an emerging politic

brian mcdaddy-o has been writing the most profound distillation of the obama vs mccain campaigns ive seen anywhere. seriously, the new york times op-ed should be grabbing these up. tony j has written about his support for barry, and even talked about going out canvassing in swing states. but so far, no-one that i know of has written about a certain paradigm (hint, hint) that i happen to see so prevalent in the both the language and operations of the big O's campaign. the same paradigm that is manifesting in the upset of the church - and elsewhere.

big johnny gets his funds in big chunks from rich friends ( > $5M? ) and special interests groups... that is people who lobby for a corporate cause. said corporate cause almost always involve a profit motive... and involves a re-leveling of the playing field in their interest. which, incidentally is usually not in my interest. or your interest. unless youre a major stockholder. which i'm not. but i digress. we also apparently *need* the super rich for us to muddle on with our lives.

half-black barry gets his funds in little chunks from not so rich folks ( < $250K ) and doesn't take money from special interests. which means he is not interested in re-leveling the playing field in the interest of a corporation and/or their stockholders. but prefers rather to harness himself to the grass roots support of the masses. but i digress again.

one system is build on hierarchy and preserving power at the top - doesn't have to listen to the masses - feels little responsibility to people as individuals - depends on popular opinion only as much as it keeps them in power - takes an *ends justifies the means* mentality to consensus building - and attempts to maintain control.

the emerging system by definition upsets that hierarchy by putting it on hits head - listens closely to the masses - feels responsibility to people as individuals - solicits the voice of popular support to speak out in their self-interests over the power systems that be - fundamentally wants to redefine the *means* as revealer of true heart - and doesn't want control, instead seeks to empowers the masses - with unanticipated & often remarkable results.

so anyway, i'm not a fan of power to the powerful. i'm one of those who's been waiting on the world to change. but i see that requisite change potential in the emerging politic of the candidate with all the fresh new hope filled ideas.

i am not emergent™

no sooner do i publish my nano-treatise lauding scot mcknight on his clear distinction between emergent™ and emerging, but emergent village™ graciously links to this review of "Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be".

ok obvious question; ok... no wait - obvious question before that one: why exactly should they be ... whatever it is they think they should be? you dudes think this is a demographic and you fit? dude, it's not a demographic - its a psychographic (credit: dee) and while the book has not yet been released, the interview bears this point out: that while we emergers are talking about new wine skins in order to save our own faith - these guys are quite comfortable walking another mile in the shoes of their forfathers. which is cool, except that...

during the phonecast they fail to recognize the emerging church is not any of these: trendy, edgy, cool or relevant (another ™). or liberal. or conservative. that's precisely the crap were critiquing too! well, that and pseudo-papal authority. (i'll slide solo scriptura and exegetical teaching in under pseudo-papal authority because while those sound good in theory - they play out differently in reality - kinda like the patriot act).

the agents of emergence actualize the priesthood of all believers (christianity largely pays lip service to this); and, we live out a kingdom of god that is upside down from mans' kingdom / corporate structure. and while you may not conceive that there could be a legitimate alternative. trust me homey, this a coup.

ok, and were prolly post-rational/modern too. but its another issue altogether that a flat earth doesn't sit squarely on the back of turtles. your argument is with reality-as-we-understand-it going-back-a-hundred-years now: which is, we each experience our own unique space-time thread - it is simply the nature of reality that the universe affords simultaneously different points of view (twins, one on a spaceship...). and on top of that, everything we experience is built on quantum uncertainty. and you want to be sure? ok. you'll want the blue pill...

personally i thought it was extremely thoughtful of moody press to underscore my point: if you don't understand the idea of emergence - you'll probably be sloppy with your terminology and critique the wrong thing.

i'm not emergent™ and you aren't either. yo tony jones isn't emergent™. if you've seen his facebook profile - for religion, where i have "christian", he has "emerging"... not "emergent". even emergent village™ describes themselves as "A Node in the Web of the Emerging Church" ... not the "emergent church". emergent™ has started no churches. when they do - then you can talk to an "emergent™ church", just like you would a "vineyard™ church".

if the book had been called "Why We're Not Emerging: By Two Guys Who Haven't"... we'd have a sound basis of discussion. but as far as i can determine, this whole exercise (and the book hasn't even been released yet!) is a gratuitous act of performance art by moody press just to underscore my point that scot mcknight is my fricken hero!! who knew they were so gracious? and so artsy! fabulousssss!

our reformation

what martin luther began to do in 1517, was to call into question the absolute truths of the religious establishment & its associated power structure. he did this by pointing out accepted teachings and practices that were not scriptural, and by pointing out that infallible teachings from some popes contradicted the infallible teachings from other (earlier) popes.

luther's basis for doing so was the priesthood of all believers.

this opened the door for a less centralized leadership structure and the establishment of independent churches. many of us in protestant circles consider this model a vast improvement over the previous model... local pastors and teachers now have authority to create local versions of truth... we are given essentially more data points on what is truth (vice one data point via the papacy)... and perhaps more flavors of truth to choose from... (in increasing order of discomfort for some).

~

today we find fiefdoms of power - run by elites, who went to school, have special knowledge, received credentials, and are now empowered to tell us what the scriptures mean. if you've been paying attention, that should sound familiar. what these leaders hold in common today, is a claim that absolute truth exists and we can know it... code for *they* know it. not, *you* or *i* can know it. that should sound familiar too.

in response, we invoke a familiar test... we'll call it Luther's test. we point out teachings that have come down that are not scriptural (e.g. the church phillip yancey grew up in), and we point out that teachings from fiefs (who believe we can know absolute truth) contradict other teachings from other fiefs (who also believe we can know absolute truth).

to wit:

take all the christian ministers or leaders who claim we can know absolute truth ... (take just those from north america and/or a specific denomination, this will still work) ... and ask them to write down the truths that we are sure that we know.

build a website like baptistaboslutetruth.com and have everyone enter their set of absolute truths. if what they believe is so, we could expect vast agreement with a striking level of detail - with only a few outliers... (we'll call them "false prophets" secure in the knowledge they will burn in hell).

this should be relatively easy to accomplish. even trivial - and would settle the matter. yet, it hasn't been done, and won't be done... because it can't be done... because agreement doesn't exist. rome tried this first.

traditionally, the response of the catholic church when errors or contradictions are pointed out, has been to say that the pope didn't have his infallibility hat on when he issued such and such a statement. today, senior pastors and religious leaders pull the same trick as the catholic church does when confronted by errors or contradictions amongst their teachings. all except for relinquishing either their hold on power or their assurance that absolute truth is knowable.

these folks insist the power structure and the senior / teaching pastor or other leader must continue ... e.g. "to keep us from error". an alternative understanding is these roles are important because these people like their day job... and anyone who claims that absolute truth isn't knowable threatens this system and basis of power. this is their linchpin... so don't expect them to understand this - or to surrender this point easily.

~

the key to unlocking an understanding in much of this - is to realize that when we are using the word truth in many of these arguments, what were really arguing are facts. facts like; 1) the earth is the center of the solar system, 2) black people are the 'sons of ham' and are inferior, 3) women should cover their head and not speak in church, 4) bringing more wine to parties where drinking has already been occurring is not christ-like, and 5) the whale that jonah lived in for three days was the dunkleosteus.

contrary to what rick warren says, the first reformation wasn't about beliefs - it was about wresting this same notion of absolute truth away from the religious powers that be. and todays reformation, our reformation, led by the emerging church... is not really a second reformation. it's really just a continuation of luther's work.

our basis for doing so is the priesthood of ALL believers.