How is the emerging church "post-liberal?"

This is one of those posts that is going to come off as being filled with thinly veiled hostility and antagonism.  So, I want to admit up front that though I am asking questions and thus would ostensibly positioning myself as an inquirer, this is full of my own prejudices.  Yet, I hope I can also convey that I do sincerely want to offer these questions in the spirit of dialogue with the hopes for further clarification.

That being said, I want to begin by pointing out that I have often heard the emergent movement being described as "post-. . . "  Granted, this comes mainly from reading Brian McLaren but I think it is fair to say that being "post-something" is a big part of the emergent movement.

I have heard it said that the emergent church is "post-conservative" and "post-liberal," i.e. it seeks to transcend the "modernistic" debates between conservatives and liberals.  It offers a third way which critiques both conservatives and liberals.

The "post-conservative" part I get.  It seems that, though emergent is still a movement in search of a definition and identity, it is clear in defining itself in opposition to traditional conservative evangelicalism.  In other words I often read and hear emergent types speaking of how they differ with the church that has gone before them, and the particulars of the church they are different from usually sounds like the particulars of conservative evangelical churches.  Fair enough, emergent says its "post-conservative" so they are being consistent with themselves.

What I haven't heard the emergent folks do is describe wherein they differ from liberalism.  It may be that, being a conservative, I have blinders on and am only paying attention to the things they say about my team, and am missing something.  And if so, then I would like to know in what ways the emerging church is "post-liberal?"

This is the part where I let my own prejudices run wild.  When I speak of conservativism and liberalism I pretty much jump back to a time roughly around the 1920's and 1930's, give or take a decade either side.  And I realize I am narrowing this down maybe a bit too much, but I think two of the seminal events in defining conservativism and liberalism were the 1923 publication of J. Gresham Machen's book Christianity and Liberalism and  the 1924 signing of the Auburn Affirmation.

I understand that the conservative and liberal movements took many different turns after these two documents.  I also understand that banner under which Machen wrote was that of fundamentalism, the terms "conservative" and "evangelicalism" weren't being used back then the way I am using them today. But as fundamentalism diverged from what it was under Machen, Machen's work is more characteristic of what came to be known as conservative evangelicalism.  But I digress.

The point I am making is that Christianity and Liberalism and the Auburn Affirmation helped draw clear lines in the sand between the conservatives and the liberals.  The core rallying cry of liberalism was that Christianity was a life not a doctrine.  Machen opposed this, saying that Christianity is a life founded on a doctrine.  Doctrine was the foundation of Christianity - we are saved by what we believe, and there are historical realities which must be affirmed when we say what we believe.

The signers of the Auburn Affirmation affirmed some beliefs but then said they would not require ordinands to hold to these beliefs.  Thus, the Auburn Affirmationists said that Christianity is not defined by its doctrines.

I am not doing any apologetic work in this post - you'll have to read Machen to get all the nuances of what he meant in defining Christianity as a doctrinal religion, but suffice it to say for now that most of the objections that I am sure are in people's minds right now were handled ably by Machen.  Yes, Christianity is a life, but it is a life based on doctrinal beliefs.

Thus, for the conservatives, Christianity is a faith defined by doctrine and certain historical realities, and liberals refused to allow Christianity to be so narrowly defined.

Also, a particular sticking point today is over the place of the Bible in the Christian life.  In the past a I read a good deal of material on the Bible from those in the liberal tradition.  Almost always, those in the liberal tradition affirmed a very high view of the Bible, they just didn't want to use the same kinds of words the conservatives were using, like "inerrant" and "infallible."  I'm hearing alot of the same kind of rhetoric from the emergent folks these days.

So, its probably easy to see where I am going with this.  I read a lot from the emergent church in the "post-conservative" vein.  The emergent church is transcending conservativism's doctrinairre approach, but what in the liberal church are they transcending.

The alert emergent person will observe that I am showing my true modernistic colors here.  Speaking of the people of God in divided categories like conservatism and liberalism is a relic of modernism that i have yet to jettison.  And, many of my fellow conservatives are captive to modernism.

As an aside, in this day and age a conservative can become a man without a country if he is not careful.  For around a hundred years conservatives were rejected by liberals because we refused to adapt the faith to modernism.  Now, we are rejected by those of a more post-modern flavor because we have allegedly adapted the faith to modernism.  Talk about an identity crisis!  It's worth pointing out that liberalism and modernism were nearly synonymous terms in the 19th and 20th centuries.  So,  even though people today want to say that conservatives are in the grip of modernism, the real modernists would never have claimed us.

But getting back to the point, though our emergent friends are "post-liberal" they seem to my untrained eye to be "post-liberal" in a way that can embrace the working assumptions of liberalism.

I know I am putting words in the mouths of my emergent friends here and invite them to spew those words back at me, but much of what I hear coming out of the emergent church sure sounds like they are saying that Christianity cannot be defined in terms of doctrine.  In that, they are affirming the essence of liberalism.   I have heard and read emergent folks say they are "post-liberal" I just haven't heard or read them deny any specific tenets of what used to be called liberalism.

Yes I know how perjorative that sounds and I welcome rebuttal. One easy rebuttal here is that the liberalism of the 19th and 20th centuries was driven by an extreme rationalism, and postmodernists and emergent types reject this.  Fair enough, but if that is the case it only seems to me that the old liberals and the new postmodernists and emergent types got to the same destination by different roads.

This is the part where I will sound hostile and even more perjorative, but in some ways it seems to me that the emergent folks treat the older liberals as if they were basically on the right track, but maybe off base in some areas.  Maybe they see the conservatives in the same vein.  The older conservatives and liberals saw themselves as antithetical to one another and maybe the emergent folks today believe they understand conservatives and liberals better than they understand themselves.  Maybe they believe they see commonalities and points of contact that these opposing groups couldn't see because of their respective blindness to modernistic assumptions.

So, I'll bring this cantankerous post to a close now and invite you to let me have it.  Even though I have been pretty harsh here in what I have insinuated I am open to dialogue and correction.  What I am saying is that the emergent movement has been pretty clear in describing how it is "post-conservative."  Is there anyone who can give some specifics in how it is also "post-liberal?"

Related Tags: Religion, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Bible, Liberal, Liberalism, Modernist, Modernism, Conservative, Conservativism, Evangelical, Evangelicalism, Postmodern, Postmodernism, Post-conservative, Post-liberal, Emergent, Emergent Church

Comments

[cavman]

well, since Barth's theological movement was neo-orthodoxy, perhaps we should call some of these guys post-orthodox.
Just being silly. There are some solid emergent guys out there. Take Donald Miller for instance. i don't click with his social positions (politics, environment) but he seems to uphold biblical truth. His pastor does too.
it is a very fractured movement (how very American), so a label just can't seem to do it justice.

[Glenn]

When anyone is able to show me how a word, concept person, or group can have identity without exclusion, then I'll pay attention.

It is deeply ironic that in some conversations I'm having with anti-modernists, some of them flat out deny categories, lines, and boundaries. Apparently categories, lines and boundaries are "modernist", never mind that modernist is a category and they are drawing a circle around modernism with themselves outside of it.

These anti-line people are some of the most compulsively self-expressive people you'll meet. What pains they take to distinguish themselves from others! Distinguishing is the essence of identity, lines, boundaries.

[David Wayne]

Reaction to Glenn's comment - head is spinning!!

[joel hunter]

If emerging church leaders are identifying themselves as 'postliberal', then we might assume that they have in mind theologians like George Lindbeck, Hans Frei, George Hunsinger and William Placher. New Yale School Theology.

Sorry if this is stuff you already know. Narrative theology rather than propositional or experiential; premodern epistemology (similar to what Ricoeur and Mark Wallace call a "second naivete"); affirms Nicea and Chalcedon as the hermeneutical constructs through which the Scriptures can be understood in their Christ-centered and Trinitarian unification. George Hunsinger claims "Narrative is important only insofar as it helps us interpret and illuminate the New Testament witness to Jesus Christ."

I think these are probably enough clues as to why postliberalism resonates with emerging church leaders. I understand the frustration that Glenn has expressed--and I don't think most emerging types are yet able to articulate the intuition that they've seized upon--but I think they're reacting against all of the non-substantive categories that theologies employ for the sake of formal coherence and systematic methodology. It's like taking some cultural-linguistic construct and transcendentalizing it: Big Oil; Propositions; Narrative. (Or maybe that's reifying. Whatever...)

For the postliberal, the substantive "category" is Christ Himself. Other formal and methodological categories can be helpful (or harmful), but He is the story, and, by faith, we hear Him render us into His story. You might find the dialogue between postliberals and evangelicals interesting (Wheaton 1995; essays from the conference are available in the monograph http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830818693/102-3806138-1476167?v=glance&n=283155>The Nature of Confession). Postliberalism is somewhat congruent with "radical orthodoxy," too.

The conservative will probably be uncomfortable with the postliberal on at least two counts: their affirmation of historical criticism and their different vocabulary for explicating the authority of the Bible (e.g., the avoidance of 'inerrancy' as a category b/c of its formulation in the era of positivism). They would probably be nervous of postliberals' cosiness with Barth.

[ben]

To jump off cavman I think emerging is trying to be post-label. I have seen some emerging articles done well and others seem to create this us vs. them rather than just trying to move the rudder a bit.

[kyle]

That has got to be the most apologetic antagonism I have ever witnessed. :)

[David Wayne]

Joel - thanks for that. I'm actually not familiar with the New Yale School Theology so a good deal of what you said is unfamiliar. But this is helpful. If what you are saying is correct then I may be trying to connect dots that aren't there in the sense that I am looking at the liberalism from the 1920's and 30's and these folks are looking at something different. Still, are you sure that is what the emergents are reacting too?

[joel hunter]

No, I'm not sure. I'm only going by the label :-) If they don't mean the New Yale School theology, then it's awfully confusing to be describing themselves as 'postliberal'. I think it's a fairly safe assumption given the interaction that's been going on for a little over 10 years between postliberals and conservative evangelicals. How much emerging types explicitly draw from postliberalism I can't say at all. They certainly have seemed to seize upon key postliberal themes (e.g., "narrative" theology), but whether that's just a convenient reactive category to set up against conservativism (and liberalism) or whether it's something that has been thoughtfully appropriated I do not know. Perhaps some of your emerging readers will chime in and let us know.

[Macht]

I was wondering about how the emergent people use the term "postliberalism," too. When I started reading the post I was taking it in much the same way as Joel (although I don't know as much about it as him). I know that when the Radical Orthodoxy folks talk about postliberalism, they are talking about it in that sense. I'd probably agree with Joel that it's a pretty safe bet that this is the way the emerging guys are using it, too.

[Soup]

Hmmm...post-conservative.

It's interesting that the "emgergent church" movement -so called - takes such pains to avoid labels.

Why is this "church" emerging? Did the canon of scripture suddenly shift? Is there new light as the JW's would claim?

Suspicious, specious, and suspect at best...heretical at worst.

[bill]

Well, I'm just a silly engineer and don't know much about these theological and philosophical categories. But I have read several books and papers around this phenomenon—including writings on emergence and complexity in nature and social groups. I've also found myself, in my middle age, identifying with the dismay and disillusionment expressed by some in the so-called “Emergent” conversation. But, if forced to classify myself, I would closer identify with George Barna's “Revolutionaries.”

I think that this phenomenon actually began way back in the late 1960s with the spiritual awakening noted by Neil Howe and Bill Strauss in their book “Generations.” The Jesus Movement, Vineyard, Community Church, House Church, etc., are merely coagula of this emergence. However, the more significant part is the part that you won't see. To get a peek at what's going on outside the purview of institutional church, read Barna's latest book “Revolution: Finding Vibrant Faith Beyond the Walls of the Sanctuary.” But remember that Barna doesn't see all. Also, look more at the Emergent movement in Europe. Check out Andrew Jones (aka. TallSkinnyKiwi) and Kester Brewin (TheComplexChrist). The American emergence seems different from Europe and even down under Australia and New Zealand.

BTW, you probably already know that the church of England is asking the UK government for over 50 million pounds to help them maintain their mostly empty historic buildings. That's where many American institutions will be in a few decades.

The more significant part of what I think of when I think of “emerging church,” is made up of people who are not writing books. At least not yet. These people may be part of a “regular” church for now. They may be on their own. This group includes ex-pastors/ministers and other well educated people who also know their Bible. If you know where to look, you'll find some of them blogging. Still most of them don't yet know about the others monastics like themselves. Each of them likely thinks that they're the only one thinking the way they do. When they find each other—look out.

So, to take a stab at an answer to your question: I think an increasing number of people, not just “emergent types,” are fed up with label slinging and factionalism. It's not only in Christianity. Many voters are tired of partisan mud slinging and tricks that prevent them from choosing a better government by forcing them to choose between dumb and dumber. Therefore, many of us are just POST whatever isn't working anymore. Institutional Christianity looks increasingly like a bunch of fiefdoms who've made peace with each other so they can rule over the surfs. We surfs just aren't going to take it anymore.

I understand that you're trying to understand. However, while theologians, ministers and other church leaders endeavor to put people into neat little categories, the people are abandoning church. And this trend is 30 years running now. Is it not? So it seems that professional church leaders need to try harder to understand why so many people are not only leaving church as usual but setting up their own groups. But to find out you have to talk TO them rather than ABOUT them.

Your openness is appreciated. There are some who regularly lambaste people on the 'net, thinking that they're merely debating with “leaders,” when they are also insulting lookers on who know their Bible and know BS when they read it. These conservative fundamentalists are just making the erosion worse. And at least one seems proud of it. Again, I appreciate your tone when compared to others. The people I know are just trying to make it in a tough world. When Christian leaders come by and pound on them, they just move out of range and seek God however they can. Kinda reminds me of the outcasts that Jesus came to seek and save.

[pgepps]

Glenn's comment makes my head spin, too, but that's 'cuz I have a hard time seeing what he's complaining about. "Anti-modernists"--like, perhaps, Thomists? Though the old logic-choppers themselves are hardly likely to fit his meaning.

Moreover, he still misses the chief thing about "post" in "post-modern"--that it does not mean "after" as if modernism were over, and now we're outside it. Nor are the intellectual giants of post-modern thought (I'm thinking of Derrida et al) "after" or even "outside" modernism; Derrida clearly and repeatedly affirms that there is no such outside, that instead there is an *economy* of language which, precisely as modernism seems to have given us universal prescriptions, identifies their toxic side effects, too. Take all the medicine you can, and you will die--there is economy in all things; this principle is at once inimical to and unavoidable from modernism's principles, and attempting to dwell in the land where Utopia generally turns out to be Hell, well, that's where we are.

So, if the folks Glenn talks to who claim there are no lines, boundaries, etc. also claim to be "post-modern," they are just plain ignorant. We should put them out of their intellectual misery by force-feeding them the texts they bastardize....

I concur with Joel and Macht on the more comprehensible sense of the term "post-liberal," though their use of it in conjunction with "post-conservative" seems to suggest that many who are deploying the term are doing so to situate themselves as "above all this" in a way clearly unavailable to post-modernism. Transcendence by intellection is, after all, *the* defining Enlightenment goal.

OTOH, while I am appalled by much of what I hear among Christians both for and against the thinking which has come to be called "post-modernism," I do want to point out that there is an important difference between saying we should *engage* the intellectual tendencies of our day, and saying we should *adopt* them.

I consider myself not just "conservative" but "Fundamentalist" in the proper (note capital F) old consideration (though I dissent from the notion that Fundamentalism was ever "under" Machen!!!), but I am also, in literary theory, very much an advocate of post-structuralist methods of relating text. I probably am more accurately called an "anti-modernist" than a "post-modernist," though, because I take it as a given that *to be post-modernist, one must first be modernist*, and the Fundamentalist upbringing I was graced with has given me a deep suspicion of modernism.

At the same time, Fundamentalism has both a negative and a positive definition. Fundamentalism is positively defined by its regard for the creedal and Biblical essentials of the faith, but it is negatively defined by modernism, especially classical liberalism. The problem is that these may, at times, be *conflicting* definitions; opposing the teaching of schools which claim Scripture is riddled with factual errors but still "true" is at tension with supporting anyone (including many undoubted believers) who teaches the Gospel. I know which way I think right to pull against that tension, but I don't think it's useful to deny there is tension--such a denial sets us up for (what has in fact happened) endless "separations" in pursuit of a purity unattainable in this age.

So Fundamentalism has, by negative definition against modernism, attempted to totalize its commitments into an unshakeable, human-manipulable, system of "doctrinal statements" and other pronouncements which are simultaneously creedal and non-creedal, tests of faith and non-binding, and so forth. That is, Fundamentalism insofar as it allows itself to be thus negatively defined has become incoherent in terms of univocal truth-telling.

I believe, though, that Fundamentalism, being on those terms a deliberate opposition of (modernist) univocal discourse to its own (liberal) totalizing, genericizing, neutralizing apparatus, is also in a unique position: it possesses the capacity to allow modernism to modernize itself into extinction (allowing the liberal and the negatively-defined Fundamentalist to obliviate themselves in post-modernity) while unrolling what it first professed, that there are certain truths "always and everywhere" confessed by true believers in Christ, and that under any economy, those are either most truly told in Scripture, or nowhere truly told at all.

Hence "post-structuralist fundamentalist."

Cheers,
PGE

[pgepps]

Oops, little pronoun reference problem:

"I concur with Joel and Macht on the more comprehensible sense of the term "post-liberal," though their use of it"

would better read

"I concur with Joel and Macht on the more comprehensible sense of the term "post-liberal," though looser use of it among many 'emergent church' types"

........my apologies to Joel and Macht, both of whom can certainly do a better job explaining the post-liberals (I did a bit of work on Frei and have heard of the others, but...) than I can.

Cheers,
PGE

[Cennan]

No doubt the EC is simply liberalism circled back around. The new evangelicalism is moving away from the cross. This article "The Universal Appeal Of Jesus" shows more about this disturbing trend: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/02/allee_allee_in.html

[cavman]

Some of you are way in the depths there- over my head.

Labels can be helpful. But also misleading. You can't lump all of the emerging leaders together. This is especially dangerous if you assume McLaren is their spokesman. He, and Chalke, in the UK have certainly gone outside of the bounds of orthodoxy on some key issues- like the atonement.
Because they write... other lay people are swallowing it.
But others are not bitterly assaulting evangelicals, fundamentalists, modernists etc. They are simply seeking to reach a new subculture with the historic truths.
So... it would be difficult to characterize a movement since you will most certainly misrepresent someone. These guys just don't want to make it easy for us pastors trying to engage the broader culture & protect the sheep. Curses!

[danutz]

David, I think your insights and questions are great. I also think that the discussion may need another perspective. Let me offer a comment from my perspective which is as a now theological liberal that is deeply involved in the Emergent conversation but was formally an evangelical fundamentalist. I’m well versed in all of the sides and might be able to clarify a couple of mistakes in your understanding of Emergent and of Liberalism.

1. Contrary to some of the comments here, the prefix “Post-” does mean after. It doesn’t mean “anti”. So being post-modern doesn’t mean the rejection of modern thought and culture, but instead it means that we have absorbed all the modernity has to offer in terms of culture, philosophy, theology, scientific study, etc. and we are willing to do some self analysis in order to continue growing. Modernity is a part of us. It is the knowledge (you might say “baggage”) that we bring with us to all our conversations. Being in this transitional period to Post-modern means that we are willing to do some self-criticism and try not to confuse truth with the products of our modern mindset and culture.
2. Post-liberalism simply means people that came from a liberal background just as post-conservatism means people that came from a conservative background. Each brings a different set of baggage and skills to the table but each has come to realize that it may not have cornered the market on truth. The emergent conversation/church is simply trying to build a table where both types (and others) are welcome and their individual skills can be harnessed. In the past, the 2 sides fought as if the goal was to have one win over the other, but now we can safely say that the goal is NOT to declare a winner. The impact of modernism was the need to declare a winner. That is what modern thinkers do. Post modernity isn’t rejecting either side, but it is rejecting the need for a winner. That is why we say “post“ because we have declared a draw and want to embrace the good from both and learn from each other. We are not asking anyone to water down their views. If you found God through your fundamental beliefs and still get nourishment through that type of experience, then nobody in the EC is looking for you to stop believing in the virgin-birth or the resurrection. In fact we would encourage you to deepen your beliefs in those doctrines, but also reach outside your community of common believers and work with others that may not accept those same doctrines.
3. The key concept of the EC that Brian Mclaren has pointed us to is that the kingdom of God that Jesus focused on for the majority of his ministry is bigger than any church, any denomination, or even any religion. All of those things are man-made but the Kingdom is God-made and in the end the Kingdom will be declared the winner, not any of our feeble constructs.

[mark]

nice conversation!

the key is indeed the Yale School out of which post-liberalism arose through the work of Frei and Lindbeck (although as George Hunsinger points out, there work is not identical). In some sense it is a recovery of neo-orthodoxy but with Barth's basis instead of Brunner's expression that was popular during the Biblical Theology movement..

Emphasis on Narrative is important with a reluctance to articulate a stance on realism; that is whether the historicity of scripture is key. Instead, the emphasis is on the stories of the text through we describe our lives. Thus, they attempt to reverse the liberal tendency to subsume the text and interpret it through the lens of our experience..And yes, p-libs will defintely avoid the language of inerrancy.

There is also an emphasis through the work of Lindeck on a cultural-linguistic view of language as opposed to the propositional-deductive speech of conservatives and expressive-experenital speech of liberals. Communities are developed through specific and odd language and converts must be schooled in that odd language (in the Xn case, the language of the text)..

Those in the emergent conversation (in which i locate myself) have certainly been influenced by these claims. For some of us it has helped us rediscover the bible as not a set of propositional truth statements to be pulled out but as a story in which we live into. The language of the story becomes the grammar of our lives (key emphasis on practices for post-libs)..

Anyway, hope that gives a little insight of what some emergents might mean by saying they have been influenced by post-liberals..

btw, there is of course no "post-liberal" movement that can be boiled down to three points. Recent scholars in the field such as Serene Jones and Kathryn Tanner have begun challengeing some of these claims..

peace!

mark

[David Wayne]

Mark - thanks for pointing out the significance of Yale school and others, as Joel has also done. Actually, I have to confess my ignorance here - until Joel pointed this out and having read a bit since I did this post I wasn't too familiar with the Yale school.

I think you guys are right in many ways on this - I think the more theologically and philosophically sophisticated emergers probably have this in mind.

But don't you think this term is also being used in a reactionary sense? In other words, I think there are a lot of emergers who are as ignorant as I am about the Yale school and other movements within academia, but they know they are reacting to all that has gone before - including old school conservatives, old school liberals and so on and so forth. In other words I think there is probably a more popular usage of the term that is often being used here.

[ROHR]

Hi Fellas,
Hope you don't mind if I butt in on your interesting discussion for a minute. I am currently in seminary, am an RN with over 30 years experience, and am working on my MAT to use in my nursing ministry. For this quarter at Fuller, I am doing a book review on "The Domestication of Transcendence" by W.C. Placher. Since he is from "the Yale school", he is concerned with informing all of us about the issues facing the church today. He uses terms like "emergent church", "post-liberal", and expresses an interest in entering dialogue with some of the younger Biblical scholars to advance the historical goals of Christianity....if I understand him correctly. I am new to all this, so I did a research hunt to find out what some of these terms mean and linked onto your blog site. I must say, I did enjoy your discussion!
As a student and a new learner, I would like to say first that I thank David Wayne for posing the question in the first place that led to this discussion. Further, I would like to add that Ben, "pgepps", Mark, and (again)David on Sept.9 provided a lot of useful information that not only help me understand this whole phenonmenon better, but also will help me focus on how I will approach my book review....in that now I understand much better what this whole discussion is about. Thanks for that! This stuff is hard enough without a lot of terminology that is hard to understand.
And on that note, I must say that from just an ordinary person's point of view, much of the discussion made my eyes glaze over. If the goal is to reach the masses (and not just to enjoy dialogue with each other, which I also totally understand!) than we must talk in terms that they can comprehend. Does that make sense? Anyway, thanks guys. And keep up the Good Work/Word! :-)