DISQUS

2e...fair enough. But here is the thing: I am unable to offer a solid defense of "ECM" since we're all from different theological traditions. I shouldn't lump you in with all the "fundamentalist reform guys," but I suspect that folks that read MacArthur have more in common with each other than folks that read Brian McLaren (by the way, I haven't read much of McLaren and I have NEVER read any other book by someone tied to Emergent). Evangelical Reformed theology is much much more monolithic and has clearly identifiable leaders, whereas ECM is de-centralized and doesn't really have any identifiable set of spokespeople. What folks at Emergent are trying to do is broker conversation, not lead a movement (at least, that is what they are mostly about). This is why I can point out major flaws in mainstream evangelicalism, yet not ECM...ECM is more a set of movements. Nevertheless, I have offered critiques of Emergent Village, Spencer Burke, and the Emerging church in general before on this blog.

Bob. I certainly don't think being "incarnational" (in its truest and best sense) is a fad. However, the way many people use the term is faddish.

dlw, I'm not sure I'm following you...I'm also curious about what link you see between Hauerwas and "Judaizers."

I think what I mean by "embodying the gospel" IS simply living like Christ...though often times that isn't very simple. The reason I use words like "embodying the Gospel" instead of "living like Jesus" is that for some reason, when people hear the latter they instantly think "being really really nice to others." That sort of understanding of Christ's way of life misses the painful, gritty, and bloody parts of Christ's ministry.

I should have also mentioned "brick" in my top five--I think it came out in 2006. I don't know how I forgot it--it was perhaps the best new movie I saw this year.

It was freakin' hilarious, but not worthy of a top-spot.

Yeah...I've got a most commented section to the right anyhow.

Bummer...I'll have to pursue a different way of keeping spammers out.

Michael,

I always describe myself as an anabaptist--and I definitely theologize from that vantage point. The reason I brought up my own muttish background is to raise the point that the way we are rooted within traditions has changed--often more to do with consumer tastes than enculturation or thought-out theological reflection.

I agree that we should anchor ourself within a tradition, otherwise I think we are left with a grocery-store approach to theology. But we can never fully encase ourselves within one particular tradition, and we will always struggle with submitting to something outside of ourselves (at least within our culture).

And so, I usually say I am solidly Anabaptist. I've been profoundly influenced by the charismatic tradition, and to a generically baptistic evangelical tradition. But I think the parts I've enjoyed most thoroughly from my charismatic and evangelical background are those parts that touch upon Anabaptist themes. Though it could be argued I "chose" to be an Anabaptist in my mid 20s, I can see Anabaptistic thoughts and influences in the earliest days of my faith in Jesus Christ.

Michael,

Great idea! The only problem is that many of us are genuine mutts. I came into the faith as a non-denominational charismatic with lots of Pentecostal flavors. Two years ago I planted a church with the Baptist General Conference, but we are seeking (dual) affiliation with the Mennonite Church USA. What is my tradition?

...interesting choice, dlw :)

You're welcome...though I would have included a link anyways if I knew what it was... :)

Aw shucks, I didn't know you cared...the feed is now full text.

Ahh, Katheryn Tanner is definitely good. I don't know Kwame Bediako. I wish LaCugna were still alive...

Norm,

When I'm ready to make copies I'd be happy to send you some. I'd love to have beta testers.

Unfortunately, I'll be gone between Christmas and New Years--I have to got to Urbana for my role as an InterVarsity staffer. Urbana, for some reason, happens between Christmas and New Years every three years.

I agree for the most part. I am sympathetic to those who have wealth--since I am comparatively wealthy. My critique is definitely focused on those who have enjoyed wealth for a while and don't share, rather than on, for example, recent immigrants to come into resources suddenly and don't yet know how to find a center.

Perhaps this is semantics. I understand "wealth" as "accumulation of goods." In a world of scarcity, accumulating goods for personal enjoyment always runs the risk of being unjust. Furthermore, wealth moves beyond enjoying the good life to opulence. I don't have a problem with people making a lot of money and having good things. I have a problem with people making a lot of money and having good things and enjoying almost exclusively themselves. In a world crowded with people who lack the basics, I don't see how it is good for us all to enjoy God's creation when we should share.

I recommend you read "Wealth as Peril and Obligation" by Sondra Wheeler--she does a much better job than I do at getting at some of this stuff.

Wealth is never in-and-of itself bad or even dangerous. Wealth is a construct. In Jesus' time it was very difficult for someone to come by wealth without being complicit in injustice. And in light of the vast difference between the wealthy and the poor it was, I believe, sinful for the wealthy to enjoy their wealth while the poor suffered among them.

Plus wealth in itself always runs the risk of creating a false sense of self-sufficiency, especially in an individualistic society. By no means is "stuff" to blame. I'm just not convinced that those with lots and lots of stuff aren't guilty of loving their stuff, otherwise they'd share.

I agree with you read of the Old Testament, for the most part, but we live in a much more interconnected world than we did then. Wealth is much riskier, since we live in a world of rampant commodification--where we don't know where our goods came from or how they were produced. We consume things as though they came out of heaven, not realizing that much of our prosperity was produced by the exploited.

I'm not sure quoting verses will help here. Obviously, I'd quote Jesus talking about wealth. Anytime you read passages about storing up treasures on earth, etc., you seem to see it purely through the lens of justice. If I adopt your hermeneutic, I'm still not sure it allows for the accumulation of personal wealth...after all, we are instructed by John to share whatever extra we have with those who lack. If we followed his advice, it would still amount to a radical divestment of personal wealth. This is something I am not personally doing, because of personal weakness. I affirm, however, that all are called to live a life of simplicity. Wealth is only perilous if we hoard it, tis true. But having a really nice car is hoarding every bit as much as owning three coats in the presence of the one who has none.

One thought about being close to gnosticism. Sure. My views are definitely "more" gnostic than yours in this regard, but that isn't the same thing as embracing gnosticism.

Thanks Luke. I also deleted some of the links from sites I don't visit much, as well as sites that don't update frequently. I'm hoping to add to my "anabaptists and anarchists" section in the near future. :)

dlw,

Wealth in itself can corrupt. The temptations associated with wealth don't stem solely from the power differential that often comes along with wealth. Wealth is dangerous because it is almost impossible for the wealthy to resist the temptation to trust in their own resources other than God. Of course, the major injustices tied to wealth have much more to do with power: those with means securing their means at the expense of the poor, or at least living in comfort while the poor suffer. But the perils of wealth don't end there.

I can look into having some sort of recording device there, but since the cohort meeting is in a few days I'm not very confident that we'll have something set up for this week's meeting.

You may be right. But at least the word isn't used that much in Christian circles and isn't likely to be high-jacked by the Christian community at large. I think I may just keep missionthink and then launch JesusManifesto as a blog devoted to my new book(s) after it is/they are published.

Kevin, that room in particular isn't available, but we have one that is. I'd love to have you for a visit.

Thanks for the encouraging words, Mike.

dlw,

I think we have some agreement on this--I am simply more restrained in how much involvement we should have within the American governmental system.

Submission doesn't necessarily accept unequal decision making--if by "accept" you mean condone. Jesus didn't accept injustice on the cross, he gave himself to it in a way that defeated it. That is what I am suggesting we do--not to condone injustice (which the State is based upon) but to suffer as we nonviolently embody the sort of life we would have all live--even if that embodiment is illegal.

I see so much of political involvement these days a "necessary evil." While we are all enmeshed within the system, much to my dismay, we must resist complicity whenever we can. What it comes down to for me is this: I don't want to endorse or encourage any act of intentional complicity with a necessary evil.

dlw, I just simply disagree with what you are saying. I can't see how to integrate the subversive politics of Jesus with full participation within democracy. I don't think we should completely avoid any and all participation, but it should be profoundly restrained. Submission by no means requires participation--at least not in the conventional sense. Jesus submitted to the authorities on the cross, but that isn't "participation" in the way most people use it.

There is indeed a strong connection between political participation and nonviolence...at least at the national level. I don't advocate full non-participation.