However, I’m not sure I buy that in a post-Christendom world, everything will lose its hierarchy and pastors/priests will lose their authority and the need for professional training will be no longer. I think liturgical churches, many of whom are thriving (though perhaps not “growing” in the numbers sense), will continue to value clergy as long as members continue to grow up in that denomination. That said, I kinda wish it wasn’t the case.

Re: the failure of the Social gospel discussion. Since when should we measure the worth of a project, movement or mission based on its effectiveness? It sounds awfully *modern.* Even if the path of Jesus is futile, wouldn’t we still walk it because we believe it to be the right way to live? Just a thought.

If your definition is what liberalism really was, then I don’t think there would be any liberals! For me it simply means a willingness to ask questions and seek understanding through critical analysis of the established structures and dogma. It means progress instead of the status quo. It is not so much a product of the enlightenment, but the reason for the enlightenment. It means the end of epistomology grounded ONLY in superstition and tradition.

I agree with your “2 sides to the same coin” analogy. Both modern secularism and religious literalism/fundamentalism are poor responses to the enlightenment. Neither could come to grips with how to value their stories once they were discovered to be non-historical. Maybe something will emerge that salvages both the knowledge we gained from the enlightenment AND retains the value of our ancient myths.

Peace … (in the best sense of the word)

I’m not sure how productive conversations can be if you veer from standard definitions of terms so drastically. It just complicates the whole communication process. You should at a minimum make those kinds of creative definitions public BEFORE the conversation gets so deep. Now I’m completely lost.

You know, this is a perfect example of why I always answer, “it depends” when somebody asks me a question about faith. I’m never sure I know what they mean, so I have zero confidence they will interpret my answer correctly. I agree with Derrida when he puts a caveat on top of every caveat. I guess we have to do that.

Peace (I hope by that you don’t think I’m suggesting a fight)

Blessings David Fitch

One thing I’m learning in more of these “emergent” conversations is that there is a strange connotation to the word “liberal” in which I’m completely unfamiliar. Maybe I’m too young and have never been a part of a mainline church, so I’m oblivious to the disdain it creates in people. The “L” word is tossed around and misused. For example, I’m shocked that you said:

“Indeed, I wouldn’t view MLK, Wilberforce and Ghandi (who Yoder claimed got his pacifism from Jesus) as assertions of liberal (as in Western politcal liberalism)faith.”

I agree that Ghandi got pacifism from Jesus, but it was through Leo Tolstoy that he found Jesus! Do you suggest MLK was not a liberal? Are you kidding? As for the others, calling for the end of slave trade in England and staging non-violent protests against Empire are a bit left of center, don’t you think? I have a hard time imagining those 3 men supporting Jerry Falwell or George W. Bush, so I’m not sure how you could see them as anything other than Liberals in both religious and political contexts. They each seemed to be fervent in their critique against the static views of the established dogma and structure while supporting open inquiry and placing a high value on reason and knowledge. That smells like Liberalism to me (a rose by another name…). There is a very strange misconception in emerging circles about what Liberalism is. I feel like this comes from having been told it is demonic somewhere in their Evangelical past, so now they want to embrace progressive values without using the “L” label. I know because I grew up the son of a southern Baptist minister.

Yoder and Hauerwas seem to be overreactions to the dogma of the secular left that wanted to throw the baby out with the bath water. I feel there is a postmodern alternative that can embrace the wonderful contributions of modern secular liberalism without throwing out the core stories that are so dear to us all. The key is embracing rather than running from the word “Myth”. Both fundamentalists and secular liberals have disdain for myths as a result of their modern preoccupation with dogma and facts. Postmodern Christianity has a tremendous future if it can embrace the word myth and restore it as an important vehicle for truth.

peace

In lieu of being able to go whole hog I just throw some comments back at you. I learned my theology at the foot of Hauerwas and friends after the failure of both evangelical theology and liberal theology (having come from evangelical and still consider myself one) and studying at Northwestern wit the Garrett faculty there. So,my first reaction is that most of your assumptions I recognize from my past, and have gone through a deconstrsuction of sorts … and I hence offer a form of response that dissects what you say from Yoderian Hauerwasian, Milbankian, post liberal … and even worse .. Continental sources.. So I acknowledge my lenses . you know? And these lens may be unfair? But in shorts sentences .. here’s what I would say to your five statements above.
1.) we’re simply not seeing it the same. Indeed, I wouldn’t view MLK, Wilberforce and Ghandi (who Yoder claimed got his pacifism from Jesus) as assertions of liberal (as in Western politcal liberalism)faith. Indeed, their force came from deliberate practices they learned from the church or derivative of the church. I know Ghandi would be very contested.
2.) I gave up on all the pretensions of the modern socio scientific myth to gain objectiity over a text after I read Gadamer, and Ricoeur and the Derrida. Now I simply join a community of tradition which (by His Spirit) enables us to carry on our Narrative in faithfulness and reality. It’s what I have left (and its alot) after the demise of the pretension of scientific objectivity.
3.) I’m sorry, but “gets us into heaven” is still weird to me. So we probably need to talk. But I think I know what you mean by metaphors, but truths beneath the symbolic language assumes too Cartesian non Wittgensteinian view of language? Have I got that right in any way?
4.) “Jesus was clear that it was not him, but what He points to.” We disagree … but it definitely represents a point of view that has now a 100 year old heritage. But have you read Yoder? I’m just wondering.
5.) I file these kind of arguments under “failure of imagination.” That’s the only thing I can say in less than ten paragraphs.

Hey … I can’t respond in depth anymore … I’m buried til next Tuesday. But I’ll buy that cup of coffee, and thanks for coming on here and talking..
Blessings …

Thanks for the thoughtful response David. There is no doubt that we agree on many things. Unfortunately, in online discussions the differences are often the focus rather than the agreement. I don’t want you to think I’ve overlooked that aspect of the dialogue.

1) I think there is ample evidence that progressive political/social movements have been the major contributing factor to civil rights as well as the development of a social safety net and the development of a middle class that cannot exist in a 100% market driven capitalist environment. This is true not just true in America, but also with the end of the British Empire affecting the freedom of millions of lives. I would suggest that it was the theological assertions of liberal faith across denominations and religions worldwide that proved as a catalyst for many improvements. MLK, Gandhi, Wilberforce, and many others are fine examples.

I feel the decline of late in America (the last 30 years), is a result of the intentional injection of an anti-community and hyper-individualism approach to government and economics. The neo-conservative movements that started with Goldwater and took our nation captive in the 80′s created a propaganda blitz that resulted in mass distrust and a loss of faith in the concept of “we the people”. We are yielding the results of that mentality.

2) Our difference in biblical literalism is probably too deep a topic for discussion here. I’ll simply say, I see the stories as mythical and not meant to be told as historically accurate. They obviously have historical elements, as do most myths. I didn’t say Paul was “more mythical”. What I mean is that Paul developed some theological assertions. The later Gospels put those assertions into narrative form by creating stories (including genealogies) to be retold in liturgical format and used to illustrate the meanings of Paul’s theology. The gospels are like screenplays written to articulate the growing theology of later generations of Christians. They reference the historical Jesus, but present a non-historical Christ. By seeing this we can come to understand the intentions of the authors.

3) In this point, I was referencing your suggestion that Brian “left out” the literal wording of the Gospel’s metaphors (Jesus died to provide a victory over sin and that gets us into heaven). Instead, Brian talks about what the truths beneath the symbolic story rather than being stuck on the surface of the symbolic language. I think you feel slighted because Brian talked about the meaning without restating the metaphor. Am I correct? I don’t mean to put words in your mouth.

4) The whole purpose of the bible from genesis to revelation is about the transformation of people and communities from selfishness to selflessness (dying to self in order to bring God’s will on Earth). You are right to suggest that Brian need not appeal to Jesus, he could appeal to a variety of evidence that point to this same need for transformation. But for me, this is the sign that I’ve seen. Jesus is my savior and Lord. I know no other way. Jesus was clear that it was not him, but what he points to, that is the reality we must accept even if Jesus is the only way we Christians know. I can’t speak for Brian on this. He has not made his views clear.

5) I understand your issue here, but I don’t see how the church can bring justice. It can and should be a catalyst for justice, but do you really want a society where churches pass laws? Do you really want churches to operate as regulatory agencies? Churches can inspire us, provide incredible places for growth, community, and character development, but I think they need to stay out of the business of implementing justice. That is the role of governments.

Again, thanks for the dialogue!

The two biggest modern models of the evangelical “pastor” are centered around the “professional” (not as in professional counseling) CEO and the Bible answer man (focused on expository or biblical preaching as the core discipline to address spiritual, emotional, and relational issues).

As you know,, these “models” were not done in a vacuum–but in the modern context of distrust in any kind of friendship model with modern Protestant and evangelicals emphasizing a universal, “distanced” model of love (reaching the apex with Nygren) with a fear of “preferential” love and friendship.

I think the older generation, as you say, is more comfortable with pastor addressing soul care issues.

However, I think the younger generation is questioning even that issue–they are looking for friends–people who are wanting to form intentional community in relationships not professional appointments with a pastor about their struggles where the relationship “ends” (the appointments or phone calls end) once they work through a particualr problem.