I have a number of projects under way working with the surge in Neo-Anabaptism, especially in the US context. In one case, I was preparing a brief bibliography of blogs and books to share with a small Sunday school group. As I pulled together my notes and blog roll, I noticed quickly one striking similarity that had nothing to do with the content or perspectives of the writers. Rather, it was obvious that everyone on the list was a white guy. Now, if I had been a little shameless and shared the work of the NuDunkers, I could poiint to two excellent Brethren women writing in the blog world, but I stuck to those writers not directly connected to the Church of the Brethren. Nonetheless, I was dumb struck with just how white and male the grouping was= Scot McKnight, David Fitch, Stanley Hauerwas, John Howard Yoder, Greg Boyd, and Stuart Murray to name just a few.
My friend, and frequent commenter here, Scott Holland often asks if we NuDunkers are aware of the Post-Colonial critiques. In short, yes I am. Now face to face with the bibliography, thinking about the white dudeness of Neo-Anabaptism I can not help but think about the dynamics of power and privilege that run just beneath the surface of gender and race. Is it possible that the stance of post-liberal Anabaptism speaks most clearly to white men as we slip from the central circles of power? Can a Neo-Anabaptist talk with a leg to stand on to women or minorities and say that the best place to be is a kenotic, prodigal, and powerless one.
While at Candler, I had the opportunity to study with a great feminist practical theologian. I remember one day, in a conversation about power and humility, my professor commented on the trend of men scholars to not make much of their title as Doctor. “Is it any wonder,” she said, “that as more women are achieving the status so long held by men that the men are trying to be informal and go by their first names?”
I cannot help but wonder if this critique applies to those of us who claim the name Neo-Anabaptist. Is it just too convenient that as women and minorities are claiming a rightful place of power and influence in the public square that men are now saying that ‘letting go of power’ is necessary for appropriate theology? I remain convinced, however, that such a posture is necessary. But is it a posture that speaks with any validity to only white dudes?
I recognize that I say that as a white male. I do think that part of my vocation is to step aside so that others may speak. At the same time, I take very seriously the need to call up, support, and even empower women and others to speak with authority.
So what, then, should be done?
Though the continual critique of Christendom’s wedding of faith and power politics is still an important voice for the American church, I think the conversation should soon shift to nuancing the conversations of power so prevalent today. Certainly, there is a kind of transforming power– both through the work of the Holy Spirit and in the formative practices of the church– that Neo-Anabaptism embraces. So to say that Christianity should embrace a kind of self-emptying posture in regards to its slipping cultural hegemony is not meant to diminish this kind of “power as self-transformation.”
Here, I think Neo-Anabaptism, at least the streams of MacIntyrian virtue formation, needs to rise again to the surface. Though Hauerwas’ wedding of Yoder and MacInyre is well known, we would do well shift the balance of emphasis away from Yoder to consider how we are shaped and formed by the Spirited power of spiritual disciplines. For we are certainly not talking about self-emptying as a kind of self-deprication, but a desire to embody the virtues of Christ– virtues that empowered all those who witnessed Jesus’ transparency to God.
Neo-Anabaptism might also do well to turn to the works of Foucault, especially his later work on care and hermeneutics of the self. My own academic work in early Christian asceticism has already made this shift. By exploring the nuances of power as not just power over others, but as power in the hands of the self to be shaped towards a valued end, ascetic theory has confronted the tired mantra that askesis was simply a form of oppressive mysogyny and hatred of the human body.
Though Evangelcialism and historic Anabaptism retain Luther’s old distaste for ascetcism, there is still a clear sense that discipleship entails a change in the ways we live in the world which parallel the early monk’s desire to be transformed into the likeness of Christ. Basically, holiness is a value shared by the 5th century monks, and modern radical Christians.
Wrestling with the monochrome nature of contemporary Anabaptism is a necessary one. The resources are there, both within the current writings and in the critiques to shift the conversation to consider the kinds of power still implied in the welcoming of waning privilege. At the same time, I do think that the streams of Post-Liberalism within the Neo-Anabaptist movement have the ability to reveal just how colonial some Post-Colonial theorists truly are. For there is still a sense that though these writers (many of whom are equally white and male) speak from the margins so as to colonize and totalize those whom they criticize. In other words, Neo-Anabaptism can pull back the veil to reveal just how much power over others is still part of the project itself.
So is Neo-Anabaptism a movement for White Dudes? Short answer, yes. But not by its very nature. The resources are there to expand the conversation, to empower others to give voice and bredth to the movement itself.