my head on a platter: emerging, but not postmodern - or, sometimes people really do mean what they say - and sometimes it hurts us all
How to be “emergent” without taking the “postmodern plunge” - or, Why “emergent” is a great idea but isn’t really the “new reformation” everyone thinks it is. Oh boy. I stare at my computer having been placed in a spot that I don’t think I can easily get out of. I’ve gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion via blog comments and posts with some folks who form the “marrow of emergent divinity.” I’ve opted to just stop critiquing certain aspects of the emergent conversation in comments and slanted posts and simply to state my frustrations outright. Despite the dubious nature of such a task, I’ve decided to give it a shot [minus the whole arrogant, snide comment about emergent being a great idea but not being a new reformation - sorry that was just unfair and silly].
Before I continue, however, I think I need to state for the record that - Contrary to appearances, I am not hostile toward the conversation regarding Christian practice and theology currently known as “emergent” or the “emerging church.” I am a friend of emergent village, have been (however poorly and short-term) an emergent cohort leader [hey, I'm still on the e-mail list], and I have many friends who are very closely engaged in all things emergent. Therefore, if you’re just itching to hear this spry, confrontational young seminary student’s critique of the emerging church “movement” and then respond with some counter-critiques of your own - you’ve simply come to the wrong blog.
I am not attempting to provide a “critique” of emerging Christianity, per se. It seems as though such a task would be nearly impossible given the fact that emerging Christianity is here to stay.. The efforts of other Christian ministers, students and theologians at “disavowing” the emerging church or attempting to thwart its existence are, in my opinion, a waste of time. The emerging church is here (in various forms) and the convergence of personalities which helped to bring about its formation are not simply going to slink away into obscurity (which, by the way, is something I’m quite happy about - Christianity needs more theologians and ministry practitioners with a little courage who aren’t simply saying the same, old stuff).
Nevertheless, I’ve gotten myself into some hot water for questioning some things…
First, I’ve questioned the extent to which the emergent Christian engagement with “postmodernism” is itself a dubious task.
What I mean to say when I critique this aspect of the emerging conversation is that the church must always be very careful and often quite critical of its engagements with any form of philosophy or cultural theory. I say this not because I believe postmodern or any other form of philosophy to be inherently dangerous. Rather, I say this because I believe that the thought developments currently sheltered beneath the “pomo” umbrella are really much too new, untested and contested to be uncritically applied much less integrated into Christian theological thought to the extent which it appears they have already been.
In other words, I mean to say that - in the same way that Christianity in the late 18th through early 20th centuries became enslaved to “modernist” assumptions - I fear that Christianity (especially the emerging/ent variety) may become enslaved to “postmodernist” assumptions just as quickly (and yes, I do believe there are some) without judging whether those assumptions are good for the church (and yes, I do believe that there are some cultural realities that are inherently “bad” for the church). In other words, I think “discernment” is still a useful word even in today’s world.
Second, and this may be what has gotten me into the most trouble, I’ve asked questions that I think may have been construed as a personal attack. For example, in a recent post, I wrote that
I believe that Christians need to concentrate on being Christian and that far too often the emergent conversation works so hard to make “postmodern-conversant” people that it forgets that the goal of the church is to make Christian people who follow God’s spirit through the whims and follies of every changing scene, whether it be modernity, postmodernity, or whatever else comes our way.”
While I understand why this might have caused some offense I, nevertheless, stand by what I said. The reason for my stubbornness can be conveyed in an even more recent comment I made in response to another commenter on this blog. I wrote that
Another frustration that I have is that “emergent” [whether emergents like it or not] carries a sort of “this is the “NEW” way of Christian living and you other folks better catch the wave or you’ll be left out of the kingdom” [attitude]. I see this when emergent voices make fun of traditional [conservative, liberal and everything in-between] Anglican, Reformed, Evangelical, or Roman Catholic Christians who simply do not buy the theory that all Church that isn’t emergent is always “Cartesian” or somehow compromised. At the root of this sort of “wink and nod” reaction to the wider Christian community is [I think] a lack of faith in God’s spirit to work through imperfect social, [cultural and ecclesial] circumstances to enliven hearts to live out the many implications of belief in Christ.
All it takes is a cursory look at some of the more popular “emergent” blogs and internet articles or a good listen-in on some conversations to realize that - while many emergents do in fact have a genuine desire to remain open, conversational, relational, Christian people. - what sometimes ends up happening among emerging Christians is that they [like their "traditional" counterparts] tend hunker down and play the “let’s criticize the ignorant fundies” game or they say things like “those poor, poor, parochial people - with their romanticized view of church and obsolete, non-generative ecclesiology.” There are quite a few concrete examples of such treatment - I won’t name them here simply because some of them come from friends who I respect and I refuse to drag anyone’s name through the mud. I point to all of this to say that one of my main issues in these past few posts and comments has not been an attack on emergent as such but an attack on the arrogance and “gotcha-ness” that seems to flow from this sort of “I’ve read books you couldn’t possibly understand so just trust me on this” mentality.
Sure there are, among the various denominations in the west (and also outside them), emergent Christians who are interested in being faithful to their tradition while also integrating “emerging” models of ministry. But what about those for whom “postmodern, emergent, etc.” are not yet helpful or hopeful ways of embodying the way of Christ in the 21st century? What about those who want to experience relational, experiential orthopractical Christian faith who feel alienated by the arrogance [either intentional or otherwise] that so often comes from the ranks of the emerging camp?
Please don’t misunderstand me - I really, genuinely do have hope that emerging Christianity can be a place for genuine discipleship and Christian practice but I really think it’s time that emerging Christians deal with the fact that just because someone disagrees with the historical narrative (such as it is) presented by “postmodernism” doesn’t mean that they are intellectually inept. Nor does it mean that such a person is hostile to “emergent” Christianity or that they somehow don’t get that Postmodernity is a fact. It is possible to “get it” [so to speak] without needing to tear down the obviously genuine ministry that emergent seeks to embody.
And really, I get it. I know the deal. I really do (and I think plenty of other people as well) realize that we exist in a period that marks a shift away from “modernity.” But “postmodernism” [by which I mean the philosophical milieu created by the work of theorists such as Derrida, Foucalt, Jean Baudrillard, and others] is by no means the only way of thinking about this shift that has occurred and is still happening. Philosophers and lingustic theorists are by no means in agreement regarding the merits of postmodernism and there are many in the philosophical & theological communities who critique modernism without taking the postmodernist plunge into weird, unintelligible linguistic-esque nonsense (hey, let me have my fun!). But I didn’t write this post to get into a philosophical debate…I at least agree that those sorts of conversations are best when had face-to-face rather than through the computer screen.
Post-modernity is a fact but I simply don’t buy “postmodernism.” I’ve read Derrida and Baudrillard and even a bit of Zizek and I think it’s nonsense (but I’m open to further engagement). But I am also a friend of emergent. I am an example of how one can be emergent without taking the postmodern plunge. One of the great merits of the emerging conversation is its embrace of a sort of plurality of belief(s) that seeks not to exclude those with varying viewpoints but to include as many voices as possible in order to enrich the conversation and I still hope that there’s a place at the table for me - theological disagreements and all. And I also hope that as emergents come to the point where they (we?) are called upon to explain themselves, that they (we) will do more than deflect, make fun, or dismiss those who, but for some philosophical differences, might someday find some affinity and friendship with us. After all, isn’t friendship what this whole emergent thing is about in the first place?
A couple quick thoughts.
First, I don’t think anyone has to take the “postmodern plunge” to be emerging. Really, I think that misses the point. I think the point is to consider how the gospel message can thrive in an increasing post-modern world. That doesn’t mean “becoming post-modern” - whatever exactly that would mean. This will be more relevant for some than others (I like in Waco, TX and post-modernism hasn’t quite hit here like in San Francisco for example).
Second, I share some of your frustrations. Personally, I think the emerging church movement (actually I don’t think the emerging church really exists but there’s no other way to converse) is much more mature in the UK. I think we in the US have a lot to learn from those who have been traveling this road (in theory and practice) quite awhile longer than the majority of us in the US (not necessarily all of us). I think some of your criticisms may be addressed with greater maturity in the US movement.
Good thoughts here. The big thing i think you hit is that its nothing “new” really. Its just about following Jesus and seeing where your culture has infected our view of God, His mission, your understanding of the gospel and how you see Jesus (among other things).
I think the struggle to think of this as “new” is because for some people when they engage in the “conversation” it is all new to them. So, since they have either grown up in liberal or fundie churches, they’ve never seen Christianity through that lens before. So, they assume that all churches and denominations are blind like theirs was…
not excusable, but understandable at least.
anyways, good thoughts here.
Uhm…I’ll get back to you after I take this class this summer. My first seminary class! Maybe only, we’ll see. I feel that I don’t know enough about postmodernity to intelligently interact with your concerns. Give me a few months!
Hey! I might take the class with you, if Lydia will let me…how expensive is it?
By the way, Mike, Lydia and I are getting together with some friend tonight at Capital City Grocery in Raleigh for some great, live bluegrass…and we want you guys to come! And I need your phone number. Peace
a few thoughts…
As one who came to Emergent through a study of postmodern philosophy, I don’t think anyone is abandoning discernment when it comes to engaging with the last 100 so years of philosophical thought. But we are also not hiding from it. Too many Christians deny that philosophy has any impact on the cultural imagination at all and are scared by being tainted if they read certain books. I fully understand the dangers of letting christianity be corrupted by any philosophical system - but I still use the language and framework of much postmodern philosophy in how I describe the world because it makes sense within the culture we all inhabit. This isn’t a dismissal of faith in favor of philosophy, merely an acknowledgment that such language shapes our culture and therefore how we present our faith. You of course have the right to think it’s nonsense, but it makes sense to me. Am I not allowed to express who I am then and my understanding of the world without being dismissed?
It is easy to brush people aside by focusing on a few words. just because we mention history or philosophy doesn’t mean we don’t care about a committed relationship with God. Just because the term new arises doesn’t mean we are ignorant of tradition or are throwing out the old. Those are straw-men often used to mock and dismiss without the hint of understanding. I wonder if that is how outsiders truly see us or if that is just the picture they want to paint of us so that we can be dismissed?
Julie, thanks so much for your thoughtful words here. I’d like to use some of what you’ve said to nuance what I’m trying to do with this post. You wrote the following:
“I fully understand the dangers of letting christianity be corrupted by any philosophical system - but I still use the language and framework of much postmodern philosophy in how I describe the world because it makes sense within the culture we all inhabit. This isn’t a dismissal of faith in favor of philosophy, merely an acknowledgment that such language shapes our culture and therefore how we present our faith. You of course have the right to think it’s nonsense, but it makes sense to me. Am I not allowed to express who I am then and my understanding of the world without being dismissed?”
In response, I’d just like to note that I really don’t want to give the impression that I’m “dismissing” the need to contextualize theological reflection and practice within particular cultural frameworks. What I hoped to show in this post is that the reading of the history of philosophy as well as the philosophical direction of the “postmodernists” (i.e. Derrida, Foucault (maybe), Baudrillard, Stanley Fish, etc.) is by no means “monolithic” nor is it the only way to see the postmodern condition.
In other words, I do understand that postmodernity refers to cultural condition following modernity - I’m just not buying wholesale what comes from the voices of the “ism.” Folks like Isaiah Berlin, Charles Taylor, Ihab Hassan, etc. all critique our current state but they are also quite critical of the big-name “postmodernists” that I mentioned before - they’re just not sure they buy what they’re selling (and neither am I).
In saying all this, I am not brushing anyone aside…I’m just calling for some restraint and I’m asking folks to read some different philosophical voices aside from those I mentioned before; once again, for the reason that they’re not the only ones out there.
I really just wanted to put the idea out there that it’s possible to “do Christianity” in the postmodern world without relying solely on “postmodernism.” I’m not dismissing anyone or demeaning anyone’s faithfulness, I’m just broadening the conversation (I hope).
I think all your points here are excellent, and I agree with most. I’ve often characterized the emergent/emerging conversation as a group of primarily former evangelicals who have demythologized their faith and used Derrida’s concept of deconstruction as a tool to unravel some unhealthy ways of viewing God and sacred texts.
Unlike my understanding of Derrida, emerging/ents go a step beyond demythologization and remythologize their faith. I think what Derrida wrote about was fragmentation and that being the norm. The emerging church seems just as uncomfortable with fragmentation — the idea that modernity and postmodernity are valid ways of “doing and being church.”
I guess that is my biggest complaint about this movement, though: they have, intentional or not, created, or at least perpetuated, an us vs. them mentality for those who are “in” the conversation and those who are “out.”
That being said, I share a lot of their perspectives. I just think all religion is beholden to culture, at all times, and we would do will to simply get over that thought and get on with the business of living.
Thanks for this honest and balanced appraisal, Andrew.
it sounds like your critique of the postmodernism-ish discussions in the emerging church is less a critique of the content of the discussion than of the demeanor with which these discussions are sometimes carried out (and perhaps of the effects of the existence of such esoteric discussions on other christians). if that’s an adequate construal of your thoughts, i wholeheartedly stand with you.
but i would challenge us to explore the possibility of being “postmodern but not emergent.” as you quickly brush by in your comment above, postmodernity is much more pressing as a cultural fact than as a philosopical ism (though one might better regard it as a scholarly style, a certain feel of academic inquiry that now pervasively spreads beyond the hallways dedicated to philosophy departments). as the cultural milieu in which we live, postmodernity (and i’m arbitrarily using -ity and -ism as helpful distinctions; the terminology is much too debated to use with any precision) stands as the result not because of a philosophical/linguistic/ideological shift but as the evolution of the ways we produce and acquire things. it’s economic and technological, having far more to do with facebook than foucault. postmodernism–the theory–can be seen as one more part of this cultural evolution, the way scholars adapted to address their changing environment.
what faces the church (and theologians, as members both of the christian community and the scholarly community) is how to be the church in this cultural context. my critique of the emergent movement revolves much more around the uselessness of modified hermeneutical stances or the retrofitting of the christian sotry to distance it from the unversalizing claims of any metanarrative–uselessness to interact with and change the new patterns of life that culture imposes on the masses. what the church needs is not a revised vocabulary or the freedom to meet in a pub instead of a brick church. what the church needs to do is to honestly grapple with its complicity in global poverty, dehumanising working conditions, and meaning-robbing consumer practices. what we need is marx, marcuse, benjamins, and baudrillard (read rightly). what we need is Jesus read honestly. if derrida or rorty or fish help us understand the processes we find ourselves in, great. otherwise, lay them aside and start working to change the world.
Sagely,
I think you’ve hit on what may be the crux of my frustration here when you say that this post is less a critique of the content of the discussion than of the demeanor with which these discussions are sometimes carried out (and perhaps of the effects of the existence of such esoteric discussions on other christians).” Close friends of mine will know my theoretical biases better than those who read this blog. Or, to put it another way, close friends will know my narrative framework better than casual blog readers. Stanley Hauerwas critiques my own bias better than I could when he says, “I confess I have at times taken great pleasure watching postmodernists dismantle the pretensions of modernism, but it is still the case that being an enemy of my enemy does not and should not necessarily make me a friend of postmodernism (A Better Hope, 35).”
In that sense, this post has been a critique of both a theoretical persuasion as well as a critique of the manner/demeanor of the emergent conversation. I think you make a great point, however, in pointing to the fact that “what the church needs is not a revised vocabulary or the freedom to meet in a pub instead of a brick church. what the church needs to do is to honestly grapple with its complicity in global poverty, dehumanising working conditions, and meaning-robbing consumer practices. what we need is marx, marcuse, benjamins, and baudrillard (read rightly). what we need is Jesus read honestly. if derrida or rorty or fish help us understand the processes we find ourselves in, great. otherwise, lay them aside and start working to change the world.”
In other words, If I understand you correctly, the act of “emerging” - if that’s what we’re going to call this - can happen outside of particular philosophical stylings but cannot happen outside of the culture in which we find ourselves. Thanks for your comments.
peace,
A.T.