Toward a Hopeful Future, pt. 4
In the second part of Toward a Hopeful Future, Snider and Bowen describe the “Emergent Ethos” in order to clearly link the concerns of emergent Christians with progressive congregations.
First, they suggest that emergents, like progressive mainliners are passionately concerned with social justice. Perhaps in a reaction to evangelicalism, many emergents are tired of Christianities that only seem to suggest the value of the individual soul over and against the global concerns of our society. This affects the way that emergents look at the concept of kin-dom and atonement theories in ways that Phil and Emily suggest are more in-step with mainline thinkers. This concern for global issues and justice leads emergents to question the popular civil religion prevalent in many parts of America’s evangelical landscape and to seek non-violent, subversive ways of living in the “Holy American Empire.”
Second, Phil and Emily show the emergent affinity for postmodernism (though I know Phil would say that it isn’t all that postmodern). The main thrust of this chapter is to show that emergents do not claim authoritarian claims of certainty or forced grand narratives. This affects the way that emergents view systematized theologies, fearing that certainty is often an idol. Emergents also tend to view the Bible as a contextual book that needs to be evaluated and thought through carefully rather than used as a reinforcer for one’s absolute beliefs.
For the most part, I’ve felt that Phil and Emily’s book could, in theory, work both ways. The emergent-type that they discuss in the book has often has run-ins with evangelicalism. For many of these Christians, they may not know where to go. This book could offer them insight into their own thinking, lead them to resources and thinkers who are expressing their concerns, and introduce them to denominations that should, in theory and according to Phil and Emily, be welcoming to their ideology. I have to admit that my optimism assumes a couple of things: First, I’m assuming that Phil and Emily accurately represent “progressive mainline thought.” This is difficult to do because mainline thought is not anymore monolithic than “emergent” thought (if such a thing exists). Not only is it not monolithic, a good portion of it is good-old-fashioned liberalism, which is very modern. I bring this up now because I think this weakness in my own estimation of the book is much more glaring in the chapter on postmodernism than anywhere else. How will the mainline clergy for whom this book is intended receive the ideas of postmodernism? I’m sure that its safe to say that they might be generally more open to it than evangelicals, but that doesn’t mean that this particular piece of the “emergent ethos” is going to be an easy fit into mainline congregations. Surely it won’t be as seamless a blend as something like the concern for social justice.
My second assumption is that emergents will connect with mainline congregations based on ideology and ignore everything else in the church. For many mainline churches these things include back-biting church politics (possibly not just a mainline thing, but an institution thing), big organs, a higher average age, upper-class congregates, and oodles of immovable history and tradition. If this book did in fact lead an emergent Christian to a mainline congregation and that congregation did welcome their ideology, would the emergent be able to stand it? I think a huge piece of what Phil and Emily are trying to do is force mainliners to ask themselves that exact same question, but I wonder how much change will be affected as opposed to how much mainline churches will begin to assume that those “young emergents types ought to be here because they think like us.” My own first exposure to a mainline church was similar. I came in totally on-board with the ideology promoted by the church but eventually had to leave because they church’s culture was stifling.
The last chapter in this section is about hospitality. Emergents and progressives both encourage hospitality and an atmosphere of welcoming as crucial to any church’s claim to embody Christian faith. Focusing on homosexuality and religious diversity, Phil and Emily have a much easier time of connecting emergent to progressive mainline thought again. For emergents and many, probably most (I usually shy away from saying things like “most,” because how the hell do I know?), mainliners, love is the central tenet of Christian faith and matters much more than one’s current list of sins.
Overall, Phil and Emily do a good job of summing up parts of the emergent ethos in a way that will help clarify it for mainline clergy. My only hope and prayer is that mainline denominations heed their advice and make space for emergents.
I understand your point when you say that for mainliners, “love is the central tenet of Christian faith and matters much more than one’s current list of sins.”
“More” implies comparison, so you’re not saying that sin doesn’t matter at all to mainliners. But are you implying that love simply “overlooks” sin in a dismissive manner that regards it as something of little consequence? Because I would think that love necessitates a necessary and naming and shaming of evil in order for it to be forgiven (I follow Volf closely here).
I’ve noticed that theologians (if I dare to self-describe in such a way) tend to have some pretty standard quotes that they fall back on all the time. Here’s one of mine:
When I asked Doug Pagitt about sin and the authority of the Bible (particularly as it pertained to homosexuality), he said that people often accuse him of not thinking that sin is that bad or that it even exists. He went on to clarify that he actually finds more things to be sinful. Now, that’s an emergent response, and not a mainline response. Phil, who is both mainline and emergent, would say (for simplicity’s sake) that mainliners are more concerned about God loving people than they are with God wanting to send people to hell on account of their sins. This translates into a very “forgiving” environment–though we could debate what forgiveness means, especially in light of Volf.
I’m not sure that Volf would say (and I could be wrong here) anything like “naming and shaming.” That doesn’t seem to be his way of dealing with evil. The naming, maybe, but the shaming doesn’t sit well with me. Taking on evil head-on, as Volf would suggest, doesn’t seem to include shaming the Other, and thus making them even more Other. The question is are these two poles actually opposites? Is love’s willful “overlooking” of sin mutually exclusive to taking on evil head-on?
For one thing, I think that there is a semantic problem with equating evil with sin. Sin may be evil, but not all evil is or is the result of “sin.” Sin to me has a much more personal connotation. It describes the actions of one person in one context. Evil is more systemic. I think focusing on sin is a result of the individualization associated with evangelicalism, and as such, maybe it is not a healthy framework for dealing with the problems of evil.
Second, I think the only adequate response to sin or to evil is love, which might name but would not shame a person’s sins. Pagitt defines sin as something like dis-unification. Sin is when things that were in harmony become disturbingly out of whack. I like this definition, and if it is even slightly accurate, approaching sin with anything other than love will only perpetuate disunity and disharmony.
In other words, when compared to the value of each person and to the overwhelming love of God, sin really is something of little consequence. But I also agree with you wholeheartedly that something must be done about it and about evil.
“Naming and shaming.” Volf’s terms, not mine. For Volf, to name evil IS to shame it. And you’re right — Volf is referring strictly to the evil enacted, not the person performing it. Sorry I didn’t make that differentiation. Also, Volf refers to evil/sin (they’re the same, but different; see below) in terms of interpersonal relationships AND systemic atrocities. The naming of personal evil is, well, personal. I shouldn’t air my grievances with John Doe in front of an audience — I should take them to him (Mt 18, right?). Systemic evil/sin, i.e. apartheid, MUST be dealt with in the public eye because it is a public grievance.
To go to a typical fallback verse, 1 John 1.9 talks of us having our sin (hamartias) forgiven and being cleansed/pruned (katharise) of pases adikias — “every [act of] unrighteousness.” I don’t think John is offering a doctrine of sin here, but he does seem to move from general, all-encompassing sin to singular acts of unrighteousness.
And, again, you’re right. I think this is a semantics issue (who actually thinks that language only SOLVES problems?). I use “evil” as a catch-all term. The evil of poverty, the evil of a harshly spoken word, the evil of Darryl Schafer. It’s all the same. But it’s different.
First, I just have to say that this sounds like perhaps the greatest book ever written.
In response to the conversation between Matt and Daryl regarding ethics and love, I would say that love is a more difficult standard to employ and actually makes things more messy, rather than less (in other words, it’t not a slippery slope of anything goes relativism, which is often the popular distortion).
And I think Matt makes a fantastic point regarding the chapter on postmodernism, for I often argue that mainliners tend to be just as resistant to postmodernism as do evangelicals. As such, this chapter is intended to serve as an affirmation of postmodern thought for mainliners to consider every bit as much as for evangelicals to consider. You’ve got a sharp eye for this, Matt. Nicely done.
Lastly, you’re also right in your assessment that mainliners shouldn’t think that simply because emergents tend to share some things in common with them theologically that everyone will live happily ever after. This misnomer is exactly what we tried to address in chapter three (hopefully with sufficient caution – recall especially the story about Michael and Christy). In relationship to this, here we want mainliners to learn a thing or two from emergent ecclesiologies, if such things exist, and hopefully it becomes clear throughout the book that we believe emergents offer gifts to progressives every bit as much as progressives offer gifts to emergents, especially in relationship to ecclesial structures and institutions, as well as in worship.
I totally thinks the book “works.” I’m really trying to approach this as a young emergent—an easy thing for me to do—to see if it works the other way, as well.
And I agree; love makes things messier.
I would love for it to work the other way around as well, and I’m glad you’re taking this approach. We obviously wrote it with mainliners in mind, but to hear people say that it’s helpful for those drawn to emergence outside mainline traditions is great news to hear!