I was reading the blog of a prominent emergent pastor who was shaking his head in confusion over the criticisms of the emergent movement; in the end, he couldn't figure out why it sparked such hostility, and attributed it to a lack of charity in critics. While doubtless that is partially true, I started to wonder if part of the reason why some evangelicals react so strongly to emergent/ing churches is less their theology than an underlying philosophical difference--a difference which often remains unexplored in the background. In exploring this difference, let me say up front that I'm not emergent and have serious reservations about the whole movement (it's hard for me not to wonder whether or not they're fudging on things that, as Christians, we just need to bite the bullet and be unpopular with.)
I think the philosophical difference essentially has to do with how you view truth--and especially how you relate to truth and express it and stay faithful to it. While I don't want to pigeonhole anyone with a simplistic dichotomy, I've been personally on both sides of this. On the one hand, there are what you might call "literal realists:" "realist" in the sense of believing there is a bigger objective truth and reality out there independent of human opinion, and "literal" in the sense that such truth/reality is translucent, requires little interpretation, is easily grasped and comprehended. Literal realists, Christian or otherwise, tend (tend) to be propositional in thinking; knowing and relating to truth is a matter of having correct ideas about it. Truth is clear and/or obvious, ready-at-hand, and ministry becomes a matter of just giving people the truth. And staying faithful means you don't change your mind. This was one stage in my own intellectual journey, and I've seen this sort of philosophical approach to truth many times, even in only implicitly, in others.
It may sound like I'm stacking the deck in favor of the second option, but I'm not. After all, truth is clear and grasp-able; and sometimes ministry does mean sitting down and saying, "This is how it is. Now believe it and accept it." There's a time for that. But a literal realist will tend to say you can do that because of the inherent nature of things--and I'd want to say truth is clear not inherently, but because God has revealed it in his Son, not necessarily because it is so in itself. This leads us to the second position: a kind of critical realism, which also believes in a bigger objective reality which does not change according to human opinion, but is "critical" in the sense of worrying a bit more about how you relate to that truth--it may take interpretation; although convinced conviction is possible, there may be lingering ambiguities (not in the truth, but in our perception of it); it may be possible to express that Truth in different (although not contradictory) ways; and staying faithful to Truth might sometimes mean changing radically.
In other words, the difference between the two positions is how truth is known: whether it is translucently obvious and available to any interested party, "ready-at-hand" to be dispensed, or whether, instead of grapsing/comprehending/encompassing truth, it is a matter of relating: of listening and waiting and being patient with only gradual, partial clarity.
It's probably obvious by now I'm in the critical realist camp, although I spent many years philosophically as a literal realist. The thing that knocked me out of the former camp was basically that . . . well, propositions are wonderful things, can adequately express truth, and are necessary. (Heck, I have a PhD - of course I think propositions are important!) But they are not enough; I gave years of my life trying to relate to truth propositionally, and wound up so hollow and empty and desperate I was really at the end of my rope. But Jesus says, I am the truth. Truth is not an idea, but a Person; so truth cannot be related to merely through thinking about ideas--that's part of what having a relationship with Jesus involves, but it is a lot more. It requires all the subtlety and listening and learning to respond that relating to a Person involves. (Imagine me trying to relate to my wife merely by thinking about her.)
My guess is--and I'd really love feedback on this--that evangelicalism traditionally has been more in the literal realist camp, and many still are. And it bothers literal realists to see Christians saying non-literal things: that truth can be expressed in different ways, etc. An interesting wrinkle here is that critical realists tend to be less bothered by diversity in conviction and expression of faith, while literal realists will tend to be more bothered--which may explain the perceived lack of charity in emergent criticisms: it's not lack of charity, but a bigger disagreement about reality and how you relate to it.
This is obviously a huge issue that requires a lot more nuancing. I guess I'll close by saying (1) It's my sense this philosophical disagreement is very widespread in evangelicalism, but largely unexpressed (2) it is a philosophical, not a theological, disagreement (3) While I of course agree with much of a literal realist perspective and don't want to lay any smackdowns on it, I find a critical realist perspective much closer to the Bible. But this post is too long already, so I'll stop here and see if this is interesting to anyone.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi Eric! I found your site through Joe Stark. This post was helpful to me and would like to hear more thoughts on it...wish I could say more, but need to make lunch for three hungry little ones.
Actually Sarah posting -- didn't realize I had John's name up there.
Thanks, Eric.
Personally, I'd allow for more of the critical capacity within the literal mentality. Jesus himself thought with the propositions of systematics, e.g., John 4:24.
Thanks again for the stimulating post.
Fascinating post E. I definitely resonate with much of what you say. I too am shifting a bit these days in the same direction you have. And I agree that much of the confusion is philosophical not theological between emergents and others, i.e. how one argues more than what one argues for. For myself, at the end of the day I'm closer to what you call the literal realist camp (though I would not myself want to be associated with all that is connoted by the word "literal"). I was struck by several things you said. E.g. I have found some of my most hollow and low moments not to be caused by what you describe as a literal realist epistemology but precisely by losing this literal realism. In all my fuzzy subjectivity and confusion, it is the rock solid propositions that I come back to time and again that re-center me. But what I love about your own view is the need for due epistemic humility and willingness to be revised and corrected, which is very counterintuitive for those you call literal realists, like me!
I might see things a bit differently in that it seems to me that there are a host of theological convictions that are along a spectrum moving from extreme literal realism to extreme critical realism. The trouble with much of the emergent reading I've done is that many truths that ought to be close to the literal realism side of the spectrum are shifted over to the critical realism, i.e. doctrines that ought to be slam dunks are questioned in the name of epistemic "humility."
Thanks Eric, this is helpful. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts, particularly some examples of how these different lines of thinking play out in the emergent discussions.
these last two posts have been particularly fascinating and helpful.
i'm not sure you can break the critical realists and literalists down the line as emergent vs. traditional evangalicals (one of the things about the emergent church is that it is a bit of a catch-all category), but i appreciate the distinction and definitely find my home in the same camp you are describing yourself in.
my take on the emergent church is that at its worst it is just an extension of traditional evangelical values given a make-over with some new trends and at its best it is actually a pretty awesome and welcome releif from some of the foundationalist, dualist, and anti-traditionalist tendencies of "traditional evangelicalism".
so while i'm not a card-carrying member of an emerging church, when it is being vehemently attacked i can never quite understand what the fuss is about.
anyway, your post addressed a more specific aspect of it, and although it is tough to categorize the groups entirely this way, the more i think about it i think you've got a key insight there into a general paradigm difference between some different portions of evangelicalism today which often can be in the same room without being able to speak to each other.
Sarah - Hi! Great to hear from you! Please greet John-Mason for me. Thanks for checking in!
Dad and Dane - Thanks so much for your comments. I hasten to agree that the issue is not solely philosophical: there are of course many theological issues involved. And, in my mind, the theological issues are more important. But I think there is a philosophical issue there too, and shedding some light on it might help the debate to go a little more smoothly.
And yes, biblical authors and Jesus himself will think in what I've inadequately called "literal realist" categories.
Dane, I'm thankful for your tenacious conviction around the propositions of our faith; and of course I've been encouraged and nourished by holding to the theological propositions as true even in the midst of my own goofy subjectivity. But how more deeply and solidly that conviction dwells within when God himself "preaches" to me through the Spirit-empowered word, as I'm sure you've experienced for yourself. The propositions start to catch on fire: and one catches a glimpse of the vast heavenly horizon of God himself standing behind and upholding all fo them. I'd want to give priority to that, and I wish I had more of it.
Jon - Your experience of not being a card-carrying emergent and yet wondering what all the fuss about hits the nail on the head. I have serious theological reservations about emergent - but it's hard for me to understand why some Christians go into attack mode. And I think part (part) of the reason is that different evangelical groups process disagreement differently. Before evaluating which sorts of processes are more biblical, just airing that difference may be helpful.
Post a Comment