I know many folks are into this new-fangled "find your tribe" stuff, but it deeply concerns me. It is postmodern; it denies the "communion of the saints" and it's yet another one of those "church growth" theories that prevents genuine integration and creates potential racial, gender, and theological divisions -- not to mention the economic division it creates.So, I'm very pleased that, in their new book, Hidden Worldviews: Eight Cultural Stories That Shape Our Lives
, Steve Wilkens and Mark Sanford address "postmodern tribalism." The influx of tribalism thinking in the Church must be challenged. (By the way, I spent some time with Steve Wilkens in New Orleans -- great time and I look forward to more times with him.)
, Steve Wilkens and Mark Sanford address "postmodern tribalism." The influx of tribalism thinking in the Church must be challenged. (By the way, I spent some time with Steve Wilkens in New Orleans -- great time and I look forward to more times with him.)The authors bring out the terms connected to tribalism, and not all of them are positive: multiculturalism, affirmative action, postimperialism, ageism, balkanization, identity politics, ... and others.
Where does our identity lie? Ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, American, human being, social underdog, etc..
Power structures are laced together with these sets of terms. Does tribalism threaten the Church or is it the only way forward?
Can the Christian surrender the universal claim and the universal community?
The USA used to see itself as a melting plot, where many became one. At some point many feel they have abandoned their heritage when they are brewed in the melting pot.
Is it better to see the USA as a Mosaic than a melting pot? Here cultural identity is maintained and sustained as a right.
Postmodernity contends, the authors argue, that all social structures are political and about power. This leads to the idea that even justice and truth have become political categories. Postmodernity has shattered not only the melting pot but also the mosaic.
Postmodernism props up tribalism. Modernity focused on universality; postmodernity focuses on particularity (tribes). Truth is socially constructed; one's happiness is not measured by a universal standard but by one's integration into a tribe; and this means the marginalized need to undermine the power structures.
There are advantages to be gained from postmodernity: empathy, new perceptions of power and the systemic nature of sin and that culture provides a way of ordering life.
But the authors find problems: tribalism can become deterministic, it relativizes "tribes" while absolutizing "my tribe" and it can too often become just another power ploy. Furthermore, it can create a cult of victimhood.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Wow. Looks like another adventure in missing the point. Probably on my part. I come at this discussion from the TED talk with Seth Godin where Tribes are seen as spontaneous, organic affiliations of those who share a common interest. He also points out that any individual belongs to a multitude of tribes at any given time or point of contact he wants to make.
But that's not what you all are talking about at all.
I guess I didn't get the memo. Is church talk on tribalism about forming, regulating, directing, and somehow managing tribes? If so, it goes back to my original reply that says we are using identical words to talk about radically different contents.
So, in the context of this conversation, what is meant by the term "tribe"? Is is a sub-denomination of groups that tries to force its members to adhere to some kind of fixed standard? Or is it a spontaneous association of individuals around a shared concept, idea, cause, or endeavor? Is it organized (which seems to be the opposite of what Godin describes)or organic, i.e. springs up on its own? Is is self-defined/described or is it identified and described from outside its confines or a combination of both?
Simply put - what in the world are you guys talking about?
"We" vs. "Us/them" language can be attained by maintaining tribal themes. Tribal distinction has value, just as male and female have value. We are not only drawn to distinction because we are broken - we're are drawn because particular communities are designed to draw us in, and harbor us in life.
Re: Same words/different meaning.
I think that if the content of discussion is misunderstood it is because "tribes" which are basically large "clans" is really poor language to talk about what sounds to me like "affinity groups," which border on "cliques".
Re Jeff (#14):
Jeff,
I see in your post differentiation on the liberal/conservative axis and an education axis, but I see nothing of class or race, the axis that are most divisive in America.
In short, I find "tribes" to be terrible language to use in what I think is a useful discussion.
Peace,
Randy Gabrielse
Funny... was just teaching and discussing this in our church community last night!
Tribes are a reality in our culture... I think in the past the church embraced a form of 'modernism' to the degree that it practiced a 'one size fits all.' Not recognizing and even celebrating God's diverse gifts is not only dishonest (usually propping up a dominant culture as the 'one' culture), it can often do harm to people.
However, maybe in responding we've gone too far the other direction... Where we try to have 'custom' church and ministry for every tribe, and thus segregate the Body of Christ!
This plays into our narcissistic culture... that everything, including church and faith, should be about me and what's convenient for me.
We have found, in our Christian community, that things like practicing the Lord's Table (communion/Eucharist) weekly, and following the lectionary cycle and common liturgical prayers help us see it's about the whole body of Christ, not just us and our preferences.
"Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." 1 Cor. 10:17
Why must we set up the particular and the universal in opposition?
This smacks of modernity!
:-)
Don't we always ground the universal in the particular and vice versa?
Cheers.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.