Tribalism and God’s Kingdom vision to bring all humanity together under one universal “tribal” head – Christ – seem to be in serious tension here:
“His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, … thus creating in himself one new humanity from the two, thereby making peace” (Eph 2:15-16).
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).
“And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment?to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ” (Eph 1:9-10).
I wonder how unchurched unbelievers “hear” these passages? Might they sound a bit triumphalistic, totalitarian, etc. without knowing the broader context and full metanarrative of redemptive history?

And of course:
“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev 5:9).
The point, it would seem, is that God is into bringing about a unity that goes deeper than our earthly tribal associations — i.e., our common identity as human beings made in the imago Dei. Hence, the Christ who becomes our head (Eph 1:10) is also called the second Adam.

Scot, have you seen the “tribe” video at the TED website? i can’t recall the teacher’s name, but it was a great representation of the “tribalism” of which you speak. if you go to http://www.ted.com and search “tribes” you’ll find a fascinating video. one of the things that stood out in the talk by Seth Godin was the statements, “People want to be missed.” i think this has relevance for the Church. if people have a strong desire to be missed, how does the Church use language of incorporation into the body of Christ – language that is biblical – to help people see their place in the Kingdom…in the Church?
hope this is on point!?

Tribal affiliations are much harder to maintain once you have kids. Theological soundness aside for a moment, just from a practical standpoint I wonder how many tribal churches will outlive baby booms with their tribal identity intact?

Yes, I see where this “tribalism” can be forced under the postmodern umbrella but … what? I think we have less “tribalism” or what might be called “the club” mentality than we used to before anyone heard of the term postmodern. Baltimore, for example, where I was born, was a city of distinct and rigid tribes: Germans lived with Germans, Italians with Italians, Czechs with Czechs, WASPS with WASPS, Jews with Jews and blacks with blacks and woe betide you if you tried to cross a line. Germans were Lutherans, WASPs were Episcopal and Presbyterian, Italians were Roman Catholic, blacks stayed in their AME churches … if anything, postmodernism has helped make people more aware of the socially-constructed nature of these “tribes,” their arbitrariness, the problems of setting up tribal hierarchies–why on earth was the WASP culture “on top,” etc? Tribalism is, I agree, what the body of Christ needs to overcome, but I wouldn’t yoke it to postmodernism. If anything, it was the obsessive classifications of the modernists that reinforced tribalism.
And do things like affirmative action, meant to decrease tribalism, contribute to it? We may not like it, but its aim is to offer access into closed tribes.

And also–the “universalism” of the melting pot, as been exhaustively pointed out for many years, was the “universalism” of everyone adopting the worldview of British-American elites, which was, we now understand, a fairly narrow and distorted “universalism.” If that is held up as a nostalgic ideal, we are in trouble. A better way of framing this, imho is an emphasis on inclusion rather than universalism. We’re going to come from tribes-rather than trying to hide this, as used to be the answer, such as in Jewish people adopting WASPy surnames–let’s acknowledge the tribes, appreciate them, and not use them as a barriers to inclusion.

Diane,
I think you are right here – tribalism isn’t new, especially along ethnic and class boundaries. I do think we may have more emphasis on a form of tribalism attached to age – and an unwillingness to tolerate cross generational interaction on any real level.

Chad beat me to the punch on this. But here’s the YouTube link to the Seth Godin TED talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQGYr9bnktw
My fear when I hear evangelicals talking about Tribes is that they’ve removed a term/concept from its original context – in this case a presentation of the business world by a marketing guru – and turn it into something it was never intended to be. Then they draw up battle lines on the issue they’ve made it to be and duke it out over something the original author never imagined.
I think conversations about Tribes are profitable – IF we are talking about the same thing Godin is talking about. However, I also fear it can become a “movement” in itself that takes on a life of its own and, zombie-like, slowly marches its way through the church fad followers, eating up their brains.
I’ll have to check out your book recommendation, Scott, and see what they have to say to see if they’re talking about the same thing Godin is talking about or something altogether different.

My grandparents on one side had a mixed marriage. She grew up going to St. Mary’s church (the Irish parish) and he grew up going to St. Joseph’s (the German parish). On the other side, my grandmother was one of seven children, every single one of whom (except one who did not marry) married another Irish person, except for my grandmother who married someone of Central European ancestry. We stand out at family reunions.
And then in the generation before that there’s my grandmother’s uncle who was disowned and never spoken of again after marrying a Protestant.
Tribes are seriously nothing new. We’re just talking about them now rather than just seeing them as the natural form of human existence.
I believe strongly that we need both a “home base” (call it a tribe if you like) and also to have our boundaries stretched. Putting all the emphasis on “home base” is harmful, yes, but so is thinking that we shouldn’t need a “home base” and be all about boundary stretching.

How is ‘tribe’ different than ‘church’?
Seems like it’s getting at the same concept, except using a different word that has less religious baggage with it, and in doing that probably gets at the original sense of the word ekklesia better for contemporary ears.
“Church” has been loaded with almost too much history, and often not happy history–with it often implying connotations that were far different than what the original communities probably had in mind.
What is a better word to express a family quality loyalty that doesn’t involve blood relationships? Being part of a family doesn’t inherently mean exclusion or anger at outsiders. Just means a particular loyalty and dedication to others similarly dedicated.
It also strikes me as yet another catchy word that pomos like to use, and I don’t really like the lingo all that much, but it doesn’t seem particularly offensive as such.

Tribalism seems to me a natural (if at times misguided) response to the dis-integrative realities of a cultural of individualism. The idea of an identity that is shared with others is powerfully appealing after generations of individualist social & communal isolation. This isn’t defending tribalism, but point to a dynamic that plays a part.
Some might argue that modernism in the church was a form of tribalism. After all, tribalism is significantly characterized by uniformity. While currently tribalism might be drawn by affinity (which is voluntary), the tribalism expressed through modernism reflects an often forced commonality through the threat of social/spiritual ostracization. Both have negative implications.
The emergence of neotribalism is characterized by it’s mimicking of indigenous tribalism. While it’s intention might be to honour those cultures/peoples, it is usually done with a reckless and shallow co-option for more utilitarian purposes. It can become another form of colonialism. Having lived and worked with peoples from indigenous tribal cultures, I have come to believe that there are a great deal of tribal dynamics that we could (and should) learn from. This is not a denial of their inevitable internal problems and failings, but rather an affirmation of the corrective (not replacement) they offer to the wider western church.
Great discussion.
Peace,
Jamie

Diane is correct that tribes in the old-fashioned sense of ethnic and kin groups is an old issue that a properly chastened postmodernism helps break down. Even though they grew up 6 blocks apart in Sheboygan Wi., I can only recount one birthday party where my Dutch Christian Reformed grandparents were in the same building as my German Methodist grandparents. As a historian I am very aware of the similar divisions in other cities.
I have seen such age segregation and ended up ministering to refugees from churches that practiced it. I have been blessed to be in congregations that have not promoted this at all, and in them to have real opportunities to learn from those older than myself. We could, however, do much better at learning from our young people.
I think of the last in light of my experience with university teaching: It is always good to get the feedback of essay tests, where you see how students heard and processed what you thought you presented in class. If we never get that kind of feedback from our young people, how can we expect to communicate with them? See my comments on “Third-way preaching” to the same.
Peace,
Randy Gabrielse

I agree that embracing the idea of tribalism can be detrimental to our oneness, which seemed to be a pretty big passion of Jesus for us. But for me the idea has been helpful on a different plane: as I have personally grown more and more frustrated with evangelicals, to choose to acknowledge them as my “tribe”, that is, the tribe that gave me roots, brought me to faith and helped to establish my faith, well that’s a necessary act of humility and gratitude that I need to do. Otherwise my frustration turns to judgment and distancing which is something the Body of Christ (and my heart) doesn’t need.

Potential disagreement.
As a church planter, and one who does target a specific ?tribe? (in our city it is the person who is a little more liberal, a little more educated, probably younger than 40). I find cultural distinctions very helpful. They are not about separation (the culture is already separated). They are about a fundamental spiritual language.
I consistently find that the people I serve and love in my culture do not speak the same spiritual language being used in the other churches in my city. That is the problem. As such these people I love cannot have a real, transformative experiences of Jesus in the current churches in my town, nor are they attracted to their expressions of Christianity.
Because they do not speak that language, most of my friends and colleagues just don?t get it.
So we embrace an identity as a church that wants to show Jesus to that culture. At its best, Jesus leads our tribe, and we find ourselves moving toward both other Christians as well as other ?tribes? that are not anything like us (which in my mind this tribal distinction reflects strongly the commission of Israel in Exodus and the church in Acts. We went through Romans this summer, and this theme of different kinds of Christians coming together was a central part of our study. But the initial distinctions are given. It is after faith that we begin to speak a new language together.)
Given time, I could give specifics, but these are some basics as I see them.
Much love – Jeff

While I agree with many of these concerns, I’d push back on the claim “modernity focused on universality”. Maybe in some sense, but more like everybody was universally expected to be like white male Europeans. At least postmodern tribalism recognizes that people really do come from different places with different perspectives. At its best, it would also recognize that it is wrong for any “tribe” to lord it over another.
Ultimately, of course, the church has to be one family. But I think the key concept would be “unity, not uniformity”. We are heterogenous and always will be, but our differences (tribal and otherwise), while not to be denied or glossed over, should take a back seat to our unity in Christ. So to the extent tribalism puts the differences ahead of the unity, it should be resisted.

Tribal sounds okay to me, to the extent it describes nonessentials or accidentals of humanity. We can enjoy e pluribus unity, unity in diversity, a unity of mission and diversity of ministry. We can honor families and cultures and inculturate what is essential. It can be life-giving and relationship-enhancing. As such, this diversity is even something to celebrate.
Tribalism is not okay because it treats accidentals as essentials and privileges uniformity over unity. It is divisive, life-destroying and relationship-detracting. This reality must be confronted. It is a menace to the public order, a danger to peace.

“We need, for instance, to understand historical necessity in order to insert our own action into it: but if we hold too tightly to history as it has been, we soon cease to make history what it ought to be.”
Emmanuel Mounier, “Personalism” University of Notre Dame Press, 1950, 1952, p. 61)

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.