What role should history play in the emergence of emergerising* churches? What role should history play in the development of open-source theology?
I would argue that it’s essential to make sure that the movement sidesteps the mistakes made in previous years and also so that if and when wheel-reinvention takes place, it may be appropriately labelled with its original discoverers.
Further, I’d argue that there’s a need for polite and respectful engagement with other parts of the christian faith family which will need a respectful ear to their history and theology. It is only respectful to be aware and learning these things.
This risk is amplified by the ‘flattening of oligarchies’ and power structures that the internet and particularly the open-source movement bring: anyone can be an ‘expert’ (just look at this first-post in this communal space…).
I understand that the learning can sometimes stand in the way of actually going and doing. But I remain convinced that knowledge of one’s place in history and awareness & contemplation of lessons to be learned and problems to be avoided will stand the people of God better able to respond to whatever the future brings.
(* I thank George W. Bush for pioneering this form of mangling the English language.)
Take care. love Ken.
The virtues of forgetfulness
Ken, to be honest, I find this a rather difficult question to respond to, for two reasons. In the first place, I am not much of a historian – I do not instinctively look to the past in order to understand the present. It’s a worthwhile thing to do, and I’m increasingly aware of parallels between the current emergence of new church forms and the development of previous movements. But I have a rather poor grasp of the history of theology: as a biblical theologian my mind happily skips back and forward between scripture and the current state of the church, barely noticing the intervening millennia of theological reflection.
Secondly, I get the impression that the emerging church is trying hard to forget or unlearn much of what it knows – partly in order to come at the whole challenge of being church with new eyes, but also in order to remember things that modern evangelicalism in particular has forgotten. I have argued for this with regard to the interpretation of scripture, but it goes for pretty much everything we are, think, and do as church at the moment.
Perhaps these two observations go some way towards accounting for the lack of historical awareness on this site. The recent critique by Charles St-Onge also highlights the problem. But I see no reason why emerging church conversations such as this should not include the voices of church historians, historical theologians, and representatives of other Christian traditions. I think you’re absolutely right there. It’s simply a question of who can be persuaded to participate in the discussion.
rememb'ring things long forgotten
Thanks for your words, Andrew.
I admit that I’m not really a historian at all, but I am willing to learn. Among my biggest gripes about the current state of evangelical congregations that I have been part of, is their claim to be distinct from the historical context that brought about evangelical practice and their claim to be immune to the forces of tradition. I remain convinced that neither of these hold true.
I’ve also found that the spiritual habits borne in life by people of other traditions and backgrounds to mine have brought richness and vitality to what can otherwise be a dull spiritual life. I would hope that, whatever emerges and is labelled as ‘the emerging church’, it doesn’t lie ignorant of the diversity and beauty of faith lived out in previous years.
I’d claim the knowledge of ones place in history is a key part in the antidote to our current instantaneous and unsatisfying consumer culture.
Surely the idea of ‘being church with new eyes’ can only be realised when you know what the old eyes ‘saw’ and what it looks like to ‘see’ anew? Also, how can you ‘remember things that modern evangelicalism in particular has forgotten’ without learning what they were?
I’m going to quit with the rhetorical questions now and seriously ask: Then, how is this done? If you’re serious about writing stuff on an emerging theology, then reading stuff on theology goes as part of it. A serious addition to the commentary project would be something like a ‘prior art’ commentary that indicates which theological brands have held which views based upon particular reading of particular scripture.
If relating to those who remain in the traditions around us is going to happen at all (and, for the sake of christian unity I hope so), we need understand them so that we can present open-source or ‘emerging’ theology to them in words they’ll understand. This ‘in words they understand’ phrase is why I’m post-evangelical or ‘emerging’ (and other labels): I want to be able to present Jesus to anyone in words they understand. Most particularly this involves those living and working around me and in my generation.
Take care. love Ken.
History should not be history
I think the important thing to remember is that regardless of where our theology is leading us today, someone way back probably had a similar idea once before. I can’t remember what philosopher said it, so sorry bout the paraphrase, but it was something to the extent of “everything that can be said has already been said and we are just quoting.”
With that in mind, can we ever really have a unique understanding of scripture, of how the church should be, etc.? And if we cannot come up with a unique understanding, we should embrace and study the ideas of our church fathers through history. As much as we have to learn from one another, we have so much more to learn from our predecessors who brought us to where we are.
responsive theologies?
I’d reply to the words of the Hotshot and say that there is a unique opportunity today for the wisdom, experiences and paths trodden by those who have gone before us to affect us and those around us. That’s why the study of what it means to be a christian hasn’t disappeared into the night.
There is a further thought that might need to be added to this discussion. I’d say that a lot of what life is about is reactive stuff: buy more milk when we learn there’s none in the fridge; pay the water bill when we learn how much water we’ve used; buy flowers for girlfriend when we remember her anniversary; approach the altar of most holy God with a bull and goat for our sin offering ;-).
Essentially, we react to the needs placed upon us. Equally, theology seems to be reactive to the situations placed upon it. It can be claimed that the gospel writers and those who scribed the epistles were all writing to a specific market who had a specific need for a spin or perspective on Jesus and ensuing theology. That is to say that they were all writing reactively.
Is there any scope that what we do can be proactive, i.e. to be waiting, expecting, anticipating?
A guess: yes and no. Where there are those who are likely to take paths we have trod in previous days and years, yes. But each person places their own footsteps in their own way on those paths, and flat-packed anticipation of their needs can be patronising and abusive of their inherent value as a person and friend.
So, what does it look like to be anticipatory and proactive? (see also Brian McLaren’s words about ‘being appropriate’.)
Take care. love Ken.
Theology backwards and forwards
I think it’s entirely right that we should seek to correct evangelicalism’s historical amnesia – it’s just that I’m not the person to do it. If others are able to point up the connections between the ideas and beliefs that are finding expression on this website and the ideas and beliefs of our forefathers throughout the ages, I would encourage them to do so.
Ken, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by a ‘“prior art”’ commentary’. My own preference would be to keep the focus on the development of an emerging / postmodern /open source theology and not to try and cover too much ground, but I would certainly welcome pointers (comments, links to other sites, etc.) to the wider context of theological reflection.
It occurs to me that we really need to distinguish between a number of different ‘theological’ tasks here:
1. Biblical interpretation: the meaning of scripture does not presuppose a later history of interpretation (though patristic and rabbinic exegesis may offer some legitimate insight by virtue of their historical proximity to the culture and language of the Bible). This means, I think, that we are bound in this instance to listen to the tradition critically.
2. Post-biblical theological development: the early church developed and clarified scripture in response to controversy, creating a classical theology that in certain respects goes beyond the insights and arguments of scripture.
3. Theological systematization: there has also been the development of coherent, all-encompassing theologies (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Barth, Berkhof, Grudem).
4. Theology as conversation with the world: theology also has an interface with that which is not Christian theology: other theologies, philosophies, science, sociology, etc.
5. Practical theology: last, but by no means least, there is the task of making our beliefs work in the life and mission of the church. This is also a highly contextualized activity: practical theology takes on the colours of the dominant culture.
I’m not sure whether this constitutes a complete set of categories. We must also allow for the fact that these tasks are not fully distinct: they overlap, interact, often clash. The important point is that tradition functions differently in each case, carries different weight. So for example, we attribute greater authority to the church fathers’ pronouncements on christology and the definition of the godhead than we do to their exegesis; we are rather careful how we ‘listen’ to the church’s conversation with Copernicus; and so on.
With regard to the suggestion about a responsive or proactive theology – it sounds like a good idea, but what does it mean in practice? My feeling is that Western culture is still basically moving away from its Christian past, so it’s probably inevitable that we feel like we’re constantly running to catch up – we operate largely in reactionary mode. And let’s face it, it would be far worse if we weren’t reacting to change! But at the same time, there must be some sense of what we are called to be, of an identity defined by our relation to God, not to the world only. What I am looking for is a way to be a disciple of Jesus, to be church, that people find, encounter, ahead of them – not desperately running after them from behind. The church needs to be where people are going not where they are coming from.
What does Brian McLaren actually say about ‘being appropriate’?
Reconciling with the History of Christianity
Andrew, I hear what you are saying and was in total agreement with all you said until the last line of your comment. You wrote, “The church needs to be where people are going not where they are coming from.” Please tell me if I am coming at your comment wrongly.
I think the problem with how we do evangelism is largely due to the fact that we do not want to look back and see how nasty Christianity was at certain periods in history. We must first be reconciled to our history, to events like the Crusades and the Inquisition before we can ever move forward. Yes, some of us have forgotten these events and the way in which Christianity was protrayed, but many non-believers have not. Christianity is about love, but what about those who killed innocent people in the name of Christianity. I am not saying we need to live in the past, but we cannot ever just put it to the side like it isn’t part of our formation today.
For example, I think the fact that people are getting together on a site like this takes us back to the past. People are gathering to discuss issues pertaining to church doctrine and understanding like the early church fathers did at the church councils. Yes, that was to insure orthodoxy, but was somewhat of a forum for furthering understanding nonetheless. Furthermore, I am thinking of how the modern hermeneutic limited biblical interpretation to authorial intent only, whereas some of our greatest church fathers and theologians such as Origen, Augustine, and Luther were given over to allegorical interpretations. These interpretations have been criticized by many who support the modern view from a literary criticism standpoint, but must not be overlooked.
We are a people living for the end, living for a future hope and promise, but that does not mean we can forget the work (both good and bad) of our predecessors in the faith.
Peace
Clarification
Maybe. The comment was a response to Ken’s suggestion that our thinking needs to anticipate cultural and intellectual change – it wasn’t meant as a denial of our theological and ecclesiastical past. I fully agree with you that we need to acknowledge the failings – and perhaps also understand exactly what role allegorical forms of exegesis played in the development of theology (the issue here may be which category of theological activity the allegorizing method of interpretation belongs in – it may not be exegesis).
The question I wanted to address, however, had to do more with the perceived value of our worldview, belief system, theology. This value will be established partly through the integrity with which we deal with our history; but it also depends on the intrinsic worth of what we are saying. In a post-Christian world it seems essential that we construct and embody the ‘truth’ in such a way that it feels like a step forward rather than a step back. In a way, this is largely a matter of perception, but I have talked to a lot of people, Christians and non-Christians, who sense that they have left Christianity behind, which is very different to never having known it. At a personal and missional level, therefore, I think that being proactive, anticipatory, is not so much a question of guessing what the big questions will be next year but of offering people a viable future with God.
History and Theology
Ken,
I think you are correct in suggesting that historical theological thinking should play a role in emerging theology. This is what I’ve tried to argue regarding the classical hermenuetical community and contextual theology. Marcus Cicero is credited with saying, “Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge.”
This pertains equally to theological reflection. Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson have observed, “Indeed, the church may be said now to be replaying the struggles of the most ancient church, occasioned exactly by the blurring of the line.” Any movement toward a future theological encounter with culture would be deficient if it did not include a historical analysis of relevant doctrines. Richard Muller states,
Unfortunately, evangelicals have a historical amnesia. While Andrew is correct in asserting the notion that biblical theology skips from the scripture to the current situation, I believe we are missing a wealth of historical information that has affected our contemporary biblical theologizing. Our contemporary theologizing does not occur in a historical vacuum. There is a history to how we got here and if we miss the opportunity to critically reflect on that history I believe we are likely to repeat it.