I argued, essentially, that though no one can be perfectly objective, for most things in ordinary life, we are dependent on the common sense understanding that any two individuals can refer to an object and both can be sufficiently objective to be confident they are referring to the same object. Communication can occur.
But I must move on. A second key element of the general “postmodern” view of reality, which I believe many emergent leaders have uncritically accepted, is:
1. Language is a construct of society – words do not signify reality, but a cultural perception of reality.
And as a subset of the the above, come two other related assumptions.
a. Texts do not reflect objective realities, but interpretations of facts and events within a particular culture.
b. Readers of texts cannot enter into the culture of the author, so the text can only be understood as an interpretation by the reader within his own language and culture.
This leads many to the conclusion that it is the reader who gives meaning to the text.
I don’t doubt that there are degrees of acceptance of the above in the Emergent “conversation”. There will be some who, in practice, agree fairly completely with those assumptions and others who may largely disagree. But it seems most every time I encounter anything written under the umbrella of “Emergent”, hints of these assumptions tend to surface, and when challenged, are not retracted.
Take McLaren’s response to the firestorm created over his Out of Ur post on homosexuality. Those who were upset about his lack of a clear statement were mainly upset about just that – a lack of a clear statement. It seemed to them that McLaren’s waffling was a repudiation of both clear Biblical texts and an understanding of those texts that has been virtually universal in Christianity for 2000 years. It is not surprising that many quoted specific biblical passages to challenge him. His response?
“Many readers seem to assume that by quoting verses from Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, they have solved the problem. It looks like an open-and-shut case to them, and the only reason they can surmise for the fact that some of us find the issue more complex is that we must be ignorant, lazy, rebellious, incompetent, cowardly, compromised, or postmodern.”
Note the unwillingness to accept the “postmodern” tag. I undestand the reluctance. He gave a long and detailed explanation of his view of postmodernisim in a lengthy open letter to Colson. (To which Colson responded). But the question many still ask is - In what way is his view substantially different from the subjectivism and relativism that most tend to describe as “postmodern”? What McLaren falls back on, in an argument that sounds almost convincing, is the need to “interpret” the passages in question in a new cultural context.
“On a deeper level, some of us feel we are being dishonest and unfaithful to Scripture unless we face questions about how we should interpret and apply these texts today, and what hermeneutical methods and assumptions underlie our interpretations and applications. These questions are all the more challenging for some of us when we realize that the Leviticus texts themselves, if taken literally, call for the death penalty. Nobody (I don’t think?) takes that literally, nor do we take many of the other 611 Mosaic proscriptions literally. Why take these selected verses literally, and only partially so? And it gets even more complex for some of us when we realize that people in later Biblical times didn’t enforce some of these proscriptions literally either.”
As I argued at the time, there is a confusion McLaren sneaks into the argument. It is true that the penalty for a number of Old Testament transgressions was not always carried out – but absolutely nothing in scripture would imply that the transgressions became less wrong as a result. We DO take the Leviticus texts “literally”, in the sense that though we may exercise compassion toward those who commit what were once capital moral transgressions, we don’t say the moral transgression is now a virtue or any less wrong. And that is where McLaren seems to waffle.
This is the point Mark Driscoll attempted to make, in his rant, the “tone” of which raised more ire than did the implicit questioning of biblical morality by McLaren. Driscoll quoted Doug Pagitt.
"The question of humanity is inexorably linked to sexuality and gender. Issues of sexuality can be among the most complex and convoluted we need to deal with. It seems to me that the theology of our history does not deal sufficiently with these issues for our day. I do not mean this as a critique, but as an acknowledgement that our times are different. I do not mean that we are a more or less sexual culture, but one that knows more about the genetic, social and cultural issues surrounding sexuality and gender than any previous culture. Christianity will be impotent to lead a conversation on sexuality and gender if we do not boldly integrate our current understandings of humanity with our theology. This will require us to not only draw new conclusions about sexuality but will force to consider new ways of being sexual."
I find the irony rather exquisite. Moderns are roundly criticized by many emergents for the supposedly arrogant assumption that applying Cartesian and Baconian “modern” methods to hermeneutics is permissible. Yet, Emergent leader Paggitt sees absolutely nothing wrong with applying 21st century “knowledge” to scripture in order to correct the insufficient theology of our history, and enable us to draw “new” conclusions. Since the times are different, old ways of reading scripture are not longer good enough.
Again, not everyone who is emergent would throw out 2000 years of church history or read every passage of scripture according to a completely new hermeneutic, and to be fair, protestations by McLaren and Tony Campolo that they do acknowledge scripture and the Nicene Creed as normative standards have to be acknowledged. Yet the broadness of the emergent conversation, and the boundaries intentionally not drawn, makes words like “authoritative”, “normative”, “orthodox” or even “Christian” difficult to apply in the same sentence with emergent. Take this example of a discusion group from the Emergent-U.S. Summer Institute.
Reading the Questions: Interpreting the Bible...
Offering Description: The Bible is the holy book of our people and becomes the Word of God when read in community. With conversations partners from within and outside the tradition we will explore interruptive methods that seek to undo assumed readings of the text and seek the living, radically relating God.
In a certain sense, I could sort of agree. Scripture should be read in community, but that would be the community of the whole church of 2000 years of history. But I don't think that is what is meant. Postmoderns are deathly afraid of "totalizing metanarratives" and emergents seem to prefer "local theologies". I would ask, in light of the course description, is the scripture not the word of God until the local community reads it? What "assumed readings of the text" need to be undone? The virgin birth? The Trinity (which is not explicit in the text, but has been the authoritative interpretation of the text from the beginning.)
One doesn't have to wonder long. Take this one as an example.
- Offering title: Homosexuality and emergent churches
- Offering description: Many denominations and individual congregations are in active conflict over the issue of homosexuality. How might we create fresh ways to move beyond the liberal – conservative impasse?
- I will present themes and questions from queer theory that perhaps could inform Christian theology and church practice. Our session will mostly involve group discussion based on our local contexts and experiences, focused toward ways we can make a better future regarding sexuality, sexual orientation, and homosexuality in our faith communities.
- I expect that participants will be of diverse theologies and practices regarding sexuality. I will encourage an ethos of hospitality in which all voices are welcomed and respected. The most important outcome of the session will be to cultivate friendships and a relational web of people in emerging churches who care about theology and practice regarding sexual identity.
Can someone explain to me just why “queer theory” should “inform Christianity”? What would moving “beyond the liberal – conservative impasse” look like? Would first century temple sex practitioners be part of the “voices welcomed and respected” if they were alive today? Would that have been Paul's method? Can that which was wrong in the first century be right in the 21st? Why? On what basis? What gives a new "authoritative interpretation" from the 21st century "conversation" its authority?
Once again, does scripture say ANYTHING that we can objectively understand as universally true? Does the text say anything at all? Or do we fill in the meaning according to our experience and culture?
It is not that I am opposed to civil discussions between Christians and those who are different in thinking, theology and behavior. Nor am I opposed to compassion. That is not the issue. The problem is that there seems to be a set of assumptions about epistemology that make it impossible for Emergent leaders to take a stand on anything, to say “this is always right and that is always wrong” or to say, paraphrasing Colson, “This is true regardless of whether you or I believe it.”
Emergent seems to have embraced a new orthodoxy. The key tenet is that truth cannot be objective. This is epistemological ground zero. Which is why Tony Jones seems to be able to say that lesbian Episcopal priests are welcome in the discussion, but imply that Chuck Colson apparently is not. Chuck doesn’t accept the new orthodoxy of inclusion and suspicion about the objective meaning of texts. Chuck is a modernist dinosaur who can't escape his subjective skin and just gets in the way of the discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment