Being Negative
Yesterday in church as we began our celebration of Advent we focused on Idolatry. Granted that isn’t one of the common themes of the season, but the advent of this different type of Messiah calls one to examine idolatry of empire versus allegiance to the Kingdom of God. As one stands against the false messages of empire, it become important to not only live differently but to have a prophetic voice where one is at. One needs to have the ability, the right, and the courage to stand up at times and say “this isn’t right.” Unfortunately that prophetic voice is generally suspect or corrupted in the church and in American society. As we discussed this, I was reminded of a recent quote of Tony Campolo to Tony Jones that I have seen posted on a couple of blogs (HT – Brother Maynard and Steve Knight)
“Don’t emerge. The Church needs you to not emerge. Keep being emergent. Keep saying what you’re not. Keep saying what you’re against. Be a prophetic voice in the Church, ’cause as soon as you say, ‘OK we’re done being against, we’re done kind of calling out the failings of the modern church, the weaknesses of the modern church,’ then you will become something, and you’ll no longer be Emergent. Then you’ll start ‘workin’ for The Man.’ You’ll become part of the big institution.”
While I am sure that more was meant in this statement than just what I am perceiving here, I think this holds some good advice for the church. One of the most common complaints I hear against us emergent types is that we are too negative – we just complain about the system and don’t actually ever say what we are for. While I often wonder if those making such accusations are just too miffed that our complaints hit too close to home to bother looking at what we do believe, these sorts of accusations generally end up shutting down constructive conversation. Conflict avoidance is next to godliness in most church settings I’ve been a part of, and so to accuse someone of being negative and inciting conflict is a sure way to silence opposition. In effect prophetic voices get muzzled or tainted with the label rabble-rouser. We can’t have people being negative now can we? Or as someone asked in church yesterday, did people tell Martin Luther to stop being so negative as he nailed his complaints to the door?
Granted, some attempts at having a prophetic voice are anything but helpful. Thoughtful engagement and criticism appear instead as hatred and judgementalism. Those voices are not looking for dialogue or change, but to merely tell others why they obviously are wrong. They kinda forget the whole “speak the truth in love” mandate or Peter’s advice to give a reason for the hope we have with gentleness and respect.
There needs to be a balance here. Judgementalism must be avoided in favor of respect and love, but prophetic voices shouldn’t be shamed into silence either. There is nothing wrong with calling for reform of the church or of the country – even though such a call is by its very nature negative. In exploring flaws and providing constructive criticism one is not necessarily rejecting those structures, just hoping to make them better. So while positive outlooks have their place, so do negative criticisms. We need to cling to the ability to be self-reflective of the cultures we inhabit (including the church) and continue to have a prophetic voice within those realms – no matter how uncomfortable it may be for others to hear.
Tags:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
I think you are right Julie. A good test is whether one is being self-critical (either of the personal self, or the movement one is a part of), at least as often (or nearly as often) as one is being other-critical.
Someone like that has a lot more credibility with me, than someone who is consistently “prophetic” about everyone and everything else, but rarely critical of themself or their movement – except in areas that (within their movement) it’s cool to be critical of (i.e. the emergent who is self-critical that they aren’t yet living a green enough lifestyle or the evangelical who is self-critical that they still don’t spend long enough in their quiet time or that they struggle with some vaguely-identified personal sin).
Alan Jacobs, in his recent review of Kahlil Gibran’s collected works, made this point:
“This is the first cause of his great renown.
And the second is like unto it: Gibran’s Jesus,
An oriental sage, a speaker of wry Wisdom,
A lover of paradox, a Judge only of others—
Oh yes, He can be wrathful,
But never to me the reader of Gibran,
Only to those whom I already dislike,
The powerful, the greedy, the cruel:
Those with whom I shall never be confused.”
well put. ive always been unsure of that connection between negativity and critique.
the way i see it, good critique is construction. it clears away the rubble so that you can begin afresh.
although i hate dropping links in comments, i mused on this back at the beginning of the year.
http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/04/04/subverting-the-empire-critique-as-construction/
You’re right Karl that self-criticism is important. I think this is another reason some people get so bothered by the emerging critique of evangelicalism. They assume that this critique is coming from the outside, rather than realizing that in most cases it is a critique from within. Most emergents are still part of the evangelical family and want to work for change from the inside. (I’m not necessarily speaking for myself here – as I’ve already been forcibly kicked out of the evangelical family – but this is still true of the majority of emerging folk that I know.)
We must stand for truth. That alone will bring us into conflict. Too often everyone wants to run for the hills when it comes to a discussion on theology or some such subject. Everyone seems to be afraid to stand up and say “this is wrong” or “that is wrong”.
Shane Claiborne’s new book Jesus for President has some great insights on the idolatry of empire & peculiarity of Christ’s Kingdom.
I have only in the last few months found my voice for constructive conversation. I’ve been writing about my concerns and observations for years, but speaking about it is a whole other creature. What has held me back the most, is that anything that the Lord shows me is convicting me as much as anyone else. I guess I’ve learned that I don’t have to wait until I’m fully conformed to speak out, I just have to be honest about my own failings.
Mike, I understand what you are saying and realize many evangelicals are quick to treat as an outsider anyone asking uncomfortable questions. But I think many in the emerging church contribute to the confusion regarding whether their critique is coming from within or without. Reading them, it’s not at all clear that they see evangelicals as “us” rather than “them.” This doesn’t apply across the board, but it’s common enough that one can understand where at least some of the confusion comes from.
But whether emergents are also evangelicals is really beside the point, I think. The need to be self critical also applies to individuals, and to “movements within a movement” such as emergent (or the church growth movement, or any other). If we aren’t frequently asking ourselves what good points are being made by those with whom we disagree (and finding some), and if we aren’t asking ourselves what good they are trying to protect, preserve, or rescue (and finding some), and what dangers we risk falling into as we react against those with whom we disagree (and finding some) then we are in a dangerous place, and risk pharisaism and losing the right to speak prophetically.
Tim Keller gained some credibility in my eyes with his recent criticisms of evangelicalism, even if there is room for disagreement with other parts of what he said. Mark Van Steenwyk’s “7 Loving Challenges for Emergent” was refreshing to read and the sort of thing I wish I saw more of from folks in the emerging church. Such self-criticism is there to some degree I know, and is a healthy sign where it exists.
This is an interesting theme. The prophetic voice has always tended to be seen as a voice form ‘outside’ – certainly outside the establishment or norms of society. Luther was interesting in that his critique was very much from inside, but eventually it couldn’t be contained there (as the establishment tried to stamp it out). I like the phrase that Kimberly uses – ‘constructive conversation’. There is a temptation to react negatively to criticism – I guess we all do that. The way forward lies in reflecting on the critique, honestly evaluating it and then applting the lessons.
Maybe if the conversation is always focussed on the negative (and there is no constructive conversation), we’re talking to the wrong people? Or at least, we need to recognise when ‘enough is enough’ and move on.
Josh – thanks for including the link. I like you idea that “the church needs a bunch of wild-eyed prophets.”
As to the inside/outside criticism discussion, I don’t think it can necessarily be an either/or. Of course self-reflection and self-criticism is needed in order for a healthy perspective to be gained. But I can’t go as far as to say that self criticism is the only valid sort of criticism. There are times when one could very well be speaking from experience, but if those who are even more inside the group don’t like what one has to say all they have to do it say “you’re not one of us so therefore your criticism is invalid” to shut down the conversation. And I can also think of a number of groups/situation that I have no personal experience with (just knowledge about) that I have no problem whatsoever in critiquing. Does that invalidate the critique or alter the truth in any way? To limit the prophetic voice to merely that which it is intimately involved with runs the same risk as not allowing that voice to exist at all.
I’m always amused by the way traditionalists talk about the emergent folks. I, by the way, don’t feel like I can call myself emergent. Our church is way too traditional. Still on the edges of empire, though the barbarians are definitely at the gate.
But here you have an institution that is so messed up and so far away from any original vision of the Church. And they have something to say about those who have sold it all and are trying to start something fresh?
Feels kind of like the guy who dropped the ketchup bottle on aisle 7 standing around and complaining about the way the high school kid is mopping up the mess.
Hi Julie, i think that is an interesting perspective in that I am sure that what you say is true to a point – in being able to express an alternative view other than the status quo that can be prophetic and challenging. It certainly is worth including in the conversation rather than avoiding conflict.
However, my view is that we have often been cast in the light of a negative voice because we are pretty confident on what does not chime with us any longer but a lot less certain (and that can be a v good thing in and of it self) in what we are for.
I’m not sure that makes us particularly prophetic, particularly where we are chosing the opposite end of the same spectrum or merely using the same attitudes/reasoning but just updated for current cultural reference.
julie, have you or mike read the prophetic imagination by walter brueggemann? it talks about both prophetic criticism and prophetic energizing. i have only read a bit of it but find it quite…prophetic.