Emergent & Network of Spiritual Progressives
January 7, 2006
On Wednesday, January 11th, I’ll be heading down to DC to meet with a small group of people, called together by Rabbi Michael Lerner, to represent Emergent. Rabbi Lerner contacted Emergent to see if we would be interested in co-sponsoring May’s Spiritual Activism Conference or interested in promoting it to people involved with Emergent. As Tony Jones mentioned in his article, The State of Emergent 2006, "We’ll meet with people and groups who want to meet with us." The Network of Spiritual Progressives (whose co-chairs are Rabbi Lerner, Cornel West and Sister Joan Chittister) wants to meet with Emergent, and I’m headed down to hear what they’re hoping for the conference and to see if this is something that Emergent would be interested in learning more about.
Emergent has made no decisions about this conference or group at this point, and I am simply going down on a "fact-finding mission" for Tony, as he is tied up with another meeting. Rabbi Lerner describes his new book, The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right, as basically a sequel to Jim Wallis’ book God’s Politics; Lerner is one of the more progressive Jewish voices in the public realm. It looks as if progressive/more-left movements are trying to become more and more vocal recently, which is probably a way to try and let the general public know that the Religious Right does NOT speak for Christianity in America. Other organizations that are putting on similar events are CrossLeft and CrossWalk, Progressive Jewish Alliance and the Progressive Christian Blogger Network (just to mention a few).
At any rate, before I head down next Wednesday I am interested in hearing what you "emergent folk" out there think about the tenets of the Network of Spiritual Progressives (here) and what you think about the current structure and content of the May Conference (here).
What do you think Emergent could benefit from co-sponsoring a conference like this? Can you see any possible downsides to joining up with a group like this? Thanks for taking the time to respond to some of these questions.
Technorati Tags: Network of Spiritual Progressives, Emergent, Interfaith Dialogue, Progressive Spirituality
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
January 7th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Last month I made some friends at South Baptist Theological Seminary. This month, you’re meeting with religious progressives. I think that at the heart of the emerging church movement is open dialogue. I imagine there are people out there who think we shouldn’t meet with conservatives, and others who think we shouldn’t meet with liberals. I think that meeting with both says something about who we think God is and where we think God might be working. I hope that people will find this a hope-filled stance, and that they’ll leave comments giving you some direction.
I do, however, look forward to the day that you refer to Emergent as “we” instead of “they.”
:-)
January 7th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Wonderful blog you have here, I invite you to visit my blog. :)
~ Matt
Empathy
http://e-m-p-a-t-h-y.blogspot.com
January 7th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
i completely agree with tony. it is all about open communication and consistent dialogue. the idea of conservatives and liberals and missionals and blue-bloods, etc is a bit archaic, i think. as my wife and i traveled the country this past year (www.thewaveusa.com) we realized that the true heart of God was for all people and that He opens up to all people in very different ways. we will emerge from nothing if we don’t first seek to find His voice everywhere.
good luck with the meetings.
January 8th, 2006 at 12:51 am
So, now you’re meeting with Jews? I thought you were on our side.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
One of the hopes of the spiritual life is that Divine engagement would result in lives lived so as to make the world a more beautiful place; simply put, the contemplative life results in social action. When spirituality and social action are combined with reciprocal relational engagement with the perceived “other” the possibility of a new social order is that much closer. In my mind there is little doubt that the emergent movement would benefit from seeing emergent influencers engage in a gathering such as this. Whether emergent as an organization should help sponsor such an event is another question which I don’t have enough information to comment on.
The three-primary stated tenets of the upcoming Spiritual Activism Conference as listed on their site are:
1 Changing the Bottom Line in America.
2 Challenging the misuse of religion, God and spirit by the Religious Right.
3 Challenging the many anti-religious and anti-spiritual assumptions and behaviors that have increasingly become part of the liberal culture.
These tenets are aggressive and challenging, and I find myself hoping along similar lines. The first tenet is so huge, that I have a difficult time envisioning how it might be accomplished, and at the same time it is vital; the role of the prophet - in part - is to challenge the mores of the society and challenge the people to more.
Thanks for attending.
Peace, dwight
January 8th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Adam: I don’t understand this phrase, “Rabbi Lerner describes himself as the “Jim Wallis of the Left” “. Jim Wallis IS on the Left. Was that a typo and if so what do you mean. I’m sure you don’t mean that Jim Wallis isn’t on the Left.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I think it’s important that Emergent is exploring the possibility of conversation with many different kinds of groups and both essential and positive that Emergent consider - and hopefully benefit from - the considerable diversity witihin as well as between religious traditions.
(I’m speaking for myself here, not as the Research Director for S3K, which with Emergent is holding a conversation among the paradigm-shifting spiritual leaders in our respective communities.)
January 8th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Dignan, Well, I wouldn’t say that Wallis is on the left. Wallis, as well as Emergent are interested in the third way - a way that will hopefully move us away from the polarities of right and left, conservative and liberal. I’m not sure how to do it. But…my hunch is that it’s not going to come from the left’s attempt at a full-scale attack against the religous right.
I think that it is certainly necessary for the American public (and the world) to see that the Religious Right does NOT speak for the majority of Christians in the world, and that is NOT the kind of kingdom work that Jesus was about.
But, I don’t know about simply enhancing and continuing on the with polarities that tend to divide.
What to do though? Not quite sure on that one.
January 8th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
I think Michael Lerner, Tikkun, and the Network of Spiritual Progressives do important and excellent work, and I don’t see how any of the network’s tenets should be controversial for Christians, save for those who identify Christianity as being exclusively what memebrs of the Religious Right advocate. My respect for Emergent would go up substantially if Emergent partnered with the network for the spring conversation.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Adam: I can’t figure out why you would say that Wallis isn’t politically on the Left. By almost all standards he is. And I am fine with the fact that he is. But to say that he isn’t seems to deny reality. Other than being pro-life, almost every single political stance that Wallis has taken is a left-wing position.
Please hear me correctly. I am not trying to denigrate Wallis by saying this. While I am politically conservative, I do not think that the term liberal or left should be used as a multi-purpose slur as it often is by conservatives and evangelicals.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
You are misinformed about Lerner being one of the more left voices in the Jewish community.
One would be hard pressed to find a single Jew who is in favor of the war in Iraq or who voted for Bush. Jews are almost all Democrats and thats why the attacks from the Christian left were so shocking and painful.
If this man can build bridges with people like Presbytarians then he must be a magician.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
I didn’t know if I should comment on this, but I guess I may as well. The comment is directed to Dignan’s that Wallis is politically on the left. As Adam states and as found in God’s Politics, Wallis desires a third political stance not tied to parties. In that manner one is able to formulate policies that are consistant rather than polarized. For example, instead of voting on party lines in which the conservatives are pro-life for abortion and pro-death penalty for extreme cases OR voting on democratic party lines in which abortion is pro-choice and anti-death penalty, the third way would be to vote across party lines to choose that which supports the right to life in all cases. Anyway, that’s my understanding of Wallis.
January 9th, 2006 at 12:24 am
Mary: I am not referring at all the Wallis’ connection to any party. I recognize his desire to transcend party lines. But this doesn’t change the fact that he overwhelmingly supports liberal causes.
January 9th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Adam,
I think that this group might prove to be a helpful dialogue partner for many of us within the emergent conversation. I personally agree with most of what the spiritual progressives are advocating. I think we need to move beyond the “they aren’t Xian so we shouldn’t talk to them” position vied for by many in Christian culture in general and evangelical culture in particular.
Additionally, as a moderate Baptist I support separation of church and state. This leads me to a Yoderian/Hauerwasian position that terrifies many in the “Religious Right” camp. Only if religion and government are separate can religious entities speak prophetically against government. Oh, and don’t listen to what all of the bitchers are saying because this happens to be a Jewish gathering. Remember, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Enjoy the meeting on Wednesday!
January 9th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
I agree with Tony and Matt said and loved what dight had to say about the spiritual life.
Here is my take on your two questions, as a representative from the Emergent (dis- or ad-) vantage-point.
1. tenants:
I think that all three are perfect examples of habits that I as an emergent pastor would benifit from. They are a great example of the Emergent order’s Commitment to God’s World . I do think that “embodiments of the sacred” would not be the theological stance of all the emergent voices (not necessarily myself) and as such would make this much more of an inter-religious venture than a “ministry partner” venture if we have such demarcation. But, as I have found the separating of the two often quite problematic, I think your best representation of emergent might be to offer a survey of the traditions represented.
So, to represent the liberal-reformed voice I would add that we are as likely as our foreparents to generate 150 more years of havoc on the earth, some that we do not yet know of. I’m down with the embodiment of the sacred stuff but I see through a glass dimly too. And so a realism that is self-critical is helpful. This is why reforming folks keep going back to a recognition of the activity of God’s gracious acts in Jesus and continuous acts of the Spirit of Jesus given to the gathered community and hovering over all creation’s unfoldings. A dream of God’s that is bigger than us, and about us, including our participation and need.
Interestingly enough, i think this pragmatic spirit is what makes a “third way” talkable, it presses past the ideologues toward the facts on the ground.
2. current structure and content:
Very informative and educational. I think, for Tikkun’s goals in effecting policy and reshaping the political landscape of the US, they are on target. I might try to make the trek from ATL, especially if Emergent has a voice there. For the work of community development I do, much of this will be crucial learning.
For Emergent’s participation in the event, i would see this as a great compliment to P.A.P.A. Fest (geared more towards how-tos of living out Tikkun’s goals). I think you need some of Emergent’s more politically engaged folks such as Will Samson and Rick Bennett to attend the May Conference and blog about it so that Tikkun gets into the Emergent purview as a more realtional-organic-personality verses yet another “third way” ideological program to link to your blog.
This is all to say, “go,” “be yourself,” “good luck explaining how a generative friendship feels about any one thing,” and, for my part, “at least give a shout out for the protestant reformed pragmatists in the emergent conversation.”
January 9th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Jake-
I agree with your statement, “This leads me to a Yoderian/Hauerwasian position that terrifies many in the “Religious Right” camp.” However, remember that those in the Religious Right are not the only ones terrified by that position. There are those of us who would consider ourselves Christian realists and are on the extreme opposite side of Religious Right who are terrified by the position of Hauerwas as well, albeit for very dissimilar reasons than the Religious Right-ers.
January 9th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
“Additionally, as a moderate Baptist I support separation of church and state. This leads me to a Yoderian/Hauerwasian position that terrifies many in the “Religious Right” camp.”
A common and silly strawman you hear all too often from the Left. Apparently because you really do believe it, or maybe just in order to convince third parties. I don’t know.
But the “Religious Right” isn’t against separation of church and state. Newsflash! Shocker! I can tell you this as a member of the “Religious Right.” We are against the attempts by the secular Left to de-christianize and secularize SOCIETY at large. I’m assuming you can distinguish between the two? Government vs society? You see, they have an agenda, and so do we. It’s a free country. But that separation of church/state thingy is bunk.
You can keep mischaracterizing your opponent, but if you really do believe that bunk you aren’t doing yourself any favors. You can’t beat an opponent you don’t really understand. Sun Tzu 101.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:56 am
I looked at the Network for Spiritual Progressives and the May Conference and I think this is definitely something that emergent folks should relate to. Hopefully, our participation in society will affect society in a positive way, so that the Kingdom of the World might become more of the Kin-dom on God.
Adam, as you talk about spiritual activism in your meeting next week, perhaps you could ask the question “what can sustain us” as we confront systems that are huge and daunting.
Also, a great teacher of mine once said, “change something because you love it, not because you hate it.” It took me ages of holding that apparently paradoxical thought in my mind and heart before it could mean anything to me (why change something that you love? Isn’t it the things I hate that I want to change?) What I finally came to was an understanding of the importance of posture and attitude toward that which we would like to change.
We need to have a beautiful vision of what we’re longing for, and move towards that, rather than focus our energy on moving away from something that we despise.
I hope that makes a little sense. For me, if I’m always Fighting Against stuff, it becomes completely hopeless. But Moving Towards something has a spirit of hope within it…
January 10th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
I find it amazing that those here believe that the Christian Right has something against meeting with Jews.
They actually meet with us very freely, we have been refused permission to speak at Presbytarian Churchs all the time.
I don’t think the religious right’s wishes to put a manger scene at city hall at Christmas time is anything near as scary as the open bigotry against Jews one sees on the left.
Stop congratulating yourselves for being so ;progressive’ and look at what you do.
Adam, this blog has a link to a “christian peacekeeper’ site that actually links to Elevtronic Intifada.
That scares me alot more than anything the right does.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
The issue of interfaith activities is bound to cause controversy (as shown here). However, I definitely think it will be worth the trip to talk to them. I’ll be interested in what you learn while you’re down there.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:48 am
criticism of Israel is not biggotry against jews. in fact some of the most scathing critiques of Israel that I have read have been from jews. the demand that anti semitism and anti israel are the same is stupid and frustrating. I will always support The jewish culture and faith. I support their right to coexist in israel. I do not support their right to exclusively control it. Why? i am unconvinced they have such right. The religous right only supports Israel because of faulty apocalyptic theology. if you really want to know what they think attempt to join some of their country clubs.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:23 am
“The religous right only supports Israel because of faulty apocalyptic theology. if you really want to know what they think attempt to join some of their country clubs.”
I support Israel because they have a Biblical claim to that land, and because they have been persecuted for 2 millennia, and they are the underdog. I support them because the palestinians already have a homeland– it’s called Jordan. I support the jews because they only have less than 1% of the land in the middle east, and it’s still too much for Israel’s enemies (including you “progressive” types). I support them because they are a democracy surrounded by a sea of hostile fascism.
Re your “country club” dig, that little bit of slander isn’t even worth addressing (Actually, I can hardly even picture the “apocolyptic” types even playing golf).
January 11th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Liam-
“in fact some of the most scathing critiques of Israel that I have read have been from jews.”
Which critiques have you read? Where were they published and who wrote them? Just curious.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Funny, I think I would find it much more difficult to belong to a Presbytarian club to be honest. At least the Christian right is honest about who they are and they at least make an effort to be fair and do the right thing.
And I never said that anti Israel is anti semitic.
The Pres Church has systemic anti semitism. Do you see a link to Electronic Intifada on any of the Christian Rights blogs?
This is a group so extreme they call for the end of Israel.
Why does this blog and the Pres church dedicate so much to destroying Israel while 1200 people a day die in the Congo of preventable illness?
Anti semitism. They won’t admit it.
Just try to speak at a Pres or Lutheran Church and see what they say to the rabbi.
According to the left we are child killers, occupiers, money grabbing land stealing monsters.
Electric Intifada is a page from Hilter.
Give me the right any day of the week.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
What is so shocking, that most in the Jewish community don’t know is that people are made to learn Hebrew but know nothing about Judaism from what I see here.
Legalism at its most horrible.
How tragic.