Emerging Church & Nationalism
As I recently began to read "Emerging Churches" by Eddie Gibbs & Ryan K. Bolger (a book Andrew Jones calls "the best book on the emerging church"), I noted that, like most of the conversation, study, etc. on the emerging church, the emphasis was largely on the American (or British) context. While there is a great deal still to glean from these materials, I am continually realizing how much of the content (or perhaps the emphasis) does not always translate well to the Canadian context. This got me thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know).
One key difference between Canada & the United States that, I believe, deeply informs the emphasis of the emerging church is our ideas about national pride. Typical stereotypes would say that Americans are highly patriotic, while Canadians are not. I believe this is an inadequate view of things. In fact, what often passes for patriotism in the US is, in fact, nationalism. Here is how I am (roughly) defining the two:
Patriotism: an aspect of worldview that embraces and celebrates positive attitudes towards ones nation, its culture, its members, its interests, etc.
Nationalism: an over-arching value of national/cultural superiority that defines and/or informs the rest of ones worldview.
Nationalism: an over-arching value of national/cultural superiority that defines and/or informs the rest of ones worldview.
Historically, finding nationalism wrapped up in shallow religious clothing is a common trend to manipulate people towards specific political ends. Left to long unchallenged, it lays the seeds for religious fundamentalism as well. In the founding of the United State, the leaders of the Revolution (George Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) were rationalists, deeply informed by the writings of John Locke, men who conceived of the events in secular terms, whose religious view of the world was deist. And yet, the vast majority of the Americans deeply Christian in their view, largely Calvinist- at complete odds with their elitist political leaders. How then could such a population be effectively mobilized by under a flag of such opposite ideologies?
As conflict with Britain escalated, political and religious leaders developed a common language to articulate their common angst. Soon, the political vision for a new nation was being preached in churches as Jesus Kingdom established at last. The King was painted as the great enemy, even the Antichrist. Without the imagery, the language and the emotion behind Christian eschatology, it is doubtful that people would have made the break with the "motherland". Even later, with independence won and political leader dropping their lip service commitment to religion, the seeds had been planted. The new American independence continued to be sacralized, shaping the development of American Christianity forever.
Because of this heritage, there is a dangerous tendency in much of current American Christian culture that seems to embrace their socio-political and economic systems as natural and essential expressions of "Biblical" faith. The fact is, the founding of America was the establishment of one of the first truly modern states (built on seriously modernist, Enlightenment ideologies and documents, such as Declaration of Independence), therefore, with this being intrinsic in its religious development, there is often an uncritical embrace of modernity within the church.
Understanding this shed a lot of light on the emerging conversation. For example, Southern Baptist scholar, John Hammett, recently cautioned the emerging church movement not to be too deeply shaped by a culture that has rejected the Gospel. Hammett critiqued the movement for placing more emphasis on postmodern cultural concerns than being driven by Scripture. He also stated that many churches are reaching people by simply teaching the Scripture and sharing the Gospel. Absolutely fair concerns.
However, what this reveals is a oft failure to see how the so called "traditional" Evangelical church has also uncritically (even unwittingly) embraced culture (modernity & nationalism), being deeply shaped by values that, while not necessarily rejecting the Gospel, too often rewrote it in its own image. In claiming that they simply teach Scripture and share the Gospel unhindered by very real socio-historical and cultural roots (of which the above is but one example) it becomes clear why they see the emerging church as so flawed and dangerous, while failing to see this reality in their own situation.
Additionally, while Canada is by no means free of its own problems, the lack of this historical influence (revealed in current culture) explains, in part, why the emerging conversation has not been met with such heated debate in the church. In fact, many Canadian Christians are deeply troubled (and often perplexed) at how seemingly natural American Evangelicals embrace political rhetoric and agendas using (what to Canadians seem like) shallow spiritualize justifications. Even within my own missions organization, I have heard speakers at our US centres explicitly teach that American democracy and free market economy are THE Biblical models given to us by God- something I find deeply troubling.
I believe that much of the conflict between the "traditional" Evangelical and emerging churches in America will not be able to be properly discussed before the history and the development of current religious & political systems are examined, critiqued and responded to. I believe that Canada offers the US genuine and even essential wisdom in this process (just as the US offers Canada wisdom in other respects). This will only happen through intentional dialogue and mutual respect, which I believe is truly possible. I look forward to engaging is such an exchange.
For further exploration of these issues, I would recommend "The Battle For God" by Karen Armstrong.
For those who believe that I am a Canadian unfairly critiquing the US, it is important to remember that I am an American born dual citizen. Additionally, my previous posts, "Honouring the American People" and "A Study In Contrast", are important reminders of the deep respect I have for the American people and church.
As conflict with Britain escalated, political and religious leaders developed a common language to articulate their common angst. Soon, the political vision for a new nation was being preached in churches as Jesus Kingdom established at last. The King was painted as the great enemy, even the Antichrist. Without the imagery, the language and the emotion behind Christian eschatology, it is doubtful that people would have made the break with the "motherland". Even later, with independence won and political leader dropping their lip service commitment to religion, the seeds had been planted. The new American independence continued to be sacralized, shaping the development of American Christianity forever.
Because of this heritage, there is a dangerous tendency in much of current American Christian culture that seems to embrace their socio-political and economic systems as natural and essential expressions of "Biblical" faith. The fact is, the founding of America was the establishment of one of the first truly modern states (built on seriously modernist, Enlightenment ideologies and documents, such as Declaration of Independence), therefore, with this being intrinsic in its religious development, there is often an uncritical embrace of modernity within the church.
Understanding this shed a lot of light on the emerging conversation. For example, Southern Baptist scholar, John Hammett, recently cautioned the emerging church movement not to be too deeply shaped by a culture that has rejected the Gospel. Hammett critiqued the movement for placing more emphasis on postmodern cultural concerns than being driven by Scripture. He also stated that many churches are reaching people by simply teaching the Scripture and sharing the Gospel. Absolutely fair concerns.
However, what this reveals is a oft failure to see how the so called "traditional" Evangelical church has also uncritically (even unwittingly) embraced culture (modernity & nationalism), being deeply shaped by values that, while not necessarily rejecting the Gospel, too often rewrote it in its own image. In claiming that they simply teach Scripture and share the Gospel unhindered by very real socio-historical and cultural roots (of which the above is but one example) it becomes clear why they see the emerging church as so flawed and dangerous, while failing to see this reality in their own situation.
Additionally, while Canada is by no means free of its own problems, the lack of this historical influence (revealed in current culture) explains, in part, why the emerging conversation has not been met with such heated debate in the church. In fact, many Canadian Christians are deeply troubled (and often perplexed) at how seemingly natural American Evangelicals embrace political rhetoric and agendas using (what to Canadians seem like) shallow spiritualize justifications. Even within my own missions organization, I have heard speakers at our US centres explicitly teach that American democracy and free market economy are THE Biblical models given to us by God- something I find deeply troubling.
I believe that much of the conflict between the "traditional" Evangelical and emerging churches in America will not be able to be properly discussed before the history and the development of current religious & political systems are examined, critiqued and responded to. I believe that Canada offers the US genuine and even essential wisdom in this process (just as the US offers Canada wisdom in other respects). This will only happen through intentional dialogue and mutual respect, which I believe is truly possible. I look forward to engaging is such an exchange.
For further exploration of these issues, I would recommend "The Battle For God" by Karen Armstrong.
For those who believe that I am a Canadian unfairly critiquing the US, it is important to remember that I am an American born dual citizen. Additionally, my previous posts, "Honouring the American People" and "A Study In Contrast", are important reminders of the deep respect I have for the American people and church.
Good post, good thoughts. (Comment this)
I would argue that true patriotism is a healthy thing and what is so often called patriotism is, in fact, not. I love Canada too, though we have our own fair share of flaws, if not in this department, in others. Michael Moore did his best to make Canadian "slums" look idealic, but living in an inner city community, it just isn't the whole truth.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Pre-script: I don't think you're insulting Americans. I just want to give my personal experience (pardon if I repeat anything you've said previously)
Actually the Canadians I know are far more nationalistic than Americans in the sense that they feel an intense need to compare themselves with the US. Rarely do I hear 'why Canadians are better' fleshed out with sociology. Indeed, the only actual study I've ever seen published indicated that Canadians are almost identical to US citizens in general personality distribution (a study that came from a Canadian University, for what that's worth). Rather, there seems to be a tacit assumption that Canadians are born with a DNA slightly superior in most ways to that of their southern neighbors. More charitable, giving, and general laissez-faire.
What's more, they tend to make Straw Men to attack out of the worst US society has to offer. For example, my friends at the seminary are more than willing to go on tirades about how Canada has no ghettos similar to that we see in the Bronx, but when I take them back home I can't remember a Canadian friend walking away from a Southern Bar-B-Que talking smack about the US or its people... they just wait until we're back to a lesser part of the country. The US is a big place and has a massive massive massive variety of people and attitudes.
In fact, the vitriol I get from Canadians is relatively annoying. Part of the problem is comparing two nations that have absolutely different positions on the world stage, even if they share relatively common geography. There is an automatic assumption that because Canadians vote this way or that, or don't have this or that sentiment expressed as loudly, that they're more peace loving, fair, and generous. On a personal level I've rarely seen this born out.
Rather, I think the fundamental difference is a nation that has been looked to as the hallmark of Western democracy and Capitalism-in-the-face-of-communism for four generations now as opposed to a neighbor that is relatively small, though still comely in stature. Let's face it, when someone wants to make their general hate of the western world known, they don't go blow up the local Canadian embassy.
I'm not meaning to insult Canada by the way. It's a great place, not worse than the US. I'm just trying to say that I don't think the comparison is a fair one. It seems to me apples and oranges. But, if I had to pick, I'd say the Canadians I know are by far more eager to draw in a discussion about who's nation superior.
All of that said, could I interject one religious point?
The idea of a "Traditional Evangelical" is a contradiction in terms from an Orthodox perspective. They're nothing BUT an Americanized version of Christianity derived from Western European roots. How much more 'the culture' can you get? (Comment this)
My comments are as earth-shatteringly insightful as usual, I know. It's a gift. :P (Comment this)
I am an American citizen who believes that as American Christians we need to think more globally. After all, God's kingdom embraces all.
In my view the United States thinks too much in terms of her own national interest and not in terms of the good of all. I know there are complexities here. But I find much of the "patriotism" I hear from Christians incongruous with God's vision of the kingdom for us in Jesus and in Scripture. It seems to come with something of the idea that "since we as a nation are so blessed, then we must be largely right. And, after all, we were founded as a Christian nation." (as you point out so well, problematical at best). And thus we can be the moral voice and moral enforcer for the rest of the world. But certainly in terms of our national interest.
I know what I just said is not entirely fair, however I am- again- especially concerned with how America is so sanctified in the eyes of so many evangelicals here- at least the political right wing of America. This is increasingly troubling to me in view of the vision of God's kingdom in Jesus and in Scripture. (Comment this)
Thanks for stopping by and sharing. In fact, you mention some very valid concerns about Canada (though some, inevitable false assumptions). However, I don't think that these criticisms, no matter how true they might be, undermine the core criticism I present in this article. I was very careful to use only American source material in my research.
I also affirm your statement that the US has a wide variety of people and positions (this is true of Canada too, I might add. In fact, if this were not the case, then the emerging church conversation may never be happening there. However, there is a very powerful and loud core demograph- namely the American Evangelical- that is still deeply informed by the history that I presented here. Not all, of course, but a significant group.
The irony of the "superiority" you experience with many Canadians is in fact a troubling inferiority complex coming from a young nation seeking identity in the shadow of a super-power.
While I accept that the US is a significant force, both historically and currently- or as you state it "the hallmark of Western democracy and capitalism-in-the-face-of-communism"- but I would caution you that this alone does not make the US the natural target of terorism. This attitude can too often cater to avoiding the issues of questionable foriegn policy, influence of the corporate powers on political arena, etc.
I think one of your core misunderstanding is that this post was in any way a comparison. Rather, it was an examination as to why certain experiences in the emerging conversation were different within different nation contexts.
As to your final point, you will note that I used the word "traditional" both in quotes and using a small "t", thus attempting to differentiate from other meaning of the word. I stand by my use of the expression "tradtional" Evangelical church, as there is an emerging expression of Evangelicalism.
Again, I appreciate your input. Thanks for weighing in.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
As usual, your wisdom bring the light of Christ into the darkness! Thanks for stopping by!
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Thanks for your honest reply. American gets picked on more than other nations because of its power and position, which isn't entirely fair. The Western world as a whole has a great deal to answer for in its abuse of Christianity for political and economic gains. This is but one example.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
But the Asian Jesus makes me think of a Ninja movie in which the great master has just met his match. (Comment this)
Yeah, I was very unhappy with the Asian image, but I was hard pressed for time and the rest were not clearly Asian. I, too, love the First Nations (Native American) icon.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
I didn't comment earlier because, as usual, you've covered the topic here with such depth and so completely there wasn't much I thought I could add. Like I said before, your differentiation of patriotism and nationalism in this context helps me to quantify a phenomenon that's (for me) difficult to refute with clarity.
Like you I'm "deeply troubled" by much of my country's egocentric/nationalistic approach to the Christian faith. Your statement, "As conflict with Britain escalated, political and religious leaders developed a common language to articulate their common angst," is at the heart of what I see is still occurring today.
Christians in the U.S. are so spoiled. So pampered. Many evangelicals seem to take our priviledged position for granted, yet, at the same time search for some kind of angst to draw us together and from which to gain strength. It doesn't take a very long look at the NT to begin to consider that an unchallenged faith might be hard pressed to be a biblical faith. I wonder how much of the nationalistic Christianity we see here is a vague, subconscious attempt to validate an unchallenged faith. (Comment this)
The question is this: Is understanding the historical influences of this phenomenon enough to change peoples minds? I am doubtful on this. So what can be done?
Perhaps our primary (though not exclusive) emphasis should be on articulating and incarnating a more authentic Church within our culture, not getting (too) sidetracked by our critics.
I know that these issues are very personal for you, so I don't want to sound glib in that suggestion. Any insights as to what works and what doesn't?
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
I don't want to make a difficult question impossible, but I am curious. Being that things are as you describe them (ie. if nationalism was removed, little would be left), do you still feel part of an authentic faith community at all? I assume you do, as you continue in that context (which I deeply respect, as I am not sure I could). Any insights?
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Often I don't, in fact, feel like part of an "authentic faith community" as you put it, in the sense that I don't experience community in the way I crave. I feel like the odd man out. This doesn't mean I think their faith is insincere, but that mine doesn't fit so much with theirs. What I've been trying to sort through is how to find the necessary and godly balance between being part of a community for my own needs and serving where God has put me.
Seven years ago we more or less accidentally landed at our current church, and, needing to heal from some very deep wounds from our previous church, were inclined to stay a while. It was a quiet place, and we needed quiet. It wasn't long before we knew God had called us there. There was a mystical sense of rightness that couldn't be denied. :-) (Nor explained, in that it didn't make much sense on the surface.)
A year and a half ago I was deeply hurting from the sense of not belonging. It was just then that the pastor at the time asked me and my husband to lead music new worship service. That pastor and his family are our good friends and most of what I'd call our community of faith. He had a vision of spiritual growth and change fot the congregation, and we were encouraged. If it had not been for them, we'd have been long gone.
We continue in that role, and various others at the church. Or good friends were dealt a viscious hand by the powers that be in the united methodist church- and were forced to move last summer. Our church tells us they need us in the role as worship music leaders. Of course others could fill the position, but we were willing and present...
My husband doesn't experience the lack of community as deeply as I. My daughter loves her church. Most of all, we have no sense of being led elsewhere, so here we are. It doesn't sound very inspiring, or exciting, but that's what it is. I suppose we'll continue to serve where we are until it's clear God has something else in mind. For now, my primary community of faith is here on the internet and where I find my sense of belonging.
(Comment this)
Cindy,
Strange... I posted a reply right after you commented, but it seems to have vanished. Anyway, let me try to recapture...
At the very least, I am glad this is a safe place for you to be as undiplomatic as needed, though you played your cards fairly safely. If you want to drop all pretense, feel free to email me. Your call.
The balance between what a church an do for us and what we can do for it is a tough one, though I sometimes think that misses the point altogether. A true community is one where you do NOT need to spend as much energy pursuing your own needs, because you KNOW that the community has your back. If this does not exsist, I question if it is true community. So the question is, can a "church" really be the Church if there is no genuine community? No easy answer there.
This strikes at the heart of the issue for me, because I believe that the very heart of the Gospel is community- inter-relational communion- as is modelled in the Triune God in whose image we are created. We die to Self to be resurrected into One Body. Jesus said that the core of faith is this:
-God is One. This does not reduce the Trinity, but demonstrates that the degree of the relational unity in the Godhead is so strong that Oneness is a reflection of its power.
-Love God. To love God is to love like God, thus to love Him in the pursuit of that glorious relational oneness.
-Love your neighbour as yourself. Again, in order to truly love God, we must love our neighbour- all those whose lives our lives cross- with this same commitment to relational harmony. Additionally, in order to truly love your neighbour, you need to love yourself. Why? Because God loves you, as a microcosm of His image.
So, all that to say, I believe that there is a big difference between being selfish or self-serving in our relationship a local church and finding a place where you are included, celebrated and supported in such a way that your service truly stems out of your identity- something I believe only happens in fullness with true community.
It sounds like you had that community in microcosmic forms withe friends who were eventually sent packing. Without it, I can imagine the sense of disconnect.
Like yourself, I have found a faith community online that is very nurturing. My wife loves our home church, and I love the people and heart there, though it isn't my vision of what church is meant to be. So, I live with a sense of anticipation for the future. However, I wonder if it will happen naturally, in time, or if I will have embrace it.
At any rate, I am not sure that was very pastoral. Again, my email is always open, as well as our home, if you ever head north.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Anyway I must say I found it troubling. Great post Jamie. (Comment this)
As you say, in Canada things are not perfect. Perhaps the the US gets more attention because of the size and resulting impact of their power on the global stage. However, I would love to do a study on the Canadian dynamics.
Having been born in the US, I wrote my post out of a deep sense of urgency, not critique. The good aspects of the American foundations are truly worth engaging and redeeming. Thanks for stopping by.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)