Emergent Village and giving Jones and McLaren the right to be the official voice for all things emergent as the beginning of the end. What originally felt fresh, exciting, and a new moving of the Spirit, now feels like a new denomination. It makes me sad.
Jeff Myers
Posted by: Jeff Myers | February 20, 2008 5:35 PM
Reading all of this leads to add for the good of the cause the following.
We live in a very messy world. You simply can't separate "relgious values" from "political values" or "social values." Jesus' message regarding life in the Kingdom of God has poltical implications. Case closed. Those implications cannot be avoided unless once chooses to corrupt the New Testament record.
Things get very messy when folks with various political agendas force the text to support conclusions they have already made apart from the larger story of the scriptures. Seeking spiritual support for their ideals, they bend and twist the biblical narratives until they get the shape they were looking to find all along. In ages past (and sometimes - sadly - still today!)many "religious leaders" bent the scriptures to support the practice of racism as "natural" and an economic necessity. Hitler, after all, was a "Christian."
Both left and right are capable of mainpulating the scriptures. In the heat of the battle, folks will disagree. Mud will be thrown. The business of religion and politics is always messy. Let's hope it doesn't become deadly to our culture and our world. We need God more than He needs us. Let's hope that the church that "emerges" in the coming years, looks like the one God intended. I hope that shape looks more like a cross than a swastika.
Posted by: mem | February 20, 2008 5:49 PM
Eric: While I think "Christian" is the only label I am called to wear, you can consider me an emergent enthusiast.
For the most part I think Tony's overview over the philosophical debate within emergence is spot on, with the exception of perhaps the following statement: "First, they're intent on finding and supporting politicians who will change the political landscape..." but that might just be my reaction.
My understanding is that emergence also has a lot more to say about the "practice" of doing and being church including the role of sacraments and liturgy and also an emphasis on social justice pulled largely from the readings of the Sermon on the Mount.
I'm sure I'm leaving out quite a lot, but I hope that is somewhat helpful.
Posted by: Scott Lenger | February 20, 2008 7:01 PM
Jeff and Scott - Thanks for the insight!
mem – You’re not the first person I’ve heard say that Hitler was a Christian. I’m not sure where this view comes from though. So much of what he said and wrote it filled with hatred and disgust for Christianity and the church.
Some sample quotes:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains…"
"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…"
Posted by: Eric | February 21, 2008 2:31 PM
One Implementation Model for Emergent Politics
The question posed by Jones is how the Emergent agenda can be political without being politicized—that is, how it can stave off cooptation by political parties when it is acting politically.
This can become a problem once one breezes by the argument that Christians should stay at home and tend to their nitting—i.e., saving souls for the next world while foreswaring all worldly involvement. While many proponents of Christian dualism*--be it in the form of Cesar/God disjunction or Pope Gelasius’ Doctrine of the Two Swords or what have you—have argued for a world-denying Christianity, it is an incoherent point of view. For political action is a universal part of every known human community. Political action, here notionally defined as an action (a decision, a practice, etc.) on interests, exists in every institution from the family to the church to the school to the state. To be is to do. And to do is to act politically. Chirstian inactivism is an oxymoron because by not-acting in the world while they are on the world these inactivists are, of course, acting, albeit in a negative sense. With this unteneable viewpoint these anchorites would shrug as the world disintegrates before their eyes. And their inactivity woud be a part of the problem.
There are many paths of political action available to Emergents. Joining forces with a political party, as the religious right has done, runs the risk, as Jones notes, of cooptation and its politization if not its corruption in and by a secular party. Of the different implementation options available to any movement, I believe the NGO model is the most desirable as it would insulate action from the inevitable “dirty hands” noted by Jones that would result from an involvement with a political party. As we all know, politicians often feel obligated to violate cherished precepts in the name of some greater good. The independence of an NGO (see the SCLC) avoids this problem.
An independent movement can therefore be political without becoming politicized. I would avoid all political parties as if they were dens of iniquity because, beyond the problems mentioned above, their bouncer is a guy named Charon.
*See Gauchet’s “The Disenchantment of the World” for a controversial take on how this dualism has produced our secular world as it marginalized institutional Christianity.
Posted by: Brent | February 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Anne's post above expresses one of my concerns about the emergent/emerging church (I recognize these may be technically different things) movement--while they appear to reject all things "modern" in favor of post-modernity, they are in fact raising many concerns and issues that have been raised by the mainline churches already.
If they were not so quick to dismiss the mainline denominations as "modern"--but would instead recognize the pre-modern roots of the existing mainline denominations, that would facilitate an opening up of new and fruitful dialogues in which we "mainliners" and the "emergents" could better learn from each other.
Posted by: Jay Egenes | February 21, 2008 4:13 PM
Certainly on the ground the emerging church community is very far from monolithic on political issues. The actual quotation cites Jim Wallis, but Wallis is not an emerging church figure. He doesn't claim to be, and doesn't seem to fit that.
It is a wise warning. Wallis has leaned in that direction, tending to soft pedal issues in which he at least nominally differs from liberal Democrats and seeming to associate a bit too much with leading Democrats, so the citation of him is understandable. And Brian, to my chagrin, serves as Chair of Sojourners, and has shown some tendencies in the same direction although not to as great a degree.
Whatever, there has been some leaning in that direction by some well known leaders, even though those not as prominent in the larger community often don't fit the mold so well. We should be careful.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | February 21, 2008 4:24 PM
Excellent article Tony. I think you've captured well the tension many of us emergents feel between needing to follow Christ's example by being engaged in transforming public life, while at the same time not wanting to be coopted by any particular party, or succumb to a naive utopianism that believes politics can solve all of our problems. I know I wrestle with this tension constantly.
Posted by: Mike Clawson | February 21, 2008 5:19 PM
You’re not the first person I’ve heard say that Hitler was a Christian. I’m not sure where this view comes from though. So much of what he said and wrote it filled with hatred and disgust for Christianity and the church.
It is undeniable, however, that he was "baptized" a Roman Catholic.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 21, 2008 5:21 PM
Thanks, Tony, for your insightful article. I especially liked your observation that emergents want a politics that could be considered more art than science.
Perhaps this is where Christian reflection and embodiment of Christ's way can contribute to the public conversation. Christians can offer a visible alternative -- a performance of politics/life that moves aweay from simplistic ideologies or rigid ethical codes.
Posted by: Steve Stanley | February 21, 2008 7:52 PM
Hi Tony,
"Consequently, emergents are looking for a couple of things. First, they're intent on finding and supporting politicians who will change the political landscape, those who will resist doing business as usual."
Is this an apologia for Obama?
"This may not differ appreciably from many politically engaged Americans, but the emergents may be the generation of Christians to represent a critical mass, a tipping point to upset the political apple cart."
How does that make them/us different from the Christian Right who upset the political apple cart as part of conservative/Republican coalitions over the last 20, 30 years, or of any other group that tips an election one way or another?
Posted by: BLM | February 21, 2008 11:06 PM
Rick - Yes, that is undeniable. So what? Infant baptism doesn't make someone a Christian. Being a Christian is a conscious decision one makes. (I’m not looking to get into a debate over infant baptism!).
Posted by: Eric | February 22, 2008 12:13 PM
From what I've seen, 'emergents' are increasingly voicing the same prejudices toward those on their right as the secular left does. That's not to say Dobson, Robertson et al. aren't dangerous. Boy, are they ever! But 'emergents' seem to be gradually closing the door on the dialogue. In doing so, they not only cut themselves off from their own roots, but are setting themselves up for a repeat of what the Christian Left did as the '60s wore on.
The Christian Left's heroic work in the civil rights struggle was breathtaking. But as time wore on, the others on the Left lampooned, categorized, tore apart and eventually just dismissed the Christian faith. The Christian Left just sat there mute, or even started joining in the chorus. They stopped challenging the rest of the Left's attitudes toward family, value-of-life, and personal behavior, and started believing in a New Morality. They became so socialistic that private enterprise and related economic freedoms were merely centers of greed instead of being at least in part the wheelhouse for any real economic strength or progress. While there was some truth in the secular Left's critique of Christianity and churchdom, there was much, much more truth behind what few critiques Christians on the Left could meekly muster up. By not putting forward that challenge in a strong and vibrant way, they eventually sapped from themselves the call to really follow Christ and really be the Body of Christ. For the most part, they became an echo, and their 'faith' got morphed into the realm of the new and the novel, in the name of freedom of course, losing touch with the old old story.
I am hoping against hope, and praying, that the 'emergents' aren't making that mistake again. I am hoping they don't soak up their co-belligerents' framework. And there are some good signs, Claiborne being one of those. But the signs are not all good.
Posted by: Bob Longman | February 24, 2008 5:40 PM
>> While there was some truth in the secular
>> Left's critique of Christianity and churchdom,
>> there was much, much more truth behind what
>> few critiques Christians on the Left could
>> meekly muster up.
Muster up about the secular Left, I meant. Though their critiques of others didn't hit home very well, either.
Posted by: Bob Longman | February 24, 2008 5:48 PM
I find it telling that Tony critiques McLaren and Call to Renewal for leaning left when neither one have formally endorsed a political candidate. Meanwhile, Jones, a paid spokesman for Emergent Village has endorsed Obama. (Emergent, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that is the parent company of EV). So, should paid spokesmen of 501(c)(3) organizations endorse political candidates?
Posted by: Moderate voter | March 1, 2008 8:59 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?