Emergent's Response To Critics- A Reply
Not far back, the Emergent Conversation had prepared a response to criticisms of their movement. I waited awhile to see what were the initial reaction to their response was, and now, I felt it was my turn to give a reply.
First off, may I say that I am less than satisfied with their "response". In my judgement, it wasn't really one. Secondly, may I say that this is no full-length critique of Conversation. As I am still going through and critiquing the material the Emergent Conversation comes up with (And their material is voluminous, considering a lot of them are blog posts!), I shall reserve a more thorough (And one that I will brand as complete) critique of the movement. Thirdly, I will try to be evenhanded as possible- That is, to not to be hyper-critical of unessentials as well as to correct bad critiques of the Emergent Movement. I have always tried to be as fair as both sides as possible, though I never claim "neutrality" in what I say.
This response has been written by some of the biggest names in the Emergent Conversation, thus, I assume they represent the movement in entirety. I will only be critiquing the "meat" of this response, that is, what I judge to be the "real" response to recent criticisms and not the unimportant parts.
The response opens with a few expressions of gratitude for criticisms that they had received that I shall skip, to arrive at this:
"...we would like to clarify, contrary to statements and inferences made by some, that yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters – if we did not believe this, we would have no good reason to write or speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism; yes, we affirm the historic
Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history..."
Let me unpack this:
"The third kind of postmodernism is what we might call “emerging postmodernism.” It can’t be fully defined yet; it may be decades away from mature definition. But it moves beyond the four characteristics described above.
1. It sees relativist pluralism (the irrational idea that all opinions or views are equally valid) as a kind of chemotherapy intended to stop the growth of modern reductionistic rationalism (the oppressive idea that all reality can be reduced to mechanisms that the mind can understand via validation by the five senses). In order to kill the malignancy, the patient has to take dangerous medicine that would prove poisonous if taken in too high doses or for too long."
Sure, McLaren called relativistic pluralism "irrational", but what is interesting is that he considers it a medicine. It is not even close to one, rather, it has been destroying everything good ever since it infected civilization. At the risk of sounding too dramatic: It is a disease that must be stopped. And, with McLaren calling this disease medicine, I am shocked, even if he sees it as a "short term" treatment.
As for their condemnation of "arrogant absolutism", I agree that there are wrong kinds of absolutism, but since I don't believe absolutism is "arrogant", in any kind of form. It may be wrong, yes, but arrogant? I don't think so. I'm not very sure either at what they call arrogant absolutism, be it a dogmatic proclamation or something else. But if it is the former, then when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." he must have been rather arrogant to say so.
Moving on, we come to this:
"Ninth, we felt we should offer this encouragement to those who, like us, do not feel capable of living or explaining our faith in ways that would please all of our critics: if our work has been helpful to you, please join us in seeking to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace by not becoming quarrelsome or defensive or disrespectful to anyone – especially those who you feel have misrepresented or misunderstood you or us. As Paul said to Timothy, “The Lord’s
servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, patient when wronged.” In addition he warned Timothy not to develop “an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions, and constant friction.”
Well, I agree, though there is a difference between useless and essential polemics. But what about Jude when he asked us to contend for the faith?
"We believe it is better to be wronged than to wrong someone else; the Lord we follow was gentle and meek, and when he was reviled, he didn’t respond in kind."
Matthew 23 gives us a good idea of how Jesus responded to the religious leaders of his day. I don't recognize it to be meek or gentle, rather, it was rather...rude. Thus this statement is utterly wrong.
"Instead of engaging in fruitless quarrels with our critics, we urge those who find our work helpful to pursue spiritual formation in the way of Christ, to worship God in spirit and truth, to seek to plant or serve in healthy and fruitful churches, to make disciples – especially among the irreligious and unchurched, to serve those in need, to be at peace with everyone as far as is possible, and to show a special concern for orphans and widows in their distress. We should keep careful control of our tongues (and pens or keyboards), and seek to be pure in heart and life, since this is “religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless.”
Noble, no doubt. But when you're standing on the railway tracks and a train is right about to smash you to bits, you can't make it go away my ignoring it. You have to respond to your critics, not turn a deaf ear on them. And what if those who were involved in the Emergent Conversation do succumb to their criticisms that have no proper response, (Be they wrong or right) and leave? What are you going to do then?
I will end here. This is by no means my definitive response to the Emergent Conversation. I acknowledge that their movement has many biblical concepts. However, in my judgement, I have come to find that the bad fruits of their movement far outweigh the good. My reply to their response had one simple reason- That they are not doing it right. I acknowledge that I may be wrong. But I believe, far more strongly, that they are wrong in aspects such as evangelism, epistemology and other "crucial" aspects of the Faith.
Soli Deo Gloria.
First off, may I say that I am less than satisfied with their "response". In my judgement, it wasn't really one. Secondly, may I say that this is no full-length critique of Conversation. As I am still going through and critiquing the material the Emergent Conversation comes up with (And their material is voluminous, considering a lot of them are blog posts!), I shall reserve a more thorough (And one that I will brand as complete) critique of the movement. Thirdly, I will try to be evenhanded as possible- That is, to not to be hyper-critical of unessentials as well as to correct bad critiques of the Emergent Movement. I have always tried to be as fair as both sides as possible, though I never claim "neutrality" in what I say.
This response has been written by some of the biggest names in the Emergent Conversation, thus, I assume they represent the movement in entirety. I will only be critiquing the "meat" of this response, that is, what I judge to be the "real" response to recent criticisms and not the unimportant parts.
The response opens with a few expressions of gratitude for criticisms that they had received that I shall skip, to arrive at this:
"...we would like to clarify, contrary to statements and inferences made by some, that yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters – if we did not believe this, we would have no good reason to write or speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism; yes, we affirm the historic
Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history..."
Let me unpack this:
- The Emergent Conversation does believe in truth and that truth matters contra to those who claim they are relativists.
- Radical relativism and arrogant absolutism are both absurd and dangerous. I'll critique this statement in more detail later.
- They affirm the historic Trinitarian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history.
"The third kind of postmodernism is what we might call “emerging postmodernism.” It can’t be fully defined yet; it may be decades away from mature definition. But it moves beyond the four characteristics described above.
1. It sees relativist pluralism (the irrational idea that all opinions or views are equally valid) as a kind of chemotherapy intended to stop the growth of modern reductionistic rationalism (the oppressive idea that all reality can be reduced to mechanisms that the mind can understand via validation by the five senses). In order to kill the malignancy, the patient has to take dangerous medicine that would prove poisonous if taken in too high doses or for too long."
Sure, McLaren called relativistic pluralism "irrational", but what is interesting is that he considers it a medicine. It is not even close to one, rather, it has been destroying everything good ever since it infected civilization. At the risk of sounding too dramatic: It is a disease that must be stopped. And, with McLaren calling this disease medicine, I am shocked, even if he sees it as a "short term" treatment.
As for their condemnation of "arrogant absolutism", I agree that there are wrong kinds of absolutism, but since I don't believe absolutism is "arrogant", in any kind of form. It may be wrong, yes, but arrogant? I don't think so. I'm not very sure either at what they call arrogant absolutism, be it a dogmatic proclamation or something else. But if it is the former, then when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." he must have been rather arrogant to say so.
Moving on, we come to this:
"Ninth, we felt we should offer this encouragement to those who, like us, do not feel capable of living or explaining our faith in ways that would please all of our critics: if our work has been helpful to you, please join us in seeking to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace by not becoming quarrelsome or defensive or disrespectful to anyone – especially those who you feel have misrepresented or misunderstood you or us. As Paul said to Timothy, “The Lord’s
servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, patient when wronged.” In addition he warned Timothy not to develop “an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions, and constant friction.”
Well, I agree, though there is a difference between useless and essential polemics. But what about Jude when he asked us to contend for the faith?
"We believe it is better to be wronged than to wrong someone else; the Lord we follow was gentle and meek, and when he was reviled, he didn’t respond in kind."
Matthew 23 gives us a good idea of how Jesus responded to the religious leaders of his day. I don't recognize it to be meek or gentle, rather, it was rather...rude. Thus this statement is utterly wrong.
"Instead of engaging in fruitless quarrels with our critics, we urge those who find our work helpful to pursue spiritual formation in the way of Christ, to worship God in spirit and truth, to seek to plant or serve in healthy and fruitful churches, to make disciples – especially among the irreligious and unchurched, to serve those in need, to be at peace with everyone as far as is possible, and to show a special concern for orphans and widows in their distress. We should keep careful control of our tongues (and pens or keyboards), and seek to be pure in heart and life, since this is “religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless.”
Noble, no doubt. But when you're standing on the railway tracks and a train is right about to smash you to bits, you can't make it go away my ignoring it. You have to respond to your critics, not turn a deaf ear on them. And what if those who were involved in the Emergent Conversation do succumb to their criticisms that have no proper response, (Be they wrong or right) and leave? What are you going to do then?
I will end here. This is by no means my definitive response to the Emergent Conversation. I acknowledge that their movement has many biblical concepts. However, in my judgement, I have come to find that the bad fruits of their movement far outweigh the good. My reply to their response had one simple reason- That they are not doing it right. I acknowledge that I may be wrong. But I believe, far more strongly, that they are wrong in aspects such as evangelism, epistemology and other "crucial" aspects of the Faith.
Soli Deo Gloria.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 4:52 PM.
|
