“If the Kingdom of God is within us, and the Kingdom of God is itself righteousness and peace and joy, then whoever abides in these things is undoubtedly in the Kingdom of God. And on the contrary, those who are involved in unrighteousness and discord and sadness that produces death are dwelling in the kingdom of the devil and in hell and in death.” Conferences 1.13.3 (Translated by Boniface Ramsey)

All of this is to say I am with the monk here- careful attention to distinguish is not the necessary theological move. Rather, the church participates in the incarnation, the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God, even making present the kingdom of God insofar as it produces the fruit of righteousness, peace, joy and life. And, as he says, the contrary is true- the church ceases to participate in the incarnation insofar as it creates strife, contention, alienation, sadness, and death.

From here, I think the friendship critique is mute in light of this understanding of the community and incarnation. Friendship, as it contributes to the life, joy, righteousness, and joy is a site for the in breaking of the kingdom. Its not a matter of friendship for the luring into conversion but a vision of relationship and mutuality as part of the incarnational way of life. If I “friend” someone just so they will attend my congregation or contribute to my cause- that is using others for my gain. In Jesus, bringing life and joy to his disciples (even longing to celebrate the Passover meal with them as friends, even family) was not a matter of using them, but taking part in the in breaking of the Kingdom of God together.

Of course this does not address the sense that Prodigal describes friendship or “extending the incarnation” in these negative ways but rather to point to a more missional understanding of incarnation, ecclesiology, and friendship.

Josh

The first is that Christian’s critique–snarky as it is!–is at root theological. The most vapid aspect of Emergent Evangelicalism has been the half-assed sleight of hand with which it signed up for the postmodern embrace of infinite linguistic and cultural construction. Our cultural context, so the story goes, is not concerned about “abstract concepts” or “theology.” We are tired of these things and want “concrete” transformation of people’s lives, etc. One of the most important things I understand Christian to be pointing to in this review is the notion that this neglect of theology is actually allowing the “postmodern turn” to become a tool for reinforcing its own uninterrogated cultural assumptions–which are not surprisingly bourgeois, puritanical, white, and heterosexist (and as patriarchal as all those things are). The juxtaposition between “conservative” (Neo-Calvinism) and “liberal” (Emergent) that this book stages is thus not a theological but a cultural battle, one internal to and conditioned by these wider, uncriticized cultural assumptions. That critique of the cultural influence is really at the margins of Christian’s review, though he does points to its perpetuation of the destructive consequences for the LGBTQ community in particular. At its heart is Christian’s conviction that the perpetuation of these assumptions is the result of a theological error, an error in which Jesus of Nazareth is conflated with the Church. He has noted in the comments that he does not reject the idea that the Church is a participation in Christ’s life, and in this sense is a continuation of the incarnation, but he believes that the author’s do not allow that distinction to do its important critical work with regard to these cultural assumptions that inform the work. And that carries profound political, social, and psychological implications for people–which (I take Christian’s point to be) it is in our historical and cultural location it is ecclesially irresponsible to neglect.

No one has responded to this theological claim. It is an important one. Maybe it is wrong, maybe it is not. But it is not in any way irrelevant–especially for the stated goals and concerns of the book. The responses given here so far have just been a form of “gaslighting”: “Whoah, man, chill. You’re majorly overreacting.” That’s what refusing to deal with the theological substance allows. So part of taking Christian seriously as a dialogue partner means addressing that claim directly.

Second, Christian also notes–in what is a truly damning charge if it is true–that this failure to be critical means that “evangelization,” “mission,” “friendship,” and “mutuality” are not at all what they claim to be. They are actually, concretely, materially (and not just “conceptually) forms of “making you like me,” which is domination, suppression, subsumption–what he prefers to link to imperialism. I understand Christian to be pressing the authors to take the real-world, concrete consequences of this kind of unintentional perpetuation of a dominant set of cultural assumptions with the utmost of seriousness. A church, he says, that is truly “missional,” truly committed to friendship will not have at its heart this kind of implicit and unrecognized domination. A true friend, he reminds us, does not conceal a dagger beneath his cloak by which he leads you where he wants you. She makes you more who yourself, finds her own life embellished by the flourishing of your life, and celebrates what you share with you.

And speaking as his friend: snarky as he may be, Christian himself is a model of the excellence of friendship. We will all be better for listening more closely with him.

And this somehow is not the work of our hands?

If so, then what exactly is the work of our hands?