“Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” -1 Peter 3.13-16
I first became a fan of Natan Sharansky after reading his widely acclaimed book The Case for Democracy in early 2005. The unashamed way in which he spoke right to the heart of the matter of fear and freedom in our societies greatly influenced my outlook on the practices of governments around the world. Thus, when he released his most recent book, Defending Identity, I knew that I would eventually want to read it, regardless of the subject matter. However, when I began reading the reviews I saw that this was a book I would be interested in even if Mr. Sharansky had not been the author.
Why is that? Because, in this book which focuses mostly on the need for strong identities to coincide with strong democracies, I saw a deeper message pertaining to the struggle between strong identities and strong Christianity going on within the Church in our present emerging culture. Go onto any emergent blog, read any emergent book (say the upcoming Jesus Wants to Save Christians by Rob Bell for example), or engage any emergent thinkers in your congregation, and you will see this idea of a strong Christian identity being the cause of great travesties throughout the world and a drive to neutralize that identity and try to appeal on a broader range of issues which seem more agreeable to more people and thus promoting more “peace”. This all comes from the “perfectly compelling” syllogism of post-modernism, namely: identity causes conflict; conflict is evil; therefore, identity is evil. It is this false argument which I believe leads emergent Christianity down many a dangerous path in its theology and application, and it is that which Sharansky’s book, when read with a properly discerning eye, argues wholly against.
Below are a couple of quotes which I found particularly striking. In reading them, try and cast the ideas of war and totalitarian forces into the mold of religious conflict and Satan, and see for yourself if you can find the parallels which I was drawn to:
“Post-identity (post-modernism) weakens identity to decrease tensions between people, but doing so leads to vulnerability, threats, blackmail, and ultimately to an inability to defend against aggression. That is why post-identity is an invitation to war.” (Natan Sharansky, Discovering Identity, p.205
“People are willing to make sacrifices when the choice is clear, when they know what is right and what is wrong. yet, if nothing is right, if no value judgments can be made, then nothing is wrong. Post-identity has created a world in which there is no right. But if there is no right, why fight?” (ibid., pp.100-101)
“It should be obvious that wagging a struggle against totalitarian forces first requires moral clarity. Unless you recognize evil, you cannot begin to fight it. But this is where the champions of post-identity have done the greatest damage.” (ibid., p.221)
August 8, 2008 at 8:04 am |
Wow, I just don’t it this way. Would you be kind enough to dig up a coupe quotes from one of the books that shows the effect you mention here,
“Go onto any emergent blog, read any emergent book (say the upcoming Jesus Wants to Save Christians by Rob Bell for example), or engage any emergent thinkers in your congregation, and you will see this idea of a strong Christian identity being the cause of great travesties throughout the world and a drive to neutralize that identity and try to appeal on a broader range of issues which seem more agreeable to more people and thus promoting more “peace”. This all comes from the “perfectly compelling” syllogism of post-modernism, namely: identity causes conflict; conflict is evil; therefore, identity is evil.”
It would also be helpful if you mean (or Sharansky) by ‘identity.’ I have not read his book, so I can can’t follow your thought.
August 8, 2008 at 9:05 am |
Thank you for your questions.
First, Sharansky answers the question of what is identity this way: “It is not easy to formulate a single definition. Identity can involve a person’s connection with history. . . . It could mean belonging to a religious, a national, or an ethnic group. One universal quality of identity is that it gives life meaning beyond life itself. It offers a connection to a world beyond the self. This can happen by associating with others who share similar backgrounds or religious affiliations, by connecting with previous generations or by being part of a nation or culture.”
As for emergent philosophy that I see directed against that I will start with a quote by Brian McLaren: “Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements [about whether homosexuality is permissible for Christians]. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.” McLaren tries to claim that since there are “many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality” that all of Christi8anity should join together to not make any judgments about it. This speaks right to the third quote about moral clarity. It also is a de facto way of accepting homosexuality as acceptable, since not doing anything is the same as allowing it, and so he is calling for many people to deny their own identities as opposing such behavior. Plus, this is an issue where historically the church has been very clear, so the effort to deny historical perspectives on the subject works to deny the legitimacy of our past.
Other examples of this abound in the blogosphere. For instance, if one were to go onto theOoze they would see a constant barrage of attacks on calling oneself a Christian or identifying oneself with any specific branch of Christianity, be it denominational or theological (i.e. Calvinism). People are arguing for this because they see denominational ties as being destructive and as causing division among the body of Christ. However, it is this appeal to join a non-committed mish-mash of beliefs which Sharansky fights against in his book. The emergent community is calling for people to let go of their denominational and theological convictions in the name of acceptance and the pursual of social justice, because to them being a baptist and being passionate about helping the poor are incompatible at worst, and in conflict at best.
This shouldn’t be so and I would argue that it doesn’t have to be. It is just that people inside the emergent movement are reacting to denominational and theological ties the same way as political scientists react to patriotism: they see it’s abuses and the problems caused by that, and thus conclude that any expression of it must be wrong. That is why so many pundits confuse patriotism with nationalism, and inside the church they confuse orthodox beliefs with a negative-connotation of “fundamentalism.” This leads to the syllogism I worte above and from here the call to erase identities begins.
August 8, 2008 at 9:33 am |
Great post! I agree that it is critical to connect postmodernism with a post-identity culture. I would, however, add one caveat and that is that strong personality can lead to travesty as well if it is the wrong personality. What I mean by that is summed up very well in a quote by Erwin Raphael McManus, “Early on, [in Jesus’ day] we didn’t call ourselves Christians, we called ourselves followers of Christ and those outside called us Christians. Now we call ourselves Christians and they call us hypocrites. The world is turned upside down.” The early church was not known for their personality, they were known for the personality of Christ; they were incarnational. That is why they were called “Christians” in the first place, because they lived like Jesus. That is the strong personality we need.
August 9, 2008 at 12:14 am |
Nope, still don’t see it. Your logic doesn’t follow. A rejection of labels is not the same as a refusal to accept any form of identity. In fact, I think your argument can be flipped on its head in this way. Now, I am not Mr. McLaren, so perhaps he would object to this line of thinking. But, I can imagine he might say something like this. They are in fact trying to shed their identities as Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, whatever…that is true, and seen as necessary. However, they are trying to shed these ‘identities’ if you will for a greater, more profound, more important identity–that of a follower of Christ alone–without the excess baggage.
I think the same argument effectively rebutts your argument about posts on theooze. I think many in the emergent movement would agree with your statement, “People are arguing for this because they see denominational ties as being destructive and as causing division among the body of Christ.” Yet, even with that said, most are balanced enough to admit that denominational ties have some benefit as well.
However, the collective judgment amongst them seems to be that these ties do not seem to be beneficial enough. In fact, they are so corrupted that they are willing to throw them out and start from the core all over again, as all self-renewing, self-regulating traditions do.
And let me remind you that these folks do not see themselves as the ‘heads’ of their own movements, rather believe they are following the Spirits lead on this. So, do not mistake me when I say “self-renewing.” What I mean by that, and what I would argue is the view of most (if not all) emergents, is that the same God which was active in the formation of the traditions which have now become stale, encrusted and broken is even now active in reforming that movement from within. Folks from within, being lead by God, will move outside and throw off those structures, strictures and barriers to intimate fellowship with God and reform new organization, thought and practice which will more completely allow the work of God here and now to be done.
I am afraid you have confused rebirth with disavowal. This is not the disavowal of all identity. Rather it is the rebirth of a renewed movement cloven closer to the character, leading and identity of Christ. The importance of this new identity to those who are forming it ought to be obvious by their willingness to see it come to pass. Trust me, the path of least resistance, comfort, largess, and material gain is not in this direction.
August 9, 2008 at 12:20 am |
[...] In Defence of the Emerging Church: Some Thoughts on Identity Even as I hit “send” to my rebuttal of an argument on ToddonGod. [...]
August 9, 2008 at 1:00 am |
Again, thank you for your continued engagement on this.
As for your comments, I think you hit the nail on the head with what you said about the emergent goal: “they are trying to shed these ‘identities’ if you will for a greater, more profound, more important identity–that of a follower of Christ alone–without the excess baggage.” What does that mean? What is a “follower of Christ alone”? Does this mean that Baptists, Catholics, and Presbyterians are not “followers of Christ alone”? Does it mean that “followers of Christ alone” will have no distinctives? It must be one thing or the other; either being a “follower of Christ alone” means being an identity-less body floating around in some sort of vague spirituality (which was my original claim) or it has distinctives and specific convictions and therefore means the same thing as the denominations it claims to disavow (and so is self-contradictory). Either way it is not a gain. (By the way, I in no way mean to mock your terminology. I have seen that exact phrase used numerous times in theOoze to describe emergent philosophy.)
Don’t get me wrong though. I am not against the rebirth and reassessment of the faith that the larger emerging movement is bringing with it. I agree that there are many aspects of how we practice Christianity today that are either legalism or some relic of a forgotten era which is meaningless to believers today. I think guys like Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, and to some extent Dan Kimball and Erwin McManus, are showing an appropriate way of doing this.
However, it is people like McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and Tony Campolo who are ashamed of the moral convictions of orthodox Christianity (and ashamed of America) and so they seek a type of “citizen of the world” religion which pits them as “followers of Christ alone” but does not necessitate that they adhere to any of the commands which flow from the Bible. They look at Christ and forget that he is part of the Trinity, that he himself speaks of how the Scriptures point to him, and in doing this they deny the remainder of the Bible outside of the four Gospels. They want to follow Jesus as they perceive him in the incarnation but refuse to accept him in his exaltation or as testified to by the other Bible authors. These people could care less about an identity that is “cloven closer to the character, leading and identity of Christ.” What they want is a Biblical interpretation which gives them justfication for espousing their own philosophies and political ideas (and when they can’t get this they just make up things like trajectory hermeneutics).
Strong Christian convictions are the enemy to emergent thinkers, a strong Christian identity is an abhorance to these purveyors of “peace.” It is important that we aren’t so anxious for comfort and acceptance from the world that we deny God and his revealed word. Orthodoxy is by far not “the path of least resistance, comfort, largess, and material gain,” but painting it like this sure seems to help those practicing a more “generous orthodoxy” sleep better at night.
August 10, 2008 at 9:05 pm |
Reibwo,
I think Todd brings up a very interesting point when he asks “Does it mean that ‘followers of Christ alone’ will have no distinctives?” I will admit that I am for shedding titles and their unnecessary baggage as much as anyone else is. In fact I try not to use the term Christian, rather I prefer to use “follower of Christ,” as I think it better communicates in my current cultural context better than the term Christian does because of cultural baggage that has been added on to it. This is so with numerous labels that I may identify with to an extent but not completely. At the same time I realize that not everyone has the time to listen to all the nuances of my theology and so these lables are helpful. But the point is that I have a defined defensible theology. What McLaren, Bell, and those like them are arguing for is not simply rebirth, as you have stated, but disavowal. Removing every and all doctrinal distinctives and still being able to jump on Jesus’ trampoline is not rebirthing the trampoline it is the construction of a void.