I'm sitting in an airport in Houston on my way to a Christian Scholar's conference at Pepperdine. I'm presenting my thoughts on Hebrews 12:27 from the other day in 20 minutes. The session I'm a part of is centered around James Thompson's recent commentary on Hebrews.
I don't have time to think through this post, but an online conference at Patheos on Progressive Christianity caught my eye, mainly because James McGrath is one of the blog presenters. As I quickly dug around, I was struck by Phyllis Tickle's piece, "Progressive versus Emergence Christianity."
My first reaction is to smile. People are always wanting to start movements. Yes, yes, I confess; I've dreamed of it too. My little sense of Tickle is that she has really overreached in her sense of emergence Christianity. She thinks its the thing and here to stay. There may indeed be some longstanding things that are emerging but she reminds me of how people confuse philosophical postmodernism with cultural postmodernism. The philosophy is hard core and must forever be engaged in the history of future discussion. People, on the other hand, ride waves that change with the wind and are weak caricatures of ideological discussions.
So I'm tired of talking about us being in a postmodern age unless you're talking the real deal idea discussion. Even then, postmodernism is not a thing--it is an anti-thing, an un-thing. It can't be the next thing.
Meanwhile, people are just going with the flow. I don't know Tickle's stuff well enough to know but I suspect she doesn't have this distinction firmly enough in mind.
As for "progressive Christianity," I suspect that might be a more real ideological group that is here for a good long while. Notice that the people at Patheos didn't create a category called "Emergence Christianity." They have one for evangelicals, one for progressives, and one for Catholics. ;-)
Just some quick thoughts before boarding...
Showing posts with label emerging church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emerging church. Show all posts
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
This Sunday at your church...
I think Amanda Drury is where this YouTube clip started on IWU's campus:
http://vimeo.com/m/#/11501569
http://vimeo.com/m/#/11501569
Monday, October 20, 2008
Robert Webber's The Younger Evangelicals
Part of the reading for the Contemporary Theological Trends class I'm facilitating in Indy tonight is the first two chapters of the late Robert Webber's The Younger Evangelicals. In the first chapter, he summarizes the history of evangelicalism in the twentieth century. I find his account more balanced than Mark Noll's, and I thought I would summarize it. He does draw significantly on Marsden.
1910-1925
He sees the origins of the fundamentalist movement in this period, with the rise of evolution and higher biblical criticism as primary causes of growing reaction among many Christian groups. I do have a question about some of his timing, for most of the Wesleyan revivalist groups and colleges had already formed by this time.
He sees the Scopes Trial of 1925 as of primary significance in the formation of fundamentalism as a coherent force.
1925-1945
This is the hey day of fundamentalism, which he characterizes as "anti-intellectual," "anti-ecumenial," and "anti-social action." He recalls his course in philosophy at Bob Jones university where the course was offered for reasons of state accreditation in education, but it was basically a course to show that all philosophical speculation was foolish and that all a person needs is the Bible to know the truth. Colossians 2:8 began the course, read of course with no attention whatsoever to what "philosophy" Paul was actually talking about.
Webber is sympathetic to the separation of many fundamentalists from mainline churches in this period because, in his opinion, the "liberal" churches were far from truly "liberal" in their spirit. Rather, they were just as dogmatic in their opposition to fundamentalists as the fundamentalists came to be in their opposition to the liberals.
The fact that the "liberals" had reduced the gospel to a social gospel led many fundamentalists to oppose such social concerns as anti-gospel. Similarly, the strength of pre-millennial thought led to an abandonment of the world to what was thought to be an inevitable downward trajectory of morality and culture.
On a side note to those of my own tradition, you might recognize elements of the impact of this fundamentalist period that can still be found in our chuch, particularly among the smaller churches (One should not think that the smaller churches of our denomination are the majority of our denomination. On sheer numbers, there are as many Wesleyans in our "larger" churches as there are in all our "smaller" churches). As IWU has pondered founding a seminary, I have fielded questions of whether in fact such an educational move would mark the decline of our church rather than its maturation--a vestige of our anti-intellectual past. Many Wesleyans still equate Methodist with liberal, even though the most "Wesleyan" theologian in our denomination is Chris Bounds, who teaches theology at IWU and is United Methodist.
Finally, many Wesleyans still equate any focus on the poor as anti-Christian, even though Jesus' earthly message addressed the poor at least as much as it did eternal salvation (in Luke's presentation, concern for the poor far surpasses concern for eternal salvation). Further, there is the irony that the Wesleyan tradition has in its roots social concern as a dominant theme. It is an ironic consequence of the fundamenalist controversies of the early twentieth century that the focus of the Democratic platform on the poor is actually seen as a sign of its godlessness! Of course most Wesleyans with this perspective have no idea where their biases in this area came from historically.
1945-1966
After WW2, an optimistic generation of new Christian leaders wished to distance themselves from their negative fundamentalist forebears. Thus "neo-evangelicalism" was born. In reaction to the anti-intellectualism of the fundamentalists, they strove to participate in the flow of intellectual thought. Fuller Seminary was founded as the flagship evangelical institution. Christianity Today was founded. The Reformed tradition dominated the scene.
The rise of Billy Graham and his subsequent shunning by Bob Jones represents the rift between fundamentalism and (neo) evangelicalism. Graham reaches out to any other Christians who will join his evangelicalistic mission. Jones insists on separation from those who do not hold the line in their beliefs. A good example of this distinction in more recent times was when Jerry Falwell was interviewed in relation to a scandal involving the then president of the National Association of Evangelicals. To the puzzlement of the media interviewer, Falwell indicated that he had nothing to do with that organization--no skin off my nose.
This generation of American evangelicals remained quite similar to its fundamentalist parents in many respects. The "inerrancy" touchstone grew up in this era.
1966-2000
Webber calls this period a time of increasing diversity in evangelicalism. For example, he argues that the initial leadership of neo-evangelicalism was Reformed. But in this third phase, they reluctantly had to reckon with evangelicals from the Wesleyan tradition. These Wesleyans were often considered "liberal" by the establishment evangelicals.
Even to this day, I would say that Arminians sit tentatively in relation to the Evangelical Theological Society, an organization that I have no interest in myself. John Piper has gone on record saying that we do not really belong.
Webber demarks the early part of this period by irreconcilable disagreement among evangelicals over biblical inerrancy. 1966 saw a failure to agree at a conference at Gordon College. Asbury Seminary and Fuller Seminary refused to define the term narrowly (Asbury) or to use it at all (Fuller). Meanwhile, those in the Reformed camp at Gordon-Conwell, Trinity, and Wheaton followed the narrow definitions of the Chicago Statement (1978) and used it as a political weapon for institutional control. Harold Lindsell's famous, The Battle for the Bible (1977) is an artifact of this period.
In terms of evangelism, this period saw the rise of the church growth movement. In my own church, theological interest almost completely disappeared in the age of John Maxwell. For some of us, it appeared that all that mattered was numbers. Distinctive doctrines of my own denomination almost completely disappeared from view. The norm was the "seeker sensitive" church and the focus was on being relevant.
Evangelicalism at the end of the twentieth century had become global, multicultural, and could include evangelical Anglicans. It even involved dialog with Catholic and Orthodox Christians. There are many signs of the identity crisis this has caused. Wheaton fired a professor for converting to Catholicism. The dominant theme of the Evangelical Theological Society in the early 2000's was who can we kick out next. The rise of evangelicals like Jim Wallis, whose focus is on social action, has grated the Nixon evangelicals who confused capitalism with the Bible.
2000-present
It is the rise of the "younger evangelicals" that Webber is interested in. They are neither the "traditional evangelicals," who have been kicking and screeming this last decade. 9-11 gave them a brief period of re-empowerment, one that they will increasingly see seep away in the days to come. Nor are they the "pragmatic evangelicals" symbolized by Willow Creek, whose confession of failure last year is another sign of the passing of the cultural guard.
Webber sees in Brian McLaren the rise of a new generation of evangelicals. These are orthodox believers. Indeed, they have a revived interest in the ancient elements of the church as found in the creeds. Webber's second chapter gives a basic description of this "emerging" group.
Webber gives 24 characteristics of the younger evangelicals. He published this book in 2002, and I already beg to differ with him on some points. But here is his list (I've flagged the ones I have questions about). I've highlighted the ones that seem more key.
1. Grew up in a postmodern world
2. Marked by a post 9-11 era (and we might now suggest perhaps a post-materialistic era)
3. Have a recovered sense of fallen human nature (we'll see)
4. Aware of a new context for ministry
5. Differ with the pragmatist approach to ministry
6. Minister with a new paradigm
7. Stand for absolutes (I have serious questions about this one)
8. The future runs through the past
9. Committed to the poor, especially in urban centers
10. Willing to live by the rules (I have questions about this one)
11. Facility with technology
12. Highly visual
13. Communicate through stories
14. Grasp the power of imagination
15. Appreciate the arts
16. Appreciate ritual and symbol
17. Long for community
18. Multicultural
19. Intergenerational (?)
20. Attracted to absolutes (I have questions about this)
21. Ready to commit
22. Shared wisdom
23. Demand authenticity
24. Holistic--unity of thought and action
1910-1925
He sees the origins of the fundamentalist movement in this period, with the rise of evolution and higher biblical criticism as primary causes of growing reaction among many Christian groups. I do have a question about some of his timing, for most of the Wesleyan revivalist groups and colleges had already formed by this time.
He sees the Scopes Trial of 1925 as of primary significance in the formation of fundamentalism as a coherent force.
1925-1945
This is the hey day of fundamentalism, which he characterizes as "anti-intellectual," "anti-ecumenial," and "anti-social action." He recalls his course in philosophy at Bob Jones university where the course was offered for reasons of state accreditation in education, but it was basically a course to show that all philosophical speculation was foolish and that all a person needs is the Bible to know the truth. Colossians 2:8 began the course, read of course with no attention whatsoever to what "philosophy" Paul was actually talking about.
Webber is sympathetic to the separation of many fundamentalists from mainline churches in this period because, in his opinion, the "liberal" churches were far from truly "liberal" in their spirit. Rather, they were just as dogmatic in their opposition to fundamentalists as the fundamentalists came to be in their opposition to the liberals.
The fact that the "liberals" had reduced the gospel to a social gospel led many fundamentalists to oppose such social concerns as anti-gospel. Similarly, the strength of pre-millennial thought led to an abandonment of the world to what was thought to be an inevitable downward trajectory of morality and culture.
On a side note to those of my own tradition, you might recognize elements of the impact of this fundamentalist period that can still be found in our chuch, particularly among the smaller churches (One should not think that the smaller churches of our denomination are the majority of our denomination. On sheer numbers, there are as many Wesleyans in our "larger" churches as there are in all our "smaller" churches). As IWU has pondered founding a seminary, I have fielded questions of whether in fact such an educational move would mark the decline of our church rather than its maturation--a vestige of our anti-intellectual past. Many Wesleyans still equate Methodist with liberal, even though the most "Wesleyan" theologian in our denomination is Chris Bounds, who teaches theology at IWU and is United Methodist.
Finally, many Wesleyans still equate any focus on the poor as anti-Christian, even though Jesus' earthly message addressed the poor at least as much as it did eternal salvation (in Luke's presentation, concern for the poor far surpasses concern for eternal salvation). Further, there is the irony that the Wesleyan tradition has in its roots social concern as a dominant theme. It is an ironic consequence of the fundamenalist controversies of the early twentieth century that the focus of the Democratic platform on the poor is actually seen as a sign of its godlessness! Of course most Wesleyans with this perspective have no idea where their biases in this area came from historically.
1945-1966
After WW2, an optimistic generation of new Christian leaders wished to distance themselves from their negative fundamentalist forebears. Thus "neo-evangelicalism" was born. In reaction to the anti-intellectualism of the fundamentalists, they strove to participate in the flow of intellectual thought. Fuller Seminary was founded as the flagship evangelical institution. Christianity Today was founded. The Reformed tradition dominated the scene.
The rise of Billy Graham and his subsequent shunning by Bob Jones represents the rift between fundamentalism and (neo) evangelicalism. Graham reaches out to any other Christians who will join his evangelicalistic mission. Jones insists on separation from those who do not hold the line in their beliefs. A good example of this distinction in more recent times was when Jerry Falwell was interviewed in relation to a scandal involving the then president of the National Association of Evangelicals. To the puzzlement of the media interviewer, Falwell indicated that he had nothing to do with that organization--no skin off my nose.
This generation of American evangelicals remained quite similar to its fundamentalist parents in many respects. The "inerrancy" touchstone grew up in this era.
1966-2000
Webber calls this period a time of increasing diversity in evangelicalism. For example, he argues that the initial leadership of neo-evangelicalism was Reformed. But in this third phase, they reluctantly had to reckon with evangelicals from the Wesleyan tradition. These Wesleyans were often considered "liberal" by the establishment evangelicals.
Even to this day, I would say that Arminians sit tentatively in relation to the Evangelical Theological Society, an organization that I have no interest in myself. John Piper has gone on record saying that we do not really belong.
Webber demarks the early part of this period by irreconcilable disagreement among evangelicals over biblical inerrancy. 1966 saw a failure to agree at a conference at Gordon College. Asbury Seminary and Fuller Seminary refused to define the term narrowly (Asbury) or to use it at all (Fuller). Meanwhile, those in the Reformed camp at Gordon-Conwell, Trinity, and Wheaton followed the narrow definitions of the Chicago Statement (1978) and used it as a political weapon for institutional control. Harold Lindsell's famous, The Battle for the Bible (1977) is an artifact of this period.
In terms of evangelism, this period saw the rise of the church growth movement. In my own church, theological interest almost completely disappeared in the age of John Maxwell. For some of us, it appeared that all that mattered was numbers. Distinctive doctrines of my own denomination almost completely disappeared from view. The norm was the "seeker sensitive" church and the focus was on being relevant.
Evangelicalism at the end of the twentieth century had become global, multicultural, and could include evangelical Anglicans. It even involved dialog with Catholic and Orthodox Christians. There are many signs of the identity crisis this has caused. Wheaton fired a professor for converting to Catholicism. The dominant theme of the Evangelical Theological Society in the early 2000's was who can we kick out next. The rise of evangelicals like Jim Wallis, whose focus is on social action, has grated the Nixon evangelicals who confused capitalism with the Bible.
2000-present
It is the rise of the "younger evangelicals" that Webber is interested in. They are neither the "traditional evangelicals," who have been kicking and screeming this last decade. 9-11 gave them a brief period of re-empowerment, one that they will increasingly see seep away in the days to come. Nor are they the "pragmatic evangelicals" symbolized by Willow Creek, whose confession of failure last year is another sign of the passing of the cultural guard.
Webber sees in Brian McLaren the rise of a new generation of evangelicals. These are orthodox believers. Indeed, they have a revived interest in the ancient elements of the church as found in the creeds. Webber's second chapter gives a basic description of this "emerging" group.
Webber gives 24 characteristics of the younger evangelicals. He published this book in 2002, and I already beg to differ with him on some points. But here is his list (I've flagged the ones I have questions about). I've highlighted the ones that seem more key.
1. Grew up in a postmodern world
2. Marked by a post 9-11 era (and we might now suggest perhaps a post-materialistic era)
3. Have a recovered sense of fallen human nature (we'll see)
4. Aware of a new context for ministry
5. Differ with the pragmatist approach to ministry
6. Minister with a new paradigm
7. Stand for absolutes (I have serious questions about this one)
8. The future runs through the past
9. Committed to the poor, especially in urban centers
10. Willing to live by the rules (I have questions about this one)
11. Facility with technology
12. Highly visual
13. Communicate through stories
14. Grasp the power of imagination
15. Appreciate the arts
16. Appreciate ritual and symbol
17. Long for community
18. Multicultural
19. Intergenerational (?)
20. Attracted to absolutes (I have questions about this)
21. Ready to commit
22. Shared wisdom
23. Demand authenticity
24. Holistic--unity of thought and action
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
The Little Pre-Modern in all of Us...
I started another 8 week masters class in Indy last night with IWU's grad ministry program. This one's called Contemporary Theological Trends, but the subtitle tells what the course is really about: The Church and Postmodernism. Pending final approval (our site visit went muy-excellente), IWU will start offering an MDIV next Fall through this department. Then IWU might house it in a new seminary the following year--we'll see.
From what I hear, this class is a bit of a bear for most cohorts. The typical make-up of these classes is very interesting. They are very diverse and typically made up of individuals who would not otherwise seek a graduate degree or go to seminary. They tend to be very conservative in some ways (even compared to the traditional campus), although all over the theological map.
So last night I was trying to prepare them for reading in Stanley Grenz (A Primer on Postmodernism and Beyond Foundationalism). Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty aren't coffee table reading in most American homes. I would say most of them come to the course with a somewhat negative impression of postmodernism.
I made a couple of claims in preparation. The first is that we need to distinquish postmodernism as a philosophical trajectory from postmodernism as a cultural one. Culture is a never ending bounce from one event to another, from one ethos to another, from one ideology to another. The emerging/emergent trend in Christian culture is impacted by postmodern philosophy, but the two should be carefully distinguished, I think.
A second claim is that postmodernism as a philosophy should not be conceived as the current pinnacle of the evolution of thought. Postmodern thought is unthought, unravelling. It is not the next step, as if it gives us the new "assured results of philosophy." That is still modernist thinking. Extreme postmodernism is the end of philosophy, the end of thought as we thought we knew it. It is an abyss that everyone should look into... and then go back to their "normal" lives.
My take away is that we are all a mixture of pre-modernism, modernism, and hopefully, post-modernism. We are all "pre-modern" in the sense that we are all unreflective about aspects of our lives. There are always areas of our lives where we do not realize we could look differently at them. We cannot make ourselves reflective about all of them because we do not even realize we are unreflective about them.
The goal of the true philosopher should be to become as reflective as possible. The quest for objectivity is a never ending one and one ultimately doomed for failure. But the myth of objectivity is one we must repeatedly affirm and pursue. We may not be able to achieve it perfectly, but we can often distinguish more objective claims from less objective ones.
We become healthy postmoderns when we make this pursuit humbly. We recognize the limitations of our knowledge. We knowingly re-embrace some of our pre-modern values not as the only options objectively but the ones that we choose to embrace.
From what I hear, this class is a bit of a bear for most cohorts. The typical make-up of these classes is very interesting. They are very diverse and typically made up of individuals who would not otherwise seek a graduate degree or go to seminary. They tend to be very conservative in some ways (even compared to the traditional campus), although all over the theological map.
So last night I was trying to prepare them for reading in Stanley Grenz (A Primer on Postmodernism and Beyond Foundationalism). Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty aren't coffee table reading in most American homes. I would say most of them come to the course with a somewhat negative impression of postmodernism.
I made a couple of claims in preparation. The first is that we need to distinquish postmodernism as a philosophical trajectory from postmodernism as a cultural one. Culture is a never ending bounce from one event to another, from one ethos to another, from one ideology to another. The emerging/emergent trend in Christian culture is impacted by postmodern philosophy, but the two should be carefully distinguished, I think.
A second claim is that postmodernism as a philosophy should not be conceived as the current pinnacle of the evolution of thought. Postmodern thought is unthought, unravelling. It is not the next step, as if it gives us the new "assured results of philosophy." That is still modernist thinking. Extreme postmodernism is the end of philosophy, the end of thought as we thought we knew it. It is an abyss that everyone should look into... and then go back to their "normal" lives.
My take away is that we are all a mixture of pre-modernism, modernism, and hopefully, post-modernism. We are all "pre-modern" in the sense that we are all unreflective about aspects of our lives. There are always areas of our lives where we do not realize we could look differently at them. We cannot make ourselves reflective about all of them because we do not even realize we are unreflective about them.
The goal of the true philosopher should be to become as reflective as possible. The quest for objectivity is a never ending one and one ultimately doomed for failure. But the myth of objectivity is one we must repeatedly affirm and pursue. We may not be able to achieve it perfectly, but we can often distinguish more objective claims from less objective ones.
We become healthy postmoderns when we make this pursuit humbly. We recognize the limitations of our knowledge. We knowingly re-embrace some of our pre-modern values not as the only options objectively but the ones that we choose to embrace.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Witherington on Rob Bell
Scot McKnight's blog pointed me to some thoughts on Rob Bell on Ben Witherington's blog:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/velvet-elvis-and-king-has-he-left.html
I'm so bad at reading the culturally important, so what I know of Bell I know second hand. But interestingly I had a conversation just this week with Adam Thada about Bell and about how accurate some of his biblical/cultural comments are. My impression has been that he does what so many popular preachers do--he gives very memorable insights, "secrets" if you would, into the original context of the Bible that really drive points home... but they usually are a little off. This is a pervasive preaching phenomenon from Spong on the left to some holiness preachers I've known who really impress their audience with these little secrets that even the biblical authors didn't know ;-)
Adam and I were talking about him saying something about having to take a mark in the days of Domitian to buy or sell. I don't know of any evidence for anything like this and have never seen it in anything I've read on Revelation in the scholarly or popular domain. There is good reason to think the book of Revelation's imagery might connect strongly to current events in the late first century in Rome and Ephesus. But I really don't think this is one of them. I've wondered if this comment had something to do with the use of Roman coinage at this time, which indicated that Domitian was a god.
Witherington's review is overall very positive toward Bell and this is my current feeling toward him too. But Witherington has confirmed my impression as well, that Bell's knowledge of ancient culture, history, and context is not always all it's cracked up to be.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/velvet-elvis-and-king-has-he-left.html
I'm so bad at reading the culturally important, so what I know of Bell I know second hand. But interestingly I had a conversation just this week with Adam Thada about Bell and about how accurate some of his biblical/cultural comments are. My impression has been that he does what so many popular preachers do--he gives very memorable insights, "secrets" if you would, into the original context of the Bible that really drive points home... but they usually are a little off. This is a pervasive preaching phenomenon from Spong on the left to some holiness preachers I've known who really impress their audience with these little secrets that even the biblical authors didn't know ;-)
Adam and I were talking about him saying something about having to take a mark in the days of Domitian to buy or sell. I don't know of any evidence for anything like this and have never seen it in anything I've read on Revelation in the scholarly or popular domain. There is good reason to think the book of Revelation's imagery might connect strongly to current events in the late first century in Rome and Ephesus. But I really don't think this is one of them. I've wondered if this comment had something to do with the use of Roman coinage at this time, which indicated that Domitian was a god.
Witherington's review is overall very positive toward Bell and this is my current feeling toward him too. But Witherington has confirmed my impression as well, that Bell's knowledge of ancient culture, history, and context is not always all it's cracked up to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
