Once again, Don Carson managed to ruffle some feathers when he ventured out of his area of expertise in NT. This time he addressed the issue of postmodernism in general and the Emergent Church Movement (ECM) in particular.
I read David Mills’ critique of his message. It seems that Carson has constructed some false antitheses about the Emergent:
• feelings and affections over against rational thought
• experience over against hard-edged rational truth
• tolerance over against pointing out errors
• inclusion vs. exclusion
• a refusal to tell others they’re wrong, in favor of an effort to win by example, love
• narrative over against propositional truth
• individualistic vs. communal
• mechanistic vs. organic
• evangelism bound up with life, not just words
• peer-discussion; suspicious of all hierarchy
From my understanding of Brian McLaren so far, I agree that “the more thoughtful members of the ECM” do not, in fact, fall into the trap of false dichotomy.
The best Christians - evangelical, charismatic or ‘emergent’ - should hold both emotion and rationality/word and works in mutually-strengthening synthesis.
But we tend to oversimplify and overstate our case in order to make our movement ‘stand out’ in starker colors. For similar examples, Stanley Grenz criticized conservative theology as ‘merely propositional’ but failed to cite anyone who actually said such things.
If we are basically on the same page, what’s the big hoo-ha?
IMHO, the difference is in terms of biases and tendencies we carry with us. I see this more evidently among the grassroots than the more careful leaders of each movement.
We may have an impeccable statement of faith on paper. But out of the fullness of our theology, our mouths speaketh.
Let me illustrate this in some real-life conversations:
I asked a cell group, “How would you respond if a friend tells you that there is no absolute truth?”
The answer, “We should show him how much we care. By all means, preach the gospel, use words if necessary”.
The implication is clear: How you reply in apologetics is not as important as showing practical love.
But why can't we have both? Check out Millard Erickson's "The Evangelical Left" which discusses some related issues.
I read David Mills’ critique of his message. It seems that Carson has constructed some false antitheses about the Emergent:
• feelings and affections over against rational thought
• experience over against hard-edged rational truth
• tolerance over against pointing out errors
• inclusion vs. exclusion
• a refusal to tell others they’re wrong, in favor of an effort to win by example, love
• narrative over against propositional truth
• individualistic vs. communal
• mechanistic vs. organic
• evangelism bound up with life, not just words
• peer-discussion; suspicious of all hierarchy
From my understanding of Brian McLaren so far, I agree that “the more thoughtful members of the ECM” do not, in fact, fall into the trap of false dichotomy.
The best Christians - evangelical, charismatic or ‘emergent’ - should hold both emotion and rationality/word and works in mutually-strengthening synthesis.
But we tend to oversimplify and overstate our case in order to make our movement ‘stand out’ in starker colors. For similar examples, Stanley Grenz criticized conservative theology as ‘merely propositional’ but failed to cite anyone who actually said such things.
If we are basically on the same page, what’s the big hoo-ha?
IMHO, the difference is in terms of biases and tendencies we carry with us. I see this more evidently among the grassroots than the more careful leaders of each movement.
We may have an impeccable statement of faith on paper. But out of the fullness of our theology, our mouths speaketh.
Let me illustrate this in some real-life conversations:
I asked a cell group, “How would you respond if a friend tells you that there is no absolute truth?”
The answer, “We should show him how much we care. By all means, preach the gospel, use words if necessary”.
The implication is clear: How you reply in apologetics is not as important as showing practical love.
But why can't we have both? Check out Millard Erickson's "The Evangelical Left" which discusses some related issues.
Comments