That’s the first thing I thought of when I saw an advertisement for the new issues of Sojourners Magazine:
Actually, the first thing I thought was, Is this really the time for us to be criticizing other Christians who are on the same team as us? Really, with everything that’s going on in the world, a critique of the emerging church is worthy of a cover article?
The second thing I thought was that since the author is Soong-Chan Rah, the article will not likely be fair. Every person I know who claims the “emerging church” label and has read the section in Rah’s book in which he excoriates the emerging church thinks that he trafficked in caricature and stereotype well beneath the scholarly acumen of the rest of the book. In fact, I know several persons who have approached him privately and publicly to tell him so, and from what I’ve heard, he has admitted that he wasn’t as thorough in his assessment of the EC as he could have been. But he’s made hay with his analysis anyway.
[UPDATE: I have now read the article, and it is more fair that I assumed it would be. I stand by my assessment of Rah's book, but I have apologized to him for assuming the worst about the article.]
And the third thing I thought was, Is Sojourners for Straights Only? I thought this because Sojo in general and Jim Wallis in particular have made a point not to take a stance on the inclusion of GLBT persons in church and society, neither for nor against same sex marriage or civil unions, etc. Jim — fairly, I think — has said that Sojo’s core issues are poverty and racial equality. To delve into other issues would cause Sojo to lose focus.
However, many GLBT Christians and their straight allies consider this a real weakness of Sojo, since GLBT rights are as much a social justice issue as poverty and racial equality. And some of us also know that when Martin Luther King, Jr. started speaking out against the Vietnam War, many accused him of “losing focus,” and he lost many followers. But he was right — Vietnam was an issue of justice that Christians needed to speak out about.
In any case, if Sojo has the freedom to focus on a limited number of issues, does not the emerging church have the freedom to provoke ecclesial conversations that are primarily of interest to certain people? When I’m asked — as I often am — why the EC is so white, I have a threefold answer:
- Five years ago everyone was saying that we were too male, but people aren’t saying that anymore because women are now leading the movement. So be patient.
- There’s probably a lot more racial diversity in the movement than you think; you’d better look beyond the skin color of the best-selling authors to make your assessment.
- The EC is not an evangelistic movement. I don’t mean that in reference to the gospel, but to the movement itself. The EC is not about growing the EC. It’s about catalyzing an ecclesial and theological conversation and about building a network of friendship in which these conversations can safely take place.
Look, I’m not being overly sensitive about criticism of the emerging church. Criticize all you want. But I do expect our friends (or at least our theological allies) to develop critiques that are fair — or to be prepared that the same measure by which they judge us will be used on them (didn’t someone say that?).
Related posts:
{ 7 trackbacks }
{ 67 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Hello Greg,
Thanks so much for your earnest question. It demonstrates the kind of openness that can lead to real movement forward. The question you ask is one that people have written whole books about. So, answering in a blog format is a little, shall we say, challenging? ;p But here’s a shot:
1. The leadership of the EC movement has to engage in it’s own “all cards on the table” assessment of their personal histories with issues of race, racism, and racial reconciliation. This assessment MUST be led by someone from outside of the movement who can listen well and offer an objective point of view. It may also be good to include gender relations in the assessment as well, since this is another critique of the movement and they are linked.
2. When that assessment is complete you will have a mirror document that reflects back to the movement’s leadership the strengths and weaknesses of the movement in this area. It should address two questions: 1) in what ways has God placed in the sovereign foundations of this movement the kind of experiences needed to move forward in its journey to becoming an anti-racist movement and 2) in what ways do the leadership’s past experiences around race serve to prevent movement forward (or even add bricks to the Ephesians 2:14 ethnic “wall of hostility”)?
3. Next a strategy and plan for movement forward can be devised. For real change to occur the leadership MUST fully engage the process on three levels: personal, a communal, and structural. I do not recommend focusing all the movement’s work on the issue of race and racism head-on for years at a time, as other may. We did that in Southern California and found a shift in generational sensibilities called for a new approach. I think the “racial reconciliation” approach of the 1990s worked to some degree for Gen Xers who like to emote and dive deep into their feelings, but it doesn’t work for Millennials, who are much more action oriented — they become open and learn in the process of doing. Also, I have come to believe focusing too much time on folks personal issues of racial partiality defeats the purpose. White folks often get stuck in this part of the process and think they’ve overcome when they can point to one, two, or three, friends of color who have engaged with them on their personal prejudices. It really isn’t about personal prejudice. Its about cultural and structural welcome and embrace.
So, at this stage, along with deep theological work on the concept of Shalom, I would recommend an inductive assessment of the culture and structures of the EC movement–again facilitated by someone outside of the movement. Also it should be done in partnership with a diverse community of leaders of color (both men and women). This assessment should not be done as a simple learning exercise. It should be conducted with the intent to implement the recommended strategies for change that come from of the exercise.
From there the course of action is determined by the findings of the analysis.
There’s more, but too much for a blog. The process I just outlined for you is similar to the one I led the staff team through in Southern California. I would be more than happy to work with the EC movement as it determines if it wants this kind of process.
Greg, with all that said, I’m reminded of what my friend Boris Peterlin (Peace Trainer for Caritas Croatia) said during a training on reconciliation. He learned about ethnic reconciliation in the context of the Croatian wars. From that experience, this is what he learned: the first requirement of reconciliation of any sort is desire. You have to really want it. I sense in your question that you want it. I hold out hope that the movement’s leadership wants it as well. Change never happens without desire.
Shalom,
Lisa
Greg:
Here are some additional thoughts:
1. Like Onleilove states there is much work out there on deconstructing privilege. Engage in some of the reading and perhaps join one of the conversations.
2. The leaders of EC should engage someone like Brenda Salter McNeil on these conversations; as a leadership group.
3. Engage a forum with some of the names mentioned here to plan a way forward.
Un abrazo (perhaps more later),
Gabriel
I’m a big Wallis/Sojo fan and I was somewhat disappointed to see that cover. I think it’s a worthy article to be written only because it’s a question that EC folks should consider, if only to keep themselves in check. But, it wasn’t worthy to glaze the cover of the mag.
Dear Gabriel,
I’m not sure if I’m the Brian you were addressing, but either way, I’ll take it as an opportunity to jump back in. I really appreciate the conversation that’s happening. Despite its difficult nature, there is something really hopeful for me about the attempts on the parts of so many in this forum to really engage one another and not slip into “us and them” dualities. At its best, this is what I see as the EC’s primary intervention into the larger cultural discourse.
I agree, Gabriel, there needs to be some serious unpacking of the role “issues of LGBT/GLBT” plays in this conversation. I am suspicious of evocations of welcoming and affirming stands as a means of marking ones social location. First, it perpetuates the sort of litmus testing around who is in or out of certain theological circles even as it tries to disrupt that sort of thinking. Secondly, it disregards the actuality of LGBT people (and maybe particularly those of us who claim Q for queer, because we got tired of the same sort of binarism in LGBT politics) who are played as pawns in someone else’s cultural battles. Thirdly, it seems mostly invested in a politics of distraction. Brushing off critiques of race because those raising the critiques have work to do on homophobia just seems too easy. After all, I’m still a middle-class white guy with a Mac and hip glasses. I blend in pretty well in an EC crowd, so let’s not let my inclusion be reason for avoiding the difficult work around race.
Finally, the sort of rhetorical strategies used in the initial perpetuate a notion of competing oppressions that maintains repressive hierarchies, resulting in a constituting of LGBT identities that is dominated by white, middle-class, and arguably male assumptions and values. The often unintentional result is a false distinction that “issues of GLBT” have little to do with issues of race, class, gender, and nation — and that identity categories tied to each each exclude the members of others. We thus further participate in silencing the voices for women of color, poor queers, etc.
Perhaps then a more coalitional approach is needed in which the codes of “normalcy” for the community (or movement, or network) are transparently considered and questioned. That is not to suggest an anything goes sort of approach (as if the existence of such codes could or even should be desirable), but rather and humble and reflexive stance in which we consider how our communities are producing and regulating normativities even in the most subtle ways.
I’m grateful for a call towards anti-racist work. What does it mean to claim that our Gospel narrative requires of us an anti-racist commitment? How would we live that out?
Peace!
Brian
While it may not be intentional, it appears that way in practice. And I’m sorry to say that while I enjoy reading works by McLaren, et al, I have not been inclined to join “the conversation” for this precise reason. It feels very ‘white’ and by that I mean, culturally. That has stuck me as ironic, since I do see some EC authors talking about social justice. For now, I will stick with Sojourners and CCDA. If the EC movement catches up on racial-consciousness, then maybe I’ll feel like we’re actually walking a path together.
Maybe part of the problem is that since it is predominantly culturally white – it too suffers from the white tendency to see itself as culturally neutral or the default culture. As in, ‘hey we’re welcoming, we don’t get why other people don’t feel welcome…they can come over to where we are and do things the way we do, we’d love to have them.’ I’m not trying to insult, but I’m just trying to suggest that if there is a lack of diversity, there are reasons. It’s not simply just the way it is. Peace.
Brian,
Thanks for understanding what Onleilove and I have been trying to express. The concerns of bulding coalitions that are post-colonial and comprehensive are important. It seems to me if we don’t start the hard work of this conversation we are relegated to allowing the issues of imperial bio-power (a-la Hardt and Negri, C. René Padilla, Spivak, L Rivera-Pagan, Mayra Rivera, J. Kameron Carter, etc.,) dominate and divide. I was concerned that the issues of race and ethnicity were being put in tension with issues of sexuality. This should not nor need not be the case. As you say, the initial response (intended or unintended) sounded like a hierarchy of oppressions that do not further solidarity or comprehension. I thank you for hearing us.
Un abrazo, Amahoro, Shalom, Salaam,
Gabriel
Gabriel~
I do think EC has a growth area when it comes to diversity. I think that the criticism that having a door ajar for the “other” is not the same as those who are gatekeepers inviting the people outside the gates into the feast. I appreciated your thoughtful response, and I would like these local and inclusive issues at Sojourners to be addressed as well. I left the evangelical church 20 years ago because of Liberationists in Chicago that held the same sort of Don’t ask don’t Tell attitude about LGBT equality and followed Sojourners closely. It makes me sad to think that Sojourner’s Neo-Evangelical, para-church organization has not moved much since that time. As I said to Tony earlier, if your friends can’t challenge you on these issues then we are not going to grow.
Tony,
You say, “In any case, if Sojo has the freedom to focus on a limited number of issues, does not the emerging church have the freedom to provoke ecclesial conversations that are primarily of interest to certain people?”
Did you mean this, or were you just going tit for tat with Sojourners?
In my opinion, the problem with your statement is that “ecclesial” and “certain people” are critical odds. The EC is the first to point out, rightly so, that the ecclesial or “church” is the people of God—not the institution nor the physical place of worship. Moreover, scripture portrays the church as an irreducibly complex and integrated body, “For the body does not consist of one member but of many…” (Corinthians 12:14).
How then can you have ecclesial conversations, i.e. discussions about the body of Christ, with only “certain people” or one part, and arrive at an awareness of EC’s true ecclesial function? Furthermore, there are only complimentary parts, not competing “teams” as you say.
The problems with ecclesial conversations about racial diversity is that virtually all white people will agree that they think that racial diversity is “nice.” But do they think that is it necessary? Do you think that any movement is fundamentally impoverished, dysfunctional, and just a lone appendage without it? If so, I think the proper response is to critically self-examine oneself, and if indeed true to any degree, to then lament–not hurl accusations.
But maybe you disagree? Maybe diversity is just a nice idea, and you’ll deal with it when you’re ready. Some us, however, call that white privilege.
Hey guys,
I wonder if the reason the EC is so white is that the Black folks already got it. What I mean by this is that (as a broad generalization) the “black church culture” is one that already accomplishes what the emergent movement is trying to do in mainline denominations. I see the Emergent movement (correct me if I am wrong) as something that concentrates on the form of church and tries to make it match the best of our theology. Our unorthodox forms of worship and looser boundaries on fellowship in turn effect our theology- and I think that is a good thing. These effects draw a crowd and change a culture. Though the black church culture is far from perfect, it has lots of the methods and thoughts that the EC strives for. (and, I’m one of the white folk in the EC, btw) The question, it seems to me, is not “why is the EC so white?” but “Why aren’t the white EC folks talking to the black church to get some good ideas?”
-Katie Jo
Check out the satirical article, “Frightened Black Family Flees Emergent Church.” It brought up this point years ago, but in a “Daily Show” kind of way. It’s a fair point.
http://www.holyobserver.com/detail.php?isu=v01i08&art=black
Tony,
What I normally appreciate about your blog is your willingness to wrestle with the issue at hand. While you make a good point about sojo. it does not detract from a core issue facing the emerging movement. I hope you will come back to to the issue of race again and consider it more deeply. I am curious on what you believe are the theological reasons the movement has not seen more diversity.
Tony,
Sexual diversity and racial diversity are not ethically analogous.
Wow, Brian! I checked out that article you posted and LAUGHED OUTLOUD several times!!!! I can totally see it. And that’s exactly what we’re talking about.
By the way, Greg, I second the motion to contact Brenda Salter McNeil. She’s a personal friend and former colleague of mine and she is amazing at what she does!
Peace Today,
Lisa
As a queer person, I’ve danced around the edges of the Emergent Church/Conversation because, while I appreciate much of what is going on, I see, hear, and read mostly straight white men. It’s not that many folks (even “leaders” or at least figureheads or mentors) within the EC don’t embrace LGBT folks (or even that queers aren’t part of the EC) but rather there aren’t prominent queer voices I can look to.
I am shocked by this return fire at Sojourners around sexual orientation. Yes, Sojourners distresses me deeply with its unwillingness to engage sexual orientation and gender identity as issues of Christian justice, which I believe they are. The EC also distresses me for the same reasons. Yes, there is no official governing body or leaders but there are some voices that are heard more than others–and those voices are (mostly) white straight men. I’m so grateul for Adele at Queermergent for carving out a new space. I’m equally grateful of Onleilove for posting on the Sojo/God’s Politics blog about sexual orientation and gender as issues of justice.
It’s nice, I suppose, to hear straight men tell me they don’t think homosexuality is a sin–or even that Christianity should change–but there is more. Growing up within Christianity and realizing I am not straight was a catalyst for introspection, education, thought, prayer, meditation, and growth. *I* do not merely need to be accepted for my own sake, the *Christian Church* (and EC by extension) needs to embrace and empower me for its own sake as I (and other queer folks) bring a powerful insight to faith that is lacking if we are only or primarily listening to heterosexual folks.
Likewise, as a white male, I have increasingly realized that *I* have a lot to learn by listening to the perspectives of women, people of color, and my global siblings. They don’t need to just be invited to the conversation or recruited to the conference, I need to be reading their blogs, seeking out their message, following their advice, and joining their movements with fervor. I am already reading, listening to, and informed by a wealth of straight white male voices (Tony Campolo, Shane Claiborne, Mark Scandrette, Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, etc) because their voices are easily accessible in our culture. Beyond a personal level, I need to make sure organizations and movements I am part of elevate the voices that are not as accessible (and invite dominant voices to step back and listen)–not for diversity or political correctness but rather because I and we will be better for it.
Is EC the only predominately white movement in the USA? No. Is Sojourners the only non-queer-affirming group in the USA? No. Can each, who are committed to justice and on a journey to follow Jesus the Christ do better? Absolutely. If I didn’t believe in what EC and Sojo are trying to do, I wouldn’t even bother. I share because I know we are doing something right and we can do better still. This blog post is not an example of a productive way forward, unfortunately. Let’s take the opportunity to listen to the many dissenting voices and learn from what they have to say, rather than ignore them or rationalize them away (isn’t that just the same old…?).
Thanks for the input all! I’ll definitely look up some material from Brenda! I tried to add a couple of you on Facebook for the leads you offered, but Gabriel I couldn’t find you (actually I found too many and didn’t know which one you were). Feel free to hit me up at greg.gorham@gmail.com.
It may be because I bring a psycho-social perspective to what hear and read, but I cannot help but wonder why anyone who is a “freelance theologian” would begin a very needed conversation on race, ethnicity and EC by offering a critique of an article not already read. The depth of my disappointment is probably greater because I am Soong-Chan Rah’s colleague, and I know him to care deeply about the Church and the future of the Church. His analysis is borne out careful consideration, ministry experience, and desire to see a more just society. I was also disappointed because the student co-author is a reflective, thoughtful and intelligent man–and his contribution to the article (which I read) bears this out.
At the heart of some of these kinds of discussions where those who are not white offer a critique of racism, conscious and unconscious, is the issue of power and its abuse. When one can publically single out an author and critique what you imagine he will write about a topic without having to read the work in question–I believe this is an abuse of power, privilege and access to to the public. I think power is also at the center of the issue of diversity in the Church and EV efforts. It is not up to current leaders to “let” newer and more diverse leadership participate. If it an issue of letting, the power resides with those who are doing the letting.
Finally, I am made hopeful by the many comments here grappling with these complex issues. I offer my comments in the hope that they can further what has already begun.
PS
I am white
I am a woman
I am a white woman
too distracted by her own exclusion
to include another
to reach out
to reach down
to see
to really see the invisible people
I live in a world
where white still has the power
I need to share
the spotlight
pass the mic
open the door
stoop down and listen
to the whispers
to the songs
to the heartbreak
I am a white women
and I thirst for color
rainbows and rainbows of color
rainbows and rainbows of color
painting the canvas of heaven
with rainbows and rainbows of color
please forgive me
← Previous Comments