In this ongoing conversation around the question of the emerging church and race, I’ve encountered some frustration in regards to how leadership and power are defined by the various contributors. On one hand you have groups of people pointing at the emerging church saying that the leaders need to take the initiative in working for racial reconciliation by abdicating power in favor of voices from the margins. On the other hand, voices within the emerging conversation express a reluctance to claim power advocating instead for an open-sourced village green communal structure. These divergent ideals of leadership have in recent discussions caused much confusion and in some cases anger and resentment.
I understand that in many ways this is just one more example of those who follow postmodern philosophy being misunderstood and opposed by others. In deconstructing the idea of power most postmoderns value flattened structures over hierarchical ones. In their mind to create a system where one person is empowered implies that other people will be disempowered. To avoid such cultural stratification, they choose to employ symbiotic instead of hierarchical leadership structures. In symbiotic systems all voices are valued because we all need each other to survive.
Naturally, this conception of power meets resistance, some of it well deserved. Postmodern philosophy and conceptions of identity and power have been harshly criticized by some proponents of feminist and liberation theology. As they argue, it isn’t fair that right when previously marginalized groups like women, minorities, and queers were beginning to gain a distinct voice and power within the theological world this new philosophy comes up and challenges the very idea of identity and power. It is hard for an identity based group to essentialize themselves and say that the power held by white men needs to be given instead to ____ (women, the poor, immigrants, queers, Asians, Latinas…) when the very idea of reducing oneself to such a category is being questioned alongside the very conception of power itself.
In truth, I am conflicted on this. I agree with the need to not essentialize. Who I am cannot simply be reduced to my gender, or sexuality, or economic status. And I fully support the idea of flattened leadership where all voices are valued equally. I promote the biblical idea that in Christ there is neither slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile, male nor female. At the same time I know how easy it is for a new philosophy that questions power roles to simply become an excuse to preserve the status quo without ever actually hearing the voice of the other. If one isn’t aware of how one’s philosophy preserves the exclusion of others, laziness can become another means of oppression. As a woman I’ve fought this. I’ve repeatedly been annoyed when in discussions asking men to stand up against misogyny in the church by supporting women’s ordination I am told, “well, we shouldn’t waste time on that issue since we really just need to rethink how we do church altogether.” That response obviously doesn’t grasp what it means to live symbiotically with each other.
I’ve also encountered those that approach power openly who tell me, “step-up, we’d love to hear your voice.” It took me a long time to actually trust those voices and to take them up on it, mostly because I didn’t fully understand that there were people who truly did hold power in an open hand. I expected there to be hoops to jump through, votes to be taken, and popularity contest to be won, but when it came right down to it, none of that stuff actually existed. I think this is where the emerging conversation is most often misunderstood. People just don’t believe that an open power structure really can exist and so they demand we force our supposed leaders to take responsibility and start acting like leaders by setting the boundaries for this conversation. They want us to play by their rules, and when we don’t they feel like we are deliberately excluding them even as we repeatedly ask them to construct the conversation with us. I think a lot of work truly needs to be done to communicate this open shared power system more fully, but I also implore the critics to take the time to understand the real philosophical beliefs about power that many emergents hold.
At the same time, I understand that traditional assumptions of power will always be projected upon even those who try to subvert it. Yes, there are people in the emerging movement who do develop followings and that gives them a certain sort of power under traditional notions of leadership. It doesn’t help that some elements loosely associated with emerging do things like charge extra at conferences for passes to the speakers lounge where the lowly attendee can hobnob with the powerful speakers. But for those that actually do value shared power, they constantly face accusations of greed or selling-out if they try to act like a leader. They have to choose to remain true to their own belief system and get crucified by outsiders wanting them to hold power more tightly, or compromise their beliefs and get mocked from within. Navigating amidst diverse philosophies and demanding factions while seeking to love and respect all is a difficult task.
I personally believe that the emerging church needs to be more transparent about our open power structures. We can’t get sidetracked in discussions about how to dismantle other people’s power structures, instead we need to be proactive in working on how we build and grow and rely on each other. If we truly need each other, we need to admit that openly and seek out the other to learn from her. Waiting for others to come to us and telling them to “please, step up already” is too unsettling for those still clinging to traditional conceptions of power. For symbiosis to really work, we must always be in flux, being challenged and fed in mutually beneficial ways. The point isn’t to essentialize or include the token other, but to admit we cannot survive apart from the whole body of Christ. This goes beyond, while still embracing, the need to give up privilege for the sake of the other. The point isn’t to simply shift power and privilege from one group to another and then deal with the vicissitudes of that structure, but to move towards this symbiotic ideal.
I appreciated Eliacin Rosario-Cruz’s comment to me on this topic recently on his blog – “I think we need to confront the myth of lack/giving away power. What I mean by that is, our power does not disappear just by thinking we do not have or we are giving away. Kenosis is performative.” All sides in this discussion need to take a step back and consider how they view power. Some need to acknowledge and respect the postmodern mindset, others need to understand that that mindset can never be passive. Sharing power must be active and never become an excuse to exclude by inaction. We all have a lot to learn about how to make this work, but I would hope the conversation can develop in a way that that doesn’t mock or silence any contributing voice.