Living by Revealed Categories

I'm presently reading The Liberating Image: The Imago Dein Genesis 1 by J. Richard Middleton (a great book BTW!) In it he quotes Jewish scholar Abraham Herschel on Christian theologians:

It has seemed puzzling to me how greatly attached to the Bible you seem to be and yet how much like pagans you handle it. The great challenge to those of us who wish to take the bible seriously is to let it teach us its own essential categories; and then for us to think with them, instead of just about them. (33)

As I was reading these words this weekend, I also found this post by Presbyterian (PCUSA) pastor John Shuck linked at Presbyweb:

And the bottom line for me is I really don't care what the Bible or Reformed Theology says about this or that or if its opinion on this or that is presumptuous enough to tell me how to live my life. I can make my own decisions. I am impetuously autonomous and an incorrigible smart-ass.

This means that...

• if even 500 verses of the Bible and
• if Jesus himself proclaimed on the Mount of Transfiguration and
• if Jesus appeared to me on my back deck in the glory of his resuscitated corpse and stated to me as clearly as the four p.m. sun is hot, that homoerotic love is a sin and that if I support gays and lesbians in their relationships I would join them in the fires of hell, I would look him in his piercing eyes and say (if I had the courage of my convictions):

"Fine then. Send me to your hell. You are wrong, Jesus."

Why? Because I know Tony and Mike. Because I know dozens of other couples and individuals and I know who they are and that what they do is as good and sacred as what anyone else does.

How is that for juxtaposition? And how shocking to discover that Pastor Shuck is a not only Presby but an Emergent Village fan as well. :)

My obseravtion is that, by a wide margin, Mainliners who have embraced the Emergent Village scene are political progressives who share prespectives on scripture and authority similar to Shuck's (though not so boldly stated.) Meanwhile, political progressivism has become the "new" context for social justice with emerging types (when in fact they are simply forty years behind mainline denominations and cathching up.) The Mainline and Emergent fusion has at its core a mutual love of ecclesial autonomy and political progressivism.

While I had hoped some of the missional focus into a postmodern world grounded in God's narrative I saw exhibited by a local expression of Emergent I witnessed in my locale (Jacob's Well) might enfuse the Mainline world I suspect it will not. I'm disappointed to say that I suspect the more likely outcome is that Emergent becomes a platform by which the pastor Shuck's of the denomination extend their worship of political progressivism deeper into the mix rather than seeking to be defined by the categories of the Word. For me this is Mainline retro, not emerging.

Comments

[Quotidian Grace]

"Mainline retro" indeed! So true. Shuck's blog is aptly named ("Shuck and Jive").

[jim]

Mike,

I realize that Shuck is linked to the presbymergent site, but he has not invested himself in any way in any of the conversations in that forum, so his 'involvement' is there by name only. I'd argue you can't have a conversation if you automatically exclude folks and since I believe he asked to be linked when we originally started that's why he's on there.

Having said that, I'm not sure if Shuck realizes or not that his brand of Christianity is very different from anything related to the best of conversations/thinking coming out of the emergent village/presbymergent conversation.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Jim, for me it isn't about who is present in the conversation it is about who is absent. Shuck shouldn't be excluded. I know there are people who are apolitical and people who do not share the bent toward political progressivism. I'm talking ethos, not absolute categories.

The conversation may intend to be broader. I'm observing who is actually being drawn to the conversation and who wants to identify with it. I'm seeing a profile that looks much closer to Shuck than me.

Why do people of more conservative political persuasions so frequently feel like outsiders to the conversation? Why have I heard three different people come to our local Emergent cohort meetings and ask whether it is possible to be a Republican/conservative and be part of the conversation?

There is a sociological adage, "What is perceived as real is real in its consequences." If the conversation is broader, then I'm suggesting there is a serious perception gap and that perception will come to define the reality.

[jim]

I just don't have time to tackle it this week, but I'd suggest that this would be a good conversation to include on the presbymergent site.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Good idea Jim. Also, I want to make clear that I did not have Presbymergent specifically in mind when I wrote this post. I was reflecting more on EV events I have been to, mainline bloggers I run into who identify with Emergent, and the serendipitous encounters I have in with mainliners (mostly Presby and Methodist) who are enthusiastic about and/or engaged in the Emergent conversation. Presbymergent has seemed to me to be more diverse than most other Emergent contexts I encounter.

[ceemac]

Michael,

I only know emergent from what I have read. And that is not very deeply

But from what I have read I would expect a self described conservative Republican to feel out of place. But I would also expect a self decribed liberal Democrat to feel the same way.

Or in Presbyterian terms a New Wineskinner and a Witherspooner would both feel out of place.

My impresssion has been that emergent is by and for folks who don't fit into the old categories.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Ceemac, I think there are elements of truth in what you say.

I would not characterize New Wineskiners as necessarily being politically conservative though I have no doubt they lean that direction. I think most are more theologically conservative by Mainline standards but they may not be by the standards of some Evangelical denominations.

Witherspoon Society tends to be strong institutionalists who want to deploy the resources of the institution for their progressive social justice agenda.

Emergent types tend to be moderate to radical anti-institutionalists and political progressives who prefer government activism versions of social reform.

I suspect Wineskinners would be put off by the theological/political progressivism. I suspect Witherspooner would be put-off by the anti-institutionalism. And that leads me to this observation:

The people drawn to Emergent in the PCUSA and mainline denominations are moderately institutional minimalists who are moderately to radical progressives. They have found a community that is neither Wineskins nor Witherspoon.

Meanwhile, many of the original Emerging types came from Evangelical non-Mainline traditions with highly authoritarian Religious Right contexts. They are, as I said, moderate to radical anti-institutionalists and political progressives, partly in protest against the stifling environment they were raised in.

Two key intersections of interest for the earlier post-Evangelical Emergents and the more recent mainline Emergents is their common institutional minimalism and progressive political engagement with the world.

Here is where I think I’m being misunderstood. I’m not opposed to people of common cause linking together for community. Where I profoundly disagree is with the claim that Emergent is broad open discussion with great diversity. It has a great diversity of people who are institutional minimalists and social progressives.

I am an ecclesial minimalist and a government minimalist. I believe the primary work of the church happens the daily lives of people and as local worshiping communities being in community with each other. I believe the primary work of societal governance happens in the context of families, voluntary institutions and virtuous individuals seeking good for their neighbors and themselves. One of the most puzzling things to me about the Emergent world is (in many cases) the total antipathy to institutional, bureaucratic, authoritarian structures of any kind in the ecclesial world and yet the complete embrace of using massive government institutions, bureaucracies, and the coercive power of the state to achieve their vision of social justice. This schizophrenic reality suggests to me that the positions have been arrived at reactively not reflectively.

Bottom line, I’m an outsider to the New Wineskins discussion, the Witherspoon discussion and the Emergent discussion.

[jim]

interesting...i hadn't heard any of these words or labels before, so I'm trying to process through all that a bit.

I will say for myself, though I've always been involved in 'mainline' denoms (baptized lutheran, grew up methodist, flirted with episcopalians, and finally ordained presbyterian) that involvement up until I went to seminary had always been tinged with pretty evangelical, religious right leanings, so my involvement with emergent/presbymergent is first my move away from the strictures of evangelicalism as expressed within a mainline context...How's that for a complication?

I will also conceded that as my faith has changed so has my politics. It is fair to say I lean politically left and it is also fair to say I do so precisely because my faith commitments have changed. I suppose there is some sense in which I would agree that involvement in the 'emergent movement' ought to have some affect on one's politics, but I still don't think at its heart it is a politically progressive movement. (though I can certainly see where left leaning folks would jump on the bandwagon and use it for that end.)

But like you, I would still see myself as an outsider to both the New Wineskins as well as to the Witherspoon conversations. I'm no longer an evangelical conservative but I'm also not an anything goes let's throw out the bible liberal.

[Michael W. Kruse]

An interesting background indeed. Thanks! That gives context.

I was raised by the Weslyan-Arminian holiness tribe of the Church of the Nazarene. I became a Presbyterian at age 24. A big piece of it was because of the inwardness of the Nazarene culture and the Presbyterian engagement with the world. I was a left-leaning independent because the rhetoric of the left matched the concerns I had a passion for. I worked analyzing inner-city neighborhood organizations with the United Way. I went to Eastern University and studied economic development under people like Tony Campolo and Ron Sider. (I served on a board with Sider for a couple of years.) I have been involved in numerous ways of addressing economic issues and poverty all my life and I still am.

What I have come to is a Kuyperian subsidiarian view of economics and politics. In short, there are boundaries around to various arenas of life (ex. family, economy, church, government) that should be relatively free from interference from each other and that each problem should be addressed by the most localized social unit that can address a problem with higher levels only doing what lower levels are not able to do for themselves. The focus of social and economic renewal is not individualism or government but the mediating institutions of society like family, church and voluntary associations. It is much more complex than this and I think there are strong theological reasons for these ideas but that is for another day.

“I will also conceded that as my faith has changed so has my politics. It is fair to say I lean politically left and it is also fair to say I do so precisely because my faith commitments have changed.”

And this is the overwhelming pattern I see with those coming to the Emergent conversation from an Evangelical context. But here is how I would describe what is happening. Nature abhors a vacuum. Evangelicals leave the confines of their conservative Religious Right contexts, which frequently are tangled with unexamined notions about consumerism and materialism. They leave these backgrounds for Emerging pastures but a rigorous examination of economic and political thinking never transpires. The vacuum becomes filed not with considered positions based on careful reflection of the biblical narrative but by airborne ideas floating around that sound new and just compared what they knew before. Enter people like Jim Wallis and Sojo, which I was reading nearly thirty years ago in college, and now we have a “new” “emerging” way of thinking about politics. You wrote:

“though I can certainly see where left leaning folks would jump on the bandwagon and use it for that end.”

I think it is more than jumped on the bandwagon. There is a concentrated and intentional effort to repackage this decades old Evangelical political progressivism as the “emerging” response today’s issues. Meanwhile, many mainline progressives see Emergent as a possible new platform from which to work their agendas as the influence of their declining ecclesiastical hierarchies are becoming more irrelevant. I sensed little of this in the early years of the Emerging conversation I was listening in on but it has become steadily more pronounced over the last three years or so. You wrote:

“I'm no longer an evangelical conservative but I'm also not an anything goes let's throw out the bible liberal.”

I think that is true for most in the conversation but there is little critical thinking about political and economic agendas in Emergent by most. The few who are processing come from a very narrow range of political-economic thinking and they control the mega-phone. It is their unchallenged efforts to shape the conversation the direction they are that makes involvement rather pointless to me as I'm deeply concerned about economic issues from a theological view.

[John Shuck]

Thanks Michael, I guess.

Three things.

1) Check out my explanation for how this post got on Presbyweb.

2) I am not a "throw out the Bible liberal." I am very interested in how to responsibly use the Bible. Nor am I simply a political progressive. I invite folks to read the whole of my blog before giving me labels. But I don't expect it.

3) Hey, I have a first name, John.

Peace,
John

[Viola Larson]

Mickael,
Thanks for having this conversation. You are aswering a lot of questions I have, and don't have time to do all the reading.

[jim]

John:
Since I'm the one who used 'throw out the bible liberal' I'll respond by saying I never attached that label to you.

Plus, I also refer to you as 'Shuck' mostly because that is the first part of your self-described title of your blog!

Mike:
Thanks for your story as well. You speak in categories that I've never heard of or have even begun to imagine using!

Where does one turn to find readable, accessible resources to help integrate responsible economic theory and politics with Christian faith?

[John Shuck]

Jim,

You wrote (about me):

"I'm not sure if Shuck realizes or not that his brand of Christianity is very different from anything related to the best of conversations/thinking coming out of the emergent village/presbymergent conversation."

Really? How would you know that? How do you know what my "brand of Christianity" is and what makes you think that you know the "best of conversations/thinking" regarding the emergent conversation?

Just because I have not posted very often over there does not mean I do not have either interest or investment.

Peace,
john

[John Shuck]

Michael,

Guess I better give you a shot too. You wrote:

"I'm disappointed to say that I suspect the more likely outcome is that Emergent becomes a platform by which the pastor Shuck's of the denomination extend their worship of political progressivism deeper into the mix rather than seeking to be defined by the categories of the Word. For me this is Mainline retro, not emerging."

To say that I "worship political progressivism" is a cheap shot. I could accuse you of worship of political conservativism. But I won't.

And please, "categories of the Word" means exactly what?

You don't even know what my argument was about as it was taken out of context. We at my church wrestle with those very things--interpretation, authority, truth, and practice.

You and I both know that you don't go to the Bible for answers to all your questions.

I simply argue that the Bible is not authoritative regarding human sexuality, anymore than it is authoritative regarding evolution, medical science, psychology, or cosmology to name a few.

We may disagree. But please don't insult me by implying that what I am about is not spiritual nor based on the truth of the Bible and of the witness of Jesus.

Peace,
john

[John Shuck]

Michael,

Guess I better give you a shot too. You wrote:

"I'm disappointed to say that I suspect the more likely outcome is that Emergent becomes a platform by which the pastor Shuck's of the denomination extend their worship of political progressivism deeper into the mix rather than seeking to be defined by the categories of the Word. For me this is Mainline retro, not emerging."

To say that I "worship political progressivism" is a cheap shot. I could accuse you of worship of political conservativism. But I won't.

And please, "categories of the Word" means exactly what?

You don't even know what my argument was about as it was taken out of context. We at my church wrestle with those very things--interpretation, authority, truth, and practice.

You and I both know that you don't go to the Bible for answers to all your questions.

I simply argue that the Bible is not authoritative regarding human sexuality, anymore than it is authoritative regarding evolution, medical science, psychology, or cosmology to name a few.

We may disagree. But please don't insult me by implying that what I am about is not spiritual nor based on the truth of the Bible and of the witness of Jesus.

Peace,
john

[jim]

John,

Well, I have on occasion over the past year or so read your blog and I'm also familiar with your association with the Weststar Institute. Based on those two things plus my own involvement in the emergent conversation, it's just my opinion that your expressed theological commitments are not entirely consonant with my understanding of the emergent church. I could be completely wrong, and I might also be mis-informed - if so I'd be happy to engage with you further about that perhaps in some other forum - but as it stands that's my current opinion.

[Michael W. Kruse]

John, I scanned through you blog to find out about Presbyweb but failed to find it in your remarks.

As to being a throw out the bible liberal …hehehe… I have never know a theological liberal yet who through out their bible. They make wonderful doorstops. *grin* But I’m looking down your links and I see a list of “Progressive Organizations” and “Progressive Liturgists” with no other list of other groups. I look down the list of “Everything Presbyterian” and I see the Covenant Network, More Light Presbyterians, and Voices of Sophia but no mention of the Presbyterian Coalition, Presbyterians for Renewal, or One-by-One. What conclusion would most people draw about the general nature of one’s perspective from such a presentation?

I’m happy to call you John. Just didn’t want to presume an inappropriate chumminess. Call me Michael or Mike. Either is an upgrade from what I’m usually called. :)

[Michael W. Kruse]

Viola, there is a lot of good stuff that comes from the Emergent world. Many are asking important questions in respectful ways. It is the ever present political one-note static that I find troubling. I hope nothing I have written he implies a blanket dismissal. I have a lot of admiration for some of the work that is going on.

[John Shuck]

Jim,

Thanks. Yes, I am linked with Westar. Scholars such as Hal Taussig author of A New Spiritual Home would be emergent in my view. Marcus Borg is certainly involved and cares greatly for the church. He speaks about the Emerging paradigm all of the time. Many of the Fellows and Associates of Westar are involved in what I would call emergent communities. The emergent church is fairly broad as I see it.

Do you have a definition of the emergent church that all emergents would agree?

But it would be good to talk about this further. Perhaps on the emergent site or even by private e-mail.

Blessings,
John

[John Shuck]

Michael,

Thanks for your response (and to Jim's response--I didn't mention that).

Here is the post In Regards to the Recent Unpleasantness in which I explain how that post got on Presbyweb among a number of things.

People thought I was showboating, but it just happened that the editor picked that one of the 450 blog entries I have written to post on Presbyweb.

I don't deny that I am progressive both in politics and in spirituality. I checked over your blog and saw a number of what I would call conservative or evangelical links.

I am sure you would not say of yourself that you "worship" being an evangelical, even though you might consider yourself one. I don't "worship" being progressive even though I in many respects consider myself one.

It was the implication that I am nothing more than politically progressive and that I have an "agenda" that bugs me. And it would bug you if I said it about you.

Peace my friend,
john

[John Shuck]

Jim,

Thanks. Yes, I am linked with Westar. Scholars such as Hal Taussig author of A New Spiritual Home would be emergent in my view. Marcus Borg is certainly involved and cares greatly for the church. He speaks about the Emerging paradigm all of the time. Many of the Fellows and Associates of Westar are involved in what I would call emergent communities. The emergent church is fairly broad as I see it.

Do you have a definition of the emergent church that all emergents would agree?

But it would be good to talk about this further. Perhaps on the emergent site or even by private e-mail.

Blessings,
John

[jim]

John,

I would like to address that with you, but what I really want to address first is Michael's assertion that links the emergent conversation with progressive politics.

That's what I really wanted to address all along instead of this firefight, we somehow got ourselves into.

I hope to begin that particular conversation on the presbymergent forum in the next couple of days, but to be honest I've got far too much on my plate right now so I'll get to it as soon as I have the chance. In fact, I shouldn't even be spending my time having this conversation!!

Also, I didn't mean to 'dis-invite' you to the presbymergent conversation, in fact that was the opposite of my intention. I was merely attempting to say that as far as I could tell you weren't the 'face' or the 'poster child' for either emergent village or the presbymergent conversation.

[Viola Larson]

What I picked up on in your conversation, and maybe I am wrong, is a difference between the emergent groups in the mainline and other emergent groups. And I have been wondering about this because when I read some of the things posted to mainline groups I see a lot of progressive ideas, not just social/economics but also some theology which seems to be panentheism rather than theistic.

We do have some kind of emergent group for the College age at our church and I am pretty sure it is not progressive at all. However, one of my granddaughters who goes both to my church and to a Calvary Chapel, her husband is a member of my church, asked me about the emergent movement, and I told her just to read some books both pro and con.

Also I have some interest because one of my son-in-laws, who is a N.T. Professor in Georgia, had as his mentor D.A. Carson, but also as a teacher and still friend Scot McKnight. Interesting times! But I am already into about six books as usual and don’t have time at the moment to do the reading on emergent.

[Michael W. Kruse]

“I simply argue that the Bible is not authoritative regarding human sexuality, anymore than it is authoritative regarding evolution, medical science, psychology, or cosmology to name a few.”

I’m with you on medical science, psychology and cosmology. It would be anachronistic to say so. The bible is simply silent on evolution and processes to bring things into creation. But as to human sexuality, and to cosmology in the more theological sense, I disagree.

Genesis 1 clearly parallels some aspects of Mesopotamian myths but it is also startling in its contrast. Not the least of which is the rejection of chaoskampf, the idea of God violently prevailing against chaos to establish creation, and dignifying of humanity as co-regents with God over creation rather than the king as the “image of God” to whom all else are subject. Creation is good and valued by God, not the primal force God wrestles against to prove himself. In fact, Genesis 1 is virtual Mesopotamian ideology buster.

As to human sexuality, male and female are created in the image of God. They are made complementary and through sexual intercourse “the two become one flesh.” That, and the production of offspring, are the two primary purposes of sexual intercourse. Jesus makes explicit reference to Gen 1 and 2 in Matt 19. The whole thrust of Paul’s argument 1 Cor. 6:12-20 is that the consumption of food is of a different category than sexual intercourse. Food perishes and the stomach perishes. They are of no eternal consequence. But sexual intercourse unites a man and a woman in some sense that has lasting consequences. Same-sexed partners may simulate sexual intercourse but they are not having sexual intercourse. There is no marriage, a uniting of two complementary partners.

I’m not trying to draw you into a debate about sexuality. Rather I want to emphasize that I believe that the Bible does give a narrative and that that narrative has transcendent truth to communicate to us about purposes of creation and purposes of humanity. We are not Gnostic like spiritual beings. We are body and soul fused. The narrative in the Word can not speak to us without speaking to us in our physicality, which touches on the appropriate expression of our sexuality and our relationship with created world. To deem it otherwise seems like a matter/spirit split to me. It demotes the scripture from authoritative rule for life, to a philosophical discussion on “spiritual” matters.

Categories of the Word? Word is scripture in this case, which consider authoritative testimony to a narrative that God is unfolding history. That narrative creates categories like God, world, human, male and female, sexual intercourse, justice, and love to name a few. I see it as our obligation enter into the narrative and dwell in these categories as God has revealed them and then to think, love and live according to those categories.

What I hear you describing concerning scripture seems to me to take us out from under its authority and by default places under the authority of the autonomous self or some ideology. That is what I’m reacting to. I see in my own Presbytery, and around the church, who defiantly renounce the authority of scripture over significant portions of their lives and then substitute political progressivism as their means of engagement with the world. The Religious Right claims to be under the authority of scripture but utterly distorts the categories by a de-contextualized literalness that prevents them from being impacted by the narrative.

Well I’ve gone waaaay to long. Sorry. But maybe this expresses more of where I am coming from.

Peace!

[John Shuck]

Hi Jim,

Great! I understand. I agree that I am not the poster child for much of anything, except for Satan according to my detractors.

Michael,

At least now we are on topic. And we have a clear line of agreement and disagreement. We both would agree that the Bible is authoritative for Christian faith and life.

I disagree with you in regards to how the Bible is authoritative on other issues such as human sexuality. I believe there are other sources of knowledge and wisdom for that issue, except for general concerns regarding loving our bodies, the goodness of creation, regarding others with respect, not abusing others or ourselves, that we find in the Bible and in other places, too.

So, if I want to know about human sexuality, sexual ethics, or sexual education for my children (a little late now as they grown--they can teach me), I would go to experts in those fields, not the Bible.

It is not that I do not find the Bible authoritative, it is how it is authoritative and when. It is not that I am going to my autonomous self or ideology, (although I could see how one could infer that from my post), but I am going where truth is best known. Human sexuality I regard as best understood via science, ethics and experience, not the biblical narrative (even though there is some appropriate information there as well).

What I find myself reacting to in our various skirmishes at presbytery and what not, is an ignorance of the complexity of human sexuality.

I doubt we will come to agreement, but I hope that we can each respect each other's faith and places where we seek discernment.

Blessings,
John