Lately, as I’ve been proposing that we “non-believers” be seen as an integral part of the emergent/emergence movement, I’ve wondered what the “emergent ethos” consists of. What are the common traits?
I’m sure there will be some disagreement as to what these common traits are. Part of the beauty of the movement is its diversity. But, I hope that my observations are not too far off from the general feel of things.
One of the first distinctions that I think are important for many – if not most – among the emergent is the distinction between faith and belief. Maybe this isn’t true about all of church history, but at least more recently, many have seen propositional statements about God, Jesus, the Bible, etc. as inherently important to what it means to be a Christian. Of course, we all hold beliefs, opinions, ideas on all kinds of things. But, in the emergent ethos, belief is not primary. Beliefs come and go. What is primary is a personal commitment, an allegiance, a “faithfulness” or a “pledge.”
I think the first person I heard talk about a distinction between faith and belief was Harvey Cox, in his book The Future of Faith. In that book, Cox says the following:
Several years ago an acquaintance of mine described himself to me in a casual conversation as “a practicing Christian, not always a believing one.” His remark puzzled me, but it also began to clarify some of the enigmas that had swirled within both my personal faith and my thinking about religion and theology. His remark suggested that the belief/nonbelief axis is a misleading way of describing Christianity. It misses the whole point of not only Christianity, but other religions as well.
From that initial exposure to the distinction, I came across similar distinctions made by John Caputo, Pete Rollins, Paul Tillich and even Simon Critchley.
It seems to me that the mere inclusion of thinkers like Caputo and Rollins within the larger emergent movement requires that this distinction be held up as normative (since both of them would be considered atheists regarding any orthodox understanding of “God”).
I think I need to spend some more time working this out. But, my initial proposal is that this distinction has created a gap where those of us who can no longer “believe” can still belong to the movement. And, that small groups of people who share this lack of intellectual belief can and should commit to one another in the Way of the Christ (apart from “the church”).
What do you think? Should we non-believers be numbered among the emergent? Should we even be welcomed in to emergent events to speak from our perspective about what it means to fully embrace life without orthodox beliefs? I would guess that some within the movement and many coming from a similar atheist/agnostic/humanist perspective think that this proposal is ridiculous – and futile.
Should we instead distance ourselves from emergent and start our own “religion for atheists”, a separate “church for skeptics”? I applaud those efforts, but, honestly, I just don’t see that getting much traction. From my (limited) experience, many of these groups seem to be founded upon a negative critique, rather than a positive vision. If that is the case, I think it is doomed to fail.
I think emergent has a great opportunity to welcome us in. To embrace us, despite our doubts and our questions. To encourage the critical thinking necessary for a sustained movement. To listen to us. To learn from us. And, to partner with us in creating a better world for ourselves and future generations.
As I see it, “E/emergence” as a general cultural expression is an open field rather than a gated community. Anyone can picnic on the grounds. I frequently describe myself as an “emergent faith” Christian, but as you know I don’t identify with the specific “Emergence Christianity” religious movement (because my “emergence” and my “Christianity” are completely unconventional). Do I desire to be included within the movement? No.
You asked, “Should non-believers be numbered among the emergent?” My issue is with the “among” part of your question. To be honest, why does it matter if you’re included within the fold of this movement? You may be a “non-believer” and an atheist, but I’ve had a number of discussions with you and have read a sampling of your writings, and I can tell you that the nature of your inquiries demonstrates a “faith-ness” that is emergent in its very character. You speak the “emergent” language, so why does it matter that you be a citizen or resident within the boundaries of “Emergence Christianity?” That movement is not the measure of the validity of progressiveness.
I don’t think your proposal for inclusion is ridiculous or futile. I just think it’s irrelevant. You’re already an emergent voice, as many of us are. Keep to the trajectory you’re currently on with the singular voice you currently have.
Thanks, R. Jay. Your comments are always helpful and insightful.
To an extent, I completely agree. It doesn’t matter if “people like me” are “allowed” to be included. Like you said, we already are.
But, I do think it could be a potentially interesting conversation, to focus some attention on encouraging the more skeptical among us to listen to these voices, and to join the conversation. I personally know a lot of “ex-church” people who definitely feel a loss of community, but don’t feel that ANY group is “safe” for them anymore. I think emergent could take up this mantle.
For quite a long time many of us “ex-church” folks were described as exiles. To a degree, that’s quite true. We were. Over time, though, my perspective has changed. That is because the landscape has changed. A tectonic shift happened, moving the “land of exile” to the center. You see, it is not we exiles who should be included with Emergents, who are now in the outland. It is Emergents who would do well to lean their ears in our direction.
As for feeling the loss of community, you’re right. I just don’t think Emergence Christianity offers the community that is needed. It lacks the universal ethos that I believe is necessary to sustain the kind of formative and secure community we former exiles (and others) require and deserve.
I see where you’re going with this, and I think I agree.
My hope for this may be completely misguided. I’m okay with that. I’m not going to expend enormous energy, or lose any part of my self in the process. But, I think it is possible that this could be.
I have definitely not had the same experiences that you have. Maybe after me and others have forced our way in, we will realize that we need to do something else. At this point, I don’t know. But, I’m at least willing to put myself out there and try.
Thanks again for your comments.
Pingback: welcoming the skeptic? | words with pictures
My faith would not be what it is without unbelievers. Among believers the most ridiculous ideas get accepted without challenge and the most inadequate explanations are good enough. But try putting those ideas and explanations before an unbeliever and they won’t let you get away with it. When faced with the challenges presented by unbelievers, we ought to respond by digging deeper, shifting and allowing ourselves to change. If those of us who believe really believe in God, then we ought to really believe that in God there are answers. Perhaps we haven’t found them all or understood them adequately, but they are still there. And being open to challenges can push us to discover more and more of God’s truth. In fact, I’ve come to see unbelief as a sort of ministry itself. Perhaps living a life without belief is a sacrifice some people are called to make in order to keep the rest of us moving.
I wish I could “like” comments on my blog! Thanks again.