progressive, liberal, emergent, post-liberal--what are the differences between them?

with the recent flurry of conversation in the emerging church i thought it was time i learned a bit more about the various movements coming out of the liberal stream since they are overlapping the emerging stream. mostly what i remember from my liberal childhood church was that it was a snoozefest. sorry, but it's true. anyway, since i was so not paying attention in sunday school, and likely you weren't either ;),

here's a rundown:

first, i started off with progressive is not liberal since the leading voices in the ec initially seemed to have gone in that direction. ht: theoblogy

then, i came across this interesting essay post-modern progressives, or liberalism ain't what it used to be by diana butler bass

i followed diana's link to will the real progressive christians please stand up? the author talks about 4 phases of christian history in america that have led to current differences in progressive christianity today. i really like what he says was happening with evangelicals in the 1800s:

The first [phase] is the evangelical movement of the middle third of the 19th century. Christians in this movement rejected the mainline church’s indifference to injustice: they considered freeing slaves, opposing the extremes of great wealth and poverty, and advocating the equality of men and women to be part of what it means for an individual to follow Christ.

i'm not sure why evangelicals later so obviously lost their focus on justice but hey what they were doing back then is great.

then come the liberals:

The second phase, after the Civil War (when evangelicalism became inward and apolitical), is the rise of liberal Christianity. The liberals affirmed the social commitment and hope for radical social change that evangelicalism had abandoned, but they also insisted that Christian faith must be rational and consistent with the data of social and physical sciences, however much these may challenge traditional beliefs.

thirdly, the neo-orthodox:

The third phase, after World War I (when liberalism lost its hope and much of its creativity), is neo-orthodoxy. The neo-orthodox called for a return to the central message of the Bible—interpreted in light of modern knowledge, not dogmatic superstition. And one crucial element of that message, they said, is that God’s ways are not our ways, God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. In other words, we cannot equate our views, including especially our theologies, with God’s point of view.

and lastly, the liberation theologies which sound pretty groovy to me:

The fourth phase influencing progressive Christianity today is a series of creative theological movements that began after World War II (when neo-orthodoxy lost its grip on American Christianity—isn’t it interesting how wars change theological thinking!). This series culminated in the variety of perspectives today called “liberation theology.” Whether in its Latin American, feminist, African American, or other manifestations, liberation Christianity holds that sin is social (structural) as well as individual, and that salvation promises wholeness for all dimensions of life—political and economic as well as personal and spiritual—in history as well as beyond it.

the author then goes on to talk about two types of progressives today: purists and accommodators. at this point your head is hopefully not spinning too much trying to keep everybody straight.

now, we move on to an excellent article by phyllis tickle: progressive vs. emergence christianity: from where i sit i really like phyllis' take on this and highly recommend this read so you don't even get any spoilers.

lastly, i had asked nate in another post whether there is a difference between post-liberal and progressive and he is going to kindly write up a post over at the christian humanist blog. it's up: postliberal and progressive: a primer from a postliberal english professor

it turns out those home boys have also been discussing these terms (evangelical, progressive, emergent and liberal) on their podcasts. i haven't listened to it but here ya go: theology nerd throwdown: hauerwas and the evangelicals

postmodernism is dead?

andrew sent me a link to this recent article postmodernism is dead and asked me what i thought. while i hardly feel qualified to comment one thing did jump out at me. the author says postmodernism will be succeeded by an age of authenticism:

If we tune in carefully, we can detect this growing desire for authenticity all around us. ... A culture of care is advertised and celebrated and cherished. Values are important once more: the values that the artist puts into the making of an object as well as the values that the consumer takes out of the object. And all of these striven-for values are separate to the naked commercial value.

another blogger, that quotes an article by alan kirby who also said postmodernism is dead in a 2006 article in philosophy now, says:

We've moved into a new phase of society. One that emphasizes participation in culture and society and and technology and politics. If it weren't such a mouthful, I'd suggest we call it participatism.

and the wikipedia entry on post-postmodernism (supposedly there is such a thing lol) says:

a common positive theme of current attempts to define post-postmodernism is that faith, trust, dialogue, performance and sincerity can work to transcend postmodern irony.

after reading these articles my thought was that these quotes in particular sound much like what those of us in the emerging conversation have been saying for awhile now. so no, i don't think postmodernism is dead--it's only getting started although it may end up being called something else--but what we may be seeing is more of how the emerging conversation has already been responding in the midst of it with authenticity, dialogue, participation etc. i admit i'm not sure about irony; we probably employ irony as well. i see the fact that others outside the emerging conversation are responding to postmodernism in a similar fashion as a hopeful thing.

what do you think? is postmodernism dead? or is it just out of the gate? is what we are seeing a response in the midst of it or the next big thing?

a critique of the emerging church...by one of it's own

it's been eons since there has been a post on this blog but there is some good discussion going on over at roger olson's blog about the emerging church. the first in the series is: the emergent church movement challenged by a participant (brandon morgan). excellent critique. here's a nugget from brandon:

Why do post-liberals (e.g. The Ekklesia Project) look so different from liberals yet nothing like evangelicals, while post-evangelical Emergents look alot like liberals?

maybe they actually look like post-liberals? i'm not sure, but as i understand it the emerging conversation was originally a postmodern critique of modern forms of church (evangelicalism/fundamentalism and liberalism). for the ec to revert to a modern form of church rather than retain its postmodern stance is why i believe many have jettisoned the conversation.

here are more posts on the ec from roger:

re: brandon morgan's guest post and emergent christianity this is a good post discussing how both conservative and liberal forms of church are rooted in modernism and we need to get past modernism, and the cultural divide, if we have any hope of reaching emerging generations situated in postmodernity.

more thoughts on the emerging church movement

brandon morgan's response brandon responds to his critics and there is a brief discussion in this post about the following comment by tony jones:

“We’ve taken a pastiche approach to church and theology — we take a little bit from here and a little bit from there. The benefit of that is a great deal more freedom than many leaders in the church feel. The other side of that coin, however, is that we inevitably disappoint anyone who comes from a particular camp, because we’re never really enough of anything.”

i think my question about this pastiche approach to church and theology is how are one's theological decisions being made? what is the determining factor for accepting or rejecting the theologies in the various traditions? i don't have a problem with the pastiche approach completely but am more wondering what the hermeneutic is.

is the emerging church movement a real movement? roger asks and many of us would answer yes, but the emerging church is better known as a "conversation". we in the emerging conversation have not started a new church because really there is only one church. we are a movement within the larger christian church. (unfortunately, the term "emerging church" caught on and i admit i get sloppy and use it too for simplicity's sake.)

ht: andrew jones

emerging vs. postliberal (video)

funny stuff from xtranormal. i wasn't aware until very recently there is such a thing as postliberal. not too sure what it is but this should clear up how it differs from emerging. ;)

ht: adrienne a.

Emotion's bad rap

I've pretty much had it with Christians, at least on the basis of Christianity. The discussions are just too frustrating and seemingly pointless, particularly regarding art and emotion. A recent discussion pretty much just put the final nail in the coffin and this is probably my final strike with the hammer and I'm pretty well done.

I don't understand the need to relegate emotion into some necessary evil. We are created emotional beings. Why would our emotion not be an important part in worshiping our creator? I keep hearing the same old refrain "emotions lie". No they don't, they just are. It is our intellect that confuses what the emotions mean. It is our intellect that rationalizes the beating we receive from our spouse is just their way of expressing love. It is our understanding of emotions and love that needs correcting. That is why our minds need renewing. Not because the intellect is so much more superior to emotion, but because it is in our minds that emotions get turned into something they aren't.

Emotions are vital to us as we are created by a Creator. It is emotion that drives us to want to learn more about God. It is emotion that gives the Psalms their context. I have no idea what it is like to be a king or a nation that is surrounded by those bent on my death. But I do know what it feels like to be wronged. I do know what it feels like to be lied about. I do know what it feels like to have enemies. The Psalms are more than a history lesson. That is why I can find comfort in them.

Who we are as created by our Creator is irreducible. That is why we are to love God with all our heart, mind, body, and soul. That is why truly worshipping God does not depend on a place, but we worship in spirit and in truth. That encompasses our whole being, not just our body or our intellect.

Love is irreducible. Is love an emotion? I have no idea to what extent emotion is a part of love, but emotion is an important aspect of love. Try loving your wife without emotional content and tell me how long that lasts. Love is action, yes, but not just action. That is why Paul said in 1 Cor. 13, "If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."

Eventually the discussion turns to physiology. I have no idea why, but it is inevitable. Yes physiology can affect our emotional capacity. But physiology can affect our mental and physical capacity as well. Do we shun those aspects of our being because of that? No, we work harder at things most people take for granted when faced with that adversity. But it doesn't make anything less important.

We use music in worship, whether instrumental or vocal. But emotional content is the very essence of music. Music is the original non-representational art form (for all you realist fanbois out there, you better check your credentials if you like music). There is nothing "realistic" about music. It communicates entirely emotionally, with or without words. That is what drew visual artists like Paul Klee and the others at Bauhaus to music for inspiration. You can harp about the doctrinal validity of words all you want, but if you have put them to music you have imposed an emotional carrier and/or lens to those words. Better get used to it.

Please understand I am not saying emotion is of primary importance and our minds are secondary. I am saying that one does not exist without the other, at least not as God has created us. One is not more important than the other. God is an emotional God. He laughs, sings, gets angry, is jealous, rejoices, weeps. We were created for his good pleasure. Why in the world would we think emotions should be suppressed, oppressed, or otherwise avoided?

For all you Christians out there, I've enjoyed the ride up until now, but I'm out. Now it is time to live life and live life more abundantly. I am positive that includes emotions.

Joe

P.S. If you read this Nate, while you guys at the Humanist Podcast may have been my most recent discussion regarding this topic, you are by no means the only ones. I wish that had been the case.

josh garrels: new music from an indie artist

i've just heard of josh garrels. he has an interesting sound that is a bit folk, a bit neo soul and a bit electronica. he ain't your typical christian musician but then he's an indie artist. i especially like the new stuff playing on his website, josh garrels, and the rambling thoughts on his blog. here's an excerpt from his blogpost for the love on work and art:

Once again, I'm reminded that everyday we come to the same crossroad of decision within whatever craft or work we're engaged in. We can work for control and mastery over the "object", thereby exploiting it for our own gain and recognition, or, we can enter into the love of the work for it's own sake, exploring the mystery with open hands, thereby inviting others to enter into our joy. The latter is what makes good art: Art that's not dependent on recognition, yet conversely art that proves to be the greatest service to mankind. “Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.” writes Howard Thurman.

whose voices? what emergence?

Linda's post Hearing Voices in Church is part of synchroblog co-ordinated by Julie Clawson, what is emerging?.

Linda says "what i am delighted to discover emerging in the church are the voices of women and people of color where their voices have historically been silenced". Julie acknowledges that the "church is far bigger than some of us might have once believed". As an African I've seen how marginal the voices of those from the global South have been in the emergent conversation, and indeed in the church. So listening to the voices of women and the 2/3rds world is overdue.

But will self styled emergents accept all those voices? Will they hear only what they want to hear? Will they hear on issues of poverty and political oppression but not on sexual morality? Will they listen to our voices on community but not on the supernatural?
One of the more cumbersome pieces of baggage which most emerging churches have dragged with them from their all too conveintly forgotten heritages is a curious blindness to the supernatural. Curious because its an anomaly, almost everyone throughout the world, and throughout human history has known about the existence of the supernatural, except for those churches most affected by Higher Criticism, either by accepting it, or by their centuries long fixation in guarding against it, and a small number of atheists who might in this light be regarded as a heresy, their peculiar beliefs only made possible by the particular form of Christianity they react against.
The emerging conversation has had very little room for talk of the supernatural. Materialism seems to be the conversations sole only philosophical pre-suppositional shibboleth. Linda is one of the few people in the conversation who will talk about the supernatural as well as justice, about the charismata and women in leadership.

So I fear that only some voices will be heard, those which confirm rather than challenge the worldview of white Northern American emergent bloggers, whether men or women.