A Node in the Web of the Emerging Church

Emergent Politics

Posted Feb 29, 10:08 AM | 13 comments | by Editor | Link

In the heat of the Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns, there’s no surprise that the issue of politics has heated up as well in the Emergent blogosphere.

Over on the God’s Politics blog, Tony Jones posted two excerpts from his new book The New Christians entitled “An Emergent Politics Primer: Part One and Part Two.”

In Part One, Tony writes, “Being that postmodern Christians are acutely aware of micronarratives and justifiably incredulous toward metanarratives, they are particularly suspicious of the spokespersons of left and right who often begin their pufferies with ‘Americans believe …’”

In Part Two, Tony writes, “Emergents seek a theological rationale for their political engagement. The thing is, that rationale varies from issue to issue, which makes the emergents an infuriatingly moving target for those with more traditional political viewpoints.”

Later he adds, “Emergents seem stuck in a no-man’s-land: on the one hand, they’re committed to a deep, political engagement in American society, but on the other hand, they vow not to be co-opted by a political party.”

While those posts have generated a few dozen comments each, there was also a huge discussion generated on Tony’s personal blog, when he posted a lengthy email from an anonymous “pioneer of the Internet” who challenged the sustainability of Emergent’s “no-man’s-land” political position, saying, “I think it’s great, if true, that a new kind of Christianity is emerging in which left and right are brought together and put their differences aside. If it does so by pretending that there aren’t differences, or that the differences aren’t meaningful or that they don’t matter, however, they’re fooling themselves and the facts sure to come back to bite them in their fantasies, as facts are wont to do!”

The dozens of comments and discussion that started there spilled over onto other blogs by David Fitch, Mark Van Steenwyk, and Michael Kruse (among others).

David Fitch appealed to sociologist/philosopher Slavoj Zizek’s notion of “ideological cynicism,” saying, “When it comes to Christians of my evangelical tradition, I would suggest this ‘ideological cynicism’ could work another way. We participate in National politics, its political ideologies of a more just society, even though we deeply suspect the corporate national machine insures nothing will change. We do this because it is much harder to think of the church itself as a legitimate social political force for God’s justice in the world. It is simply a lot less work to support Barak Obama for president than it is to lead our churches into being living communities of righteousness, justice and God’s Mission in the world.”

Tony Jones responded in the comments, “You accuse any of us who have hope that a US president might actually be an ally in overcoming the disparities in society of being blinded by our love for him. But I wonder: Is your ecclesiophila blinding you to the fact that the church has rarely been the counter-cultural force that you want it to be? I hope you’ll see in my book, David, that I think the church’s role in society is unique and important, but I’m also a realist that it’s always going to be just as screwed up as it is now. The church is great. I love it. But it’s just not the end-all-be-all. We also have to be engaged in society in myriad other ways: jobs, politics, hospitals, volunteerism, athletics, etc. All spheres are God’s.”

Fitch responded, “Zizek, Foucault and others illuminate how the dominant Symbolic Order always subsumes the minority for its own aims unless there is a way of resistance. This is another way to say that the church always loses when it makes Constantinian arrangements with the State to achieve power. My own church, (i.e. the evangelical church) is way too enamored with capitalism and democracy as social systems friendly to Christianity. We need forms of resistance that create spaces of lived integrity that thereby open the way for authentic engagement with government that can call it into account for a more truthful justice. We can cooperate with government surely, we can engage it absolutely, we can join it when it aligns itself with Christ, but not without a grounding space that displays justice as it is under the Lordship of Christ.”

Read this full post and all of the comments

Michael Kruse wrote, “What I find irritating is the persistent proclamations by Emergent-types of being an expansive movement that transcends all boundaries (political included) and foreshadows the emerging work of the Holy Spirit in the world while using (with only very narrow shades of difference) the same religious left perspective that Mainline denominations (i.e., National Council of Churches club) have been using for decades. Whether influenced by denial, naivete, or cold calculation, many of these folks need to get in touch with their inner liberal and own it. :) Then maybe we could ratchet down the messianic sanctimony and really have conversation.”

Kruse added, in the comments, “My message to Emergent would be, Is this a conversation or a political movement? Pick one. If it is a conversation than do a more intentional job of including other perspectives in your public image.”

Tim Keel responded, “I am on the board of directors for Emergent Village and in our gatherings as a board (and you may not believe this) but there has never been a explicitly political conversation. It is true that Brian is connected to Sojourners, Jim Wallis, and other traditionally liberal groups, etc. But Brian never assumes anyone else is where he is, nor does he seek to promote any agenda in conversation. It is not that I am trying to trump your concerns and/or observations, I simply have no experience with what you are describing as ‘typical’ of Emergent. ...

“I think that people should take Emergent’s definition of itself as a friendship and a conversation at face value. I promise there is no political conspiracy. Further I think it would show some sophistication to recognize that within a young and de-centered relational set that the whole can’t be held to answer for a few people whose public image has expanded (especially in a super-charged election year). Even though there are some who are getting more press, it doesn’t mean that they are constitutive of the whole.”

Read this full post and all of the comments

Writing in the Washington Post this week, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson described “the future of evangelical Christianity” as “pierced … sometimes tattooed [and] often has one of those annoying, wispy chin beards.” (It’s called a goatee, Michael!)

However, Gerson goes on to say this, “There is something essentially countercultural about Christianity that should make evangelicals restless in any political coalition. Christianity indicts oppressive government—but also the soul-destroying excesses that sometimes come in free markets and consumerism. It teaches enduring moral rules—and an emphasis on justice for the least and the lost. It is often hard where liberalism is soft, and soft where conservatism is hard.

“If evangelical Christianity were identical to any political movement, something would be badly wrong. It is supposed to look toward a kingdom not of this world, one without borders, flags or end. And by this standard, homelessness is a natural state.”

Tony Jones describes this feeling of “homelessness” among emergent Christians in his book The New Christians. I’ll close this “around the room” with an excerpt from chapter three in which Tony describes three key characteristics of “emergent Christians,” including what he calls “a high—if tortured—desire for inclusion.”

Tony simply states, “This is a tricky middle path between the certainties of evangelicalism and the openness of liberalism, and the jury is out as to whether this middle ground is really a tenable place to stand.”

Bookmark this article using Remarkable!

Welcome to the Reader's Forum

1BLM 03/01/2008 11:59 AM

It seems to me that emergent politics needs to seek to protect the most vulnerable among us. For me, the tension isn’t between certainty and openness, (I think Tony’s wrong about that dichotomy) but rather in that commitment. The poor, the elderly, the environment and the unborn are extremely vulnerable, but I certainly can’t find a candidate or a platform that pledges allegiance to them all.

Will emerging Christians subvert political seduction and articulate a coherent political ethic as friends of the friendless? We have that opportunity.

2Adam 03/01/2008 06:14 PM

I totally agree with Michael Gerson’s statement that Christianity is counter cultural. Regardless of how good or bad the government or politics are, Christians are called to the same thing: love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself. These two tenets are extremely a-political and to fully embody them seems to mean the exclusion of political ties.

3Virgil Vaduva 03/01/2008 10:21 PM

Steve, thanks for this good entry, but I still think you are perhaps unintentionally evading the excellent points raised by Michael Kruse. Michael and I have talked about those issues quite a bit…myself and others are observing the same trend: the conversation only involves folks who have settled on the left side of the pew. I have not yet seen Rush Limbaugh involved in the emergent conversation; but I do see Jim Wallis often being at the center.

Certainly I recognize the value of conversation, which is why I am involved and why I am excited about the future, but that value is deflated substantially if the conversation is only being used as a polemic device; in fact when this happens it almost becomes offensive to those involved.

Unfortunately I believe that eventually a decision will be made if this is a political movement or a “generative friendship of missional Christians.” I say unfortunately because inevitably exclusion will take place; it is what happens when the conversation becomes a movement, and that is what I and others really would like to know. Where are we heading?

It was more than once that Jesus communicated the idea that his Kingdom is “not of this world.” In his own social context, Jesus rejected a political solution to contemporary problems. Be it poverty, inequity, injustice, war, etc…the answer can only be found in the willing hearts of average people like you and I, not hearts guided by political ideology or governments. Only willing hearts can transform this world into what God perhaps wants it to be; and we all know how the hearts of people can be changed and motivated to do what’s right.

So to close this comment, conversation implies “diversity” while movement implies “uniformity.” What are we part of?

4Mike L. 03/01/2008 10:34 PM

Jesus’ parables were huge statements about public policy. The good samaritan, the prodigal son, loving our neighbor, protesting at the temple, etc. Those are about the relationship between Israel and its enemies and outcasts. Jesus was very much a political figure. Politics isn’t simply running for office it is about creating public policies. For ancient people that often meant Temple policies or community “norms. There was no line between chruch and state or election process. It never meant picking a party. But for us today, it DOES usually mean picking a candidate/party. Today, that is the most effective way to make changes in public policy. To ignore that would be to ignore the path of Jesus that calls us to bring God’s will on Earth.

Jesus didn’t teach a single method for policy change, he did advocate policy awareness (studying the law), open criticism (prophetic language), and activism (public protest). We have to redefine the methods in each generation.

I think Tony is right not to let the entire movement become tied to one party. Theology does however have an opportunity to effect the direction of political parties.

5Michael Kruse 03/01/2008 11:05 PM

Thanks for the link. I’ve said enough for now in my blog but in the next few days I hope to start a series called “Not Everything Must Change” in dialog with McLaren’s book.

Virgil wrote:

“So to close this comment, conversation implies “diversity” while movement implies “uniformity.” What are we part of?”

Bingo, Virgil.

6Mike L. 03/02/2008 01:51 AM

What if the “empire” wants us to be a conversation rather than a movement because they don’t want anything tangible to change? What if we are giving into the public relations machine of the empire that makes us believe “movement” is a dirty word?

I feel Tony expresses a valid point of concern that the movement could become too narrow or focused on only 1 issue. However, it shouldn’t stop being a movement and it shouldn’t shy away from politics.

Maybe it needs to be 100 movements. Maybe it should be about 100 political issues. Let’s have diversity AND real actions.

7Mike Clawson 03/02/2008 11:56 AM

I’ve weighed in on this issue at my blog: http://emergingpensees.blogspot.com/2008/03/emergent-politics.html

8JRB 03/04/2008 10:35 AM

Virgil writes that Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world as proof that Jesus rejects a political solution to the problems of his day. Misunderstanding is that Jesus most likely meant “this” world as the world the Romans had created and that his Jewish brethren had accepted. He did not mean, I believe , that His Kingdom cannot be fashioned in this world by committed believing followers of a new way, his way. Political change is one way to accomplish the Kingdom or at least movement towards it. Jesus didn’t reject political solutions anymore than Ghandi or King or Mother Theresa did. You that are railing against the “liberal” bent of the conversation might want to consider the old worn out adage, maybe a little twisted here, where would Jesus’ heart be, what platform positions would He support. I don’t have the answers nor do any of us. But I do believe that we are called to be political as folowers of Jesus and there are some pretty clear messages as to what initiatives we can support as to conservation of our Earth, feeding the hungry, building a home for all and more. Would we argue about those? Maybe how we get to the solution but probably not the issues.

Sorry about the disjointed nature of this post but it’s late and I’m tired. I just fell into this discussion and couldn’t not throw my two cents in. Peace, JRB

9Virgil Vaduva 03/04/2008 11:35 PM

“Misunderstanding is that Jesus most likely meant “this” world as the world the Romans had created and that his Jewish brethren had accepted.”

This is your own interpretation of what Jesus meant, and to me it appears that you are making the passage fit whatever socio-political paradigm you already hold to. That is not a fair way to approach scripture.

There is a context in which Jesus uttered those words. It was when Pilate was interrogating him about his claims as a King of the Jews. He rejected the assertion that he was a king of a literal-physical kingdom. He specifically used two different words to emphasize his rejection of an earthly political system. His kingdom is not “from this place” and his kingdom is not “of this world.”

The Kingdom is not something you can bring about with votes and politicians in Washington. The Kingdom is something to be sought (see Matthew 6) and something to be entered (see Matthew 7). The Kingdom is a covenantal relationship between God and his people…is something that “comes upon us” (see Matthew 12)...something that “comes near to us” (see Luke 10). The Kingdom does not come with “signs to be observed” (see Luke 17) but it’s something that is in our midsts (see Luke 17).

About 2,000 years ago a bunch of people in Jerusalem got excited about anointing Jesus as a political figure to kick the Romans out and put in place a Kingdom in which Jesus would rule from Jerusalem. He turned them down. I find it ironic that you are seeking to accomplish the very same thing now.

If you want to practice politics of whatever color and stripe, that’s fine with me, but guys, don’t hide behind Christ’s motives in order to do so. It’s BS, and it appears quite disingenuous.

10JRB 03/05/2008 07:40 AM

Peace, Virgil. It was you who first used that passage to fit your vision. Jesus was born into, ministered to, and died in this world. He came declaring that the Kingdom was here…here. I will choose His example of working toward the Kingdom of God…Here… Using every means at our disposal of which one is politics. I believe that He would lead the way today as He did 2000 years ago…turning the world upside down. Again, Peace…JRB

11Virgil Vaduva 03/05/2008 08:25 AM

Peace to you too JRB.

I still disagree with you…and you can use politics all you want, but don’t use it in my name…and don’t complain when people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell use politics to further their agendas :) How are you different from them?

The message of Christ was about something higher than public policy. It was about a spiritual kind of reality and the development of relationship with a Creator and with the people around us, relationships which transcend politics and social issues.

By the way, thanks to those of you replying to my response. You are confirming my and other people’s fears, namely that Emergent is in fact unsustainable and has indeed become a political movement and a refuge for people who have a clear political agenda.

So much for generosity and conversation eh? :)

12Steve K. 03/05/2008 08:44 AM

Virgil,

I agree with you that “the message of Christ was about something higher than public policy,” but how do you get around the fact that Jesus lived in our human time and space? When Jesus spoke, there was a human context that had inherently political ramifications. How are we any different when we seek first his kingdom and included in that is the sphere of politics? I respect the idealism you (and others like Mark Van Steenwyk) seem to be espousing, that to “rise above” the broken political system you are seeking to check out entirely, so you don’t vote, etc. But how is that not political in its own way? How are you being unpolitical in doing that?

As for your cynicism about the “sustainability” of Emergent, that its shifted to being a political movement instead of a friendship/conversation of missional Christians, well, none of us really care that much about “sustainability” when it comes to institutions and organizations, right? Seriously though, I think people are blowing people’s personal political persuasions* out of proportion. The vast majority of us are still in this to create new missional faith communities, inviting people to follow Christ and then walking that path with them. In the midst of that, we live inside a political system, that’s just the state of things, and for me, I’m just not convinced yet that the most Christ-like thing to do is to vote “none of the above” (a la “Brewster’s Millions”). Like I said though, I respect those of you who feel passionately about that. Rather than bashing the rest of us on the head for participating in the political process, I’d really be interested in hearing more of your thinking behind this “anti-political” position. How do you suggest we “transcend politics and social issues”?

Shalom,
Steve K.

*sorry for the alliteration, couldn’t resist

13Virgil Vaduva 03/05/2008 09:58 AM

Steve, thanks for asking :)

I was born in Romania and spent most of my life under the boot of Communist ideology. I heard it all…everything and anything justifying Communism. From “Jesus was a Communist” to stuff I am reading here…”Jesus was a politician.” All these justifications carry an implicit assumption, namely that Jesus needs some earthly sort of permission or nod from us humans in oder to operate in his kingdom. This is of course not in line with the King-dom, which is the domain of a king, in this instance we are speaking of the Kingdom of God, the extent to which God has dominion over something/someone. The Kingdom therefore can only be spoken of in relation to people, more specifically people’s hearts and minds. This is what God is ultimately after, a people willingly submitting to his authority, his reign and his dominion. In essence, WE are the Kingdom of God; it is within us, within our willing hearts and our minds.

Within this framework of the Kingdom, some above are advocating nothing short of a theocracy, nearly speaking on behalf of Christ as if we would know what Christ would do today in every instance of political discourse. We are not Christ; we are not Paul; we cannot speak on behalf of either one, so I smile when I read statements along the line of “Jesus would not drive an SUV.” That’s ridiculous…how do we know that? :)

We cannot bring people into the Kingdom of God through political means, or activism, so how I suggest we transcend politics and social issues is by offering a message that makes people willing to change, not attempting to change those heart by passing laws or by force. If we see injustice or poverty, we need to find innovative ways to motivate the rich to willingly give to the poor, not pass laws to take away from them by force.

Willing hearts can move mountains; laws and politics will harden those hearts. I know – I was there.