My sister works in administration at Fuller Theological Seminary. We were talking this past Easter, when I mentioned the words "emergent church". "Yeah, those are some of our biggest classes at Fuller. People are signing up in droves for classes on the emergent church."
My stomach churned at that point. She sensed my uneasiness. "Is that a bad thing?", she asked.
"Don't you know what the emergent church is?", I asked.
"Not really", she replied.
My sister is not a member of the emergent church, but she is fairly close to a lot of people who are ... in fact, people who are studying it, teaching about it, and probably [I am guessing] throwing Miracle Gro on it.
The reason she does not understand it differs from others. She has a busy life and is not that interested in the emergent church. To her, it is just the latest fad to attract the attention of the church growth folks at the seminary. To her, "emergent church" means full classes, which is a good thing.
As I tried to explain it to her, I had to admit the term is a moving target. The one thing I am sure of is the confusing position on truth and knowledge espoused by its leaders.
The words emergent keeps popping up on blogs everywhere. I can't possibly keep up.
Phil at Every Thought Captive stays close to the action. I follow his blog and STR's blog to keep up.
Phil has a great post called Emergent and The Role Of Truth. Phil says,
"What I am gaining a better appreciation for, though, is that there needs to be more clear philosophical thinking brought into the discussion. Many emergent bloggers note that people seem to be speaking past each other on this topic and therefore not understanding each other, and that is certainly true."
Amen to that. I was stunned when I read Brian McLaren's treatise to Chuck Colson last year about postmodernism. McLaren told Colson,
"In your column, you pronounced “postmodernism” dead, or on life support, or at least losing strength. You’re kind of right, because the kind of postmodernism you describe – “the philosophy that claims there is no transcendent truth” - was never really alive. It’s a straw man, Chuck, a bugaboo not unlike Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy,” used to create fear, galvanize sympathy and support, and perhaps raise money. (Everyone knows how a good enemy is a fundraiser’s best friend.) What you describe as postmodernism – a claim that “there is no such thing as truth,” a rejection of all moral values, or their reduction to mere preferences – may have been purported by a few crazed graduate students for a few minutes at a late-night drinking party. But to paint the whole movement with that brush is inaccurate. That kind of guilt-by-association would be like lumping you as a political conservative in with all the conservative wackos in Idaho who stockpile weapons and whisper about black helicopters and blame 9/11 on President Bush – after all, they’re against the “liberals” just like you."
Phew. I breathed a sigh of relief at that point. Wonderful, postmoderns don't really believe there is no such thing as truth. It is a straw man. A canard. Great! Until I read further. McLaren's attempts at defining truth left me scratching my head and re-reading the same paragraph five times.
I talked to my friend and fellow Centurion, who I knew to be an emergent church supporter, and asked, "so is it really true that emergent church leaders believe in truth?"
"Yes", he replied. "But they believe that we cannot be certain about what that truth is".
Ah hah. The proverbial light bulb turned on. So that is how McLaren could tell Colson that the "it is true that there is no truth" is a straw man ... and yet everything he says sounds so squishy on truth.
Phil affirms this by saying,
"There are, for example, a lot of broad and sweeping statements out there about capital “T” Truth as opposed to our articulation of truth. What that may mean, if we are to be precise, is that many emergents are affirming an absolute, or objective sense of truth, but denying a significant epistemological grasp of Truth. It is common for emergent writers to emphasize our “cultural captivity” and point out that we cannot assert anything without it being a result of our cultural influences. Is this a form of relativism, specifically epistemological relativism? It certainly borders on it, and if it is not (as many emergents state), then there needs to be some clarification on the usefulness and role of Truth if we cannot have an adequate epistemological grasp of it. In other words, if emergents want to hold to a deep role for our cultural captivity and the reality of metaphysical truth all at the same time, a significant relationship between the two needs to be clarified. Otherwise, metaphysical truth becomes irrelevant."
If there is true truth, but we can't know it, is it of any value? Can such an unknowable truth transform?
Epistemologial relativism gets us no further along than metaphysical relativism. Let me dispense with the philosophical-speak.
If there is true truth, but we can never know what the true truth is because of language and our cultural biases, then is the true truth really relevant? How can it be? Pragmatically speaking, we are back where we started. We might as well say there is no such thing as truth ... McLaren's assertions notwithstanding.
Besides this pragmatic problem, there is a logical problem with epistemological relativism. If there is true truth, but we cannot know what it is, how exactly are we sure true truth even exists?
... and ...
If we cannot know true truth, how is it that we know we cannot know true truth. In other words, is the fact that we know our inability to know true truth ... a true truth?
I realize that logical consistency is no longer a virtue today. When I bring up examples of logical inconsistency, I typically get accused of playing fast and loose with language. E.g. "You are just stating it poorly".
Well, ok. Whatever. [I had to throw in a postmodern speak ;-) ].
The relativism is what makes the emergent movement an impossible pill to swallow for me. Get rid of the relativism, and you have an exciting movement to talk about.
Fresh apologetic approaches?! Wonderful. Let's talk about it. Murdock raises some good rejoinders about that, so let's have a good discussion about what works and what doesn't.
Community?! Terrific. Let's do it.
Loving the lost, the last, and the least. I'm there. Let's go!
Reaching the unreached, and introducing the unchurched to the love of Christ. I'm all for it.
Conversational style, narrative style, lots of Q + A. Great. I'm there.
Jettisoning truth or the knowability of truth. Forget it. No thanks.