I found some thought-provoking things this week…
Firstly, Tony Jones goes on a roadtrip with a trucker:
On the other side, a view into the world of those who aren’t so enchanted with the emerging church:
And finally, Miroslav Volf (Of “Exclusion and Embrace” fame) on the relation between church and culture: http://www.npcts.edu/sem/exauditu/papers/volf.html
To draw these three items together, let me just say that I agree with Volf’s approach to the modern / postmodern debate: he critiques both sides. Instead of reducing postmodern thought to simply “the rejection of universal truth” and safely disposing of the caricature, in his writing he engages with philosophers such as Nietzsche and Lyotard and acknowledges both what they get right and where they fall short. Concerning Lyotard, for instance, he states “I am more persuaded by his critique than by his proposal…”
Here’s Volf’s approach with Lyotard: He agrees with Lyotard’s contention that modern “metanarratives”, say those of liberals, conservatives, capitalists, or communists, have failed to deliver what they promised, which is the healing of society’s problems. However, Volf would argue that Lyotard’s new vision (of finding freedom in wandering, never having a stable identity or really believing in anything) is just as impotent. Rather, Volf, though agreeing with postmodernism that all human ideologies are flawed and have failed to bring salvation for humanity, departs from it when he asserts that there is a living God who, beyond our ideologies, is actively working for our redemption. Lyotard includes Christianity on his list of oppressive metanarratives; Volf contends that true Christianity is a different kind of metanarrative.
In response to the second video, I think it’s easy to sit on a stage and demolish straw men to the sound of applause, but I don’t think that’s a constructive approach. If the core Christian calling is to be a disciple (a student of Christ), perhaps we should be less quick to assume that we’ve got it all nailed down, and more quick to have the attitude that we still have a lot to learn. I think this is what many in the emerging movement are saying. And that conviction does not necessitate a wholesale rejection of universal truth. Rather, it involves taking on a more student-like posture (which itself is something we need Christ to teach us) towards truth. A term that has been used for this is “chastened epistemology”. In sentence form, it would be something like this: “We were so very proud about how “right” we were, but then God humbled us, and now we are turning back to him in repentance”. I think Newbigen called it “proper confidence.” The proper confidence is not confidence in our own understanding but confidence in God’s wisdom and openness to his working. Anyways, I hope you get what I’m trying to say, and I also hope that you see this “proper confidence” is not so much modern or postmodern as simply Christian (The story of the blind man in John 9 contains a lot of what I’m trying to say here).
However, for very similar reasons (a humble posture) it is crucial for “emerging” types to listen to and address the concerns people have with the movement and its ideas. Even if we agree that the postmodern school of thought (in all of its variety) has some valid points (or may serve to challenge and inspire Christian theological imagination), Derrida isn’t scripture. I think the process of discernment is important here.
One quick note: For those of you who have no idea what this “emerging movement” I’m talking about is, here’s a very helpful and insightful article on the topic by Scot McKnight :
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 16, 2008 at 5:59 pm
john w
The cynical side of me wants to say ‘what a nice group of rich, old men worried that their power structures are getting chipped away at…’, which may be partly right (although I do like and respect some of Ravi Zacharias’ work). More realistically though, I think they are just unwilling to give postmodernism or the emerging church a fair chance. Notice how the interview guy in the criticism video used the words “symptoms” in asking about postmodernism, like it’s a sickness right off the bat. Also, they don’t really understand the emerging church well (e.g. most emerging church leaders would never say that truth is entirely socially constructed) and probably haven’t read more than a few blogs of McLaren, et al. Also, ‘truth,’ ‘right doctrine,’ ‘right belief,’ etc. all seem silly and even destructive if they aren’t life-giving for people. Luther, Calvin, and many other of the best ‘right doctrinaire’s’ throughout history have done atrocious things in the name of defending and upholding ‘truth,’ largely because they operated with such a damaging and potentially dangerous black-and-white mentality.
June 21, 2008 at 4:12 am
kbroeckel11
Of course, its so much easier for young people like us to make that criticism: we don’t have power structures of our own yet.
And I would also say that the various emerging church figures are definitely beginning to build power structures of their own.
Yeah, Ravi’s the coolest. At least he got creative in his bashing- “shrimps in puddles.”
But we do serve the God who uses “the weak to shame the strong.”
So maybe the shrimps will have their day. =)