An Idea to Broaden the Emergent Conversation

            Sometimes friends of mine ask me, incredulously, why I am involved in the Emergent conversation and why I like Brian McLaren’s writings so much.  I generally don’t agree with postmodern philosophy (though it is often helpful and deserves close reading), I study philosophy at a conservative Catholic school (The Catholic University of America) and I serve on the boards of CUA and a conservative campus ministry (Washington DC Chi Alpha).
            I hope, in answering this question here, to help broaden the Emergent conversation so that people like me will feel both more welcome and engaged in, and less suspicious of, Emergent.  I know that broadening the Emergent dialogue is central to the efforts of Emergent leaders such as McLaren and Tony Jones.  The views I hold dear, which I sketch out below, are also dear to several disciples of Dallas Willard and to several in the Catholic Church (two groups of people generally absent from or at odds with Emergent).  What a wonderful next step in the Emergent conversation were we to find ourselves in common cause and dialogue with many Catholics, with some scholars at Biola and others influenced by Willard, and with others who share Emergent’s concerns about modern Christianity.

            I own a software company in Washington DC.  Our marketers and engineers run headlong daily into the reality that most people aren’t early adopters.  And most software products that are popular with early adopters soon fail in the broader market and disappear.  It’s often hard to predict which products will eventually become more broadly adopted, and which will languish in the dustbins of early adopters who have moved onto the next new, new, new thing.  If the same dynamic is present in theology, I don’t think Emergent will find itself in these proverbial dustbins.  I believe the commitment to dialogue so evident in Emergent leaders will bring other groups of people concerned about modern Christianity, including those with my views, into the conversation as equal dialogue partners.
            Now, back to where I started: I am involved in the Emergent conversation, and I enjoy McLaren’s writings, because of the profound disillusionment with modern Christianity that we share.  Modern Christianity, as McLaren’s Neo declares in A New Kind of Christian, is more a reflection of modern thought than it is of anything Jesus talked about.  This simple, controversial claim, resonates with growing numbers of Christians around the world.  The alienation and despair that follow from such profound disillusionment can be debilitating, if not for the presence of fellow travelers who share our alienation and engage us in a conversation of hope for the future.  The virtue of the Emergent conversation is, without a doubt, hope. 
            What’s the big deal, you ask?  Why the despair?  This article doesn’t intend to address this question.  If this despair seems odd, then Emergent is not for you.  If the previous paragraph resonates with you, however, I would counsel you to read McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian as well as works such Alisdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue and Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind (two books that should be read by any intelligent person in the English-speaking world). 
            In the modern Christian church we see conservative theologies based in absolutist truth claims and liberal theologies that avoid any meaningful claims about truth.  The forward-looking thinkers of Emergent call for a “third way” beyond the modern antithesis of absolutism and relativism.  Several leaders of the Emergent conversation, including Stan Grenz, John Franke, James K. A. Smith, Jones and, seemingly at times, McLaren, offer a legitimate "third way" to the options of absolutist rationalism and relativism with which I disagree. They propose that the spontaneous work of God in revelation and election intervenes in and redeems history, and that outside of this intervention we are unable to transcend the finitude of being human. We thus achieve transcendence within immanence. Therefore, theology must always attend to both our finitude and the incarnational nature of God's action within history.
            This line of thought, I think it is fair to say, is currently dominant within the Emergent conversation.  While it is one with which I disagree, I am strengthened by the hopeful spirit of its proponents with whom I share a common alienation from modern Christianity.  My hope here is to bring another line of thought into the Emergent conversation which shares both this sense of alienation and of hope. 
            I think I can clearly distinguish the concerns that I have about this line of thought. Put simply, is human reason (a) oriented towards revealing the objective truth of things or (b) inhibited by its own finitude from revealing the objective truth of things? The "finitude thesis" (whose origins lie with Heidegger) would lead one to the characterization of the tasks of theologians and of all Christians as described by Grenz and by Franke, who describes it as “the task of confessing the faith in the context of the particular circumstances and challenges in which it is situated”. The "reason thesis" would lead one to characterize the task of theologians and of all Christians as learning about God's world and our place in it from the descriptions provided by Scripture and by subsequent philosophers and theologians, and then acting accordingly. 
            In other words, the fundamental views of Christianity that correspond to (a) the "reason thesis" and (b) the "finitude thesis" are that Christianity is (a) a body of intelligible knowledge, content, or it is (b) a journey of God, whose transhistorical, incarnational life we are invited to join. Almost any view of Christianity would affirm both of these elements, but the "reason thesis" certainly emphasizes the former while the "finitude thesis" emphasizes the latter.  Dr John Caputo (who holds to the “finitude thesis”) once described these options as the premodern and the postmodern options, which have their respective capitals in Rome and Paris.
            I affirm the "reason thesis" and the corresponding view of Christianity as primarily intelligible content, as knowledge (knowledge about what life is like for those who join God's life) for the following reason. The finitude of man (which I affirm) is not rooted in any limitations in being human (as Nietzsche and Heidegger supposed), but in the always partial disclosure of Being within any period of time (which Aristotle and Aquinas supposed).  That was a big sentence, and is the essential distinction between my views and those of most in Emergent leadership.  Being manifests itself partially for any one human and any one era, but this only explains the place of mystery.  Man's reason, on the other hand, is oriented towards revealing the truth of Being as it manifests itself.  Thus the mystery and intelligibility of Being go hand in hand.  Catholic philosopher Adrian Walker describes it this way: “Think of the way Aristotle unveils natures in Physics II---nature is the bottomless depth that manifests itself in the concrete life-histories of things. It is what makes things intelligible, yes, but with an intelligibility indwelt by an irreducible, inexhaustible mystery (‘the dearest freshness deep down things,’ as Hopkins says). That is why it can give rise to the wonder that, according to Aristotle, is the source of philosophy.  And that, for me, is key: not to oppose intelligibility and mystery.”
            Heidegger misread Aristotle as conflating Being and being as it is historically revealed in classical Greece. (Hence the "metaphysics of presence" that Heidegger lectured against.) A closer reading of Aristotle, as one finds in MacIntyre for example, reveals that Aristotle knew that Being was only partially manifested within history.
            For those of us who hold to the "reason thesis", the negative consequence of the postmodern “finitude” thesis is historicism - it historicizes great theologians and philosophers of the past.  Those of us who hold to the "reason thesis" regard the great theologians and philosophers of our tradition as part of the communion of saints who are there to challenge us.  An example will be helpful at this point.  Dr. Franke, in The Character of Theology, holds Origen as an example within the Christian tradition of one who kept to his Christian commitments within his Hellenistic culture, using the tools of his culture to speak the Christian truth to those around him.  Franke's reading of Origen is an example of the unfortunate loss of the authority of tradition that occurs with historicist readings of great thinkers of the past. Origen doesn't challenge Franke with his ideas; he challenges Franke with his success in using the symbolic tools of his culture. This is clear when Franke writes,
            Therefore, no matter how persuasive, beautiful, or successful past theologies or confessions of faith may have been, the church is always faced with the task of confessing the faith in the context of the particular circumstances and challenges in which it is situated. In this way, the nature of theology is ongoing, and theology will continue to wrestle with the challenges of culture and context until the eschaton.
            Why doesn't theology wrestle with the great theologians over the past 20 centuries, all of whom are already in a wrestling match amongst themselves? Origen literally castrated himself in response to his ideas; can we imagine such drastic action in response to ideas today?  Because most theologians and philosophers today assume historicism, they jump way too quickly to historicist accounts of claims of great thinkers of the past about which they disagree. If we assume, on the other hand, that human reason is naturally oriented towards revealing the truth of things (as is affirmed by both Scripture and phenomenological reflection on everyday thought), then we are challenged by the great thinkers of the past whose profound reflections on the timeless questions of God's world are available for our continued growth into the fullness of God's intentions in creation. The spiritual discipline of study thus becomes affirmed as a central discipline, alongside prayer, worship and other disciplines, when human reason is affirmed and correctly understood.
            Ministers face recurrent questions and challenges in their daily ministries. Some of these are certainly temporary or technical challenges, but many of them are timeless questions and challenges: Who is a good leader in my congregation? What is leadership? How can I persuade my congregation without rhetorically appealing to emotions? Etc. Etc.
           Ministers should be told that these timeless questions have been addressed by the greatest thinkers in Christianity in each of the past 20 centuries, and many of them have put their best ideas on paper in each of the past 20 centuries. When the theologians equipping ministers historicize these thinkers over the past 20 centuries, ministers are robbed of the insights from the tradition that can inform and grow a minister for a lifetime.
            Such is the line of thought that, if engaged by those in Emergent leadership, would add a heterogeneity to the Emergent conversation that sustains all great dialogues.  Valuing and affirming dialogue is not enough.  Rather, sincerely and actively engaging related bodies of thought with which one doesn't fully agree is the sign of those who value dialogue.
            So where are the people who share this premodern thesis, or “reason thesis”, that I have described?  We see many of them on the margins of the Catholic Church.  They can be found in those groups who have been influenced by MacIntyre’s After Virtue, or by several 20th century Catholic fiction writers such as Walker Percy (on whom McLaren wrote his MA dissertation), Flannery O’Connor and Graham Greene.  Many intelligent Catholic thinkers and writers influenced by these novelists, such as Adrian Walker, write at www.godspy.com.  They can also be found in the growing number of Catholic philosophers influenced by the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, including Monsignor Robert Sokolowski, John Drummond and John Brough.  Speaking of Husserl, it is through Husserl’s thought that the prominent Protestant philosopher Dallas Willard came to this general thesis.  While many of Willard’s disciples at Biola and other philosophy departments criticize Emergent, it is my hope that broadening the Emergent conversation to include the “reason thesis” would engage several of them in a fruitful dialogue on the future of Christian thought.  (I describe Willard, Sokolowski and Pope John Paul II's general adherence to this thesis in a paper that Dallas Willard has kindly made downloadable from Dr. Willard's website at the end of his article on the same topic.)  Of course, lay people who hold to these views are to be found all over the world.  The virtue of hope is sustained in community, and nurturing the community of those alienated from modern Christianity sustains hope for all of us.

Comments

[Nicolas Nelson]

This is good stuff. I had to read several parts of it several times over, to make sure I followed your train of thought accurately-- a sure sign that this is worth reading, digesting, and sharing.

I share your disillusionment with Modernism, not on strictly philosophical grounds, but more practical ones (ideas always carry implications for praxis): I think the modernist worldview in general and modernist American Christianity in particular have failed the poor, the urban poor especially. For almost ten years I knew this but lacked the words and arguments to properly express what my intuition already grasped-- then a lecture series by Kendi Howells Douglas almost exactly one year ago pulled it all together for me. (Incidentally, she describes herself as "a postmodern christian" but seemed cautious of the Emergent church movement.)

For the past year I have learned much from Erwin McManus, Stan Grenz, Dan Kimball, Jude Tiersma and by re-reading John Piper with new eyes. I hold my "christian-hedonism" calvinism and my aversion to modernism in each hand, and savor the tension there: it is the feeling of a new theological paradigm straining to be born. All you've said about "reason thesis" and phenomenology and premodernism is so helpful: it may be a step beyond the postmodern preoccupation with tearing down modernism, a step toward building something new that embraces both reason and mystery, truth and context.

So. Thank you, Ken! I look forward to others' comments on this.

[Call Me Ishmael]

I find myself more alienated from postmodern Christianity than from modern Christianity, although I don't always feel comfortable there either.

[dh]

I persoanlly feel that modern Christianity has failed the poor but that it isn't the fault of modern Christianity but the actions of people within modern Christianity. I feel modern Christianity in the past HAS served the poor and hurting and many today are that goes unnoticed. I'm reminded of missionaries and the like who are modern Christians who help the poor AND do Evangelism. For me the philosophy of modern Christian doesn't go against the need to help the poor. I guess I feel caught in the middle but from a theological stance cannot support Emergent 100% or even 50%. I'm about 25% Emergent. It seems to me the concept of Evangelism within Emergent has a very less focus and when it does it doesn't address the status of peoples souls. For me we need to have a balance between the soul AND our lives here on earth for Christ. I feel we can do both 100% rather than it be an either/or situation or "rethink theology" that I hear so often by Emergent.

Maybe people who feel alientaed from modern Chrostianity need to rethink their alienation and at the same time modern Christianity include among their focuses the caring of the poor and hurting as well. It doesn't have to be either/or or at least it isn't like it appears as either/or. Does that make sense?

[dh]

I feel alienated from post modern Christianity because modern Christianity gets a bad rap unnecessarily. Especially when people are labeled fundamentalist who are. I hear that from postmoderns who use a broader definition of fundamentalist than what was ever intended. innerancy? fundamentalist Faith in Christ alone for Salvation? fundamentalist etc. This to me is ridiculous and the original definition is one of attitude on these subjects as compared with theology.

[Theophilus Punk]

Thank you for some very provocative stuff. I am very ambivalent about Emergent / EC. I deeply appreciate the commitment to dialogue and openness. And I am deeply offended by the knee-jerk commitment to (politically) liberal causes and points of view: "Bush lied!" "Bush is a murderer!" "WalMart is out to eat our children!" etc., etc.

If I want to read that cr*p, I'll pick up a copy of Rolling Stone.

[Mark Diebel]

I appreciate the distinction that you make between the "finitude thesis" and the "reason thesis". I hadn't known about it and find it helpful. From what I can tell I support the "reason thesis" and believe that it is essential to anyone who believes that knowledge of important things... such as goodness, who do you believe, qualities, is possible. Other proponents of this view include C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, S.T. Coleridge, Henri Bortoft, Stephen Talbot.

The historicism you talk about seems to be different than that being referred to by C.S. Lewis in his essay on Historicism and the one referred to in the Redeeming Reason Conference... but I'd have to double check. Anyway, historicism is a concept with different connotations or even significance.

Great thoughts here... Thank you very much. I'll encourage local emergers read this piece.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Ken,

great post. Sorry it has taken so long to respond.

As I said before (over at Generousorthodoxy.net) I think the distinction between the reason/finitude thesis can be overstated and need to be in mutual tension.

First off, while certainly emergent theologians tend toward the 'finitude thesis' in rejection to the 'reason thesis', their use of finitude is seriously qualified by theological commitments, and therefore don't propriate themes committed to ontological violence (to which Heidegger and Derrida are committed). you say, "The finitude of man (which I affirm) is not rooted in any limitations in being human (as Nietzsche and Heidegger supposed), but in the always partial disclosure of Being within any period of time (which Aristotle and Aquinas supposed)." I would say the best portions of emergent theology also affirm this, but don't feel committed to the reason thesis as you outline.

I would say that the reason and finitude are on a sliding scale depending on the situation and topic under consideration. Concerning empirical objects and states of affairs, we should emphasize the everyday reasonableness of our experiences and concepts. Moving from immanent affairs to sociological/anthropological, we would begin needing a mixture of reason and its limitation (finitude), while reaching transcendance (God's inner being) we have to say that even our language and the modes of our reason are inadequate (which Aquinas affirms). Yet, there is still some sort of reason involve (indirectly) and there still is revelation to which our reason comports itself, but this does not make the situation transparent.

Of course, I need to read you paper more closely, and then tease out my affirmations/denials. I'll try to do that soon.

[adrian walker]

Dear Ken,

Thanks for this post---and for the good press!

I agree that the position you ascribe to Grenz and co., while aiming in the right direction, isn't enough to get us there. I just don't see how one can be historicist about reason but non-historicist about revelation. If man as man can't grasp trans-historical truths, then how is divine revelation going to change this fact---except by magic? No: gratia supponit naturam!

The search for a third way beyond relativism and rationalism continues. . .

Cordially,
Adrian

[Existential Punk]

I did not understand everything you wrote here, but what i take from this and believe for myself is simply this: We can't throw the baby out with the bath water and things are not black and white, either/or. Rather, it's both/and and sifting through and finding nuggets of gold to hold on to. It's very crucial to not hold tight on anything but hold things loosely. Thanks! Adele

[Medsinist]

Наверное, 1й увиденный мной блог, где в комментариях нет спама