Theological Issues Confronting the Emerging Churches - Yet Another List
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
We’ve had Gibbs/Bolger list the nine core practices of the emerging church, we’ve had Scot McKnight list the seven habits of successful emerging conversations, and “Emergent” itself list its “four values and practices that flow from them.” Dare I propose another list? Hesitantly, but here I go. What are the key theological issues posed by the current culture of postmodern, post Christian, post-Western Enlightenment culture to the emerging churches seeking to be missional in these contexts? Here’s what I think they are. I mention only a very few names of thinkers (just a few) who might help.
One … THE AUTHORITY, INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, AND COMMUNITY. Inerrancy, propositions, and the perspicuity of the text are inadequate to the task of describing the authority/interpretation of Scripture under the critique of modernity. In fact, these terms actually now demean Scripture’s authority. As a result, N. American society still can’t see the power of the Story we pass on in our history. Look anew at apostolicity, the church Community’s (big c) canon of interpretation, Story, Narrative and the performance of Scripture as ways to go forward. Van Hoozer, John Francke, NT Wright (and others) are well on their way to helping us in this area.
Two … SALVATION, SANCTICATION AND THE ATONEMENT. Substitutionary atonement, the separation of justification from sanctification in the ordo salutis (the order of salvation) by us evangelicals have provided the means for the over individualized, consumerized, exchange-based mode of salvation so prevalent in the N. American evangelical church. In fact, these notions have been abused to demean and cheapen the cosmic supreme nature of the salvation offered in Christ for the world. As a result, American society can only see our salvation in narcissistic terms. These notions once abused have made the atonement appear as a violent act in itself and exclusionary. Look anew at recapitulation theories of the atonement in Scripture, the categories of character and virtue, and “the new perspective on Paul,” to restore the unity of the ordo and the hospitality of God in the cross. Scott McKnight, Hans Boersma, NT Wright, James Dunn and others can help here.
Three … JUSTICE AND THE CHURCH. Over Lutheranized accounts of Pauline justification (mentioned above), the separation of individual from social political salvation, have made possible the making of justice as a duty of the evangelical Christian instead of the very character of who we are. As a result, American society continues to think we’re trying to win a culture battle instead of working for the redemption of all creation. We continue old habits of treating issues of racism, economics, gender, sexuality, etc. as if they were problems of individuals only, or as capable of being solved by "individualist" solutions of a better capitalism or democracy. Look anew at Yoder’s “the politics of Jesus,” and “the new perspective on Paul,” and to Cornel West, Luce Iragary, Bell Hooks, William Cavanagh, Dan Bell, Steve Long and yes Stanley Hauerwas and many more to help us here.
Four… PLURALISM AND CHRISTIANITY “Jesus is the Only Way.” But how do we communicate what it means to say “Jesus is Lord” to a Buddhist? Exclusivist, Inclusivist, John Hick’s “Christian pluralism” are simply inadequate to understand witness, dialogue and the supremacy of Christ in the world of new pluralism. Look anew at post Wittgensteinian theorists as well as the doctrine of the “sovereignty of God” to help us. For me the old ecumenicist George Lindbeck, as well as Stanley Hauerwas help us to know how to speak about these orthodox doctrines and practices in these new worlds. They help do what we must do faithfully yet carefully. It is one of the central issues of our day. In Wittgenstein’s phrase, these figures help us learn how to “go on” in a world stalemated by pluralism.
Five … ECCLESIOLOGY. In a fragmented world where individualist foundations to epistemology are disavowed, everyone, including Christians, must have a social space, a language and a politic in order to be shaped sufficiently to live coherent lives. For Christians who live at the end of modernity, we simply cannot do without the church. Evangelical hyper- individualism made the church expendable. For we who now live in these postmodern worlds, we must re articulate and re invigorate what it means to be the church. Look to missional church thinkers, Van Gelder, Hunsberger, Guder, as well as Hauerwas, Lindbeck and new people writing on the church.
These questions have all been asked by at least Brian McLaren in his writings as well as other writers within Emergent and Emerging churches. These same questions were posed earlier at the forming of evangelicalism in the 20’s. The answers of that time articulated in reaction to modernist protestant liberalism yield the modernist answers: 1.) inerrancy, 2.) substitionary atonement, 3.) dispensational pessimism towards social structures, 4.) Exclusivism and 5.) no ecclesiology. We must do the theological work here to go forward for those who wish to lead the church amidst the cultural malaise of post-Christian post-modernity.
My challenge to emerging churches is - Let us not engage these issues by not simply reacting to old line evangelicalism and then turning to the classic protestant liberal answers. Frankly these answers are well worn and proven wanting. Let us seriously think through what postmodernity as well as the post liberal, post secular theologies are telling us about the old modern consensus. It goes without saying; we ground all of our theological engagements in the Scriptures and the history of the interpretation of our Scriptures in the church. But let us not default to more modernist, more individualist, more self-expressive, more problematic and just as naive extensions of the former engagements. I hope to explain more as I blog on these subjects in the weeks to come.
These are the theological issues I think we must engage in post-modern contexts. If anyone is out there … What are yours? What numerous other authors have helped you the most in these questions?
_________________________________________________
PS Thanks to Jonathon Wilson on his review of The Great Giveaway in Christianity Today. For those interested, I think I already answered his oft stated objection to the book’s approach in a previous post here … at the Great Giveaway blog.
Posted by David Fitch | 7:45 AM
COMMENTS:
How does the notion that the Bible is without error “demean Scripture’s authority?” Bald assertions may be fashionable, but they are unworthy of thinking Christians.
10:13 AM
Cmi ...
I'll comment on this in a later post ... but for now ... inerrancy begs the question "inerrant according to who"... the way that question has been answered in the history of evangelicalism has been... "according to science and/or historiography." In other words we were saying that the Scriptures were without error in the climate when historical criticism was saying there were either scientific or historical incongruencies/errors to be found in Scripture. Since we believe science or historioghraphy to verify true statements, believeing the Bible is therefore problematic. But this is to put another source of authority above Scripture. Why would we listen to history or science, Rudolph Bultmann or Gallieleo as somehow a challenge to the truth of Scripture ... they are as historically conditioned as any other form of knowledge ... (according to postmodernity)
Well ... enough for now ..
DF
11:52 AM
Dave,
I like this list. I haven't been a big part of the "emergent" conversation and I remain leary of the emerging church movement overall, but all of these issues interest me a lot. There's a lot to talk about there and I'd really like to discuss some of the these topics with you more in depth.
To start with, I'm eagerly awaiting your response to "call me ishmael's" question as I had the same question. I don't doubt you have a good answer, but I'd like to have the connection made clear.
Also, I'd like to hear more about your thoughts on the atonement and how separating justification from sanctification leads to the view of the atonement as violent. I'm aware of the oft made charge these days that the atonement constitutes divine child abuse, but I've never heard anyone connect that with the separation of justification from sanctification.
Lastly, I'd love to talk more about the issue of pluralism and what the options are if categories like inclusivism and exclusivism are no longer viable. Up to this point I have thought about (and continue to think about)the gospel in primarily exclusivist terms.
I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to talk about these things. Looking forward to it.
Peace,
Gordy
12:01 PM
David wrote: "inerrancy begs the question 'inerrant according to who'... the way that question has been answered in the history of evangelicalism has been... 'according to science and/or historiography.'" I believe these statements are frightfully incorrect. The church affirmed that the Scriptures are without error long before modernity, and it has always--always--done so out of the conviction that this is what the Scriptures taught about themselves.
David also wrote: "In other words we were saying that the Scriptures were without error in the climate when historical criticism was saying there were either scientific or historical incongruencies/errors to be found in Scripture." This is not true. The concept of inerrancy (if not always the actual word) is found explicitly (not implicitly) going all the way back to the church fathers, through the Middle Ages, and into the Reformation period. We were saying that the Bible is inerrant (not scientifically precise--which the word "inerrant" never meant--but simply inerrant) long before the period you specify.
David further wrote: "Since we believe science or historioghraphy to verify true statements, believeing the Bible is therefore problematic." Only to a liberal.
Again, David wrote: "But this is to put another source of authority above Scripture." Once again: inerrancy was affirmed by the church because it was what the church believed the Bible taught about itself. Therefore, Scripture remained the ultimate authority.
"Why would we listen to history or science, Rudolph Bultmann or Gallieleo as somehow a challenge to the truth of Scripture ... they are as historically conditioned as any other form of knowledge ... (according to postmodernity)" Galileo never challenged the truth of Scripture, but rather an Aristotelian cosmology that the authoritarian medieval church had endorsed.
Virtually all the arguments you raise (with the possible exception of the postmodern one), were raised during the great inerrancy debates of the late 1970s and early '80s. The answers I am presenting here were thoroughly presented at that time, are for the most part still in print, and were presented with ample documentation. I am continually impressed by the fact that many (perhaps most) Emerging Church authors who address this subject either (a) were not paying any attention to what was going on in evangelicalism at that time, or (b) had chosen to remain oblivious to it.
This attitude and approach does not bode well for the intellectual integrity of the movement as a whole, nor for its future.
12:53 PM
cmi.
OK ... I could debate here "tit for tat" on your representation of the both church history and the debate of the 70's and 80's. I assure you I have read those discussions and been involved in some cases in their finer details. I just ask, try to withhold the quick snap generalizations. I challenge you to name a book in the inerrancy debate of the 70's 80's I have not read. In some cases I first hand have known the authors. I tried to address the major idea quickly not exhaustively in a comment. Come on, the Gallileo comment? Like that was my point? So here's my question, to cmi, can I address this issue in a singular upcoming post and invite you into an extended series of comments? I won't have time for it until next week.
Fair?
1:17 PM
I like this list. I haven't seen this critique anywhere else. I am curious about pluralism and salvation. You didn't provide any details. I know evangelicals still hold to faith in Christ as the only way to heaven even though some vary on what that means. I've heard a few mainstream pastors mention that some who have never heard of Christ could still be saved if they are obedient to what has been revealed to them. Or something like that. What do you think about "many ways leading to God," or do I just need to get the book?
1:59 PM
davagun,
I believe the answer is not to relinquish "Jesus is the only way." But the linguistic power of all that that means can truly only be known and communicated through an initiation into the language and story we have been baptized into by His grace : the story of God, the nation of Israel and the person and work of His Son Jesus Christ. What this means for dialogue and for those "who have never heard" takes on new depth and makes God's chosen means to spread salavation,"the election of a people" so crucial to understand. So this too will take a whole post if not two. Thanks for the question (the Great Giveaway does not address thisn question).
2:08 PM
OK, Dave - put some flesh and blood on your list. Describe what you imagine your list looks like in the life of a congregation.
5:45 PM
David, I guess your proposal will have to do for now. Meanwhile, as I await your post, please consider the words of Augustine (354-430), which were later quoted with approval by Aquinas (1225-1274): "For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error." (Letters 82.1.3; cf. Summa Theologica 1.1.8.)
6:47 PM
David, great post. It is good to have all of these theological issues together in a list. I think it is helpful for folks to understand that the emerging church is struggling with more than mere style or "cultural engagement" in the conventional sense.
11:52 AM
This post astounds me! I'm amazed that the thoughts I've had through fours years Moody and two years at Dallas Sem, are exactly the thoughts you have articulated here.
I never doubted the Scripture's authority or inerrancy until,ironically, I studied Bible intro and read very authors like Normal Geisler. The arguments I was given for the Bible's inspiration/authority etc in seminary were so utterly unconvincing to me that (even though I had previously had no doubt about Scripture) was a bit shaken. I couldn't believe in the Bible based upon the sort of reasoning I was given. So, I think I understand what you are saying in your first point.
As for pluralism, I attend an church in Korea with a Pakistani pastor. The service is in three languages. The man who translates the sermon in to Hindi approached me last Sunday and said that he wanted to know why I believed in Christianity. I was a bit surprised but he went on to say that he was a Hindu and he had come to believe that there was only one God while translating the pastor's sermons. (Which is great progress, IMHO). But he said that he believes that one God is present among all people, whether it be the Christian church, the Hindu temple, the Muslim mosque etc. In a sense, he is quite right, ala Acts 17. In another sense he needs to understand that Jesus removes the negative "karma" and is the only one who can bring "dharma."
I don't want to hog your comments, but pluralism is something I must deal with everywhere. Just telling people the theory of substitutionary atonement isn't going to work for the Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus that attend my church. And, no, they aren't members--they attend because the people at church are the few in Korean society who show concern for them as foreigners.
I'm now going to post this post to del.icio.us. Blessings to you.
6:08 PM
Hey Fitch,
As per Ishmael's comments, I would never want to suggest that you personally haven't been any less than totally schooled in the 80's evangelical brand of theological debate. But you are somewhat unique in the "emergent" conversation in this respect. Most people of my generation that I interact with in that discussion haven't had that education, and thus mostly aren't aware of some of the provocative nuances of Henry that pop-up in "Uneasy Conscience..." or of Pinnock's legendary bibliogical backpeddling, or of Van Til's oft misrepresented attempts to explore non-foundationalism in an evangelical/foundationalist setting.
I am personally aware that you have this background, but I question the ability of some in my generation to be able to legitimately slam (at least as easily as they do) someone like Henry in bibliogical matters. I just toss Henry out there as an example, but why make whipping boys out of people that you have only read through quotes in other peoples' critiques? I want to be carefule here not to characterize a whole segment of Christian conversationalists, but I just haven't met many that spent their undergrads reading Hodge, Kuyper, Warfield, Berkhof, etc...
On another point, how sold are you on the "New Perspective" on Paul and the different understandings of the atonement that come with it? And secondly, how important is this to your ecclesiology? I just ask this because:
1. Though the scholarship is there, and extremely reasonable, the verdict is by no means out on the New Perspective. There really have been some 2nd temple issues raised that mitigate against its wholesale adoption.
2. I wonder how necessary is that understanding of the atonement to your program. And if it is absolutely necessary, can't we garner the nuances regarding atonement and the community from Paul and the Gospels that you sense in the NT through different methodologies and sidestep the problems engendered by the New Perspective stuff? (Though with some of his own problems, Ladd gets somewhere awful close to the New Perspective via eschatology in his New Testament Theology.) For heaven's sake. Someone needs to write a book about ways in which New Testament Theology can inform this whole "emergent" thing.
6:04 AM
Lovin' it, but...
ECCLESIOLOGY. "...everyone, including Christians, must have a social space, a language and a politic in order to be shaped sufficiently to live coherent lives."
Don't we? Isn't it called the kingdom of God?
"For Christians who live at the end of modernity, we simply cannot do without the church. Evangelical hyper- individualism made the church expendable."
Of course we can't do without the church. There's nothing like telling God you don't like how He has chosen to do things. The church is NOT a human construct and it is NOT an option.
Examine even closer to home. I wonder if evangleical hyper-individualism is just a euphemism for selfishness. Our tendency is to setup our own altars and kill what we don't like or understand all for the sake of "protecting" the truth.
"For we who now live in these postmodern worlds, we must re articulate and re invigorate what it means to be the church."
We don't get re-invigorated exclusively by enlarging our frontal lobes. What about the role of revelation and vision from God and a renewal of spirit fueled by God's own Spirit?
Dave, put some legs on this stuff. Throwing books at it is not the only thing to do. How about humbling ourselves before God. We are running very close to the edge of telling Him, the Head of the Church, how we want to think about things in a postmodern world. I am not sure He is impressed.
10:55 AM
MM ... you say "how about humbling ourselves before God" ... how does discussing theological issues preclude having humility before God? MM... at the risk of being unduly arrogant myself, isn't it arrogant to assume others are not being humble? Don't get me wrong ... but me thinks we all have fingers pointing at ourselves when we point the index finger at the arrogance of others. Of course ... I'm still with you ... and I've got to go confess my other sins now with my men's triad ... so I'll respond to the rest of the great comments afterward. O wait a minute ... my men's group just said I sound arrogant when I talk about confessing sins. It seems like we just can't escape the arrogance of being human no matter what we do. With that I'll close.
Blessings DF
5:41 PM
OK .. I'm back from confession and other assorted disciplines in my "triad" ... Allow me to comment on a few of the other comments ... To Mike Leary, leave it to you to conduct a searing piece of surgery on my post regarding the former ways of theology in evangelicalism. I intend to be more gracious and careful in describing my discontent with old evangeliclalism and its inability to meet or engage the insights of post Enlightenment society.
On the issues of the "new perspective" on Paul, I agree, one need not buy the entire argument. Indeed NT Wright, James Dunn, and even George Ladd give us certain perspectives which critique the heaviliy Lutheranized (individualized and guilt-drenched) understandinsg of atonement and salvation, yet need not buy Stendhal in his entirety. (Although Dunn is part of new perspective, is he not?) I do think the "new perspective" can serve to elevate the key issue, "the individualization" of our salvation," and point to ways we can see our individual salvation as inextricably linked to the cosmic work of God redeeming the world through Christ. Anyways ... This to me is a better fuller Pauline gospel. I hope to blog more of this specific issue in the next series of posts.
Thanks to Mark and Hannhim for your kind posts ... Michele .. what can I say but I'll keep trying in the posts to come. And MM let's keep trying to communicate more over the many more posts to come.
Blessings DF
7:49 PM
I look forward to your forthcoming comments on the Pauline issue, I have long awaited access to your insight on this.
By the way, if you haven't read through Dunn's "Jesus Remembered," I think you would find it fascinating and helpful. (You can read a smaller version of it in his book "A New Perspective on the Historical Jesus.") It is basically social memory theory applied to the transmission of Jesus Traditions in the 1st century (though he won't admit to the "social memory" bit). The implications his work has for the way we can use the gospels in a church setting are as profound as they are practical. I would be interested in your feedback on that.
You said:
"I intend to be more gracious and careful in describing my discontent with old evangeliclalism and its inability to meet or engage the insights of post Enlightenment society."
I was hoping you wouldn't take it that way. As far as Henry is concerned, I read through all the personal correspondence between him and Frei about "The Eclipse..." that can be found in Trinity's archives. Riveting stuff, but one gets the sense that Henry just wasn't quite catching on to the whole "text swallowing up the world" thing. So many critiques are spot on, I am not trying to suggest otherwise. I just tend to see the same sort of kneejerk responses in the emergent discussion that they tend to see in old school evangelicalism.
7:33 AM
Herr Fitch,
Humility and humbling ourselves was not a targeted comment. Don't we all need to humble ourselves daily before the Lord, you and I together?
All of our ideas are open to examination and critique and it's part of humbling ourselves before our brother and sisters when we share those ideas. It makes us vulnerable and approachable at the same time.
When we humble ourselves before God, one thing we acknowledge is that Jesus is the Head of the Church; He runs the show. His ideas are supreme to ours and it is our obligation as His chosen ones to catch His vision for His church, His bride. We can't impress Him with our intellect because there is nothing He doesn't know. That is not to slay the intellect but we must understand in humility that our ideas are not God and never will be and that God, when it all comes down to it, doesn't need our ideas. We need His. This is the role of revelation and God giving His people His vision for what He wants and us in obedience and complete, humble devotion taking up His work.
This is the gap I see in this discussion. What is the role of revelation and the role of God's Spirit in revelation as He shares His purposes and will for His Church and with His Church?
7:59 AM
I'm a midwesterner studying in Asia right now and just did much research on trying to contextualize biblical authority here in a pluralistic/post-colonial society. I found many similarities for the post-modern context. Inerrancy does do biblical authority injustice. It takes just as much faith to trust "inerrancy", "infallibility", or just plain "authoritative". Perhaps the real issue isn't authority, but hermeneutics. I here most Evangelicals bucking mostly because they are afraid of what I'll interpret with a framework that doesn't say "inerrant".
Many Asian theologians who write tend to be very liberal. However, Evangelicals are starting to enter the picture. Unfortunately, some of them borrow Western words like "inerrant" because of their Western training. I find it funny that they adopt an apologetic from a different context. In the same way, it frustrates me that we can't see an irrelevance in defending biblical authority with words that came out of anti-evolution apologetics. I like anything Lesslie Newbiging writes. (esp. The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society or Proper Confidence).
5:23 AM
As a last comment before we move, thanks to all for their comments. Mike Leary ... didn't take you wrong ... I just wanted to say that I want to try to be more gracious on these issues ... thanks MM .. . I think I understand you more ... and actually hear "your point" and think its a worthy one that I need to hear ... and thanks Joel ...I almost feel like I don't need to write anymore on the inerrancy thing. You folks have done nailed it.
Blessings ...
6:59 AM
Hell, demons, evil, will (willfulness and "divine" will). These are only tangentially addressed through "authority" (and then only in terms of scripture). "Jesus" as metaphor (the "Jesus Story" as story of "every man"). And all of this in terms of "agency vs. agencies". As an emerging "tribalism", the emergent church is addressing these issues in terms of "choosing a leader" (loosely by nominating "numerous other authors"). There's no inherent "leader" (as GOD) in this movement. So, back to evangelism and "this isn't my car, it's JESUS' limo"?
6:18 AM
David you said,
"Let us not engage these issues by not simply reacting to old line evangelicalism and then turning to the classic protestant liberal answers" - This is the key everything turns on. What makes emergent exciting for me is it's ability to break new ground and live on the cutting edge of so many issues (theological, cultural, etc). I'm sure everyone has seen evangelicals argue that emergent is protestant liberalism in disguise. I must confess, there is some (minor) truth to this statement. Yet emergent has the ability to offer fresh perspectives on theology if we remain willing to take risks, be proactive and make mistakes. We can all learn in the process if we're willing to plow ahead and remain confident in our understanding of where and what the questions are.
6:47 PM
Thanks for the list .. and I tried to post a comment on the "inerrancy" post but couldn't so I'm doing it here.
I had a little discussion on this with a friend here (look at the comments)
5:24 PM
I asked earlier tonight in the comments to "Why PL and EF are two sides of the same coin" some questions about medieval city life and contemporary local communnity life and how it informs the idea of the grounding of our identity in a historical context rather than in that of the autonomous subject. I was thinking like an architect with my questions. "Over Lutheranized accounts of Pauline justification (mentioned above), the separation of individual from social political salvation, have made possible the making of justice as a duty of the evangelical Christian instead of the very character of who we are...evangelicals have provided the means for the over individualized, consumerized, exchange-based mode of salvation..." I'm listening. Wow. Thanks.
11:19 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home