In all honesty, I have had a hard time knowing exactly what to think after the whirlwind events of the last couple of weeks in both the PCUSA and ECUSA conventions. I had expected the revisionists in the ECUSA to hold their ground. I did not expect them to stake out new territory. (Much reporting on the convention can be found at David Virtue's news site here.)
In the ECUSA, now simply “The Episcopal Church” or TEC for short, delegates were somewhat stunned at the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori, 52, bishop of Nevada, to the post of Presiding Bishop. Since most Anglican provinces do not ordain women as deacons or priests, much less bishops, this was hardly a conciliatory move to engender trust from other provinces – this was a defiant act of autonomy. On top of this, Schiori is on record as supportive of the consecration of Gene Robinson, the openly Gay Bishop of New Hampshire.
Incredibly, in the Episcopal convention, the House of Deputies voted down a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved” by a vote of 675 to 242. Apparently such exclusive language was politically incorrect.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Monday, June 05, 2006
Why I Am Not Emergent - Part 3
"Within Emergent are Texas Baptists who don't allow women to preach and New England lesbian Episcopal priests. We have Southern California YWAMers and Midwest Lutherans. We have those who hold to biblical inerrancy, and others trying to demythologize the scripture. We have environmental, peacenik lefties, "crunchy cons," and right wing hawks." (Tony Jones)
Emergents generally don’t like to be categorized, and there is enough diversity within the movement that any attempt to categorize, including my own, will be inadequate. What I have attempted to show in parts 1 and 2, is that on two key assumptions of a philosophical trend which is categorized as postmodernism, the leaders of the emergent movement tend toward viewpoints which mirror those assumptions.
Assumption 1: There is no such thing as objective knowledge - knowledge unaffected by bias.Emergent leaders Tony Jones and Brian McLaren protest that they do believe in truth, yet they seem to fall back on the notion that objective knowledge of that truth must be held in supreme suspicion, making the concept of truth essentially meaningless.
Assumption 2: Language is a construct of society – words do not signify reality, but a cultural perception of reality.The propensity to want to find new ways of looking at Scripture allows emergents to comfortably remain in dialogue with those of wildly varying viewpoints, and to be suspicious of anyone who would not be open to wildly varying viewpoints.
This leads me to the third assumption, to which Emergents may not actively ascribe, but will tend to fall in line with in practice:
Assumption 3: Language is a mask to power. Those who control the language have the power.
a. History then, reflects the interpretations of those who controlled the culture at the expense of those who did not.
b. Justice means standing against the oppressor and with the oppressed, allowing alternative constructions of reality to be heard.
Emergents are very concerned about the poor and the oppressed, and this good and is consistent with much of scripture. But this seems to include a tendency to assume that all who are disenfranchised are victims and all who are successful by definition oppress. This leads to a corresponding suspicion of traditionally orthodox and established views of the faith and an openness to new and marginalized views.
I have back track to call attention to Brian McLaren’s open letter to Chuck Colson at this point. I think he honestly tried to explain the distinctions between radical postmodern craziness and the more nuanced views with which he is more comfortable, claiming that Colson’s view of “Postmodernism” is itself a straw man.
It is certainly possible to take the worst statements of adherents to a philosophy and string them together in an unfair way. But it is also possible to protest that one does not believe something and then turn around and make numerous other statements that prove otherwise. McLaren's protests about being misunderstood are betrayed by his own confusing and noncommittal statements.
But it is the concept of the metanarrative that is the critical point for this post. The metanarrative, the all-encompassing, totalizing world-view that explains everything in a certain way and as a result, crushes everything that does not conform. This is the key topic which McLaren attempts to explain to Colson.
Emergents generally don’t like to be categorized, and there is enough diversity within the movement that any attempt to categorize, including my own, will be inadequate. What I have attempted to show in parts 1 and 2, is that on two key assumptions of a philosophical trend which is categorized as postmodernism, the leaders of the emergent movement tend toward viewpoints which mirror those assumptions.
Assumption 1: There is no such thing as objective knowledge - knowledge unaffected by bias.Emergent leaders Tony Jones and Brian McLaren protest that they do believe in truth, yet they seem to fall back on the notion that objective knowledge of that truth must be held in supreme suspicion, making the concept of truth essentially meaningless.
Assumption 2: Language is a construct of society – words do not signify reality, but a cultural perception of reality.The propensity to want to find new ways of looking at Scripture allows emergents to comfortably remain in dialogue with those of wildly varying viewpoints, and to be suspicious of anyone who would not be open to wildly varying viewpoints.
This leads me to the third assumption, to which Emergents may not actively ascribe, but will tend to fall in line with in practice:
Assumption 3: Language is a mask to power. Those who control the language have the power.
a. History then, reflects the interpretations of those who controlled the culture at the expense of those who did not.
b. Justice means standing against the oppressor and with the oppressed, allowing alternative constructions of reality to be heard.
Emergents are very concerned about the poor and the oppressed, and this good and is consistent with much of scripture. But this seems to include a tendency to assume that all who are disenfranchised are victims and all who are successful by definition oppress. This leads to a corresponding suspicion of traditionally orthodox and established views of the faith and an openness to new and marginalized views.
I have back track to call attention to Brian McLaren’s open letter to Chuck Colson at this point. I think he honestly tried to explain the distinctions between radical postmodern craziness and the more nuanced views with which he is more comfortable, claiming that Colson’s view of “Postmodernism” is itself a straw man.
It is certainly possible to take the worst statements of adherents to a philosophy and string them together in an unfair way. But it is also possible to protest that one does not believe something and then turn around and make numerous other statements that prove otherwise. McLaren's protests about being misunderstood are betrayed by his own confusing and noncommittal statements.
But it is the concept of the metanarrative that is the critical point for this post. The metanarrative, the all-encompassing, totalizing world-view that explains everything in a certain way and as a result, crushes everything that does not conform. This is the key topic which McLaren attempts to explain to Colson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)