in a really provocative and engaging post today on 'open source theology' wesley white writes about the challenge of being real about the scourge of global poverty. he begins with bono's challenge to the prime minister's africa commission regarding the emergency in africa. then he lays out two modes of christian response that either 1) 'franchise the potential of ardent faith in the interest of personal and corporate aggrandizement' or 2) promote the 'paradoxical nature of the incarnation by insisting that the strength of god (especially as it points into the future) be demonstrated in the fully contradictory terms of weakness. here is martin luther and his distinction between the theology of glory and the theology of the cross.
full of echos of jurgen moltmann, he writes that 'we are talking about a frame of mind and a form of life predicated upon the implications of god crucified, who is (by virtue of the cross and proceeding out of the incarnation generally) the god of the lowly and the humiliated, the god who hears the cry of the oppressed, the god who raises the poor from the dust.'
towards the end, white tweaks the emergent church conversation about being too elite. hmm. what do they say? does emergent espouse what white calls a spirituality of symbolic inversion that consciously calls those with much to empty themselves (phillippians 2:5-11) in order to identify with christ who was born in a stable lowly and lived and worked with uneducated manual laborers, women, the sick and suspect, etc.? white says this near the end of his post. and fyi, footnote 48 is a painful description of the disparity of prestigious yale in terribly desperate and poor new haven. that's me. ouch.
"Furthermore, inversion come full circle makes room for the rich when their resources are deployed in the interest of justice for the marginalized who are often at their very doorsteps.[48] Saint Paul, after all, does not decry money itself (1 Timothy 6:10), but improper attachments to it. Pragmatic compassion must be resourced, and people of privilege are critically situated to provide for it. Healthy eschatological practice, therefore, requires of the rich a loose attachment to their wealth for the sake of a piety that entertains a hermeneutic of justice as much as anything else.
Story and journey are but two metaphors for a potentially engaging spirituality. The one suggests plot developing toward conclusion. The other prescribes movement in a descending direction. But each of them begs the question as to whether or not missional communities (in the interest of mission) can afford to aspire to anything less than a spirituality of inclusiveness for all by the way of the least. Apart from this, evangelical attempts at “postmodern ministry” will continue to foster elitism and cater to middle and upper classes who are already upwardly mobile, educated, detached and white. We will continue to populate faith communities with people who can afford to argue over the mere aesthetics of spirituality. Mission itself will suffer for it."
ouch. arguing over "mere aesthetics." i hope we do better than that. and, by the way, white posted on open source theology--a site for "the development of a transparent community-driven theology for the 'emerging church'". yet we should listen because this post pushes hard on the necessity of doing better, not because we have to to have christ in us, but because we have to because christ is in us. "i have been crucified with christ and it is no longer i who live but it is christ who lives in me. and the life i now live in the flesh i live by faith in the son of god who loved me and gave himself for me" (galatians 2:20).
anon, and +peace
I was formerly employed at a church to work on "postmodern ministry" or "the emerging church", whatever you choose to call it and it seems to me that white hits the nail on the head. the questions i always had were...are we actually saying anything different theological? are we being more faithful, individually and communially? or is this just another nice way to package the same old post-enlightenment dualistic christianity?
i found much to be excited about, but also much too much of the detached egocentric constantinian (one more adjective please) christianity that was bred in upper/middle class suburbia.
in response an in hopes of something new/old, i chose to study african christian theology prior to beginning seminary...what i am finding here in edinburgh is much of what the emerging church is grasping for. i would really encourage all of you to look into writers like kwame bediako (christianity in africa: the renewal of non-western christianity) who are able to articulate a coherent holisitc christianity that is faithful both to the context and the story.
Posted by: Joshua | November 29, 2004 at 07:21 AM
It seems to me that there are two types of church landing on the threshing floor called "emerging." On the one had are the churches who seem hell-bent on maintaining a traditional theology but wrapping it in 'postmodern' forms. These are the vast majority (I'd estimate 90%), and they may look different from lots of other churches, but when you scratch below the surface, you find the same old theology (and Platonic metaphysical philosophy, by the way).
On the other hand, there are a few churches that are just as hell-bent on expunging the elitist, decisionist, Latin expiatory theology from their churches...*without losing the authentically Christian nature of the gospel.* This means that these latter churches are looking to the liberationist, hope, and contextual theologians; they are relying on biblical scholars like NT Wright and Richard Hayes who are both critical and faithful.
Both types of churches have been started (or transitioned) primarily by white male post-evangelicals, so you may have to be patient as the wheat is separated from the chaff. But, let me just say that, from the inside, this separation is beginning to happen.
It will, however, take some time to really mount a significant challenge to American religion as individual-expressivism.
Posted by: tony | November 29, 2004 at 03:39 PM
I certainly do not want to dismiss the positive movement in the Emergent Church and I certainly am willing to give it time, both as an observer and participant. I did not leave working at a church with an emerging ministry because I thought all was lost, but simply because I needed to go get more schooling in order to move forward with my own sense of calling.
I also realize that much of the emerging churches theologies come from writers like Wright, Hays, and Newbigin (and by indirect influence Yoder and MacIntyre) however this seems to me still a bit troubling. Yes these writers move beyond certain readings of scripture to a more narrative approach that takes the best of postmodern and historical-critical scholarship, but I worry that the emerging church is putting too much emphasis on who they quote, who they read, and what their theology is. I say all of that with plans to get a PhD in Systematic Theology.
Where is the voice from the margins? The perspective from Cannan so to speak. those who have been trampled on by the church? Women. Non White Men? Where is the sense of justice in practice not just in sermons? Let alone, How vocal was the emerging church in regard to Iraq? I know I was told not to preach about it directly at the Presbyterian Church I worked at. It might drive people away and the goal of the "postmodern" ministry was to bring people in. Talk about Africa all you want, Bono does, but don't actually ask us to repent of our consumerism or economic practices. If we want to move American religion beyond individual-expressivism we need to be willing to repent, confess, and actually examine holisiticlly our action both within the church and without. I hope and pray that the "emerging" church or whatever one calls it, can help with a bit of propechy in this regard. Blessings
Posted by: Joshua | November 30, 2004 at 07:53 AM