While I was away, the conversation continued surrounding my post on churchandpomo blog concerning egalitarianism and gender justice in the church. There were many fine comments, significant criticisms, and observations that suggest I need to clarify many things I said. So for those still interested, I offer this epilogue composed of comments, responses and hopes for where this whole conversation might go. There were so many things to respond to I could write a book. But, can’t do that! So I offer these short comments on what I have learned from this whole conversation. I do it with some trembling. Dare I go here again? Is it worth it given the inevitable firestorm? I can’t answer that! Instead, I just offer the comments for what they are. I offer them to further justice and reconciliation between the genders in the church and in the world. Since this could get long, I invite you to read only the comments you’re interested in as signaled by the headings (especially the last one).

I Eat Humble Pie on the Carley Fiorina Comment

In the churchandpomo post I argued that egalitarian discourse (that which argues in the terms of individually based rights, freedoms, opportunities and equality ala J.S. Mill, Madison, Jefferson, Locke) tends to sublate difference for a sort of sameness which requires all people to set aside ethnicity, culture and even gender in order to enter the forms of power and conversation that are encoded in this discourse. I consider this a well-known and debated argument in Critical political theory. I however, used Carley Fiorina and Hillary Clinton as two illustrations of this statement, as women who when they diverge from the dominant decorum are in return disrespected. They therefore have to dress and act in line with the dominant decorum and discourse (white male) in order to play in the halls of power as ensconced by egalitarianism in both American business and politics.

I now realize, largely due to comments from Dan Brennan as well as Julie Clawson, that this easily could be read that I view gender differences under certain stereotypes that have been used to enforce other patriarchal forms of injustice and caricaturing against women. For this I apologize. I agree that this was an overly simplified somewhat stereotyping comment. I recognize what it sounded like to those who have often suffered abuse at the hands of such stereotypes. I therefore plead with you all to hear me that I simply do not believe in the hardened stereotypes of gender difference that are so often used to box women in to certain roles and box them out of others.

There is a Difference Between Female and Male

Having said what I said above, I want nonetheless to affirm that there are differences between female and male and that somehow this must be honored in any justice worked out in the church (and society for that matter). For just as there are many women who have been hurt and victimized by the false patriarchal enforcements of gender difference that emanate from patriarchal sin, there are also many women, who I have known over the years (most egalitarians!) who have complained to me that they are shut out of the conversation, the dialogue and the leadership ministries of the church, who assert that they frankly cannot be heard, unless they somehow do battle in the terms set forth under (fallen) male (patriarchal) patterns of discourse. I believe we do not achieve true reconciliation and justice among the genders until women are allowed to enter the church/society in terms that allow them to maintain the integrity of their history and biology as female. Frankly, for me, egalitarianism does not have the resources within its discourse to make this possible. Indeed, I would say egalitarianism works against this. (I know those who are not privy to current political theory will find this puzzling, but I have no room or place to fully explicate what this might look like even within the CBE position itself – my apologies).

In a way Cynthia’s comments, in the churchandpomo post, reveal something about what I am saying. She put forward a typical characterization of gender identities that are used as justification for why women should not lead (of which she obviously disagrees with AS DO I). She described how “A good leader is an essentially active/initiating person. An essentially passive/obedient person would not be a very good leader. Women are supposed to be essentially passive/obedient, which is clear from their anatomy. Therefore, women cannot make good leaders.” I as well as Cynthia disavow this characterization. Yet it reveals not only the danger of hardened gender identities which over-canonize a cultural stereotype not found in the Bible. This characterization also reveals how a brand of leadership itself has been canonized according to a form of discourse which goes against the very words of Christ describing what leadership is for we who are Christians (I appeal to Mark 10:42-45 as a start). I think it is fair to ask if this brand of leadership is itself the product of a sin ridden patriarchal discourse at its origins. In the same way, I think it is fair to ask whether egalitarian discourse hides and encodes forms of leadership and gender discrimination that goes against what it means to be both “male and female” and Christian.

Defining Gender Difference: On Why I Won’t Begin the Conversation on This One

I was asked by my friend, and fellow co-member in the Life on the Vine community, Dan Brennan to define specifically what I see as the differences between male and female. I responded by saying I was not the one to initiate this, that indeed it should be a woman. Dan Brennan chided me by saying ” I don’t believe its up to women to initiate the discussion–I do believe white males (or non-Anglo Saxon males for that matter) can initiate dialog and thoughts. Admitting bias should not be equated with a passive surrender of the dance of gender identity, difference and reconciliation.” I love you Dan but I respectfully disagree. For I am in some ways inescapably a product of the white Egalitarian patriarchal system in which I was born and immersed into. I acknowledge the history I have been born into and shaped by. I believe it is OK to recognize this by asking those in minority voice to be the ones leading the discussion. I then can learn and contribute in a humble and responsive mode. For any other way is presumptuous. I believe this way of entering the discussion is what promotes and carries the conversation further. In this way, I am not in this conversation to win an argument, but to further God’s justice among us. I believe that the approach of listening first, speaking and responding second on issues where I have a blinding position of power, is the best way to promote justice on this score. I sincerely wasn’t copping out, I was following an epistemological method communally driven that gives preference to the minority voice.

Having Said This, What I Can Say About Gender Difference

Although I will not define the differences between male and female for the reasons I gave above, I can offer a few comments on why Egalitarianism might thwart valuable attempts by women to maintain and even identify what it means to be woman in this time, place and culture. For one, Egalitarianism as I use the term, is a system of justice defined and explicated by white men of Western European decent. That is its history. As Cornel West informs us, modern Western discourse is primarily the work of white men, Kant, Hume, Jefferson, Montesquieu to name just a few. This modern coinage of justice therefore cannot help but be slanted culturally towards the existing power group that wrote it, spoke it and are well practiced in it. If you doubt what this means towards minority voices, I encourage you to read ch. 2 of Cornel West’s Prophesy and Deliverance entitled “A Genealogy of Modern Racism.” All I am saying here is the obvious. To the degree that power and justice have been defined by white men (and I don’t even want to blame them …. er us … necessarily, it is what it is), and since Egalitarianism is largely that discourse, we might expect to find encoded in this discourse forms of power and identity that are to the advantage and well practiced by those who wrote it and have been in power the longest, i.e. white male Europeans. We then should be on the lookout for the ways even authority and power are culturally encoded to advantage “the ways of white European male.” To this extent, to the degree we rely on egalitarianism to define equality and work within it to define gender differences, we must be wary for the ways it privileges white men and excludes women.

Secondly, someone mentioned Miroslav Volf’s ch. 4 in Exclusion and Embrace in terms of its contribution to defining gender differences. To this I say a hardy “Amen.” For the life of me, I really don’t see a lick’s worth of difference between Volf and myself on the issue of gender identity and the Trinity. In fact I was already suggesting ways that would point towards Volf in the post at churchandpomo. I speak specifically about my comments about a.) the Trinity and perichoresis as being a model for gender relations, and b.) Eph 5.25 as being a subversive discourse to patriarchy. There are many great things that Volf contributes. Specifically I might make note of how Volf affirms the difference between male and female. He rejects that we can derive the content of gender identity by mirroring God (p. 176). Yet we can root the content of gender identity in the sexed body. Like me, Volf was responding to a post-structuralist (indeed a Lacanian), Luce Iragary. (I was playing off Judith Butler.) He was responding to Iragaray’s accusation towards Western justice as an “oppositional logic of the same,” an identical beef to the one I was exploring in my post. And although Volf is not as appreciative of postmodern philosophy as I am, he comes out to the similar conclusions, i.e. “we should root each gender identity in the sexed body and let the social construction of gender play itself out guided by the vision of the identity of and relations between the divine persons.” (p. 182). Volf then goes on to discuss perichoresis as the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Godhead, a vision of Oneness that defies the individualism and binary violence of the genders as defined by Western Egalitarianism (my words not his). He describes the “giving up of oneself for the other” of Christ the head of the church for her … as a model of relationality, a oneness, a relationality, a reconciliation that is now possible in Christ which I had hinted (and still believe) is subversive to patriarchy. All in all, I now see Volf’s chapter as a perfect compliment to my post at churchandpomo for the way it displays a way of gender relationship that subverts, indeed defies Western forms of egalitarianism that it seems many of us still want to latch onto as the primary articulation of what justice should look like. Volf of course is not arguing against egalitarian discourse, that’s my use of Volf.

The only thing I would add, is that I believe Colin Gunton’s brilliant masterpiece, The One, The Three and the Many, delineates all of this is ways more specific to my argument. For he displays perichoresis as a transcendental – meaning we can in understand all of reality, indeed all levels of relationality, as in some way perichoretic in a way that counters the accentuated atomistic relationality grounded in modernity (see pages 163-166). Gunton’s masterpiece unfurls the doctrine of Creation and the Trinity as the means of overcoming the many inherit problems of modernity. I view the current impasse over women in authority and ministry manifest in conservative Protestantism as a by product of our excessive commitments to modernity.

I am Aiming For Another Way

There’s more to say. The subject is inexhaustible. So I’d like to conclude by saying that my intention in the churchandpomo blog post was to seriously open paths to another way of thinking about gender relations in the Body of Christ as a witness to and a provocation for a new justice in society concerning gender relations. Sorry that it appears to have initially failed. I was a bit surprised at Julie Clawson’s words on her blog (in the comments) saying to Tony Jones “While Dave might personally mean one thing by his words, they echo way too much the typical complementarian stance to be helpful. Unless he defines clearly what those “biblical values” are, the general assumption will be that he is merely repeating cultural stereotypes that a vast majority of the evangelical church assumes to be Biblical. He is on very dangerous ground. If he wanted to be helpful in actually advancing “equality” he could do more than just parrot complementarian ideas.” Parrot complimentarian ideas? I am surprised by Julie’s comments but I understand. I have already apologized on this score. But in defense, I was posting on a blog aimed to engage “high profile theorists in postmodern theory and contemporary philosophy.” I thought I was doing that and taken out of context. In the process I was misunderstood as reinforcing cultural stereotypes. Julie, I hope we can actually discuss this sometime in the future when we cross paths as we often do. Having said all that, I am still hopeful that some of the paths I started to pursue here can open up a path for another way in gender relations in the church. I have hopes that missional communities and emerging church conversations can model a different way. For I am sick and tired of the immediate polarizing that happens in evangelical churches with this issue where all conversation stops and we get into the modernist trap of I am wrong and you are right. I believe both complementarian and egalitarian approaches are captive to an encoding which will keep this endless drone going on for another 100 years. Instead, I believe there is the basis for another kind of justice, a justice which I have already argued happens concretely and in real form around the Real Presense as we become re-membered into the Body as One in the Eucharist from which all other relations are constituted. I also believe the Trinitarian perichoresis can be mirrored in the Oneness of marriage. In concrete practice of both of these sacramental realities, I believe the new communities of the missional/emerging church can become a beacon for a new kind of justice in similar ways to how they already are leading the way in other forms of manifest concrete justice.

Peace.

I’m getting ready to take off for a vacation. Whewww … Can’t wait. So I’ll probably not post for the next two weeks. Unless I am sitting in a coffee house somewhere up in rural Canada with a good feed and some ideas (from the many books I’ll hopefully be reading on the shores of lake Huron) which simply cannot wait (But I’ll try to check in from time to time).

Before I go, I just want to respond to the plethora of comments on both the ChurchandPomo post and and my own blog here.

Thanks to everyone. I especially appreciate those who were gracious to me as a white male commenting on a subject a white male has no “right” commenting on.

On the accusations (Makeesha and others) that I am really an egalitarian because I affirm women’s ordination, women’s teaching role including over men in the church, and I affirm women’s full participation in the authority of the church. I just don’t think so. To the extent that egalitarian positions are built on the tradition and encoding of Western liberal democracy, I am arguing this is a form of justice inferior to what God is doing in Christ around the Eucharist alter. If on the other hand, equality is grounded in the politics of the Body of Christ – (Eucharist) Eph 4:4-12 “There is one Body …. ” – I willingly endorse this form of equality. But I argue we must understand that equality comes already encoded with a politics which undermines the peace and unity we seek as followers of Christ. I think the critical theorists I have called attention to, many of whom are women, are worth listening to. (Seyla Benhabib’s article “The Democratic Moment and the Problem of Difference,” in her edited volume Democracy and Difference is another place where some of these issues are introduced.) I humbly ask – can we at least take a look at whether the evidence for this might even be evident in some of the comments under these posts?

I want to propose that the equality we have in Christ will take different forms and shapes than Western egalitarianism. In the Body of Christ, the gifts given according to the Holy Spirit (Eph 4.11 Rom 12.3) are given “equally,” according to the measure of the Spirit, without discrimination between women or men (Acts 2:17,18). We are part of one body which forms our politics (1 Cor 11: 17-22). It is from this Eucharist Table in 1 Cor 11 that the gifts of the Spirit naturally spring forth in 1 Cor 12. There is simply no hierarchy, nevermind patriarchy, in the politics of 1 Cor 12. Therefore I see our politics (said in a good way) springing forth from the reconciliation we have in Christ (Gal 3:28). I subscribe to the critical theorists (many of whom are post-structuralist feminist or queer theorists) who see the western liberal tradition as a major stumbling block towards women participating in that Symbolic Order (a political structure like the nation state government or the church). I hear many women in the comments saying this cannot be so, but I urge a closer look at the lineage of the egalitarian language we are using. I suggest that we nurture a new imagination. I am not asking that we all wait for this new politics to be in place before women enter the authority of the church. Quite the contrary, let us, the missional and emerging communities start practicing this politics now! Again, I am pro women’s ordination and I am arguing that Egalitarian politics works against women’s full participation in the Symbolic Order, either in the Nation-State or the church governed by this politics. I don’t think I should be scolded for being against women’s justice just because I seek to uncover the injustice of the current Egalitarian order.

As a side note to this, and to answer Jason’s question from over at churchandpomo, I believe the Pentecostal, Holiness and Charismatic groups affirm women’s ordination in ways different than traditional protestant mainline. Traditionally, the Pent/Holin/Charis have affirmed women based on their emphasis upon the Spirit and His gifts as the grounding of the essence of the church. Many Black and/or Hispanic congregations grounded in these movements narrate gender and women’s ordination in ways that to me are emblematic of the equality we seek in the politics of the Body. That is … women are full participants in the clergy authority, yet there is no homogenization of what leadership looks like according to one gender or the other. I am predisposed to this way of Body politics. It is my belief (over generalized) that the mainline protestants have traditionally affirmed women’s ordination based in the language of rights, self expression, equal opportunity, individual freedom to pursue happiness, etc of classical egalitarian politics (J.S. Mill, Locke, Madison, Thoreau, Emerson). Although this all sounds good, I believe this brings us together on the basis of how to cooperate as egoist individuals with our own personal goals without killing each other. It obliterates difference so we can all get along. But I suggest there is no need for such a proceduralist minimalist politics in the Body of Christ where we can show the world a much better peace, a much different justice made possible in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ironically, Anglican Mission in America (orihgins in mainline) as well as the Vineyard churches (origins in charismatic movement) have both pulled back from women’s ordination because they were too afraid of the obliteration of gender. This is unfortunate and unnecessary in my mind. For gender difference can be narrated together with what God is doing to bring reconciliation and justice to gender relations (i.e. women’s full participation in authority of the church) without sublating gender difference. This is all part of another book in process (down the line after the one I am writing now).

Lastly, on narrating gender, this is a huge topic. I am not capable of sketching my ideas on a blog post. But dare I say, that the way the husbands role is narrated in Eph 5 .25 “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself (died) up for her” is a narration of masculine gender that has the potential to subvert patriarchy! It also rewrites the vary narration of power. And dare I say that Trinitarian theology can lead us in a way of understanding man/woman relations within marriage that can also subvert patriarchy, remembering that the term “headship” both refers to the husband’s narrated gender role in marriage as well as the First person’s relation to the Second person in the Godhead (1 Cor 11:3). Here again I believe the model of perichoresis has potential to undermine again patriarchal notions in the relation of husband and wife. I know that many women will look askance at these texts, seeing in them evidences of patriarchy. I want to at least probe the obvious ways these texts suggest the giving up of power (as patriarchy has defined it) as the very narration of what it means to be a husband.

Having said all this, I fully recognize I am a white male and I have no place to speak to women’s issues. I am only heard by the grace given me by the women among the readers. I have plenty more to say which would more fully explain my overall take here. I need to talk about marriage versus singleness, marriage as an order of creation/fall/ being redeemed/ yet shall be done away with in the Eschaton, how marriage cannot be parallel with the politics of the New Community of Christ. But a blog post isn’t a book. I can only provoke, not be exhaustive. I want to reiterate however that in writing on this stuff, I merely seek to make the way for justice and reconciliation in gender relations in the church. To me it is a big and important issue. To me evangelical egalitarianism hasn’t achieved what it set out to do because of its own encoding. (And neither has complementarianism – AGAIN I AM NOT A COMPLEMENTARIAN!). We must live a politics of justice that subverts the terms of violence, sublation of difference especially women, and egotism that undergirds certain parts of our culture. We must narrate gender difference in a truthful and faithful way. In all this, let us at least ask if it might be time for new language: the language of the Eucharist and the Trinity.

I’m open for more comments. Thanks for the great contributions.

I’m off for a few weeks of vacation. Blessings!

I just posted an essay on church and pomo blog on “Why I am Not an Egalitarian in relation to women in ministry in the church: Because postmodernity did it to me.” (The title was shortened for the blog). If you’re interested in the subject please check it out. But first I need to explain some things.

First, I believe flat out the issue of gender relations is central to the church and its witness to the justice God is working out in the world through Jesus Christ. Anyone who knows me for a while, knows that I have been an advocate of women’s ordination and women’s full participation in the authority of the church for many years. I do not subscribe to the complementarian approach that says women can be in any position of authority in the church as long as they have a man over them because I don’t believe that limitation is put on women in Scripture. I believe 1 Cor 14:34, and 1 Tim 2:12 is about something else. Yet I humbly confess I see some problems in staking out a position using the terms “egalitarian” along with “equality” and even inherent individual rights. It is the political assumptions that so often undergird those terms that bothers me.

I believe the Western liberal political assumptions encoded in the words “egalitarian” hinder true gender reconciliation and justice in the churches I have been in and around. They set us up to be individuals, not members of one another in a unity that supersedes gender yet does not erase it (Gal 3:28). They exert power discourses that sublate gender difference. So we have fights, square offs, pain, hurt, make women be men, hurling at one another in unbelievable division in local churches and denominations nation-wide. For these reasons I think the political assumptions that undergird the egalitarian interpretation need to deconstructed. I think postmodern critical theorists can help. Of course I also think complementarians need deconstruction as well for they are captive to the same political categories as egalitarians. I could have written the post on the complimentarians, but that would have been too easy.

Unfortunately I fear if I criticize or engage in the dangers of the political assumptions that underly the Egalitarian position, I get that look of not being Politically Correct, like I am a dinosaur from the fundamentalist dark ages (how can a guy read Judith Butler and be a fundy?). Like how can I REALLY be for women’s justice and full participation in ordination if I am not a complete advocate of the egalitarian position. It’s one of those postmodern things that sometimes you can be saying something that sounds like one position but actually means something quite profoundly different. So I knew I’d be taking some risks when I posted this essay. Nonetheless, I gave it a shot. Lord have mercy. Anyways, if you’re interested in why I am not an egalitarian – because postmodernity did it to me … check it out on churchandpomo and then tell me where I went wrong. Seriously, I’m open for conversation and feedback!

Since my book The Great Giveaway was published a year and a half ago I’ve been surprised by its reception. The book has been well received among missional church thinkers. The book has received a less enthusiastic yet still friendly response from emergent folk. The book is strongly influenced by Hauerwas, Yoder, the post liberal Yale theologians and Milbank and Radical Orthodoxy. It is safe to say that emergent thinkers have ambivalent feelings regarding some of these theologians and so I take no offense if I don’t always quite fit in with all my emergent friends. Nonetheless, I still try, because I believe that the emerging conversation is absolutely crucial for the future of the church in the West. (which is why I co-founded one of the very first emergent cohorts).

The book has been used in at least ten seminaries that I know of as primary course material. Canada has been very receptive to my book for which I thank them (I grew up in Canada). The Resonate group and the host of church planters bloggers from Canada have been very supportive. I think the particular mixture of Hauerwasian theology, postmodern philosophy, and evangelical history resonates (to use a pun) with Canada. This could be because Canadians feel the postmodern and post Christian contexts first hand more so than the U.S. (and the fact that I grew up in Canada doesn’t hurt).

Having said all of this, the response of the missional church crowd, its thinkers and people all around N. America/world to the book, has also been gratifying. When I first began writing, the Gospel and Our Culture network was young and mainline. The second wave of missional church was just beginning. I was finding many common things with Brian McLaren back then as well. I had co-led an intentional community of sorts in the city and felt a lot in common with all of the thinkers just mentioned. But then came Frost and Hirsch‘s book and a host of other authors and the movement jelled. Leaders such as Alan Roxburgh, Mark Priddy, Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch and many others emerged all over N.A.. And now there is no doubt, despite the complaints of “missional” becoming another label, that God is moving in this for the mission of Christ into N. America. To whatever extent, I am honored to be included in this conversation. That is why I appreciate so much Alan Roxburgh’s and Mark Priddy’s encouragement and the Allelon site featuring the book on their front page. And now comes Alan Hirsch’s review of the book with much enthusiasm. To all of these friends, thanks for including me in your conversations.

Regarding Alan Hirsch’s fine review, he gives The Great Giveaway a wonderful recommendation. He also offers two constructive thoughts that upon looking back upon the book the last year, I think he’s right. Allow me to address both of them.

1.) Alan says, “Dave aligns himself explicitly and wholly in the postmodern camp. I am no personally longer sure whether the lines between modern and postmodern culture are really that clear, and I think that a missional church deals with culture no matter what culture that might be.” This is not the first time this criticism comes my way. Jonathon Wilson said the same thing in the Christianity Today review. When I first heard this criticism in the early days of the book, I was surprised. For I have always said that I viewed the postmodern critique of modernity as the opportunity for evangelicalism to take a look at our own allegiances and weaknesses, not the opportunity to contextualize the gospel once again to another intellectual era. The postmodern critique enables us to see how married we evangelicals are to modernity and to thereby see the pratfalls via the critique offered by the Frenchmen and Anglo postmoderns. Although I do think there is an opportunity to engage postmodern culture in unique and careful ways not shaped by modernity, my main goal in The Great Giveaway was to urge the church to be the church again in all its embodied missional form. As I look back, I realize I needed to make my cultural analysis more precise along these lines. I did blur the lines a few too many times between calling for a cultural engagement of postmodernity and using the postmodern critique as a tool to uncover modern assumptions of evangelicalism. Thanks to Alan Hirsch and others for the insight.

2.)Alan also says, “The only reserves I have about the book are that the idea of ministry described in it is more decidedly pastoral (one-dimensionally traditional if you like) than I am personally comfy with. I prefer (as you might know) a more full orbed typology of leadership-APEST (Eph.4).” Here again, I think I tried in the book to make it clear I was for a multiple bi-vocational missionally engaged leadership in chapter three of the book, especially pages 92-94. But I admit that I do have a suspicion of rogue ordinations or entrepreneurial reverends, pastors who are ordained into leadership because of their entrepreneurial abilities. I see value in seminary training where the history of our faith, the interpretation of Scriptures, the testing of character, is all passed down and tested. For if we can no longer hold onto the kinds of authority indebted to modernity, we must return to the passing on of an embodied Story. McIntyre calls this a tradition. And this requires some sense of being part of history, what God has been doing in the world before we got here and where He is going after we are not here any longer. This to me is important to being missional. None of this however negates a multiple ministry leadership, sharing these five crucial giftings. Anyone who has read this blog here, here , or Out of Ur here would doubt my sincerity. At our church we have 3 pastors going on more. We have ordained 2, had 2 already ordained, sent out 2, and have 4 in the process of ordination with more to come. We share pastorate in mutual submission and have been bi-vocational from the start. If I had to write the book today I would emphasize these things more than I did when I wrote The Great Giveaway. I agree that one reading The Great Giveaway could walk away thinking I am more friendly to the traditional pastor role. And so again I am appreciative of Alan Hirsch’s insightful words.

So all I can say here is many thanks to Alan Hirsch and all of the missional thinkers, laborers, and conversation partners. You all have challenged me, and grown me in Christ. I’m actually working on a new book and this growth has made writing even more difficult. Ugh …

Posted by David Fitch | 8:39 PM |9 Comment(s)

Notes from Two Conferences in One Week: EkklesiaProject and Emergent Midwest

Monday, July 23, 2007

Last week was a busy week for conferences (plus I officiated a wedding). The EkklesiaProject Conference was Mon-Tues-Wed and the Emergent Midwest Gathering was Fri-Sat. Here are some highlights from Ekklesia first.

The Ekklesiaproject conference focused on Learning Christ – Congregational Formation. Stephen Fowl spoke to us out of Phillipians. He translated Phil 1:27 as “Do this one thing: order your common life in a manner worthy of the gospel.” He said this verse is the centerpiece – the punch line for the entire epistle. Fowl said this is the task Paul gives the Phillipians and it is one the primary tasks Paul leaves the church of the 21st century. The rest of the epistle is unfolding communal practices of imitation in becoming like Christ as set around the pivotal Phil 2:5-11. He put forth a wonderful insight out of Phil 3:15 “Let as many of us as are mature display this way of thinking, feeling and acting. If any of you are inclined to adopt a different pattern of thinking, feeling and acting, God will reveal to you the proper mindset to adopt.” He said that last phrase illustrates the difference between Stalinist formation and a formation where God is at work. In other words there is certainty for Paul as to what is the way of Christ, but no need to coerce it for God will work it out through faithfulness over time. I could say more but I recommend Stephen Fowl’s theological commentary on Phillipians.

Mark Lau Branson (from Fuller) presented a workshop where he talked about the work of leading transformation in congregations. It described the difference between STANDARD CHURCH PROBLEM SOLVING, i.e. go into a church, study the problems, talk solutions and then propose a plan to implement solutions – and APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY, i.e. asking questions about where God has been at work and then stoking the imagination as to how to further participate in these ways as a body. He called the latter interpretive leadership. He said the deadest churches he had been had still been places where God had been wonderfully at work, but there were no witnesses. He said every epistle of Paul (except Galations) begins with a thanksgiving prayer. Branson asked “when you begin like that, how does that shape your imagination?” He said starting out with appreciative questions about where God is working shapes the imagination totally differently than starting out by asking what’s wrong with this church, where have we failed? What are the problems in this church? Branson then went on to describe his work in a small little Methodist church dying in Oakland. The example of this one missional community is stunning. It’s impact began in the local community school, tutoring, led to changes in school lunch, class size, school funding, state wide! He said hospitality for the NT takes place in the neighbor’s home, on the neighbor’s turf. He described powerfully a community getting engaged missionally in their neighborhood. I came away stoked! I recommend his Memories, Hopes and Conversations.

My last highlight from the ekklesiaproject conference is some Hauerwasianisms … things Stanley Hauerwas said in the panel discussion that ended the afternoon on Tuesday. (I think Stanley said at least most of these). I could comment all of these, but there’s no space in this post. Stanley said:

• Truth that is desperate is a lie
• It is peculiar to American Christians to be able to say “Jesus is Lord and that’s my personal opinion”
• Stanley talked about the immobilization of the church. He said pastors should quit doing everything … and then told of his pastor in South Bend who would announce from the pulpit for four straight weeks “The altar cloth is dirty and needs cleaning and ironing.” Stanley complained why doesn’t he just do it … but that would have missed the whole point.
• Politics is the art of the possible, but the great question is who defines what is possible.(a quote from someone else)
• Locality is crucial. Of course, I want the war in Iraq to end – but I want the janitors at Duke University to have a living wage.
• National politics is like the Roman circus in first century Rome. It is entertainment to keep us distracted from the real issues.
• Voting is a form of violence. You vote once, then 51% tells the 49% what to do.
• Think about the effort it takes to come together and hear everyone – the church does not vote.

The MIDWEST EMERGENT CONFERENCE
I also went to the Midwest Emergent Conference in the Burbs. I could only go Friday during the day because I officiated a wedding for a great couple at our church, Fri nite and Sat morning. I offer just a few comments. Mike and Julie Clawson are to be commended for the great work they did pulling this altogether. (And I wish I could remember the name of the woman who worked alongside Mike and made this happen to commend her as well). I learned just a little bit more about what is going on amidst the Emergent conversations. I benefited from excellent conversations with Will Samson, Tony Jones among many other friends I see from time to time.

In the first session, Tony Jones talked about the need to move beyond the polarities of liberal and conservative and not let our theology be defined by such binary ways of looking at the world. He talked about avoiding a “third way” still held captive to the rationalities of modernity because it is still defined against conservative and liberal.

Doug Pagitt then argued for a wholistic gospel that includes teaching both about Jesus and about the kingdom of God. He seemed to imply strategically that the kingdom of God should be separated from Jesus. He got a lot of hands with questions on that. He also reminded us that the kingdom is bigger than the church and that God is at work everywhere, whether urban, or suburban or rural. He rightfully emphasized that wherever God is active and working in the world, we want to join in with that.

I also showed up at the book party for Will Samson’s Justice in the Burbs. Will’s doing Ph.D. work at U of Kentucky. I enjoyed our talk. I like the ground he is covering in his Ph D work. and we will be having him at Northern in the fall.

The week was hectic. The highlight of the conferences was meeting great people. I suggest the words of Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt point to the two central questions for the future of both emergent, emerging churches, and missional communities. As I look back on the Ekklesia time from the Emergent time, I believe Hauerwas would agree with what Tony and Doug said (on at least that last statement I described by Doug). Yet I see in the Hauerwasian club a post modern suspicion towards the possibilities of true justice being forwarded through the politics of America. Sometimes Stanley is almost Foucaultian in his relinquishing of any ability of cooperative justice efforts to overcome the totalizing powers of capitalism and democracy. Personally, I’d like to see missional/emerging thinkers engage the ever ubiquitous Foucault and derivatives thereof on this issue. What about you? Does Stanley’s words about local justice, and his comments on national politics disturb the ease with which we say the missional mantra “God is already at work in the world, the church’s job is to find ways to join in.” I still believe these basic tenets, I merely suggest that our theology and ecclesiology must be robust behind these statements in order for them to mean anything substantive. I shall post more on this in the future.