Pruitt Communications on "Stories of Emergence"

If you haven't seen it yet, check out Terry Pruitt's post "Safety" where he critique's Chris Seay's entry in the book Stories of Emergence. Terry hits the nail on the head in pointing out that Seay creates a false dichotomoy between propositional revelation and narrative story. This is one of the things that troubles me about the "emergence" movement. They seem to think that "propositions" are the language of modernism and narrative is the language of "postmodernism." They also seem to feel that narrative is more faithful to the Biblical text. A proposition is simply a statement of fact, and narratives are fully propositional. Statements like "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," "Samuel slew Agag," "Samson saw a woman" and thousands of others are all propositional statements that make up the narrative story. It is a false dichtomy to oppose narratives and propositions.

Keep reading for a few more thoughts.

I think that what Seay and some of the other Emergence writers I have read object to is not so much propositions but systematization. They seem to question the validity of summary statements and systems of thought. Nor do they like straight didactic communication. These things are products of modernism. In one sense I would agree - the Bible was not given to us in the form of a systematic theology. In another sense, this is exactly what happens throughout the Bible.

If we accept the premise of "progressive revelation," which I understand some folks may not, then we see that God reveals more and more of Himself to His church throughouth history. The culmination of progressive revelation is in the Pauline corpus and General Epistles which are very didactic. The stories of the Bible are used in service to provide teaching examples. For example I Corinthians 10:1-10:

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.
6 Now these things occurred as examples a to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry.” b 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Co 10:1). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

In this case, the stories (narratives) of the Old Testament are used in service to Paul's teaching points (propositions). Or consider Jesus' use of parables. In Matthew 13:1-17 Jesus gives the parable of the sower. Then in verse 18 He says: "Listen then to what the parable of the sower means" and proceeds to give a very didactic, even propositional explanation of the parable. True, some stories are evidently self explanatory, like the parables of the mustard seed and the yeast in Matthew 13:31-35, and the parables of the hidden treasure, pearl and net in Matthew 13:44-52. The parable of the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30), though has to be explained in Matthew 13:36-43 (in propositional format). Interestingly though, even with these stories that don't need explanation, Jesus asks in Matthew 13:51: "Have you understood all these things?" Jesus is not content to let the stories (narratives) stand on their own unless they are understood. On the road to Emmaeus, Jesus had to "explain" the Old Testament stories to the disciples - "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." The word "explain" can also mean "translate" - the stories of the Old Testament couldn't stand on their own, Jesus had to "explain" them to his disciples.

The truth is that the Bible itself gives the impression that narrative is insufficient - narratives always must be explained. There is still a valid argument as to whether or not we should systematize these explanations the way we do with confessions of faith and systematic theologies. In the aforementioned article Seay embraces one form of systematization - the Apostles Creed (which I might add, was formulated long before the rise of "modernism," so let's don't make the mistake of thinking that systematization results from a "modernistic" paradigm - it seems to have been a part of the early church paradigm). It seems that Seay just wants minimal systematization. But where do you draw the line? If it is valid to systematize the Biblical teachings that make up the Apostles Creed, why isn't it valid to systematize the Biblical teachings on such things as salvation, justification, the church, etc..

The "systems" of theology to which so many of the postmodern generation are so allergic were responses to the questions of the day. In that respect, the postmodernists are correct. Often, systematic theology and creeds answer and address the questions posed by the culutre and by the philosophers of the day. So, in a modernistic world, the church answers modernistic questions. This is the same thing the postmodernists are doing. The postmodernists are simply seeking to answer the questions of a new generation. For that we should be thankful. Our postmodern/emergent brothers and sisters have shown us that the questions being asked by this generation are different than the ones asked by prior generations.

The difference is that our postmodern/emergent folks aren't necessarily going to the Scriptures to find answers to the questions. In fact, they call into question the validity of those who do. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from a postmodernist/emergent mindset looks at my little walk through the Scriptures above and concludes that I am simply concludes that I am simply using a culture-bound modernistic approach to Scripture in trying to summarize the Scriptural relationship between narrative and didactic. It may have been ok for the framers of the Apostles Creed to do something similar back then, but we daren't do it today.

In his chapter in the Stories of Emergence book, Chuck Smith Jr. says this:

Old paradigms include male hegemony, strict adherence to hierarchy, the assumption that biblical quotations end all arguments, anti-intellectualism (including hostility toward the sciences), holiness codified in external norms (my comment - by that standard the Sermon on the Mount, Romans 1 and the book of James would have to be declared part of the "old paradigm), anger toward people who disagree with us, judgmentalism, rejection of human cultures, narrow minded dogmatism (oops, looks like Matthew 7:13-14 need to be excised from the Bible also), the inability to acknowledge that a person may have a valid point or truth, ridiculing critics rather than treating them with respect and compassion, dependence on religious institutions for salvation, the notion that rational apologetics will once again be the most important force in evangelism, telling people what to believe rather than helping them form their own beliefs, and so on. (pp. 96-97)

Notice that biblical quotations cannot be used to end an argument - so what can end an argument? Maybe we just go on and on in endless dialogue with all points of view.

I realize the postmodern/emergent advocate will say they believe the Bible, but they question our interpretations of the bible. Fair enough, but in saying that the Bible can't be used to end an argument they take away the only self-correcting mechanism we have for wrong interpretation.

The fact is that uninterpreted narrative is insufficient to communicate what God wants to communicate to His people and the rest of the world. The juxtaposition of narrative and proposition is a false dichotomy. The Bible is still the only means of finding truth in a postmodern world and we must adhere to it.