I want to make a statement about the world that we live in. I am thrilled to live here and now. As a sometimes student of history, I can imagine life in a lot of other eras in a lot of other places. Movies help with the mind pictures. No time or place appeals to me like the 21st century in the good old USA. I could elaborate for quite some time on my reasons for thinking thus. Above all, I find the interconnectivity of our global culture fascinating. The sharing of ideas…the expansion of human rights…the opportunity to engage other perspectives in meaningful conversation all get my blood pumping. Sadly, my doctor tell me that this leads to high blood pressure…I find it strange that so many are afraid of new cultural perspectives. They fear the change that inevitably comes with globalization. Of course, they find my view of things equally confusing. They see my willingness to consider other viewpoints as a challenge to the loyalty I have to my own nation or heritage. I am not saying this from a negative standpoint. It is the obvious result of transition. Some are on one side of a cultural bridge. Some are on the other. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, moving slowly out of fear that we may fall into the chasm of uncertainty that yawns below us.
The Church is highly affected by these opposing perspectives. On one side of the chasm stands the stalwart bastion of traditional Evangelicalism, with its historical connections to Fundamentalism. Its foundations are made of solid stone…the “objective truth” mined from the quarries of Scripture through literal, grammatical, historical exegesis. Its presence is reminiscent of the castles of old; it seems to protect its adherents while offering certainty and stability. When one encounters its walls, it radiates permanence. But a closer inspection may reveal crumbling and a subtle whiff of decay.
On the other side, the bridge leads to a flowing and meandering river. Its very fluidity forces those wading in its currents to abandon permanence. This is the Emerging church. Ideas and conversations fluctuate, governed only by the “banks” known as “language games”. The concept of stability is washed away in the ever-changing experience of the individual’s moment. The concept of “objective truth” stifles the rush of water. Why dam up the energy and creativity of God’s people? It is par for the course that those who bathe in this brook’s depths are often confronted by the raw sewage that finds its way into the eddy. After all, how can one keep the river “pure” when “purity” is merely the construct of the individual who desires to define it?
Clearly, something has changed in the basic assumptions of Christians these days. The Emerging Church hopes to re-articulate orthodox theology in terms that are culturally relevant to those who are already on the far side of the bridge. Terms like postmodern, relativistic, pluralistic, multicultural, post-liberal and post-Christian are more important than language that represents a typical Evangelical Sunday morning sermon. If we start with the idea that our cultural mentality is changing, then it is sensible to change our focus as Christians.
Prior to delving in to the particulars of the Emerging church and its detractors, do we believe that a general cultural shift of the magnitude described above is taking place, especially among our younger generations? If not, what caused this tension in the first place? Many in the Evangelical camp are content to write off the Emerging church as a childish response to fundamentalist conservatism. Are there deeper issues at stake? Will the church remain relevant and evangelistic if the culture changes around it but it remains rigid?
February 24, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“They see my willingness to consider other viewpoints as a challenge to the loyalty I have to my own nation or heritage.”
I’ve tangled with these people before.
“do we believe that a general cultural shift of the magnitude described above is taking place, especially among our younger generations?”
I believe so. Many young people make exceptions to the doctrines of their religion. Despite this, they still identify with their faith and go to church. I’ve heard some describe it as finding their own personal connection with God, others call it, negatively, “a la carte” Christianity.
Good job in describing the distinction. I’m far into the river. I’m comfortable with a world that embraces progress and change. Traditions scare me, especially when they’re followed simply because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” As JFK once said, “The world is changing. The old ways will not do.”
“Will the church remain relevant and evangelistic if the culture changes around it but it remains rigid?”
Do you think this is unique to our time? I suspect this discussion has occurred many times throughout the church’s history. What has happened at that time?
If the church remains rigid, people will do as they always have: switch denominations, form their own, or stop going to church. I know several people who have switched to inclusive Christian churches.
Any church that hopes to spread its message to another generation cannot remain rigid. From a practical point of view, a church is made up of people. If it cannot capture the next generation, there will be no members or money, and the church will fail. Even if the Elders are afraid of change, they will eventually pass away, and the next generation–with its new-fangled views–will take over. Evolve or die.
What do you think?
February 25, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Let me share a story:
One day I was having a conversation with a well-known theologian who is also known for speaking out against emerging cultural Christianity i.e. post…everything. I mentioned to him that I was struggling over the fact that American Christianity seemed to be neglecting the needs of the poor in the US. I cited some examples from our city and asked what he thought the Church should be doing? He said to me “I don’t see anything wrong with the church. It seems to me they are doing just fine”. I was so set back by his comment that I was speechless – imagine me speechless. I had no clue what to say or how to articulate my disgust.
There are many problems as it relates to the emerging movement that one could never go into all of the details. However, the issue can be seen from two vantage points: first, the theological/philosophical; second, the practical/ecclesiastical.
I have already written on many of the issues surrounding the philosophical issues (see our other blogs). However, very little attention thus far as been directed toward the theological, which Denny briefly mentioned. Lindbeck, and before him Richard Niebuhr, were in my opinion, the fathers of the theological rebellion that took place in what was called the Yale-Chicago feuds.
Here was Lindbeck’s brilliant thesis: If you believe that Scripture is a book of set propositions where the Church is able to extract doctrinal principles and at the same time you believe that scripture is inerrant then why have you throughout history changed doctrinal positions on major theological issues (in his case he was concerned about the Eucharist.)
Though this may be foreign let me show how this is related to the emerging concern. Emerging Christians (aka postmodern Christians) believe that Scripture is dynamic and though its core beliefs never change many of the details do. Of course now you begin to see people like Pinnock and subjectivity, however in order to understand these properly you must have a basic understanding of Kierkegaard and his view of the Subjective. Nevertheless, Lindbeck was correct in showing that propositionalism is not the way Scripture should be viewed. He along with his teacher Niebuhr suggested a Narrative approach to doctrine. This changed our perspective from -God gave us a set of metaphysical principles, which because God is immutable means these principles are inerrant and thus should be believed propositionally- to -Scripture is a record of God’s interaction with man on the grand stage of life. It is a narrative record. And the only metaphysical priniciples are the facts that exist in relation to the historical events (i.e. Jesus).
I know this sounds confusing, but you have to realize that these are very complex issues. And of course I am trying to summarize. Here, think of it this way: All metaphysical propositions that DO exist as they relate to God and man have in some way collapsed into the Christ. So the only true proposition is Christ. He is the word made flesh. Now apply that principle to the Church and you have the emerging church: The church has made the word flesh. Its a difference between intellectualism and action. A favorite SK quote of mine is when he is giving a sermon and says to the people do you sit there with scripture and wonder how will I ever do what it says when I don’t know what it means. The whole time you begin looking through commentaries and start asking local scholars questions about your verse and at the same time nothing has been done for the kingdom. Instead forget the verse you know nothing about and just do the verses you know. Certainly, there are enough of them to keep you busy for a lifetime (my words).
What a hatchet job. At the very least I hope it stimulates conversation.
February 26, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I appreciate where Rob is coming from. It is apparent that at least many younger people (which I choose to define as under 35…at least until I am 36!) are at a place in their lives that allows for an openness to spirituality while guarding against meaningless tradition. Especially when the traditions in question divide instead of unifying.
As to the particular question pertaining to the Church being forced to “evolve or die”, it is definitely a true statement that the Church has been forced to deal with such scenarios before. In fact, the entire Reformation can be classified as such a situation. The ironic thing is that the Reformers themselves (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, et al.) had a nice little latin saying: “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda”. In English, “The Reformed church is always reforming”. Why ironic? Well, typically, the most rigid and dogmatic branches of Evangelicalism would affirm the historical traditions associated with the Reformers listed above.
As to Eric’s comment…We will get there soon. I would like to place the deeper and specific aspects of the Emergent “movement” in parenthesis until we establish whether or not a cultural shift of significant and unusual magnitude is actually taking place outside of the heads of the academics…in a little land we like to call “The Real World”.
If it is indeed taking place, what are the “general particulars”? Is it possible to even define the terms for discussion?
February 27, 2008 at 1:02 am
Thanks for the direction Denny. It is my opinion that we are seeing something unusual, but I think that what we think we are seeing is not quite what is really happening. I thought about this recently as I began reflecting on the Presidential race and you hear things like “Change” and you hear people categorizing young voters as “Post-Partisan”. I believe we are seeing a cultural shift that was predicted by Kierkegaard when he was fighting the Hegelians (who we now call modernists.) I do not believe this is just a religious situation, but a philosophical one that includes all like-minded people.
I believe the only reason our transition has not been much smoother is due to the absolutes that modernism brings. Think about it this way: if you truly believe that what you know as true falls into the category of absolute, then to see some “movement” away from that absolutism is to fall into the trap of believing that those moving from absolutism are moving into untruth. Its inevitable. This is why we were warned that this absolutism was do dangerous (though I must say many people welcomed the sort of certainties that absolutism brought). Had some other movement (other than absolutism) presented itself its more than likely the case that we would have merely transitioned into a new age. Instead, we are seeing incredible cultural divisions.
I am not sure we can so easily separate the academic from the practical. I believe the academic merely talks about what takes place in the real world, but does so in its own language-game.
February 27, 2008 at 1:18 pm
In my opinion there is a cultural shift among the “young” of western culture. The question of whether it is unusual for me is hard to answer because I have never lived at another time to truly experience another cultural shift to be able to distinguish between your everyday cultural shift and the and unusual one. (But maybe that’s being too nit-picky
). However, while I believe that there is a shift in the thinking of the young and that it seems to line up with the academic side of things, there are some hold-outs from modernity among the youth which makes things… unusual? 
Maybe the holdouts might be more from the industrial revolution than directly from modernity, but nonetheless it seems (in my mind) as though these are hold-outs (please correct me if I am wrong). Okay, so I’ve generated enough suspense in your mind for my liking, let me explain the hold-outs.
First we have pragmatism. It seems to me that in our youth the absolute is whatever works. While that absolute might look different for everybody, it is nonetheless an absolute that the pragmatic way is the best way. You see this in many areas, I will mention one. Schools. We teach things that work, only those things that work, if the teaching has no immediate pragmatic result, then don’t teach it. I could go on, but I won’t.
Second is science. Now I will agree that among the youth there is a growing distrust for science as absolutely true, but nonetheless there are still those (of the youth) who believe that whatever a scientist says must be true because a scientist said it. We still look to science to cure us and bring us eternal life… with just a few minutes of commercials on network television you will see many “miracle drugs” that will help cure your ills. Science has the answers to the things we want to know the most.
So are these hold-outs do you think? Maybe I am wrong. I believe that we are seeing a cultural shift among the youth, but it does bring along with it some bits and pieces of modernity as we are those who seem to be traversing both. My two cents.
February 27, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Interesting points. We seem to be developing consensus that things are changing culturally. Are the cultural divisions that Eric refers to a result of the “hold-outs” that Kevin introduces? I think so.
It seems to me that we are in a very transitional stage. Young people, like all people, tend to reflect the worldviews and language-games of the cultural paradigm that surrounds their formative years. If this is true, then when someone grows up in a home/school/church environment that is multicultural and where truth is evaluated situationally as opposed to propositionally, they tend to enter the “river” much more quickly. On the other hand, taking St. Johns, Michigan for example, when a community has maintained its historical lack of diversity and rests totally upon its modern heritage, the young of that community will reflect that composition. It really becomes a question of formed assumptions (presuppositions). Those “bits and pieces of modernity” that Kevin refers to won’t be jettisoned until the paradigm that Eric aptly described as “absolutism” moves off of the scene. My guess is that a total shift won’t occur for 50 to 100 years.
If we take a look at the emergence of Cartesian logic and the mechanistic model of absolutism, the kind of hold-overs to the Medieval worldview retained influence and power for a long, long time.
February 27, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Here’s a link to a NY Times article that Rob B. sent to me. It is pertinent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/25cnd-religion.html?ex=1204693200&en=be7a898b055cd65b&ei=5070&emc=eta1
February 27, 2008 at 7:40 pm
So, here’s my next question. If the cultural change is indeed taking place (and who knows how slowly or what it will look like in the end), what are some of the consistent indicators of such a shift? Also, if absolutism is on the decline, what are the implications for things like the notion of “common good” or morality?
February 28, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I definitely believe there is a cultural shift taking place within the church today. The funny thing is culture is always evolving, yet the Church universal tends to have a delayed reaction to it. There are individual churches they stay relevant and on the cutting edge and usually help to usher that into the Church as whole over time.
I believe that the church has no option other than to remain relevant to the culture in which they live. When you lose your relevance, you lose your voice. I think many people see the Church talking but have no interest in listening. They’ve heard all we have to say, they have been judged and condemned enough and have, for good reason, turned a deaf ear. They have no interest in becoming part of a group who pushes their beliefs on others, treating them not as human beings with feelings and desires, but merely as an object to convert to their way of thinking.
As believers we have got to come to terms with the way in which culture sees the Church and re-visit our method of evangelism. We can’t simply bury our head in the sand and blame it on their unwillingness to hear the Gospel. Obviously there will always be those for which that is true, but I believe we’ve used that excuse for far too long. Those that are willing to take an honest look at themselves as the Church and seek out more effective ways to extend the love and grace of God to their culture are the ones on the forefront of the emerging church.
February 28, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Before I say what I came to say (sounds dangerous huh?), I want to clarify something that Adam brings up. When we (I) am talking about “culture” and “shifts”, we must understand what those mean in conjunction with “movement”. For example, the Industrial Revolution was a cultural movement (i.e. it added something missing from the culture as a whole, thus moving it forward or adjusting it in some way). On the other hand “Modernism” was a culture shift; something new. It did not merely advance from its predecessors, though in some ways a new culture is never devoid its history, but it changed the way the individual thought. I think to really appreciate this you must look at Descartes story, or Copernicus if you like science. These people changed the “worldview” of their culture.
This is important because at the heart of Adam’s comments was this notion that culture is like a moving river, which either the Church must keep up with its currents or be irrelevant. This is true only when speaking from within the culture you are critiquing. But when we are talking about a cultural shift we are speaking about something much more violent (a different river if you will). This was not made clear to me until I began having conversations with some of my professors in seminary. I learned this nugget (man I hate that word), and its the most important thing I could say here: I (one who is postmodern) and my professor (one who is an absolutist) processes truth differently. Its not that he and I have philosophical differences thats way too superficial, but we just don’t think the same way. I use the professor to represent many conversations I have had in the past with absolutists (philosophers of modernity).
I believe the reason why the Church as struggled with postmodernism so much is because it gladly welcomed and settled in modernity. As I mentioned earlier (though I should be careful lest I be rebuked again), the problem that Adam raises about doctrine is the right problem to raise. Read my post about Lindbeck who explained all of this.
I am fearful of these divisions I refer to. This is why the Emerging Movement as been very careful to say they are not reformers, they are merely trying to integrate. That sounds like the right answer, but it is just not working. On the other hand no one wants another reformation. I think Denny is right when he says that in 50 years or so things will change and I believe that is correct. By then most modernists will have been purged from society. However, just as a note; there are many seminaries hell-bent on making sure modernist teachings continue.
Finally, Kevin is right to identify pragmatism. I got really excited a few years ago when I learned about pragmatism, but when I said the word in conversations with professors they acted like I committed and unforgivable sin. Unfortunately, pragmatism comes with a bunch of philosophical baggage, but if one can get beyond that its a great concept to understand in conjunction with postmodernism.
March 2, 2008 at 4:03 pm
To preface my comments…I am not much a student of history and hardly a student of scripture. I am however a student of the world that I live in, the church (the people not the place) that I come in contact with and the ideas and constructs that have shaped my life to this point. I was a bit nervous posting on the blog at first. I thought to myself “what do I have to offer the discussion?” Hopefully coming to the table simply as a postmodern is enough.
As not much of a student of history it is hard for me to say that there is a general cultural shift is taking place. My own personal experience and journey tells me there is one. Growing up and attending many different churches that were fundamentalist I developed the logic and knowledge side of my brain. Now that I’m in my mid-twenties I feel that I haven’t felt. The emotion and experience side of my brain has been neglected. I think this is the feeling of many of my generation. We are looking for more. We want to experience and we want something relevant.
I think its funny that many would think that the Emerging church is a response to fundamentalist conservatism. The Emerging church just is. I’m sure there are subgroups that have formed to be responsive and reactionary, but I don’t think it is the case for the majority. I don’t feel like I am so much responding to it as I am just fitting into it. Maybe it is just my own experience clouding my judgment.
Is there still room for truth in the Emerging church? I think so. I hope so. Just not the kind of “truth” that is really a shroud for people to push their convictions. What can we do to spur on change? I don’t want to wait 50 to 100 years.
Consistent indicators of the shift…good question. I’ll have to think about that one for a bit longer.
I’m not so sure that there are implications for things like common good or morality. At least not for the negative, or the negative as I see it. It seems that in our day and age we find more and more people crying out for morality…for justice. Our generations ability to connect and engage with communities around the world spurs this on. I’m not so sure this is just the case with the younger evangelicals either. It seems to be a consistent theme evangelical or not.
March 3, 2008 at 3:10 am
Dave,
Thank you so much for your contribution. We are always hopeful that everyone feels comfortable contributing in some way. We are all in this journey together – no matter who we are.
In any discussion about “emerging” or “postmodern” it should always be clear, though Dave’s comments demonstrates otherwise, that these both are really states of being. I think most who consider themselves emerging or postmodern would say “its just the way I am”. In fact, I just had an argument/conversation with family members about this issue. My grandfather and Mother were talking about how lazy my generation was and basically how screwed up we all are. I kindly reminded them that our generation is different from theirs and that what you believed growing up is not what I believe. What I think about life and family is not what you believe. And of course I think its for the best.
As I explained in my story about the professor as someone who is postmodern that merely means I process truth and the world differently. So as Dave says it is a state of being. Here is why we have some of the problems we have. For example D.A. Carson DEMANDS an answer from emerging folks on truth. Emerging folks have just existed, and provided little or no explanation for their philosophical or theological views. So I completely agree that these modes are mere states of being, but in any state of being to express an opinion about something must require cogent explanations.
I think this is where emerging people have done a disservice. In their attempt at being “unapologetic” that have neglected to provide anything for those who are absolutists, and to be honest thats just not fair. This is why I have suggested on several occassions that emerging folks use the word “explanation” instead of “defense”. So, we don’t have to provide you with any defense (thats just true, I don’t have to give you any reason why I believe what I do.) However, I should be able to provide you with explanations. That is, let me explain why I believe what I believe. Let me tell you my story, my experience.
As a note to Dave and others who may also be joining or reading I think I speak for most of us when I say that we understand the basic position of postmodernism as a state of being, but in order for us to say anything of value we need to talk about it conceptually, which requires an analytic look at what all of this craziness we call postmodernism means for us.
I want to give a nice shout out to Dave for providing us with a good topic of discussion. I have felt the pain that fundamentalism brings and am myself postmodern precisely because my modern view of the world was never reconciled to my experience of it.
March 5, 2008 at 3:17 am
I’m going to echo Dave’s sentiments about not being able to intelligently discuss things like Nibuhr and Lindbeck’s ideas. Being married to a genius (sorry if that embarrasses you, Den), I realize that I am not a true historian, theologian, or philosopher. I generally spit out other people’s ideas, and very infrequently come up with my own. But I’m going to throw in a few comments anyway. So here goes…
First of all, I find the debate about whether post-modernism is truly in evidence somewhat funny. I do some reading about art in my free time, and I’ve run across a number of things that suggest that the things we’re discussing were becoming apparent in certain circles in the 1960’s and 1970’s (so far as I understand them). The guys who were discussing post-modernism then must be thinking “Good riddance!” and wishing things would trickle down to the general public a little bit faster.
I agree with whoever it was that previously mentioned that the church often seems to be behind the times. When you look at the hippie movement (not using “movement” in the way you defined, Scott), there are all sorts of things that were so radical at the time, but are now mainstream in general culture and are still cutting-edge in the church. Things like environmental issues, multiculturalism (Did you know Sesame Street forwarded that issue as one of their major emphasis?), global awareness…
I feel that one of the saddest things about how the church relates to culture is that we tend to trail mainstream culture instead of getting out there. We’re afraid to make mistakes. We’re afraid to get our hands dirty. Wouldn’t the world be a different place if the church were taking a leading position in arenas like fighting aids or dismantling the “Lord’s Army” (which exploits and tortures children in Africa)? Is it any wonder that the young people in our culture are taking cues from a secular perspective when the church is completely silent on what they see as truly relevant issues?
Oh, and since I’m the only woman posting so far, I’ll just say I have lots of (generally unpopular) views on feminism in our current culture – although my husband says I’m an egalitarian.
March 5, 2008 at 10:54 pm
We need a true Modern to take a look at our ideas. Does anybody know someone over forty who knows how to turn a computer on??
I find Dave’s point regarding common good, morality, and justice particularly interesting. Seen in the light of Adam’s and Ann’s comments regarding cultural relevance, this takes an interesting twist. Here’s why:
If we accept the concept that “absolutism” is fading away, we have to identify what it means to speak of truth. Our view of morality or “common good” are totally tied to our view of truth. So, if I remove the idea of propositional, logic-based truth declarations (true for all people in all circumstances at all times), I remove a cohesive standard of morality from the table. Is it possible to lose our sense of what is right and wrong by focusing too much on cultural relevance? Is “right and wrong” something that can be evaluated propositionally or objectively? Is “right and wrong” merely a construct that exists within the private confines of the individual’s mind or is there more to it?
March 5, 2008 at 11:35 pm
The moral question is exactly why we see so many early postmodern thinkers (whom I mentioned Earlier) as ethicists. However, I am not sure if we can move this direction in our conversation simply because the type of debate, which needs to take place is a highly academic one. When we are getting into the area of ethics and the role that religion plays we need to discuss the intricate nature of language, which includes speech (locution) and its role in history. Namely, we would need to parse locution and illocution as a “speech-act”, which a transcendent absolute God performs for the world. In addition to this we need to understand the basic structure of knowledge and its role in understanding and discerning between locution and illocution. We also have to look at perception in order to understand the question “how does a finite creature interpret the speech-act of an absolute infinite God (or in my case a form of consciousness)?”
This is all important because where modernism fails in regards to ethics is their absolutism. It is very easy to say in a modern worldview that the bible is the sole authority for ethics. This of course assumes a certain hermeneutic that most postmodern philosophers and theologians are not willing to adopt. In the postmodern view we see ethics as much more dynamic and intricate – not so cut and dry. This whole ethical situation developed precisely because of the problems Dave and Ann identified.
Briefly let me mention Lindbeck and his view: Truth is relative to the community in which it is uttered. This means that ethics is also relative to the community in which its principles are uttered. This is called the “cultural-linguistic model”. In very simplistic terms it means that each individual community develops a language-game (how the community decides to talk to each other – Wittgenstein), which requires that certain linguistic rules are followed (for ex: think about how churched people talk to each other. In the context of the church many words and ideas only make sense in that context. Most non-Christians don’t know what the Eucharist is. Or, most Christians worship Jesus not Mohamed. This is all true relative to the community that exists in a linguistic relationship.) Therefore, ethics is merely how one acts in conjunction with the rules set forth by his/her community (speech-acts – see Vanhoozer). This of course means that what is true in one community may not be true in another. Now you can see how this works with postmodernism, which holds to a subjective view of Truth (see Kierkegaard).
I hope this was not too confusing. You must realize that Lindbeck is incredibly convoluted. I have read many theologians and he is by far the most difficult I have ever read. This makes my task of simplifying very hard. But, at least it will stimulate some conversation.
March 6, 2008 at 12:52 pm
On a practical note, given this dive into morality that has been started, do you think we ought to start it off with another post (another thread)? Denny, do you think you are up for that? Just curious, morality & ethics within a post-modern world / emerging church is a fairly big topic in itself and might be worth a post of its own…. but i’m not try to stop conversation here though!!! Just a thought. Feel free to continue!
March 7, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Kevin…good to see your post! I thought you’d drifted away, which would break my heart.
I am completely open to the idea of another thread centered upon the idea of ethics. I will concentrate on that this weekend. In the mean time, I would like to request some clarification from Eric. I agree that any discussion related to ethics needs to take into account the cultural-linguistic model. What do you mean when you say, “However, I am not sure if we can move this direction in our conversation simply because the type of debate, which needs to take place is a highly academic one”? Please clarify before we move on. Thanks!
March 7, 2008 at 11:44 pm
It has been my impression that this blog must be intellectually accessible to the general public. My fear is that when we jump into a discussion on ethics that there are way too many academic presuppositions that will make the conversation very difficult. I was offering a caution. I don’t think any of us want to jump into a conversation that would devalue the subject we are engaging. The thing with ethics is that there are many theological, philosophical, political, and socio/psychological presuppositions that SEEM to make a conversation on ethics difficult. I think if you decide to proceed it needs to be very clear what we are discussing. In addition to presuppositions is the subject matter, which is convoluted and philosophically intense. I am just not sure how we present “pre-calculus” when the discussion requires “advanced calculus”. If we can do it great, but I wanted to offer a caution.
March 8, 2008 at 12:18 am
If you are looking for a token modernist to torment and burn in effigy, come on baby light my fire. I’m 51 and can turn on a computer. Ask away.
March 8, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Mr Grumpy,
Thanks for joining our conversation. It will be great to interact with an intelligent modernist. I think I speak for most of us when I say that we are not looking to argue with anyone, but it is always good to hear from someone who actually holds to the worldview we are critiquing. I know I am looking forward to the conversation – WELCOME.
March 8, 2008 at 6:05 pm
My pleasure. I’m glad to be here.
I don’t want to hijack your discussion, so if you don’t like this let me know (I may be grumpy but I’m not vindictive!).
But what if we talk from a different reference point for a while? It would certainly help me know where you are all at and might help clarify some presuppositional issues underlying a lot of what you have been discussing already. Tell me who God is and how you know.
March 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm
We may do this at times, but it may be to your benefit to review some of the discussions we have had up to this point. That may give you some context (especially, in regards to our discussion of absolutism and subjectivity.)
I can tell by your initial question “who is God, and how do we know him?”, that I must qualify the postmodern position on philosophical debates and dialogs. The underlying premise is that God is not something who can be captured by an argument (the classical modern apologetic). I believe (as one postmodern) that Modernists have capitulated to science in that they have fallen into the trap that they HAVE to provide an argument for God’s existence. To be clear, I myself, am an amateur physicist, which shows that I appreciate science and how it can inform us. (Look at our first blog entry for the whole discussion on science, religion, and Wittgenstein.) Most Postmoderns are “anti-apologetic”.
With that said, I am not sure what you mean by “who is God?” Do you mean “is he substance” or are you asking “is he being”? The question “who is God” is a doctrinal question that is relative to the theological position someone holds. I happen to believe he is a form of consciousness with varied personalities whose substance is intertwined in his identity. But for most Postmodern philosophers, to even speak of God in linguistic terms is not to accurately capture who God is. I agree with this, which means that the most accurate description of God, I believe, is “ONE” or “*” (infinite sign). All of this of course is beyond the scope of our discussion here, but everyone has their own opinion. Remember for Postmoderns its about how the human form of consciousness experiences the divine form and how those experiences conforms the human identity to the divine. Most Postmoderns unconsciously hold to Kierkegaard’s picture. This also answers the second question “how do you know?” In both cases the distinction between modernists and postmodernists is absolutism and subjectivity.
Hope this helps.
March 10, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Wow. I didn’t know PMs couldn’t even talk about God. Please note that I said nothing about rational proofs for God’s existence. I’m a strict presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics.
March 10, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Welcome to the discussion, Very Old One. We are always thrilled to dialog with someone who actually has life experience!
Prior to jumping at the chance to give an answer to your most stimulating question, I want to offer something of a practical note. The goal in the discussion is to ensure participation from anyone who wants to jump in. So, I may define terms ad nauseam or I may elect to “redirect” a conversation…not in terms of subject, but in terms of approach. At times our posts become somewhat exclusive because we use language that is unnecessary. I believe that the task of every thinker is to articulate his or her ideas in terms that are accessible by the real world. I think that is the shared vision here. If not, then I am adjusting the vision. It’s fun being the moderator!
Now, on to your question. I am not exactly sure why Eric is dividing the question in the manner that he’s chosen to. It seems to be fairly straight forward from my perspective, though it’s definitely a deep well to draw from!
First, who is God? Well, I think a mite of clarification is needed here. Do you mean to indicate that God may be understandable like a math problem? Or, are you asking who I believe God is from my perspective? This is a fundamental difference in the assumptions that you and I may make. It seems unlikely that any two people would completely agree upon some kind of objective definition of God. My view of who God is finds its root in the community that I’ve chosen to align myself with. So, basically, I believe that God is a combination of whom He declares Himself to be in Scripture (the Jewish/Christian Bible) and whom He reveals Himself to be within the scope of my personal conformity to Christ (an entirely mystical transformation that happens through His Spirit’s residence in me…His temple). Do you want specifics of what this looks like?
How do I know? Again, our assumptions are called into question. Without getting off of the trail, how we know ANYTHING may need to be evaluated. In this case, though, my “knowledge” isn’t really based upon fact. It is entirely rooted in a leap of faith. So, my certitude comes as a result of my confidence in my community’s belief heritage.
March 10, 2008 at 9:17 pm
So Denny, would you say that knowledge of God is mediated by these other sources, rather than something born in you? The whole reason I bring knowledge of God into the PM discussion is that it seems if we are going to have some bridge between the Modernists and the Post-modernists we need to find a starting point on which we can agree. At least for the Christian variety of PMers, I would hope we could agree on who God is. Do you think this is possible?
March 10, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I find the idea of the knowledge of God being “born in you” challenging. It seems obvious that not everybody shares the same view or understanding of who God is. For that matter, what, precisely, can be defined as the “Christian variety” of anything? Whose definition are we using for such generalities? Which Christians…modern, postmodern, or otherwise, agree on who God is? Are we talking about the “essentials” or the “particulars”?
So, I return to my previous statement relating to the belief heritage of my community. I believe what I believe because it is the faith story that I’ve attached myself to. Why did I choose this particular faith story? Because it resonated with who I am, the cultural mixture that I come from, and the relationships that I cling to. Can this be described as a knowledge of God being “born in” me? I suppose so, but the Mormons and Muslims claim the same kind of resonance, don’t they? If we all rely upon the same “burning in the bosom”, doesn’t that appear problematic?
March 10, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Now, at the same time, it is important to recognize that we can have a basis for conversation. Because we are part of the same general heritage, we have commonality regarding our view of truth. We both trust the Word of God completely. I, because it is the foundation of my faith community. It is the truth I’ve chosen. You, perhaps because you believe that it is simply true for all people in all cultures at all times. Perhaps not. I don’t want to speak for you.
We also both believe in evangelism. I, because I believe that the truth I embrace requires complete allegiance and devotion. It is also efficacious…it produces real change for the restoration of the world to justice. So, I challenge other communities to meaningful dialog; really a comparison of efficacy.
March 11, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Denny… you said that “I believe what I believe because it is the faith story that I’ve attached myself to.” And elsewhere you say that you trust the word of God because it is the foundation of your faith community. Additionally, your view of God is based on the Word of God (which you trust because of this foundation) and your experience of Christ. Does all of this mean that what you believe to be true is what your community and your experience determine to be true?
I understand that we can not have knowledge apart from our own context (community) and experience, because anything we learn comes through those means. What happens if the community in which someone is raised is wrong? Or what if they have experienced something that leads them to wrong belief? I believe in this regard that you brought up the idea of efficacy. You seek to challenge other communities on the basis of whether or not their view of the world produces restoration and justice. Does what you are saying mean that truth is determined by efficacy? Is a proper view of God then the one that is effective? Then by whose terms do we determine efficacy?
Just trying to clarify in my own mind what you are saying.
March 11, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Kevin raises interesting points. When we begin to use words like “wrong” or “wrong belief” we are asserting that there is indeed an overarching meta-narrative (big story) that causes an innate understanding of morality within all of humanity. Some call this “natural law”. In other words, right and wrong are the same for everybody everywhere and we are all born knowing the difference. It is as though we all possess some sort of “goodness ruler” that allows us to know when we cross behavioral or attitude lines into something intrinsically negative.
Are you implying that this is the case, Kevin?
When I refer to “efficacy”, I am implying that some similar sense of morality exists within the psyche of all humans. The notion of justice, at the very least, seems to bind us together. In its simplest sense, every human seems to understand that he or she should not do something to someone that he or she doesn’t want done to themselves. Does this constitute natural law? Or is it simply the result of societal necessity? Do we learn the futility of violating this most basic rule because we all have to live together? Or are we born with an internal moral compass, whether it serves to the extent that I’ve just mentioned or to a much fuller idea (as Kevin seems to indicate)?
March 12, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I am not necessarily attempting to imply that right and wrong is the same for everybody in every instance… for example, if a person was hiding a Jew during WWII, and the Third Reich came pounding at their door, would it be “right” for them to lie? Well, i tend to believe in this case for some it may be “right” to lie, for others it might not be “right” to lie. But this gets into ethics and a whole separate discussion (one that would be fun to have). But this is missing my point I guess. I was trying to determine what you see as the basis for truth, and if it was, as your posts previous to this seem to indicate, a combination of community and experience, but you seem to have avoided that question.
(We know each other well so i pose this question in that manner without worry of bodily harm… i think)
The question of whether or not there is a natural law in everyone, that you ask of me, I would tend to agree with. And it appears that you also agree with this notion since you say that “efficacy” is a similar sense of morality, or a binding notion of justice in everyone. In my mind that would be a natural law. Now I would also say that the fall has tainted the ability of man to understand this law within, but nonetheless it is there to varying degrees. The Bible seems to point to this being the case (in my interpretation, which no doubt is tainted by my community and experience
).
The question of an over-arching meta narrative is difficult to answer. It would seem that indeed there is one, but yet, people smarter than I ask the question, how can we rise above our own meta narrative to know it if it does exist? Therefore if even if it does exist, we can’t know it, therefore it’s not important… almost as if it didn’t exist anyways. Is it possible that this is where the transformation of man by the infinite God comes into play? Does the experience of Jesus bring knowledge of an over-arching meta narrative into our finite world? When God speaks his word into our universe, is not that a totally other worldview bursting in upon ours? These are just raw thoughts here…
So I guess I’m still trying to understand where the idea of truth as being found in community and experience fits and how this informs our view of God, if this is indeed the basis for knowledge of God. Is this the way to find truth? Is there a truth that is knowable beyond community and experience, or is that the very definition of truth? Any thoughts?
March 13, 2008 at 1:04 am
I am a little confused by the linguistic gymnastics of Kevvy (a tribute to Mrs. Vile
). Perhaps my mind doesn’t grasp subtleties. It is more like a blunt instrument.
My only response to the above post is that I can’t answer a question that I can’t understand. Please restate your question in layman’s terms.
Quid est veritas?
March 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm
My question is this: are you saying the basis for truth is found in community (one’s own) and experience? And similarly, are you saying the basis for knowledge of God is found in community (one’s own) and experience? That is what your previous comments led me to believe you were saying.
To quote someone famous (and a layman)… “I want the truth.” and elsewhere another says “You can’t handle the truth.”
And where were the linguistic gymnastics? Funny, my fingers aren’t tired… so either I perform a lot of gymnastics and have built up stamina… or it wasn’t gymnastics at all.
Maybe its just that subtleties are my specialty. Maybe they are so subtle that I don’t even know they are subtle. Maybe my subtleties don’t even realize that they are subtle. Maybe my unrealizing subtleties are so subtle that they lose their subtleness. Maybe I am so subtle I have lost all knowledge of what I am saying… Maybe if I say the word subtle enough it will lose all meaning and I simply sound foolish. Then in my attempts to be subtle I have become a blunt fool? … okay my fingers are tired.
March 13, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I wish there were some other participants in the discussion. What do others feel the basis for truth is? Does this question imply, via the word “basis”, that a universal standard exists?
March 28, 2008 at 6:08 am
Ok, I’ve read this stuff twice now, I’ll put forth the energy to say something.
I’m Phil, but if you want you can call me the grumpy young modernist, the eccentric evangelical, the Baptist Boy, the closed-minded Christian, or my personal favorite, “hey you.” I’ll tell you what I believe and why.
Like the “Grumpy Modernist” (are you still around?) I’m a strict presuppositionalist. However, I’m only 24 and only five years ago I was trying to reason people to Christ (after all, Christianity makes sense, so if you just look at it objectively, you’ll realize it’s true, right?). Then I realized that if we are saved by grace through faith, what good is reason?
Anyway, I’ve decided that I can base everything I know on the idea that the Bible is true, and it is possible to understand It. I recognize that my interpretation of the Bible influenced by my life experiences and there are things that I have held as Biblical that I later realized were simply church teachings or tradition, so it’s possible that some of the things that I now hold as Biblical (and therefore true) could be simply incorrect conclusions based on the fallible reason of man. Naturally, I will assume my interpretation is correct until I have reason to believe otherwise. So, feel free to bombard me with Biblical arguments for a different interpretation of Scripture.
I believe the Bible describes the Trinity, that Jesus was fully God and fully man and now sits at the right hand of the father as the only intercessor between God and man, that the Holy Spirit resides in and sometimes speaks to me and all other true Christians, TULIP, Satan and his demons exist, heaven and hell exist (and everyone will go to one or the other for eternity), a literal six day creation about 6000 years ago, angels exist (and are distinct from humans), I currently hold to a pre-trib pre-millennial view (I’m not so sure right now about where in the line of events the rapture will be), believer’s baptism by immersion, and a symbolic communion.
There, you know where I’m coming from. Feel free to disagree, and if so, I’d appreciate hearing why you disagree with any of that.
On to the current discussion. I’d like to start with asking what the purpose of the local church is. I believe the Bible defines the local church as a place for Christians to gather for corporate worship (different churches will do that different ways depending on their preference) and to disciple each other. If you have a different idea about what the local church should do, let me know.
Consequently, I don’t think it is the responsibility of “the church” to evangelize. That’s my job, and your job. Our goal isn’t to get someone to come to church, our goal is that God will use us to bring people to Him. Then, the new Christian will need to find a church where he (sorry Ann, I’m not an egalitarian) feels comfortable in corporate worship (meaning he’s not distracted by how the other people worship), and can grow.
I go to First Baptist Church in St Johns (feel free to check out the website, Jeremy made it stjohnsfbc.com), and I think many of the people at my church have the wrong idea about church. Many of them think that the church should evangelize; that we need to get people into the church and they need to like it so they’ll become a Christian. It’s a fortress mentality, and it’s flawed.
Another problem with my church is that it seems like many of the people don’t care about worship. I’m a music guy, and I’ve been given the task of leading the singing a few times. Let me tell you, it’s a pretty boring view from that vantage point.
Then I need to stop and think for a minute. Sure, there are people that don’t seem to be singing, but does that mean they’re not worshiping? For that matter, while I’m quick to notice the people who don’t seem to be participating, what about all of the people who ARE participating? Sometimes I think I see what I want to see.
Furthermore, what’s up with the fortress mentality? True, it seems that many people are like that, but why is it that in pretty much every membership service there are a few people who explain that they’re giving their testimony because of the witness of someone in my church. Seems like at least a few people are doing their jobs.
Then I think about the things the church does. How does it disciple? We have a lot of expository preaching that some of the people take a lot from, but then every other series seems to be a topical one: the four spiritual laws, the nine marks of a healthy church (that was based on the book) and the annual missions conference. There are also classes like the church history classes I’m taking (coincidentally, we’re talking about the emerging church now), the “share Jesus without fear” class, women’s bible study, basic doctrines, ect.
My point is that I don’t think the church should be a place that we bring people so they can get a good dose of Jesus and like it, it’s a place for believers to learn how to be effective evangelists, to learn how to be Jesus to the world, to get pumped up about the majesty of God, and to get us excited about going out and subduing the culture (Kuyper’s cultural mandate, I like it).
So, if someone feels like he can’t worship at my church, then he should go to a different church where he can. If someone doesn’t feel like my church is effective in discipleship, he can go to a church that is. That doesn’t mean that “our way” is better than the church down the street, it’s just the way this local body of believers has chosen to do things. Other bodies with people who have different ideas will do things differently.
Some people will say “but Phil, if someone has a bad experience at your church, it could turn them from Christ!” I say no because I believe in irresistible grace. While I don’t think we should purposely offend people, I also understand that we can’t please everyone. Conveniently, I don’t feel the need to.
One problem I DO have with my church is how it seems so many people (especially the people in my church history class) care so little about considering different ideas. They hear about some emergent churches who sacrifice doctrine in an effort to please people to Christ and they decide that the whole emerging and emergent group is the same and it’s all bad. Then I think about the people on the other side of the fence who, based on a handful of experiences with churches like mine, dismiss the whole “traditional” church model and I realize it’s just a human problem; a sin thing. Oh well, I guess I’ll pray for you and you can pray for me. Good thing God will forgive us.
April 2, 2008 at 1:29 am
Thanks for writing, Phil. I appreciate your insights. I must say, however, that I entirely disagree with all of the core doctrines you specified. But, I refuse to tell you why because I have dismissed the whole “traditional” church model. So , there! Just kidding…
The one point I did want to make in response to your thoughts is that the Emergent church isn’t, typically anyway, rejecting what you are defining as the traditional model. I would say that the opposite is the case. The one thing that causes somebody who is wrestling with these issues to pull away is the closed mindedness that tends to accompany the model you are describing. I can say that I have the ability to minister along side of almost anyone at your church…except, perhaps, Brent Keilen
. Again, I jest. The problem is that many people there (certainly NOT all or even most) could not, in clear conscience, minister along side of me. I have no point of reference for such division. It seems completely unbelievable to me that someone would divide over non-essential doctrinal issues.
The Emergent church often emphasizes traditional church concepts, throwing all the way back to the classical era of Christianity in some cases.
As you said so eloquently, we can pray for each other. I will even go further and affirm our ability to impact the greater community with the truth of the Gospel together. The important thing seems to be that we need to remember the famous quote by St. Augustine:”In essentials, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, love”!