An Abundance of Manifestos

I’ve noticed that more and more manifestos are being published these days.  We have an ‘evangelical manifesto‘, an ‘emergent manifesto‘, a ‘new Christian manifesto‘ and I’m sure I could multiply examples (heck, one of the blogs I link to is called ‘Jesus Manifesto‘).
Now, by definition, a ‘manifesto’ is ‘a public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature’ but I think our recent love of manifestos goes beyond the dictionary definition of the word.  Indeed, in contemporary discourse, I believe that this term carries ‘radical’ or ‘counter-cultural’ connotations, largely because of the work we must commonly associate with the notion of manifestos — The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.
Thus, by publishing this range of manifestos, I believe that the various authors are might be appealing to these connotations, in order to brand themselves as radicals, or counter-cultural, or cutting-edge, or whatever.  This, of course, is just another way of pro/claiming an higher status than others.  To be radical is, primarily, to be more radical than others.  To be counter-cultural is, primarily, to be more cool than others.  To be cutting-edge is, primarily, to be more advanced than others.  It’s a move made in comparison to others — it’s a power-play.
Furthermore, this use of language is often both a symptom and a cause of the drift from living genuinely different lives, to claiming ‘radical’ language while continuing to live lives that are little different than others.  Hence, the use of ‘radical’ language becomes of means of claiming higher status, while not actually changing one’s own life.
It’s a sweet deal, no?
Unfortunately, even those who are genuinely attempting to integrate what they say with how they live, still often fall into this brand-status trap, by continuing to use language that has been so thoroughly co-opted.  It is not necessary to call ourselves ‘radicals’, it is not necessary to call our publications ‘manifestos’ and yet we continue to use this language and by doing so — whether we intend to our not — we engage in an act of self-branding that carries repercussions related to our own status and, particularly, how others perceive our status.
It’s a sticky situation, eh?

Towards a Properly Political Reading of the New Testament

The fact of the matter is that every reading of the New Testament (NT) is a political reading of some sort.  Even readings that fail to find political significance in the NT are expressions of (often unconsidered) political positions — so-called ‘spiritual’ readings of the NT, which fail to find any significant political dimensions in Jesus’ teachings, or Paul’s epistles, or whatever else, are often expressed in life by a focus on one’s individual salvation, and a lack of attention to broader social structures… and this itself is a form of politics!  The same is true of any reading.
Therefore, the question is not whether or not we should read the NT politically; rather, it is about what type of political reading we should practice.
Consequently, I have begun to compile a list of ‘commentaries’ that can help us properly understand the politics of the NT.  This list is just beginning, has many holes, and I would be curious to hear what titles others might wish to add.  Here is what I have thus far:

  • Mt: Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations by Warren Carter
  • Mk: Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Gospel by Ched Myers
  • Lk: The Gospel of Luke by Joel Green (NICNT)
  • Jn: John and Empire: Initial Explorations by Warren Carter
  • Ro: Romans: A Commentary by Robert Jewett (Hermeneia)
  • Gal: Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter by Justin K. Hardin (WUZNT2)
  • Phil: Philippians: From People to Letter by Peter Oakes (SNTS Monograph Series)
  • Col: Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire by Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat
  • 1 Pe: A Home for the Homeless: a social scientific criticism of 1 Peter, its situation and strategy by John H. Elliott
  • Rev: Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now by Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther

There are, of course, several other studies that deal more generally with the politics of the NT, of Jesus, of Paul, and so on, but I am especially interested in exploring commentaries that take this ’empire-critical’ approach.  What would you add to this list?

Just Sayin'

Not that I know anything about this stuff, but I reckon that, if the global markets were to crash and we were to be heading for some sort of Great Depression at some point in the future then… well… then it makes sense for the Spirit to begin stirring now-ish in order to create communities of Christians who are learning how to share the basic elements of life, who are economically dependent upon one another, who are making connections across national boundaries, and who are trying to bridge the gap between the West and the Rest of the world.

6. What Would You Do?

I was standing with my wife, waiting for the traffic light to change.  Just behind me was a woman sitting on the sidewalk, panhandling.  She looked unwell.  Like she was high, or like she needed some kind of medication for her mental health.  In front of her was a sign that said: “Abusive Ex Left Me Homeless, Please Help With Money for Food and Shelter”.
Anyway, I was standing with my wife, waiting for the traffic light to change, when I heard a voice behind me:

God!  That is the most retarted sign I have ever seen.  I mean, seriously, you really need to change your sign.  Fuck.  It’s so fucking retarted.

So, I turn around and see a young man — probably in his early twenties, standing in front of the homeless woman.  He’s looking down on her contemptuously, and mocking her in between drags on his cigarette.  Taking his time with it, you know?
There are other people walking by, not taking any notice. 
So… if you were in this situation, what would you do?  Seriously, not what would you want to do, but what do you think you would actually do?

The Parousia Problematised by Divine Cruciformity

The deeper we root Jesus’ actions, and his embrace of powerlessness and suffering, at the heart of God’s character, the harder it becomes to posit a Jesus who returns triumphantly to judge the world and make all things new.
That is to say, if Jesus reveals to us a cruciform God, and if Jesus’ act on the cross are an act of “family resemblance” to a God defined by suffering, humble love (as Michael Gorman argues), then returning to impose the kingdom of God upon the world (rather than inviting others to participate in the kingdom, like Jesus did the first time around) seems somewhat problematical.
After all, it seems to me that this notion of God’s humility and cruciformity has been one of the foundations for our acceptance of this whole terribly messy history of the world.  If God is humble, suffering, and ever inviting — if God is like Jesus — then it makes sense that God hasn’t simply put an end to all of this already.  If God is revealed as a suffering servant, then it makes sense that God hasn’t rushed in to knock some heads together and sort things out.  However, the question then becomes this: if God hasn’t sorted things out by now, if God is committed to inviting us, and working with us, then what is the foundation for God to return to us in order to finally make all things new?  Doesn’t the return of Jesus seem like exactly the type of forceful act that Jesus refused to practice in the first place?
So, I would be curious to hear how others might resolve this apparent contradiction.  How does a triumphant and forceful return fit with a cruciform God?
I mean, maybe this explains the so-called ‘delay of the Parousia’ — maybe Jesus left thinking, ‘I’ll be back soon!’ and then, once he had time to think about things, he realised that returning with force would be to contradict his own character and commitments.  Maybe he’s been sitting in heaven the last two thousand years thinking, ‘hot damn, how do I get out of this one?!’

September Books

Surprisingly, given how busy everything has been, September was still a decent month for reading. There are some really good books on this list (in my opinion, anyway!).
1. Rituals and Power: The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor by S. R. F. Price.
In any political or ’empire-critical’ reading of Paul there are two books that always get mentioned — The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus by Paul Zanker (which I am currently reading) and Rituals and Power by Simon Price.
Upon completing Price’s book it is easy to see why it is so widely referenced and why it created a paradigm shift within studies of the Roman Empire (this is apparent in the reviews offered on the back of the book… I’ve never seen such glowing reviews, wherein scholars confess to having their own minds changed because of the authors arguments).  What Price does is demonstrate the ubiquity and importance of the Roman imperial cult within Asia Minor, thereby making it impossible for modern readers to treat this aspect of Graeco-Roman society as some sort of tangential aside.
Price’s central thesis is that the Roman imperial cult became the means by which cities in Asia Minor where able to accept subjection to an authority external to the traditional structures of the city (hence, the Roman ruler is slotted within the framework of traditional cults of the gods). Thus, we see the imperial cult as a nexus of religion, politics, and power. We also see an important give-and-take dynamic occurring between ‘Greek’ populations, and the Roman rulers, wherein the cult is often initiated and developed by the Greek cities, and only then controlled and routinized by the Roman rulers.
Of course, there is far more detail in Price’s richly rewarding study (of everything from Hellenistic cities, imperial festivals, architecture, images, and rituals) and I would strongly recommend this book to any reader of Paul’s letters. After reading this book, there can be no doubt that the imperial cult was a fundamental aspect of the society in which Paul lived and wrote his letters and must be factored into our readings of him.
2. Philippians: From People to Letter by Peter Oakes.
Thankfully, Peter Oakes is one of those who takes the imperial cult, and the Graeco-Roman context of Philippi, very seriously in his study of Paul’s epistle to the Philippians. As the subtitle implies, Oakes first builds a model of what Philippi might have looked like in Paul’s day, and then he builds on this to try and build a model of what the church in Philippi might have looked like. This then leads to a rewarding and exciting reading of Philippians focused upon a call for unity under economic suffering.
After spending some time tracing the development of Philippi as a city and then as a Roman colony, Oakes argues the composition of the population roughly breaks down in this way:

  1. Service Sector (artisans, bakers, fire wood collectors, and others working at a subsistence level): 37%
  2. Slaves: 20%
  3. Colonist Farmers: 20% (who, being second or third generation by the time of Paul’s writing, wouldn’t necessarily be amongst the elite, although some of them would have been living a little above the subsistence level)
  4. Poor (those living below the subsistence level): 20%
  5. Elite: 3%.

This then breaks down into a population that is 40% Roman and 60% Greek.
From this model, Oakes argues (rather convincingly) that the church of Philippi would then be composed of the following members:

  1. Service: 43%
  2. Slaves: 16%
  3. Colonist Farmers: 15%
  4. Poor: 25%
  5. Elite: 1% (Oakes notes that there is no indication of any elite members at Philippibut he does not want to exclude the possibility of them altogether).

Thus, the church would be 36% Roman and 64% Greek.
From here, Oakes lays out four key elements of life at Philippi: the centrality of agriculture, the relatively modest size of the city, the ethnic and social profile of the city and, most importantly, the ’emphatic Roman domination’ of the colony. This was a colony wherein the Romans owned almost all of the land, monopolising the wealth and the status, while the Greeks were economically dependent on the Romans.
From this model, Oakes then turns to Paul’s letter to the Philippians and argues that it is structured around the themes of suffering and unity. Oakes thesis is that conversion to Christ has caused the Philippians to suffer economically and, given that the largest segment of the church was probably living at the subsistence level, any economic loss would be devastating. However, for the less vulnerable in the congregation, association with Christians, and with Christ, seems to be resulting in a loss of honour… which could rapidly develop into economic loss as well. Therefore, this economic suffering results in a call for increased unity: ‘what the Christians would need to do in order to survive is to enter into a new set of economic and other relationships among themselves’. This would require ‘substantial’ economic rearrangement, which would carry additional risks for the wealthier, more established, parties involved.
Consequently, Paul offers himself as a model to the Philippians, in his surrender of privilege, his willingness to suffer for the sake of the gospel, and his concern for others. Thus, the model Paul offers of himself would probably encourage the lower members of the congregation, and disturb the more well established members.
Of course, Paul’s model of himself is a mirror of the model of Christ offered in Phil 2.5-11.  However, to properly understand this passage Oakes argues that we must first understand the relationship between Christ and the Emperor. Noting the political overtones of language related to ‘citizenship’, ‘salvation’, and power, as well as the political idea of the ruler providing an ethical model to imitate, Oakes argues that the Philippian audience would naturally think of imperial messages when listening to the recitation of this passage. This is strengthened by several other connections: that (a) Christ (like the emperor) is given universal authority; (b) that authority is granted; (c) that authority is granted by a competent body; (d) that authority is granted for a reason; (e) that authority is granted for the same reasons that the emperor was granted authority (demonstrated victories, intimate connections with the rulers or the gods, universal agreement, and moral qualities such as a demonstrated concern for others and a lack of self-interest); (f) universal submission connected to the saving of the world; (g) the granting of high names; (f) the application of the title ‘Lord’; (g) and the role of the leader to define the ethics embodied by the people.
Thus, Paul responds to the issue of suffering and unity in Philippiby offering Christ as a paradigmatic example, over against other examples (like the emperor and the standards he upheld). That is to say, by moving from being like God to being like a slave, Christ went from one extreme of status to another — and so the Philippians should be willing to following in his footsteps out of their concern for each other. In particular, those of higher status, must be willing to provide economic assistance to those of lower status, even if this results in a loss of status. For this, the Philippians will be rewarded because their leader has already been victorious (and so, just as parties aligned with victorious emperors or generals would share in the gains of those victors, so also the Christians are promised a share in the gains of Christ). Thus, Oakes writes:

On both these issues [suffering and unity] the key practical point is likely to be that the Christian has grown up thinking that following society’s imperatives is the right thiing to do and the safe thing to do. Although they will be keen to follow Paul’s calls, the pressure of these social imperatives will be very great. For Paul to present Christ as the one who outdoes the lord of the political and social sphere seems a very appropriate rhetorical strategy…
If Christ has replaced the Emperor as the world’s decisive power then we are no longer in the established Graeco-Roman social world. Instead of a world under the high-status man, whose Roman Empire has commanded the hardening of an already stratified Mediterranean society into stone, the world is under a new lord whose command is [to imitate him] and who enjoins [self-lowering and loss of status]. The lord even exemplifies these things. The whole basis of Graeco-Roman society is done away with.

Furthermore, the result of this is a new confidence, and a new understanding of status, which ‘de-marginalises’ the Christian community.
Thus, I think that Oakes successfully defends his thesis. This is an exceptional book, and I would highly recommend it.
3. In the Steps of Paul: An Illustrated Guide to the Apostle’s Life and Journeys by Peter Walker (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).
A big thanks to Chris Fann from Zondervan for this review copy!
For a long time, I was fairly blind to the importance of visuals for our understanding of Paul. I used to think that books like this one — full of photos — or tours of the cities Paul visited were a bit over the top, reflecting our cultural shift from the word to the image, from the intellect to the experience, and so on.
However, the more I am convinced of the importance of visual elements within Graeco-Roman society (after all, most of the population wasn’t literate!) the more interested I have become in exploring those visual elements (city layouts, architecture, sculptures, coins, inscriptions, and so on). The more one tries to understand a person like Paul, the more important it becomes to immerse oneself, as much as possible, into all areas of Paul’s life. Really, it was a basic act of snobbery to think that books with pictures are for first year students (or non-professionals), whereas books full of text (say even Greek text! Ooooo!) were for the more advanced. Good grief, sometimes I really am embarrassed by myself.
Therefore, I was delighted to receive a review copy of In the Steps of Paul by Peter Walker. Although I may take issue with Walker’s dependence upon Acts, and some of the ways in which Walker presents Paul and his theology, this is a beautiful reference book full of historical and geographical details. The book is structured to follow Paul’s travels chronologically from city to city (although Paul visited some places more than once, so there are some inevitable breaks in this chronology). Each chapter begins by telling the story of Paul within that location, goes on to provide a list of key dates and events related to that location (extending both before and after Paul), and then concludes with a section describing the location as a visitor might encounter it today (a handy guide for those who might actually travel to these places). Personally, I am most grateful for the tables with key dates and events for each city (and for the Roman Empire as a whole) as I was thinking I needed to develop something like that for my own research… so this has saved me a lot of time. I was also grateful for the maps provided for each city (because, you know, city plans are often an important ideological tool). Oh, and the photos are beautiful. All in all, an enjoyable book.
4. Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping our World by Vinoth Ramachandra.
This book has received a lot of high recommendations — both from the international array of scholars represented on the back of the book, and from other bloggers I respect (like Halden and Christian). So, despite my far too long list of ‘books to read’, I decided to bite the bullet and jump into this book.  As the reader might guess, based upon my recent references to Ramachandra, I am very glad that I did so. Subverting Global Myths is impressive in both its readability and its erudition.  It certainly made me want to read Ramachandra’s earlier book, Gods That Fail.
Within Subverting Global Myths, Ramachandra explores six areas of public discourse today — terrorism, religious violence, human rights, multiculturalism, science and postcolonialism (the chapter on myths of postcolonialism alone is worth the price of the book) — and offers a profoundly historically-informed perspective.  For, as Ramachandra reminds the reader, without that historical perspective, we cannot properly understand these things.  Unfortunately, the dominant ethos of contemporary capitalism is profoundly anti-historical, so it is no wonder that so much of what Ramachandra writes might strike the reader as something new.  Thus, for example, those lacking this historical perspective will find themselves shocked by what Ramachandra has to say about events in Afghanistan, whereas those who have been reading the writings of our more historically-informed Marxist or anarchist friends, will find themselves nodding along (the chapter on Afghanistan, and myths of terrorism, reads like a chapter out of something by Chomsky… which is a good thing as far as I’m concerned and, who knows, may even give Chomsky some more credibility in Christian circles).  Consequently, it is no wonder that Ramachandra describes his book as ‘an invitation to journey with the author in heretical subversion of the present reality in order to make way for another.’
What I found especially enjoyable about Ramachandra’s book (apart from the historical perspective already mentioned) is the way in which he doesn’t really appear to have any allegiances to any particular party-lines or movements.  Rather, although he is aware of much that has been written by these various parties (in politics, cultural theory, and theology), he comes across as a thoughtful and sincere person, trying to think and live Christianly within the contemporary global context.  Ramachandrareally doesn’t seem like he his grinding any particular axes in his writing.  Consequently, he is both a refreshing read and a challenge to all others who have drawn their own lines in the sand and have been working on building up the barricades (I might include myself in that group).
5. Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals by Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).
A big thanks to Chris Fann from Zondervan for this review copy!
This book surprised me.  After The Irresistible Revolution, and given the subtitle of this book, I was expecting a book that mapped out some of the concrete details of the community living practiced by Claiborne and Haw.  I was expecting a more detailed follow-up to some of the things Claiborne mapped out in his previous book.
Instead, what we have in the first two-thirds of Jesus for President is a political and empire-critical reading of the biblical narrative and the experiences of the early Church, with only the final third devoted to an eclectic account of what some ‘ordinary radicals’ are doing in the world today.
Now, there is nothing wrong with this kind of project… I was a little disappointed but that’s only because I came to the book with the wrong expectations.  I was expecting something of a sequel to The Irresistible Revolution and instead I got the prequel — a project focused on ‘renewing the imagination’ instead of a project focused on the details of action.
Of course, I suspect that this sort of prequel is necessary for a good many people.  Many (or most?) North American Christians haven’t ever read or considered Scripture from a perspective that is critical of Empires — many have never read the likes of Walter Brueggemann, Daniel Smith-Christopher, John Crossan, Ched Myers, Warren Carter, Walter Wink, Klaus Wengst, Brian Walsh, and a host of others who have written on this theme — so this sort of introduction to this perspective can be invaluable.  Besides, even for those (like myself) who are familiar with these authors, it is always worthwhile to read a review of the biblical narrative from this perspective (after all, paradigm shifts occur from repeated readings, not just from a first read).
What one gains from this overview of the biblical narrative is a clear and consistent call to a form of Christian politics that sees the Church as an alternative community (think polis), modeling new creation realities to the world in which she finds herself.  Thus, ‘the greatest sin of political imagination’ is ‘thinking there is no other way except the filthy rotten system we have today.’  Again:

A curious politics is emerging here: the early Christians weren’t trying to overthrow or even reform the empire, but they also weren’t going along with it.  They were not reformists offering the world a better Rome.  They offered the dissatisfied masses not a better government but another world altogether.

And, just to be clear on what the authors are saying, this ‘other world’ is not the ‘pie in the sky’ of heaven, but ‘another world’ here and now.
As for as my own interests, I found the last section, although a little disjointed and not entirely helpful (for transitioning the reader from where she is to where she is wanting to go) to be the most interested.  It is in this section that we find a series of ‘snapshots of stories, reflections, and practical expressions of the peculiar politics of Jesus today.’  It is here we read about Christians exploring alternative and clean forms of energy and housing, about Christians who grow their own food and make their own clothes, about Christians living in community with the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the imprisoned, about Christian acts of nonviolence and peacemaking, about Christians sharing economically with one another (check out Christians who help pay for health care, or the notion of the relational title), and so on.  Thus, this section ends with a call to newness in all elements of our life together: we need new celebrations, new language, new rituals, new heroes, new songs, new liturgy, new eyes, and new holidays.
The book itself concludes with a series of appendices illustrating some of these things and also dealing with some problem areas (available on the book’s website).
However, as I stated with my hopes for this book, and implied above, I also found this section a little disappointing.  While it may inspire the imaginations of some readers, it also provides those readers with little assistance in making these transitions in their own lives.  Thus, we may have a bunch of people who love this book, and who feel inspired by it, but who do not know how to proceed and develop in these directions.  The results of this could either be a bunch of pseudo-radicals (i.e. those who feel radical because they read the book… even though nothing changed in their own lives) or a bunch of guilt-ridden well-intentioned Christians (who want to change but don’t know how).
My hope, then, is that those like Claiborne and Haw, or other representatives of the ‘new monasticism’, will go on from here to write a much more practical action-oriented book, mapping out how they themselves made this transition, what lessons they learned along the way, and so on and so forth.
6 & 7. The Becoming of G-d by Ian Mobsby (already reviewed here) and The emerging Church by Bruce Sanguin (already reviewed here).

The Inescapable Subjectivity of Hermeneutics. Part 1: Posing the Problem

In any serious study of the biblical texts, one inevitably comes across many different and even contradictory positions both on (a) what the texts actually say; and (b) what we are to do with those texts.  Pick any number of biblical passages — even passages that many of us assume are obvious or straight-forward — and it is possible to find a great host of very intelligent, well-intentioned people in complete disagreement about what is said and what it might mean (for us today).
Upon first recognising this dilemma, a common reaction is to turn to questions of methodology.  Yet, what one finds is that there are a good many ways of reading Scripture — utilising everything from lectio divina, literary, and canonical approaches, to studies of rhetoric, of redaction, of social sciences, of theology, of narrative, of tradition, of linguistics, and so on — and there is no clarity on which methods to combine with which other methods, or which approaches to privilege above others.  Furthermore, although one may be tempted to try to master all of these approaches (and treat them all equally), one will quickly find that there is so much research to study and so much fruit to be found, in each approach, that one must inevitable choose to focus more in one area, and less in another.
Yet there is no clear or universally compelling criteria for selecting an hermeneutical methodology (if there were, one would not be confronted with this dilemma).  Consequently, no matter how internally consistent and logical any hermeneutical method might be, once one enters into it, one must still make the uncomfortably subjective choice to enter into that method and privilege it.  Thus, those who privilege rhetorical criticism find arguments based upon lexical studies to be compelling, but those who privilege a reading based upon the history of the Christian tradition might find such arguments to be less compelling, and those who privilege a reading in the style of the lectio divina might think such studies are entirely worthless.
Of course, most people will accept some arguments and reject other arguments from each of the methods represented and (despite each person’s protestations to the contrary) this is also a fairly subjective endeavour.  What might appear to be a logical process of selection to one person, will look illogical to another.
Now some might want to suggest that the dilemma I am mapping out is related to the ‘rampant individualism’ of our Western culture.  This, they might say, is what happens when individuals prioritise their own thoughts above the authority of the magisterium or the authority of the Church, or the authority of the early ecumenical councils, or the authority of the Reformers, or the authority of the Church Mothers and Fathers, or the authority of tradition, or… do you see where I am going with this?  Those who raise this sort of objection have made the equally subjective decision to prioritise one (or some combination) of these things as an authoritative guide to hermeneutics.  So, this dilemma is not so easily brushed aside; it is  one that confronts all of us.
Furthermore, this dilemma isn’t subsumed or brushed aside by the (increasingly) standard hermeneutical resolution of the poles of objectivity and subjectivity within ‘critical realism’ (or some derivative thereof).  While this is an handy general approach to recognising both our own internal subjectivity and an historical reality external to us (which we can know, at least, in part) it doesn’t, itself, map out how we gain access to historical knowledge or to what is said and meant by any given text.  ‘Critical realism’ provides those who accept it with some comfort that something can be known about that which we believe exists outside of ourselves, but it doesn’t tell us much about how that something can be known.
If this isn’t bad enough, we are also confronted with the observation that none of us comes to hermeneutics as a blank slate.  We are all inescapably shaped and molded by the people around us, and by the environment into which we are born.  Of course, we are usually blind to the extent of these influences — we tend to think that we are simply following ‘common sense’ and thereby forget that this form of ‘sense’ is only common to certain people in certain places at certain times.
The result of this is that any of our attempts to determine what a text says, and means, is never as objective or logical as we think it is, or want it to be.  More often then not, it is these cultural influences which determine which readings we prioritise, which methods we prefer, and which examples of other methods we accept or reject.
We are, therefore, confronted with the inescapable subjectivity of hermeneutics, and of all of our efforts to read, understand, and apply Scripture.  The question, then, is where we go from here.  Once we accept this, how do we go about determining what Scripture says, and what it means (for us today)?

The 'Emerging Church': Listening on the Conversation (2 of 2)

Having completed the review of Mobsby, I will now review and reflect upon The emerging Church by Bruce Sanguin.  I will then conclude with some comments upon the ’emerging church’ movement more broadly.
Review of Sanguin
Sanguin’s book has a different objective than Mobsby’s.  While Mobsby was primarily interested in applying a form of social trinitarianism to Christian living, Sanguin is interested in helping pastors to engage in a culture-shift in order to find the abundant life promised by Jesus.  Thus, Sanguin wishes to see traditional mainline churches evolve  in centres of Spirit-animated creativity within the culture of postmodernity.
The language of ‘evolving’ is important to Sanguin, because he bases his understanding of ‘creative emergence’ upon the evolutionary model of nature.  So, he writes, ‘We are meant to evolve.  If the Spirit is involved in the evolutionary process — as I believe is the case — then we need to start thinking about our lives in Christ through an evolutionary lens’.  Thus Sanguin wishes to find churches meeting the challenges of postmodernity by shifting from a ‘redemption-centred theological model’ to a ‘creation-centred, evolutionary Christian theology’.  This is accomplished  by embracing the evolutionary principles of novelty, self-organisation, and a combination of transcendence and inclusion (by which Sanguin means that the new transcends the old, but includes everything that was good in the old — ‘everything that has worked in the past is brought forward’).  Hence, embracing an evolution and engaging in culture-shift is the way in which be become more truly our own selves.
Key to this shift is a movement from a ‘redemption-centred theological model’, which leaves people as passive recipients of otherworldly salvation, to a ‘creation-centred, evolutionary Christian theology’, which emphasises the grace found in nature, and emphasises our role as creative actors within the world.  From within this model, redemption is understood as that which liberates us to becomes ‘centres of creative emergence’, for ‘our problem is not innate sinfulness.  It’s foolishness.  We’ve lost our way… What we need is spiritual wisdom, not the removal of original sin.’
Okay, that takes us to the end of Chapter One.  I will spend less time on the other chapters because the key principles are laid out at the beginning, and the following chapters go on to function as a road map for those engaging in a culture shift.  Thus, Chapter Two speaks of the importance of hand-picking a ‘think tank’ to initiate this process, Chapter Three speaks of establishing non-negotiables , Chapter Four he speaks of engaging in self-definition by establishing a vision and a mission, Chapter Five speaks of establishing a value statement to guide the ethos of the congregation, and Chapter Six speaks of understanding the various ways in which people in your congregation understand Christ.
Chapter Seven is definitely the oddest chapter, and it speaks of ‘morphic fields’ which cause space to function as a ‘generative matrix’ for our own becoming.  Our own congregational morphic field is understood as the corporate personality of the congregation, or, as Sanguin also calls it, ‘the angle’ of the congregation.
Chapter Eight then lays out the psychological foundation for leadership stressing the importance of counseling psychology, and personal therapy, in order to develop four key interior conditions: self-definition, connections across differences, emotional intelligence, and an awareness of our (Jungian) ‘shadow’ side.  From the psychological, Sanguin moves to spiritual foundations for leadership in Chapter Nine, stressing the importance of stillness, theological reflection, compassion, and creativity.
From foundations for leaders, Sanguin moves to pitfalls for leaders in Chapter 10, and especially criticises models that require the pastor to be the care-giver for the entire congregation.  Noting that most people can only effectively care for ten to twelve people, Sanguin argues that the pastor should be more of a spiritual leader than a personal caregiver, and that other networks of care should be affirmed and developed within the congregation  Chapter Eleven then goes on to speak of how to care for those external to the congregation, like new comers.  He speaks of the importance of having good music, exciting and encouraging sermons, employing various forms of media and so on.
Finally, in Chapter Twelve Sanguin speaks of how to establish a board.  He then concludes by stressing the importance of approaching congregations as centres of creative emergence, and includes a postscript mapping out some of the mistakes he has made along the way.
This, then, is how Sanguin summarises what he is trying to do:

culture-shifting — moving from a membership paradigm to a discipleship paradigm; from a redemption focus to a creation-centred focus; from a pastoral care model that demands that clergy function as personal chaplains to a model based on small group ministry; from seeing the role of the laity as helping out the minister to implementing the spiritual principle of ministry anywhere, anytime, by anybody; from asking people to serve on committees, to inviting them to participate in spiritual-gifts-based ministry; from a bureaucracy of mistrust to a bureaucracy of trust.

Reflection
Again, as with Mobsby, I am glad to see Sanguin seeking a living, vibrant expression of faith that engages with the world in which we live.  However, I do have a number of concerns.
First of all, Sanguin’s evolutionary model strikes me as naively optimistic.  Stated simply, it appears to assert that ‘every day in every way we are getting better and better’ (to quote Coué ).  Yet this fails to account for how evolution actually plays out in nature.  Evolution has been a violent process — survival of the fittest — wherein the strong prey on the weak, the healthy devour the sick, and where the strengths of the defeated are not necessarily taken over and further developed by the victors.  Thus, to use a social development example (since Sanguin’s evolutionary model applies to these situations), perhaps the Romans in the late Empire thought that they were the most evolved of all Romans… yet they were overwhelmed by the Goths and Europe was plunged into the ‘dark ages’ as many of the insights of Antiquity were lost for hundreds of years.  Consequently, I don’t think we can be as certain as Sanguin that all development is good development.  Instead, we need some sort of criteria to guide our development, but these criteria seem to be most absent in Sanguin’s book, since he simply asserts that our process of development is guided by Spirit, whom we can trust to take us where we need to go.
Furthermore, I found this evolutionary model to be an odd starting place for what Sanguin wants to do.  However, I think (but am not sure) that Sanguin starts here because he is operating from a paradigm that prioritises nature, and wishes to see us as all connected, and as all part of one big process.
This leads me to my second point.  I have some questions about the Christ affirmed by Sanguin.  Sanguin posits that people at various stages of their own evolutionary development understand Christ in different ways.  Thus, those on the lower levels understand Christ as a warrior.  Move a little higher and we have the traditional Christ as a divine scapegoat, a little higher still and we get the demythologised Christ as a CEO.  Then, in the upper stages of evolutionary development, we have people who affirm an egalitarian postmodern Christ, an ecological cosmic Christ and, ultimately, ‘the Mystical Christ.’  This is how Sanguin describes those at this most recent stage:

At this level, the world is experienced — not merely conceptualized — as one.  A follower of Christ does not merely perceive this universe as an integrated whole.  She knows herself to be a form of the integrated whole, the part in whom the whole is manifest.  The great diversity of life is also an expression of the Holy One.

This perspective is then supported by appeals to the Christ of John’s Gospel (who prays that we may be one, etc.) and to Paul’s understanding of our being ‘in Christ’.
Now, apart from the fact that Sanguin is doing violence to the texts at hand (more on that in a minute), what this actually looks like is a Christian gloss over an amalgamation of New Age spirituality, pantheism, and Westernised Buddhism.  What we have here is actually an affirmation of unity-within-diversity that puts an end to any real (or metaphysical) difference.  Now, this may work in some religious traditions, but to some how connect this thinking to Christianity (even in an ‘evolved’ form) suggests to me that this evolved form of Christianity is so different than that which came before, that perhaps it is best not to call this Christianity at all.  Maybe that just confuses the issue.  (But, then again, this raises the question of who has the right to define what is truly ‘Christian’ so maybe I’d rather not open up that can of worms.)
However, it is worth pointing out that this abolition of any real difference then leads to a negation of difference between religious systems.  Thus, for example, Sanguin speaks of how his church is populated by progressive Muslims as Muslims, Sikhs as Sikhs, Christians as Christians, Buddhists as Buddhists, and so on.  Sanguin sees this as a practice of ‘radical hospitality’ (which is why he also continually stresses that pastors should only speak ‘good news’ from the pulpit) and which, I suspect, is why Sanguin’s favourite name for God is Spirit.  The term is sufficiently vague and broad for Sanguin’s purposes.  Unfortunately, I do have questions about this type of hospitality.  To begin with, I think that it is self-defeating.  As Vinoth Ramachandra has noted recently, communities that downplay difference are often more traumatised, and react more violently, when something truly different appears; whereas communities that recognise the genuine depth of differences are more likely to respond peaceably to traumatic situations.  Furthermore, I question the liberating potential of this approach as it seems to be one that staunchly affirms the status quo.  While it may welcome slaves as slaves (without requiring them to change), it also appears to welcome Pharaoh as Pharaoh (without requiring him to change).  Thus, I think we need to listen to those like Miroslav Volf who remind us that sometimes exclusion must precede embrace.
Third, as I mentioned above, I have some concerns about how Sanguin reads Scripture.  Although Sanguin affirms ‘the whole of Scripture’ as a part of his non-negotiables, he continually stresses a metaphorical reading of the texts… which basically allows him to do what he wants with whatever he reads.  Thus, we have the ‘Mystical Christ’ of John and Paul, we have Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness understood as an internal psychological struggle (‘Satan’ being Jesus’ own internal ‘shadow’ side), and we have a reading of Lk 9.62 which suggests Jesus’ homelessness isn’t so much real as a metaphor for how he is ‘caught up in an evolutionary momentum’.  All of these readings simply slot Scripture into a previously established paradigm, which it then affirms.  What is lost is the truly transformative potential of Scripture, for Scripture is denied the ability to challenge our paradigms or, for that matter, to confront us with things that we do not wish to hear.
Conclusion
Bruce Sanguin and the place where he serves (Canadian Memorial Church & Centre for Peace), are located in a fairly wealthy and especially trendy neighbourhood in Vancouver (the city in which I live).  So, if Mobsby’s target audience appeared to be the hipsters, Sanguin neighbourhood is mostly composed of young business professionals — ‘yuppies’ who wear yoga pants, and spend a lot of time doing their hair before they go to the beach, the gym, or the spa.  So, if Mobsby is writing on behalf of the bohemian bourgeoisie, Sanguin is writing on behalf of the bohemian bourgeoisie.
However, let me add two provisos to this last comment.  First of all, I don’t think that this is anything wrong with ministering to, and with, hipsters or yuppies — far from it, all people should be invited to embody the good news of the lordship of Jesus Christ.  So my reason for raising this point is not to invalidate ministries to these populations.  Instead, I mention this because I believe that there is nothing particularly ‘radical’ about what Mobsby and Sanguin are doing.  It seems to me that they are both seeking ways of living as Christians and as members of the dominant culture in which they find themselves.  Ironically, this means that both Mobsby and Sanguin are participating in the same process that their predecessors did in the early to mid twentieth century.  That ‘traditional church’, against which both Mobsby and Sanguin are reacting, was simply the type of church that fit well with ‘modern’ culture.  Now, the ’emerging church’ is simply the type of church that fits well with ‘postmodern’ culture.  So, for all their talk about being ‘radical’ or ‘subversive’ the main thing that Mobsby and Sanguin are subverting is the culturally conditioned church of modernity.  This strikes me as a rather superficial form of subversion which fails to account for the power structures that have emerged or evolved in postmodernity itself.  So, given another forty or so years, I wouldn’t be surprised if these models of ’emergence’ pass away, along with this stage of postmodernity.
Secondly, by comparing Mobsby and Sanguin in this way, it is not my intention to say that they are approaching God, the church, and society in the same way.  As I noted in my introduction, there are major differences between their approaches.  Indeed, given Mobsby’s emphasis upon the Trinity, and Sanguin’s emphasis upon Spirit, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they had fairly negative reactions to each other.  (But, then again, hipsters and yuppies have always had fairly negative reactions to each other — even though they both perpetuate the system as it is.)
Now, by raising these criticisms, I am not saying that there is nothing good or admirable in the approaches taken by these authors.  Far from it, both should be commended for their focus upon valuing all of creation, engaging in acts of social justice, and welcoming those who are on the margins.  Sometimes I take these things so much for granted that I forget that a good many Christians need to hear about how important these things are, and how integral they are for Christian living.  But, yet again, I do get concerned that the forms of charity they represent are simply part of the means of ensuring that things continue to run as they are.  However, this need not be the case.  I reckon all of us began our charitable endeavours in fairly superficial ways — giving money at church, handing out bag lunches, buy a Christmas turkey for a poor family, etc. — so it’s just a question of following this trajectory and not just setting up camp at the place where we already are.  So, in this regard, let’s hope that the emergent folk continue to emerge and evolve!