I secretly hope some deep-thinkers respond to this. You know who you are.
Much like Abbey, I'm a fan of air quotes. They convey just the right tone of sarcasm for the blogosphere. That being said, I am not being one bit sarcastic here: I am not sure what to make of the Emergent church, or the new "Christians". I am reading a book by one of their proponents (Tony Jones), and it both fascinates and alarms me.
Allow me to demonstrate:
"The emergent way of interacting with the multifarious resource of 'culture' is not monolithic either. There's no one-size-fits-all method for parsing out the good from the bad. Instead, it's an art of looking for the intersections between theology and other disciplines, looking for truth WHEREVER ONE CAN FIND IT. In other words, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY DOES NOT HAVE THE SOLE CLAIM TO TRUTH; what Christian theology can do is find truth elsewhere and then translate that truth into idioms given to us by the biblical narrative." (emphasis mine)
Initial reaction? WHISKEY. TANGO. FOXTROT. Did he just say that Jesus is NOT the only way? Because that's what I'm hearing.
He also talks about how emergents embrace "deconstruction" (gag...as an English major, I despise this movement/writing style) which unpacks every little unspoken detail of a text/conversation/whatever. Basically, you analyze it to death, or keep asking questions until you forget what you were discussing in the first place.
Now, don't get me wrong...I completely agree that church should be about community and sincere love, but is ethereal, nebulous theological discussion-into-oblivion really going to solve our problems? Perhaps this way of thinking is more alarming to me because it ALMOST hits the mark. Not quite, but almost.
Also, I don't care for his tone. He's very smug (while talking about how humble emergents are). Those of you who've interacted with me know that I like to joke about all things "postmodern", but this guy is over the top. He flaunts his postmodernity. What does that entail? Oh, things like tolerance, mistrust of authority/convention, and constant questioning. He goes on and on about how emergents don't claim to have the answers; they're not trying to push anything on anyone. But the whole tone of his book is full of condescension for the "old way", which includes...oh everyone who isn't emergent: Roman Catholics, mainline protestants and evangelicals.
Even his wording is postmodern (can you imagine a religious ((or any)) writer using the word "parsing" 10 years ago?). And now no one can ever take this post seriously, because I used double-parentheses. :)
Well, besides my judgmental comments above, I don't really have any conclusions (as I have not yet finished the book), but I hope you will read it and share your thoughts.
On a lighter note: when you leave the pre-packaged cole slaw in the fridge for too long, the dressing turns purple. Then, it reminds you of the wax fruit mantra: "fun to look at, not to eat!"
Who invented wax fruit anyway?
Comments (8)
I feel that what he's trying to say about Christians and their claim to absolute truth is that, while the Bible is Christianity's textbook (so to speak), there are "truths" that can be found outside of the Bible. One example that comes to mind are scientific truths. If you read various texts from other religions, oftentimes you'll find quite a bit of noteworthy things therein. Christians call that "common grace," how that God has shown his truth to those who even have "rejected him" (in further Christian terms) and has given them the opportunities for wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. If I get what the writer is saying, he would insist that Christians should be looking for those spots of gold in the middle of the belief and bring the reader to Christ by bringing the "truth not found in the Bible" to the Bible for God's word on the subject.
I could be wrong. Correct me if I am. Truth is: I struggle with the emergent church a lot, too. While I love people's love for their culture - and especially for the hurts therewithin, I find that you can't really treat the wound by bandaging it with cultural cliches. You have to find something bigger, outside your world, to step in and bring in the difference and change.
As for deconstruction: I would agree with you. While it's the name of the game for our culture, Christianity assumes that a Word became Flesh and made his dwelling among us. If we can parse a word to its infinitesimal detail so that the meaning is utterly lost, we've lost God altogether.
It seems as if the emergent church is a movement in response against specific weaknesses in the church 1) the lack of cultural reletavism [how the church claims absolute truth and how that absolute truth interacts or neglects to interact with culture] and 2) the lack of community and sincerity in the church. I think its important to clarify what problems/questions are being addressed before we can ask whether the answers provided by the emergent church are good ones.
The quote states immediately that it is addressing how the church interacts with culture. Within the framework of interaction, I agree that the current church often fails to see where theology and other disciplines interact. As Didlake alluded to, God’s truth exists outside of ourselves and yet is expressed 1) in nature and the physical world, which includes math, science, etc {Romans 1:20} and 2) to some degree, through every man because a) we are created in His image and b) the truth of morality is written on our hearts {Romans 2:14-16}. This is why the truth of God can be expressed by a nonbeliever musician or a work of art and also why God can justly hold every man accountable for how their response to the truth, even if they are a head-hunter in Africa.
The second sentence is troubling because of its ambiguity. To parsal means to identify and analyze. The emergent church fails to acknowledge that there is a one-size-fits-all standard of good and bad. It too, exists outside of us and yet is expressed through us. It is a standard that the Creator, who created us, sets up and it applys to every human. The next step is to further acknolwedge that only the Creator Himself, has the right to measure if someone has met this standard. Where the current church sometimes fails to take the next step, it seems the emergent church fails to take the first one. We can say – this is the communicated standard as revealed to us by God in His word. It is transcendant and it is without partiality.
The last sentence is also troubling because it re-orients the starting point and incorrectly defines Christian theology: “What Christian theology can do is find truth elsewhere and then translate that truth into idioms given to us by the biblical narrative." By definition, Christian theology begins by studying the Bible and then translating the truth revealed into idioms given to us by culture, not the other way around. To change the order is to change the hierarchy. The Bible is more authoritative than culture. That’s like saying biology begins by studying weather patterns. Biology begins by studying the body and then looking at how the systems of the body function under different external pressures such as hot and cold.
Laced into the very grammatical choices of the quote are certain assumptions. 1) The Bible is not inherantly relevant, expressed by a subtle inference that the Bible is a bunch of idioms. 2) Truth cannot be readily know. It is an “art” of “looking for” at certain “intersections”. These assumptions are wrong.
The two paragraphs you write address the “why” question. This is why I think you’re smart J you get to the heart of the issue. You infer that the churches “problems” are a lack of community and sincere love, which would also be the emergent churches definition of the “problem”. But I would disagree. :-] I believe that lack of community and sincere love are symptoms (and BIG ones). They are treated like problems when – true to modernity and post-modernity- the Christian walk with God is approached soley as a “relationship”.
I’m going to quote from an article written by Jonathan Leeman in Modern Reformation:“Where YAHWEH, the maker of heaven and earth, described himself to Moses as the self-defining, predicate-less “I AM”, the ground of all reality, Descarte’s method effectively shoved YAHWEH aside, making his existence a predicate of his own thinking mind. He established a philosophical method of asserting that we are like God, knowing good from evil. Descarte’s move, like Adam’s, did not merely break a relationship; it broke God’s law or WORD. The implications are not merely personal, but judicial. The philosophical methods we associate with modernity and postmodernity, in a sense, whisper the same line whispered by the snake in the Garden (Gen. 3:5)…the Enlightenment did not bring us radiacl free agency and contractualism (or individualism-my note). Genesis 3 did. The Enlightenment legitimized it.”
What does this mean for community and sincere love in the church? That the emergent church’s distrust of authority is the very problem itself. The Bible clearly states that Christ work on the cross is the groundwork for unity in the Body of Christ and for loving fellow mankind (Rom. 5:8 while we were yet sinners Christ died for us – loved us – a blueprint for treating those who are yet sinners around us) and (in reconciling us to Christ, He reconciled us to others: Eph.2:1-20) Union with Christ means union with His body and a refusal to treat others as we are treated by Christ (Col. 3 describes our new identity in relation to Christ, in relation to our old identity and in relation to others) is a rebellion against God. Being individualistic is really a hatred of God’s authority. The problem is our enmety with God, an unwillingness to submit, and the solution is our repentance. As Leeman puts it, we are not dealing with a relationship problem but a worship problem. When we get our hearts right with God, we will start treating others as He commands us to.
p.s. i'm sorry for all the typo's and grammatical errors! :-] you rock sydney!
I could write volumes about post-modernism, but most of it would probably come out of personal frustration. I will say this:
From personal acquaintances and experiences, I've noticed that many "post-modern" believers and thinkers have developed a bitterness toward the "old order" of religion stating that the church has become too culturally illiterate, incapable of reaching their communities because of obsolete traditions and close-mindedness.
Often, those arguments are very true and valid. Much of the church is still trying to reach the lost with the same style and technique of the 80's BUT, these arguments can also be cast in the WRONG SPIRIT. I don't think that the post-modern church is going in the wrong direction, but from some of the conversations I've had with people over the years, I've noticed a slight lacing of humanistic values and a REBELLIOUS spirit associated with SOME of their reformed doctrine. There's a fine line between deconstructing tradition and doctrine. The Word of God and it's doctrine never changes. Traditions change, forms change, styles change, but if they do not line up perfectly with the Word of God then they are heresies.
Most importantly, The church is guided by the Holy Spirit, NOT culture. Jesus was immersed in Jewish culture, and for the most part followed the rules. But there are so many instances in the Bible where Jesus went against the flow of culture and did the things considered taboo in His society. Why? How could He? Because He was in communion with the Father. Ultimately, He followed the moves of His Father. He did what He did, the way He did it. When I lead worship, it's not my responsibility to follow a man-made form. It's my responsibility to be led by the Spirit. That's all. The Holy Spirit isn't culturally inept, He knows the best way to convey the gospel in any instance.
I think the post-modern movement is an awesome thing, but some of it lacks accountability. The church's strategy for preaching the gospel should not be JUST to blend in with the culture. The gospel is only effective when the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit rests behind it.
You have some very smart friends. I tend to agree. It seems to me that this is where our mutual friend is headed. Philosophizing Christianity is impossible. When you examine every word, every thought you end up with a negative view.
On the other hand, I agree with their criticism of the church. So, there you have it.
lol at Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. is whiskey really the word for W?
You know, the scary thing is, this is probably the most Americanized Christianity there is...freedom to believe what you want, while accepting everyone else's view at the same time. Many people will approve of this version...
You were saying how he's saying Jesus isn't the only way. Actually, to me it sounds like he's going even farther and just saying Christianity is simply a summary of morality, in which case Jesus and even God himself don't matter...
I totally agree with the over-analyzing thing. For one, I've never been a fan of literary analysis in English class lol. There are some benefits to really analyzing certain things in the bible, because depending on the context things can have really different meanings (it annoys me that these contextual things aren't more readily available). But I have even noticed in certain scripture studies I've had at college that people can get extremely analytical to the point where I really think we're starting to hit things that the writers probably never even imagined implying with what they wrote.
Really, his whole view does not sound christian at all...
I mean, obviously we cannot prove 100% that christianity is correct...cause that would replace the need for faith. Because of that, there could possibly be another view that is actually the correct one. However, being a Christian SHOULD mean that you believe Jesus saving us is the most likely (and quite possibly most logical) explanation. He, on the other hand, is basically saying that's not true at all...only 1 of many paths and such. Which is really totally contradictory.
And being tolerant is different than saying "I think you are also correct in what you believe".
Though you know, now that I read what your first commenter says, he may be right about him implying that other people find truths through other things...cause "christian theology does not have the sole claim to truth" could be correct if he is merely implying that it's not the only way to find certain truths... which is clearly not what my first impression was of what he meant...but maybe *shrug*
your second commenter has numerous good points as well...I think I'll really need to read the book to further understand what this guy is actually implying...
...assuming I actually get around to reading the pile of books I already have set to read...
Not lol.