A New Kind of Christian: The Emergent Church: Part V

I'm continuing to think about The New Christians by emergent (EC) author, Tony Jones.  Jones is a very interesting writer and if you have an interest in EC, you will not be disappointed with Jones (check out Jones' book on the scrolling banner to the right).

Before I move on to a more substantial post later this week, leading to a final conclusion, there is one dangling item to which I'd like to return--the Enlightenment.  Jones in particular brings this up more than once in his book.  But it is not Jones I want to address;  instead, it's the words I wrote.  Thus far, I have written:

"The way I perceive it is, unless one understands that EC is framed upon an anti-Enlightenment platform, it will be all but impossible to understand where EC is coming from in their approach to the Christian faith. In effect, that means that many of us will simply never get EC or understand the arguments they make" (Part III, emphasis added)

"...for Jones to conclude such, not only undermines his bold insistence that EC is "humble" and "open" and "non-conclusionary" but also magnificently disassembles the platform upon which Emergent is constructed--anti-Enlightenment. 

In other words, the only apparent way that Jones could confidently make his conclusions, which the list I compiled above obviously demonstrates, is through the twin lens which, according to Jones himself, stem from the Enlightenment--reason and empirical evidence.

After all, it takes empirical data to conclude the American church is dead and it takes a certain amount of rational argument to sustain the judgment that dispensationalism is dubious theology.  Yet, the Enlightenment is the very perp Emergent seeks to indict" (Part IV, underlining added)

I want to make one thing perfectly clear before I move on.  And, though no one has questioned me for clarity on the above statements and their possible implications--surprising given the hard-line commitment I've repeatedly taken on SBC Tomorrow pertaining to Scripture's authority--after reflecting sufficiently on the statements above, I simply could not proceed without offering unquestionable clarity I have in my own mind and heart precisely where I stand on Scripture. 

The truth is, the statements above, taken as they stand, could very well imply--albeit wrongly--that my own position toward either epistemology* in general or biblical hermeneutics in particular is pro-Enlightenment to the core.  That would be a tragic mistake, though one of my own making.  I should have teased the idea and implications out more.  That I did not, I regret.  The words the way they are--or at least, as they remain unqualified--do not reflect adequately my position.

The Enlightenment, which flowered in 18th century Europe, and could be defined by Immanuel Kant's (1724-1804) contribution to the structure of the reasoned mind, left an indelible mark on Western culture with its focus on the supremacy of sheer human reason, experiment and raw empiricism.  No discipline was left untouched--psychology, philosophy, art, political theory, education, and, of course, religion. 

Most believers understand how radical the theological trajectory the Reformation propelled on Western Christianity specifically.  Think of a similar trajectory launched on Western culture broadly.  The Enlightenment was, in a real sense, a humanistic movement that told the Transcendent supernatural to take a hike.  Voltaire became the father of Deism, with Deism genetically linked to modern Liberalism.  Much too simplistic, I'm sure, for academia to swallow.  Nonetheless I think it's close enough not to choke intellectually.

A scenario such as this obviously does not portray what I personally had in mind when I wrote the quoted statements above.  Rather, my understanding is that while both reason and empirical research respectively play significant roles in theological development, historic Christianity is, at its heart, a revealed body of truth, and remains so regardless of whether it wins our expectations from naked human reason or not.  B. B. Warfield's arrow neither misses nor falls short:  Whatever Scripture says, God says.

From my view, while reason's role is neither supreme nor final, rationality--that is, the functional ability of human beings to think reasonably--remains a significant, undeniable mark of God's image in us.  Francis Schaeffer never tired of insisting upon the non-negotiable foundational plank that "A is A and not Non-A" or, the law of non-contradiction.  Without such a fundamental assumption, all assertions about truth become meaningless.  By the way, Schaeffer embraced what's known as foundationalism--"A is A and not Non-A" is exemplar--a position which Emergent appears to universally reject (TNC, p.19).

I hope this makes clear that while I take issue with EC's anti-Enlightenment position, it is not because I am an Enlightenment advocate.  Instead, it is because I firmly believe humans are made in God's image, an image that includes rationality because God is, after all, a rational Being (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1-2; 9:6; 1 Cor.11:7; James 3:9). 

With that, I am...

Peter   

*epistemology, in its formal sense, is a branch within the academic study of philosophy proper;  in a more popular usage, epistemology deals with how we come to know things--whether history, science or even ourselves;  applied to Scripture, epistemology deals primarily with interpretation, how we know what the Bible teaches.

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V

Comments

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

Quick question: Is your new format doing funky stuff?

It seems as though lately [to me] your comment threads might be out of order--at least somewhat.

Also, on a September 25, 2007 post I noticed that the last [or near to the last] comment I made originally is now the first comment seen on the thread. Also, I think at least 2 of my comments are no longer there.

By the way, my daughter liked your cat.

Grace,

Benji

[Benji Ramsaur]

Correction:

This sentence above should read--Also, on a September 25, 2007 post I noticed that the last [or near to the last] comment I made originally is now the first comment [from me] seen on the thread.

[Benji Ramsaur]

OK, I get it now Peter. The comment thread is going the reverse of the way it used to go.

Reminds me of that message I think my Mom put up on my wall growing up--Be patient, God isn't finished with me yet :)

[selahV]

Benji, if you'd come visit more often, you'd know he changed the rhythmn due to Typepad's comment limitations. Drives me wacko, but what can I say? Peter won't listen to me. :) I've sorta, kinda, almost gotten use to it now. So what do you think about the EC? I think it's kinda like hobo stew. Everyone brings whatever ingredient they have to the fellowship of believers and all the things sort of mingle together without any particular thing standing out, except Jesus is the Savior. selahV

[Benji Ramsaur]

SelahV,

OK, OK, you've got me groveling...:) I understand the order now. I just wish I had the cat and my comment(s) back:)

Honestly, I don't think I know enough about the EC to talk about it much.

My suspicion is that it has its good and bad points and that there are different ideological branches within it.

I'm a fan of the New Covenant theology movement which [I think] neither lapses into doctrinal indifference nor creedalism; modernism nor traditionalism.

With the foundation of inerrancy having been laid, I think the New Covenant theology movement is lay[ing] down a hermeneutic on that foundation that could bring wonderful unity to many Christians.

Grace

Benji

P.S. Just slapped my wrist for getting off the subject:)

[selahV]

Benji...I miss the cat, too. selahV

[Benji Ramsaur]

Gentle SelahV...:)