There is both a diachronic (historical) and a synchronic (a-historical, existential) dimension to the development of a theology for the emerging church. The argument has for the most part been developed synchronically in response to cultural and philosophical changes taking place both inside and outside the church. Biblical stories are treated as types and exemplars of general spiritual truths. The diachronic or historical dimension has been neglected. We do not understand well enough the historical-eschatological narrative that brings us to the point at which we may properly address the postmodern questions about identity, community, mission, truth, culture, and so on.
The development and implementation of a critical-realist or strongly historical hermeneutic and the postmodernization of evangelical theology are two distinct tasks, but there are important links between them.
1. Perhaps the most important link is a practical and opportunistic one. The current crisis of confidence and the growing willingness (born largely from desperation) to experiment with new forms of church have created the sort of opening needed to get a more realistic understanding of Jesus, of his mission, and of the nature and purpose of the community which he initiated into the mainstream.
What is needed is a usable, public hermeneutic that does not merely serve the interests of an unthinking pre-emptive dogmatism. The challenge here is in the words ‘usable’ and ‘public’. Such a hermeneutic must be consistent with the standards and methods of ordinary rationality, which is likely to reflect an interaction rather than a conflict between modern and postmodern habits of thought, and must be allowed to shape popular, and not merely scholarly, Christian discourse. To put it in Wright’s terms, the portrait of Jesus that is emerging from ‘Third Quest’ scholarship needs to have an impact at pew-level’ and at ‘street-level’ (cf. N.T. Wright, Who was Jesus?, 16, with reference to the work of E.P. Sanders).
2. An historically oriented hermeneutic presents what is probably the most effective means of deconstructing the controlling paradigms of modern evangelical interpretation while, at the same time, offering the possibility of re-constructing an alternative narrative coherent and powerful enough to motivate a recognizably ‘evangelical’ commitment.
3. There is the further advantage with a critical-realist hermeneutic that it gives priority to the historical and theological referents behind the text. In that sense it is pragmatic. In this way we may hope to avoid both the modern preoccupation with abstracted propositional truth and the postmodern distrust of the texts and of the project of exegesis.
A critical-realist hermeneutic is the product not of church practice and teaching but of scholarly investigation. This has certain advantages. One is that we may hope to reduce the gulf that has opened up between biblical scholarship and the thought-world of the church. Another is that it will allow for a more tentative, open-minded management of the truth. We come much closer to the standpoint of postmodernism if we recognize that truth is always an emergent value and cannot be separated from the complex, unpredictable process of coming to understand.
On the face of it, Wright’s insistence on the historicality of the gospel narratives runs counter to the postmodern distrust of purported historical knowledge, but it may be in its particularity that the story about Jesus finds its plausibility within the framework of a more suspicious epistemology. The history of dogmatic interpretation has always moved from the particular and concrete to the abstract and universal and has then re-imagined the historical starting point in universal terms. Postmodernism resists the dogmatic argument, but it may be possible to return to a more confidently reconstructed historical narrative and restate its inherent truthfulness in a way that does not ignore the limitations and difficulties of historiography.
Postmodernism...
You raise an important issue that I am attempting to deal with, however insufficiently, in the “Guidelines for determing biblical orthodoxy” paper. Much of this issue depends on how we view postmodernism. Perhaps on the academic level it is better described as deconstructionism. I’m not so certain that this level is having as great of an impact on the emerging culture as has been suggested, although it does seem to influence those writing to the emerging culture.
I see the greater impact coming from cultural fragmentation, pluralization and globalization. These factors have raised the issue of religious identity in new ways. Along with the emergence of postmodernism, we are asking the question, “Who is Jesus?” and are far more willing to be critical of the answers we once thought of as orthodox. Fueled by the increasing popularity of higher criticism’s deconstruction of the historical Jesus as well as the legitimization of other religions, there are at least two responses:
1. the response that suggests Jesus was a creation of early Christian writers. In fact, he was a pagan god usurped by Christian theology and propagated as the Christ. You see this especially in Freke and Gandy’s two books (The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Goddess).
2. the response that suggests Jesus never existed at all.
I do not think that the emerging culture will go for the second response. However, a reconstruction of Jesus as a popular figure infused with attributes of local dieties is attracting a great amount of attention, especially since it suggests that the hegemony of the Church oppressed religious others in order to exert its authority for social control.
Let me suggest that perhaps Lesslie Newbigin could help in addressing this issue. Coming of a religiously pluralistic context in India and returning to England, he encountered a context which was far more resistent to the gospel. In his provocative article “Can the West be Converted?,” (1987) Newbigin sets out six points of an agenda for the conversion of the Western Europe. In the ensuing years he rearticulated his agenda on several occasions. Some of those rearticulations were gathered in 1994 in the book A Word in Season: Perspectives on Christian World Missions.
First, he suggests a declericalizing of theology. Christianity must come out of the established church to engage the culture on every level. He asserts that theology must engage the public sector of life through the work of lay men and women.
Second, he suggests the need for the recovery of an apocalyptic teaching of the New Testament. That is, what has been hidden in the privatization of religion must now be revealed to engage the culture and give a hope not only for the individual but also for the world. It is in that realization Christians understand the hope of the future is not in the hands of people with their abilities. That hope rests in the coming of Jesus Christ and the establishment of the holy city.
Third, Newbigin asserts that there is a need for a doctrine of freedom that rests on the gospel. It is the difference between pretending that we have the truth (an Enlightenment illusion) and witnessing to the truth. Witnessing to the truth engages other witnesses in the form of dialogue based on the shared belief that there is obtainable truth.
Fourth, in order for the West to be converted there needs to be a break from denominationalism, an institutional form of privatized religion. The church needs to act in community and that community is made up of all Christians.
Fifth, there needs to be an honest critique by Christian others. Western Christianity is laden with Western culture and blinders have formed that must be taken off.
Finally, Newbigin calls for courage. Christians must understand the reality of a spiritual battle that calls for “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” He calls for courage that will stand up in the face of societal opposition and acknowledge belief that cannot be proved as true and is doubted by rational minds but nonetheless it is truth.
Just a few thoughts to contribute to the discussion.
Have our cake and eat it?
Andrew,
Postmodernism resists the dogmatic argument, but it may be possible to return to a more confidently reconstructed historical narrative and restate its inherent truthfulness in a way that does not ignore the limitations and difficulties of historiography.
as evangelicals who wish to describe themselves as postmodern should we not be careful that we are not attempting to have our cake and eat it when it comes down to the Jesus question? Just a thought for now, since, when I’m in the pub with friends, some who have church background and others who have not, the historical question about Jesus is an important one to them - Marcus Borg has as much to say as N.T.Wright (see their book about Jesus) - deconstruction doesn’t mean we simply reconstruct to its original form with slight cosmetic differences to suit our original assumptions or preferences - once deconstruction has taken place some of the pieces may either be lost, discarded or simply change shape so that it can never fit back together again - shades of Humpty Dumpty … . just a thought … .
Hadge, nice to hear from you
Hadge, nice to hear from you - and I like the blog and your description of ‘open ground’. We’re trying to do something similar in London.
I take your point about facile reconstruction ‘to suit our original assumptions or preferences’. At the moment it seems to me that Wright brings less of a modern agenda to the task of interpretation than Borg, but that may just expose my particular prejudices. Still, I think we have to take seriously both the historical question and the question of what constitutes an ‘accurate’ reading of the texts. It is clearly important that this remains an open process, an ongoing conversation. But I also feel that something usable needs to emerge from it at a grassroots level - something clear enough and powerful enough to motivate things like worship, ministry, and mission. And surely, if I choose to be baptized into Christ, I need to have a fairly clear idea what I’m letting myself in for.
Thanks for your speedy response!
Thanks for your speedy response! It’s an important discussion and I’m pleased to have stumbled across this forum. I don’t claim to have a firm grasp of postmodernism (seems a contradiction in terms really!) but it does intregue me how the ‘emerging’ / ‘alternative’ church (on the internet at least) seems to hoist it high as a banner, and this as if it were a good thing (it may be it may not be - whatever as Liam Lynch would say in his excellent song) But it did occur to me on the way in to work in the car this morning how strange it is that with all the postmodern kids having done Media Studies (educational icon of the postmodern - perhaps why Charles Clark hates it so much) they still feel compelled to go out and buy Nike! eh? :shock: