Jim Belcher - lead pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New Port Beach, CA - has written a new book that has (deservedly) been gaining a good deal of attention. The book is entitled,
Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional, and is an attempt to not only fairly and reasonably assess the heated debate going on between the two groups in the Church that Belcher describes as "Emerging" and "Traditional" but it is also his attempt to suggest a middle road between them - a
via media that hears the concerns presented from both sides. Borrowing a phrase from C.S. Lewis, Belcher is working hard to find the "Deep Church" that can hold these two sides in tension.
I recommend the book highly to everyone, but particularly to those who are just hearing about all the fuss over "the emerging church" and are either confused by it all or (like me) feel stuck in the middle of the angry lobs going back and forth. What I most appreciate about the book is Belcher's very fair, balanced,and charitible representation of both the emerging and the traditional sides of the church. It is my sense that more often than not, both sides misrepresent the other and are guilty of reducing the "other" to characterizations. As Belcher writes,
...As Scot McKnight says, we must define our conversation partners in a way that they would recognize. Most definitions of the emerging church would not even be recognized by them. This would include Brian McLaren. It is wrong, cautions McKnight, to narrow emerging to emergent, emergent to Brian McLaren, Brian McLaren to postmodernity and postmodernity to denial of truth. This is a stereotype that is not fair to Brian, who is not a hard postmodernist, and the emerging conversation.
The same bone can be picked with the emerging church. They too need to recognize the vast differences in the traditional church. Linking everyone in the traditional church with the worst case of fundamentalism, sectarianism, foundationalism and irrelevance is simply not fair. Doing this can be just as sectarian and divisive as the worst kind of fundamentalism (p. 49).
Belcher sites seven areas of protest he believes the emerging church is making against the traditional church. He recognizes that it is the very nature of Protestants across their history to "protest" when there are aspects of the Church that they believe have strayed from the heart of the gospel. The bulk of the book is made up of an analysis of these seven protests and an attempt to charitably hear both the emerging and traditional concerns on both sides of these areas and then to chart a path forward. Those seven areas Belcher believes the emerging church is protesting are the traditional church's... (1) captivity to enlightenment rationalism, (2) narrow view of salvation, (3) elevation of belief before belonging, (4) uncontextualized worship, (5) ineffective preaching, (6) weak ecclesiology, and (7) it's tribalism.
Some of what Belcher writes about is similar to comments I have made in my five-part blog on the EC. Nevertheless, over the next several days I would like to take each of these seven areas and blog just a bit about each one and make some comments about Belcher's proposed via media through them. In most cases I agree wholeheartedly with Belcher and with his suggestions, but there are a couple of areas where I have some reservations. Let me start today with what Belcher lists as the EC's first protest against the traditional church; its captivity to enlightenment rationalism.
DEEP TRUTH
The "modern" philosophical time period - or the Enlightenment - was an era marked by the pursuit of Truth (with a capital "T") through reason. Historians have argued that coming out of the chaos of the wars, plagues, and cultural turmoil of the Dark Ages (much of the conflict wrapped in religious language) philosophers like Descartes worked to find foundations for knowledge rooted in reason alone. One can understand why these philosophers tried to pursue reason apart from the revelation of religion. Just to site one example, the religious leaders of the day believed that the earth is the center of the universe while Galileo - using what could be observed through reason alone - was convinced that the sun is the center of our universe. Although Galileo was correct - and reason triumphed in this case over religion - the religious authorities persecuted Galileo and forced him to recant because in their minds what they perceived to be the plain revelation of Scripture (that the earth as God's "footstool" is the center of the universe) triumphs over Galileo's obviously misguided scientific observations.
Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your perspective) the Church could not fully silence Galileo's discovery and the error of this religious conviction was made obvious to all. Given this debacle, the appropriate question many in the Enlightenment began to ask was, "If by believing in the revelations received through religion we were led for centuries to believe false ideas about something as significant as the locations of the earth and sun, what other beliefs have we held onto (from religion) that should be rejected in the light of reason?"
Thus, "modernism" was born as the attempt to pursue what could be know by reason alone. And regardless of one's faith, you have to admit that the modern time period was extremely successful at changing the world. In the major areas of science in particular - physics, biology, chemistry, medicine - the Enlightenment was a HUGE success. Modernism's attempt to liberate the world from is "superstitious" beliefs through the liberal (or liberating) arts made the pursuit of Truth through rational knowledge possible.
HOWEVER, while the modern time period succeeded in fields like science and technology, it utterly failed at ethics. Because while reason can tell us in increasing detail HOW we are made as humans, it can't tell us WHY we were made or for what purpose we exist. This was the built in problem of the modern time period. Every system of ethics is ultimately rooted in some kind of transcendent reality, revelation, or narrative that offers answers to the WHY of human existence. So while modernism made its rational advances, it did so by dismissing at best and completely deconstructing at worst the older worldviews (primarily religious) based upon transcendent revelation that gave to people existential meaning and purpose.
It is very important to recognize the damage that was done culturally when reason was allowed to dismiss all revelation. One important consequence has been that moral dialogue since the modern time period is often dismissed as "emotivism" (mere expressions of emotion). Let me give you an example. Historically Christians have believed that people should live out their sexuality in monogomous, heterosexual, covenantal partnerships. One reason Christians have lived out their sexuality in this way is because we believe that God (as transcendent) commanded people to "not commit adultery." But when we, as Christians say to "the world" (those who do not share the belief in this particular transcendent reality) "Do not commit adultery" it simply sounds like we are saying, "we don't like it when people commit adultery" - which from the standpoint of reason alone sounds simply like an expression of emotion or preference. To which people usually respond, "Who are YOU to tell us what to do with OUR sexuality?"
You see, if we are stuck with reason alone, it is quite challenging to demonstrate that covenantal monogomy is not just one choice among many but the morally mandated way people ought to live. We are thus left to argue all moral issues - not just human sexuality - from the standpoint of reason only. Unfortunately reason doesn't leave us many ethical categories to work with. As long as the solitary individual can argue that the way they are living out their life (a) isn't hurting anyone and (b) is making them happy, it is a real challenge to find arguments based on reason alone for a person to be committed to most Christian moral ideals.
There is much more I could write and probably need to write here, but for the sake of space let me jump to how POSTMODERNITY and its understanding of Truth fits into all of this. Postmodernity, in essence, is the cultural and philosophical response to this moral problem created by modernity. When there are no transcendent narratives (often referred to as meta-narratives) left to give people moral and existential guidance because they have either been dismissed or dismantled by the modern (and individualistic) pursuit of reason alone, what is a culture to do?
HERE IS THE KEY. Postmodernity (that which comes after this modern time of Enlightenment) has two responses. The first Belcher refers to as "hard postmodernity." Hard postmodernity holds that there is no Truth found in transcendent narratives (and even if there were Truth there how could we know it with certainty), there is only reason. Therefore, culturally we need to get over the pursuit of transcendent existential truth and recognize that moral truth is located solely within the individual. So moral truth (to quote one hard postmodernist) is "whatever your friends let you get away with." Hard postmodernism believes that we can only do what is right in our own eyes.
The other form of postmodernity Belcher describes as "soft postmodernity." Soft postmodernity recognizes that although reason has helped us in many ways it has been highly destructive to the moral life. Therefore, in order to recover existential meaning and moral value we have to return to those older transcendent narratives for understanding. It is in the very meta-narratives destroyed by modernity where people will discover why we exist and how we are supposed to live. Now soft postmodernists understand that a transcendent revelation of existential truth - like Christianity - cannot be PROVEN to be true in the same way that one can prove gravity or the helio-centrism of the universe. Therefore, the only way to prove the (capital "T") Truth of Christianity's moral claims is for them to be lived out by the community of faith and to allow the history of that community's "truthful" life to be the evidence of its Truth-FULL-ness.
Now back to Deep Church. Belcher argues (and I believe he is absolutely correct here) that the majority of the leaders and spokespersons for the EC are soft postmodernists. They recognize that cultural moral metanarratives are essentially dead and so they are imploring believers to live as the uniquely Christian community in the world. Most in the EC even celebrate the arrival of soft postmodernity because, once we give up the Enlightenment need to always be proving our convictions through reason alone, we are then freed up as the Church to be unapologetically committed to living as "resident aliens" in the world.
To say it another way, "soft postmoderns" do not dismiss the reality of transcendent Truth, but they are keenly aware that this Truth cannot be proven through reason alone, therefore they are forced to be humble about these convictions because they recognize that even though we are fully committed to transcendent Truth we always "see it through a glass darkly." And beyond humility, soft postmoderns in the EC recognize that in order for Truth to be demonstrated and embodied in community it cannot be separated from meaning. So, for example, (as St. John would say) anyone who says they "believe in God" but they do not embody that belief by loving their neighbor (or enemy) "lies" - or at least fails to make the necessary connection between Truth and meaning.
Belcher thinks that some of the current tension in the Church between the "emerging" and "traditional" groups is due to the fact that the majority of critics of the EC from the "traditional" side of the Church fail to either understand or appreciate this distinction between hard and soft postmodernism. It appears - and Belcher makes a convincing argument - that most traditional critics see all postmodernity as hard postmodernity, thus they keep accusing the postmoderns in the EC of completely denying absolute Truth - which is simply not the case.
On the other side, those in the EC who tend to be soft postmoderns in turn accuse the "traditional" leaders in the Church as simply trying to continue (whether they realize it or not) the modernist pursuit of Truth. Thus leaders in the EC often give traditionals labels like foundationalists or fundamentalists. (To be fair, I don't think this is just EC name-calling. There are a few traditional leaders who give themselves those labels and wear them with pride).
I would argue that the primary problem for traditionals who fail to accept soft postmodernism is that they believe (or at least seem to act as though) every person - regardless of whether they hold Christian convictions or not - should understand the rationality of Christian ethics. For example, traditionalists often act as though everyone should be living out covenantal, heterosexual, monogamous relationships whether or not they accept Christian revelation regarding this way of living or not.
I believe the traditionalist rejection of soft postmodernity is problematic in two important ways that exacerbate the tension between the emerging and traditionalist sides: one having to do with the Bible and the other having to do with politics.
Biblically, traditionalists often get caught up in trying to "prove" the Truth of the Bible through reason. One easy way to point to this tendency among traditionalists is to point to the fervor among them to prove the historicity of all aspects of the Bible. For example there are some traditionalists who believe that if archaeologists can find the remains of Noah's ark on Mount Arrarat, then this will prove the Truthfulness of the Bible by proving the historicity of the flood narrative. There are several problems with this idea. Finding Noah's ark wouldn't prove the historicity of the entire Bible it would only prove the historical existence of Noah's ark. One would then need to pack up and go on a quest to find the Tower of Babel. Even if one could prove the historicity of a universal flood and the presence of the ark it would not prove that the Bible's interpretation of the meaning of this event is the correct one. It wouldn't even prove that a god or even our God initiated the flood. And what happens if we are ultimately unable to prove the historicity of a universal flood? Would that render the Noah story as we have it in the Bible theologically meaningless? What would that do to other Biblical narratives whose historicity is debated? Also, one could believe in the historicity of the Noah narrative and not be shaped by what one learns from it theologically. In the same way that the "demons believe and shudder," one could believe cognitively in the Bible without believing the Truth of the Bible in a way that reshapes the character or ethics of one's existence. Could we truly call the conviction that the Bible is historically acurate belieiving in the Bible? Soft postmoderinism avoids these questions and refuses to separate the Truth of the Scripture from its meaning.
Rejecting soft postmodernism also creates problems for the traditionalists politically. Modernity hoped that there could be a common cultural morality based solely upon reason that all rational people could agree upon. That pursuit - as I tried to demonstrate above - proved to be pretty much a failure. It turns out that there is very little common moral ground without accepting transcendence. I believe that part of the reason those in the EC and many children of traditional Christianity reject the politics of the traditional Church (and often reject the traditional Church altogether) is because whether they realize it or not, many "traditional" Christians tend to operate in the public square as though Christian moral practices ought to be accepted by any reasonable person regardless of their belief system (or lack thereof). In the "culture wars" of the last few decades traditional Christians have oftened failed to recognize their moral uniqueness and thus have adopted a highly aggressive power politic and an uncivil level of discourse with those citizens who do not share Christian convictions.
In the end, I think "Deep" Christians today have to look like some form of soft postmodernism. On the one hand we do not reject the conviction that God has revealed to his creation real, universal, and eternal Truth, but we also have to recognize that this is not a revelation accessible through reason alone; it is not a common way of living but it is the way of the faithful; and that although God is perfect as the revelator, we who have received that revelation certainly are not and therefore must always be humble, civil, and loving in the way we dialogue with those outside the faith and even with those inside the faith with whom we have diagreements.
Belcher argues that the Deep Church committed to the via media of Deep Truth:
- Is postfoundational... There is no unassailable certainty, even for believers. However, we still believe there is an objective reality outside of us that we can have some knowledge of and therefore not everything is relative.
- Believes in foundations, but that those foundations are built on belief (faith), and not reason.
- We have "proper confidence" in our faith. "We realize we are sinners, prone to see reality through our selfishness and conceit; we see clearly it is all grace. This demands humility toward nonbelievers who can't see what we see. Thus we are patient in the public square when politicians are unable to perceive what we know to be true" (p. 85). We are not timid, however our confidence is ultimately in God and not ourselves.
In Belcher's words, the Deep Church builds wells instead of fences. Amen.