Liberal or Post-Liberal?

There is an interesting book that has circulated over the last year called “Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be)”. I personally have not taken the book that seriously, primarily because I think the reason they think they “should be” emergent is humorous. They seem to think that they “should be” emergent because they are young white guys in the U.S. that look the part. However, their solid grounding in Reformed theology and strong conservative views somehow seems to keep them from being “emergent”.

However there is a statement in the book I thought would be interesting to explore. The idea is one that I have heard other critics of the conversation use, and I can’t say that it has absolutely no merit. In the chapter entitled, “Modernism: The Boogeyman Cometh”, Kevin DeYoung states:

"The biggest irony about the emergent church may be just this: For all their chastisement of all things modern, they are in most ways thoroughly modern. Many of the leading books display a familiar combination of social gospel liberalism, a neoorthodox view of Scripture, and a post-Enlightenment disdain for hell, the wrath of God, propositional revelation, propitiation, and anything more than a vague moralistic, warmhearted, adoctrinal Christianity."

I found this criticism interesting. I also think it reflects a general misunderstanding about POST modernity. I think that sometimes we fail to recognize that when we say that something is “post”-modern that we are both saying that it is something that comes after modern, but yet still very connected to it. In other words in no way can we ever assume that post modernity is untethered from modernity.

As one participant in this massive conversation, I see elements that I can only describe as in some ways post-conservative, as well as in some ways post-liberal (and those are just two modern constructs out of many). Therefore I have to agree that there are modern liberal influences in the conversation, but I would have to make some distinction between the liberal and the post-liberal.

I think other influences in the emergent conversation, everything from evangelicalism to monasticism, has infused the liberal elements with a whole new perspective (as well as the other way around). I agree on some level with some of the things on this author’s list of shared “disdain” that liberalism and the emergent conversation may have in common. However, I would disagree in particular that post-liberals are “moralistically vague” or “adoctrinal”.

I think the emergent conversation has shown signs of having a very strong sense of Christology which influences both doctrine and morality. There are doctrinal values, particularly concerning the person of Christ, which fuel the morality. This is why terms like “incarnational” and “missional” are becoming popular because they are connected with who Jesus is (in the incarnation) and who he is in us as the church (missional). I also think when it comes to things like a return to an interest in “social gospel” that this too has a much stronger Christology than the modern liberal’s version.

This is not to say however that Christianity viewed through the lens of modern liberalism is completely devoid of any of these things. I just think, that the post-liberal perspective, as the post-conservative one, has a stronger Christology in the emergent conversation than either of their modern predecessors; particularly compared to the exclusive nature of those more modern views.

What do you think? I have not responded to every aspect of Kevin DeYoung’s statement so there is much more we could explore. What do you think is the difference in the “Post” ideas of the emergent conversation (even if only a slight shift) from the “modern” ones; whether they happen to be liberal, conservative, or whatever?

Do You Love Gay People?

The Great Emergence: What Authority?

I have been doing an ongoing series of Phyllis Tickle's book The Great Emergence on my blog, but wanted to jump over here today for this conversation.

As Tickle examines the every 500 year or so phenomenon of upheaval and transformation within culture and the church she says that one of the great factors leading to and indicators of such change is a change in the answer to the question, “Where now is the authority?”

The authority upon which we base our lives, our understanding of God, and our view of the world is a vital piece of any time and culture. Looking back throughout earlier times of change, it is easy to see that they were in part the result of and in part the answer to changing answers to the question of authority.

Prior to Luther, this challenge to authority had been brought to the forefront of culture and the church by a division in the Papacy that left the church with first two and then three different Popes. Who was the authority? Could there be one authority? How could the church be wrong? This coincided with the changing authority of the church in areas of science as well as the earth was discovered to not be flat nor the sun a revolving celestial body around the earth. Where then could we find authority?

Luther of course lead us quickly to the answer, Sola scriptura, scriptura sola. From this time there has been a complete transformation within the church and the cultures it affects because of the shift in authority. No longer was the church or a pope considered infallible, instead each person was tasked to the priesthood of all believers. Each believer was to read scripture for themselves. This shift into the authority of scripture alone and conversely one’s own interpretation of it has had world changing affects. Of course Guttenberg and his printing press are largely responsible for enabling this change to take place.

So then, is there a shift in authority going on now that would help us understand the changes taking place around us? It is hard to not feel the shift in authority isn’t it? It is a shift from the individual to the corporate nature of authority. It is a shift from top down to interactive and connected learning.

Take encyclopedias and education for example. For a long time expertise in any academic fair came from the top down. Those who were most knowledgeable, as defined by the hierarchy, would write scholarly reports and teach the brightest students. They in turn would teach and write for the next level of students, and eventually learning was passed down to the masses.

Encyclopedias were the perfect image of this. They were stagnant, unchanging, untouchable and authoritative. Now we have Wikipedia. Corporate, interactive, inviting response from the masses. Knowledge is being shaped and formed by a multitude of different voices, regardless of hierarchical structure.

This seems to be the shift in authority that is taking place in our world. The connectedness that the internet has created has reshaped the ability to learn and the voices that impact our lives. Without the internet it is hard to believe that the Emerging Church could exist or that much of what is shaping the church right now would be taking place.

So what do you think? How is authority changing in our world? How is this affecting the church? How is this affecting the world around us?