I have an experiment for you to try.
Here is the wikipedia article on deconstruction.
As you read it, wherever you see the word “deconstruction”, substitute “emerging church”. Wherever you see the word “philosophy” or “meaning” or related terms, substitute the word “theology” .
And, wherever you see the word “text”, substitute the word “bible”.
It won’t be a perfect match each time, and sometimes this process will produce nonsense… but it mostly seems to, uh, you’ll pardon the reference, “make sense”.
See whatcha think.
Just think of me as “the other”.
So Phil,
I had to decide which of the last 6 posts or 3 asides to put this on, but here it goes…
I feel as though you have taken Addison Road hostage. Truly. You are the only one posting, and no one is commenting. I linked over to your site, which Mike has listed under “Friends” on the margin, and noted that you haven’t posted anything on your own site since January 2006. So I have to ask, are you posting here simply to have a voice that you don’t have at your own blog?
This is not a blog for censoring. I know Chad and Mike have both been frustrated at being edited at other sites in the past, but that was on their comments. I think any and all should be free to post their comments here. But posting, should maybe be for the selective few. Your posts just aren’t in the right tone here. People have tried to say it before, and in much kinder and funnier ways than I am able to at present, but I guess I’m just frustrated.
I know this is Mike’s department, his blog. When he’s around, he posts regularly and often, as you have taken to doing these last 2 weeks. But it’s his blog. He has that right, and has been able to create something pretty cool here at Addison Road that is now dwindling and dying away.
Don’t leave. Just don’t post anymore. Share your opinions and your talents. But don’t force your political agenda, and your “teaching tone” continually.
In regard to the post: the alternative, then, is that the presumptions of modernity enable Christians to be intrinsically more faithful to the gospel?
Gretchen… my deepest apologies. Of course I will comply with your wishes.
FYI… I don’t post much on the MusicalGod blog because it was a very special purpose thing, and there isn’t a whole lot more I have to say about it, until I learn more than I know now. (I know, I know… you wish I was always so reticent.)
From responses I had, I thought I was doing better at the “tone” thing… which I still don’t truly understand, but you aren’t the only one to say it, of course. Aly even liked one of my posts!
Ah, well.
mea culpa
Kyle, I’m not really saying modernity is the cat’s pajamas or something… I just found it interesting that so much of the self-talk of deconstruction is pretty similar to the emerging Christians.
Of course, I can’t really define jazz either… and it’s my favorite music. So I’m pretty comfortable with the notion that really important things have really slippery definitions.
Hey, Phil. I appreciate your gracious response to Gretchen, as well as G’s gut-level honesty about the effect of your recent prolificacy here at AddRd. Thanks for being receptive to her admonition, and I look forward to dialogging with you (in the comments section!) on future posts.
I’m no philosopher, but I think postmodernism’s (and by default, deconstructionism’s) influence on emerging church thought and theology is undeniable…and I don’t think anyone connected to the EC would try to deny it, unless they are incredibly naive or grossly uninformed. I’ve gotten the feeling from some of your past posts and comments that you suspect that the EC is unaware of this cultural/philosophical influence. If so, in this you are mistaken. Most in the EC will quite readily admit that they approach theology from within a postmodern cultural milieu. One of the gifts deconstruction has given us is a recognition that none of us “does theology” outside his or her culture — that is, we approach biblical hermeneutics, etc. from within the prevailing postmodern culture (or the still-kickin’ modern/Enlightenment culture, depending on generation and/or personal disposition).
There is also a recognition within the EC (and others not connected with the EC, for that matter) that the authors of the biblical canon “did theology” from within a particular set of cultural and philosophical assumptions. There is no reason that this recognition must necessarily negate the value — or divine inspiration — of Scripture. Rather, there is a hope that acknowledging and studying (deconstructing) the assumptions of the writers (as well as the assumptions of 2,000 years of the authors’ interpreters) might yield a better understanding of original intent: that of the human authors as well as the Divine Author.
Which is not to say that we’re any less likely to read our own assumptions into those deconstructions than those who have gone before. But there IS a recognition of that danger, so that’s something at least.
As a side note, from my observations of the EC over the past several years, there are two main schools of thought regarding “doing theology” in postmodern culture. One says that we have zero chance of interpreting Scripture and “doing theology” outside of our cultural milieu, so we should make the best of it and pray that the Holy Spirit, our good and true intentions, and our brother and sisters in orthodoxy won’t let us get too far off track. The other says that citizens of the kingdom of God are called to be “above” culture as much as is humanly possible, and therein lies the true power of the transcendent Kingdom: that we can be “in” the culture, but not “of” it. I remain undecided on this question.
It would be interesting for a non-theist POMO to deconstruct McLaren (not just him… using him as a representative in all that follows).
If I understand the notion, it is that we are likely to be unable to see around our own situatedness in culture (mostly) and so the “real meaning” or “secret message” or whatever will, uh, emerge when the deconstructive method is applied.
I don’t know of all that much POMO in the church that isn’t in support of EC. There has been some flirtation with it in scholarly quarters, but from what I read in Christian Scholar’s Review, it’s in the early stages… most articles are straight traditional scholarship, with facts and footnotes. So it’s like McLaren is playing a game with different rules… indeed, a different game, in discussion with the more orthodox.
Since there don’t seem to be thorough-going POMOs in the church that aren’t already linked with the EC, I wonder about the results of a POMO style critique by a non-theist of McLaren? Do you happen to know if McLaren’s work has been reviewed by a secularist in this manner? If so, that, and McLaren’s response, would be particularly revealing about what matters to him.
All that calls itself “deconstruction” isn’t, of course. Sometimes it’s simply ad hominem and incorrect inference.
I’ve been reading Scot McKnight, also. Interesting fellow. Atonement series is very interesting.
Aly has been able to define in four short words, what Wikipedia failed to do in several pages.
“acknowledging and studying (deconstructing)”
Maybe there’s a furthering of career here.
Phil, are you asking if McLaren’s TEXTS have been approached with a deconstructionist textual criticism by a non-theist? Sorry, I’m a little unclear on the question.
A couple other pomo theologians you might be interested in are LeRon Shults (a theology prof in Norway) and Ben Witherington (a N.T. interpretation prof at Asbury). They approach theology and postmodernism much more scholastically than does McLaren, who is first a pastor, then a theologian.
“Phil, are you asking if McLaren’s TEXTS have been approached with a deconstructionist textual criticism by a non-theist? Sorry, I’m a little unclear on the question.”
Yes, that’s exactly my question. I find myself wondering if McLaren has had the experience of being deconstructed by a pro, who has no particular interest in what McLaren THOUGHT he was saying, and looks for the REAL meaning behind the text, with little sympathy for the putative Christianity underlying it.
I think I’ve seen publications from both of the theologians you mentioned in “Christian Scholar’s Review”, a publication that mysteriously appears in my campus mailbox every now and then (I’ll bet Mike gets it too… ah, the perks, the perks).
I’d have to check back… but what I recall reading from those who are refining the postmodern ore falls a good deal short of endorsement of the entire EC project, mostly (whatever THAT may be, since no one will say). Of course, I can’t recall the names of most of my cousins, so…..
Aly, do you mind if I ask you another question? May seem sideways… and I may find an “answer” in the reading i’m doing here and there…. but:
Is it your sense that the EC folks (particularly those who want to redefine salvation, atonement, sin, hell, the Incarnation, etc., away from “orthodox” definitions) believe that they are participating in something like a “Reformation”? Or even something like the transition into Christianity from Judaism? I understand that the EC is broad, and many will not be so radical, but from some of the pretty ambitious statements I’ve been reading, I wonder if some believe they are on the cusp of something really huge, maybe even more than a “Reformation” type transition, verging on a completely fresh break from previous understandings.
You know, it goes like this: Those unsophisticated Jews thought the Messiah would be an earthly king who would restore Israel; and gave way to those Christians, who thought they understood that the REAL Messiah had been a spiritual king, not an earthly one, who was here primarily to save souls, clearly understood as spiritual, non-material but real, existent, eternal aspects of human beings; which in their turn gave way to the emerging church, which ……. (fill in the blanks).
I.e., Christians believe that many O.T. passages cannot be interpreted except throught the lens of understandings only available through N.T. Christianity. But ECers (some of them) seem to believe that many N.T. passages cannot be correctly interpreted except through the lens of POMO/EC or whatever is coming next.
Do you see something that big in the expectations of many ECers?
Phil, that’s a great question. While the neck-deep theology of this post is above my efforts, the Reformation references hit me square in my ex-Lutheranism. Funny, that their namesake “saved” the church and that they can brew homemade beer better than any other denomination seem to be the two major feathers in their caps. I’ve wondered if the EC is hoping that someone else will call this the new Reformation. I wonder if the church is as far gone as it was in the 16th century when Uncle Marty nailed his 95 theses to the door. My understanding of EC (or is it “the” EC? funny sidejoke… “It’s Batman, dammit. Just Batman. Not ‘The…’”) was that it was more a movement of faith and worship practice than a rewriting of man’s view of God or God’s nature. Am I way off?
I just relaized how cracked-out that last post made me sound. I promise, I’m not as stupid as all indications would imply.
Hey, Phil. I started a long-ass response, but it’s my bedtime, so I’ll take a crack tomorrow. Thanks for the good conversation.
From Corey:
“I wonder if the church is as far gone as it was in the 16th century when Uncle Marty nailed his 95 theses to the door”
Hmm.. Luther and cohorts had to contend with a politically powerful church, that essentially had the power of life and death over people… nothing like what we mean by “the church in politics” today. Since that kind of earthly power tends to corrupt… I guess I’d say things aren’t that bad now. Now, all the church really sells is ideas and community, not indulgences…. and you don’t have to buy if you don’t want to.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t certain parallels with the position of the Jews under the Romans, if you’re of a mind to find the EC to be the solution to something you think is a problem.
I do think some in the movement think they are rewriting our view of God and God’s nature… the question is, is that the mainstream?
BTW… still laughing over the Batman thing. Not to mention “Uncle Marty”.
I’ll give your question my best shot, Phil, but with these two caveats: 1) While I may be slightly more informed about Church history than the next guy, I’m not an expert, and 2) there’s no way in Gehenna I can sum up something this complex in one shot. Probably the best thing is for you to do some digging into some of the theologians I’ve referenced, as well as some “practitioners” (as some EC ministry-people prefer to be called) such as Tall Skinny Kiwi. In the long run, these sources will be of much better help to you than I. But onward…
I don’t think the emerging church began primarily as a theological movement. It has its roots in the evolution of 20th century missiology, particularly the writings of people such as Lesslie Newbigin, whose experiences overseas led him to examine how the Gospel could be relevant in a culturally pluralistic world. (Before the 20th century, Western culture was often imported by missionaries along with the Gospel, and Newbigin wondered if that was good or even necessary.) As pastors and other ministers began to have less and less success in ministry to younger boomers and then genX-ers (those most embedded in the emerging pomo culture), they wondered what it might be like to view ministry to these folks as a “mission field,” since their cultural values and assumptions seemed so different from those of Christendom’s. In the beginning, it was all about doing things differently — more culturally appropriately — to see if the church could become relevant to the younger generations.
As these early guys started their “missional” efforts (a word you’ll hear over and over again), they discovered that doing things differently DID matter, at least as far as building relationships and gaining a hearing were concerned. But once they had gained a hearing, they discovered that the questions they were prepared to answer — the questions Western Christianity had made its business to answer — were not the questions people were asking. It’s not that modern apologetics was getting the answers wrong, it’s that the answers seemed irrelevant to people’s lives. (I have yet to meet anyone under 40 who “came to Jesus” because of Lee Stroble’s books.) It was at this point that the emerging church had to become theological, to begin a concerted effort to answer the prevailing questions of the day.
They began this effort not by sitting down and trying to think up new stuff, but by looking back over the Church’s history (both East and West), and they discovered that the questions they’d thought were settled had been answered in quite a diverse number of ways over the centuries. This made them wonder: Are the questions we’ve been coached to answer the questions that really matter to God? And thus began a more aggressive deconstruction of Western Christianity — not a deconstruction of the Gospel, per se, but of the particular brands of the Gospel that are most prevalent in Western culture. This was all in an effort to get to the essence of what Christianity is and was meant to be.
Here’s where I try to answer your question about ECers seeing themselves as custodians of a “new Reformation” of some sort. For some, yes: They see Western Christianity (particularly the evangelical and liberal theologies) as culturally-appropriate, if not entirely true-to-the-original, interpretations of the Gospel, and the EC efforts to deconstruct those interpretations as a reformation back to the intent of Christianity’s Founder, which many believe may be trans-culturally relevant, rather than embedded in any one culture. (And hey… if the missiological approaches of Western Christianity had gotten pretty far off the mark, isn’t there a good chance that its theological assumptions might be a bit off, as well?) For some, no: They see Western Christianity’s methods of ministry and evangelism as out-moded and in need of a re-think, but its basic interpretations of “the Gospel” as true to the original intent of Jesus — only the approach to postmodern people needs to shift, not tried-and-true tenets of the faith. What both camps have in common is that they approach theology thru the lens of praxis (the living out of Christ-like lives), instead of approaching praxis thru the lens of doctrine. It is a movement motivated by mission, not by doctrine, and where Western Christianity’s emphasis on right belief has been given primacy over right practice, it’s open season on doctrine. In this way, the EC may be rightly categorized as a “reformation,” since evangelicalism in particular has emphasized right belief almost to the exclusion of right practice. (Which, if you think about it, is nearly opposite of the situation that gave rise to the Reformation — almost as if we have the tendency to swing too far in one direction and need a dose of radical correction every 500 years or so.)
Gee, I hope this not-so-brief overview of the roots of EC is helpful. Otherwise, I’m gonna feel pretty dumb. And WAY too chatty.
Thanks Aly. Not too much, and not too brief. Just right.
I’ll probably read two or three times, digest… then ask more questions.
As mentioned in Chad’s post re: his experience with a friend/pastor, I think all this is related….
Side note: my back has been giving me a very bad time for about two weeks. Simply sitting is killing me. Driving is torture.
I’m gonna be catching up on some work that was neglected…. in a medicated haze. I hope there aren’t too many wrong notes in this particular show….
So if you don’t hear much from me, try to contain your sadness and sense of utter loss and despondency…. I’ll be back.
And Gretchen… I still love ‘ya. You can’t get rid of me that easily. Besides, the picture of you, Mike and baby on his wall is just adorable.
Will be praying for you, Phil. I’m sorry you’re in so much pain. Be well.
Just a quick note for Aly;
“evangelicalism in particular has emphasized right belief almost to the exclusion of right practice. (Which, if you think about it, is nearly opposite of the situation that gave rise to the Reformation — almost as if we have the tendency to swing too far in one direction and need a dose of radical correction every 500 years or so.)”
We always practice what we believe. Not what we say we believe but what we actually DO believe.
Also, the Reformation, as I understand it, was about a change in BELIEF on the part of Martin Luther. He came to believe, through his own study of the Bible, that what he had been led by the church to believe regarding the way of salvation was incorrect (works-out; grace-in). Martin Luther was not threatened with death by the Catholic Church because of his practice but because of his doctrine. If I am wrong on this, please correct me.
I thought that’s what I said: that the Reformation was a re-forming of DOCTRINE (which had ramifications for practice), while what’s going on the EC has its re-formative roots in PRACTICE (which has ramifications for doctrine). Therefore, they are opposite situations. And hopefully, no one will be put to death anytime soon.