12.09.08
Reforming ecclesiology
LeRon Shults writes,
“In later centuries … Christians have been tempted to grasp at this idealized unity by a similar enforcement or erasure, either pulling others toward acceptance of an allegedly universal core held in common by all or pushing others out of communion in order to protect the unicity of one’s own favored organizational structure. The early modern ecumenical movement sometimes gave into the former temptation while particular denominations occasionally gave into the latter. The Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity acknowledges that difference ought to be valued and celebrated, but it also warns that diversity can easily be conscripted “to sinful purposes,†and insists that unity is a divine gift.  This may be true, but the Proposal fails to acknowledge that the drive for unity can also be conscripted by sinners, including church bureaucrats obsessed with forcing everyone into one and same box, namely, “the one†in which they are comfortably in control.
“While many (if not most) emergents maintain the unity of the church as an ideal in some sense, they tend to be less anxious about the obvious plurality and diversity that characterizes the actual state of ecclesial affairs. This leads them to view the purpose of ecumenical dialogue in quite a different way. The goal of welcoming an encounter with a multiplicity of “others†is not to manipulate them into conforming to an idealized sameness, but to find new possibilities for transformation precisely within the generative complexity of differentiating forces. This openness is in part due to emergents’ willingness to engage positively with what might be called the philosophical “turn to alterity†in late modernity, associated with thinkers like Derrida, Deleuze, Levinas and Ricoeur.
“In other words, the “ecumenical†efforts of emergents are aimed at both reconstructing the “identity†of the church mediated by encountering “alterity,†and reforming the communal practices within and across de-nominating boundaries. Ironically, this attitude of ongoing reformational engagement with “others†has opened up interpersonal space and time for deep and authentic dialogue about and within differences, and fostered the practice of collaborative networking, more effectively than many of the efforts of official representatives of various ecclesial hierarchies.  Emergents are multiplying, and for most of those participating in the movement this multiplicity is not perceived as a challenge but as an opportunity for forging transversal differentiated networks oriented by and toward reformative communion that empowers persons to share in the self-giving love of Jesus’ way of acting in the world. Isn’t this what church should be? ”
From “Reforming Ecclesiology in Emerging Churches” 5-6
NextReformation » post-crash said,
January 3, 2009 at 9:09 am
[...] Another paper I’d like to mention as one of the best for 2008 was LeRon Shults: Reforming Theology iin Emerging Churches, I’ve quoted a half dozen times from this paper and I think I sent it to a couple dozen friends. LeRon recently posted some of the chapters he has contributed to recent books, and one that looks to be a must read is “Nothing More Lovely.” Find the new papers HERE. [...]
NextReformation » the Great emergence said,
January 13, 2009 at 10:34 am
[...] It seems to me that one of the best presentations of the emerging center to date is McLaren’s book, “A Generous Orthodoxy.” I am also reminded of LeRon Shults work. He writes in part, The goal of welcoming an encounter with a multiplicity of “others†is not to manipulate them into conforming to an idealized sameness, but to find new possibilities for transformation precisely within the generative complexity of differentiating forces .. “In other words, the “ecumenical†efforts of emergents are aimed at both reconstructing the “identity†of the church mediated by encountering “alterity,†and reforming the communal practices within and across de-nominating boundaries. Ironically, this attitude of ongoing reformational engagement with “others†has opened up interpersonal space and time for deep and authentic dialogue about and within differences, and fostered the practice of collaborative networking, more effectively than many of the efforts of official representatives of various ecclesial hierarchies. (more HERE). [...]