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.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Why I am Not Emergent - Part 2
So in my last post, I opined that one of the problems with many in the Emergent “conversation” is a significant capitulation to one the central tenets of the postmodern, that objectivity is myth and that all knowledge is determined by experience within a culture. Tony Jones, in challenging Chuck Colson, did make a distinction between truth and objectivity, for example, saying that Stanley Fish did not deny the possibility of truth, but of objectivity. This in itself is an example of the problem, however, because if ALL objectivity is impossible, then the word “truth” can only refer to subjective interpretation, which is the issue Colson was trying to refute.
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 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.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Why I am not Emergent - Part 1
I've fallen into a bad habit of reading the "Out of Ur" section of the CT website. Out of Ur is billed as "Conversations hosted by the editors of Leadership Journal" and has a subheading of "Following God's Call in a New World". As such, it leans heavily in the direction of "Emergent" Christianity, which is an extremely loose and difficult to define collection of approaches to communicating Christianity in a post modern context.
In recent months, there have been a few controversial exchanges. Brian McLaren started a firestorm when one of his posts implied rather strongly that he could not affirm a traditional view of homosexuality as a sin. Later Tony Jones laid out a feisty apologetic as to why the Emergent movement should not have a clear statement of faith. More recently, Jones, in responding to critics who equate emergent with a new Christian left, directly took on Chuck Colson for his criticism of Emergent as not accepting the notion of objective truth.
Knowing full well that Emergent does describe a broad collection of folks with a lot of views, it has been my impression that most of the key leaders of the movement are influenced greatly by a set of philosophical assumptions. And I find those assumptions troublesome.
In recent months, there have been a few controversial exchanges. Brian McLaren started a firestorm when one of his posts implied rather strongly that he could not affirm a traditional view of homosexuality as a sin. Later Tony Jones laid out a feisty apologetic as to why the Emergent movement should not have a clear statement of faith. More recently, Jones, in responding to critics who equate emergent with a new Christian left, directly took on Chuck Colson for his criticism of Emergent as not accepting the notion of objective truth.
Knowing full well that Emergent does describe a broad collection of folks with a lot of views, it has been my impression that most of the key leaders of the movement are influenced greatly by a set of philosophical assumptions. And I find those assumptions troublesome.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Silver Lining and a Dark Cloud
I'm not a political blogger, just a guy who writes for cartharsis and to think and I leave the heavy political stuff to the guys with the time, resources and background. Still, I read a few political sites and blogs, and Iraq and Iran loom large.
Occasionally there is apparent good news. Like the report in the Washington Times about significant numbers of Kurds converting to Christianity. According to the article, Retired Iraqi Gen. Georges Sada, the same guy who claims Saddam flew WMD out of Iraq into Syria before the war, says Kurds are converting to Christianity "by the hundreds" in northern Iraq.
I guess it rings true. Particularly in light of the Al Jazeera interview in which Ahmad Al Katani laments that as many as six million Muslims convert to Christianity in Africa each year. Of course Al Katani unfortunately argues that evangelism is OK as long as it doesn't involve evangelizing Muslims. Still, seeing Christianity having an impact in Muslim countries is encouraging in light of the other, darker stories.
Occasionally there is apparent good news. Like the report in the Washington Times about significant numbers of Kurds converting to Christianity. According to the article, Retired Iraqi Gen. Georges Sada, the same guy who claims Saddam flew WMD out of Iraq into Syria before the war, says Kurds are converting to Christianity "by the hundreds" in northern Iraq.
I guess it rings true. Particularly in light of the Al Jazeera interview in which Ahmad Al Katani laments that as many as six million Muslims convert to Christianity in Africa each year. Of course Al Katani unfortunately argues that evangelism is OK as long as it doesn't involve evangelizing Muslims. Still, seeing Christianity having an impact in Muslim countries is encouraging in light of the other, darker stories.
Rating Your Church...
Been thinking for a few days about a CT article by Leith Anderson called "7 Ways to Rate Your Church: How to measure your church's ministry.” It was a well-intentioned and fairly sensible list of characteristics of churches people, and specifically unchurched people, tend to find attractive. The article is a reprint from 1999, so it is a few years old.
The list is as follows, with excerpts of the summaries taken directly from the article:
1. Sensing the presence of God
Experiencing the supernatural dwarfs everything else as people rate a church's atmosphere.
2. Others-centered
The others-centered church talks little about its programs or its people unless that is truly helpful to the newcomer.
3. Understandable terminology
Blessed are those churches where everyone can understand what is being communicated!
4. People who look like me
Seeing one person who looks and dresses "like me" up on the platform or ushering or pictured in church publicity can communicate an open and inviting atmosphere.
5. Healthy problem handling
What makes a healthy church is not the absence of problems. It's how problems are handled.
6. Accessibility
High ratings go to churches that are "barrier free" in every sense of the term.
7. Sense of expectancy
Most healthy churches are hopeful churches.
Of course there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this list. It is fairly common-sense stuff. I have nothing against Leith Anderson and attended his church a few times years ago. But I have to wonder, isn’t there something missing from this list? Notice that none of the seven items have anything in them directly related to biblical or theological concepts. Sure, sensing the presence of God is a religious element, but not specifically Christian. Being others-centered recalls a biblical principle, but lots of non-believers accept a form of the golden rule.
It seems to me, prior to the megachurch era, few if any of these items would have occurred to anyone seeking to “rate” a church. Granted, Anderson is probably assuming from the outset that Christians know enough to consider biblical orthodoxy before evaluating the seven points he stresses. And it is definitely true that many churches can be theologically correct while being cold and dead to the world around them.
Such an assumption seems ill advised these days. But rather than just being critical, I would suggest an addendum to such a list, one that accounts for some things perhaps more critical. So here’s my list:
1. Cross Centered
Does your church begin and end its ministry with a focus on the central event of human history, the death of Christ for the salvation of the world?
2. Biblical
Does your church take scripture seriously? Is scripture read aloud, understood to be the living voice of God? Is there a sense that God condescended to use human language to communicate things to us that we dare not ignore, revise, edit, or distort?
3. Orthodox
Is your church committed to those essentials of the faith that have been held by the vast majority of Christians for most of twenty centuries? Does the Trinity matter? The incarnation? The virgin birth? Does your church take seriously the clear understanding of whom God is?
4. Confession
In deference to the emphasis of being friendly to the unchurched and avoiding the negative, I have to ask, is there opportunity for us as human beings to face up to our failings? Is there opportunity to see ourselves against the measuring rod of God’s moral standards? Is there opportunity to see our need?
5. Redemption
Perhaps this reiterates point one, but is there real opportunity to connect with the personal meaning of redemption? In some churches steeped in revivalism and personal decision, this has taken the form of an altar call, but in most of Christian history this opportunity for renewal of the New Covenant takes place at the Lord’s Table. Does worship allow the worshiper to walk away with a renewed conscience and a sense of being forgiven?
6. Hope
Does the final reality of the church service leave people with a sense of hope, refreshing, purpose for the future? Is the good news really good news?
7. Ecumenism
I do NOT mean here ecumenical in the sense of the World Council of Churches, where no distinctions can any longer be made between Christianity and paganism. Rather, I mean non-sectarian. Is it possible to affirm essential Christian doctrine as expressed in Nicea and Chalcedon and accept those from other perspectives who also hold to those definitions?
Lists always have their limitations. I could add a few more items, so could you, but you get the point. Is it not possible to be sensitive to the concerns of the seeker and be theologically sound and thorough at the same time? I believe that the tendency to quantify, measure, program and perhaps even manipulate God is a hyper-modern trait the evangelical church has thoroughly embraced. We are too often in love with what seems to work in the short term and are unaware of what long-term ramifications might be. I just want to call attention to what is often forgotten in the process.
The list is as follows, with excerpts of the summaries taken directly from the article:
1. Sensing the presence of God
Experiencing the supernatural dwarfs everything else as people rate a church's atmosphere.
2. Others-centered
The others-centered church talks little about its programs or its people unless that is truly helpful to the newcomer.
3. Understandable terminology
Blessed are those churches where everyone can understand what is being communicated!
4. People who look like me
Seeing one person who looks and dresses "like me" up on the platform or ushering or pictured in church publicity can communicate an open and inviting atmosphere.
5. Healthy problem handling
What makes a healthy church is not the absence of problems. It's how problems are handled.
6. Accessibility
High ratings go to churches that are "barrier free" in every sense of the term.
7. Sense of expectancy
Most healthy churches are hopeful churches.
Of course there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this list. It is fairly common-sense stuff. I have nothing against Leith Anderson and attended his church a few times years ago. But I have to wonder, isn’t there something missing from this list? Notice that none of the seven items have anything in them directly related to biblical or theological concepts. Sure, sensing the presence of God is a religious element, but not specifically Christian. Being others-centered recalls a biblical principle, but lots of non-believers accept a form of the golden rule.
It seems to me, prior to the megachurch era, few if any of these items would have occurred to anyone seeking to “rate” a church. Granted, Anderson is probably assuming from the outset that Christians know enough to consider biblical orthodoxy before evaluating the seven points he stresses. And it is definitely true that many churches can be theologically correct while being cold and dead to the world around them.
Such an assumption seems ill advised these days. But rather than just being critical, I would suggest an addendum to such a list, one that accounts for some things perhaps more critical. So here’s my list:
1. Cross Centered
Does your church begin and end its ministry with a focus on the central event of human history, the death of Christ for the salvation of the world?
2. Biblical
Does your church take scripture seriously? Is scripture read aloud, understood to be the living voice of God? Is there a sense that God condescended to use human language to communicate things to us that we dare not ignore, revise, edit, or distort?
3. Orthodox
Is your church committed to those essentials of the faith that have been held by the vast majority of Christians for most of twenty centuries? Does the Trinity matter? The incarnation? The virgin birth? Does your church take seriously the clear understanding of whom God is?
4. Confession
In deference to the emphasis of being friendly to the unchurched and avoiding the negative, I have to ask, is there opportunity for us as human beings to face up to our failings? Is there opportunity to see ourselves against the measuring rod of God’s moral standards? Is there opportunity to see our need?
5. Redemption
Perhaps this reiterates point one, but is there real opportunity to connect with the personal meaning of redemption? In some churches steeped in revivalism and personal decision, this has taken the form of an altar call, but in most of Christian history this opportunity for renewal of the New Covenant takes place at the Lord’s Table. Does worship allow the worshiper to walk away with a renewed conscience and a sense of being forgiven?
6. Hope
Does the final reality of the church service leave people with a sense of hope, refreshing, purpose for the future? Is the good news really good news?
7. Ecumenism
I do NOT mean here ecumenical in the sense of the World Council of Churches, where no distinctions can any longer be made between Christianity and paganism. Rather, I mean non-sectarian. Is it possible to affirm essential Christian doctrine as expressed in Nicea and Chalcedon and accept those from other perspectives who also hold to those definitions?
Lists always have their limitations. I could add a few more items, so could you, but you get the point. Is it not possible to be sensitive to the concerns of the seeker and be theologically sound and thorough at the same time? I believe that the tendency to quantify, measure, program and perhaps even manipulate God is a hyper-modern trait the evangelical church has thoroughly embraced. We are too often in love with what seems to work in the short term and are unaware of what long-term ramifications might be. I just want to call attention to what is often forgotten in the process.
Phil Keaggy Speaks Out
Nice CT interview with Phil Keaggy today. I've been a huge Keaggy fan since I was a teenager, and he has influenced my guitar playing ever since. Aside from being a phenomenally versatile guitarist, Phil has always been a genuine nice guy, which makes a couple of comments in CT a little surprising. In context, he is not bashing anything or anyone, just being honest about some minor annoyances. Says Phil:
What irks me most about the Christian music business is the model on which they built the whole thing. It's based on the world's model of taking songs and masters from artists and owning it, when they make you pay back the production budget based on your royalties' percentage and then they end up owning it. It's like making 30 years of payments on a house that the bank never gives you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)