My mention of a
less than stellar one and half page interview with Tony Jones in Rising from
the Ashes: Rethinking Church prompted Tony to comment that he was attempting to be honest rather than
masculine. Well, I had to think about that for a while, as I’m not sure where
the honesty comes in, especially as two of the questions Tony answers point to
the fact that e/Emergent is more than willing to call other people out, but
unwilling to answer the tough questions themselves.
He picks on
Anglicans (interesting that he’d use the term Anglican rather than Episcopalian
– is this a shot at the Church of England, or the Episcopal Church? Or both?)
of which I am one. Now, one could argue that in what I have written below that I’m just being defensive. On the
other hand, the Anglican Communion as whole is dealing on a global scale with two of the biggest socio-political issues right now that face the church – i.e. what is the role in
the church of women and of gay Christians? It’s really messy, but there doesn’t
seem to be any way to manage the process other than to let it play out and see
where the pieces fall. These are two issues that e/Emergent has avoided like the plague since its inception.
Some background: The Episcopal
Church has a female Presiding Bishop, a woman who is infinitely more suited for
and better at the job than her two immediate (male) predecessors. My own diocese has a
female suffragan bishop who is one of the most incredible people in the church
(or indeed out of it) that I have ever worked with. My own congregation is
headed by a woman priest who is again, one of the best I have ever known. In my
church’s corner of the diocese there are eight churches in our region, two of
them headed by gay priests, three by women. And these are by no means people of some
wishy-washy faith . So if you’re talking about “emerging” from anything, the
Episcopal Church in my neck of the woods has emerged a considerable way from
the patriarchal ways that define most of the church’s history.
Is the Episcopal
Church perfect? We would be the first to admit we’re not. We even have the
liturgy to ensure that we acknowledge that every time we meet. Like most denominations,
the Episcopal Church has operated as a top-down hierarchy for much of its
existence, but a new generation of leadership recognizes that this cannot and
should not continue. I am particularly hopeful that our new Diocesan bishop, Greg Rickel, with Bishop Nedi's help, will be a breath of fresh air. The superstructure should only exist to ensure the roots
are fed and healthy. I am confident we are getting there. Slowly maybe, but
making progress.
Anyway, without further ado, here are some excerpts from the interview with Tony Jones from the book, with commentary.
Format is: Question / Answer / Commentary
What kinds of people do you attract to Emergent Village? …not threatened by hard questions and confident in who they are… If you're willing to roll up sleeves (sic) and see what it's going to take to redeem or overthrow these organizational church structures, then you'll probably find a home with a lot of peers.
Redeem? Overthrow? This wouldn't be the first (it's not a) movement to throw the baby out with the bathwater, unfortunately.
Is EV for everyone? If you come representing a group and you're not willing to be personally deconstructed and answer deep questions…
Now, just how much has the elusive Emergent allowed itself to be deconstructed, hmm? The "it's a conversation, not a movement, no, it's a village…" is pretty hard to pin down. How do you deconstruct jello, exactly? More on this issue of the hard questions later.
What can existing churches and church plants learn from each other? Church planting has to be an entrepreneurial venture. (Now here, I agree with him completely) Successful church planters tend to be highly competent people (and here I disagree – charisma seems to be the primary ingredient – competence is nice, but only required for long term success), who get things done. (They) would never work in bureaucratic institution (sic). I don't know if people who have defined themselves by their confessional doctrine can understand what we're doing (huge audacious shot at potential mainline allies here). It takes a mainliner being willing to say yeah being Anglican is not the defining issue of my Christianity but being a lover of God is how I define myself.
It takes a moment or two to glean
what Jones believes about mainliners. Here's a book
ostensibly about revitalizing the mainline churches by cross-pollinating with
e/Emergent church principles and Jones takes a mighty
swing at the target audience. He apparently believes that most mainliners
identify more with their denomination than with God. He seems to enjoy being
provocative, but there comes a point where, as the full-time paid spokesman for
an organization you have to temper your personal views a bit, or public
relations may simply not be the right job for you.
Moving on to a common criticism of Emergent…
How do you deal with the criticisms that EV is mostly white straight males? We aim for diversity on our Board of Directors (standard corporate-speak answer) and our Coordinating Group, Emergent Village worked very hard to become more diverse. (More corporate-speak - praise us for our good intentions, not the result!) It's an uphill struggle as most pastors are white. Also we aim to treat all people with respect and grace regardless of theological stance on issues such as homosexuality. We feel friendships trump theology.
All of a sudden the energy, vigor and testosterone drain from the interview. What the hell happened to “not threatened by hard questions”? and “not willing to be personally deconstructed and answer deep questions”? This is such a lame cop out response I was quite appalled. Emergent and EV are, quite simply, still good ol' boys clubs (read the comments - things haven't changed much in three years...) If they really wanted to make some progress incorporating women and minorities they could and would. They simply have to move beyond tokenism if they want to ever have a claim to being authentic. This answer is simply not acceptable, especially by Jones' own standards of "tough questions". Try to get Brian McLaren (someone whose writing I have enjoyed a great deal) to give a straight answer (no pun intended) to the gay issue and you’ll see footwork reminiscent of Fred Astaire as he dances around the issue. Brian's a great speaker, but he avoids the hard questions when the heat is on, mostly, it seems, to avoid provoking the Evangelical establishment.
But wait, there's more testosterone ahead…
What are the ways that people can connect to this emergent church discussion? With the advent of new media, we can connect with people very easily. Everyone can have their own voice via their own blog, which is a beautiful thing. Also, podcasting is a valuable resource. Macs have cameras built in, live web chatting will be next. (This is odd, as there are many Wintel machines with webcams, built in or not. Is this yet another elitist parallel?) …Also there are emergent events all the time. These face to face meetings cement the bonds between people. Emergent people tend to be relationally manic people. (This is a good thing?) It takes some people a little extra to go into an event or a pub and elbow their way into a group and start throwing down smack on spirituality and theology.
So here we get a clear picture of what Jones' idea of theological debate is. "Throwing down smack" is what it's all about. Introverts need not apply. Honestly, this is so pathetic - theological debate as gang fighting, or maybe an MTV game show. Nice - Yo Momma theology. I would have loved to see him defend his Ph.D. dissertation that way. See how the committee might have taken to a nice smackdown.
One final question, and some more testosterone.
How do you deal with concerns that in an emerging structure anyone can set up a blog and say they're a church planter? People set up fake churches all the time. (They do? Really? Like, maybe, oh, never mind…) … The cream rises to the surface. This is not an academic guild where you have to whip your package on table (sic) just to remind people you're a man like Lyndon B. Johnson. (!!!???) We ask how people are doing and care about their lives.
End of interview on a really strange note. Here's where a little cleanup or editing would have helped, but I can only presume Jones was perfectly happy with the way the interview appeared and I can therefore take it at face value.
I'll take it for granted that
Lyndon Johnson actually did what Jones claims, and Jones' fascination with that event is rather telling. Once
again we have a very good ol' boy, manly man, testosterone fueled image that Jones gives us. Now, sure, he's saying you don't
need to do that, but his fascination with the event and his previous answers
belie that. It seems he really does feel that one's theological
worth or value as a church planter is measured by the size of one's manhood.
This leads us once again to the conclusion that women need not apply, as they
lack a specific organ that is vital to the process.
This was a tremendously disappointing part of a disappointing book.
