Whosoever Godcast #22
Defining the Emergent Christian movement is a little like defining the color blue to someone who has never seen or experienced it. Critics say the emergent movement is simply another wishy-washy liberal watering down of the gospel. Tony Jones in his new book The New Christians disagrees. In Whosoever's 22nd Godcast, Jones tells us why, to him, the emergent movement is a third way between religious conservatives and liberals.
Whosoever Godcast #22
posted by Candace Chellew-Hodge @ 6:04 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I'm struggling with something that was said in this Godcast.
Around the 8.5 minute mark, Mr. Jones responds to the question "I'm a lesbian, is there a place for me in Emergent?" Mr. Jones response amounts to "yes, if you're willing to let go of your ideology."
I'm trans, and while I will freely admit that my being trans informs my faith and my theology, my being trans is not an ideological stance It's simply who I am. Do I have to stop being who I am to go to an Emergent group, simply so I won't offend the other people there whose ideology holds that who I am is sinful and evil?
When redheads come to Emergent meetings are they expected to let go of their ideology of redheadedness? What would that even mean?
To say to a liberal or conservative that they have to let go of their beliefs enough to hear the other side is a reasonable request. To say to a lesbian that she needs to let go of being a lesbian just seems offensive.
While my perception is probably colored by this one moment, my understanding of Emergent from this interview is that it requires you to let go of anything that makes you distinctively you.
Hi Meghan: I just finished listening to the Godcast, and the characteristically excellent interview conducted by Candace of Tony Jones, and it struck me that his concept of the "emergent Church movement" is little different than what goes on in many "liberal" churches within mainstream denominations.
The idea of "working it out in community" begs the question of what "it" means (to paraphrase Bill Clinton).
If a gay or lesbian, for example, must "dialogue" with a professing Christian who thinks that he/she is "intrinsically disordered," why bother attending such a group or having such a dialogue in the first place?
Those kinds of dialogues have been, and still are, engaged in by such denominations as the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, and the Episcopalians, and are likely to be engaged in for decades to come. It reminds me of the Apostle Paul's assertion concerning those who are "ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth."
In my view, the emergent Church movement, to truly live up to its promise, must have its members embrace ALL of God's children as an axiom, and dialogue regarding assorted theological and Christological issues, but there should be no need for dialogue regarding the fitness of any Christian to be viewed and treated equally both civilly and sacramentally; there is to be no question that all Christians, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, are to share in the same conferring of dignity and validation that are bestowed on their heterosexual brothers and sisters.
When you write, "To say to a liberal or conservative that they have to let go of their beliefs enough to hear the other side is a reasonable request. To say to a lesbian that she needs to let go of being a lesbian just seems offensive," you are understating the case, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't just "seem" offensive, but is, in fact, offensive. And to have to put up with dialoguing about who one is puts one in such a position that he/she would do just as well worshiping in a "liberal" church, if he/she want to worship in a church in the first place.
Meghan and Jerry,
I think both of you are missing Tony's point here. He's not saying that we have to check our sexual orientation or our gender identity at the door. Instead, you have to let go of your contentiousness on this issue and be willing to enter into real dialogue with those who are dedicated to entering into that dialogue with you. It means putting aside your offensiveness and any egotistical need we have to be right and affirmed by others.
I went to an emergent church meeting here in Columbia recently. We discussed Brian McLaren's latest book Everything Must Change. We didn't discuss GLBT issues. We chatted about each other at the end and I told them my story. No one argued with me, though I know a few disagree with me. I look forward to talking with them further and talking about the sexual orientation issue. We may end up agreeing to disagree, but I feel we can have a good dialogue on the subject. If both sides are willing to put aside their ideology - their need to bend the other to their will and belief, then we may make some progress together toward becoming one body in Christ.
We don't all have to agree and I don't need their affirmation to feel accepted in the group. I do need their respect and their community - and if they're willing to offer that - then I think we're well on our way to reconciling on the question of sexuality and gender identity.
That's my hope, anyway!
Hi Candace: I hope you're right, of course. But I find it hard to conceptualize that their "respect" and the "need for community" could be forthcoming if from right out of the box there is any antipathy to LGBT people, or any question concerning the consistency between being a Christian and being LGBT.
It seems to me that a major reason for the emergent Church movement is the consequence of many Christians divesting themselves of legalism, hierarchy, bureaucracy, and all traditions that have made void the word of God; the "reconciling on the question of sexuality and gender identity" has not yet occurred in most all mainline denominations despite numerous discussions, so I don't see how that goal will be met with further discussions in another venue, emergent Church or not.
Moreover, why would LGBT Christians want to join an emerging Church if they would run the risk of being, yet again, disparaged or discounted in any way for who they are?
I would expect that those who are ready to be involved in an emerging Church movement would have already transcended the need to adhere to the very features and exclusionary practices of most traditional churches and denominations that have presumably made them want to involve themselves in this movement in the first place.
To involve oneself in a group, emergent church or no, some of whose members ideologically question the validity and dignity of one's very self and self-concept, seems to me would be counter-productive and toxic to that person.
In all fairness, I've only listened to the interview, and have not read his book, so I may be off the mark. But, as with Meghan, after listening to the interview, I felt a bit disquieted when he seemed to say that being Gay or Transgender, for example, were "ideologies."
Candace, you write, "We don't all have to agree and I don't need their affirmation to feel accepted in the group. I do need their respect and their community - and if they're willing to offer that - then I think we're well on our way to reconciling on the question of sexuality and gender identity."
But you do need affirmation as an authentic human being and Christian, and if some people in the emergent church group to which you belong in one way or another deny you that affirmation, it still seems to me to be no different than if you went to a "liberal" mainline church.
Maybe I'm merely projecting, but I do all in my power to avoid toxic relationships, and it seems to me that to involve oneself with people who would at this stage of the game question the validity and dignity of who one "is," regardless of how benign that question is put, is involving oneself in a toxic relationships.
Candace, you write: "If both sides are willing to put aside their ideology - their need to bend the other to their will and belief, then we may make some progress together toward becoming one body in Christ. " I know you don't mean that we should have "unity" at the expense of "justice," but it seems to me that the consequence of both having to bend the other to one's will and of not having to bend the other to one's will regarding the legitimacy of who one "is" as a Christian and as a human being, would likely result in just that; we'd have neither unity nor justice.
You write, "We don't all have to agree and I don't need their affirmation to feel accepted in the group. I do need their respect and their community ...." I know we don't have to agree on all things, but without another's affirmation regarding an LGBT Christian (or any other type of Christian, for that matter), there can be no acceptance, respect, or even a sense of community.
At least, for what it's worth, that's my take on it.
I'm still not getting it.
It still sounds like we're going to have these great "real dialogue" discussions on subjects that nobody there has any real investment in.
And it has the feeling of "homosexuals and transpeople are fine, as long as they act straight in public."
One of the things I want from a community is the freedom to dress in the clothes make me feel most alive, and, unfortunately, when I dress how I feel right I'm still obviously a male body in women's clothes. Would that be alright at an Emergent meeting, or would that be an instance of my being contentious and egotistically seeking affirmation from the group?
It's not that hard to imagine my being asked to wear men's clothes so that I won't get in the face of those at the meeting who believe cross-dressing is sinful.
Meghan and Jerry, here is my take on it - what I find in the emergent church is people who are willing to listen. Everyone has to start somewhere. I think what Jones is saying is that in emergent you'll find people who are open to dialogue with you on the tough questions of sexuality and gender identity.
You certainly have to use your judgment about whether a relationship is toxic. But, if we're not willing to go into a situation where people may not be at the point of acceptance, but ARE at the point where they can listen to us and perhaps hear us - then emergent seems like fertile ground to me where we can go in and win more hearts to the GLBT cause.
In Jones' book, he talks of emergent churches where most of the members have gay friends and some even have gay members and it's simply not an issue. I suspect, like my own UCC denomination, there are broad differences across individual congregations. Some may be open and accepting, others not so much.
All I'm asking (and all I hear Jones asking) is that we be willing to come to emergent without defensiveness - willing to talk with people who are willing to listen.
If we go in demanding that we be accepted up front without engaging in any dialogue, the result would not be good. How would you react to someone coming in and demanding that you accept their more fundamentalist beliefs? It won't fly. But if they come in with an open heart and open mind and you have the same, perhaps you can find common ground.
That's what I hear him telling us - that emergent is a place where we can find people willing to open their hearts to us - and isn't that really the first step to ultimate reconciliation?
Hi Candace: I sure hope it would work that way, and it may well. I just don't see it as being likely. However, that just might be my paranoia. :)) It wouldn't hurt to give it a try, but.... Best wishes, Jerry.
Post a Comment
<< Home