Looking over the blogosphere as it relates to evangelicals has been an entertaining, yet frightening exercise. It is entertaining, so far as blogs go, to produce and weigh in upon controversy. It is frightening in that participating in the controversy has been an ugly affair. Take the dispute between Marvin Olasky and Jim Wallis or the one between Karl Giberson and Al Mohler. These are ugly because of their appeals to character assassination (Wallis accusing Olasky of “lying for a living” and Mohler not caring about truth [!]).Then, of course, there is the ongoing controversy over BioLogos and its aggressive campaign to reconcile science and Christianity. Our very own Evangel blog had to be “rebooted” in the wake of the divisive nature of the creation debates that attend to the subject. While these things are alarming up close, taking a step back no one should be surprised considering the cultural context we find ourselves in.
Many think that postmodern thought originates and finds its legs in left-wing thought. Everyone can point to Rorty or Derrida or Foucault and cry foul about their promulgation of relativism, incoherence, and reductionism and teach young people to avoid the decay of truth running rampant in our universities and elite centers of cultural life. In fact, I think that is very godly and it is necessary for the good life. But there is what might be called a right-wing postmodernism, or better yet, a conservative acknowledgment of pluralism that inexorably frustrates public discourse.
Alasdair MacIntyre pointed out that such a frustration is the result of the multiplicity of systems that persist in our cultural milieu, In Whose Justice? Which Rationality? MacIntyre demonstrates that “tradition” gives shape to our presuppositions about justice and rationality and makes it almost impossible to resolve political disputes in our public discourse. Tradition according to MacIntyre is “an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined.” Schools of thought, we might call them, govern our argument and it is very difficult to get behind them, because our rationality is shaped from within them. One can easily see how MacIntyre’s insights apply to theological discourse between competing traditions. After sharing this thought with a seminary colleague he incisively remarked, “It all part of the Tower of Babel if you ask me.”
Evangelicalism is a cacophony of voices. The fragmentation is easily seen in Patheos’ Future of Evangelicalism series. Emergent voices say the old coalition is passing, the Reformed movement is making a comeback, apologetic ministries a thriving in light of the renaissance of Christian philosophy, there is a storm brewing over the dialogue between science and religion, evangelicals are the new mainline, film is the new literature, and activists are re-discovering “God’s politics.” The sloganeering is dreadful to read through, but if one makes the effort one will see that there is very little common, unifying ground that makes for a cultural force called evangelical Christianity.
Back to the Babel story, the main problem seems to be that the builders were out to make a name for themselves, and Evangelical ministries have a lot in common with them it seems. It is difficult to imagine God frustrating the purposes of his people, but it may very well be that our purposes are not His purposes. I don’t doubt that there is much wisdom in the prophetic voices and the reality of what direction things are heading. I just wish I could be more optimistic about evangelicalism as a whole.
August 31st, 2010 | 6:05 pm | #1
Adam O.: “I just wish I could be more optimistic about evangelicalism as a whole.”
I know what you mean. Evangelicals who argue that the Scriptures are errant, who are egalitarian, and who are evolutionists are really hurting evangelicalism and causing evangelicals to be seen as the new “mainline.”
August 31st, 2010 | 6:33 pm | #2
Q.E.D.
August 31st, 2010 | 6:46 pm | #3
MacIntyre demonstrates that “tradition” gives shape to our presuppositions about justice and rationality and makes it almost impossible to resolve political disputes in our public discourse.
Adam, can you clarify what you think MacIntyre is saying here? It sounds like you are saying that for MacIntyre, the existence of multiple traditions in itself makes resolution of disputes in public discourse impossible. But I don’t think he would actually say this, i.e. the cause of irresolution is tradition (which I think he would regard as inevitable and fine) rather than the particular kinds of “traditions” characterizing modernity.
Regarding your main point in the last paragraph, I do sometimes get the impression that evangelical parties and groups are deeply influenced by a need to “establish brand” and “market share.” “I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, I follow Cephas” has contemporary analogies in “I follow Calvin, I follow Luther, I follow Wallis, etc.” in my opinion as well. The prideful root is the same, but the “grasping for renown” manifests differently in the commercialized world we inhabit.
August 31st, 2010 | 7:39 pm | #4
Albert,
Yes, I think MacIntyre would say that reason can get behind tradition to evaluate it. His critics would reply that in doing that they would have to abandon their traditions, because reason is shaped by tradition. I think they have a point. It is very, very hard to do.
September 1st, 2010 | 10:19 am | #5
Whenever I’m tempted to start saying “Christians are so mean to each other,” I recall the fiery polemical writings of countless church leaders of the old days, and I realize that without those prophetic voices Christianity would have ceased to exist long ago.
September 1st, 2010 | 11:57 am | #6
Adam O.: “Take the dispute between Marvin Olasky and Jim Wallis or the one between Karl Giberson and Al Mohler. These are ugly because of their appeals to character assassination (Wallis accusing Olasky of “lying for a living” and Mohler not caring about truth [!]).”
Alright, let’s do take the disputes between Olasky-Wallis and Gibberson-Mohler. They were ugly, but it was primarily one-sided ugliness, and your failure to note this, is in itself rather ugly.
Wallis and Gibberson, theological liberals, are the ones who committed “character assasination”. As such, they deserve, and rightfully so, the greater condemnation.
Anyone not realizing this, greatly exacerbates the fog and confusion arising from any purported “Tower of Babel” in evangelicalism.
I just wish I could be more optimistic about this post as a whole.
September 1st, 2010 | 2:24 pm | #7
I’m under the impression that MacIntyre is well aware that reason is always shaped by and occurs within a tradition–critics may have something to tell him, but not this:
I’m not sure he would say “reason can get behind tradition to evaluate it.” It’s more that traditions are able to engage each other because of an empathetic imagination, from within one’s tradition to the other, due to the shared ground that does exist between what may be (ultimately) incommensurable traditions. That isn’t really all that hard. We do it every day on a smaller scale when dealing with different traditions like how to make left turns in New Jersey (jug handles), how we’re going to celebrate Christmas after getting married, learning a different language. Hard, but in an everyday, pedestrian sort of way.
The disinclination (rather than difficulty) to empathetically imagine alternative views is real and overwhelmingly prevalent, however, but it’s not really a function of being situated in tradition and instead a function of arrogance and insecurity, e.g. “I follow Tim Keller, I follow John Piper, etc. so I won’t even imagine what someone else is saying.”
September 1st, 2010 | 6:16 pm | #8
“Take the dispute between Marvin Olasky and Jim Wallis or the one between Karl Giberson and Al Mohler.”
Adam, Robert Sagers, in the immediate post prior to this one “Not Like the Beasts” wrote: “Let’s be joyful when our sin is exposed. And then let’s repent, and be grateful for the Spirit’s work.”
It did not appear to me that Wallis and Gibberson were joyful and repentant when their sins were exposed by Olasky and Mohler.
September 1st, 2010 | 6:32 pm | #9
Albert,
I like what you say. I wish I could have written so well in the post the point you made.
September 1st, 2010 | 9:00 pm | #10
I thought Adam O didn’t make the cut on the Evangel reboot. Made my day. Now let’s get something by Christopher Benson.
September 1st, 2010 | 10:21 pm | #11
I’m a little confused: Giberson and Moehler both belong to one tradition – baptists. What precludes, in the baptist tradition, one position being vindicated over the other in the future?
September 2nd, 2010 | 12:33 am | #12
Mike M Cleveland,
Giberson and Mohler may be be Baptists in name, but their “traditions” are vastly different when approaching the issue of science and religion. Giberson seems to start with his scientific readings of nature and then moves to Scripture and interprets them in light of the scientific conclusions he holds. Mohler does the opposite. He starts with his reading of Scripture and then moves to science and interprets it in light of his Scriptural conclusions. Thus, Giberson affirms theistic evolution (and more) while Mohler holds to young-earth creationism.
September 2nd, 2010 | 12:18 pm | #13
Thanks, Adam.
September 6th, 2010 | 12:16 pm | #14
Adam: I was thinking more along the lines that general revelation or rational inquiry, and special revelation in the Bible both buttress and mutally support each other. That, to me, would be a tradition.
I assume Moehler, like Giberson, came to his current Christian views by contact or confrontation, study, experience, activity, engagement; and not by pure deduction.
And, I assume you came to your views the same way.
September 8th, 2010 | 10:36 pm | #15
As a point of fact, after all his “free play” Jacques Derrida ended up affirming the absolute center. Derrida said, “It would be possible to show that all the terms related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated the constant of a presence, … essence, existence, substance, subject, … transcendentality, consciousness or conscience, god, man, and so forth.”
September 8th, 2010 | 10:42 pm | #16
The lack of common ground among American evangelicals is evident also in the confusion the evangelical colleges reveal on the creation-evoution debate. See this:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2010/09/evangelical-colleges-battle-over.html
September 11th, 2010 | 1:43 am | #17
From the perspective of someone living in a society that has relegated Christianity at the margins (Quebec), few things stand out.
In the french-speaking world, the few voices that are taken seriously when they speak about their christian faith are the intellectuals and scientists who are recognized for the quality of their contribution to scholarship.
It is quite amazing what great scholars (sociologists, historians, physicists,etc) can get away with when speaking in public about Jesus-Christ. As for the “religious figures”, priests, pastors and theologians, they are not taken seriously. People may feel some affection for them but more like the one you feel towards the museum curator in charge of the “folklore section”.
When I look at the Church south of the border, i see an incredible amount of talent and ressources that seems to me to be waisted in the defense of things that will do nothing to prevent the onslougt of secularism.
In fact, I suspect that some of these debates (particularly those created by the supporters of the so-called “scientific creationism” ) are a factor in having many young people brough up in evangelical churches going secular.
We are talking here about scores of very talented young people who are lead to believe that the only way to resolve the theological dilemma they find themselves when it become obvious that creationism is not a valid scientific position is to abandon their christian faith.
The Church is probably loosing some of its most talented people, some of whom could perhaps have played an important role in solidifying the intellectual credibility and legitimacy of the Christian faith.
September 11th, 2010 | 10:43 pm | #18
I think the thesis that evangelicals have indulged in the pridefulness of the builders of Babel is a provocative one that should be seriously considered.
Although the idea may seem shocking and offensive, I also think our effectiveness has been compromised because we often think essentially atheistically for practical purposes. For example, when trying to discern what effective engagement with one another and unbelievers looks like, do we first remember that God foreknew this present era, its temptations, and our confusion? Do we remember that He has made certain provision for our victory? Or do we suppose that we are somehow on our own, that we have to change the world ourselves, relying only on our own wisdom and understanding (cf. Proverbs 3:5-6, 1 Corinthians 3:19)?
When I see the chaos and evil in our society today, I am often guilty of momentarily forgetting that God exists. Remembering that Yahweh sees all and has planned and provided for the present crises seems almost impossible. I forget that nothing surprises Him; He has made perfect provision not only for my perseverance in faith in Him, but also for my fruitfulness as part of the community of His people. For me the result of this forgetfulness is an effectively atheistic pragmatism; in such a state of mind, I find myself presuming to know how to change the world rather than relying on the Holy Spirit and following His leading.
The Lord Jesus said, “I am the vine, you are the branches. If a man abide in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit. Apart from me, you can do nothing” (John 15:5; cf. also 1 Corinthians 3:11-15). For me the challenge is to increasingly abide in Him when all around me says, “You must act now. You must take matters into your own hands. You must act swiftly to save all you hold dear.” I think we’ve heard lies such as these before (cf. Genesis 3:1-5).
I believe self-reliance in attempting to advance the kingdom of God is sin. The idea that we have collectively engaged in Babel building is quite disturbing to me, probably because it hits so close to home; but I think it’s also very plausible, if not certain, as a general maxim describing our present time.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised: If the church militant is composed of the called out of God in the present evil age, then the process of transformation that begins after salvation seems to necessitate a gradual reformation of thoughts, attitudes, feelings, and actions (cf. Romans 12:1-2). The starting point for most of us is one heavily conditioned by our society and its evils, and the church will necessarily include many who are just beginning to become all that Christ has promised (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24).
While I abhor and seek to remedy the chaos and evil within evangelicalism today, I also take courage knowing they are simply symptoms of the chaos and evil of our society. I believe that, according to the Bible, this chaos is one which God foresaw and prepared for, a chaos from which Christ has redeemed and is redeeming His people, and a chaos which will yield to the peace of Christ’s kingdom as we increasingly forsake the pridefulness of our wicked age and surrender ourselves to Him (cf. Psalm 37:1-6). As Christ Himself declared for us, “On this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Praise be to God! The kingdom of grace and truth is still on offense in this dark world, notwithstanding the apostasy of the West and the heresies within the church itself. Christ is building His Church into the community of the resurrection, notwithstanding all our faults and failures. His hand is not shortened that it cannot save (Isaiah 59:1).
Please consider joining me in praying for the wisdom and unity of all Christians everywhere.
Adam, many thanks for your thought provoking article.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact