The Emergent Church:
Theological Postmodernism
By Norman L. Geisler
March 2012
The Key Influence on
Postmodernism
The post-modern movement finds its roots in
Friedrich Nietzsche and the death of God movement he spawned. The
whole post-modern movement can be cast in this context. Nietzsche
wrote: “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?” (“The
Madman” in Gay Science, 125). But once they pronounced that
God is dead, then the rest of post-modernism follows logically.
For if there is no absolute Moral Law Giver, there can be no absolute
moral law (subjectivism). Likewise, if there is no absolute Mind,
then there can be no absolute meaning (conventionalism) or absolute
truth (relativism). Further, if there is no objective meaning,
then there cannot be an objective interpretation of a text. Hence,
deconstructionism follows. So, the death of God leads to the
death of every other area of thought and life as follows:
1. “Death of God”--Atheism
2. Death of objective truth--Relativism
3. Death of exclusive truth—Pluralism
4. Death of objective meaning--Conventialism
5. Death of thinking (logic)—Anti-Foundationalism
6. Death of objective interpretation--Deconstructionism
7. Death of objective values--Subjectivism
Key Influence of
Postmodernism on Theology
Post-modernism in theology
has been called Post-Protestant, Post-Orthodox, Post-Denominational,
Post-Doctrinal, Post-Individual, Post-Foundational, Post-Creedal,
Post-Rational, Post-Absolute. Actually, “Post” = “Anti” since
post-modernism is opposed to everything listed above which they see as
part of the modern world.
The North American father of post-modernism
in evangelical theology, wrote: “But for me…opposing it [Postmodernism]
is as futile as opposing the English language. It’s here. It’s
reality. It’s the future…. It’s the way my generation processes every
other fact on the event horizon” (McLaren, The Church on the Other
Side (COS), 70). He added, “Postmodernism is the intellectual
boundary between the old world and the other side. Why is it so
important? Because when your view of truth is changed, when your
confidence in the human ability to know truth in any objective way is
revolutionized, then everything changes. That includes theology…”
(McLaren, COS, 69).
Key Books by
Post-Modern Theologians
Brian McLaren wrote The Church on the
Other Side, A Generous Orthodoxy, and A New Kind of Christian.
Stanley Grenz, the grand-father of the movement wrote: A Primer
on Post-Modernism, Beyond Foundationalism, Revisioning Evangelical
Theology. Rob Bell hit the front page of Time magazine
recently with his denial of Hell in his book, Love Wins. He
also wrote Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith.
Doug Pagitt & Tony Jones penned, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope
and Tony Jones wrote, The New Christians: Dispatches from the
Emergent Frontier.
Basic Beliefs of
Post-Modernism
There are many beliefs of post-modernist. We will
list the key views and show how they are making self-defeating claims.
This is what the apostle Paul urges us to do when he said “We destroy
arguments and bring every thought captive to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).
Anti-Absolutism
McLaren wrote:
“Arguments that pit absolutism verses relativism, and objectivism versus
subjectivisim, prove meaningless or absurd to postmodern people”
(McClaren, “The Broadened Gospel,” (in “Emergent Evangelism,”
Christianity Today [Nov., 2004], 43).
As we shall see, the root problem with post-modern thought is that it is
self-defeating. It cannot even state its view without
contradicting itself. For example,--
|
1. Relativism Stated: “We cannot know
absolute truth.” 2. Relativism Self-Refuted: We know that we
cannot know absolute truth. |
Anti-Exclusivism
Another aspect of post-modern thought is its
pluralism or anti-exclusivism. McClaren wrote: “Missional Christian
faith asserts that Jesus did not come to make some people saved and
others condemned. Jesus did not come to help some people be right
while leaving everyone else to be wrong. Jesus did not come to create
another exclusive religion” (A Generous Orthodoxy, 109).
“But Christianity’s
idea that other religions cannot be God’s carriers of [redemptive] grace
and truth casts a large shadow over our Christian experiences (Samir
Selmanovic, in Pagitt, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 191).
“Christianity is a non-god, and every non-god can be and idol” (192).
“God cannot be hijacked by Christianity” (194). “If a relationship with
a specific person, namely Christ, is the whole substance of a
relationship with the God of the Bible, then the vast majority of people
in world history are excluded from the possibility of a relationship
with the God of the Bible…” (194). “To put it in different terms, there
is no salvation outside of Christ, but there is salvation outside of
Christianity” (19). “Would a God who gives enough revelation for
people to be judged but not enough revelation to be saved be a God
worthy of worshiping? Never!” (195).
|
Anti-exlusivism is just another term for
pluralism. The problem is clear. The claim that no view is
exclusively true is an exclusivistic truth claim itself.
1. The Claim
of Pluralism: “No view is exclusively true.”
2. The
Self-Refutation: It claims that its view (that no view is exclusively
true) is exclusively true.
Anti-Foundationalism
As Stanely Grenz
noted in the title of his book Beyond Foundationalism, the
post-modern movement is opposed to epistemological foundationalism.
That is, they are opposed to the view that there are self-evident
principles at the basis of all thought. “The theory that at the
bottom of all human knowledge is a set of self-inferential or internally
justified beliefs; in other words, the foundation is indubitable and
requires no external justification. For the conservative, the sacred
text of Christianity is indubitable, established by an internal and
circular reasoning: ‘‘The Bible claims to be God’s truth, so therefore
it’s true.’’ (Jones, The New Christian, 19).
The basic principles of foundationalism
include the laws of logic, such as the following:
1. The Law of Identity (A is A).
2. The Law of Non-Contradiction (A is not non-A).
3. The Law of Excluded Middle (Either a or non-A).
4. The Laws of rational inference.
For example, it is a
rational inference to conclude that:
1. All A is included in B.
2. All B is included in C.
3. Hence, All A is included in C.
There are different kinds of rational
inferences. There is categorical inference (above). And there is hypothetical inference (below):
1. If all human beings are
sinners, then John is a sinner.
2. All human beings are
sinners.
3. Therefore, John is a sinner.
There are also disjunctive inferences: Either a person is saved or else
he is lost (but he cannot be both at the same time and in the same
sense). So, if he is not saved, then he must be lost. Given
these kinds of principles being the bedrock of foundationalism, it is
difficult to see what one could have against these venerable laws of
thought.
Nonetheless, Stanley Grenz wrote a whole book
against Foundationalism titled: Beyond Foundationalism. McLaren
wrote: “For modern Western Christians, words like authority, inerrancy,
infallibility, revelation, objective, absolute, and literal are
crucial…. Hardly anyone knows …Rene Descartes, the Enlightenment, David
Hume, and Foundationalism—which provides the context in which these
words are so important. Hardly anyone notices the irony of
resorting to the authority of extra-biblical words and concepts to
justify one’s belief in the Bible’s ultimate authority” (McLaren,
Generous Orthodoxy 164).
To reduce their view to a simple proposition,
they claim the following:
|
It must be false. But if the opposite
of true is false, then they are using a
foundational logical principle to deny
foundational logical principles. This is self-defeating.
Anti-Objectivism
Another
characteristic of post-modern thought is subjectivism. Grenz
wrote: “We ought to commend the postmodern questioning of the
Enlightenment assumption that knowledge is objective and hence
dispassionate” (Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, 166). Put
in simple form:
1. The Claim
of Anti-Objectivism: “There are no objectively true statements.”
2. The
Self-Refutation: It is an objectively true statement that there are no
objectively true statements.
In short, their anti-objectivism makes an
objective truth claim. Hence, it is hanged on its
own epistemological gallows. It
self-destructs.
Anti-Rationalism
Another characteristic of post-modernism in
theology is anti-rationalism. It is a form of fideism that denies
that reason has no place in matters of faith. Grenz chided
“Twentieth-century evangelicals [who] have devoted much energy to the
task of demonstrating the credibility of the Christian faith…” (Grenz,
PPM, 160). He added, “Following the intellect can sometimes
lead us away from the truth” (Grenz, PPM, 166). Of course, he
seems blissfully unaware of the fact that not following basic rational
thought will lead you there a lot faster!
McLaren, added: “Because knowledge is a luxury beyond our means, faith
is the best we can hope for. What an opportunity! Faith hasn’t
encountered openness like this in several hundred years” (McLaren,
COS, 173). He urged: “Drop any affair you may have with
certainty, proof, argument—and replace it with dialogue, conversation,
intrigue, and search” (McLaren, Adventures in Missing the Point,
78). But here again we are faced with a self-defeating claim:
1. The Claim
of Fideism: “There are no reasons for what we believe.”
2. The
Self-Refutation: There are good reasons for believing there are no good
reasons for what we believe.
To state it another way, --
1. The Claim
of Fideism: “Knowledge is a luxury beyond our means.”
2. The
Self-Refutation: We have the luxury of knowing that we can’t have the
luxury of knowing.
Anti-Objectivism (of Meaning)
The term that describes anti-objectivism in
meaning is Conventionalism. It claims that all meaning is
culturally relative. There is no fixed meaning. Meaning is not
objective. But here again we are faced with self-destructive
claims:
1. The Claim
of Conventionalism: “There is no objective meaning.”
2. The
Self-Refutation: It is objectively meaningful to assert that there is no
objective meaning.
The post-modern dilemma is painful. It
cannot even express its view without borrowing from its opposing view.
It literally has no ground of its own on which to stand. It is
living on borrowed capital.
Anti-Realism
According to
post-modern theology, there is no objective world that can be known.
Rather, “the only ultimately valid ‘objectivity of the world’ is that of
a future, eschatological world, and the ‘actual’ universe is the
universe as it one day will be” (Grenz, Renewing the Center,
246).
|
1. The Claim of Anti-Realism “There is no
real world now that can be known.” 2. The Self-Refutation: We know it is really
true now (i.e., true in the real world now) that there is no real world
now that can be known. |
Anti-Certainty
Protestants believe the Bible is infallible (Matt. 5:17-18; John 10:35),
but not any interpretation of it—like an alleged infallible Papal
pronouncement. However, lacking infallibility in all matters of
Faith does not mean we lack certainty in some matters. The principle of
perspicuity (clarity) affirms that the main teachings of Scripture are
clear and we can be certain of them. For in the Bible the main
things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.
Of these we can have moral certainty. Post-modern Christians
challenge that one can have any certainty in our knowledge of the Bible.
McLaren put it this way: “Well, I’m wondering, if you have an infallible
text, but all your interpretations of it are admittedly fallible, then
you at least have to always be open to being corrected about your
interpretation, right?... So the authoritative text is never what I say
about the text or even what I understand the text to say but rather what
God means the text to say, right?” (McLaren, NKC, 50).
|
1. The Claim of Anti-Certainty: “My
understanding of the text is never the correct one.” 2. The Self-Refutation: My understanding of
the text is correct in saying that my understanding of the text is never
correct. |
Anti-Propositionalism
It is an essential truth of evangelical
Christianity that the Bible contains proposition truth claims.
That is, regardless of the literary form (story, parable, poetry, or
proverbs), the Bible contains truth that can be stated in propositional
form. In short, the Bible contains doctrinal truths. But
Grenz and other post-modern theologians claim that: “Our understanding
of the Christian faith must not remain fixated on the propositional
approach that views Christian truth as nothing more than correct
doctrine or doctrinal truth” (Grenz, PPM, 170). So,
“Transformed in this manner into a book of doctrine, the Bible is easily
robbed of its dynamic character” (Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical
Theology, 114-115).
1. The Claim
of Anti-Propositionalism: “Our view of the Christian faith must not be
fixed on propositional truth (doctrine).”
2. The
Self-Refutation: We must be fixed on the propositional truth that we
should not be fixed on propositional truth.
What the anti-propostionalist fails to see is
that denying propositional truth is a propositional truth. Denying
doctrine is a doctrine. Denying creeds is a creedal statement.
Another post-modern claim connected to this
is the following:
1. The Claim
of Anti-Propositionalism: “Doctrinal truth is not dynamic.”
2. The
Self-Refutation: It is a dynamic doctrinal truth (of post-modernism)
that doctrinal truth is not dynamic.
But doctrine is dynamic! Ideas have
consequences! E = MC2 is a proposition that had dynamic
consequences—it produced an atomic bomb. Likewise, biblical truth
has consequences. The truth of the Gospel has consequence; it is
the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). To deny the Gospel or
its underpinning doctrines is to destroy the power of the Gospel.
Anti-Orthodoxy
Post-modern Christian
Dwight J. Friesen speaks out against orthodoxy--the belief in orthodox
doctrines of the Bible. He wrote: “Jesus did not announce ideas or
call people to certain beliefs as much as he invited people to follow
him into a way of being in the world…. The theological method of
orthoparadoxy surrenders the right to be right for the sake of movement
toward being reconciled one with another, while simultaneously seeking
to bring the fullness of conviction and belief to the other…. Current
theological methods that often stress… orthodoxy/heresy, and the like
set people up for constant battles to convince and convert the other to
their way of believing and being in the world” (Friesen, in EMH,
205). Therefore, “in orthoparadox theology propositions and truth claims
are more important than ever but not as litmus tests of correct belief
or practice; rather, truth claims become launching pads for
differentiated relationship…. Orthoparadox theology is less concerned
with creating ‘once for all’ doctrinal statements or dogmatic claims and
is more interested in holding competing truth claims in right tension”
(Friesen, in EMH, 209)
1. The Claim
of Post-Orthodoxy: “We should not insist on being right about doctrine.”
2. The
Self-refutation: We insist on being right in our doctrine that we should
not insist on being right in our doctrine.
The creed on non-creedalism is itself a
creed. One cannot deny orthodox doctrine without believing that
his doctrine (teaching) on this matter is orthodox.
Anti-Condemnationism (Universalism)
Much of post-modern theology embraces various
forms of universalism—the belief that ultimately no one will be lost.
All will be eventually saved. In short, there is no hell—at least
no one with anyone in it. McLaren tried to side-step the issue by
claiming, “More important to me than the hell question, then, is the
mission [in this world] question." (McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy,
114). Jesus reconciled “all things, everywhere.” And “Hell
is full of forgiven people.” Rob Bell wrote: “Our choice is to live in
this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making” (Bell,
Velvet Jesus, 146). He added, “So it is a giant thing that God
is doing here and not just the forgiveness of individuals. It is
the reconciliation of all things.” (Bell in “Find the Big Jesus: An
Interview with Rob Bell” in www.beliefnet.com). His recent book
Love Wins claims that God will keep on loving everyone in this life
and in the next until everyone accepts it.
|
C. S. Lewis pinpointed problem with
universalism:
When one says, “All will be saved,” my reason
retorts, “Without their will, or with it?” If I say, “Without
their will,” I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme
voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say, “With their
will,” my reason replies, “How, if they will not give in?” (The
Problem of Pain, 106-107).
Anti-Individualism
Another dimension to much
of emergent thinking is anti-individualism or collectivism.
McLaren wrote: “He said he had been raised, as I had, to believe that
the central story of the Bible was about saving individual souls.
The gospel, as he (and I) had understood it, was about getting
individual souls to heaven…. First, it smacked of selfishness.
Would God want a heaven full of people who wanted to be ‘saved’ but
didn’t want to be good?… Second, in a postmodern context, he said, the
individualism of this approach sounded downright evil…” (McLaren, A
New Kind of Christian, 62).
Unfortunately, it is self-defeating to claim God is interested in group
but not in individuals. For all groups are made up of individuals.
And while good wants us to belong to a body and to have unity in our
community of believers, nonetheless, in the final analysis all salvation
is individual. God does not save people by groups or even
families. He saves them one by one, individual by individual.
This, of course, plays into the hands of ecumenism and the world-church
movement which, as we know, is a characteristic of the end-times.
Salvation is only found in the whole, not in each person or part.
Indeed, the bible says, “Each one of us shall give an account of himself
to God” (Rom. 14:12).
This anti-individualism is manifest in the post-denominationalism of the
post-modoren chrch. As Friesen put it, “Orthoparadox theology may
be understood as supporting a form of ecumenism, which broadens the
conversation beyond the church to include and engage cultural voices”
(Friesen, in EMH, 209). Of course, this
post-denominationalism will lead ultimately to the
super-denominationalism of the world church. Tony Campolo tells
how this union of seemingly opposed views may emerge. In his book
Speaking My Mind he says: “A theology of mysticism provides some
hope for common ground between Christianity and Islam. Both religions
have within their histories examples of ecstatic union with God, which
seem at odds with their own spiritual traditions but have much in common
with each other. I do not know what to make of the Muslim mystics,
especially those who have come to be known as the Sufis. What do they
experience in their mystical experience? Could they have encountered the
same God we do in our Christian mysticism?” (149,150)
Anti-Inerrantism
Evangelical Christians affirm that the Bible is the inerrant (without
error) Word of God. Why? Because the Bible is the Word of
God, and God cannot error (Jn. 17:17; Heb. 6:18). So, the Bible
cannot err.
This historic and biblical position is opposed by the anti-inerrantism of postmodernism. McLaren wrote: “Incompleteness and error are part of the reality of human beings” (McLaren, COS, 173). Grenz added, “Our listening to God’s voice [in Scripture] does not need to be threatened by scientific research into Holy Scripture” (Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, 116). He added, “The Bible is revelation because it is the [errant] witness to and the [errant] record of the historical revelation of God” (Grenz, ibid., 133).
McClaren rejects the view that: “The Bible is the ultimate authority….
There are no contradictions in it, and it is absolutely true and without
errors in all it says. Give up these assertions, and you’re on a
slippery slope to losing your whole faith” (McLaren, GO,
133-134). He claims that “Hardly anyone notices the irony of resorting
to the authority of extra-biblical words and concepts to justify one’s
belief in the Bible’s ultimate authority” (GO, 164).
However, the anti-inerrancy view is also trapped in self-contradiction.
Consider the following:
1.
The Claim
of Errantists: “No human writing is without error.”
2. The
Self-refutation: This claim (that no human writing is without error) is
without error.
Like all the foregoing self-defeating claims
of post-modernism, they set the trap and fall in it themselves.
Jesus declared: "Your Word is truth." (Jn. 17:17). He added
elsewhere, “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
the scripture cannot be broken." (Jn.10:34-35). “Laying aside the
commandment of God, you hold the traditions of men…, making the word of
God of no effect through your traditions.” (Mk. 7:8, 13). Paul
declared that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…."(2 Tim.
3:16). The Scripture is the Word of God (Rom. 9:6) and God cannot err
(Titus 1:2). Jesus said, “’It is written’…by every word that
proceeds out of the mouth of God.” (Mt. 4:4). Since the Bible is
the very words of God, then to attribute error to the Bible, is to
attribute error to God.
This is not to say that there are no
difficulties in the Bible. There are. But St. Augustine's
dictum put it well: “If we are perplexed by any apparent
contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of
this book is mistaken; but either [1] the manuscript is faulty, or [2]
the translation is wrong, or [3] you have not understood.”
(Augustine, Reply to Faustus 11.5)
Emerging Problems
with the Emergent Church
Post-modern theology is self-defeating. It
stands on the pinnacle of its own absolute and relativizes everything
else. It is an unorthodox creedal attack on orthodox creeds. It attacks
modernism in the culture but is an example of postmodernism in the
church. In an attempt to reach the culture it capitulates to the
culture. In trying to be geared to the times, it is no longer anchored
to the Rock. It is not an emerging church; it is really a submerging
church.
As Mark Driscoll aptly put it, “The emergent
church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is
that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism
accommodates postmodernity” (Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a
Reformation REV, 21).
The Emergent Church is the Submergent Church.
To put it poetically: The Emergent Church is built on sand, and it will
not stand. Christ’s Church is build on Stone, and it can not be
overthrown (Matt. 16:16-18)
Answering a Final
Objection
Some post-modernism try to avoid the painful
logic of their own self-defeating statements by claiming that they are
not making any truth claims. Strange as this may seem, it does not
solve their problem. C. S. Lewis pinpointed the problem well when
he wrote “You can argue with a man who says, ‘Rice is unwholesome’: but
you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, ‘Rice is
unwholesome, but I’m not saying this is true.’ I feel that this
surrender of the claim to truth has all the air of an expedient adopted
at the last moment. If [they]…do not claim to know any truths,
ought they not to have warned us rather earlier of the fact? For really
from all the books they have written…one would have got the idea that
they were claiming to give a true account of things. The fact
surely is that they nearly always are claiming to do so. The claim
is surrendered only when the question discussed…is pressed; and when the
crisis is over the claim is tacitly resumed” (Lewis, Miracles,
24). In short, either the post-modern is making truth claims or he is
not. If he is, then his views are self-defeating. If he is
not, then he is not even in the stadium. He can’t play the “game”
unless he is on the field. By claiming that he is making no truth
claim, then he has disqualified himself in the arena of truth.
Works Evaluating
Post-Modern Theology
There are many works evaluating aspects of
post-modernism. The following works are highly recommended for
further consideration.
Adler, Mortimer. Truth in Religion.
Carson, D. A. Becoming Conversant
with the Emerging Church.
Carlson, Jason. “My Journey Into and Out Of
the Emergent Church.”
Driscoll, Mark. Confessions of a
Reformation REV.
Geisler, Norman. DVD on Post-modernism
(www.
InternationalLegacy.org).
Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology
in One Volume. (link)
Gibbs, Eddie and Ryan Bolger.
Emerging Churches.
Howe, Thomas ed., Christian Apologetics
Journal, volume 7, No. 1 (Spring, 2008,
www.ses.edu/journal.htm)
Kimball, Dan. The Emerging Church.
Myron Penner ed., Christianity and the
Postmodern Turn (pro and con)
Rofle, Kevin, Here We Stand.
Smith, R. Scott, Truth and The New Kind of
Christian.
Robert Weber, Listening to the Beliefs of
Emergent Churches (pro and con)