Emerging Africa - a white conversation?
Over the last couple of weeks there have been some discussion on the fact that the "emerging conversation" in South Africa has been predominantly white.
Cobus van Wyngaard has blogged about this. Reggie Nel has responded. I have commented on this in my Khanya blog.
The question that interests me as a missiologist is why this should be so? Apartheid has ended, so there are no legally enforced barriers between black and white Christians. But there are other barriers, and so differences remain. The "emerging conversation" seems to meet needs felt by white Christians but not black ones.
It has also been said that the "emerging conversation" is largely post-evangelical. I would go further, and suggest that it may be largely post-Neopentecostal. If one can say there are three varieties of denominational Pentecostalism in South Africa, Classical Pentecostalism, Zionism and Neopentecostalism, it is the last which has been most involved in creating megachurches, and it is the megachurch culture that the Emerging Church seems to be reacting against.
If this is so, then it may well be that black Christians in Africa will become interested in the Emerging Church movement in about 10-15 years time. It seems that the megachurch movement is growing in black Christian circles in South Africa as it did among whites in the 1980s. Over the last year or so I've been on two TV shows where that was the main concern -- the growth of the Neopentcostals at the expense of traditional groups like the Zionists.
Many of the Neopentecostals have also opted for the "prosperity gospel", and have contextualised the gospel for yuppies of all races. This may mean that there is a class question here too. Are the Neopentecostals attracting anyone other than the upwardly mobile? Who do they attract, and why? And who leaves them, and why? How many of those who leave join the Emerging Movement?
- Steve Hayes's blog
- 476 reads
Stay updated
Who's been visiting?
Comments
exceptions
I have no problem with generalizations, I believe we need to generalize in order to have a conversation. And I think by using the word "largely" you acknowledge your generalization (tell me if I'm wrong).
I doubt whether post-neopentacostalism is a very good definition for what I am, but I think you might be right in your generalization of the emerging conversation.
However, in the Dutch Reformed Church I believe we also need to notice a post-calvinism happening. Maybe the neopentacostalism, or whatever is driving the megachurch tendencies in the DRC, is also a form of post-Calvinism? Or anti-Calvinism?
But then, don't people like Reggie come from a similar background? We use emerging, but wouldn't he and others think similar thoughts like the ones the emerging people in the Dutch Reformed Church are thinking?
I have few answers, but I believe this is a very important conversation.
Generalisations
Cobus,
Yes, the generalisations are difficult. I am just noticing that the modals that many emerging church people seem to be reacting against are megachurches like Mars Hill, or closer to home, Rhema, Christian City, and Hatfield, and Grace Bible Church in Soweto. I get the impression that some in the DRC (eg Doornpoort) have attempted to follow that model, but again, that is impressionistic, based on the architecture, and I haven't actually seen them at worship. So I'm putting forward hypotheses to test them, and modify them on the basis of feedback received.
But in a sense you and Reggie are coming from two angles of the same history, and perhaps what you say to each other is more important to you and your tradition, and the rest of us are mainly spectators there.
Rob Bell
I don't know if you consider Rob Bell "Emerging" or not (and I don't think he does, or he just doesn't say anything) but I tend to consider him "Emerging" only because of his attitude / reaching out to post-modern culture for the Gospel. Nevertheless, he certainly has a very large church. I think 10 000 or something...
Which means that I'm not sure if the Emerging conversation is a reaction towards megachurch, as much as I think it's a reaction towards old ecclesiology (and, that is only one camp of the Emerging Conversation anyway.) In which case, a great big slice of the church is Emerging (even though they don't know) as the church has been reacting against old ecclesiology styles since the 70's. Some (like many charismatic churches) just instituted their own static ecclesiologies, while others went for more organic wineskins which are still working today (and, still flexible.)
Plus, I think the Emerging Church is a reaction against modern culture and western culture.
Which leads me into a bit of a critique of some Emergent thinkers : that is, that some have a tendency to be very defensive of their own ecclesiology and views and structures. This doesn't help.
One of the saddest days, for me anyway, for the Emerging Church was when I saw a video with Tony Jones and some other guy talking about the Emergent Church and what legacy it will leave behind. It was promoted at the Emergent site. It just had a 'packaged' nature about it, which upset and saddened me. Let the Emerging Church not become another 'package' or 'denomination' or 'movement' with its own structural bias. Rather, let it keep in step with the Spirit and blow where the Spirit is blowing.
Revivals in the past always die when people try to package it. Some people (and I'm not saying Tony Jones here) have a tendency to try and package what's going on. While it's good to organise, let's keep our wineskins flexible and our hearts atuned to the Spirit. And let's work together rather than just react against each other.
Which means to say that I don't think the Emerging Church is really that new in many respects : in fact, I do see the Emerging Church as mainly an American (or, Western if you like) reaction to the American (or, Western if you like - although the rest of the west is a little different) Model of Church. This American (or Western) model (which was built on American culture more than Kingdom culture, although many fundamentals will refuse to see it as so) has been exported to various parts of the world; and a great deal of the world is also now reacting against it - much like it's reacting against the West in general.
The reaction started in the West (in America) and so it carries mostly a western face. The reaction, I think, started when Americans realised that the American culture is actually not really in tune with the Kingdom culture. Things like caring for the poor etc. are simply not cultural norms in the West (or, anywhere for that matter - but for countries that claim to be Christian it should be there.) These people in American who are reacting against American culture (and most of that culture is endorsed by the American fundamentalist churches) make statements that upset fundamentalist America, who think that things like democracy and individualism and consumerism and all good things American are in the Bible.
They, the fundamentalists, of course, then insisted that anything anti-the norm and anti-the-American-norm-Bible-Belt culture was anti-gospel. That's to be expected; even though they're obviously wrong.
Some guys obviously took the need for reform into theological circles - reacting against Fundamentalist Evangelicalism which only puts law on people and not grace. I applaud their efforts, although not all of their methods and not all of their conclusions. Nevertheless, the fight against law and religion is one Jesus commands us to fight (the book of Revelation, for me, exposes our two system-enemies quite clearly - the false prophet and anti-Christ, who are both Religion and Sin mixed into one. Religion and Sin have always been good friends : because sin hides very nicely under religion; very nicely indeed.)
The conversation in Africa is important, because Africa is looking for its own identity. However, I think the conversation should ensure it remains more spiritual than political (if you know what I mean...) For, our battle is not against flesh and blood.
I'm just rambling on here...
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
Spiritual, not political?
"I think the conversation should ensure it remains more spiritual than political (if you know what I mean...)"
I'm not sure I do know what you mean. I think one of the features of both the Western and African emerging consensus is that the gospel is holistic - it is spiritual and political and social and economic, etc. Tom Wright and others have shown just how political the context and meaning of the NT is, and in 'Everything Must Change' Brian McLaren shows how we need an integrated response to the suicide machine that is Western, global civilization.
Therefore I feel any statement that says it needs to be more of this and less of that without an immediate context can be damaging. In a worship service I agree the conversation should be more spiritual than political, but not so when we are discussing, say, the xenophobia crisis. Ultimately though, the spiritual - in terms of top-down causation - infuses all conversations with meaning, whether it is made explicit or not (cf. Rob Bells' DVD 'Everything is Spiritual'!)
Same
He he, yes - that's exactly what I mean. Everything is spiritual- including politics. However, some Christians are just political-- they're not spiritual (or, they're not spiritual about politics.) Both liberals and fundamental conservatives (I don't feel) are spiritual about politics. They're just political about politics. Or, they're just religious about politics.
When I say, "the conversation should remain more spiritual than political" I mean to say that any discussion of politics ought to be holistic (as you've said) - and, for me, 'holistic' means spiritual because everything is spiritual. So I'm in total agreement with you - my rambling was against the extremes that don't see politics spiritually, but only see politics politically or religiously (which is many of the times the same thing.)
Take a look at this website for example : christianworldviewnetwork.com
Most of their political statements are just political, not spiritual. For instance, they say things like "don't vote for Obama because he's father was Muslim," or "he went to a church that is all about this or that." Or his candidacy isn't constitutional or whatever. Or, he won't bring economical reform. These are all religious and/or political reasonings - not really holistically spiritual kingdom minded reasonings.
All of these things are important, in one way or another; but the message these kinds of sites bring is not spiritual it is political; or just religious. There is a lack of both true social responsibility - or, if there is social responsibility, it is only for the benefit of politics (power mongering) or, actually, ALL about social responsibility and very little about the spiritual (and holistic) answer to the problem of mankind.
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
Internet
I haven't read the blog posts yet, but I do wonder if this isn't because a large part of the conversation happens on the internet?
Let's be honest, even amongst whites very few South Africans are interested in this conversation. I don't know of anyone else in my circle who spends regular time at blogs discussing. I know a few that know about Emerging ideas, and some that discuss things : but most don't. Even this site shows that only a few actually discuss, while many just read and watch : and most of my friends outside of this circle don't discuss Emerging Church ideas at all.
It is true, I think, that a large part of Africa has bought into the idea of megachurch but the rest of them (and the guys I know) still meet under trees. Neither of these communities - the megachurch or those who meet under the tree - are really interested in the emerging conversation.
I think it's because it doesn't really meet their need, perhaps. They don't have centuries of indoctrination by a particular theology (say, a hyper calvinism) but instead their view of Christianity is much more simpler. Which is probably why we see more healings and miracles amongst those communities than amongst our white intellectuals who know almost nothing about real life but know everything about theories, theology and whatever else.
I understand the importance of ideas : ideas do shape the world. As Christians, I like the Emerging Conversation because it is one of shaping ideas that will shape the future. But most people aren't too concerned about ideas : they're concerned about their family, income, and aunty pat who has a bad cold. And, it seems Jesus somehow met everyone exactly where they were at - which means it isn't wrong to be concerned about ideas, nor is it wrong NOT to be too concerned. God has each where each is at : and each should be effective where they're at.
I've gotten on a tangent; man, I've got too much to say today...
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
christian bloggers = emerging ?
Sorry fo the long comment... I also think this conversation is critical.
Steve, I have problems, as you can imagine... it seems as if you are saying that black christians are currently (again!) lagging behind whites trying to catch up... still stuck in the megachurch paradigm. ( I'm not so sure that 2 TV shows is enough for such a conclusion) Maybe that is true for some prominant and visible middle class to upper class black christians...some. Black christianity is however not simply to be equated with what you call neopentecostalism and I'm not so sure that the current infatuation with the Western context will hit black Christianity in 10-15 years time, as an aftershock. I hope and pray not. What I have to concede is that current Western charismatic prosperity cults is wrecking havock, ( as well as local rogue clones) but it simply preys on a theological vacuum and obscene levels of inequality. Either this opium or people go on the rampage. What is needed, still, is a thorough political theology, to sustain our ecclesiology...
Secondly, does blogging qualify you to be part of the emergent conversation ? ( like Stray ask) does it mean when I blog or use Web 2.0, then I am into emergent church. I don't think so. Maybe the link is that most of the conversation that takes place happens in this 'realm', and that the current shift to the Network Society (Castells) prompt new reflections, new contextual realities and therefore new insights into the gospel. Yet, I find that amongst others, most of Brian McClaren's input comes from face to face conversations, talks with real people and in books that he publish.
If emergent is about a reaction to the imperialistic gospel, which is the fruit of modernism and more about a new reading of the gospel in terms of accepting our liability and complicity to what the 20th centrury has produced, namely colonialism, then... it will be heard and experienced by the African world, and yes, Steve, I would suggest than the critique of liberation theology from the 60s onward has been heard. My understanding is that the Gospel and our culture movement, Newbigin, Bosch etc, responded to what they viewed to be the challenges of the Western world and the Western church, in response to their hearing of the critique of liberation voices- hence my position that this is a white conversation, a critical one, grapling with coming to terms with particular histories.
Megachurches, emerging church and black Christians
Reggie,
I entirely agree when you say "Maybe that is true for some prominant and visible middle class to upper class black christians...some. -- I did emphasise that the Neopentecostal megachurch phenomenon has been contextualising the gospel for yuppies, black as well as white.
And of course the TV presenters and producers are probably in that category themselves -- they are relatively well paid, and it was one of their concerns. But one of them was Mpho Tsedu, who is himself a member of a traditional Zionist AIC, and was concerned about the growth of Neopentecostal megachurches (like Grace Bible Church) in Soweto. I pointed out that they were probably not growing nearly so fast in the rural areas.
But the point is not that blacks are "lagging behind", but that if the "emerging church" movement is emerging from people who are becoming disillusioned with neopentecostal megachurches, then that would explain who, so far at least, most of those involved in it are white. I'm not proposing a Marxist scenario, where the neopentecostal megachurch is a necessary development in society, and that you can't have a socialist revolution in a pre-capitalist society. I don't think it works like that.
And even the idea that the "emerging church" is a post-neopentecostal phenomenon is just a tentative hypothesis, based on some impressionistic observations, which I'm testing by writing it out and asking others to respond to.
Please call me. I have lost
Please call me. I have lost your contact details. Mpho Tsedu 0721400949
Contacting Steve Hayes
Hi Mpho - you can drop him a comment at http://khanya.wordpress.com/
memergent, wemergent.
Reggie - thanks for your thoughts.
I suppose that Emergence is in the eye of the beholder. There is no official body to define or characterise it, so its up to us to do so. This is a good thing.
Now you have prompted me, let me try give a few points from my POV.
Emergent means:
- in process, recognising fluidity and chaos.
- post modern, a strong critique of modernity.
- pre modern - going back to various traditions that have been lost, contemplation, the monastic, or even the primal, for example.
- bottom up - individuals taking responsibility for their theology and praxis.
- inclusive/ generous - recognising the limits of limits, of boundaries, of defined truth.
- curatorial - stewarding gifts rather than branding or owning them.
- diverse - it embraces the charismatic, orthodox, catholic, apophatic, evangelical, anabaptist traditions.
- informed - takes to heart what the new science, technolgy, ecomomics or ecology is finding rather than opposing it.
- new media literate - a strong but not exclusive digital element, like the web, blogs, and computer art.
Africanmergent
Lots of sense above...
Maybe helpful to add that there isn't one emerging church/emergent conversation. There is a Western one, which most of us (on this site) are part of most of the time, but there is also an African one. Visits to Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Zim have convinced me that there is definitely an emerging church conversation happening in Africa generally, which shares some features with emerging conversations happening globally, but also has a definitely African flavour to it.
As has been mentioned before the primary context is not postmodern but postcolonial, and of course here in SA postapartheid. A couple of the (black) South Africans I spoke to at the Amahoro Gathering in Rwanda (one of whom is Ray McCauley's right-hand man at Rhema) are very keen to be part of this conversation but say there is still much suspicion in black communities toward white churches in SA. There is still a lot of reconciliation work that has to be done before we can converse freely - even though there is interest in whatever it is that is emerging. That is another reason (apart from the internet thing) why face to face conversation is necessary to overcome racial and class barriers.
There is still a lot of work to be done.
Africanmergent
Thank you very Marius for defending the "voiceless" or should
I say the internet deprived African people. I have been following this conversation/s, and hoping to hear contributions from 'black' post neopentecostal people or the people part of the emergent Africa. I had waited in anticipation, hoping to read responses from black African people like me, who have been defined and always explined by others (in most cases by Westerners). I gree fully with what Marius said; "There is still a lot of work to done" in South Africa and in Africa as whole. The conversations are crucial in Africa and the internet way will always reach few people, who have the access to these means of communication. The African neopentecostal conversation, was always one sided and lacked a balance inputs from different people who are glappling with this issue. Dr. Kenzo, highlighted that the emergent or postmodern/colonial theological conversation/s are more or less same issues that both Africans (and Asian) and the West are asking - the difference is the context. Theologians like David Bosch, Emmanuel Katangelo and Vincent Donovan agree with Kenzo, but use different words in explaining it. I am crying for more 'black' African inputs in this blog, because it is such great space for us to speak about theology (i.e church, politics and other disciplines). I hope this concern will not come across to others as racial and negative, I regard you as my brothers and sisters.
Welcome Mzwandile
Mzwandile, I thank you for your thoughts. Apologies that your comment took so long to appear. It's an example of the barriers that technology can actually create. But we know that it can also break them down.
I have been having a conversation related to the african element of online expressions on Cobus van Wyngaard's blog. See http://mycontemplations.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/black-bloggers-needed-in-this-white-conversation/#comment-1706
Do you have a blog? Do you think blogging forms an important part of life, of christian life, and of african life? I'd encourage you to join this site (as a member) so others can click their way into your life and thoughts, and so your comment here appear immediately.
And in what way, internet and blogging aside, might you describe yourself as "emergent"?
Thank you for welcoming me
[Ed - this comment got caught in spam so I changed its date by a week so it would be seen; Mzwandile I will make you a user so this does not happen again]
Thank you Nicpaton, to answer your question. I do see myself as emergent and I was part of the Amahoro conference in Rwanda recently. Like I said previously, this blog is great and very informative in terms of theology and other various disciplines. Its good to be around, thank you. Mzwandile
different streams and different folks
There is certainly a lot of work to be done. But just because our conversation happens among us does not mean that anyone should equate it with exclusivity or criticise it for what it is not doing. There is much that our conversation is doing and we should see where it goes without trying to make it something that it is not.
Envoy
this site
My experience at Amahoro in Rwanda was that a lot of black Africans (including black South Africans) are out there doing very emergent stuff - and transforming their communities - while a very small bunch of white South Africans are having rather abstract conversations about what the whole emerging thing is all about on the internet. While the latter is not necessarily a bad thing lets not confuse it with the emerging conversation in Africa or South Africa. A lot more very hands-on stuf is happening in all sorts of places outside of the net. My continued feeling over the past year is not that black Africa is behind in this conversation but that we on the net (and especially this specific website) is painfully behind but that perhaps a certain group of people need this rather laboured endless philosophical conversation in order to catch up.
A lot of the emerging thinking was triggered by people working in the mission field in developing countries when they realised that the modern/western paradigm was not making sense in new contexts. Could I even say that a lot of the stuff the western emerging conversation is talking about was learnt from developing countries? (some rather cliched, generlized examples that come directly to mind include a focus on story telling, the prioritizing of community, a more holistic approach to life and psirituality etc).
Site this
Cori
I'm glad you are pointing out "emergence" that is specifically African, and I'd like to hear more so I can understand what this means.
You claim that much of what is happening on this site are "rather abstract conversations about what the whole emerging thing is all about on the internet". Can you give us an example of such conversations that in your mind falls short of this African, hands-on approach?
And when you refer to the mission field in developing counties, is this more pertinent to the emerging conversation than the mission field in developed contries?
Lastly, do you feel that an "abstract online conversation" defines the be all and end all of someones spiritual expression; or do you feel it is one area amongst other perhaps more concrete, communal, liturgical, and missional areas that might be occuring in the lives represented here?
my rant
Nic,
Those are some very good questions to ask. I think that there is the general tendency among Christians to knock something for what it's not doing instead of affirming something for what it is doing. I believe the emerging conversation and the missiological challenge is as pertinent in a developed post-Christian and post-evangelical environment as in a post-colonial environment and that they're all African issues.
Just because they're not rural does not mean they're not African. Just because white males are involved in a conversation online in no ways takes away from their conversation face-to-face or their involvement in emerging styles of church and mission. If non-whites and non-males want in on the conversation, by all means they should do so. For goodness sake, why do people try and make and issue of it. The participation of people in any conversation is their responsibility. A philosophical conversation should not be seen as in any way detracting from what people are actually involved doing.
Envoy
white men ranting
Envoy -
Absolutely: I fully agree that philosophical conversations are a natural part of life. And as far as this web site is concerned - it has been specifically established around theological (implying philosophical) issues.
And "African" issues will be largely urban. The interesting question for me is where does the post-modern meet the post-colonial? It's been said or implied more than once here that the post modern discussion is not relevant to Africa.
But can you pursue post-colonial ideals while jumping from the "premodern" right into the modern? (note to self - must ask someone what they mean by post-colonial)
For me the post modern clears the way for many African Ideals to come into play. Sadly, however, in my experience Africans have too often aspired towards many of the things of modernity that I have rejected - consumerism instead of sustainable responsibility, individualism instead of ubuntu, a "market" view on church instead of grassroots growth, and doctrinal conformity rather than relational unity, for example.
So I see the post modern direction as having great benefit for an African spirituality. I accept that it might have some apparently cerebral and euro-centric aspects (for example deconstructionism, inclusivity (including gender, gender orientation and theological inclusion), technical adeptness, or liberal theology, but there must be a meaningful shared space for as Marius puts it the "Various Emerging Conversations".
Post new comment