volfing emergent, emerging volf (part two)

3. being held by the truth. miroslav's chapter on truth in exclusion and embrace, while not convincing everyone that i talked to, was a touchstone for the conversation in part because that issue has been such an important part of emergent's conversation over time especially in its relationship to traditional evangelical and fundamentalist churches. for miroslav, the issue of epistemic humility is intimately tied to the question of embrace and it amounts to the challenge of acting while nonetheless holding an openness to the possiblity that we are wrong. to have such a view, for mv, simply means having an appropriate view of humanity. we are not absolue, and our horizon is limited. thus we cannot fully know and defend without a doubt my view of what right belief and action should be. how then can i act with confidence? in a marvelous moment (one among a handful of times this happened), mv's love of martin luther showed itself. he said quite simply that our confidence comes not from our conviction but from our faith, not from our holding truth but because of our being held by truth. at this point he quoted luther's heidelberg disputation #28: "the love of god does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. the love of [hu]man[ity] comes into being through that which is please to it."

deeply related to this, as i say above, is the question of embrace. one can hold open space in oneself for the other, even and perhaps especially for the enemy, because of this radical stance of humility before god, and being held by god who at the same time loves the enemy. looking with this sort of vision, mv says, is a sort of double vision. it is looking as we see and at the same time striving to see as god sees so that we might imagine the space and circumstance of the other, and relate to them not on the basis of our own love for them (for as luther says we only love that which pleases us) but instead on the basis of god's love for them.

while mv was pressed about the issue of homosexuality because so many churches are struggling with where to come down on the issue, he instead turned to this process and said he though his work had more to say about process than content, that is, how we regard the other and remain open to an embrace regardless of the content of who they are, knowing that any judgment of them related to any fact about them is only partial and has to be held lightly, humbly, and with the intention of seeking out reconciled relationship with them. he returned at a number of points to say that christians have perhaps been too focused on the content of their belief, and therefore to defensive about hard boundaries between who is in, right, saved, and who is out, wrong, damned. he spoke of how modernity has had a drive towards the liberated self, but that can't be taken too far, as it is sometimes today, for with no boundaries we only have chaos. but as well, modernity has constituted itself at times by a terrible civilizing drive that has made others into beasts or savages to be hunted and eliminated. he said, in a remarkable moment, that the healing of the nations may depend on our learning to tend good boundaries, porous boundaries that shape individual and group identity while remaining open to the other. this view was the heart of his friendly dispute with the work of his friend stanley hauerwas, and you can find his most articulate exposition of it in his article titled "soft difference."

miroslav meets the postmodern negro (aka anthony smith) while tony jones looks on

[to be continued in the in the next post--anon and +peace]

Comments

[Ryan Bell]

Great summary of that thought, Christian. It was a real joy to be with you all and the hospitality was unequaled. This was truly an example of a third way to be the church - neither liberal nor conservative. With reference to holding your confidence lightly I'll never forget Brian McLaren's statement, which I quote often - "Confidence is overrated. The Bible says the just shall live by faith!"

[christian scharen]

Thanks, Ryan. Can't help but say (as any self-respecting lover of luther would) amen! to Brian's statement. Do you know anyone writing about 'third way' as ecclesiology? I'd like to read more about that way of thinking/embodying church.
+peace

[Timothy Wright]

Hi,

I am trying to find my way though this emergent church and wolfs comment that Christians " he returned at a number of points to say that christians have perhaps been too focused on the content of their belief,"

How do I do this? What if some of my beliefs are "wrong" that blacks or chinese are inferior. Wouldn't that affect my process and how I approach people. How do I live with out having any content in my beliefs? I don't want to argue, just trying to see a way forward.

Tim

[marlyat2]

In literary terms, there is an analogy to Miroslav's acting-and-openness in Keats on negative capability:

"I had not a dispute but a disquisition, with Dilke on various subjects; several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously--I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason--Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. This pursued through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration."

This quote has come to mind so many times for me, in so many contexts.