Amy, Roger, you had mentioned to me in your writing your concern about the emerging church dismissing the need for and existence of propositional truth.
Andrew Jones of tall skinny kiwi responds here in a way that I think will better inform you regarding the center of the emerging church movement than I can inform you.
We are a threat to the gospel?
In it, he asks for those who have denied propositional truth to come forth for they are hurting the whole movement (and apparently he has never interacted with them.) Andrew has been touring the world teaching emergent, postmodern ministry for the last several years. Roger, this is one of the bloggers I pointed you toward as being at the center of the Emerging group. Also at the center is Jordon Cooper, who replies to Andrews post.
How can we deny the possibility or need for propositional truth? - the Bible is loaded with it such as “God is love” and “Your word is truth”(Jn. 17:17) and “all who live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” These propostions are true. I know. I have EXPERIENCED them and they would be true even if i had not experienced them. I think certain Baptist leaders should put down their philosophy books and go to the streets where the gospel is being shared in truth by emerging church people. Where is this straw man, anyway? How about someone offer a $100 reward for the person that comes forward and says what the critics accuse them of? If there is someone out there, and I dont think there it, i want to have a word with them - they are causing a lot of grief and confusion, even though they are helping to support the evangelical book publishing industry.
These are good words for me to hear Bill. I am encouraged by this reaction, though there are plenty of things still to learn and be ironed out.
I think much of the confusion is related to terms picked up and appropriated, such as "postmodern," "true for me," "feeling over thinking," etc., etc. I don't necessarily want to rehash that debate, but it strikes me as unfortunate that the emergent movement has chosen language that in its original context HAS been so associated with the rejection of propositional truth.
I'm not sure if this analogy works, but it would be kind of like the growing numbers of Protestants who are interested in natural law referring to their thinking as "universalist" b/c of the universal worth and human rights that adhere to everyone, regardless of sex, status, religion, etc.
Universalist might be a description that works in that it descrbies something accurate about them, but it carries so much baggage b/c of its use in other contexts that it would be tough not to misunderstand it.
Postmodernism is known for more than just a mild corrective to the excesses of Enlightenment modernity, and I think its continued association with the emergent stream you are interested in will continue to muddy the waters. But this post clears them up to some degree, and I'm glad ot have read it.
I think it'd still be useful to clarify what we mean by propositional truths, but this discussion has helped.
I saw your comments on Jones' blog and I don't think I ever straw manned you into Harbinger's view. Rather, I see his views as a natural outworking of emergent/postmodern thinking. If his views are flawed, then it seems there's something wrong with what led to his views.
I agree that something led to them. I haven't read them enough. It seems to me that he is seeking to deconstruct the propositional paradigm of truth just for the sake of deconstructing it. I don't see the benefit of such deconstruction. Again, though, I feel I am still very new to much of this conversation.
I'm glad to hear Jones's response. Like I've said, I realize there is a range of veiws in the emergent camp, and I don't take issue with every view. I came to view Harbinger's site through a Tony Jones recommendation, so I don't know that you can call him a straw man.
I would love to see those emergents who disagree with Harbinger's position (like Jones) be more open about it. But when you look at the philosophers whom they claim to be influenced by, you find issues of truth (like the existence of propositions) in question, whether the rank and file emergent realizes it or not. All we're asking is that emergents look carefully and deeply into the background of where their ideas are coming from.
I think that is a reasonable request, Amy.
Tony Jones is on the Emergent leadership at emergent village. Tony and the Harbinger Author are both PHD students at Princeton. I get the impression there are discussions among the princeton commuinity that may not be making wider circulation.
I am glad that you and Micah were heartened by Andrew Jones. While I couldn't define the emerging movement(?) by him, he was one of the first people I started reading, and I have consistently appreciated the direction in which he has been headed. He is a church planter and consultant to church planters type person. He has a heart for reaching the world for Christ. Others in this discussion may be spending more time in the theoretical side of matters. To be honest, I am mostly studying the theoretical side myself. I have an interest as you do in the underlying principles that form this ministry and this movement.
I am, though, still learning. For instance, I fear I may find myself less within a correspondent approach than I previously believed. As I learn more about previous discussions, I learn more about how to describe myself. I appreciate the discussions with you, Roger, Tim, Micah and Moon. As you challenge me to explain and clarify you force me to learn more deeply. Your critiques inform me and they are present in my mind as I read.
Bill, if I understand you correctly and you're realizing that you're less of a "correspondence truth" person than you thought (and, I'm guessing, that maybe Emergent is also), and that our arguments aren't necessarily against straw men after all, then at least we have a starting point. We can be clear about what it is we're disagreeing about. If nothing else comes from this beyond each understanding the opposite position, I will feel like we've accomplished much.
Bill, if I understand you correctly and you're realizing that you're less of a "correspondence truth" person than you thought (and, I'm guessing, that maybe Emergent is also), and that our arguments aren't necessarily against straw men after all, then at least we have a starting point. We can be clear about what it is we're disagreeing about. If nothing else comes from this beyond each understanding the opposite position, I will feel like we've accomplished much.
I am still exploring this issue, Amy, and I will continue to interact with you on it. I don't want to articulate more before I know how to articulate it correctly.
I can make this limited statement. I do not believe we are making up truth. I believe the truth we discover is true in reality. You may note a number of things I have not said.
I believe it may be true that I am not, nor have I ever been a foundationalist. Again, as I understand better how to articulate this I will try to. This relates, though to my discussion with Roger regarding innerancy, and my belief that such a view is seeking something that I don't find necessary.
I also agree, Amy, that if we each understand the other, we will have accomplished much.
I might add that in my limited present understanding, few have graduated from Fuller in the last few decades would consider themselves foundationalists - this independent of the emerging discussion.
