Phyllis’ Grand Emergence
Last week I was in Toronto and had a great time with Phyllis Tickle. Great lady! Witty, effusive, full of facts and figures. Phyllis proposed her thesis concerning the Great Emergence. There is a massive cultural shift going on in the West. In response, the church is forced to clear out its attic (it happens once every 500 years). Amidst this rummage sale of sorts, churches and traditions are emerging to form a new version of church. A new core is coming into place taking the church into the next 500 years.
Sorry but I don’t see it.
Emergence or Divergence?
I admit that I’m naturally skeptical on meta-conclusions drawn from even the best historian’s study of Western history. But my take on Phyllis has more to do with what I observe in the West. Her thesis assumes that Christianity is still vital in the West. In fact, for Phyllis, it is vital enough to sustain meta-conversations across denominations and arrive at a new coalescence together. I see a Christianity whose survival is in doubt in the West. These church conversations therefore look more like Christians talking to themselves while acting as if we can influence a world that doesn’t care about what we have to say anymore. Phyllis sees a Christianity that comes together (eventually) through conversations. I see a Christianity that is splintering. As a result Christians look antagonistic to the world. Consequently, I don’t see a Great Emergence in our future. I see something that looks more like a Grand Disappearance exacerbated by this unappealing internal Divergence.
Conversation or Incarnation?
This view of things drives the Anabaptist in me to push conversations into the concrete life of incarnational communities. Anabaptist Christians are comfortable with the status of a minority. For us therefore, it’s a matter of gathering what is left of the faithful to inhabit contexts and live what we know to be true humbly and peaceably. We are called to incarnate Christ in a way of life that submits to Jesus as Lord and then watch what God will do. I think Phyllis thinks the future will come with grand conversations that lead to an eventual convergence. Anabaptists don’t find predicting the future helpful. Instead, we think we will get to the future through living the Kingdom faithfully, communally and incarnationally and letting God do His work. Conversations should be resolved in the concrete circumstances of incarnational life. Phyllis is from an established church (Episcopal) in the south (where there are a lot of Christians). Most of us Neo-Anabaptists have lost confidence in the established church. And a lot of us are from the north.
What Emergent Folk Don’t Understand Us Neo-Anabaptist Missionals
This all gets to the reason why I think some Emergent folk don’t understand us Anabaptists. Emergents push for conversation that is inclusive. We push for inclusive conversation that moves towards resolution on the ground under Christ’s Lordship in community. Like Phyllis, Emergents believe that somehow through talking we will all converge someday. They have faith that the established church will form anew (we Anabaptists smell Christendom here). We push for local incarnation, the working out of our faith and practice and mission in local communities who live under the Lordship of Christ and His incoming kingdom. Here we not only converse, we practice conflict resolution in mutual submission to His Lordship, we encounter His presence and receive and give out of the Eucharist, we minister to the poor by being present among them offering what we have, we participate in community, submitting to each others’ gifts. We do all these things in a way that theology is worked out on the ground.
I am sure Emergent’s do all of this! Yet for us, this is the soil from which true theology shall be done. This is the soil for the renewal of the church. We therefore resist isolating issues from the church community’s life in the world. We believe you work out issues like same sex relations, pluralism, gospel etc., IN MISSION. We believe you work these issues out one community at a time and report what we have learned to the larger Body. We work these issues out to resolution because they will not go away and demand the attention of our communities who are dealing with these issues right now.
“Disputable Matters”
In Emergent conversation, “disputable matters” (Rom 14) are to be held open for discussion in perpetual conversation. The looming question for us Anabpatists is who gets the power to call something “a disputable matter”? Who gets the authority to say “this issue should be left open versus a belief/and or practice that must be dealt with for the sake of God’s justice/righteousness in the community and world? For the Anabaptist, this is the job of the community as the Holy Spirit works from the ground up. When an issue arises, we continue to work together via Matt 18:15-20 until it is resolved (this could take months or even years). It is the local community which determines whether this issue can be resolved between two people or must be resolved for the whole community in its context.
Why I am Misunderstood Often In Emergent Circles.
Recently, in response to the continuing factions within the post evangelical landscape (as exemplified in the Rob Bell episode), I proposed on FaceBook that we need to work for a third forum to have theological discussions that avoid the two existing default options for framings theological cultural discussions (Emergent and Neo-Reformed). I suggested such a third forum would make space for the missional incarnational way. In response, I got the following articulate responses from my friend Mike Clawson …
He said this …
“I am increasingly getting the impression that a lot of the Neo-Anabaptist/Radical Orthodoxy folks out there don’t really want emergent types like Brian or Rob or me as a part of that coalition. Maybe they don’t get that our hesitancy to give solid answers and root ourselves in one particular theological tradition is itself a deliberate theological response. Or maybe they just don’t like that response (not surprisingly – few people are comfortable with letting ambiguity, gray areas, and diversity of opinions remain unsettled for too long). Either way, once again I feel like folks like myself are being pushed out of the camp – only this time not just by the Neo-Reformed crowd. Hopefully I’m wrong.”
the he said this …
“what I’m suggesting is that that community doesn’t have to be limited to just one particular tradition. We can exist within multiple communities and within ever widening spheres of community – some as broad as the human race, and some as narrow as a local church (or even just a small group within it). And all of those communities can have a role in shaping and forming us and our perception of truth. I guess I’m making an argument in favor of pluralism and the plurality of truth. I cannot limit myself to only one community of discourse (though I will not divorce myself from those communities either) because God’s reality is always so much bigger than just that one narrow realm of vision.”
These two responses illustrate for me the differences between Anabaptist missional and Emergent as discussed above! Notice, they want to hold the conversation open and inclusive. No defined traditions. We can be above traditions they suggest. For the Neo-Anabaptist however, these questions must be answered on the ground within traditions. With what else shall we think? When Mike Classen says “exist within multiple communities,” “broad as the human race” – us Anabaptists read this as the tradition of American liberalism. We’re ok with that as long as everybody acknowledges that we’re all working within some tradition. It seems that Mike Clawson inherently trust open conversations will someday lead us/them somewhere. No need to foreclose? Yet many of these issues are justice issues that need attention now. For the pastors within a local community we must seek God for what to do now. This is why Matt 18 is so important. The community in Scripture submitted to the Lordship of Christ in the gifts can work this stuff out. From that vantage point then we can speak to the wider church and theology is never separated from practice.
I contend there is a different logic here – inclusive yet incarnational – inclusive yet local and particular, dialogical yet working within some defined traditions. This way believes “incarnational life will drives us towards resolution.” This is why I think Emergents understand me as being exclusive.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, have I got the gist of Emergent right? I have been generally frustrated by conversations from that arena that seem to go nowhere. I am frustrated when we are constantly asked to keep conversations open on disputed matters? For some of us these disputed matters are issues of justice and require immediate response. Some of us pastors must nurture the flock into Mission through these disputed matters. Is it possible that the ones who can hold conversations open on key issues can do so because there’s nothing at stake on the ground for the ones making these conversations?
BTW If I’ve made any of my good Emergent friends angry with this post, I am sorry. But this is blog land. And this is what good blogs do. I’m just reporting stuff I have learned in community. And besides, us Anabaptists are used to people getting mad at us, even when we refuse to hit people 
.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
It seems these strands are as old as Christianity: Mark 9:40 vs. Luke 9:50
Not sure that gets me to a conclusion; so color me Emergent…
I haven’t read much Phyllis Tickle, so I apologise in advance if this question would be answered by doing so, but I have two questions:
One, what is the difference between your model of smaller communities conversing and deciding what matters are “disputable” and ….some other model? In the end, isn’t there always some means of answering the question “who gets to decide?” For example, who gets to decide which small communities participate in the conversations you are having in your community, and who decides who to report those findings to. Who listens to those findings? How is it communicated? Is this where the blog/internet comes in?
My second question is, what do you mean when you say “we Anabaptists” ? How do you know you’re in that grouping? How would I know if I were?
thanks!
Susan … good questions.
On “the differences” – I see one model saying the disputed matters are worked out via meta-conversations at say conferences, or groups meeting where individuals enter conversations from their various traditions … and talk about the isse/idea at stake. The other model – I am labeling anabaptist – engages it as a community, committed to living under the Lordship of Christ in this context as a people, where the gifts of the Spirit and the process of Matt 18 is/are operating. Where issues become disputed amtters only as they arise from disputes between two person snad then rise accordingly to communal concerns if not resolved interpersonally … So I guess it’s not “who gets to decide” but “what community shall I commit myself to relentlessly in this space and time to see God’s KIngdom worked out among us”
Hope this helps …
thanks, David, for your reply to my first question! Any ideas on the second part, as you have time?
David,
That’s not my quote, I’m quoting Mike, it’s the beginning of his quote you posted below mine. I’m on another track, and having just finished your book “End of Evangelicalism?”, agree with much of what you are saying, including what I just read in this post. In the aftermath of the collapse of Christendom here in New England, here at Dwell, we are adjusting to significant marginalization and have come into an authentic sense of (growing) community, looking to concretely and practically embody the compassion and justice of God, becoming an incarnating presence in the city (of Burlington) rather than a programmed absence. Your insights are not only helpful, but timely. Enjoyed the book immensely, really looking forward to that “third forum” or whatever space for continued clarity, connection and community.
Hey Jim,
I’m sorry about that … I was absolutely positive I took those quotes right out of our thread on FB right directly from you and Mike. Many apologies … I’ll take both yours and Mike’s names off … I wanted you both to have a chance to interact.
Blessings!!
DF
A few nit-picks here Dave:
1) Jim’s right, both of those quotes are mine. Plus you misspelled my last name.
2) It’s probably because I’m an “inclusive” emergent, but I don’t like how you are using “emergent” and “anabaptist” as if they are mutually exclusive categories. There are many things which are emerging in the church, and, IMHO, Neo-anabaptism is one of them. I.e. you all are a part of “us”.
3) At the same time, I think you’re interpreting what I and Phyllis are saying incorrectly. You make it sound too “totalizing.” But the “convergence” Phyllis talks about is not the same as “Christendom,” as you suggest. It is not any kind of institutional or theological uniformity that she is pointing to. It is a relational unity that includes all kinds of particular communal diversities. It is the ability to be different, and appreciate and learn from our differences, and remain in relationship despite the differences. That to me seems significantly different than a “Christendom” model.
Likewise, I think you are misinterpreting me when you say that my quotes mean that “We can be above traditions they suggest.” It’s not about being “above” but within. We can participate within multiple traditions. It’s not about holding myself above any of them – it’s about humbly “entering in” to each one as I have the opportunity. If each tradition is a particular set of lenses, then no, I can’t ever just take off my lenses altogether and see everything “objectively,” but I can occasionally swap one set of lenses for another and see things anew from that perspective. That what I mean when I say we can “exist within multiple communities” – I’m talking about horizontal relationships, not vertical ones, as you took me to mean.
Similarly, when I say “broad as the human race,” perhaps instead of interpreting that to mean “American liberalism,” you should instead read it as a reference to the imago dei. If some of that sounds like “American liberalism,” fine, but we had the concept first. There is nothing biblically wrong with acknowledging that in some sense humanity is a single family – that there are some things that do in fact tie us all together and there are responsibilities that we have not just to our own tribe or community, but to the whole human race. I don’t see why that recognition has to in any way diminish the commitments we have to smaller units of society either. I am suggested a model of concentric circles – of embedded communities, from smaller to larger, each with it’s own proper sphere of action and mutual responsibilities – not of simply expanding everything out to the global scale.
So are you suggesting that an Anabaptist approach would prefer to simply remove their small circle from these other circles altogether? Would you all prefer to simply stand off to the side while the rest of us continue to attempt to exist within these multiple spheres of relationship and community? If so, fine. If not, then where is your disagreement with what I’ve said?
Hi Mike – I think that even after your explanation, there are still some things about your statements that in continuity with other emergent leaders do give the impression that this tradition sees itself as above the other traditions. I mean, all this talk of a new shift, a new way of doing church, a new reformation is done with the idea that emergent folk are at the helm of the ship. You guys are taking upon yourselves the prophetic mantle. You are the ones defining the “new thing” and you are the ones who are questioning much of what has come before in favor of your new approach. Hey, I’m not saying I necessarily reject those ideas, but the way they are presented does send a message. So if that is not your intention, then the rhetoric ought to be a little different.
Another thought I have is that if you want to foment a large scale inter-traditional conversation, then it seems to me that you need to be a little more amenable to the standards of discourse that other traditions have. But you are presenting your notion of “being comfortable with ambiguity” as though it were an enlightened view that only the few have (the type of statement above “most people are not comfortable with… but I/we are”). Again, there’s a vibe I get and I keep getting from emergent. The term “emergent” itself has that connotation. Look, I’m not saying you are in fact arrogant, I’m just saying that there is a reason for the perception that emergent is placing itself above the other traditions.
I don’t know, maybe I’m off. But it’s a vibe I’ve felt for a long time.
You’re right Rob. There are many dynamics going on with the emerging movement. One of those is an attempt to dialogue between traditions and learn from those previously excluded. At the same time there is also, as you say, a “prophetic” element that is concerned to critique the flaws and limitations of what has gone before and to explore and experiment with new approaches for the future. Perhaps you see that as “arrogant.” I do not. I see it as simply part of what it means to be faithful to the ongoing, unfolding, ever-expanding mission of God in the world. It’s what has been going on for the past 2000 years and what will continue to go on long after we are gone. Yes, we need to be careful not to set ourselves up as some kind of transcendent judges of all that has gone before, and perhaps we haven’t always succeeded in being sufficiently humble with our critiques, but over all I feel like the emerging movement has done a reasonably good job of balancing respect for the past with a prophetic critique that moves us forward into the future.
I also have to say that it seems a little unfair to single out the emerging church for this critique. Can you think of any movement in the church that has not set itself up in some way as a critique of what has gone before? As a church historian myself, I can say with some confidence that in comparison to the rhetoric of say the early (and more recent) Protestants, Baptists, Anabaptists, Tridentine Catholics, etc., our own “questioning” of previous traditions has been very mild (so far as I know, for instance, we haven’t yet accused anyone of being the “anti-Christ”
I mean, c’mon, Dave’s own post is premised on the same dynamic of setting up his Neo-Anabaptist tradition as superior to both the emerging church and to more conventional evangelicalism. I don’t see how it’s fair to single us out in this regard. And besides, as I said in my first paragraph, I’m not sure it’s really even such a bad thing. Until human beings, and the church, are completely perfect, there will always be things to question, critique, and improve on, yes? There will always be a need to be made “new” to some degree in every generation.
Thanks Mike. I appreciate what you are saying. You have to admit that there is an inherent tension between the core values of prophetic leadership and dialog. One the other hand, it’s a great tension to explore. I’d like to suggest that dialog IS emergent’s prophetic leadership.
Yep, there’s definitely a tension – but hopefully it’s a creative tension.
I very much agree with this. One of the great ironies of emergent is that one of our biggest critiques of existing church traditions are their exclusivity and tendency to engage only in critique of other traditions without balancing this with dialog as well. Hopefully it is possible to critique one such aspect of the existing traditions without thereby having to reject the whole of them. I think that is what the emerging conversation intends when it offers prophetic critiques – working to improve certain aspects without needing to reject all that has come before.
David,
I really don’t know what christian “camp” I fall into but I am not sure yet it I care. I most definitely put myself in the non-institutional church camp. I do want to align myself with anyone who puts their faith in Jesus and His atoning work of the cross.
I am very cynical (healthy cynicism) of all institutional church leaders. I believe that most institutional church leadership are stuck in a system that is the leftovers of the Catholic corporate (Enronistic) sysyem. These systems legitimize dehumanization and these systems have theologies to support this system. The church supported slave trade for example.
Christians have a difficult time coexisting. Many Christians get their peace, hope and joy from their power, position, theology, money, being in control of others, or being controlled by their geru more than the atoning work of Christ. I bebelieve Christians in America need to learn how to listen and to have compassion with one another. I don’t care if you are emergent, neo-anabaptist, fundamentalist, or liberal, if you are in Christ then we are one in Christ.
I like this quote what you wrote above, “These church conversations therefore look more like Christians talking to themselves while acting as if we can influence a world that doesn’t care about what we have to say anymore.” When it all comes down to the wire, people don’t care about our theological naval gazing but do they experience the love of Christ through us? Do they feel loved by us? Would I rather know and articulate my Biblical and theological views or know Jesus and apply the great commandment.
I know I may have gone way off track from your point and I apologize. I am just so tired of infighting and power posturing among followers. I believe that we are stuck in a system that has nothing to to with Jesus, His Church and His mission.
I have said it before that I like your blog posts. Thanks.
Hey Mike … sorry about the bad spelling … and misquoting Jim … ouch ouch …
Thanks for the comment .. there’s alot there … so I’ll just styart with this first .. and then go to your imago dei reference.
When you say “We can participate within multiple traditions. It’s not about holding myself above any of them – it’s about humbly “entering in” to each one as I have the opportunity.” Doesn’t that imply a transcendental subject who does not “humbly enter in” and/or submit to a tradition … but picks and chooses from among many traditions … which really makes you a member of the American liberal tradition called “liberal democracy”? (ala Jeff Stout’s Democrcay and Tradition … and opposed to the radical democracy traditions).
Thanks for the good stuff!!
and I’ll correct the name spelling problems pronto
Or just a human being created in the image of God who therefore has the capacity to find truth, beauty, and goodness in lots of different places, and not just in one community alone.
Also, what exactly do you mean by “submission”? And does submission mean one has to automatically close oneself off to the truth found in other communities?
Also, please explain how any of us can avoid “picking and choosing.” We live within a pluralistic reality. Even if you (or anyone) chooses to remain within your natal tradition and never question or leave it, you still “picked” that. You still “chose” that. You had the possibility of picking and choosing differently. You had other alternatives. In that sense we are all “heretics” now, in the original sense of the word, i.e. deciding for oneself. I really don’t see how choosing to be an Anabaptist exempts you from that reality.
Also, liberal democracy isn’t so bad. It’s got its flaws, but it sure as hell beats a lot of the things it replaced. I’ve been reading some Cornel West lately, and he actually makes a good case for democracy as an expression of Christianity. Again, I think it’s possible to see democracy not as an expression of American liberalism, but as an affirmation of community and respect for the imago dei in all people.
I don’t think “submission” to a particular community or tradition involves closing oneself off to the truth in other traditions. Instead, we mutually submit ourselves to actual embodied people. Not transcendent traditions or ideas our outlets of truth. No, we submit to real flesh-and-blood human beings. And that means that we find our identity not in the potpourri of different theologies and ideas out there that we got to pick-and-choose and arrange as we please (good though that kind of mashup certainly is), but rather root our identity first and foremost in a local congregation.
This is a direct challenge to the intellectual consumerism and commitment-phobia that sometimes creeps into emergent rhetoric. To caricature it a bit, sometimes I get the impression that in reacting to evangelicalism’s hyper-exclusivism, we suddenly are terrified of giving ourselves over to anything in particular. It is the scholastic equivalent of polyamory, where we suppose that marriage (giving ourselves in public mutual submission to one person for life) somehow means never being able to remark on another man or woman being attractive, or we can’t be friends with someone of the opposite sex. Emergent polytraditionalism, if unchecked by submission to one particular flesh-and-blood community, winds up so acting out of fear of this straw man (ecclesial particularism / marriage) that we just saw we love every tradition and elude rootedness in one community. Therefore we have, to stretch the analogy, philia and eros everywhere but agape nowhere.
Neo-anabaptist ecclesiology is like a healthy vision of marriage: we give ourselves to one real person/community, while also being able to be friends with others. And hopefully, like a marriage, my submission to my community will allow me to maximally give life to others in my life.
(I hope my metaphor wasn’t too stretched, and that my caricaturing of emergent isn’t too dour. I’ve identified as emergent since 2004, and so speak sternly as a compatriot)
If there was a “like button” on this blog I would have clicked on it here
Two things Brandon:
1) What you’ve just described sounds pretty emergent to me. Again, I think we’re dealing in false dichotomies and unnecessary divisions.
2) I like what you say about submitting to actual people rather than abstract “traditions” or “ideas”. That is exactly what I’ve also been trying to get at this whole time when I talk about a “relational unity” that then provides us with the freedom to explore and embrace truth and goodness outside of our own particular community. That relational commitment is based on love, not agreement.
re: Democracy
While Grecian city states had elections, those allowed to vote were limited, right?
The questions “How did Christians in a city elect their bishops? And, how did the the college of bishops confirm the election?” may help us approach representational & incarnational one-ness….
Rather than discussing the epistemology of how we come to this abstract ‘truth’ (no matter what lens or tradition we choose to look through), I feel that Fitch is emphasizing that truth must first be contextualized/embodied in a smaller community. This seems to be the major distinction here.
It is not – Truth is different. It’s that the only way we can interact through truth is in an embodied community. Truth is contextualized – and when we try to make it too big of a contextualization – i.e. the human race- truth is no longer embodied but then becomes an abstract ideology.
that was helpful for me, Dustin. Thanks.
David…you don’t know me, but I’m with you and a deep southerner to boot.
Sometimes, down south we are so inoculated we can’t catch the fever.
In his book, “Doing Reconciliation”, Alexander Venter, a South African pastor, talked about “doing theology” verse studying theology.
“I want to mention a phrase that I learnt in the boiling pot of Soweto [the black township outside of Johannesburg] in the mid-1980s. It struck deep into my consciousness and has been part of the formation of my life. It was “doing theology.” We did not study theology, we did theology by engaging in the struggle for justice. Many pastors and academics were challenged by young black people to stop their theoretical theologizing and eloquent sermonizing about justice and reconciliation. They were challenged to get out of their ivory towers and protected places, and come down to the place of pain and struggle and “do theology” in the streets with the poor and oppressed. Doing theology in this way, and debating the contextual theological issues, was my bread and butter in the 1980s and early 1990s.
In Joweto [a place of reconciliation started by Venter within Soweto], doing theology meant that you got your hands dirty, that you learnt (authentic) theology by coming to know God as you engaged in the praxis of identification with the poor and oppressed. In so doing, you did God’s praxis: in Jesus God stripped himself of power and glory, humbled himself by coming down from heaven to earth, to identify with human pain and suffering, and to seek and save that which was lost. There was a favorite quote of the contextual-doing-theologians that I mixed with in Soweto: “For as much as you did it to these, the least of my brethren, you did it to me” (Matt 25:40).”
This to me is the root of everything – we must stop talking about theology and starting doing theology; stop writing books and going to conferences that do not have their genesis out of the pain, suffering, joy and happiness of real life.
In doing this we will be made aware of a different way of living – we will learn to see the word through different lenses, as Mike Clawson mentioned. Yet instead of simply replacing one set of lenses with another, I think we should let the two lenses become blended as to form one lenses – one worldview that is larger and healthier then the two previous lenses. This new lenses will – Lord willing – see the good and the bad of both the other lenses and seek to do theology within the context of real life on the ground within a local and trans-local community.
Yes, we are in the middle of a cultural shift – a time of cleaning the attic like Phyllis Tickle mentions. Yet, like you David, I don’t think the church as a whole is going to come out of this shift in a position of authority. I think Christianity is going to be sidelined from the halls of power as it becomes more and more fragmented along the lines of doctrine and tradition.
Furthermore, I think this is a good thing as it forces the followers of Jesus to go back to what Jesus Himself did: love the outcast, love the Lord Almighty, heal the sick, cleans the leaper, declare that the Kingdom of God had come, raise the dead, and cast out demons. That’s all. Let us do theology like Jesus did.
David,
Excellent post!
I think I see what you are saying about the South, vs the North. I am even further North than you – we appear to be even more further along (the postmodern, post-Christian timeline), here in Quebec.
Your post made me think right away of what a Canadian friend and visionary, Don Posterski, proposed in his book True to You (an under-appreciated but very important book), many years ago. In this book, he proposes that Christians need to choose to be collaborators (rather than tribalizers, reclaimers, cocooners-retrenchers, or accomodators). I am going from memory here. And not developping his thoughts. You’ll have to read the book for that! But his point is that we need to collaborate within our faith communities, and with others in other communities, and with others outside, so to speak. It is what we Québécois (here in Canada) would call in French a “Projet de société” (A societal project). Do we have a future if we don’t? So this may in some way agree with what you are proposing. Maybe.
OK, can’t really respond to everything right now on these comments (awesome stuff BTW!! ) … but let me just start with Clawson … who gives to us the classic Gustafson argument against his student Hauerwas.
)
Comment a.) “human being created in the image of God” how would we know what this might mean? classic protestant liberal theology has always assumed this to be obvious, self evident. Yet, as we describe it, it always turns out looking like me, or worse, like the American vision for what a human being can become. It seems obvious .. athen, that there is no community-less tradition-less interpretation of “human in the image of God”.We learn what this might look like in each context as we work within the traditions of teh church God has been working in … and that includes yours (just admit it).
Comment b.) “what exactly do you mean by “submission”?” I mean the radical act of submission to God in Christ as exempified in the cross. As carried out in our lives in daily reconciliation, we realize this is the way God works as revealed in Christ. There is instruction in these ways in the entire NT … and of course, J H Yoder is a good place to start (Politics of Jesus).
Comment c.) How can any of us avoid picking and choosing. I’d read McIntyre’s Whose Justice? Whose Rationality? or His Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry. Enuf to say that we are now cast into a “contest of traditions” of which the American narrative is seeking dominance. Yet we can only seek faithfulness where we are born and allow God the Spirit to move us within the great sweeping moves of history God is doing …It is out of these places where we can have true conversion … what McIntyre calls epistemological crisis. All this is under the sweep of God’s sovereign Mission.
Comment d.) Cornel West … I love me some Cornel West. But Cornel can be sometimes misinterpreted … for I see him most moving towards the camp of “radical democracy” as opposed to ubiquidous liberal democratic capitalism… I can go there with him …
Blessings .. thanks for the dialogue … and hopefully we just led some of our Emergent friends into “an epistemological crisis” and they have now converted to the revolution (all within the sovereignty of God’s mission of course
Dave – I’m going to try to start responding to all your stuff directed at me, but it may take me a while, so maybe don’t reply until I’ve gotten to all of it?
You said,
I’m not familiar with Gustafson (not even all that familiar with Hauerwas, at least not in-depth, though I hope to remedy that this summer). Perhaps it would be better for you to simply interact with what I’ve actually said rather than continually trying label and associate me with some other philosopher or philosophical tradition. I think that may be a big part of why I feel like you’re misunderstanding and misrepresenting me. Please keep in mind that I was not raised in and have not been widely schooled in the “liberal” tradition (whether theological or political). My views are not based on that tradition, and if they bear some resemblance, that is most likely either coincidental or else through very indirect influences. Instead, I was raised and schooled within the fundamentalist/evangelical tradition, and most of my views have developed in response and reaction to that.
Indeed, I think that part of the reason I tend to react the way I do to Hauerwas is not because he conflicts with my “liberalism” (which I was never steeped in to begin with), but because his approach reminds me too much of the fundamentalism that I’ve been moving away from this whole time. If Hauerwas is a post-liberal and I am a post-conservative, then it would seem that we are reacting to opposite polarities and therefore moving in opposite directions. He’s heading towards where a lot of us have already been and don’t want to go back to (and vice versa, I’m sure).
At least in regards to the argument I was making above, I don’t think it matters “what” the imago dei means. That’s not the point. No matter what its specific content is, at the very least the imago dei indicates that there is something “universal” that all humanity shares in common. There is something creational (not just redemptive) in us that makes us in some sense “family” and thus able to relate to each other and have responsibilities to one another. (In fact, based on my own historically contextual reading of scripture – and NOT, please note, whatever bullshit liberal protestant or evangelical protestant theological speculation has to say about it – I understand the imago dei to be exactly this dynamic of both vertical and horizontal relationality. I think in an Ancient Near Eastern context, this is what the phrase itself would primarily connote. Though again, whether or not this is actually the case is irrelevant to my argument.) But I don’t have to define that “something” to say, based on the imago dei, that it’s there.
I confess that I have no idea what you just said here or how it relates to the question I asked. I guess I’ll just have to read McIntyre.
Sort of convenient for you to be able to take what you like from democratic ideals and call it “radical democracy” while at the same time writing off any of the rest of us who point to those same ideals as mere Enlightenment liberals… Again, why do you feel the need to define yourself “over and against” rather than “in relation to”? Maybe we’re all actually trying to get at the same things.
Anyway, more later…
distinction without a difference. debating how many angels can dance on he head of a pin. there are still anabaptists? can I have those three minutes back please?
What has worked for me with ‘Emergent’ is that they have worked out a ‘way of being’, rather than a ‘right knowing’. In other words, they have shifted the need for ‘conclusion’ from the realm of ‘doctrine’ to ‘presence’. I think this creates a truly incarnational and missional orientation in community that respects generational, cultural, and maturational influences. The Spirit is valued as the dynamic Teacher/Guide rather than a community’s final and static doctrinal ‘conclusion’. The fruit of the Spirit becomes more important than even the doctrine of the Spirit. Right knowing quickly devolved into cruel judging. Valuing a way of being, a Christ-like presence, inspires hope.
William Colburn,
I agree.
Emergent has helped us see the value of being present, and the virtues of patience, and the value of character. (are you riffing off Rollins? or Brian McL?) . It’s all good.
Nonethless, I still reject the bifurcation between knowing and being… it’s an enlightenment construction … and so I – as counter intuitive as this might sound – I think that in an effort to overcome epistemology … the Emergent oeuvre has been to individualize (de politic) the gospel in the world (individual service to the world)… it becomes personal instead of political (I’m talking political in terms of a lived life together that is Christian and public).
DF
When what we call ‘the gospel’ is more about the Person than ideas ‘about’ the Person, we keep moving forward rather than getting stuck in a particular time/space. Focus on ‘being’ allows for the pursuit of ‘knowing’ in any context. When our focus is in ‘knowing’ (concluding) we often seem to lose our way and cease ‘being’. Ricoeur’s notion of the second naivete seems to allow for a healthy sense of ‘being’ whatever the time/space we find ourselves in. The primacy of ‘conclusion’ is, by nature, a ‘box’. My hope through Emergent is that a generation of people are raised up within the church who respect the diversity found in different communities of faith.
Well said Bill! I second that.
My concern is that both camps will eventually become too dogmatic and too institutionalized. And, perhaps sooner than later eventually sparking yet another schism within the Body of Christ. Evangelicals and the neo-Reformed will stay plenty comfortable remaining Protestant; while the Anabaptists and Emergents, quite similar in beliefs, will not find themselves at home within their Protestant heritage. So now, we would have: Roman Catolic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and Anamergent. Hmm. Kind of has a nice ring to it.
In order to prevent this horrid prediction from coming to fruition it is my hope that the two camps will remain right where they are. Emergents will keep the discussion going, always refining itself, evolving, and getting better all the time. While our Anabaptist brothers put it all together and incarnate the discussion into a workable community of like-minded believers being on mission. I believe the two camps compliment each other and can distinguish itself from the other segments of Christianity while at the same time remaining united within the Body of Christ.
This is a good suggestion, except for the fact that, as I’ve already said, this whole idea of “two camps” is a false construction in the first place. Many “emergents” are also “neo-anabaptists,” many are also reading Hauerwas, et al. (whether they completely buy into him or not), and many are putting their ideas into practice in communities of faith and in the public sphere in the kinds of ways Dave describes. So once again, this distinction Dave wants to make between “individualized” (???) emergents and his supposedly more incarnational and integrated Anabaptists is a false one. We’re all still part of the same conversation and many of the people he would want to label as “emergent” are doing and saying the same kinds of things those he would want to label “Anabaptist” are also doing and saying.
If there is any difference, it’s probably just in that while many emergents have embraced aspects of Neo-Anabaptism, that is not the sole identity we would claim. Most of us would embrace other identities as well. Dave, on the other hand, seems to be saying that you can have only one (which just seems objectively to not be the case – one can easily observe plenty of communities and individuals which combine multiple identities).
Mike, I don’t so much read that David is saying that you can’t draw from multiple identities, but rather that in doing so (in particular ways) says something about how one values & relates to those identities differently than others. Of course there will be those who identify with both sides. I am a neo-Anabaptist that identifies somewhat as emergent (or emergent sympathetic). However, how I relate to other traditions (including emergent) is markedly different than what you’ve described.
All I know, Alice, is that I found it a lot easier to learn from and appreciate neo-anabaptist writings from folks like Hauerwas, Fitch, Wilson-Hartgrove, etc. back when I thought they were willing to be part of the same conversation with all of us, and not when I felt like they were telling me I had to choose between being “emergent” or being “anabaptist,” and that the two were mutually exclusive categories. Now I’m constantly feeling attacked and put on the defensive rather than invited to a conversation. (And yes, there are some of us who do still see value in ongoing “conversation.”)
Geeeesh Mike … I submit to you, is this verbage not an example of when someone doesn’t play by your presscriptive rules you self-select that we have excluded you? All I’m doing here is deciphering the difference between two ways of doing theology and why the one doesn’t work for me/us … Just by putting that out there … we have a conversation .. although maybe not under your rules. Right? I submit this to you and ask from what should I repent?
Dave – I thought I’ve been pretty clear about my frustration. The problem is not with your differing opinion – the problem, for me, is the way you are setting up an oppositional terminology (“Anabaptist versus Emergent”) to distance, disassociate, and define yourself over and against the rest of us. You did it in response to McLaren, and then to Bell, and now to Phyllis and I. It is that which I find exclusionary and disappointing.
As I’ve said, part of my problem with the way you’re using this terminology is that it is simply not accurate – there are plenty of Emergents who are just as fond of Hauerwas as you are. Neo-Anabaptism is, and always has been a part of the emerging conversation.
The other part of my frustration is that by setting up this (false) dichotomy you put pressure on the rest of us to assent to your dichotomy and thus place ourselves in one “camp” or the other. Like I said to Alice, I liked it better when I felt like I could listen to and learn from the Neo-Anabaptists as an emergent. Now I feel like you’re telling us that if we’re emergent, we can’t also be a Neo-anabaptist, or vice versa. But I simply don’t assent to that dichotomy. I think emergent is a bigger tent than that. The way you’ve set this up seems to be attempt to define “emergent” in a certain way, and then define yourself against that – but I reject that narrow box you’ve created for emergent in the first place. That’s the problem I’m reacting to here – it’s the “us vs. them” language that begins right there in the title of your post.
I wonder if a more apt descriptor than ‘the emergents’ would be ‘the eclectics’.
Mike,
Can I at least get you to acknowledge what the Hauerwas position is? i.e. your narrative – of a person or group of persons participating in multiple communities somehow in dialogue with them all at one time – is itself a narrative communal identity based in the American democratic narrative (ideology). Even Stout would agree with me on that. Of course we all hyphenate. It seems this is what we all need to do … is acknowledge the source of our cultural shaping … then we can go towards understanding what the nature of a Polish-American, Afro-American to Presby-Emergent, Anabaptist Emergent is … how the confluence of two traditions is happening and why, and what is the result … For certainly the goal in understanding our own historical shaping is for the purpose of then achieving honest dialogue … For people like me, when we hear people articulate themselves like you, we feel you’re not being honest with narrative commitments, acting like free-agents in dialogue, whereas when certain lines are pushed, you start to defend aggressively, thereby revealing your true narrative commitments. We’d prefer that we’d all be honest in the first place admitting our narrative commitments up front. For instance, I’m a Christian shaped out of Anabaptism and evangelicalism seeking to engage critically, openly and hospitably the American society God has called me to bring the gospel. or … to over-characterize our “worst nightmare” … I’m first an American – committed first and foremost to the Enlightenment vision of democracy trying to enlist the very best of Christianity for the cause…
Does that make any sense? or am I just a flaming fundamentalist to you?
A couple of things come to my mind in this. As a starter, I’m not specifically aligned with any tradition. I come from Pentecostalism, but deeply resonate with Anabaptist people and communities (and want to be a part of that stuff), and these days find myself within an Emergent community that happens to be Presbyterian.
I’ve heard Phyllis give her talk in a few places, and read her book as well. I don’t think her model requires a Christendom understanding, though. I feel like the church can go through those “rummage sales” as she calls them because it is part of a broader culture, whatever extent of relevance the culture sees the church to have or not have.
So, whether the church is a dominant force in society (and I rejoice in your thoughts about how it isn’t and doesn’t need to be) or not, it still experiences what culture experiences, and is affected by that. For most of the first 500 years of her model, it wasn’t a dominant force, but she still sees it going through those things.
The other thing that comes to my mind is more a curiosity than a (possible) disagreement with your thought here. In my experience, there are more Emergent folks these days (and Phyllis is one of these) who do feel attached to specific traditions. Mostly mainline traditions. It didn’t start this way, of course, but it does seem to be a large part of the conversation these days (I don’t mind this, though it’s not compelling to me personally).
But because of this, i find it curious that you see them as seeing themselves outside of traditions (for myself it’s difficult to see myself within a tradition, though if I was asked to pick one these days I’d be torn between Pentecostalism and Anabaptism, even though my current faith community is not part of either). My experience just raised those questions, so I’m curious if you would see these things as well.
Jonathan,
challenging questions .. thanks …
My quick take … I think I am accusing Emrgents like Mike C. of acting like they can stand outside of their histories looking somehow objectively at multiple communities and participating in a multiple conversation. This sounds alot like what Emergent cohorts have become. But they are not churches, just conversations that follow the rules of the Enlightenment (and democracy) which are tolerance and respect, but no definitive version of what the gospel is and isn’t or what justice is and isn’t. I think this is what Mike sees as entering humbly as listeners. I think this is why some of us get frustrated with these never ending conversations … They are Enlightenment surplus enjoyment (wink wink)
I see it as the Enlightenment stance … right? This assumes a grand foundation, a meta reason that somehow all individuals can participate in. they can leave their traditions, and church formation at the door. This is another form of Constantinianism … which BTW is a better word probably to characterize how I feel about the underlying assumptions of Phyllis’ work.
BTW it is a mistake to characterize what I am saying as suggesting everyone can only be part of one community and/or tradition (as Mike C. does me) … Cross-fertilization happens all the time … but for it to go somewhere we need to know who we are and know our histories …
Just some quick comments on some good questions from where I sit … and I’m not trying to inflame anybody .. just trying to promote questions … I’m cool with y’all disagreeing with me …
Blessings
DF
I’m coming in late to the conversation but what strikes me about the post and conversation is the use of the words “camps” and “coalitions”. This for me highlights the differences in paradigm between Anabaptist thinking and other “coalitions” more than anything else above. What say u, Dave?
Hi David,
Thank you for this post. I am still learning about Anabaptists, but I find a lot in common between what you express in this essay and my own experience as a Conservative Quaker interacting with the “Convergent” (Quaker version of Emergent) movement among Friends. I think that Conservative Friends must have a fair amount in common with Anabaptists, at least attitudinally.
Your essay helped me to understand better my own reaction to and role in the conversations that are happening within my own branch of Christianity. Thanks for that!
Good conversation. It really shows the need for deeper conversation.
While I find Dave making some valid points, I think Mike has some equally strong points. Indeed, communities at a ground level are not closed systems of practice and incarnation. This begs for ongoing conversation about what leadership looks like.
Brandon, if the mutual submission card gets played too early within the embodied practice, it destroys deeper conversations which must take place in love.
Dan,
this to me is a misread of submission as modeled in NT, Christ and the NT church. Submission should never foreclose prematurely, but instead open the one submitting and the one being submitted to to listen and hear what we/they might have missed … The one who is submitting is the one who possesses the “power” if we can even put it that way. Submission is the opposite of hierarchical imposition. This way of engaging one another is so foreign to our American ways, that it often gets misread. We must always be searching for that posture in our life together because anyone (especially me) can step into bad habits.Does the way you call it a “card” imply something? something which may undercut the nature of the way submission should work in the “flattened” charismatic body under the authority of Jesus is Lord. peace bro
This should be my last response to your comments Dave:
No, because again, I feel like in your insistence on “labeling” me a “liberal democrat” you are failing to hear what I am actually saying. I am NOT suggesting that we can just be an unrooted free agent that floats equally between communities. I am suggesting something very similar to what you said, that
I agree with that. We do all come to the conversation with our own particular “narrative commitments” as you say. That’s what makes the conversation interesting in the first place. And yet overarching all of these particular narrative commitments I do believe there can be a greater relational unity, i.e. a unity based not on some meta-rationality or institutional structure, but solely on the unavoidable reality that we all do exist in relationship to one another (whether we like it or not), and then on a decision to handle those relationships in a spirit of peacefulness, respect and love. And that is precisely what I was getting at when I said above that “It is a relational unity that includes all kinds of particular communal diversities. It is the ability to be different, and appreciate and learn from our differences, and remain in relationship despite the differences.” In other words, it is precisely because we are rooted in our particular communities, with their particular narrative commitments, that we need this overarching relational unity all the more. And it is this idea of “relational unity” that is, to me, the heart of what being emergent is all about.
This is also why you are off track when you say
First, as I’ve already said, I’m NOT saying we can stand “outside.” This whole time I’ve been saying that we stand “within” (a particular tradition) and then from that standpoint can then move “among” and “between” (various other traditions).
Second, you’re right, cohorts are not churches, and they were never intended to be. Cohorts are not replacements for church, they are intended it exist alongside the church as supplements and supports to it. If churches are those communities that are rooted in a particular set of narrative commitments, then cohorts are those spaces where folks can come together with all their particularity and still relate peacefully, lovingly, and constructively with one another.
That’s why what you went on to say completely misunderstands and misrepresents the point of cohorts and of what I was getting at:
No one leaves anything at the door. The whole point of an emergent cohort is not to set aside any of our particularity, but to bring it all in with us and relate to each other with all of our differences and diversity of traditions and history intact. (Seriously Dave, how long were you a part of up/rooted? Did you ever feel like people were just leaving their particular commitments at the door? I can’t say that’s what I ever observed there.) The only “meta” anything is not “reason,” but simply relationship, and the choice to remain in relationship despite our lack of any “meta-reason”… as I’ve already described above.
Also, just speaking for myself, my epistemological stance is not Enlightenment “foundationalism” but postmodern “coherentism”. It’s the raft (or spider-web) metaphor, not the building metaphor. I can change and adjust and fix different parts of the raft (or web) at various times (usually in response to precisely the sorts of encounters with diversity that occur in settings like cohorts) but I can only do so by remaining rooted on some other part of the raft/web that is not currently up for reexamination. I.e. it is because I continue to hold on to certain “narrative commitments,” that I am able to learn from and appropriate new perspectives that help me adjust other parts of my web. Of course later I can come back and reevaluate those parts of the web that held firm before, but then only by standing firmly on other parts of the web. But what I can’t do is get off the raft (or web) altogether and try to fix all of it all at once from some universal and objective point of view. So no, given that approach, I don’t think I am merely an “Enlightenment foundationalist,” though I apologize if I didn’t make that clearer earlier.
Perhaps then we’re not really saying anything all that different. Though if that is the case, then again, it gets back to my complaint that you are setting up oppositions and dichotomies between Neo-Anabaptists and Emergents like myself that don’t really exist. But thank you for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts on the subject.
[...] neo-Anabaptist on the core questions on which Hauerwasians and liberal Emergents [...]
Hi David,
thanks for your contribution to the Presentensions conversation last week. Phyllis was much more entertaining, of course! But your thots here fit more with my take on the future as well. Although, at the end of her book, Phyllis does wonder about a Quaker way of seeing, being, doing, as the future ‘authority’ for the church.
on the theme of the Great Disappearance, tho; lately I have been referring people to the film, The Road (movie form of Cormac McCarthy’s book), as a metaphor for the future of the church… bleak, solitary, antagonistic landscape, small discipling community as pilgrims, kindled every night by stories around the warmth of the campfire, struggling day by day to be a different kind of people.
[I don't know, maybe its the Canadian thing, or the Roxburgh urging, but us liminals and emergents here seem to enjoy each others company just a bit more than you guys seem too
]
Dave- great post.
I am with you on how the Emergent “Conversation” tends to be a replay of the Liberal narrative from the early 20th century. I find it Ironic that the opposite camp (the Neo-Reformed) are happily declaring to make “Fundamentalism” a good word again.
Please continue challenging these camps to see this connection and praying that we do not repeat history.
Dave,
Weren’t you just at the Inhabit Conference – where there were several 100 people passionate about the local, in the same way you are?? – and the vast majority of them would have identified themselves as emergents much more easily than as anabaptists
Knowing that you met all of these Inhabit folks, I’m quite confused, and a bit sad, that you want to claim local/incarnation for you and your in-group, and not see that emergent folks are doing the same work.
I was just talking to Tony Jones saying the same thing. That was a great conference and a great conversation.
And yet there were differences between many of us there. My main problem, as presented in this post (and reiterated in comments between Mike Clawson, a few others here and myself) is when people argue that I am excluding people (like the Emergents) when I present the Anabaptist vision and the logic of place. I am not excluding, I am just trying to make these principles clear and why they differ from current post evangelical options.
The Anabaptist principles are a.) mutual submission, b.) in a community of Christ c.) over actual issues in the community, d.) until resolution (Matt 18) It is a particular logic that is different and even precludes some of the ideas as presented by the commentators in this post. So, as a result of that, I have suggested the need for a forum to follow this logic. People however, confusingly, say I am excluding, and/or divisive by doing this. But I’m trying to show why we need display the fruits of this way, not in antagonism towards other camps, but in distinction yet cooperation (because local always is open and in dialogue with the larger whole).
Jennifer, am I claiming this for myself? huh? I thot I was articulating this logic, why it is different from Emergent as I see it (and Neo Reformed logic as well), and why we should pursue it? Yet I get accused of excluding (read quotes above and in comments). I’m trying to show how, by saying how things are different and we need a third alternative, that this will actually lead to another avenue, eventually more dialogue, and let God do his thing. This way i suggest will get us somewhere, because conversations (meta conversations) don’t do theology the Anabaptist way.
So sorry Jennifer … that you see me as exclusive?, or somehow parsing too much? Whatever the case, I proclaim unabashedly that the Inhabit conference was a wonderful breath of fresh air and I was priviledged to be there!!
How should Christians from different perspectives (all Christians?) dialogue together? Should we maintain separate traditions and heritages and dialogue together in third places, or should we enter into each other’s tradition (in a place) and go through the difficulties of living together? For example: should we have separate church communities and talk together in community pastor groups/blogs/etc; or should a Baptist pastor join the staff of a Presbyterian congregation?
Can we do both? Can one lead to the other? The first example has become fairly common, the second is very rare.
The Church needs good examples, not just good ideas. Good examples are often good ideas lived out in a place.
This is the best example I’ve seen…
http://www.bridgefolk.net
It’s between Mennonites and Roman Catholics.
As far as a Baptist joining the staff of a Presbyterian church, this sort of thing is not as rare as you suggest. I have seen (“community”) churches hire staff from non-descript bible institutions without any thought to the tradition(s) that formed them (and just like belly buttons, everyone’s got one). In my mind, this would be equivalent to a Presbyterian church hiring a Baptist pastor, as many different denominations have developed their own non-descript “community” churches. What happens when the Baptist is asked to baptize an infant? If they do it, what kind of “Baptist” would they be then?
Hi Mijk V,
Thanks for the comments and link.
I agree, that something like a Baptist pastor joining the staff of a Presbyterian church is not unheard of, but it is rare (and often not long term). I know of a Baptist who worked as a youth minister at a Presbyterian church while at Seminary. Situations like infant baptism do get tricky, but that’s part of the beauty of working things out on the ground instead of just talking about it. The two groups would have to enter into honest dialogue about the situation and find some type of solution.
I do think there are third communities where greater mixing of traditions occur, such as a community church like you talked about. Usually at these community churches there is still a general tradition or heritage that everybody is from, like pentacostal or evangelical, etc; but there is definitely a greater potential for a diversity of traditions working things out together. Another example of a third community could be the chaplains who work together at a hospital. I’ve seen quite a bit of mixing there. In general, I think there is an increasing willingness of people from different traditions to enter into community with one another (especially in areas where Christians are more of a minority).
With that being said, I can also see value in maintaining separate traditions. In examples like: a Baptist pastor within a Presbyterian congregation; what typically will happen is the majority envelops or overrides the lone person and no real changes are made. So, there needs to be groups of people from different traditions interacting, not just isolated individuals within another tradition. From what I gather, that’s kind of what’s being tried with the group you linked to.
HEY YU’ALL!! This has been great, I’ve learned alot. Thanks especially to Mike Clawson who chimed in with so many well considered comments! But the time has come for me to get on with it … so I’ll let these fine commenst stand on their own for examination and revealing. It’s been good It;s been fun. Thanks
Excellent post Dave. I likewise question the vitality of western Christianity and see vestiges of Christendom in the neo-liberal dream of universally accessible conversation. The fact is, there is no way God can be universally accessible in a culture as pluralistic as ours without ceasing to be particularly Christian. For better or for worse, Christianity is grounded in a very particular and peculiar story.
Hi David –
This has been fascinating to read. For what it is worth, I think you’ve won the argument. Volf points out that one way to “exclude” a group is to refuse to allow them to express their difference, to forcefully assimilate them. When the emergents get criticized by the Neo-Reformed they don’t mind it, because they don’t admire many of their thinkers. But when the Anabaptists criticize them, it hurts a lot, because they admire the work of many of their thinkers. It hurts their self-image.
For my part, I’d like the Anabaptists to coalesce more as you propose. I think the Neo-Reformed will be able to learn good things from you. I hope the opposite might be true. An example may be James’ Hunter’s (To Change the World) critique of Neo-Anabaptists from a broadly Reformed perspective. I’ve heard that Hauerwas himself has told Hunter that the critique had a lot of merit.
You’re right about this Tim, though it goes even a bit deeper than that. We don’t just “admire” the work of the Neo-Anabaptists, as I’ve been saying this whole time, the Neo-Anabaptists have long been a part of “us”. Case in point, Dave himself was one of the founding leaders of one of the oldest emergent cohorts around. So when I push back on Dave trying to “express difference” it’s not an attempt to “forcefully assimilate,” so much as a resistance against his categorization attempts to force the rest of us to see difference and division where before there was relational unity.
In the end however, even if some Neo-Anabaptists like Dave want to define themselves in opposition to “emergent,” thankfully that can’t stop the rest of us emergents from continuing to value and learn from the Neo-Anabaptists. It’s like I told Andrew Jones (tallskinnykiwi) when he decided to stop using the term “emerging church,” and McKnight and Kimball when they decided to set up their Origins thing in distinction from “emergent” – y’all can stop wanting to be associated with us, but you can’t stop us from wanting to associate with and learn from y’all. We’re going to continue to read your books and come to your conferences and all that, regardless. Because emergent is a big tent, and it is, still, a conversation.
In fact I think one of the big misunderstandings here is that Dave seems to think that all the “conversing” that emergents engage in is somehow intended to be a substitute for commitment within a local faith community. But of course that is not the case at all. The conversation is not a replacement for “the church,” it is a supplement to it. There is, and always has been, room for both. One can be rooted within a particular community and narrative tradition, and yet at the same time still engage in a broader, emergent conversation. So when Dave critiques “conversation” as limited and inadequate, my response is “Yeah, so? It was never intended to be the ‘whole deal’ in the first place. It was never supposed to be a replacement for ‘church.’ But that doesn’t mean it isn’t still worthwhile and needed for what it is.”
Thanks again, David. You nailed it.
I recently attended an emergent event where the point seemed to call everything into question. It occurred to me that deconstruction alone is destruction. At some point we have to pick something to live for, and live it out in community. Unfortunately, conversation is more of a mode than an organizing value by which to build a rule of life.
I’m glad I discovered this growing anabaptist conversation.
as an Emergent, I’m just happy that we are talking about this
but on a serious note… Chris, I have to pushback a little bit. At a conference, that is the perfect place to deconstruct and then go back to your community and construct. It can not (and should not) be done AT the conference.
in that sense, deconstruction is not destruction – it is more like rekindling, recalibrating or reallocating of energy.
That is why the conversation is inherently valuable.
Great post. I’ve shared on FB. You really lay out very nicely some of the principle options today for evangelicals.
[...] a long road trip over the past two weeks and one thing that was stuck in my head while I drove was an article by David Fitch. He is an Anabaptist and had just come back from an event with Phyllis [...]