Book Review - Truth & The New Kind of Christian by R. Scott Smith
Truth & The New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church
R. Scott Smith
Crossway Books, 2005
Category: Contemporary Social Issues / Theology
ISBN: 1581347405
Paperback
190 pages plus Bibliography and Index
$15.99 MSRP
Over the past year I have attempted to develop an understanding of the emerging church and postmodernism. However, in every attempt to do so I have ended my search more frustrated than I began. Our church staff has attempted to understand these two phenomena corporately so that we may be biblically discerning when it comes to the need to confront false ideologies, yet have fallen in our attempts at gaining further clarification. The only thing that my modern mind has come to terms with regarding postmodernism and the emerging church “conversation” is that it is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall: most of it just won’t stick.
Enter R. Scott Smith and his new book Truth & The New Kind of Christian published by Crossway last year. The title receives its name as Smith attempts to interact with Neo, a character contrived in the mind of Brian McLaren, an emerging church leader, in his book A New Kind of Christian published by Jossey-Bass. The only problem with this is that the very ideology of a postmodern mindset is that all truth is relative and is subjectively measure by each individual. Smith, however, attempts to put truth and the postmodern in the same room and further the conversation. It is interesting to note that Tony Jones, another leader in the emerging church culture, has endorsed this book when he says, “[R. Scott Smith] is a careful reader of my work, and he writes with a gracious and generous tone. Interlocutors like Scott will be a helpful challenge to all of us in the “emerging church.” I consider him a friendly critic and a brother in Christ” (back cover).
To begin, Smith gives a brief overview of the progression of thought that has led us to “postmodernism.” Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant all attempted to change the way the individual was to think during their respective eras. Kant had the greatest impact on what we would call “postmodern” though even though his days of thinking were in 1700’s. “According to Kant, we (as individuals) are trapped behind our experiences, and we cannot know things as they really are (in themselves)” (29). Kant is also partially responsible for the false notion that there is a dichotomy between scientific and religious thought. According to this line of thought, “science gives us knowledge and facts, but other disciplines, such as religion, can only give us values, or personal opinions and tastes” (29). Although originally delivered over 200 years ago, has it been that long that you have heard someone say something to the effect of “This discussion is not about religion, this is about facts and what is best for our nation to ensure freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!”? I can not even begin to describe how wrong this statement is. Thankfully, Smith will do it for us throughout the remainder of his book. Before he gets there, however, he observes that “the modern era emphasized the confidence that human reason, apart from divine revelation, could know universal truths in all subject matters. But postmodernism stresses the fallibility of human reason, as well as its biases and how it all too often is used to oppress people” (31).
So, the question is then raised, what is the Gospel? How do we know it is truth? And how doe we know what truth even is? For example, for the Kant-ish thinkers and postmoderns in the room, groups of people can not be completely sure about anything other than the language that they are confined to identify the subject with. The problem with this thought process is that once we decide that words do not have meaning outside of their own localized contexts, then nothing can be certain, for the vocabulary that I just used in order to construct this last sentence may mean nothing at all to those outside my realm of understanding. If this was completely confusing for you, then be fairly sure that you are of a “modern” mindset. Don’t worry, this is a good thing.
Smith then inserts an examination and critique of the emerging church which is much easier said than done. Since the ideology of postmodernism is driving the emerging conversation, it is next to impossible to stake claim on any standard set of beliefs or doctrinal statements. The emerging church is not another denomination of evangelical churches on the rise. It is a completely different line of thought where it is OK to question and doubt the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the truth of God’s word. In fact, doubting – in the emergent context - reveals that you are really more enlightened than your fellow brethren who may “think” that they are sure about any given topic. Like I said, it’s like nailing Jell-O.
Smith completes the rest of his work by addressing how postmodernism has heavily impacted the university scene in the United States and most of the world. To me it has always been ironic that the institutions of higher learning pride themselves on challenging students to think for themselves as long as their though processes do not contradict the worldview of the university, or make any claim to absolute truth. Jell-O. Smith then gives his basis for why we CAN know things and be assured of our own realities. Thus, we CAN know that the Gospel is truth, not only in its historicity, but also in its eternal claims concerning the deity of Christ, the fallen nature of man, and redemptions plan as it is unfolding to the glory of God.
Christ said, “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). I guess it is just ludicrous for me and my modern mind to think that He actually meant it.
Posts
6 comments:
Hey KC,
I understand your confusion over what seems to be a group of Christians aligning themselves with this weird new thing called "postmodernism." Indeed there is much in what is broadly called postmodernism that needs to be called into question by the gospel. What I think Smith and you misunderstand is the idea that emerging church leaders want a "gospel of postmodernism." That couldn't be further from the truth, they do however want a gospel no longer chained to modernism and there are many parallel critiques that both the emerging church and postmodern philosophy have to give modernism.
While "certainty" is something the emerging church leaders say we might not be able to have in this life, they are not arguing against orthodoxy by any means!
While you may proudly find yourself to be a "modern," I would still suggest that you take seriously the emerging church's critique of the church chained to modernism and the enlightenment.
Just because modernism says that we can know everything through proofs and science and can therefore "nail it to the wall" doesn't mean it's Christian or good.
Charlie,
Thank you for stopping by and posting your comments. You mentioned that emergents “want a gospel no longer chained to modernism.” If the idea of “modern” thought is that we can know, how can we not be “chained” to it if Christ Jesus Himself said “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32)? Thus, according to Jesus there are things that we can know, and at the same time, I affirm that “for now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known”( 1 Cor 13:12).
As for challenging orthodoxy, I am not in a position to answer whether emergents are orthodox or not, simply because many (of their websites at least) are leary of posting in sort of doctrinal statement of beliefs. As many in the postmodern camp like to claim his or her “individuality” this furthers the difficulty in investigate who is “orthodox” and who is not.
And as for your suggestion to “take seriously the emerging church's critique of the church chained to modernism and the enlightenment,” I presume that what you mean by “take seriously” is really meant to mean “come to our side and emerge.” I believe that it is always profitable to examine the Church and to be sure that we have not lost the mission that the Lord Jesus has given to us and we should always, in a sense, be reforming. However, if what we term “reforming” is merely a question of style then we are talking apples and oranges. My questioning the emergent conversation comes down to this: Is this a question of style or substance? If style of worship is what is in question (chairs/pews, carpet/tile, contemporary/traditional, candles/fluorescent, stain glass/all black, do we call the preacher a “preacher” or a “communicator”) then there really isn’t much to discuss other than the heart attitudes of those on either side of the aisle (or carpet). If the question is substance, meaning that the “modern” church has lost sight of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, the centrality of the Word of God, and a Christ-exalting, God-honoring, Holy Spirit led time of worship and the communion of saints, then by all means, we need to reform. But if by reform means “start something new” then we have again missed the purpose all together. America does not need more churches, we need more healthy churches. The chasm between the two is grand.
I am all for communicating the gospel effectively and in new ways, but when it all comes down to it, the word of God is sufficient, despite the means we try to employ to “bring the Bible to life.” The last time I checked, the “word of God is living and active…” (Heb 4:12).
I would like to dialogue with you further about your concerns and mine, so that we can be sure that we are on the same page and possibly attempt to help build the church rather than divide her. We may not agree on all matters, but we must be together for the gospel.
Hey KC,
You bring up a lot good questions and points that I'd like to respond to, so I'll just put your quote in bold and have my response below it.
If the idea of “modern” thought is that we can know, how can we not be “chained” to it if Christ Jesus Himself said “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”
The postmodern critique of the modern "way" of knowing is this: Modernism is obsessed with science and thinks that knowledge comes to us via "objective" "rational" "detached" dissection of what it is we seek to know.
Postmoderns reject this and say that you cannot really know something unless you participate in it (this is ESPECIALLY true for Jesus). The postmodern Christian looks at the modern Christian's obsession with biblical innerancy, systematic theology and says... "All that dissecting Christianity down to it's smallest pieces does you no good! You're missing the bigger picture, you're missing how all those pieces are RELATED to each other. Oh and by the way, you can only learn how all that works by FOLLOWING Jesus." Faith for the postmodern comes after walking in the Christian life for a while, not after having mulled over all the arguments and found them to be reasonable.
The emerging church (or their websites at least) are leary of posting any sort of doctrinal statement of beliefs
Firstly I'd say this, the emerging church is a movement, not a denomination so there are many different expressions of it. So if you're wanting to know if they're Wesleyan or Calvinist... it all depends on who you're talking to.
Secondly, the emerging church places a much higher emphasis upon Creeds and practices than on "statements of belief." Again this speaks to the postmodern sensibility that what you think isn't as important as how you live. Being Christian is about a way of life, not a list of rational arguments.
Thirdly, there are actually TONS of expressions on websites about just "what makes us Emergent"... check out
Emergent Village's "Values"
Scot McKnight's Answer to "What is the EC?" Scot's blog is generally a great resource for all these things.
Also check out these books:
A is for Abductive by Sweet
Generous Orthodoxy by McLaren
Emerging Churches by Gibbs
When I said "take seriously the emerging church's critique of modernism and the enlightenment" what I meant wasn't "come to our side and emerge" but rather hear what they have to say, because as a proud "modernist" they may have some words for you to hear about how modernism neuters the gospel.
Is this a question of style or substance?
I can answer this with a strong SUBSTANCE! Those who think the emerging church is the "next fad" or bandwagon to jump on to be seeker friendly are totally misunderstanding it. Those who think that turning down the lights and lighting candles makes them an "emerging church" don't get it at all.
Perhaps some clarifying terms could help. "The Emerging church" is often used to describe anything "new" nowadays and can be applied to fundamentalist churches that use candles. Then there's "Emergent," a network of friends and layity and theologians and pastors. When I defend the "Emerging church" I'm talking about "Emergent." The Emergent movement is a theological movement. And I'm glad you brought up the question "is this about "starting something new?" I would say it is much more about recovering the past... FOR today. So the emerging church is very interested in pre-enlightenment Christianity. The emerging church is very interested in ancient forms of worship we thought we had to throw away because "it's catholic" or it's "eastern orthodox" and says... NO! It's Christian, and that's our history too!
Wow... that was a long rant. I'll end it here and wait for your response.
This article by Scot McKnight in Christianity Today might also be helpful.
Charlie,
Please pardon my blogging hiatus which has caused for the delay in responding to your comments. Thank you for again stopping by to further our discussion and I hope that I will be more frequently accessible in the future. As a fellow student, I am sure you understand! (By the way, I noticed that you posted past 2:30am! Get some sleep, bro!)
I will attempt to respond to your comments in the same format, but as I am not as technically savvy as I desire, it may not be as neat looking!
You said: “The postmodern Christian looks at the modern Christian's obsession with biblical inerrancy…”
You are absolutely correct – I am obsessed with Biblical inerrancy. And if I have to stand before the Lord and He condemns me for this, then I am much to be pitied, however, I will take my chances. I affirm that the Biblical texts are inerrant in their original languages as originally given. Granted, translators have made some flaws over the centuries, however, each of these mistakes do not call into account any major doctrine of Scripture but rather pose some grammatical errors which I must confess I am the least scholarly as a grammarian! All said, about 98% of what we have is still in its original, inspired, infallible, and inerrant condition. If I did not believe that the Bible was inerrant, I would be wasting my entire life trying to study it and to come to it as the word that is “living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thought and intentions of the heart” (Heb 4:12). If the Bible is not inerrant, then it is not authoritative. Therefore, any claim that it makes about itself or Jesus could not be considered trustworthy. But Scripture affirms itself that it is “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). And as the Apostle Peter confirms “[those who are in Christ] have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; 24 for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Pet 1:23-25). And Paul is even so bold to say that without the word of God, the Scriptures, men will not be saved (Rom 10:14-17). Do I need an OT example?
“My soul longs for your salvation; I hope in your word” (Ps 119:81). The psalmist here is placing his hope, his trust, and his full confidence in the word of God. I wonder if he was obsessed with the inerrancy of that word?
Or what about Josiah, a king who came from a long line of lethargy when it came to spiritual matters? We read his story in 2 Kings 22 and in 2 Chr 34. After he begun repairing the temple, Hilkiah the high priest reports, “’I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD.’ And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it” (2 Kin 22:8). Shaphan then reads the Book of the Law to King Josiah and “when the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes” (22:11). That’s a pretty radical response for someone who did not affirm the inerrancy and authority of the written word of God! The passages that follow detail how Josiah commenced drastic reforms throughout the southern kingdom and he even reinstated the Passover which had somehow been forgotten by the people. Every time in history that God’s people (in Biblical times or present) have strayed from the authority of Scripture, it has ALWAYS led them into trouble. It may not have appeared this way at the onset, but it eventually resulted in idol worship or a cult emerging. If we do not have a high view of the Word of God, we do not have anything at all. Previously, I have quoted Dr. Albert Mohler as saying, “The church has never been faithful when it has lacked fidelity in the pulpit”(see my article here).
“[The obsession with inerrancy and] systematic theology and says... "All that dissecting Christianity down to it's smallest pieces does you no good! You're missing the bigger picture, you're missing how all those pieces are RELATED to each other.”
Again, I would agree completely with this statement. Systematic theology is good when it is used rightly. Systematic theology, by its base definition, asks the question, “What doe the whole Bible teach us about any given topic.” Many times, these topics are grouped into attributes of God, or a collection of doctrines concerning Man, Church (its role, government, and function), Ordinances, etc. These groupings are not to be considered holy by any means, but it does provide us with a starting point to study an enormity of information. But, as I would agree with you, if this is all studying theology systematic will do for us, then we have again wasted our time. If I fall into the sin of reducing Almighty Yahweh to an object of being studied rather than a person to be worshiped, then, yes, I have missed the bigger picture by not seeing how these things relate to each other. The Lord knows that this is something that I have to pray against and be on guard for. It is too easy to come to the Scriptures as an academic exercise rather than to follow this advice, as Norman Douty writes,
“…You cannot do it; just withdraw; come out of it. You have been in the arena, you have been endeavoring, you are a failure, come out and sit down, and as you sit there behold Him, look at Him. Don’t try to be like Him, just look at Him. Just be occupied with Him. Forget about trying to be like Him. Instead of letting that fill your mind and heart, let Him fill it. Just behold Him, look upon Him through the Word. Come to the Word for one purpose and that is to meet the Lord. Not to get your mind crammed full of things about the sacred Word, but come to it to meet the Lord. Make it to be a medium, not of Biblical scholarship, but of fellowship with Christ. Behold the Lord” (26).(see full article here).
But, I would remind you that you can not know how something relates to something else without studying both and asking “what does the whole Bible say about this?” Failure to do so, results in a man-made interpretation of how life should be rather than coming to the well of the authoritative Scriptures and drink deeply from their truth. But, if we do not affirm Biblical authority and inerrancy, then all we will lap up is antiquated literature.
Charlie, I must now acknowledge the limitations of written communication because I am not able to discern in what follows if there was an element of sarcasm here, if this was a straightforward response, or if it just happened to be past 2:00 am and your thoughts were a little fuzzy! Having said this, I will respond to what is here and allow you room to correct any misrepresentations that I may make.
You stated, “[T]he emerging church places a much higher emphasis upon Creeds and practices than on "statements of belief."”
First, a “Creed” IS a statement of beliefs. The word “Creed” comes from the Latin word “credo” and means simply, “I believe.” So to say that there is a higher emphasis on one over the other would be a contradiction. If your intention was to say that the emerging church desires to uphold many of the solid, Biblical confessions of old such as the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed of the third and fourth centuries, or the more recent 17th century Westminster Confession, then I say well done!
“Again this speaks to the postmodern sensibility that what you think isn't as important as how you live.”
I obviously need some clarification on this statement because I can not possible conceive how this can be true! What you think will impact and direct the way that you live. This is especially true for the Christian and how he thinks about His Lord. As AW Tozer wrote in The Knowledge of the Holy “what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” This is absolutely THE most important thing because it will affect EVERY other area of our lives! If I am an atheist, I will live in such a way that is conducive with my own desires since I will not have to give an account to anyone other than myself. If I think that God is a cruel, harsh, police officer type taskmaster who is only out to get me when I break his rules, then I will live life in fear of whether or not I was actually good enough to earn his pardon. If I think Jesus was nothing more than a product of an alien having intercourse with Mary, then I will one day think that I will also be god and live on the planet Kolob! What we think directly affects the way that we live – these two can not be separated.
Let me pose this scenario to you. I have visited (your web site) and ascertained that you are engaged to be married soon (Congratulations! My wife and I have been married a little over 18 months and we are just about to release our first book on marriage!...kidding…completely) ANYWAY, if I were to take the statement that you made and apply it to your forthcoming marriage it would look something like this: “I think I’m married, but I’m not going to live like it.” I do not think that this would bode well for the coming nuptials! I do not see how it is possible to think one way and live another.
“Thirdly, there are actually TONS of expressions on websites about just "what makes us Emergent"... check out…”
Thank you for these links. I have had the opportunity to read some of them and they have helped aid in my understanding.
“modernism neuters the gospel”
This is funny.
In response to my question “Is this a question of style or substance?” you replied energetically, “SUBSTANCE! Those who think the emerging church is the "next fad" or bandwagon to jump on to be seeker friendly are totally misunderstanding it. Those who think that turning down the lights and lighting candles makes them an "emerging church" don't get it at all.”
You then offer an excellent tablet of iodine for some murky water concerning those who call themselves emergent and those who are indeed emergent and then conclude,
“The emerging church is very interested in ancient forms of worship we thought we had to throw away because "it's catholic" or it's "eastern orthodox" and says... NO! It's Christian, and that's our history too!”
It would appear from this response that it has nothing to do with substance, but all with style. “Ancient forms of worship” are OK as long as there is a Biblical basis for them. The Regulative Principle says that we will only worship in ways that are explicitly stated in the Bible. The Normative Principle says that we will worship in ways that are not condemned in the Bible, but may not be explicitly stated. I believe that there is a medium somewhere in between. Different forms of worship will always be acceptable as long as it is Christ-honoring, Biblically-driven, and not man-centered. True, many main-line protestant churches have rejected other “forms” of worship because they were too closely related to Catholicism or eastern religions. There is not a place in Christianity for the worship of Mary or any other “saint” nor is there room for transcendental meditation. However, this only answers the question of STYLE, not SUBSTANCE. When I say substance, I mean that we are called to worship God as He has revealed Himself in those pesky, authoritative, and inerrant Scriptures. The God Who created this entire universe (Gen 1:1; John 1:3; Col 1:16) and Who holds it all together by the power of His word (Col 1:17). The God Who exists in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Mark 1:9-11; 2 Cor 13:14; Acts 5:3-4) but remains eternally One (John 17:21). We worship the Son who emptied Himself, considering equality with God not a thing to be grasped, made Himself a servant and became obedient even to the point of death (Ph 2:1-11). We are to worship this Jesus, Whose name is above every other name (Ps 138:2; Phi 2:9) as “there is no other name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). This is the substance of our worship. If the emerging church movement is proposing something other than this, then may the Lord be gracious to turn them back to Him and to His truth.
Thank you as well for the Scot McKnight article that you pointed me too. I have not had the opportunity to read it, but I hope to do so in the coming days.
Hey KC,
As you pointed out, my post was made late at night and while I was able to cogently debate Jean Bethke Elshtain at such a time this was apparently not the case in my post. So let me clarify a few things and continue the conversation.
On Biblical Inerrancy
The postmodern Christian (and I include myself in this) has trouble with Biblical inerrancy for a few reasons. The first is that Biblical inerrancy tends to throw away the beauty of narrative in favor of encyclopedic data. What biblical inerrantists (is that a word?) seem to suggest is that because postmoderns don't read scripture as raw data we don't like it as much as they (you) do. And we of course would respond that we do in fact love the scripture, and are perhaps even much more faithful to the scripture because we take it on it's own terms. So the first few chapters of Genesis read by a biblical inerrantist is read as... well as confusing! There are two different creation accounts. Do they contradict each other? How many days was the earth created in? But we postmoderns tend to read the first few chapters of Genesis much like the Chronicles of Narnia. A beautiful allegory which tells us important truths in a captivating narrative. So the postmodern takes away from Genesis a few important things, God has created the universe we, and all creation with us, are completely dependent upon God as our creator and sustainer. God created the world as GOOD and so we cannot be gnostics! God created us in his image, so all humans contain by virtue of their creation an iconic pointing towards God. All of this I would affirm is infinitely more important and interesting than the time span in which God created the world. When we get into modern scientific arguments about what Genesis tells us about evolution, etc. we are imposing a uniquely modern world-view onto the author of Genesis and totally miss the theological poetry... poetry which I might add actually has ethical implications. So when you hear a postmodern say they don't affirm biblical inerrancy what we mean is, the bible is not a science book, the bible is not a database IT IS OUR STORY! The bible is our metanarrative, it is the overarching story by which we understand all of live. And the postmodern sees the biblical inerrantist as adopting modernism as a metanarrative and squeezing the bible to fit in it. I would argue that when you say "If the Bible is not inerrant, then it is not authoritative" that's exactly what you're doing. We'll take the bible as authoritative because its our story but as I understand it, you take it as authoritative because it can be scientifically verified.
Secondly the postmodern Christian, like scripture, affirm that Jesus Christ himself (and not scripture) is THE Word of God. (John 1:1, Heb 1:1-3) Scripture testifies to the WORD but is not itself the Divine Logos. We postmodern Christians take VERY VERY VERY seriously Christology. VERY seriously. And we remind ourselves that it is Jesus whom we worship and not the pages that testify to him. This does not mean that we hate scripture or that we don't read it, it just means that we understand it on it's own terms (taking into account the genre), we don't understand scripture as divine and we live in communities that are shaped by scripture, because it is OUR STORY it drives our lives.
The third problem we postmoderns have is the question of who's interpretation is inerrant? By saying that the bible is inerrant what many have done in reality is declare that their interpretation is inerrant. To understand the scriptures we need to live them out in community. These two things are very important for the postmodern Christian, firstly the living out and practicing of scripture and secondly that it happen in community and not in isolation where our particular bias or bad reading can go unchecked.
Systematic Theology
You said Systematic theology, by its base definition, asks the question, “What does the whole Bible teach us about any given topic.” Actually you're talking about Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology is more concerned with "How does the topic fit into my neatly constructed system (which probably includes the bible)."
Knowledge and Practice
You said "Charlie, I must now acknowledge the limitations of written communication because I am not able to discern in what follows if there was an element of sarcasm here, if this was a straightforward response, or if it just happened to be past 2:00 am and your thoughts were a little fuzzy!"
You stated, “[T]he emerging church places a much higher emphasis upon Creeds and practices than on "statements of belief."”
You're right, I didn't phrase that as clearly as I could have. What I meant was that the emerging church places much higher emphasis upon the classic Christian Creeds (Apostles, Nicene) as well as lived out practices rather than popular "What our church believes manifestos." I did not make a distinction between the classic Creeds like THIS and popular credos like THIS.
I said “Again this speaks to the postmodern sensibility that what you think isn't as important as how you live.”
and you repsponded...
What you think will impact and direct the way that you live. This is especially true for the Christian and how he thinks about His Lord. As AW Tozer wrote in The Knowledge of the Holy “what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” This is absolutely THE most important thing because it will affect EVERY other area of our lives!
I just disagree here. Like many postmoderns we don't think that life is as simple as if you believe A then you will live like B. Look around you, how many people "believe" lots of great Christian truths but don't do anything about it! As a confession here I will give an example from my own life. I believe that Jesus sends us to the poor, I think that serving the poor is one of the most important things Christians have to do... but I don't live like it. I've got all my thinking straight, I'm convinced but I'm not acting rightly. Postmodernism says that habits shape the way we think. And so Christian habits shape Christian thinking. Bonhoeffer said this as well in Cost of Discipleship. Living out the Christian life, regardless of one's theology or thinking, is bound to eventually bring them around to that right thinking. But teaching people doesn't always bring them around to right living.
Now, am I anti-education? No! I'm getting my masters in Christian Education. I believe that good teaching and theology and education are all necessary. But they are not as important as lived out practices are when it comes to shaping the way people live and think. Sometimes I feel like we're so afraid of "works righteousness" that we've promised only to try to "think" righteously and never try to live rightly lest we be condemned of "good works." (sorry that was just an out-loud rant, not directed at you) Becoming a disciple in my view should be much more about being mentored into a way of life than about accepting 9 points on a list somewhere and hoping the rest sorts itself out.
In light of this clarification I don't think you understood me when you posed the "marriage analogy." Your analogy is overly-simplistic because you assume that my prioritizing Christian practices over christian belief means that I am anti-belief, or that I think you should live one way and believe the other. This simply is not true nor is it a fair characterization. If I were to (re)narrate your analogy in light of my argument it would go like this...
Modernism: The only thing which matters for marriage is the belief that you are married. As long as you believe you are married (and preferably believe a lot of things about being married) then that's enough. Your belief that you are married will automatically make you a great spouse.
Postmodernism: If you want to be married one day and be a good spouse you should practice the habits of marriage like self-sacrifice, financial discipline, love, conflict resolution, spending time together, communication, etc. It is after being habituated in these good habits that will make you a good spouse one day.
You said What we think directly affects the way that we live – these two can not be separated. And it's true, that there is a direct connection, but I'm arguing that the habits and practices we live out also directly affect the way we live and even moreso than what we think.
Bonus
I said “modernism neuters the gospel”
You responded with... This is funny.
Not if you love the gospel it isn't.
Emerging Church: Style/Substance or Methodology/Theology
In response to my thoughts on style/substance you said You then offer an excellent tablet of iodine for some murky water concerning those who call themselves emergent and those who are indeed emergent and then conclude,
(quoting me)
“The emerging church is very interested in ancient forms of worship we thought we had to throw away because "it's catholic" or it's "eastern orthodox" and says... NO! It's Christian, and that's our history too!”
It would appear from this response that it has nothing to do with substance, but all with style. “Ancient forms of worship” are OK as long as there is a Biblical basis for them.
I still affirm that the Emerging church (as characterized by Emergent) is a theological movement not a methodological one (like Willow Creek, or Purpose-Driven-Everything). What I then went on to describe is how this theological movement has "affections" towards ancient forms of worship and (re)discovering the rich heritage of Christian worship which was thrown away after the reformation or the East/West split. It is obvious to many that emerging churches are different in their styles of worship than your average Evangelical church, what I went into was an attempt to explain why that is, not to backtrack and say that it is a methodological movement. Theology should inform worship and a theology which says that all of Christian history can be helpful to us and our particular denomination doesn't have the corner on truth would naturally lead a church to explore what can be learned from other streams in Christianity. Methodological movements say "don't change your theology at all, just change how you package it." This characterizes a great deal of evangelical churches and even those that are trying to co-opt the Emerging church movement for their own ends while not undergoing the theological reformation the emerging church is pushing.
Post a Comment