Eric Elnes, Senior Pastor of Countryside
Community Church (UCC), has begun thinking about what he sees as a "convergence" trajectory for post-evangelical Christians and postliberal Christians. He thinks those two
groups are moving toward one another from different places. He has
written a great blog post, "The Characteristics of Convergence
Christianity," in which he identifies "something these
communities [both post-evangelicals and postliberals] generally are letting go
of, and the new reality they generally are embracing."
His remarks are
interesting, but not all of them describe who I am or what I see in others who
are postliberal progressives. For instance, he begins by saying,
"They are letting go of the notion that their particular faith is the
only legitimate one on the planet." Perhaps
post-evangelicals are letting go of that, but "the notion that their particular faith is the only legitimate one on the planet" has not been part of the
liberal or postliberal tradition. Most of his twelve characteristics, in
my view, describe what post-evangelicals are letting go of. I would like
to think about what postliberals are letting go of and what we are
embracing.
A note on terminology: Eric speaks of postliberals, while I speak of postliberal progressives. I
have never identified myself as a postliberal. Some who use that label or
who have that label applied to them seem to have returned to traditional
Christianity rather than moving on to a new form beyond liberalism. If I were to think of myself as a postliberal, I would therefore think of myself as a postliberal
progressive rather than simply as a postliberal, which might include both
postliberal progressives and postliberal traditionalists.
So what is it that I think postliberal progressives are letting go of, and what are we embracing? What follows in the next few paragraphs comes in response to questions posed to me by my good friend Danny Nettleton, whose poetry blog, Words and Spaces, you should definitely follow.
Persons
in different stages of faith, a la James Fowler's Stages of Faith,
experience different socially constructed realities. Faith is experienced
differently for persons in different stages, and truth is understood
differently. When I was in a magical stage of faith and first learned that
Jesus said faith the size of a mustard seed could move mountains, I prayed that
God would move the barn across the road to show me I had enough faith. Is it
true that faith moves mountains? Was my prayer a true prayer? Was my lack of
faith responsible for the barn never moving? Was Jesus untrue when he said
this? (Did Jesus even say it? A question from a later stage of faith.)
Since the Enlightenment, empiricism and rationalism have been privileged
over other ways of knowing and over other kinds of truth. This has brought us
great boons, including boons in the realm of the critical study of religion.
Historical criticism helps us to understand the context of the writings in the
Bible, and it helps us to figure out who wrote what when. Rationalism and
empiricism help us decide that some of the things written in the Bible can't be
true in the sense that empiricism and rationalism dictate. Some people have
bought into the Enlightenment paradigm to the extent that they see truth only
in this way. The magical and mythical elements can't be true for them. This
is grounded in the work of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
theologians, biblical scholars, and religious scholars who sought to
demythologize Christianity. I once was there, thinking we had to rid
Christianity of its mythical elements.
Postmodern
thought, though, has discredited this imperialistic notion that empiricism and
rationalism have a monopoly on truth. Paul Ricoeur writes about coming through
the stringent criticisms the "masters of suspicion" have about
religion, taking those criticisms to heart, but returning to the myth and the magic
in a willed naïveté or second naïveté. This is not a return to a pre-critical
understanding of religion but a re-embracing of ways of knowing that the
critical methods of the Enlightenment had cast away. Fowler calls this the
"conjunctive" stage of faith, holding in paradoxical tension
positions that seem to be antithetical to one another.
Eric Elnes, with whom I
began this blog post, in addition to being pastor and author, is the host of an
online show, Darkwood Brew, which its
website describes as "a mind-opening exploration of Christian faith for
the modern world. This weekly program blends ancient worship practices
developed by Benedictine monks with cutting-edge media technology."
In one episode, Eric speaks
with Brian McLaren via Skype (Skype interviews are a regular part of each
episode) about the notion of Convergence Christians. At around 34:00,
McLaren speaks about Ricoeur's notion of the willed, second naivete and about
some mainline Christians becoming post-critical Christians. This is
exactly what I think postliberal progressives are letting go of and what we are
embracing.
What would this look
like? How can I let go of empiricism and rationalism as the only forms of
truth and still embrace magic, myth, and empirical, rational forms of
knowing simultaneously? In another Darkwood Brew episode, Failing, Falling and Flying: Genesis
Stories of Original Grace – Week 1: “Imago Dei – Rethinking Our Creation”,
Eric incarnates this posture perfectly. He has a Ph.D. in Biblical
Studies from Princeton. (To my chat buddies on Darkwood Brew, drink! Inside
joke, for everyone else. Sorry.) He has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies
from Princeton, so he utilizes the best critical scholarship regarding the
creation story in Genesis 1, but instead of demythologizing them, he explains
their message in relation to another, influential creation myth existing at the
time that the biblical story is being told, written, and edited. He
contends that Genesis 1 is a creation myth written in conversation with the
creation myth of the Babylonians, found in the Enuma Elish.
He notes both similarities and differences between the two texts and
says that reading only the Bible without understanding the Enuma Elish is
like overhearing one side of a telephone conversation. We might think we
know what Genesis 1 is saying, but without hearing the Enuma Elish,
its conversation partner, we can't get the real gist. I encourage you to
watch this wonderful episode, but I'll share just a couple of Eric's points.
In the Enuma
Elish, creation is the result of the slaying of an ocean goddess, symbol of
chaos, in the form of a dragon or sea serpent, by a storm god. The
heavens and earth are created when her body is cut down the middle. Human
beings are formed from the clay of the earth by the gods and infused with the
blood of the slain chaos monster. In this view, we are inherently chaotic
and violent. In contrast, Genesis 1 has no such violence and, while
Genesis 2 has the first human formed from the dust of the earth, it is
God's own breath that makes humanity a living soul. In Genesis 1,
humanity is created in God's image, but, in the Enuma Elish, only the king is created in the image of the
gods. Eric is saying that the stories in Genesis 1-11 are largely a
conversation with the Enuma Elish and function as both a
counter-narrative and a cautionary tale. When the
serpent, symbol in Genesis 2 of the Babylonian myth, whispers in our
ears and we think of ourselves in the way the Babylonian myth characterizes
human beings, we do descend into chaos and violence, but we are not created to
be that way.
In seminary I learned everything
about the Enuma Elish that Eric mentions in this episode, but
I think it's important to think this way about the Bible in the context of the
convergence with which this post began. Eric uses the best of critical
study of the Bible—Enlightenment tools—not to
demythologize the Bible but to help us better appreciate the message and the
power of the mythical elements in Genesis. This, I think, is precisely
what postliberal progressives are embracing, but it is only possible to do so
after we have let go of the notion that empiricism and rationalism are the only
forms of truth.
Are post-evangelicals also arriving at this spot? I'm not sure of that. Post-evangelicals like Brian McLaren seem to be arriving there, so some post-evangelicals are there or will be there at some point. Postliberals and post-evangelicals are coming from different places, though, and are moving in different directions. We may converge on the same territory for a while, or at least similar territories, but it may wind up being the case that we part ways again as we continue on our respective journeys. I am not yet convinced that convergence is the best metaphor for the cross-fertilization that is taking place between post-evangelicals and postliberal progressives, but I will be happy to walk with post-evangelicals as long as we are in the same vicinity.
Are post-evangelicals also arriving at this spot? I'm not sure of that. Post-evangelicals like Brian McLaren seem to be arriving there, so some post-evangelicals are there or will be there at some point. Postliberals and post-evangelicals are coming from different places, though, and are moving in different directions. We may converge on the same territory for a while, or at least similar territories, but it may wind up being the case that we part ways again as we continue on our respective journeys. I am not yet convinced that convergence is the best metaphor for the cross-fertilization that is taking place between post-evangelicals and postliberal progressives, but I will be happy to walk with post-evangelicals as long as we are in the same vicinity.
And I am very excited that there seems to be some sort of movement among progressives to become the kind of conjunctive Christians Fowler describes, to take on Ricoeur's willed, second naïveté. I think this could breathe fresh life into mainline churches, as long as we don't try to hang on to the institutional aspects that are so obviously failing. But that is another blog post.
(Also published at ProgressiveChristianity.org)
No comments:
Post a Comment