Can We Avoid Polarizing Debate while still Going Forward? A Non Contentious Response to Brian McLaren
Monday, June 19, 2006
In a recent piece by Brian McLaren on his website entitled “Emergent Reflections, Spring 2006,” Brian carries out an analysis of the current conversations surrounding ecclesiology and the emerging churches. He surveys the often-contentious debates going on and executes an analysis using two of his best trademarks: a.) his ability to summarize broad observations with a list, which seeringly proves his point without explicitly making it, and b.) his crafty ability to make the conciliatory gesture, which takes the edge off of each opposing side defusing the polarization which makes way for open conversation. Brian is a genius of the conciliatory gesture. In “Emergent Reflections” Brian surveys the ways people are taking up sides on ecclesiological concerns within Emerging circles. He then proposes “above the line” solutions that avoid the pitfalls of ”taking up sides.” Of course, as with much of Brian’s writing, we might feel he has left us with no definite solutions and again left the answers wide open. Nonetheless, I must admit, I have learned much from reading this piece, and I admit to be being very close to being convinced.
In the end however, I just cannot go all the way with Brian on his conclusions in “Emergent Reflections, Spring 2006.” What I can do is applaud the way Brian keeps us from polarizing the conversation. This is vintage McLaren. What I cannot do is leave the current debates this wide open without some specific direction I feel SOME OF US need in the current ecclesiological situation we find ourselves in, i.e. the situation where modernity is breaking down in specific parts of U.S.A. and Canada. I agree with Brian that we need by all means to prevent more polarizing debates in evangelicalism and American Christianity in general. Please, let us have no more fundamentalist graceless finger pointing! Yet we also need some specific direction for those us asking “how do we go on” after the consensus of modernity (which evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism was built upon) has disintegrated. Is there an approach whereby we can be both “generous” yet specific for our time and place for those of us who find ourselves in places post-modern?
Brian’s “above the line” solutions, as best I can tell from A New Kind of Christian, are solutions that go beyond the standard rational either/or solutions of modern thinking. For him this is the third way, thinking “outside the box,” a more “generous orthodoxy.” Sometimes it looks like compromise or a “both/and” solution, although I don’t think that is what Brian intends. For Hans Frei, who first coined the term, such a “generous orthodoxy” (p.208) is a way of transcending outmoded liberal-evangelical dichotomies. This “generous orthodoxy” resists compromise or even the both/and solutions because these kinds of solutions keep the framing of the issues within Enlightenment based thinking. For Frei, “generous orthodoxy” solutions ask us to think solutions in terms of linguistically constructed particular worlds (in particular the historically embodied narrative world of Scripture), not universal objective enlightenment reason. It asked us to think not in terms of “what is universally true,” but “how can I be faithful to what I have been given particularly (historically) in my space and time in Jesus Christ.” If this is true, “generous orthodoxy” solutions might be able to be both thankful to others for what they have done in their time and space (for example modernity of the West) while at the same time acknowledging we must discern how best “to go on” in the specific time and place we have been given. Instead of both/and or compromise third way solutions, these solutions would like like : Thank you for _______ , Now let us see that for us _______ . These kind of solutions would be graceful towards other Christian brothers and sisters in their time and space, yet give discernment for how to go on in the here and now for those us struggling with post Christendom, post modernity and post anything else for that matter. These kind of solutions have the advantage of being both graceful and directive. They keep the conversation open yet not suspended in air.
What might this look like? Well let me take a few of Brian’s “above the line solutions” from “Emergent Reflections: Spring 2006” and recast them. For instance in “1. Above the line on organization and leadership” Brian says we need to be careful both in regards to impersonal large forms of organization as well as small chaotic disorganization that is allergic to all forms of organization. We need to learn from both. What I propose to say is “thank-you to those who managed the church successfully for the enormous chaotic lives of late modernity. Now let us see the empty vacuous-ness of modern over-busy consumeristic life, and that for us we must seek deeply the ways of the simple but profound servant leadership of Jesus for faithfulness in our time.” In “3. Above the line on decision and commitment,” Brian brilliantly says we need both decision and process in holistic spiritual formation. We should not castigate those manipulative ways of evangelism that produce a decision at all cost for Christ to the extent we throw out the role of decision altogether. I think I agree with Brian and suggest we phrase it “thank you for re-emphasizing the importance of personal commitment in a time when people had allowed their Christianity to be stale and uninvolved. Now let us see that for us in our time a decision can only make sense in a context and let us invite lost souls into our homes so that they might know what following Christ might even mean in real life.” In “4. Above the line about mega church and micro church,” Brian states that mega churches and micro churches have much to give and benefit from in cooperating with each other. I would like to say, “thank you to the mega churches for pushing us to think more about what it means to evangelize and contextualize. Now let us see that for us in our present context it is vitally important to be the church visibly and missionally in ways that demand we know each other, care for each other, engage the poor as a Body of Christ. This demands we get smaller.”
Maybe these examples don’t illustrate the subtlety I am pushing for. Maybe this is all semantics. Maybe I am slicing the differences between Brian and myself here too finely. Maybe there are other ways to avoid the polarizing debates while still pushing forward towards definitive direction in these postmodern times. This may only be a feeble attempt at addressing what appears to be the excessively open ended nature of emerging conversations. But I agree with Brian, we need to quit the polarizing dividing practices. I have probably been too guilty of this and am seeking a way forward. Thanks to Brian for pushing me on this!
Posted by David Fitch | 11:51 AM
COMMENTS:
Dave,
I definitely agree we need to seek a way forward beyond polarized debates. I like the way your recasting encourages us to look back to those who came before us and be thankful for the ways in which they preserved and highlighted important aspects of the truth and passed it on to us, while still seeking to move forward and speak in a way that is meaningful to our current context. I think this is especially important in light of the fact that someday those who comes after us will look back at us and see all of our mistakes too. I hope we treat those who came before us as charitably as we would like to be treated by those who come after us.
I think this dialogue with the past in light of the present is one of the primary tasks of systematic theology as it is defined by someone like Kevin Vanhoozer (at least that's how I basically remember him defining it in class).
I think too often we are made to feel that we must choose between faithfulness to a tradition or speaking in a way that is relevant to our current context. The one extreme becomes moribund, reactionary traditionalism, while the other becomes a kind of reactionary rebellion against all things traditional to the point of becoming captive to the tyranny of the new and going completely off the rails of orthodoxy.
I think we especially need to learn how to respond to one another more graciously, to be more charitable in our readings of one another, and to show more nuance in critiquing other people's positions.
Peace,
Gordon
12:31 PM
This probably isn't going to add to the conversation much but what I see you saying is essentially how I read McLaren when I read his "article". I think for all of us, "above the line thinking" (great turn of phrase by the way) is going to look a smidge different. I guess I would say that for me, it takes McLaren's slant and adds to it the very subtle shift you contribute with each of your slants dominating at different times given different issues. Sometimes it also looks more like a "balance" of sorts and at times, I still think a "compromise" is required in the real life trenches of church ministry.
1:18 PM
I always read McLaren as a person who can see the big picture, but leaves it up to us to decide how we want to do things. That way we can do what best works for us. It gives us the freedom to choose how we want to do it. No set of rules or instructions. I think if McLaren said this is how it's to be done, most of us would get frustrated because it may not work in our particular situation.
Hoping this makes a little sense.
DAWN
6:31 AM
Well said. Thanks for this very real and complimentary perspective.
Peace,
Jamie
7:55 AM
Dave, thank you for demonstrating Brian's ability to rise above polarities and flesh out a generous orthodoxy, now let us see that generosity can include the suggestion of direction and intention and purpose and even concrete plans for actualizing the future God invites us to shape.
11:31 AM
David,
Excellent, excellent.
2:30 PM
DF,
Again, I enjoyed your post. Not so enthralling this time, but that's almost-definitely only because I'm really tired. Anyway,my expereince with McLearen's "above the line thinking", I "think", has been similar. I also felt "pushed" by his post, pushed to be more graceful, loving and accepting, especially toward the moderns whose tree I fell from.
At the same time, however, I do feel that his above the line thinking, although I LOVE his basic point, as illustrated in New Kind of Christian, that it does often turn into, or lend itself to, easy compromise. I realized after reading his article and your post that I feel that what he often seems to offere to us is too easy, maybe even ease itself. I know/can sense that he has himself been in the DIFFICULT road, but, I don't know, Rilke said "Never place your trust in anything easy. Only trust in that which is difficult."
I mean, for example, on his "2. Above the line tradition and practices", he points out the common distinction between "ritualism and traditionalism", when the problem really isn't any real and true difference between the two, but with the modern relationship between form and meaning. When that relationship is restored, both ritual and tradition are restored with them, although in a new light. But that takes DIFFICULT work, both to figure out what on earth that last sentence means, and to put into practice (to give meaning to the form of our life).
You see the same or similar issue creep up often in both the Liberal/Conservative debates, and in McLearan's article, such as in his discussion on large/mechanical vs. small/organic/"chaotic" forms of organization. Again, without the modern separation of structure and form through its quest for abstraction and universalization, the issue is "naturally" reconciled simply by our very existence in a particular context. Again, however, it takes lots of DIFFICULT WORK to figure that out in the first place, and then to both re-organize and to re-think how to go about organizing.
I feel like a lot of times McLearen compromises the truth of the diffuculty of the hard work, which I know he himslef has been through, for keeping relationships easier and "cooler" (to use a "McLuhanism"). I also feel like partially how he accomplishes this is by keeping the conversations more broad and general, without getting into to much down-in-the-trenches nitty gritty stuff (by that I mean I don't get much of a picture of how HE makes the tough decisions on how to run his own church, for example - I'm not saying I don't see struggle in his writings). Actual fact is that the issues are "heated". I don't know, I guess some cooling off is good (part of what "pushed" me about his article).
I guess part of it is that I trust his wisdom, heart and experience, and would actually like to hear more of his take on more of that nitty-gritty stuff. It should probably be noted that that's just not the goal of much of his writing. Maybe others who have more knowledge and experiecne of theology and church living can pick up more than myself on that stuff THROUGH what he IS saying. I don't know. Anyway...
Thanks again, Sir David Fitch. FYI - I bought your book, as well as After Virtue. At first I was wondering why you recommended THAT book (with such a title) in response to the questions I was asking. Then I read like the first two pages, smiled, and looked joyfully toward reading the rest. I have really enjoyed your book so far as well.
10:27 PM
Thanks to all... everyone ... thanks Scot ... Jason thanks for getting nitty gritty on Brian McLaren and why we want more from him. Why he sometimes comes off "too easy," too compromising? I think this is the issue in this post. Can we keep this discussion going? Can we push Brian McLaren for more of the DIFFICULT WORK as Jason describes it? More difinitive direction for our times on the difficult issues?
Blessings
7:54 AM
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; four out of it wast thou taken..." Implicit in this verse I take that wheat grows forth from the ground. If we want something grounded, we have to sweat. Otherwise its like either seeking after the wind (oh, but a nice breeze feels so good!), or guaging the winds (climate pre-casting). Especially true now that the moderns have put so much work into building up out of the ground the world in which we live. Not to stop the conversation; that verse just seems to be prophetic to us in the here and now...
8:45 AM
I'll need some time to digest both Brian's post and yours. Both of you giving us needed pushes or nudges. I still need to make time to finish reading your book.
1:22 AM
Gerhard Forde, in his book "On Being A Theologian Of The Cross" argues that the cross, it's preaching and it's living, is polemical by nature. If we are for the cross we will be against all that keeps us from it. The cross does not reduce polarization, but increases it to the point of death and resurrection across the full spectrum of life. I am not suggesting that Christians, anymore than Christ, make enemies. As Bonhoeffer observed, we are not given the right to have enemies, we cannot choose them; they choose us. A Christian's enemies are those who make themselves so by their denial of the cross. But what we often fail to see in the cross is that it was theologians who instigated and carrried forward the death of Christ. It was not Rome's idea. And this will be repeated today as we preach the exclusive nature of Christ substitutionary atonement. The cross is as much an offense as it always was, among the children of God, and therefore, the theological polarization will increase.
2:41 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home