"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.
“…metanarrative implies domination, coercion, eradication of opponents, imposition of beliefs or behaviors on minorities against their will, and the like. Many people don’t realize these connotations are associated with the term, because they’ve gotten their information from others in the Christian community who have never really understood or even read the primary source documents.”
He goes on at length
“…In the late 20th century, postmodern thinkers looked back at regimes like Stalin’s and Hitler’s. … Postmodern thinkers realized that these megalomaniacs used grand systems of belief to justify their atrocities. Those systems of belief – which the postmodern thinkers called 'metanarratives,' but which also could have been called 'world views' or 'ideologies' – were so powerful they could transform good European intellectuals into killers or accomplices. They thought back over European history and realized (as C. S. Lewis did) that those who have passionate commitment to a system of belief will be most willing, not only to die for it, but to kill for it.
"They looked at powerful belief systems of the twentieth century – world views (extreme Marxism is one such world view), grand stories (anti-Semitism is one such story, White Supremacy is another, American manifest destiny is another), ideologies (such as the industrialist ideology that the earth and its resources are not God’s creation deserving care through reverential stewardship, but rather, are simply natural resources there for the taking by secular industrialists), and they were horrified. These dominating belief systems were responsible for so many millions of deaths, so much torture, so much loss of freedom and dignity, so much damage to the planet, that they sought to undermine their dominance. They advocated incredulity or skepticism toward such stories or belief systems.”
I give McLaren credit – this a compelling explanation and one that we should consider. Yes, certain ideologies have been used to justify crimes against humanity. Yet at its heart, this realization is, again, not exactly new. One does not need to understand postmodern theory to be horrified at Nazi ideologies, Marxism, anti-Semitism or even the extremes of manifest destiny. What is troubling is that McLaren, echoing the assumption described above, emphasizes not the rightness or wrongness, insanity or sensibility of the ideology, but primarily focuses on the degree to which the adherents of the ideology believe it to be true, and the degree to which the view gains wide acceptance, thus becoming a force for oppression. Hence, implied in the disdain for the metanarrative is a skepticism about the possibility or even the desirability of knowing what is true. And there is a not-so-subtle tendency toward moral equivalence lumping together any who strongly claim to believe any ideology is universally true. As he continued to question Colson:
“By the way, you repeatedly referred to 9/11 as a watershed in this regard, but it seems to me the “metanarrative” of the Taliban and radical Islamists simply adds another reason for incredulity or skepticism towards belief systems which seek control by force or intimidation, don’t you agree? And rightly or wrongly, the U.S. action in Iraq may convince many people around the world that we’re just another powerful elite bent on domination, coercion, and elimination of our opponents through a messianic metanarrative of American Empire.”
Implied, intentionally or not, is the notion that US involvement in Iraq after 9-11 is not really any different than 9-11 itself. Note the equivalency based words used: “force”, “intimidation” in regard to the Taliban, equated with “domination", "coercion", "elimination of our opponents", "messianic", "Empire” in regard to the US. These may not be McLaren’s views of the war or the U.S., but at the very least, he legitimizes those who would hold such views. Lest there be any doubt as to McLaren’s meaning:
“Anyway, Chuck, you’re legitimately worried that “postmoderns” will use their relativism as an excuse to do anything they want. But they’re worried that you and other “moderns” will use your absolutism as an excuse to do anything you want. (If you can’t see any validity to their concern, then I’m truly speechless, and it’s hardly worth your reading the rest of my letter.)”
I, for one, do not the validity McLaren thinks is so obvious - nor do I equate the targeting of non-military targets like the World Trade Center on the one hand, with surgically precise actions to dethrone an individual who tossed dissidents into shredders and gassed his own people on the other, and who had at the very least, circumstantial ties with those who planned 9-11. But that is beside the point at the moment. For “postmoderns” the ultimate evil is coercion. The ultimate sin is imposing one’s view through power. And even if we believe in “truth”, when we assume that we can’t objectively know that one worldview is better than another, it becomes a crime to assert with confidence a particular viewpoint. It becomes a supremely arrogant stance to say something is universally true, and to succeed in convincing enough people that a viewpoint is true is both monstrous and oppressive. McClaren to Colson:
“You’re against their supposed denial of truth in the interest of self-indulgence, and they’re against your apparent monopolization of truth in the interest of political domination, and you’ve convinced some of the rest of us that you’re both at least partly right about each other.”
OK, a swipe at the religious right, I assume. But why must political activity or even political victory equate to political domination? Is the fact that Christians are active in politics a necessary evidence that they are power mad and bent on oppression of everyone else? Is the quest to put an end to partial birth abortion and stop the total redefinition of marriage motivated by nothing more than a naïve arrogance or messianic complex? McClaren says he believes in truth, but there is a huge caveat:
“Has the word (truth) become a club used without content to batter opponents, as 'patriotism' and 'tolerance' are used by conservatives and liberals in the political arena? “
One post on Out of Ur makes a similar statement that belief in and promotion of a particular view of truth as objectively true is a frightening thing.
“To the frustration of its critics, and to the delight of its advocates, the emerging church has successfully resisted boundaries, categories, and labels. Such devices are seen by emergent’s adherents as the shackles of modernity used to confine and control what should be free and fluid. To an increasingly suspicious culture even the desire to establish discernable boundaries is met with alarm. Such categorization can only serve two purposes—either exclusion (the judging of others determined to be unlike me), or exploitation (the targeting of others for my gain)."
Once again, the great sin is establishing clear categories. The great evil is having boundaries because boundaries, limits, doctrinal statements, clear moral principles can only serve the two purposes of marginalizing others or exploiting them. So, for these emergents, the only truly just and fair thing is to open up the conversation – without boundaries – to avoid offending those who might feel oppressed by totalizing metanarratives. Says Tony Jones...
“What continues to surprise me is how dangerous some people consider this friendship I'm in to be. If you take some of these blogs (and books) seriously, those of us who make up the Emergent Village are a great threat to the Christian church—we have undermined doctrine, truth, and church life. The fact that we're discussing theological items that have been previously deemed "undiscussable" is considered grounds for labels like "heretic" and "apostate."
This doesn’t bother to address the obvious question: “What are the 'undiscussable' things faithful, orthodox evangelicals get nervous about emergents bringing up?” If the issues are old controversies about eschatology, the length of a Genesis day or free will and sovereignty – emergent would be hardly a threat to orthodox moderns who have debated the same things since the Reformation. But emergents are discussing redefinitions of worship, rethinking the nature of God, questioning long held views of the atonement, reinterpreting Hell, flirting with innovations in sexual morality – and most importantly – embracing an entirely new understanding of the nature of truth and language.
And here is my problem. Openness without boundaries can’t work. Unless we want anarchy, it is necessary to make moral judgments. And in the absence of traditional and biblical Christian doctrine and moral guidance, something else will fill the vacuum.
Is it right to be humble about our judgments? Of course. Is it right to be compassionate with those whom we disagree? Absolutely. But the Christian HAS TO say, “there is salvation in NO OTHER NAME.”
The thing is, I’ve heard all this before. It appalls me that while orthodox believers in mainline churches are fighting for their very lives to retain nothing more than the essentials of two-thousand years of Christian consensus, so many young up-and-coming evangelicals are militantly embracing an epistemology that closely mirrors the assumptions of the liberals who now control many of the leadership roles in those mainline churches.
Conservative, orthodox, evangelicals in the mainline have long been dismissed as backward, ignorant and behind the curve on the latest “scholarly” wisdom – stuck in the mud of a less enlightened era. It is those who speak loudest of diversity that marginalize the orthodox without mercy. How long will it be before the same casual dismissal of orthodox conservatives in the broader evangelical movement becomes the norm? Colson is already seen as a dinosaur.
While McLaren gets lots of ink in the flagship magazine of Evangelicalism refusing to state a position on homosexuality in the interest of being “pastoral” and not wanting to short circuit “dialogue”, mainline leaders use church law, language of inclusivity and resistance to bigotry, language of love and acceptance, to essentially embrace a total rejection of all things historically Christian.
Note how clearly questions now eating away at mainline denominations mirror the direction of the inclusive emergent conversation. Episcopal Bishops Joe Doss and Larry Maze expressed opposition to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Note how much emphasis Doss places on “discussion” and “study”, so reminiscent of McLaren’s quip about studying homosexuality for five years while saying nothing definitive. But note as well how much concern there is that such an amendment would impose one view on all, implying that all views must be considered equally valid. From Virtueonline
"Marriage is a theological matter of first importance for the church," Doss said during a press conference in the Dirksen Senate office building. "It raises some of the most fundamental, complex, and vexing issues of theology... Such issues demand the church's most careful and profound deliberation, and that is to take place in our parishes, councils, seminaries, publications, and places of theological reflection.
"It is to take place within national and international units of each denomination and in ecumenical dialogue. Congress, on the other hand, is not the proper forum for this sort of study, debate, and decision-making [on marriage]. The state is not to dictate doctrine to the church, or pre-empt a lively and extensive debate by precipitously deciding it for us."
Will such “deliberation” include the voices of Christians from the past 2000 years? Or only those ultra-modern voices who are sensitive to the allegedly oppressed sexual minority? Of course, openness becomes the new orthodoxy. The article continues:
(In their open letter to the Senate) "They believe that people of faith and goodwill can and do disagree about what constitutes marriage, but that this amendment would endorse one religiously biased view over all others and impose it on all Americans by constitutional fiat."
It may make people uncomfortable that Jesus claimed to be the only way and that Biblical language, though inclusive of all races, is not inclusive of all beliefs or moral viewpoints. As Francis Schaeffer argued, “truth brings confrontation”. Confrontation is what emergents want t avoid (except when confronting those they categorize as "moderns"). But if we believe in truth, as emergents still protest they do, then by saying “this is true” we are by definition saying something else is false. That may not be popular or hip or intellectually fashionable. But it is reality. And it is essential to the maintaining of historic orthodoxy.
If it was impossible, in denominations that had an ecclesiastical structure, to reign in the likes of James Pike, John Spong and Gene Robinson, how will the evangelical movement hold the more extreme fringes of an undefined “conversation” accountable? Chaos in the mainline at least has a structure that might one day be used to redress its heresies. Chaos within the radical independence of evangelicalism can only be reigned in by a supreme act of God. Which by no means indicates it is impossible. Just that if it happens, it will happen in spite of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment