by Phil Johnson
xactly a year ago, I was in precisely the same position I am in right now: burdened with deadlines and commitments, unsure of how I would ever get everything done, and generally over-stressed. One of several Swords of Damocles hanging over my head last year was an overdue chapter I had agreed to contribute to a book on evangelical postmodernism edited by Ron Gleason and Gary Johnson. I had worked on that chapter almost every spare minute during my teaching time in Italy but had not finished it, so it was the first thing I had to do after returning to the States. Almost a year ago to the day,
I posted an excerpt from one of my footnotes to save having to write a blogpost.
Anyway,
that book is titled Reforming or Conforming?: Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church (with a Foreword by David F. Wells). For some reason (which I hope was unrelated to my chapter), the book's release was delayed for nearly a year, and it is now slated for this coming September. I received a .pdf copy of the entire book while in Italy
this year (just last week), so I'm now reading the full book for the first time. The chapters I have read so far are amazingly good and insightful. Since I contributed a chapter, I won't attempt an objective review of the whole book, but watch for it. It will definitely be worth your time.
Meanwhile, I'm going to do the same thing I did last year in order to avoid having to write a real blogpost today. I'm going to quote another excerpt from my chapter (which, incidentally, is titled "Joy-Riding on the Downgrade at Breakneck Speed: The Dark Side of Diversity"):
Postmodernism has at its heart a nagging suspicion that at the end of the day, no one can really know with complete certainty or settled assurance what is true and what is not. It might not be too far-fetched to say that is virtually the distilled essence of the whole postmodern idea.
Postmodernists modestly refer to their own invincible lack of certainty as "epistemic humility." To anyone who has something to be certain about, the postmodernist's refusal to be definitive looks, sounds, and acts like old-fashioned cynicism. From the postmodernists' own perspective, however, that kind of skepticism is the new meekness—while the very epitome of ugly arrogance is any notion that we actually do know something with conclusive and categorical certainty. Dogmatism of any kind is equal to the most diabolical kind of cruelty; anyone with strong moral convictions is deemed particularly judgmental; and even quiet faith has a kind of uppity feel to it. Thus the "humility" of perpetual ambivalence has become postmodernism's one supreme and cardinal virtue. . . .
The Emerging Church movement is fundamentally a self-conscious attempt to adapt the church and frame the gospel message in a way that meets the unique challenges postmodernism presents. There's nothing wrong with trying our best to communicate more effectively with postmodern people, of course. In fact, it is right for Christians to grapple with the question of how the church should respond to postmodernism. That's a serious and vitally important issue that too many old-style evangelicals are blissfully oblivious to (and too many evangelicals who are aware of the problem seem unwilling to face it seriously). The ECM deserves credit for recognizing the megashift and sounding a wake-up call. The evangelical movement desperately needs to be stirred from its own apathy and oblivion.
Unfortunately, the Emerging movement has an extraordinary knack for adapting to and embracing the very aspects of postmodern culture that most need to be confronted with the truth of the gospel. In the process of contextualizing the Christian message for a postmodern culture, the ECM has rather uncritically assimilated a postmodern value-system. Postmodern "virtues"—such as uncertainty, ambiguity, mystery, latitudinarianism (masquerading as "tolerance"), and above all, diversity—have somehow made it to the head of the ECM's hierarchy of moral values. These inevitably crowd out and eliminate more biblical values, such as assurance, boldness, conviction, understanding of the truth, and the defense of sound doctrine. |
|
45 comments:
It's coming out in September?! Do publishers not realize the timeliness of this material.
At the way fads invade the church these days, the Emergent church could well be irrelevant by September.
Fred
Unfortunately, the Emerging movement has an extraordinary knack for adapting to and embracing the very aspects of postmodern culture that most need to be confronted with the truth of the gospel.
And in so doing, they shoot themselves in the foot, because the time and energy we expend on trying to keep the visible church pure -- essentially evangelizing the emergers -- could be spent on figuring out how to effectively proclaim the gospel to this generation. So the very thing the emerging church seeks to accomplish, they hinder by becoming the very postmodern generation they so vociferously call us to reach.
"Thus the "humility" of perpetual ambivalence has become postmodernism's one supreme and cardinal virtue. . . ."
That's a great sentence, Phil. Elegant.
The motive for this "perpetual ambivalence" is, I think, in the main, coming simply from a desire to NOT be "old school." To NOT be lumped in with, e.g., MacArthur or Dobson. It's a desire to be cooler than the oldsters, the "alpha leaders" as one blogger put it, and this "pa" is the way they've found to justify themselves. Just adopt epistemic skepticism and voila! You're theologically hip and wear better clothes.
"..anyone with strong moral convictions is deemed particularly judgmental"
People love to point the finger today, and say, "Legalism", whenever someone speaks of God's law, and obeying it.
Or if you ask someone if they go to church on Sunday, they get all bent out of shape and say, "Legalism".
Crazy isn't it. I hate legalism. Been there done that. But the law isn't the Church's problem today, that's for sure.
It's just the opposite. Anything goes. Sin is defined as: "Well, that's just the way I am".
When someone says that I like to say you can repent of that anger, or lustful living.
Thanks for a good post in the midst of being so busy.
Like the title. I love those Yogi Berra sayings, like: "Nobody ever goes to that restaurant, because it's so crowded all the time".
Phil wrote: In the process of contextualizing the Christian message for a postmodern culture, the ECM has rather uncritically assimilated a postmodern value-system. Postmodern "virtues"—such as uncertainty, ambiguity, mystery, latitudinarianism (masquerading as "tolerance"), and above all, diversity—have somehow made it to the head of the ECM's hierarchy of moral values. These inevitably crowd out and eliminate more biblical values, such as assurance, boldness, conviction, understanding of the truth, and the defense of sound doctrine.
That's an outstanding summary of the problem, Phil. Well said.
I've waited months for Why We're Not Emergent and The Courage to Be Protestant to become available. Now the waiting game starts all over again for this new book in September.
Glad to see that PJ and TeamPyro are not embracing what the Emerging Church is readily embracing.
Great post and I look forward to the book as well.
Thanks Phil,
I sometimes wonder if these kinds of "Christians" have ever experienced the new birth. Conviction of sin and forgiveness through faith, by Gods' grace gives me a continual sence of my own wretchedness. The last thing I want to do is justify my own sin by denying what the Bible says about it. These people don't want anyone to point out sin and call it what it is because they don't want to be Holy. What kind of Christian doesn't want to live Holy? I don't understand them.
Reforming or Conforming? A genuine reformation would be reoriented and always reorienting to the Word of God but this so-called new reformation is just the opposite. While it has as its motto Reformed and always reforming, it is really drifted and always drifting and then tagged/labeled as reformation.
Looking forward to reading this book!
"In fact, it is right for Christians to grapple with the question of how the church should respond to postmodernism. That's a serious and vitally important issue that too many old-style evangelicals are blissfully oblivious to (and too many evangelicals who are aware of the problem seem unwilling to face it seriously)."
Thanks for including that paragraph. This simple paragraph explains how so many people (often younger folks who have, like it or not, grown up in a postmodern culture) are drawn to emerging ministry paradigms. It isn't because we're all out to be relativists, or because we think holiness is a thing of the past, or because we have any interest in denying the authority of Scripture or relegating it to the back seat. It is because we feel deep in our soul the sense that something is wrong and broken in the evangelical church, and at least somebody is looking for a solution to the problem(s).
I think you are pretty right on in your assessment of flaws/errors in the Emerging Church Movement. Rather than complaining about the horrible job the ECer's are doing, we need people who will engage the postmodern culture without compromising the gospel, because my generation needs Jesus, too.
I am sure I have too much EC in me to make the folks around here happy, and probably not enough EC in me to make EC people happy. Hope my thoughts are additions to the conversation.
Ryan
PS- Sorry about the deleted comment. I initially posted the comment under the incorrect login.
johnny dialectic said: "The motive for this "perpetual ambivalence" is . . . coming simply from a desire to NOT be "old school.""
That hits the nail on the head. As best I can tell, the ECM is little more than an anti-authoritarian, immature and pro-youth-rewarming of late 1960's hippie era "Jesus-is-just-alright-with-me" nonsense.
Frankly, I blame the depression era generation for not beating the self-indulgent, navel-gazing foolishness of the baby-boomers.
Sorry to be cranky but I have been reading Brian McLaren, re-reading Blue Like Jazz and other ECM "thinkers" as "penance" for drinking too much last weekend and I can't take to much more poor writing and illogical thinking.
Caricature... pure caricature.
Even the most emergent of emergents will say with their own mouth that they believe in absolute truth. Mclaren even said a Christian can never be a full fledged postmodernist, maybe a soft-postmodernist at best.
But keep painting though. Politics is always the way to build a fan base.
Just finished reading the Evangelical Manifesto and found many of the discussions on TP to be enfolded in to it. Sometimes it may feel a little isolated when speaking about the things that make for discomfort. We are part of a greater discussion and always have been. It is the EM's that are Johnny Come Latelies wanting to be recognized as prophets of a new revelation, but the call for reform has much older beginnings. That same old conversation always will lead us back to the old ways established long ago that with every generation must be relearned and taught to the next. Though the terms and context change, the reality never does.
What strikes me is that what is often said about criticisms here by those who hold an opposing view is that it is unloving to disallow perspectives contrary to established orthodoxy. Yet, it wouldn't even begin to make much sense to define a position as merely opinion, when what we all want is to establish what is and defend it, now would it?
In the civil public square, as the Manifesto puts it, we must be enabled to freely, but with civility, defend our beliefs because no one else can tell us who we are. No one can tell us what we must believe to be Evangelical, but no one can claim the name who does not believe as one. We, as the besmirched Evangelicals, must define for ourselves what it means to be such. In doing so it is immediately exclusivistic and inviting. We are calling for all to join with Christ and forsake all others. The public forum must remain open but not trite, for there are truths, old and tried that must be, if indeed true, defended.
In the "conversation" the EM and others want to throw out truth by making all things equally true. But the virtue of that results in nothing being true. Liberty of conscience necessarily relies upon the foundation that some things are dependably true. Without such a foundation the only remaining reality is bondage to the fear that nothing in certain.
Ahh...postmodernism...a subject to which I just might have a word or two:
As anyone--especially a Christian--who has spent any significant amount of time absorbed in postmodern literary or social theory can attest, particularly those who did so within a grad school setting at a secular university (liberal arts and social sciences), this ideology and/or worldview is powerful, agenda-driven, multi-disciplinary, highly adaptable, and deceptive. It is irreverent, arrogant, and wicked down to its atheistic or anti-thesitic core. Its proponents and major theoretical contributors oppose our faith in the creator God we worship because it's author is the father of lies himself--the spirit of this age. In essence, I do not think it is unreasonable to call postmodernism a distinct form of satanism. The inherent evil within this ideology is what makes it entirely incompatible with Christianity.
Oddly, when I've expressed such sentiment over this ism, this body of beliefs, it has been met by emergent supporters and indulgers of this worldview with such defense. They seem to view a denouncing of an ideology as a denouncing of a person; this is likewise probably why they cannot see the denouncing of sin as any different than denouncing of a sinner.
sarah observes that "Even the most emergent of emergents will say with their own mouth that they believe in absolute truth. Mclaren even said a Christian can never be a full fledged postmodernist, maybe a soft-postmodernist at best."
Her word choice is revealing. Note that sarah did not say that Mr. Mclaren or the "most emergent of the emergents" actually believe in absolute truth. sarah simply said that they will say that they believe. There is a difference between believing and saying that one believes.
There is another way in which sarah is revealing in her word choice. Contrary to her implicit focus on the subject, the validity of absolute truth is not contingent on or determined by my or any other subjects belief in absolute truth. For example, my failing to believe in the law of gravity in no way influences the validity of the law of gravity. The validity of the law of gravity transcends me and my beliefs.
Farmboy:
Great observation!
As you aptly demonstrate, paying close attention to emergents' cunning wordplay reveals their deception and false teachings. They love to use the semantic blender...which would make Derrida proud. Then, when people actually accept and use the results of their blended wordplay as having legitimate meaning, it would make Chomsky proud. Finally, when their "new" rhetoric is called Christian, it makes Mclaren & Co. proud!
Great stuff!
Sarah:
Soft...a fun word for a postmodern age! It sticks to anything. Kinda like saying "soft-agnostic" or "soft-heretic" is it not? Let me ask you something: would you feel comfortable driving on the road with soft-alchololics, who are only soft-drunks when they drive, not of the full-fledged, brown paper sack, unable to walk or talk variety??
Sarah:
I'm about to wrap up a debate at my DebateBlog with a KJVO guy, and I'd be willing to go 10 rounds with you on this thesis statement:
The Christian faith hangs on three absolute truths: the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, and the sufficiency of the work of Christ as it relates to the other two. All who deny any of these truths are not Christian.
I would defend this statement -- even if you would say, at the outset, that you would agree with the statement.
You could have an opening and closing statement of 1000 words, and the format woul dbe questions of 300 words or less, and answers of 750 words or less.
Because I think that your comment here is a drive-by and you will not accept this offer, I leave it open to anyone who shares your views about TeamPyro.
turk;
sounds like a blast (ZzZzZz...) but:
1)I see nothing wrong with that statement. Why would I have any reason to go against it?
2) get off yer horse.
3) seriously, just because I am a fan of the new christian movement, doesn't mean you have us all pegged.
Farmboy:
its adorable that you think I'm dancing around with every little word I said. You guys have a really hard time taking us at face value. I'll word it that way if you want me to... yes, we believe in absolute truth: i.e.- the gospel of Christ which offers salvation.
Honestly, I'm flattered that you think I'm much more clever than I am ;)
Polycarp:
Ditto. Seriously, you sound like that guy from "the princess bride" that is trying to prove that he knows EXACTLY which cup the poison is in. And you go on and on talking about how cunning I am, but how you are MORE cunning! The problem is, there's no poison, I just wanna share a beer.
sarah: Caricature... pure caricature.
Ah, here we again have the defense of the intentional ambiguity of the emergents. Any attempt to clarify what the emerging/ent position is, is met with this kind of "that's not all of us" response.
sarah: Even the most emergent of emergents will say with their own mouth that they believe in absolute truth. Mclaren even said a Christian can never be a full fledged postmodernist, maybe a soft-postmodernist at best.
McLaren and the like may say this. But everything else they say denies it. Reality is that no one can be a full-fledged postmodernist, since living in the real world requires dealing with real knowledge, real certainty about some things. It's not just Christian belief that's incompatible with postmodernism - it's reality.
sarah: But keep painting though. Politics is always the way to build a fan base.
Yep. Seems to be working for McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, et al.
Dear Dr. Phil Johnson,
I thank you from the depths of my heart for creating these "All-New Motivational Posters for the Emerging Church Chaos".
Sincerely,
Lameo Nameo
Franky T:
it really is becoming abundantly clear that you don't understand what your "enemies" viewpoint is.
I don't think any followers of Jesus (fundy or Pomo) would say that those aren't absolutes. Do you know of some emergers that deny that kinda thing?
we keep trying to tell you that we believe in absolutes, yet you keep saying that we don't.
Btw... Tell the kjvo guy that the 1611 mentions unicorns 9 times, and since he is a literal translationalist, he must confirm and defend their existence and seven day creation.
Sarah, would you mind defining what it is you mean when you say, "Christ offers salvation"?
In other words, give us a brief definition of the Gospel as you see it. From what are men saved and why?
hey Sarah, chad wants to play a quick game of gotcha. Take the bait.
I just want her to stop equivocating.
For the sake of the discussion, I would like for Sarah or anyone else to give a definition of "soft-postmodernism" and then give a connection between that and any, I mean ANY, of the actual pomo heavyweights - say Derrida, Foucoult, Rorty, Lyotard, Jameson, Caputo, or Ricouer. I hear people bandy the soft pomo line but never seem to be able to actually hear or read actual pomos playing that tune. How do you have a soft relativism or a language barrier/prison that is only sort of relativistic or kind of a barrier? What do any of these words mean then? If you say that some things are absolute and some are relative, then you are just another boring non-pomo. You only get notoriety by being a real rebel, a real radical who leaves all meaning up in the air and recognize only the authority of the reader/community. But of course that is only a temporary stage too isn't it? Well I will end this in true pomo fashion by-asking-for-my -answer-with-lots-of-authentic-hyphen-thingies.
Bill
(W)well (I)i am almost certain i(I) do (B)bill- unless of course that offends you, then I(i) am not so sure.
here you can put these - - - - - - - where you want them
Spot-on Bill! You sound like you've had your share of the real deal when it comes to encountering the true ugliness of postmodern architects (hard ball); the majority of emergents are just "rebels without a cause" essentially, which makes it that much more tragic and pathetic at the same time. You have in this movement countless numbers of church kids, pk's even, who have spent much or most of their lives in a church (many of whom make obvious by their statements the fact that they were possibly never regenerate in the first place). These have essentially grown bored with God, or are rebelling against God, and want that wee bit of edge/rebellion about them now. Theirs' is a kind of a no-man's land of counterproduction really: rebel against the church to impress the world, yet the world laughs at what it sees as silly and phony wanabeeism. It is basically exchanging of the incorruptible for the corruptible.
Wow.
So Emergents are satanists, wannabes, unregenerate liars?
Please re-read rule number 2.
Frank, you know that it fun to debate you, but just like Sarah, I happen to agree with your statement.
I don't see anything in rule 2 about saying that some one who denies the gospel as taught in the bible either by belief or manner of life is unregenerate as being against the rules. In point of fact it's a Christian imperative to do so. And if you are not Christ's then you are the devils' (John 8:39-44/ Eph 2:1-2).
Maybe you ought to let the owners of the blog enforce the rules as they were intended and stop trying to redefine them.
Btw... Tell the kjvo guy that the 1611 mentions unicorns 9 times, and since he is a literal translationalist, he must confirm and defend their existence and seven day creation.
Seven Day creationism and unicorns fall into the same category? I thought only atheists were that muddled.
Fred
C'mon, Fred: you know they are — if you want to be friends with the world!
Fred; well put.
Preson also shows a great ignorance regarding the idioms of Elizabethan English. The term unicorn was a generic term used in a general way to describe any animal with one horn. In point of fact it was often applied the rhinoceros, which I know usually has two horns and also the narwal which does in fact have one horn or tusk.
But I digress. The seven day creation is to be believed because the word of God teaches it. If Preson finds this contemptible then I would ask him what in the scriptures he actually believes. Postmodernists and Emergents usually disregard the bible's creation account as being literal as they call it unscientific. Well, the resurrection is even more unscientific but if you deny the resurrection then you cannot be saved (1 Cor 15:12-19).
Preson and other Emergents and Postmodernists; do you believe that Christ rose from the dead in his flesh and ascended to heaven and rules at the right hand of the Father? Do you believe that when Christ returns rise from the dead in the same manner? If not then the scripture says you are still in your sins.
C'mon, Fred: you know they are — if you want to be friends with the world!
Either that or the guy reads the Bible like a third grader in junior church. I am guessing he believes these unicorns are the same kind we see on My Little Pony cartoons.
Fred
Drew:
As I've said before to you in particular I believe, a certain degree of critical thinking and paying close attention to what is actually said is required to engage in meaningful discussion.
Do you understand what is meant by the suffix "ism?" You should, as you've used several isms here in your comments. It means a body of beliefs; it represents an ideological construct; it is a collection of ideas. So, when I say I do not think it unreasonable at all to call postmodernISM satantic, I say it because of all the beliefs that are entrenched within this particular ism; perhaps the real problem is that you know so little about it?? You see, a proper understanding of this IDEOLOGY and/or WORLDVIEW is precisely why I believe it is so absurd that it would ever be married to Christianity (as so many others here at this blog understand as well). As for the wannabeeism reference, it is absolutely true from my observations, and from what I hear/read from those in the world you emergents are so desperately courting and trying to emulate. Again, just like your inexperience with postmodernism hardball (be thankful for it), you have the same apparant inexperience with the misery and hardness of really being in the world and its ways. Again, I think you should be thankful to God for any lack of real involvement with these you may have, rather than trying to marry them with Christianity.
Too true Polycarp.
The scriptures say "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.(1 Cor 1:22-25).
Paul deliberately refused to contextualize the Gospel and commands us to do the same. He would not pander to what the people "felt" they needed. He would not "leverage the culture" or "meet people where they are" because he knew that the only thing that can save men is faith in Christ and faith comes only by hearing the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:17). He calls all attempts to pander the culture foolishness. The message is the same whether to Jews or Greeks. God commands all men everywhere to repent because Christ will one day judge the earth in righteousness and he has given assurance of this fact to all men by raising Christ from the dead. (Acts 17:22-31).
sarah observes that "You guys have a really hard time taking us at face value." Actually, in my interaction with sarah's comment I was taking her words at face value. I assumed that sarah carefully and precisely chose her words so that she could carefully and precisely communicate her point. I interacted with the words that sarah chose.
sarah goes on to state that "I'll word it that way if you want me to... yes, we believe in absolute truth: i.e.- the gospel of Christ which offers salvation." Here sarah betrays that word choice is not that important. The essence of sarah's statement is that if I or others want sarah to word things differently she will gladly do so because words don't really mean much anyway. sarah's reply only reinforces and supports the conclusions drawn from her original post.
In his gospel, John refers to Jesus Christ as the Logos, the Word. The inspired, inerrant Scriptures are God's Word written. It is through Jesus Christ, the Word, and Scriptures, God's Word written that God the Father reveals important truths 1) about Himself and His character, 2) about the sin that separates us from Him, and 3) about the Way we are reconciled with Him through the work of Jesus Christ.
There is a connection, then, between how we respect the words we use in everyday communication and how we respect Jesus Christ, the Word, and the Scriptures, God's Word written. If our response to questions about word choice in everyday communication is a flippant "whatever," we run the grave risk of offering a similar response to questions about Jesus Christ, the Word, and the Scriptures, God's Word written.
Rare is the person that can dichotomize himself so that he is careful, cautious and precise in one area of his life while at the same time flippant and careless in another area.
I see. I am not a satanist, I am stupid and inexperienced.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Farmboy: Well said (in words that matter indeed) and spot-on again!
Disregarding the value of words, through the use of words here at this blog, is rather ironic is it not??
Drew:
Just as farmboy pointed out in Sarah's comments, we realize emergents care nothing for the value of words. However, you cannot begin to know just how frustrating it is to see all of you (mis)use words, or replace words with alternative words you like better, that you care so little about. We are likewise aware that you believe textual meaning is relative, or "generous," but then please be consistent and stop clinging to to the inaccurate meanings you decide to attribute to words in such a dogmatic fashion. The only other option is to simply stay silent and choose not to use words.
Where did I use the word "stupid" anywhere in my comments? Despite my efforts to make it quite clear that inexperience with hardline postmodern theorists is not a criticism at all (I said you should be thankful for it), nor is there anything wrong with being unaware of the realities within the world's ways in which you folks are so enamored, you took them as insults. Go figure.
Good thing I didn't hold my breath...No answers to be had.
Thanks all for the extra hyphens. Send some periods to McClaren.
The reason there were no answers is that there is no such phenomenon as "soft-postmodernism". You can read the pomo writers and never see a qualified version. Either there is multiple readings or their isn't. You can't argue that some readings are better than others without secretly sneaking in some sort of canon, and that blows the whole program! The fact that all the real pomos are hard men of the left is being modeled well in McClarens "Everything must Change" (some humility in that title huh???) Marxists are only relativists when it suits them, but they have hard core positions and in the case of the emerging ethos, the hard left positioning is coming to the forefront through the smokescreens they have been laying for years.
Bill
Bill:
BRAVO.....BRAVO.....BRAVO !!!!!!!!
Wow, some excellent words! You are very much in tune with our need to keep the pomo agenda at the forefront of any discussion about them because they sure know what it is! Their fanciful, yet relativistic and contradictory, wordplay deceives many though (not much different than the tactics used by Mormons or JWs really) and this is sad indeed. They have learned how important it is to start a plan of deceit at the real beginning, which comes before content, which is the language level ("the medium is the message"), as this is not so much distinct from content as it is intertwined with it.
Keep up the good work of not allowing linguistic assumptions, since the pomo ideology is committed to not allowing content assumptions when it comes to well-established truths of the faith!
By the way, do you think it unreasonable to call postmodernISM a distinct form of satanISM? Just curious as to how you'd respond to this.
Post a Comment