The Emergent Conversation & Progressive Politics
Michael Kruse and I have been engaging in a bit of dialogue lately surrounding the emergent conversation and progressive politics. Michael has been involved in the emergent conversation for many years but has become increasingly disenfranchised with the growing connection he sees between the emergent movement and progressive politics. Michael has written a number of posts on his blog that express his views on this matter: (#1 and #2)
While I’ve argued against making as direct a connection between the two as Michael does, I was thinking about this the other day. I began to recall that one of the important instigators in my move away from evangelicalism was sitting in a church prayer meeting during the months of the contested Gore/Bush election and hearing prayers that “God’s man” would win (a mainline presbyterian church no less.)
While I actually voted for Bush in that election (though I had voted for Clinton in the previous 2 elections) I was so infuriated to hear people imply that God had a candidate in the running and that as a good Christian that was who I was supposed to have voted for. At that time the question in my mind over and over again was; “Does God really give a !@# who wins this thing?”
So, one thing that exploring my faith in an emergent direction implied was freedom from others telling me who I was supposed to vote for and freedom from hearing that God had a candidate in the running. It also implied a move away from the connection between conservative evangelicalism and conservative politics. (While I had voted for Clinton in previous elections, I always felt ‘guilty’ about that choice.)
I think my basic political committments were already present (though not freely expressed) before I got involved in the emergent conversation. The difference is that now I feel comfortable knowing that my moderately liberal political views will not be challenged within the emergent conversation as they were 8 years ago in that church prayer meeting.
But I am troubled by Michael’s assertion it would not be the same if I were exploring the conversation but with a more conservative bent in my politics. All of this is to ask: What is the connection between “emergent” and “progressive” politics. Maybe the question goes even deeper: What is the connection between faith and politics?
Comment by Mark on 22 August 2007:
I feel grossly unqualified to discuss what connections there may be between the emerging church and progressive politics. Ditto for faith and politics. I’m a cradle Presbyterian, raised by theologically progressive parents. I’d like to say that I’ve already deconstructed and reconstructed my theology, and have come out the other side of that experience with clear perspective and praxis. I’d like to say that, but I can’t. I’ve been at this process for my entire adult life, and though I have areas of relative certainty, there is much that remains up in the air for me. As an extrovert, I look to relationships and conversations as the potter’s wheel upon which my understanding and actions take shape and are refined. I share this only to make one point:
I have never felt safe in the PC(USA), or in any congregation I have served as a pastor, engaging in an open discussion of faith and politics.
Diversity of political views is not allowed by either the right or the left. The church has taught me to keep my mouth shut and my head down, or risk having my tongue cut out and my head lopped off. I’ve had my tongue sewn back in and my head reattached enough times finally to have learned that lesson. “Land of the free and home of the brave”, indeed!
I marvel that Jim and Michael live, work, and blog in environments were open conversation of diverse views on any subject — theological, political, or whatever — is safe enough to risk doing.
Comment by Michael Kruse on 22 August 2007:
Thanks for this post Jim. I’ll add a little more context.
My concern has been with national expressions of the Emergent Conversation. I’m fully aware that there are those at events who are not political Progressives and some who are in fact apolitical. I’m going after ethos not a blanket characterization of everything Emergent. (I also use Emergent to refer to the Emergent Village nexus and Emerging Church to refer to a broader movement of which EV is one element.)
If you read the comments in my posts you linked (thanks, BTW) you will see that I was involved with the “Evangelical Left” going back to college in the late 1970s up through the mid-1990s. I know all about Tony Campolo, Ron Sider and Jim Wallis. I was reading sojo and The Other Side before some here were born.
I’m in leadership in a mainline denomination where “social justice” and “political progressivism” are synonymous terms. I live in a neighborhood that votes 93% Democrat. I’m around Progressivism everywhere I turn.
I can get along with Progressives just fine. My presbytery (Heartland) is decidedly Progressive leaning yet I’ve served as moderator. I was nominated to the GAC and have served there three years. But I’m someone who is not a Progressive who would be interested in conversation about how the biblical narrative and Christian anthropology shapes how we think political and economic issues. Why would I want to spend my time and money to go to yet were more event dominated by politically progressive politics?
When I first started becoming acquainted with emerging church through Jacob’s Well, who we were renting to space to in our Presbyterian Church, I was drawn to conversations folks were having about the collapse of mediating institutions in society (e.g. family, church, voluntary associations, etc.) “Bowling Alone” came out in 2001 and gave voice to a number of these concerns. What I heard was energy around how to recover these institutions. There was also a decided skepticism about ecclesiastical structures and a distrust of the “IC,” the Institutional Church. Cells of believers networked together, changing their communities, without heavy institutional baggage was a central theme. Based on two decades of serving in a variety of capacities addressing poverty, as well as economic and political issues, I felt a strong kinship with this outlook.
However, either this local expression of the emerging church was either aberrant to the broader movement or the broader movement has morphed considerably. While the distrust of ecclesial intuitionalism has persisted, an almost schizophrenic mindset prevails relating to social justice and political engagement. Warm embrace is given to Progressive solutions that feature bureaucratic, top-down, command and control, coercive tactics for change in society in total contrast to operating this way within the church with its egalitarian decentralized network structure. “Social justice” is virtually synonymous with “Progressive politics” every bit as much as it is in the Mainline denominations.
And that leads to this point. I think most Mainliners (not all) coming to the discussion are theological/political Progressives who like the de-emphasis of cumbersome ecclesial structures found in Emergent while Emergent still shares their politics. This only reinforces and solidifies the political ethos that has developed. There is nothing particularly wrong with any of this. It just isn’t where I have interest in investing lots of dollars and time.
Okay. I’ll shut up and see what others have to say after this epistle.
Comment by Jim Bonewald on 22 August 2007:
Micheal,
What I almost added to the end of my post, but couldn’t figure out how to fit it in, was something like this:
I think as a general rule as Christians whether we are committed to the conservative or the progressive end of the political spectrum, we are all pretty ignorant about as you say ‘how the biblical narrative and Christian anthropology shapes how we think political and economic issues.’
I guess I don’t see how the issue you raise is any different in the emergent conversation than it is elsewhere in the church. I just think we’re all pretty unreflective about that, period. (Except for you of course, so your voice is needed more than ever!!)
Comment by Michael Kruse on 22 August 2007:
You are too kind, Jim. There are others thinking about such things. Here is one of my theories.
The impact any one of us can have on macro politics and economics is very small. Therefore, most of us spend little time in developing a well thought out political/economic framework. The cost benefit ratio doesn’t warrant it. It’s like doing weeks of research on the toothpick industry to figure out which brand of wooden toothpicks you should buy. The cost of a bad decision to you personally is miniscule. From this standpoint, it is a sound economic decision not to preoccupy ourselves with such matters. Therefore, Progressive, Conservative or otherwise, we tend to look for a set of values and policies that simply seems to “hang together.” And therein lies the trap.
Why does a particular set of values and policies seem to hang together for us? It is often because an integrator (ex. Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore, Oprah Winfrey, Jim Dobson, Jim Wallis) has offered us an integration that “fits” well enough. That integration begins to shape and/or reinforce our perception of our world when in fact the biblical narrative and Christian anthropology should be shaping us.
As a conservative I may come to see that a reasonably free market exists and that opportunities are out there for poor folks if they just access them. I’m not obligated to help others find ways to access and maximize opportunities. Or as a Progressive, I may conclude that because I voted Progressive and have supported a number of poverty programs that I have “helped” the poor. I’m not obligated to deal personally with the poor in my community. That’s the government’s job.
Our political/economic schema, which we have not scrutinized, begins to shape us into its mold with regard to more particularized events over which we do have significant influence in daily life. Here the cost is high in terms of our Christian discipleship but we have not allowed ourselves to be shaped by the biblical narrative because the narrative we have been shaped by now seems self-evidently sufficient to us. The danger is not with any particular individual and their particular vote but rather with how a political ideology comes to dominate our personal discipleship and corporate behavior as we join with others who share our ideology.
For emerging church to truly emerge, I think we need tools that help us discern the narrative and what it means. Yet people like John, a mainline pastor supportive of Emergent and the subject of one of the linked posts, doesn’t see the Bible carrying any authority with regard to sexuality, economics, and a host of other issues accept at the most abstract level of platitude-like principles. I don’t think his views are uncommon by many mainliners entering the Emergent discussion. At precisely the point where we need to have the dialog about the narrative, the Bible is taken off the table, leaving us with contemporary science and philosophy to give content to abstract categories. Meanwhile, several have embraced sojo-like politics and are trying to make this synonymous with Emergent. As I noted in one of my posts, this is retro for me, not emerging.
You wrote:
“I guess I don’t see how the issue you raise is any different in the emergent conversation than it is elsewhere in the church.”
I think that may be true but this is where my disappoint lies. My hope was that the same critical and innovative eye I saw being directed toward rethinking the church in the emerging church world would spill over into a serious examination of these other ideas as well. I don’t think it has and I fret that it isn’t going to.
Comment by Mark on 22 August 2007:
Michael,
I apparently haven’t learned well enough because I’ve read your words and now my tongue’s flapping and my head’s popped up!
As a progressive with a deep distrust of secular government, I nevertheless want to see legislation that will level the playing field even a little bit when it comes to issues of social justice. We live in a country in which major corporations are given carte blanche by the government, and people living in poverty are not provided boot straps with which they may pull themselves up. While I’m glad that the federal minimum wage is increasing, it is a paltry rise when compared to corporate profits and executive salaries and perks. I’d like to know how family and church groups (emergent and otherwise) can affect the kind of large scale change needed to make the economic beast budge even an inch compared to the legislature’s ability to budge the beast a mile. Help me understand how your view of the biblical narrative and Christian anthropology can affect large scale change without involving “progressive politics”.
I’m serious about this. I’m not interested in setting up straw men so I can knock them down. Please help me understand in terms that will translate to both progressives and conservatives alike, and to “ICers” and emergents alike.
Yours in Christ,
Mark
Comment by Banu Moore on 22 August 2007:
I would like to add these thoughts to the conversation: There are those of us in the Emerging Church who are Evangelicals and political Progressives. For myself, I believe that Jesus is the only way. Even though I do not limit God to the Four Spiritual Laws, I believe that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ. I believe the Scripture to be the inspired and authoritative Word of God. I am a charismatic who pray in tongues and seek after the Holy Spirit. I am a monastic who prays the liturgy of the hours.
I pray for President Bush everyday yet I don’t agree with his policies and decisions. (I am still waiting for him to admit that he has made a mistake, any mistake!) I support the military but I am a pacifist at heart. No matter what anybody says, President Bill Clinton is still the president of my heart. (The jury is still out on Hillary!) I am pro-choice. Even though I am still struggling with my understanding of homosexuality, I believe in same sex civil unions.
And strangely all of this makes sense to me. Not because I subscribe to a set of values but I believe Jesus calls me to live honestly and truthfully in the midst of a world crying for authenticity. For me this is what it means to be a part of the Emerging Church… the freedom to be ME in Jesus Christ. I pray I am moving in the right direction.
Comment by Michael Kruse on 22 August 2007:
Mark, several things.
First, the measure of a good economic system is not how it measures up against some New Creation vision of humanity. We live in a fallen world. The measure is how a particular system measures up against other real world alternatives based on what have learned historically and through reasoned analysis. Consequently, to point to sinful and unjust conditions in a present reality as basis for policy changes is insufficient justification for a policy. The full impact, including unintended consequences (like the strong casual link between instituting rent controls and increased homelessness) must be assessed as best we can determine.
Second, what you are offering here are assertions about economic realities (poor need more financial resources) and a tactics to address them (increase the minimum). I’m suggesting we have to step back from that and ask strategic questions. God created us as corporeal beings in a material world. We are not spirits inhabiting bodies. We are fully integrated body and soul. In the New Creation we will be body and soul as well, living in a newly recreated material world. What does it mean that God created us this way? What is our relationship to the material world? (Economics is essentially about the transformation of matter, energy, and information into more valued forms, and the just distribution the product of our labors.) The question about God’s mission for us, as it relates to material existence, has to come before all else.
Third, is there room for discussion about the assertions you make? I’ve lived in the urban core for nearly twenty years and have an advanced degree in economic development. I’ve been studying poverty related issues for 25 years. One fifth of people in poverty today will have moved up one quintile or more within a year. Half will have moved up within a decade. As to the minimum wage as a solution to poverty, 85% of people making the minimum wage are in households that are not in poverty. Half live in households that make more than $40,000 a year. Making the min. wage does not equate to being in poverty. Furthermore, when we disaggregate the data we find that it often hurts those it was intended to help, like urban minority young males (see here)
Meanwhile, we know that the poverty rate has dropped for two-parent households, single parent households and for independent adult households over the last thirty years. Yet the overall poverty rate has risen by 12.5%. Why? Because the distribution of households has changed and more people live in single parent households where the poverty rate is 31.1% verses two parent homes where the rate is 4.4%. (a href=” http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2007/04/american_povert.html”>see here) What would happen to poverty if the institution of the family were reinvigorated?
Poverty is rarely a monetary problem. Chronic poverty is a perpetual state that is perpetuated by a combination of repeated poor decision-making and an insufficient support network to develop the wherewithal to become self-sustaining. Dumping money at people or increasing the minimum wage is pouring water in a sieve without poor people becoming integrated into supportive communities and learning life skills that empower them to take advantage of economic opportunities. Churches can reinvigorate families and they can create networks to improve the chances of the poor. These are just two examples that come to mind. I am not saying there is no role for government but it is a supportive one to mediating institutions, not the starring role. Issues of subsidiarity are paramount.
Your assertions are the same ones that Progressives have been making all my life. I’m okay with that. But what if Progressive assertions about the nature of things are in error and tactics like the minimum wage are ineffectual and possibly even damaging? Which is more important, to have the Progressive label as a personal identity or to align advocacy and action with what actually creates justice based on the biblical narrative? That has been my journey for twenty-five years and it is a discussion I welcome having.
But it is my profound sense that the Emergent world deeply shares your Progressive narrative of economic life in America and shares your Progressive tactical commitments. It isn’t open to conversation. To not share these Progressive commitments makes you “Religious Right” or a modernist unworthy of serious engagement. I appreciate your willingness to draw me out some but my experience tells me that this conversation is not going to happen in an open respectful way at an Emergent event unless it is “me against the world” set up. I have plenty of venues for this type of interaction and I don’t see the point of engaging Emergent just to have more arguments.
Comment by Michael Kruse on 22 August 2007:
Well I see I did a great job with the links!
Here is the link under “see here:”
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12915
Here is the link under “subsidiarity:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
Comment by Mark on 22 August 2007:
Michael,
One of the reasons why I began studying the emerging church movement over a year ago was because it presented new ways of thinking and being the church. New, that is, in relation to the institutional church upbringing so many of us experienced, whether we came from liberal or conservative backgrounds. I find myself drinking deeply at this well, though I don’t yet know if it’s merely a short term oasis or a long term resting place.
I was a bit overwhelmed when I read your two blog articles that Jim linked to in this article. You have an extensive economic and sociological background that I simply don’t have. What I have found is that professionals in a field tend to sling their jargon freely, whether or not the average person can follow it. (I admit as a church professional that I have been guilty of that from time to time.) That’s why I asked you to explain yourself in lay terms that could be absorbed by those of us coming from diverse backgrounds who don’t have the same skill set as you. Thank you for breaking things down a bit more. I will ruminate on your reply for some time to come.
With that said, I’m not so far away from agreeing with you as you seem to think. Regardless of my background, I know that merely throwing money at a problem doesn’t work as a true solution. One does not pastor a small church in a poor county for long without becoming aware of the need for teaching people better life skills. I recognize that churches have an important part to play in habilitating their neighborhoods. I also know that, unless the Preamble to the Constitution was meant as a joke, American Christians should expect their secular government to work with them in promoting the general welfare. It should not have to be an either/or proposition: either the churches address social ills or the government does it.
As an example of what I mean, many teachers I talk with no longer have time to teach and reinforce basic life skills in the classroom because they are too busy “leaving no child behind”, meeting state and federal mandates about test performance whether or not those mandates help children learn. Should we not advocate for social justice in the public school system? Should we not pressure the government into removing frivolous standards in favor of letting the teachers teach?
As for a substantial increase in the minimum wage, that was only one of many examples of tactics in addressing the problem that the world does not yet conform to God’s creative and sovereign intent. By no means do I consider minimum wage to be the strategic answer to ending poverty as we know it. For me it was an example with personal resonance. If I understand you correctly, increasing the minimum wage is a misdirected tactic. Back when I was between pastorates, and minimum wage jobs were the only thing available in my area, it wasn’t a misdirected tactic for me and my family. It would have helped us immensely and prevented future financial woes if the corporate giants and franchises doing business in our area had seen fit to provide better wages and at least minimal benefits.
Likewise, I believe improvements in public health policies and costs are desperately needed. Shortly after paying off our debts from that minimum wage time, we were plunged back into deep debt because of costly medical treatments. We figure it will be another five years before we pay off those debts, and that’s with the higher level life skills, job opportunities, and Board of Pensions benefits open to two clergy spouses with graduate degrees. And my woes are nothing compared to what I see going on in the lives of people who come to my church asking for help.
Believe me when I say that I agree with you: the old social justice mantras aren’t working. However, do we expect only the churches to meet these challenges and make no demands at all of the government? What can we reasonably expect of our government?
Not to leave the churches out of it, you know as well as I do that it is not an easy task to get IC laity to change their thinking and to embrace their role in renewing families and social institutions in their communities. In my experience, few with “right leaning” politics are willing to consider opening the doors of the church and offering life skill classes to “those people” of color and/or lower economic status. Fewer still are willing to go out into challenged neighborhoods and relate with “those people” face to face. Theological progressives like me, and politically progressive evangelicals, meet up against brick walls of resistance when we talk about simply relating with people of other backgrounds. And that’s without mentioning the government or using words like “Democrat”, “Republican”, “politics”, or “social justice”.
I would not have asked you the questions I asked if I was trying to prop up my own preconceived notions. I have to start from my experience and my training, so give me credit for asking questions in spite of the shortfalls you perceive in my paradigm. Though I’m a pastor and an active presbyter, I’m no fan of stale institutions. I’m also no fan of stale ideas, whether liberal or conservative. In many respects I’m neither IC nor emergent. I’m searching. Please don’t assume you’ve figured out me and others like me simply because we carry the label “progressive”.
In Christ,
Mark
Comment by Mark on 22 August 2007:
Oh, and no, Michael, my identity doesn’t depend upon the label “progressive”. You labeled the kind of thinking I was raised with as “progressive”, so don’t give me demerits for using it.
Let me be perfectly clear: I am not involved in either the Emergent Village or any emerging church. I live hundreds of miles from the nearest emerging church/fellowship/community. All of my experience with emergents is through blogs and in books. I do not see the emerging movement as the answer to IC problems or as a place to dump my “progressive” mindset crap. I listen in on this website and comment occasionally because I’m still searching.
It sounds to me like you have as much frustration to vent at “progressives” as I have to vent at people who think they know me before they get to know me.
The peace of Christ be with you.
Comment by Doug Resler on 23 August 2007:
What a truly wonderful discussion! I have been following without replying to both Michael and Jim and now Mark and others who have entered the conversation and it seems to me that this is exactly the kind of thing “emerging” churches are all about. I don’t know about the political leanings of the folks in the “Emergent” church or “Emergent Village” except what I have read but what I guess what I most appreciate is the conversation. And not just the conversation, but the challenge to think further about the intersection between the Gospel and our culture. Having said all of that, I am certainly from the conservative end of the spectrum. I believe Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and the Bible is the unique and authoritative witness to God’s Revelation. I find quotes like the one posted by Rev. Shuck are deeply troubling because they posit the individual as the final arbiter of what is true and I simply do not trust myself that much!
However, I love the conversation that ensues provided it is true conversation and not just two people talking past each other.
One of the great attractions to the whole emergent culture for me is the willingness to engage questions that would otherwise be dismissed as out of bounds. It seems to me that we have nothing to fear from comments like Rev. Shuck’s and the like since history has proved that such divergent views come and go while this fascinating, intense, awe-inspiring God-man named Jesus continues to attract, mystify, and challenge people to follow Him.
I also think that wrestling with how to follow Jesus in the social/political realm is critically important. Quite frankly, I am not educated enough to pass judgment on economic policies or social policies (and Michael has given me a lot to think about!) necessarily although I have been active in both for a long time now. But it does seem to me that bringing folks together from across the spectrum is very important because the issues are complex and need to be addressed in a number of different ways.
So I guess I say all that as a thank you to both Jim and Michael for both getting the conversation started and continuing it and to others for joining in. I know I am learning and growing from y’all are sharing.
God bless,
Doug
Comment by Mark on 23 August 2007:
Michael,
I apologize for being so snarky last night. I stand by my questions and by the essence of what I said, just not how I said it (particularly in the second, shorter post). I hope you can forgive me.
In Christ,
Mark
Comment by bobpearson on 24 August 2007:
A wise sage once said that God said let justice roll down like water, but did not give us anything like a detailed plumbing system to make it flow where needed. We have to be the plumbers. Some want it to flow through government programs that can have massive national impacts and others prefer that it flow through individuals and local community efforts. How about we first agree that we need a both/and solution not an either/or solution. There is an unbounded reservoir of God’s justice and I would postulate that there are enough resources and money available if we can just agree on how it should be distributed as well.
Unequal distribution of resources is normally the primary reason for poverty, more so than even skills or initiative. God gives us a bounty, but we hoard it and save it and use it for unwarranted wars and control it for profit. Food spoils in silos in rural America while people in Appalachia or inner cities go without. Pharmaceutical companies have life saving medicines, but charge more than third world worker can afford to pay, to protect their monopolies and patents. The Government offers $50 billion in military aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia, but balks at increasing the gas tax to fund fundamental infrastructure improvements.
Jesus told many parables about how the Kingdom of God works. All laborers get paid the same no matter how many hours they worked; the servant that puts his money to work rather than hoarding it gets the rewards from the boss; those who give the little they have to others will enter the Kingdom; don’t store things up in this world, work to make the Kingdom real on Earth as it is in heaven, etc.
Yes I have progressive political viewpoints, but it comes directly from the life and teachings of Jesus as I read them in the Bible. In some ways it appears to me that the Kingdom and capitalism are in conflict at the most basic level. Jesus said love your neighbor and give to the poor and needy. Adam Smith said maximize every transaction to ensure you get the most from the other as you possibly can. (This is the basis of the Invisible Hand of the market as defined in Wealth of Nations). I struggle to make Capitalism as an unchecked system compatible with what I read of Jesus’s life and ministry. People may say that there is no alternative to Capitalism in the world, but Kingdom living appears to be a much more reasonable way to live, especially in these times.
So I am not surprised that the church emerging, which is striving to live in the Kingdom on a daily basis, may seem to embrace many progressive political ideas. Mostly they are just trying to be the hands and feet of Jesus to those in need. But they are also committed to go beyond surface support to begin to tackle the structural unequal distribution of resources in this fallen world.
Bob Pearson
Bend