Sojourners Response
Here's is my response to Soong-Chan Rah's and Jason Mach's article in the May issue of Sojourner's Magazine. This response was first posted at the God's Politics's blog.
A truth that I’ve repeatedly been reminded of this past year is the utter inappropriateness of basing one’s identity on the belittling of others. What it means to be a man of integrity cannot be defined through the mocking of Asian culture. What it means to be a Real Man cannot be defined through the debasement of women. And what it means to be a real 21st Century Christian cannot be defined through the dismissal of the entire Western church.
So I am having a hard time with Soong-Chan Rah’s and Jason Mach’s article on the emerging church, even as I believe they are addressing a vital issue. Let me say upfront that racial reconciliation needs to happen in the American church, and that to be healthy the church must start listening to all of its diverse members. I have no quarrel with that message in the article, I just don’t understand why Emergent must be the sacrificial lamb in this conversation. After reading Rah’s chapter on the emerging church in his book, The Next Evangelicalism, I, with others, wondered at the caricature he presented of the emerging conversation. In order to support his thesis that the white western captivity of the church must come to an end, he presented a picture of the emerging church as a bunch of trendy looking white guys who deliberately exclude racial minorities. A portrayal that resembles no part of the emerging world I have ever seen. I know he was repeatedly called out on this very issue, so I had hoped that in this article there would be a bit more journalistic integrity. But once again, we have the same skewed stereotype of emergents (even as the article exclusively quotes women and racially diverse emerging leaders who are seemingly counterexamples to its thesis). This inaccurate portrayal thus functions as a straw man that can easily be attacked and dismissed as standing in the way of a more global and diverse emerging Christianity.
The article asserts – “In truth, the term “emerging church” should encompass the broader movement and development of a new face of Christianity, one that is diverse and multi-ethnic in both its global and local expressions. It should not be presented as a movement or conversation that is keyed on white middle- to upper-class suburbanites. … If the label of the emerging church is to have a future, then the term needs to be reclaimed and disassociated from the specific brand of Emergent, and applied much more broadly to the church around the world”
Here’s the thing, every emergent and emerging Christian I know would agree with most of that statement. We know this is about a broader, global movement and have no delusions that white suburbanites are its center or future. And almost all of us agree that we need to intentionally listen to and learn from a wide diversity of voices within the church. We are part of the same team, working towards the same goals. Of course, Emergent is not perfect or above critique. Of course, it isn’t the sum of the emerging conversation. No one ever said it was. Emergent serves to network and resource the emerging conversation, doing its imperfect best to make this shared vision a reality. So why throw us under the bus and say we need to be kicked out of the conversation?
The thing is, I get where the small kernel of truth in their stereotypes came from. Over the past 15-20 years, the church has been attempting to make sense of the shift worldwide to a globalized, post-colonial, post-modern culture. Although this shift manifests differently around the world, we are all too interconnected to not be affected in some way. Early on in the contemporary Evangelical church these shifts were seen as simply a generational phenomenon prompting discussion on how to make church relevant to young people. Many churches jumped on the bandwagon of how to do trendy church, and yes, publishers attempted to capitalize on it as well. Since the money in the evangelical world in America historically supports charismatic white men, they became the poster children of the conversation. But as the conversation matured, others realized that what was emerging in the world was far more significant than generational trends, and so started to ask questions about how the church is held captive to culture and modern philosophies. Dialogues across diverse Christian traditions helped begin to heal wounds caused by racial and denominational divisions. These new relationships blurred boundaries both in and out of the church, making it impossible to quantify the number of churches participating in the conversation.
These emerging conversations and relationships brought renewed faith to some, but frightened or didn’t go far enough for others. Many of those (including publishers) who were simply riding the waves of cultural trends jumped ship and moved on to the “next big thing” (New Calvinism anyone?). This rejection of what was emerging worldwide was often rooted in a rejection of the very outside perspectives and theologies now beginning to be heard from women, racial minorities, and Queer believers. The reality is that the conversation is diverse (imperfectly so, but diverse nonetheless), and to dismiss it as being all about hip white males is hurtful to the rest of us contributing to the conversation who don’t fit that stereotype. Pretending we are invisible simply perpetuates the myth that we don’t exist at all. Sure, it is still a daily struggle be heard in a world that often clings to the vestiges of patriarchy, racism, and bigotry, but our voices are still there (even if marketplace Christianity isn’t throwing money our way).
I am Emergent and I don’t fit their stereotype. I am about the most un-hip person in the world. I might be white and youngish, but I am also physically handicapped and female. I am not one of the pretty people, I have no sense of style, I don’t listen to cool bands, my hair is a disaster, I am awkward, introverted, and a total bookworm. In most emerging communities I have participated in, I am generally one of the youngest people there. My friends are culturally, racially, generationally and theologically diverse and are (mostly) as uncool and imperfect misfits as myself (sorry guys, you know I love you, but it’s true). But we care about what God is doing in the world. We care about justice, we care about racial reconciliation, we care about making sure we listen to previously marginalized voices (and we continue to fight for them when they are not heard). Some of my friends have never heard of the term “emerging church” and some of us volunteer our time to help support this conversation through the network of Emergent Village. We have a lot to learn and a long way to go. I know that none of us desire to cling onto power for the sake of white western culture, but we also feel no need to utterly reject and condemn that entire culture. Healing and emergence in the church will never take place through the silencing of voices we don’t like or the caricaturing of those we don’t understand. There are wounds dealt to persons of color, to queers, and to women that the church universal must work to heal. But if we share the same dream of healing those wounds, why can’t we stop fighting amongst ourselves and figure out this emerging thing together?
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
thanks julie.
When I began blogging on Blogspot four years ago I discovered that if one clicked on one's interests in one's profile, one could find others interested in the same topic. So I clicked on "missiology", and found that half the people who said they were interested in missiology also seemed to be interested in "emerging church", which I had never heard of before. I tried to learn more on the blogosphere and eventually discovered some people in my area who were interested, and went to a few gatherings, and discovered that those present were overwhelmingly pale and male. Eventually I blogged about this phenomenon at Emerging, missional — and white: Khanya and Why is the Emerging/Missional movement so white? | Emerging Africa.
I still haven't read Soong Chan Rah's book, only reviews and comments on it. But I'm aware of the same phenomenon he writes about. I don't think that it is knocking the emerging church movement to ask why it seems to appeal to one group of people more than others. And here in southern Africa I think it is quite important to ask why it doesn't seem to appeal much to those we like to call the "previously disadvantaged", in other words, those who are not hale, pale and male.
Humm…I am in disconnect. I have left the traditional building and found little to meet the "fellowship" desire outside the internet connections I have. As an older woman I have found several younger than me women talking about their journeys away from tradition, out of the box and out from under the control. Hearing these voices has been refreshing, new, hope producing. Yes certainly the white male voice still is loud in these emerging circles. For this I am actually grateful for it is the first time I am hearing white male voices be so humble, unassuming, and willing to share the platform.
Julie, like tripp fuller I want to thank you for your post. Conversations about race and privilege are brutally hard to engage, and I've never known you to avoid them. I appreciate your voice in this conversation.
Julie,
Thanks for your post here (and for posting this on Sojo)– this is an excellent discussion that needs to continue on. I am sorry for the pain that Soong-Chan Rah's article has caused you and the leaders of Emergent Village, but I will continue to pray for you all as you work towards understanding one another's views better. You have done so well on furthering communication in your blog-posts. Thank you!
Mike, you commented on the Sojo blog-comments that you wondered " whether the EC-bashing engaged in by folks like Rah, et al. has less to do with our alleged lack of racial diversity, and more to do with our inclusion of theological diversity… your comments here are doing little to dispel that suspicion."
I wanted to say that I while I do not know Soong-Chan Rah and am not thoroughly acquainted with his perspective, I think that his point may not be to bash EC and isn't b/c of your theological diversity (which is great), but may genuinely be trying to point out how he (and others) see the EC or the feelings that they get from the EC. That is not to say that his view is totally correct, but maybe there is something to be gleaned about the EC from better understanding where he is coming from.
From an outsider's view, I think you all are raising a lot of good questions (and answering them too) and it is meeting a very real need among many diverse groups of people, from various backgrounds and such. But Rah's point may be that there is still more diversity out there. Maybe the question shouldn't be how can the EC meet everyone's need. (It can't really– no church or movement can. That will only come with the coming of the Kingdom.) Maybe it should be ok that you are meeting the needs of the people that you are connecting with. You can not be everything to everyone. Know who you are aiming at and focus on connecting well with them. Or you may find you want and need to do some things differently, but these are things for you all as a leadership to bring before the Lord. There will always be criticisms– valid and invalid. Keep on… you all are doing a good job– don't weary in doing good.
Blessings!
Jen
Here is the comment I posted on the Sojo site. It will give a little more background on where I am coming from. If it is helpful, great, but if not then leave it aside.
"When light passes though a lens, it is bent or "refracted." It is changed. We all see the world through the lens of our own experience." (accessed from the Journey IFC site)
This statement I feel expresses the reason for some of the above discussion. It isn't about who is right really, but about seeing things from someone else's perspective. We all "see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face." Soong- Chan Rah has a different perspective of the EC than maybe those of you who find yourselves in it. Some of his views may be erroneous but some of it has basis in reality. But he is writing out of his own background and experience. (You asked why pick on the EC? Maybe partly b/c of its PR in the past or maybe b/c it is the "latest thing" in a way and racial reconciliation is also coming to the fore more which is good. But you are right; this is a problem of the Church in general, almost everywhere.)
From my perspective as one who has lived outside of the US for more than 12 years and has spent the last 15 studying (as well as living among) other languages and cultures, I would say the general picture I had gotten of the EC was of a predominantly white, middle-class group who didn't feel the normal evangelicalism addressed their questions on faith and praxis. They wanted to ask questions outside of that particular "box". Yet, while the particularities of the types of people and questions can vary it is still in general a Western, young-ish, not blue-collar kind of group. They aren't asking questions that affect my African Traditionalist friends nor my first-generation Christian friends struggling with how to follow Christ in a African-Muslim or Traditionalist setting.
The EC are also not asking the same questions that may interest or affect the type of people who frequent my friend Jimmy Dorrell's Church Under The Bridge in Waco, Tx or my relatives and friends of a very poor, rural part of middle-America where several whole congregations are made up of people who do not have food-security, nor health-care and struggle to keep a roof over their heads. (I am not saying that there are not people of this type in the EC, only it is not the majority of EC.) It isn't bad nor is it wrong that they are not asking the same questions; these are quite different groups. But, as I am sure you'd agree, each group can learn from the other's perspectives on life, love, ministry and following Jesus. I sincerely hope that they will get the opportunity to learn from each other sometime.
I know that the picture I am drawing is probably not the whole truth, but at the same time I think this "impression" exists at least in some people's minds. ( I have to admit that most of my information on the EC is from popular media and from the likes of Brian McLaren, Donald Miller and a few other places (of late, from Eugene Cho).
But also note that Soong- Chan Rah's point of view is not for all non-Westerner's or all minorities either. The people I work with here in Africa would not necessarily be represented by his views either. The main point in the body of Christ is continued love and grace and learning from one another. There are so many faith lessons that I wish my brothers and sisters in the West could learn from my African Christian friends; the reverse holds true as well. There are some ways that my African brothers and sisters could learn and be encouraged by brothers/sisters in Christ who live in the West. We need each other to help spot each other's blind spots.
I also want to say that I really appreciated your response and that of Debbie Blue in the Sojourners article. Thanks for opening this up for discussion! As you stated in the SojoMag article, "Transparently open-sourced, the emerging conversation includes anyone who desires to lend her voice to it." Thanks for desiring and working towards being inclusive of everyone. This is an enormous task that will take much dialogue. Thanks for starting the dialogue Julie!
Rah is a voice like Malcolm X or James Cone – which is unusual for the asian community. Does that legitimate what he's saying? I'll leave that for others to discuss – but he has tapped into something primal in asian – and I'll say minority – existence. It needs to be said – and arguably, heard as well.
Thanks, Julie.
I met Julie briefly at Christianity 21 in Minnesota where all the presenters were women, including Julie. I was a part of a brief men's room conversation there, where several guys were needing to "get over" that significant shift and enjoy the ride. Women have been in that same passenger seat, as have minorities, for a very, very long time. What Rah is observing is a snap shot of the way it has been and the way it will never be again. If emerging Christianity began with mostly white male voices, then it certainly has emerged from that starting point since. We are a part of a story, a story that is moving on at what for many must be an alarming pace. If the new Christianity is to have integrity, all voices will be heard, including a few of us white males. Let's ride on!
Thanks, Julie, for writing this so well.
I've been frustrated with the conversation over on Tony's blog in part bc the respondents are proving the point. I have tried to suggest there that "The one really big reason stereotyping a wide swath of folks as singular (flat, monolithic and uniform) is that it denies the presence and contributions of all the rest of us who are not that type! So start naming names from the deep well of widely divergent folks who inspire each of you(us) to risk (y)ourselves for the sake of the good news. Honor the saints among you who humble you with their examples of generosity, hospitality and love. Invite others in and listen again to the stories that make you squirm and give you no space to wiggle out of the conviction G-d ignites — and I will trade stories with you."
If I’m reading that conversation right, only 3 of the first 28 comments came from women, hmm….
I also offered this personal observation: "It may depend on one’s entry point to the emergent conversation, but my journeys have found much more diverse gatherings than most other expressions of church in which I have lived, worked and worshipped. Folks in the emergent conversation represent a wider range of diversity than just color. I see intentional efforts to include folks across economic class, (dis)ability, gender, orientation, marital status, religious past, multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-lingual households…" This blesses me
The EV site this week included this excellent conversation on emergence in Latin America on EV: http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/rivas-disla-frederico-interview?commented=1#c005235
deep peace
Coming from someone who has not read all the articles nor participated in the emerging church movement — that is, an outsider — emerging Christianity can look and sound like "stuff white people like." That's an inelegant way of saying it doesn't look as accessible and welcoming to some as it might to Western, educated, suburban Christians.
As an example, language. Emergents probably get the following sentence, but it's opaque to me: "Emergent serves to network and resource the emerging conversation, doing its imperfect best to make this shared vision a reality." This is very Western-educated language which pervades the (admittedly few) emergent materials I've seen.
As an analogy, what is your impression of tea parties? White? Nondiverse? Easy to stereotype? Ms. Clawson's pleas could as easily come from black, nonrural, independent or traditionally Democrat tea partiers: "I, with others, wondered at the caricature he presented …he presented a picture of [us] as a bunch of … white guys who deliberately exclude racial minorities…. I had hoped that in this article there would be a bit more journalistic integrity. But once again, we have the same skewed stereotype …. This inaccurate portrayal thus functions as a straw man that can easily be attacked and dismissed …."
Nobody likes to be stereotyped. I can see that the "nondiverse" label would be particularly hurtful to people who have intentionally sought some kind of Christian diversity and intentionally tried to be welcoming.
"