Emerging vs. Liberal/Conservative Theology
As I mentioned yesterday, I often feel like I am either the most conservative or the most liberal person in a crowd (theologically in particular). No matter what others may try to dismiss me as, I really don’t fit those traditional categories. And it’s not just that I inhabit some murky middle ground either. As many in the emergent movement have expressed over and over again - this is a whole different ballgame.
People like to categorize, define, and understand. If they see something in emergents that they vaguely recognize, they then jump to the conclusion that we fit lock-step in with that thing they already know. But, as the cliche goes, a little knowledge can be very dangerous. As we emerge (a still fluid undefined process) it is frustrating to be defined as “just a young hipper evangelical” or “just a classic social justice liberal.” That word “just” can be the most frustrating thing imaginable. Everytime I hear (read) such phrases I want to tell that person - “you think you understand, but you really really don’t get it.” The categories they are operating under don’t even apply anymore. Such attempts to pigeon-hole a movement into broken and defunct categories is futile.
So recently I’ve had a number of people assert that emerging theology is exactly the same as classic liberal theology. It seems all we emergents have to do is question the need for fundamentalist constructs like inerrancy or mention the term “social justice” and we get lumped in with classic liberalism. This results in the evangelicals calling us heretics and the liberals getting miffed at us for “rediscovering” what they’ve been saying all along. Basically we piss off everyone.
But we are not at home in either camp. And to use extremely broad generalizations to explain why - it’s because the conservative/liberal divide is a modern construct and emergents are postmodern. Conservatives and liberals are flip sides of the same coin. They employ modern methods and faith in scientific processes in their approach to faith/religion. Their world is black and white - they are seeking certainty and ultimately need to be right. So the bible has to be completely 100% literally and historically true or it is completely debunked and demythologized. It’s one or the other - you must choose and choose wisely. But postmoderns are more comfortable with grays - with multiple possibilities held in tension. The Bible can be true in a variety of ways - including (gasp) historically. For us it’s not about being right, but about being open to possibilities.
So of course there will be elements of emerging theology that resemble social justice liberalism or evangelicalism just like there are elements that resemble Anabaptist and monastic thought. This whole generous orthodoxy thing is only possible once one is open to multiple possibilities. And as for the Bible this isn’t about throwing it out or trusting it too much. Acknowledging that multiple interpretations are possible increases my faith and trust in God working dynamically in the world.
I know I’m not a theologian and that my very very basic understanding of trends in historical theology is paltry, and that many others have answered this far better than I, but I need to address the recent questions about why emerging theology isn’t “just” options A or B. It is and isn’t both A and B, and C, D, and E and so on. It’s complex. And it’s fine by me if people want to disagree with emerging theology (as if what I think matters…), but it would be helpful if they took the time to understand what exactly it is they are disagreeing with. It is easy to disagree with strawmen or known factors, but an oozy developing open system is tad more complex to attempt to dismantle.
Tags:
Julie Clawson
Topics: Theology, Emerging Church, Bible |
September 30th, 2008 at 4:27 am
Have you read Foster’s “Streams of Living Water”? He’s a great example of someone who is able to receive truth from different traditions without getting tangled up in the dichotomies.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:05 am
I don’t think we should be let off the hook so easily. When people want answers regarding what emerging/postmodern Christians are about and we tell them, “it’s complicated,” to me that just pours fresh fuel on the fire. There’s a reason why evangelicals and liberals call emerging Christians arrogant. Because - for all the honesty and authenticity in our speech toward one another - when others say to us, “we want to understand what you’re about” and we say to them, “well, it’s just oozy and complicated and it doesn’t fit into your frame of reasoning,” it just sounds mean spirited and silly. And, really, it’s not all that complex. Even nonfoundationalists and people who are developing a theological mosaic or bricolage have basic rules and paradigms by which they decide what is reasonable and what isn’t.
I think you’ve painted with too broad a brush the distinctions between “conservative fundamentalists” and “social justice liberals.” There have been - over the past two hundred years - many individuals and movements which walk the line between these two groups and - even from within each - there have been folks who are willing to embrace aspects of the “other’s” thought in order to embrace a theology that helps them live Christ’s way with integrity and character. I do agree - as someone who tends to walk that line and be neither fundamentalists nor liberal - that it’s frustrating but just being “oozy, postmodern and complex” does not remove from us the responsibility to “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an account of the hope that is in you (3:15).”
Maybe I’m naive and maybe I just don’t understand your frustrations but I really believe that when people ask postmodern/emerging Christians what we’re about, we need to be willing to answer them with more than, “It’s too complicated and you wouldn’t understand it anyway” sort of talk.
Grace & peace,
A.T.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:07 am
BTW that scripture reference is from 1 Peter 3:15
Blessings,
Andrew
September 30th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Julie’s description is a broad brush, but, as I’m discovering here at seminary, it’s not inaccurate of some of the extremes on both sides.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:11 am
nitika - yes, I’ve read Foster and generally like his stuff. but if I recall he focuses more on religious traditions than he does theology.
andrew - you make a good point. This was a very broad stroke post, but I said that in the post. And yes there are people with whom I don’t even go there with these sorts of discussions. No one wants to hear that their particular worldview isn’t the only way of understanding things (to a modern ear that implies their might not be correct). But the reality is that worldviews differ (and I’m not just talking about modern vs. postmodern here). unless one wants to get into a tense argument with someone whose main goal is to be right, then a preliminary discussion of theories of knowledge is necessary.
and yes I know that most christians practically inhabit the space between liberal and conservative. concessions and compromises have been made to create a functional middle. (I’m thinking of my old church where contrary to my experience there it is now okay to care about the environment and do yoga…). Such middle ground works for some, but it still uses the same frame of reference. After a while some of us can no longer do the square peg in round hole thing. The structure of the conversation no longer makes sense. It’s the whole Kuhn’s Structure or Scientific Revolutions (paradigm shifts) or even Phyllis Tickle’s tethered boat illustration - eventually the conception that one has had of the world no longer makes sense. there are too many things that just don’t fit the old explanations. a new structure is needed. In that time of transition there is of course a lot of tension and finger pointing and entrenchment of the old. When conversations occur a lot gets lost in translation. It’s like we are speaking Spanish and Portuguese - they’re close enough that we think we understand each other, but the realities of the culture (the idioms and nuances) are lost. There are those that by default speak both languages and can see the differences. Then there are those who imperialistically assume that their language is superior and must be pressed on the other. when the other doesn’t understand them they just speak louder. it’s messy, but I’m all for acknowledging cultural/philosophical differences and exploring them even if it gets awkward.
Being truthful about who I am and what I believe is part of being ready to give a defense so to speak. Would I be more prepared if I lied to make things easier for others? Admitting that things are oozy and complex is the only way I can see truthful conversations taking place.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Julie,
Just want to say thanks for your post and your comment. I hope didn’t sound too harsh but I get frustrated with these things too. While we’re both in that same middle ground (albeit, possibly on different patches of ground), I do hope think that church history shows that developing a new theological grammar doesn’t mean that all the old terms and thought worlds need to be abolished but they can be redefined. I know that all of this requires some tension and even frustration but I think it’s just difficult for me leave people hanging who are searching for answers (not that I think that’s what you’re doing - it’s just what I feel I’m doing when I can’t explain things).
September 30th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I accidentally submitted that before I was done.
I just wanted to say that I really do appreciate your taking time to respond to my comments.
Grace & peace,
Andrew
September 30th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Quote: “Such attempts to pigeon-hole a movement into broken and defunct categories is futile.”
This is true. But keep in mind this also applies to the liberal and conversative viewpoints that you described. Those “groups” are so broad and so vast that attempting to describe them as sides of the same coin like that just doesn’t cut it. That may apply to one group in one culture in one specific time period, but that’s about it. You are making them into strawmen–the very thing you don’t want done to the emerging movement.
The example of the Bible is a good one: To think that the only prevailing viewpoints have been either to accept it literally or demythologize it entirely is just inaccurate. There is a whole range of viewpoints along that continuum, some of them going back centuries.
You can count me among the people who hasn’t heard anything in the emergizing/progressive movement that I haven’t already heard in the mystics, theologians, saints and sinners through the centuries. This isn’t the first generation of people who are comfortable between black and white. And while you may be discovering the multiple shade of grey, keep in mind that others before you have discovered entire rainbows of living color.
This lack of knowledge of and continuity with the past is the most disappointing thing about the modern movements. They claim to respect religious plurality but then at the same time have almost a disregard for what has come before. People act like they just know better than several thousands of years of religious tradition.
There is a real aire of elitism that comes through, and it is no surprise that it has rubbed some folks the wrong way. Many who represent the progressive/emerging movements have this attitude like ‘no one else can get it’, tell us that our minds are just too small to comprehend the magnanimous thing they have discovered. And then you can’t understand why these viewpoints cause friction.
I’m actually all for reform and progressive theology, but what is going on now doesn’t seem like good theology to me.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I don’t want to start nitpicking points out of context, I only grab this one because I think it speaks to a frustration some of us in the emerging conversation have: “For us it’s not about being right, but about being open to possibilities.”
At times, it seems like the most unwelcome view at the table is the one that insists that some things are absolutely right or absolutely true. The assumption then becomes that those concerned with getting something right aren’t also open to possibilities. There seems to be all sorts of room for those who say, “I don’t know” (which I love, it’s what drew me to the conversation), but less space for those who insist “this I know.”
With all the talk about who and who isn’t emergent, I think that gets to the heart of some of the frustration of Dan or Scot or Bob (or maybe just me putting frustrations in their mouths). I think it’s important to be right about certain things, not so we can claim “right”ness, but because it’s important to get certain things right. And sometimes those who insist on the “right”ness of certain things can be made to feel as if they aren’t open.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Kester - so what certain things have to be “right”? are certain things off limits to being questioned? and why exactly is it important to have it right as opposed to choosing to believe in certain options? What is the basic reason for that?
September 30th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
One of my professors at Wheaton College used to start every class with the statement, “Christians of all people should be the least afraid of questions” (not a Bible or Theology class, but Political Science). It resonated with me and I’ve tried to be mindful of that in my interactions with others. There are times that questions are intended to attack and other times they are merely inquiry. I try to view questions as opportunities to communicate and learn. Just because a question is posed does not mean I have to change my faith or what I believe. Sometimes the question and subsequent discussion clarifies and solidifies what I believe, other times, I gain a different perspective and learn something new, and in some cases my view changes. Jesus is the best example of one who was right about certain things, clearly held to the truth, was completely open to questions and answered without arrogance or the need “to be right”.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:02 am
I think Frank (post #8) makes some good points in his paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
Julie asks:
“Kester - so what certain things have to be “right”? are certain things off limits to being questioned? and why exactly is it important to have it right as opposed to choosing to believe in certain options? What is the basic reason for that?”
Julie may have a point. But I would ask in return, is “choosing to believe in certain options” really the highest good to which we can aspire, without regard to whether that belief is, in fact, correct? If I’m going to “choose to believe” in something - for example if I’m lost in the woods at nightfall and I choose to believe that the right fork of the path will take me home rather than the left fork - isn’t it better for me if that choice turns out to be right? Or if I eat lead paint and drink polluted water and choose to believe that I’ll suffer no ill effects down the road as a result, how much will that “choice to believe” help me?
I’m with Kester in asking can’t we agree that there are *some* things about which being right is important, not for the sake of pride or power, but for the sake of safety, sanity, health and wholeness?
Phoebe, I love that quote. That wasn’t Woodiwiss by chance, was it?
October 1st, 2008 at 7:32 am
Karl-
Yes, that was exactly what I was trying to say. Of course we should ask questions. Of course we should test and prod and seek. Of course we should allow our own beliefs to come under scrutiny. Of course what is right is always up for debate (what is right can stand up to debate), but we should still aspire to get things right. Not to chalk up points on some cosmic score card, but because getting it right is better than not. Hitting the mark is better. Being a good parent or husband or Christian is better than not being. And being a good parent means that certain things are right (feed your kids, don’t feed your kids bleach). We can argue whether feeding kids bleach is right (although I don’t think we would), but I think it’s important to believe that it isn’t (as I’m sure you would agree). In fact, we’d be so convinced of our own rightness that we would insist children be taken from parents who feed them bleach. The issue would be up for theoretical debate, but not practical debate.
There are many areas where the best we can do is say “this is what I have chosen to believe.” And, in a sense, that’s as much as we can say about anything, short of making people agree with us by brainwashing or by force. I stand with the disciples who make the rather post-modern (and I mean that in a good way) comment “judge for yourselves…all we can speak is what we have seen and heard.” At the same time, I feel confident that they would assert that what they spoke, what they had seen and heard, was right and true and that believing so was important and necessary. I don’t think that this is motivated by an arrogant “need to be right” for their own sake, but by an assertion of the rightness of something for the sake of everyone.
I think where the disagreement really lies is in what we assert should always be right or true. But we all have something. None of us would say “this is what I choose to believe” to everything we do believe. Certain things we would simply insist are right. Again, not for the sake of claiming rightness, but for the sake of a world gone wrong.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:45 am
Kester, what you said in your first comment about insisting “that some things are absolutely right or absolutely true” seems very different from what you say in your second comment about “aspiring to get things right.” Aspiring to get things right is a good thing, but it’s very different from claiming that you have absolutely gotten things right once and for all.
Perhaps we just have very different assumptions, but you claim that:
Actually, that is exactly what I would say to everything I believe. I don’t say “I know”, because I don’t. There are beliefs that I am more or less confident about (drinking bleach for instance), but there is nothing that I can absolutely say “This I know without question.” With all of my beliefs there comes a point where I simply make a leap a faith and choose to act on my best informed guess despite my lack of absolute confidence. That is all the more true when we’re talking about matters of religious faith, ethics, justice, etc. and not about mundane things like drinking bleach. I have my opinions and they’re based on good reasons, but I can’t ever close myself off to the possibility that I could be wrong, simply because I’m all too aware of all the times I have been wrong before.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:15 am
Frank, you’re absolutely right that emergents need to familiarize themselves with other Christians from the past who have gone in similar directions. But let’s face it, people are often busy actually living life and getting on with the work of the kingdom, and not everyone is a history or theology nerd like myself, so I can’t fault them for not being completely informed about all that stuff.
And besides, what does it matter who said what first? If Christians from the past have asked the same questions and gone in some of the same directions we are, great! We’re not trying to innovate just for innovation’s sake, nor are we trying to differentiate ourselves from all other Christians. If others from the past agree with us (or if we agree with them), then so much the better for us.
But of course there are instances where it is legitimate for us to differentiate ourselves from some types of Christianity. Clearly we are saying things that are different from what at least a few people think are really important, otherwise why would the emerging church be getting so much anger and resistance from certain sectors? Why would Julie and I have been kicked out of our former church because of our beliefs if we were really just saying the same things that everyone before us had been saying? And if we’re not just the same, then is it arrogant for us to say so? Or is it just that some folks can’t handle others disagreeing with them, and therefore paint all such disagreement as “elitist”?
As for giving vague answers to some of these folks, and saying “you just don’t get it”, keep in mind that this response is usually given not to those who are asking genuine questions and really want to understand. It’s usually the response we give to those who simply want to criticize but whose critiques show a lack of understanding of where we’re actually coming from or what we’re actually saying (and lets face it, there have been a lot of those sorts of critiques out there). As I’ve discovered, there are times when it’s worthwhile to argue and discuss, and times when it’s better to avoid the conflict and leave people be. In those situations sometimes the only honest answer we can give is simply “I’m sorry, but we just have very different assumptions and I don’t think you really get where I’m coming from on this.”
October 1st, 2008 at 11:05 am
Mike-
I appreciate your explaining the difference and would agree that it is a difference (though not always a stark one) between where you and I are coming from. I wouldn’t say that I choose to believe that it is wrong to feed a baby bleach. I would say that it is wrong. I wouldn’t say that I choose to believe that my wife’s name is Rachel and that she is 5 feet and a half inch tall and that I love her. I would say my wife’s name is Rachel and she is 5 feet and a half inch tall and that I love her. I’m not saying that there aren’t areas where I can’t say “I don’t know” (even about someone I know as well as my Rachel), but that I don’t say it about every area. There are things I know.
Again, I appreciate that isn’t the case for everyone in this conversation and I don’t consider it elitist to have doubts and ask questions (I have and do), but I also don’t think it is arrogant to claim to know the things you know.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Karl, No, it was Rung and it was back in the late 70s. I often spent Saturday mornings at his home for breakfast . . . had great discussions and opportunities to meet people (many Wheaton graduates, though not exclusively) from various walks in life. After I graduated, those Saturday a.m. discussions were what I missed the most.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I know what you’re saying Kester, but again, those examples you give are more mundane. Is belief in particular religious doctrines really of the same kind as belief in chemical properties or belief in immediate empirical observations about your wife? On what basis, apart from a leap of faith, could you possibly say “I absolutely know, beyond any need for further questioning or examination” about matters of religious belief?
October 1st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Phoebe, I had Rung for Intro to Poli Sci. my freshman year (fall of ‘89). He had reached the end of his career by then and retired the following year, I think. Similarly though, the hours spent in the homes of professors and the discussions we had, are among the highlights of my 4 years there.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:07 pm
sorry to ignore this conversation today… try to catch up tomorrow
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
I don’t mean “beyond any need for further questioning or examination” when I say “I know”. When I say to my son “I love you” it doesn’t mean that he can’t ever question or examine my love for him. But the truth of my love for him is bigger and better than I choose to believe that I love him. This may just be us saying the same thing with semantic differences. When I say “I know” I don’t mean “I can prove with this diagram” I mean that I know in a way that goes beyond “this is my opinion”.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Julie–
I think postmoderns have rediscovered mythic understanding as well as living in the grays a little better than the moderns. But this idea of synthesis isn’t just a po-mo trait. Tillich talked about synthetic theology (that is, bringing together difference schools and letting them fight it out in our heads), and I like his mash-up idea a lot.
October 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
nice thoughts, I went to seminary and got to hear many viewpoints on various things. I can relate to you thoughts. I am a centrist and am neither liberal or conservative, but somewhere in the middle where the grey area exists.
I have observed from my Bible college/seminary experiences that many of the students who fall under conservative or liberal thinking do so on the basis of attempting to reduce anxiety. Isn’t it true that people on these 2 extremes believe that they are right and that you can know what is the right or wrong interpretation of scripture. This might sound off, but attempting to say what is truth and not truth eliminates anxiety and stress that ambiguities create–kind of selfish isn’t it?
And yes I’m being sarcastic here but, after all, when you can know what’s right or wrong, you can better able to be right more often, you can then do right things, and never have to worry about being wrong. And of course it’s us Christian’s duty to be more right isn’t it? (sense the sarcasm)
When you live in the grey area (like I do), you face ambiguities everyday and for all things. I’m not trying to say what is right or wrong for every situation or person. My goal is NOT being right, but living by faith in God and trying my best to live in the healthiest lifestyle that I can using what I have at hand and using my past experiences. What will a complete knowledge of right or wrong really do for us–after all, we’re all incapable of acts of righteous which is why Christ died for us.
It’s faith and a basic sense of “right” or “wrong” that keeps us alive to be able to love and support eachother, not a “subscription” to a religious ideology such as liberalism/conservatism. I’d seriously like to see someone email me and tell me how being a liberal or conservative is important and practical to living an everyday life. People in the Christian world get too wrapped up with ideology and supporting their doctrines and they forget about what it means to truly live with faith, hope, and love in God in the midst of our near complete ignorance of right or wrong. We are bound to the flesh, we are limited and finite. Ideology does nothing more to us humans than separates us into thousands of denominations and churches that are unwilling to unite and work together under the one name of Christ and what He did for us… who is the most basic foundation of Christianity (afterall Christ is in the name “Christianity” isn’t it?). Perhaps this is more of a reason for us needing Christ in the first place.