“…but when God speaks, we’re not to converse, but obey.”
—Pastor Mark Driscoll, quoted at the Convergent Conference at the Southeastern Theological Seminary, September 2007. Driscoll was speaking about the formation of the Emergent Village and how those associated with it are positioning themselves in a conversation with the Bible and with God. This quote immediately followed a reference to Genesis and how the snake seduced Adam and Eve through conversation.
“Good Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.”
— Rev Jerry Falwell, quoted Freethought Today, December, 1999, cited by Anthony T. Podestra of People for the American Way in, Dietz and Holden, Satiricon, p 44; quoted from Steve Benson “Latter-Day Saint To Latter-Day Ain’t”; commemorating the “Tell It Like It Is” Freethought In Media Award, presented on November 5, 1999, by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Re: Mark Driscoll, Jerry Falwell and the End of Conversation
I didn’t realize either Driscoll or Falwell were Muslims.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
and?
Jacob, I’m sure you’d agree the emerging church wants to avoid stifling conversation. For this very purpose, I’m unsure that taking single quotes from two lightning-rod preachers who obviously think thinking is important is worth posting about without commentary. Did you mean to offer some reflections on the speeches from which these quotes are taken, or did you just want some co-complainers? The latter is probably to be avoided.
Peace,
-Daniel-
So is it good to ask so many questions?
I agree a little explanation or reflection wouldn’t have gone amiss. But it’s still a good issue to explore. Is the emerging church right to put so much emphasis on asking questions? Isn’t it time we started agreeing on a few things, if only in outline?
I have lots of questions - I am sceptical and critical by natrue - but I feel like I’m looking for fairly definite answers. I’m not sure I’ve got too many of them yet and I’m willing to keep questioning what I have got, but I don’t want to be going round in dizzying circles of doubt indefinitely. I think we will need some sort of consensus, some sort of better shared understanding of what it means to have inherited the promise to Abraham to be (as I would put it) ‘new creation’.
Others - the true postmoderns - will probably recoil from the prospect of ‘consensus’. It many respects, ironically, it feels safer to keep questioning than to settle on some more or less definitive version of the truth. I guess any consensus will need to have a continuing critical self-awareness built into it - I still find that a phrase like ‘critical realism’ best captures the hermeneutic that we are struggling to describe.
I suppose the fallacy at the heart of Driscoll’s remark is that we have to stop conversing in order to obey. I have not found that the emerging conversation has kept me from loving God, loving my neighbour, doing righteousness. I’m not saying that I am doing those things particularly well - but it’s not the emerging conversation that’s tripping me up. I certainly have more faith in scripture than I did a while back.
Re: So is it good to ask so many questions?
Daniel and Andrew,
Perhaps I should have commented. I just figured their words were incitement enough to get me (and others) to thinking and writing. Either way, I’m not sure what I did write constitutes complaining. Its more of: “Wow! Look what’s fomenting.”
I already had the Falwell quote on hand when I recently heard the Driscoll quote. I should say that the whole Driscoll talk is worth listening to. He not only takes some shots at emerging folks, but he pokes at fundamentalists too (I enjoy that about the guy).
My first impression when I heard the Driscoll quote and how it closely paralleled Falwell’s words, was the notion of response. Whatever direction(s) the emerging church is moving in, it is going to generate counter-responses. Driscoll symbolizes a certain stream of criticism that came from within the emerging conversation. Driscoll, in my view, is aligning himself with hard evangelicals and perhaps fundamentalist story lines. Adding to Andrew’s comments, forever asking questions and wondering in “dizzying circles of doubt” may well inspire a hard core sense of certainty.
Is one of the reactions to the emerging church a fundamentalist Resurgence? I use the word “Resurgence” explicitly because it is the name of Driscoll’s website. Perhaps it is something to think about.
Re: So is it good to ask so many questions?
Andrew: "Is the emerging church right to put so much emphasis on asking questions?"
shiert (hereafter "TMS"): The answer is Yes.
Every question possesses a power that does not lie in the answer.—Elie Wiesel
Andrew: "dizzying circles of doubt"
TMS: Without them is there a need for faith? Answer is no.
Andrew: "Others - the true postmoderns…"
TMS: The phrase suggests that true postmoderns exist and that you know who they are and what they believe. I am not so sure we are indeed in a new philosophical epoch and, if we are, I have only preliminary notions of what the tenets of this new philosophy might be. This after research, reading and writing for two years.
Andrew: "… some more or less definitive version of the truth."
TMS: May I respectfully suggest that this phrase tortures the meanings of the words used—almost to the breaking point. Truth is not a more or less proposition and the use of definitive version with truth is redundant. I have had this feeling before in reading the posts in various threads on this website. For example, does it make any sense to talk about more or less unversals? I suppose if you define universal as merely meaning "general" I can make some sense of it. But is that how people doing theology or philosophy in earnest use the word? Sometimes I feel like I am in Wonderland along with Alice. No, replace sometimes with "often."
Andrew: "I think we will need some sort of consensus …"
TMS: The answer is yes, you will. But let me suggest that if the emerging church movement, if it exists and if it is a movement, has any vitality whatsoever, this consensus will occur as it attracts more and more participants and then only when it becomes institutional. At the point it becomes institutional, the movement will disintegrate because the people that the movement attracts in the first place are anti-institutional. A round about way, I suppose, of suggesting that "emerging church" is an oxymoron. So that I am not misunderstood, I do not use the word oxymoron in its pejorative sense.
Andrew: "…the fallacy at the heart of Driscoll’s remark…"
TMS: The fallacy is that he and Falwell and others like them know what the truth is, express that truth as delivered from on high and command that thier truths be accepted without question on penalty of being damned to hell. Actually, the fallacy is that they have any authority whatsoever in issuing such commands. I suspect, however, that the fault is not in them, but in us.
Andrew: "I have not found that the emerging conversation has kept me from loving God, loving my neighbour, doing righteousness."
TMS: This is a personal statement which I respect. But the question, seems to me, is; does the emerging conversation [or is it church?] compel you to love God, your neighbor, or do righteousness? You are a believer. You are already inside the tent. Maybe the question is; does the emerging church or conversation bring others inside the tent, or; if they are contemplating leaving, keep them there? In what sense is a mere conversation ever the efficient cause of anything other than more conversation? I do not accept that words alone, without more, incite action. On this point, I think God may agree with me. See, John 1, et seq.
Re: So is it good to ask so many questions?
I’m not sure I see why ‘definitive version’ is redundant. The phrase merely points to the fact that we make statements about something - and at least intuitively we suppose that the ‘something’ we are attempting to put into words can be expressed in different ways and with varying degrees of success, depending on who we are talking to, how well we understand the ‘something’, what cultural or social contraints we are under, and so on. My point was simply that while the postmodern mentality (yes, if such a thing exists) is reluctant to validate any one ‘version’ of (let’s say) the gospel as normative, as a community we still express preferences, we still find ourselves more confident in or more highly motivated by a certain formulations of the ‘truth’ than others. We are acutely aware, it seems to me, that our attempts to articulate what we mean or believe are always flawed, provisional, and hopelessly bound up with our narrow perspective on things.
That seems unlikely. The more it becomes institutional, the more it will attract people who want to consolidate and build - or who at least want to hang around institutions. The pioneers may fall away at this point and go and sulk or start something else. But it doesn’t mean that the movement will collapse. Of course, it may cease to be a movement as such, it may morph into something else; but it still won’t be the same as the institutions that it replaced. And if the pioneers do their job well, we may even hope to avoid some of the more destructive consequences of ‘consensus’.
Well, OK, but it’s never ‘mere’ conversation. Conversations arise out of experiences - of frustration and disillusionment, of activism, of new encounters, of reading, of meditation, of other conversations. And conversations, if they are interesting, will affect outlook and behaviour. Conversation is merely collective thought. As an individual I reflect on experience, and the thought is likely to have some impact on who I am and what I do. Perhaps not very much, but it is rarely mere thought. The emerging conversation is evidence of some rather fundamental collective rethinking that is taking place on the fringes of the ‘church’. Not all of it will be fruitful; much of it is confused. But that is simply what happens when we struggle with the disintegration of a dominant paradigm and have to construct a new one.
Re: So is it good to ask so many questions?
“In what sense is a mere conversation ever the efficient cause of anything other than more conversation?”
“efficient cause”—what do you mean more precisely?
I don’t know about an “efficient cause,” but language can be seen as both constitutive and causal too.
Naming your enemy “evil” as opposed to a “noble opponent” generates different kinds of responses, different kinds of actions, different kinds of effects. You act differently toward an “evil” doer than you would a “noble opponent.”
Words are powerful, I would say. They have the capacity to transform “sinners” into “saints.” They start wars (declarations of war) and they end them (peace treaties).
The power of words and the virtualization of faith
Yes, perhaps conversation should be regarded as an ‘inefficient cause’.
Words also have the power to disconnect us from reality by coding a virtualized belief system, a sphere of mythicized discourse, that runs in relative isolation from our engagement with the ‘real world’. For me this is one of the biggest tasks of the emerging conversation - to recover a sense of reality and integrity. The virtual operating system needs to be disabled (deconstructed?) and the ‘truth’ application, the story about Jesus, that was running on it transferred to the base operating system by which we interface with our physical and cultural environment - if that makes any sense.
Re: The power of words and the virtualization of faith
Words also have the power to disconnect us from reality by coding a virtualized belief system, a sphere of mythicized discourse, that runs in relative isolation from our engagement with the ‘real world’.
I’m not so sure about that. You presume a divide between the words one uses to describe the world and the world itself. That divide is a presumption immanent to critical realism. Ultimately, I believe, the divide that you presume works to devalue language and render it epiphenomonal, instead of essential to social (and thus religious) life. Isn’t Christianity a religion of the book and the word?
From my angle, a relational angle, there is no divide between words and world—they are mutually constitutive. Instead of saying words have the "power to disconnect us from reality," I would prefer to say that words can generate different realities, some of which you see as disconnected from what you describe as the really ‘real world.’ Words are intimately connected to the world in a constitutive and causal relationship.
For you to say that some realities are "disconnected" is to basically say that you don’t agree with what they construct. I would say those "virtualized" realities are no less real than your really "real world." They both are meaningful for those living within them.
For me this is one of the biggest tasks of the emerging conversation - to recover a sense of reality and integrity.
Recover a sense of reality from what? That presumes that a sense of reality was lost to begin with. Was it lost? It sounds like you are longing for the old instead of moving toward the future—toward the kingdom of God and the new creation.
Re: The power of words and the virtualization of faith
I don’t think so - though I can’t work out how much this is a matter of real disagreement and how much it simply reflects different polemical agendas.
I think that what I presume is that not all stories are equal, that some are more realistic or more accurate than others. Some of the stories in which we live are delusional or fantasist or paranoid - do they have equal validity with our more sane narratives? My point is simply that cultures can also generate faith stories that function essentially as myth - they are not subject to the routine ‘critical’ checks by which we keep our narratives sane and broadly in touch with reality.
I fail to see how this devalues language - it merely acknowledges that we use language referentially, it relates to (and does not merely constitute) other things, whether objects or events or texts. That relationship, it seems to me, is always subject to re-evaluation - which is what I mean by critical realism. Language is constitutive of reality, but reality also reconstitutes language - even if that is only ever really a clash of differently contextualized narratives.
But you also made the point earlier that ‘Naming your enemy "evil" as opposed to a "noble opponent" generates different kinds of responses, different kinds of actions, different kinds of effects’. That seems to me to presume a divide between language and reality - obviously not an absolute distinction but sufficient to have moral implications. It may be the case that ‘evil’ and ‘noble opponent’ are equally ‘real’, as you suggest, but the church is not called to take that position of ethical neutrality. The church has somehow to stand for righteousness and truth, and that must entail making a choice between divergent stories.
How come? How are integrity and a sense of reality ‘old’ rather than ‘new’? Why are the ‘kingdom of God and the new creation’ not a matter of integrity and a sense of reality? Why can’t we move towards the future by recovering something?
Re: The power of words and the virtualization of faith
Andrew,
I think that what I presume is that not all stories are equal, that some are more realistic or more accurate than others.
That you say "some stories are more realistic or more accurate than others" implies a divide between word and world. If words are about accuracy, then there is a distance to be traveled between the word and world—the closer the word gets to the world the more accurate it is. If words are already in contact with the world, then accuracy isn’t a issue—what words do, their transformative power, is the issue here.
I’m not saying "all stories are equal," just like the Buddha and Jesus aren’t equal. They open up different possible storylines—one is about zen and the other about the kingdom of God.
I guess we have to disagree. I don’t think some stories are "delusional" or "paranoid." I think those are names we give to stories we don’t trust—the word "paranoid" doesn’t refer to some dispositional property of the story, but effectively marginalizes that story.
I fail to see how this devalues language - it merely acknowledges that we use language referentially, it relates to (and does not merely constitute) other things, whether objects or events or texts.
It seems to me that to refer to something is to relate to it, to constitute its value. My concern is that you seem to emphasize the accuracy of our words and not their effects, which is another way of saying that you value what is behind the text and not the words themselves.
Language is constitutive of reality, but reality also reconstitutes language - even if that is only ever really a clash of differently contextualized narratives.
We seem to agree here. My point here is that the "reality" that language constitutes and the "reality" that reconstitutes language are ontologically inseperable. It is a philosophical sleight of hand to say that one can get outside their language to the really real world behind their language. That is the crux of the poststructural critique of critical realism. There is a move within critical realism that suggests one can get outside their language to the really real world out there—logically and empirically, though, that seems impossible.
It may be the case that ‘evil’ and ‘noble opponent’ are equally ‘real’, as you suggest, but the church is not called to take that position of ethical neutrality.
No one asking the church to take an ethically neutral position—I’m not even sure there is such an animal. We all speak from positions and positions entail an ethos. I’m asking the children of God to watch more closely the langugae they use. Don’t be so quick to use the label "evil," for instance. Understand that the language one uses has effects. Godly people need to watch what comes out of there mouth because it can hurt and reconcile, praise and curse.
How come? How are integrity and a sense of reality ‘old’ rather than ‘new’? Why are the ‘kingdom of God and the new creation’ not a matter of integrity and a sense of reality? Why can’t we move towards the future by recovering something?
You orginally used the word "recover," which suggests to me that you want to discover what was lost. My response is that integrity is forged, not found. Reality is constructed, not discovered laying around out there beyond the text.