The Final Straw: The Problem With the Emerging Church - Postmodernism Part 3

In Postmodernism Part 1, we looked at how the Emerging Church feared being viewed as judgmental. Therefore, it has thrown out the doctrine of sin and hell. In Part 2, we saw how the Emergents obsession with being accepted by the cultural at large has led it to a skewing of the gospel. Now, we must look at one other aspect of Postmodernisms affect on this movement: deconstructive humility.

EMERGING POSTMODERNS

Brian McLaren once wrote:

Certainty is highly overrated.

Only in a confused age can this statement be taken serious. This statement begs the question: how certain is he? McLaren adds:

When we talk about the word ‘faith’ and the word ‘certainty,’ we’ve got a whole lot of problems there. What do we mean by ‘certainty’? . . . Certainty can be dangerous. What we need is a proper confidence that’s always seeking the truth and that’s seeking to live in the way God wants us to live, but that also has the proper degree of self-critical and self-questioning passion.

So, how can we be "seeking the truth," if truth itself is uncertain? How will we know that we have arrived there? But the madness doesn't stop there. In A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren writes:

A warning: as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity. -Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 22-23

In a movement whose covering is postmodernism, we can expect such ridiculous statements. Taken by themselves, they are utter nonsense. But in an age were intolerance is a crime, such wishy-washing with a little Jesus thrown in is where the answers are. And that is one thing we can be certain.

A HUMBLE DECONSTRUCTIONISM

False humility is a main facet of the Emerging Church. This is born out of Deconstructionism. Deconstructionism comes from the philosophy of Jacques Derrida who believed, essentially, that since the author is dead, we cannot know what they meant. Therefore, we are free to make up our own interpretation.

Though most don't know who Derrida was or what Deconstructionism is, it is alive in well in the mainstream. Take the Constitution for example. Phrases like "a living document," are becoming common. Judges and legal "experts," who treat the Constitution as a living document interpret it, not by what the words mean and what the Founding Fathers meant, but what they want it to mean. This is why the Supreme Court could apply the words "right to privacy," from the 14th Amendment to a woman's body even though the context of the 14th Amendment and the original intent of the amendment have nothing to do with abortion or a woman's womb.

But the Constitution, though critical for preserving our freedoms and our way of government, is nothing compared to the Emergent Church's use of Deconstructionism as it relates to Scripture. their approach to Scripture is two-fold: deconstruct it to find what you want it to say and when challenged, resort to false humility.

First, the Emergent Church deconstructs the text. In a very recent interview speaker Peter Rollins reveals this tendency the clearest saying:

A lot of people talk about deconstruction like this. They say, ‘Well we’ve got to deconstruct and then once we’ve deconstructed, we can rebuild.’

And I want to stop at that point and say, ‘No. We never cease to deconstruct. Deconstruction is not like knocking down a building so we can clear a space to build something new. Deconstruction is like the heat that keeps our ideas fluid and molten and moving and dynamic.’

You don't get more explicit than that. Rollins is urging Christians to not just deconstruct and then rebuild, but to continue to deconstruct the text. The idea, if I could deconstruct his argument and others like him, is that the text of Scripture, like that of the Constitution to similar minded people, is a living document always under new interpretation.

Just pick any major issue in Scripture, and you are likely to find a wide range of beliefs in the Emerging Church on that issue. Whether it be abortion, homosexuality, truth, Christ, the exclusivity of the gospel, social justice, the gospel itself, etc. The Emergents are more than willing to be open to the "conversation" on these issues because we are always trying to understand Scripture even though Scripture is very clear on these issues.

The problem with this is obvious: we can make Scripture say whatever we want it to. If I want the Gospels to emphasize the love of Jesus, then I can make it do that. If I want the emphasis of the Bible to be on social justice, I can make it do that. If I want to soften it's words on controversial issues and on sin itself, I can do that.

Again, according to McLaren, certainty and clarity are overrated. In A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren continues this argument:

If, for you, orthodox means finally “getting it right” or “getting it straight,” mine is a pretty disappointing, curvy orthodoxy. But if, for you, orthodoxy isn’t a list of correct doctrines, but rather the doxa in orthodoxy means “thinking” or “opinion,” then the lifelong pursuit of expanding thinking and deepening, broadening opinions about God sounds like a delight, a joy. -Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 293–294

McLaren's argument is silly at best, but it packs a powerful punch in a postmodern society. To be certain about something is interolerant and must be avoided. Rather than truth, what the Emergents offer is yourself. You decide what the text means. You decide who God is. You define the gospel. And You make God in your own image.

This is nothing more than modern day liberalism. The difference, however, is that Emergents practice deconstructionism pretending to be Christians that affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. And I believe that they are sincere in affirming that doctrine. The problem, then, isn't in what they affirm, but their hermeneutic.

By affirming deconstructionism and applying it to the Bible, we walk hand in hand with heresy. And if we affirm heresy, then we are not believers. And if we, as nonbelievers, evangelize other nonbelievers with a fake gospel, we are the worse of sinners. As Christ said for such persons, it would be better in the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for them (Matthew 11:22)!

Deconstruct that!

This deconstructive fable is born out of the Emergents embrace of Postmodernism. Whenever truth his foggy, then a hermeneutic like this can flourish. Only with a rejection of postmodern thought, like that of orthodox Christianity, can true Biblical understanding be gained. We must read the Bible for what it is. Context means something. Proper understand leads to proper living. And proper understanding leads to a saving gospel. A wrong hermeneutic leads to wrong living and to a false gospel.

The second use of deconstruction in the Emerging Church is a false humility. The argument goes: I am too humble to say that I understand exactly what that text means. This strategy is both powerful and, at the same time, foolish.

It is powerful because it makes the person challenging the postmodern look proud and stuck up. It makes them look like know-it-alls. Therefore, by not answer the question at hand, the Emergents manage to change the focus of the question. For example, if I were to ask, how can you not condemn homosexuals whenever Paul is explicit in Romans 1 that it is an abomination? By using this humility argument, the discussion is no longer about Paul, homosexuality, and Romans 1, but rather about pride.

It is also foolish. Such an argument reveals the laziness of the one making the argument. It, at the same time, shows their motive. Postmodernism mixed with deconstruction leads to "well, that's your opinion on what that text means," or "that's what you believe." We have heard this argument many times before and I always want to vomit when I hear it.

But perhaps there is one thing we can conclude about false humility arguments: they know that you are right. It seems that Emergents, when challenged, resort to this argument whenever they have nothing else to say. And so, it is both promising and frustrating. It is promising because you know you've made a valid point, it is frustrating because they are refuse to heed to the clear words of Scripture because of their motives.

And what is the motive oftentimes? To make a blanket statement would be a mistake. However, some motives involve making the Bible say what they want it to say. As we have discussed, if we want the Bible to not oppose homosexuality, we'll make it say that. If we want the gospel to be less bloody, we'll make it say that. If we want an easy-believism, then we'll make it say that. And any successful challenge to this firm beliefs will be met with humility: who are you to say with certainty what the Bible says.

Again, postmodern relativity is in the foreground putting Biblical Christianity, not in the backseat, but in the trunk. It is being held hostage by so-called Christians.

This is why the Emerging Church is so dangerous. It not only fears the subject of sin in condemning sinners, it also desires above all else to be friends with the culture. Therefore, the Bible must be forever evolving to meet cultural standards.

This is a critical point. Deconstructionism must be adopted by a movement that is married to the culture. If we desire, above all else, approval from society over the approval from God, then the document we hold so dear must be forever evolving with the culture we seek favor from.

And so, we return to a previous point: are we going to seek the praise of God, or the praise of culture. It seems as we proceed to look at this movement, we return to that fundamental question. If cultural acceptance trumps all else, throw clarity out the window when it comes to the things of God.

The Bible teaches us to be humility. But unless we read the Bible as it is without deconstructing it, we'll never know it. Unless, of course, we pick and choose what we want to believe. And that, my friends, is not Christianity. That is us creating a God made in our own image.