Recently I have been somewhat compelled to consider what I think of Emergent church movements such as this one. It is kind of a difficult subject for me, as I am often sympathetic to attempts made by earnest Christians to actually deal with the current ideological framework of their age. The evangelical church had a difficult time, for instance, when it refused to acknowledge the claims that modernism was making in the 18th and 19th centuries. Instead of actually avoiding the pitfalls of enlightenment and post-enlightenment romantic thought, it seems to me that it simply alienated itself from the culture, set itself apart as an anti-intellectual establishment (which is a true travesty), and then went on to be subtlety influenced by the modernist culture surrounding it until it ended up where it is now - studying scientific evidence and employing literal-historical hermeneutics in a frantic attempt to validate the authority of God's revelation (I hope that the absurdity of this attempt comes across). Instead of understanding modernism, the evangelical church at large simply fell prey to bad and simplistic modernism. The emergent church, in similar fashion, has come along somewhat behind the times (postmodernism already being on its way out and the church having spent most of its time railing against extreme forms of relativism that no one in the culture actually holds to). But it has nevertheless been trying to address the actual concerns that postmodernism has raised, and is working to build a coherent system of belief around an ideology that includes the essentials of Christian doctrine without offending modern sensibilities. While this attempt seems admirable to me, I am not sure that the postmodern framework has left the possibility for sound Christian doctrine intact, and thus I find it doubtful that the best solution has been reached by the current emergent attempts...
Lest you think that my generalization is unfair as directed toward the emergent church, I think that a helpful comment may be that I believe postmodernism, whatever we think of it, to be decently hard to avoid for a generation raised by postmoderns in a postmodern society. As any five minute Google study will make adequately apparent, the emergent church is at great pains NOT to let itself be subject to definition (a good old postmodern tradition), and while the churches that foster this post-definitive position may hold firmly to the idea that this reluctance to be defined is simply reflecting a helpful (dare we say accurate?) understanding about the uniqueness of individuals and the nature of reality, I cannot help but feel that this honest belief stems from a very particular (and dangerous) philosophical stance. Allow me to explain:
Postmodernism (as I understand it) holds firmly to the sovereignty of the individual. Personal choice and personal authority (and consequently personal responsibility) are essential to the operation of the world-view. Because the Moderns convinced us that reality is very complex and hard to interact with directly, postmoderns tend to mistrust generalities, creeds, traditions, or anything else that tries to simplify reality and apply itself to the world universally. To the postmodern there is no universal. Everyone is an isolated individual with a distinct and separate perspective. One person's perspective may differ from another person's, and as a result there is no authoritative understanding of the world. Even Divine revelation must be filtered through individual perspective (which can be colored by individual experience, knowledge, context, and even mood). Who hasn't played the "telephone game" and watched how what one person thinks to be a clear message can be "muddled" by the ability of other people to understand your intended meaning and communicate it to others? Postmoderns clean up this little problem by denying the possibility of access to intended meaning at all. You cannot, they would say, strictly "know" anything. You can only offer your perspective on a given experience.
As a result, Postmodernism venerates personal opinion and encourages sharing methods of interpretation within a community. Though they mistrust universals, they value dialogue and communication. Multiple perspectives allow for a more "rich" experience of an ultimately incomprehensible world. By sharing personal experiences, a community may gain a more complete (though never exhaustive) picture of this great, complex and multifaceted thing we call reality.
Notice that this does not exclude the possibility of objectivity. There may, indeed, be an absolute, objective reality. The question, however, is not whether or not this objective reality exists, but whether or not we can have any reliable knowledge about it from our own limited perspectives. Ultimately, this skepticism about knowledge leads the average person to avoid questions of objectivity altogether and to focus instead on the experience of reality within a particular sub-culture or community. The postmodern is extremely interested in understanding how groups of people form shared conceptions of reality and establish interpretational norms that make sense of their experiences. The focus, once again, is on what "works" in a certain context instead of what "is".
Honesty is the supreme (perhaps even the only) Postmodern virtue. By denying the presence of universals (which includes morality because it tries to apply one set of rules to everyone) they feel that they are simply being honest about the state of the world. To believe that one has an understanding of reality is, for the postmodern, simply lying. It is trying to force your perspective onto another person by pretending that your perspective is, in fact, authoritative. To act in a way that is inconsistent with your feelings and desires is, therefore, also believed to be dishonest. One cannot try to live by another person's perspective or pretend that they do not want the things they want. A person should simply do what he or she wants to do, and completely accept the choices and desires of others. It is the only "honest" way to go about living.
This worldview has, for apparent reasons, had a huge impact on the functioning of modern society. The power of authority and tradition has been all but removed from the art and the stories of our culture. It has become vitally important to us that every one make their own decisions, and we are very, very hesitant to make our opinions sound authoritative. The search for standards of virtue and holiness has been replaced by the admiration of creativity and ambition, and the foundationalism of the church has been replaced by the search for multi-everythingism (insert generational/cultural/etc) in a wild attempt to gain a "rich" and "authentic" community. The fact that this doesn't, perhaps, seem like a very shocking revelation only serves to strengthen my original assertion that postmodernism, whatever we think of it, is certainly not a stranger to us. Most of us were raised with this mindset and, in fact, personally value many of the tenets Postmodernism espouses. The question to me (irony intended) then, becomes not "what is Postmodernism's place in the church" but rather "where do we Postmoderns go from here?"
I would like to think that the next step involves a rebuilt understanding of authority and a de-emphasis on the individual. The problem with the modern evangelical church's acceptance of postmodern values is that those values shift the locus of God's revelation to the heart of the individual person. Even the claims of the scriptures, which have been the bastion of truth throughout the entirety of the evangelical tradition, must, under postmodern constraints, ultimately be filtered through personal interpretational methods and revealed as unique truth to the individual. The scriptures, in other words, lose their authority as universally accessible objective revelation and fall subject to the personal revelatory work of the Holy Spirit on a person by person basis.
Of course, authors like John Webster will go to great lengths to describe how the self-revelation of God is beyonds the constraints of modern criticism... but the question remains, for me, not whether it is possible for God to reveal Himself perfectly through creaturely circumstances, but rather what form that revelation takes and by what means we creatures may receive it. Webster's perfect and sanctified Holy Scriptures must be received by people in incredibly diverse and unique circumstances, and it is this necessity of communication between Creator and various unique creatures that puts the postmodern concerns into effect.
Lest you think that philosophers or doctrinally robust theologians are exempt from this problem, we need only to look at the standard of authority that these persons inevitably fall back upon when push comes to shove. Wide interpretational and doctrinal differences amongst even the most kindred of biblical scholars do not seem to phase them, or even dissuade them from thinking that their particular stances are correct. Though they are quick to proclaim that the standard of authority in their life is the self-speaking reality of the Holy Scriptures, they ultimately place the seat of authority and decision within their own hearts and minds. They will not defer to authority, tradition, or some greater body to speak the answer to them, and they even reject the idea of subjecting the individual will when it appears in Holy Scripture itself... they will, in every case, reserve their right to make the decision for themselves as to what they will believe and what sources they will accept as valid. Try as you might, you will not get them to give up this personal authority.
Save in cases of extremely reductionist forms of determinism, such a refusal to give up personal autonomy of decision seems to pose distinct problems when it comes to the idea of "paying attention to the Holy Spirit" or "obeying the Spirit's leading". Indeed, if there is any part at all that the human individual will plays in adequately receiving the self-revelation of God, then it is terrifying to think that the seat of all authority is the stubborn will of the limited, perspectivaly-challenged individual (who so often gets important things wrong...).
It seems to me that what we should be wishing for is neither this very sloppy postmodern acceptance of individual authority (which in its rejection of the above mentioned sources of authority has often and inevitably led to very terrible doctrinal confusions, limited or shallow ideas of the person of Christ, and woefully anemic conceptions of the meaning of life in Christ) nor a return to the stubborn denial of postmodern claims (which leads to brittle dogmatics, an absurd denial of individual differences, and ultimate alienation from the people that we are trying to save). The evangelical church cannot maintain right doctrine, sound teaching, and robust ecclesiology if it continues to place the seat of authority within the individual. Though a few highly educated church leaders may be able to preach sound, meaningful Christian doctrine to individual church bodies, there is (and I think that this concept has been born out in the state of the modern evangelical church at large) simply no way to preserve the purity and integrity of a "church" when we insist on placing the locus of authority within individual hearts. How are we to insist on the unity of Christ's body when every individual person reserves the right to decide what is meant by "unity" and "Christ's body"?
What we need, I believe, is a truth-speaking, self-revealing person to interact with us in our differences. What we need is something that is both one and many - both made up of unique parts and whole in its mind and heart. What we need is Christ here on earth to reason with us and lead our separate hearts into unified truth. What we need is an authority to tell us how we ought to think about the Father. What we need is a Church - a Holy, Catholic Church that is truly the body of Christ in every way... truly one and truly relevant to all individuals... truly knowing and truly known... and able to speak with authority. We need to bite the bullet and look into the idea that Divine self-revelation may be first given to the Church and not to the individual - to the whole body of persons that Christ has sanctified for His purpose and not to the feeble will of each person that attempts to articulate the mysteries of Christ... and that we are able to receive this revelation only inasmuch as we submit to the authority of the physical and spiritual body of Christ here on earth. We need to find a Church that is bold enough in the Holy Spirit to make this claim and that actually has the right to claim it...
