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.
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
6 comments:
Hard to say, linda, but I do know that I've gotten in more trouble from Emergent-types recently going after Hegel and Kant than I ever did critiquing Foucault during the Bush administration.
Also, in the spirit of disclosure, I identify as post-liberal and am an endorser of the Ekklesia Project.
hey nate! good to hear from you. that's interesting who you're getting more flak for critiquing these days. i suppose there are still emerging folks around who have not reverted to the modern ways but they are not the big names we usually hear about.
lately, i've been reading up trying to understand the differences between liberal, progressive, current iterations of emergent, etc. one question i have: are post-liberal and progressive the same thing?
There are indeed differences, linda, but as I started to draft them, I was crossing the thousand-word mark before I really got cooking. So look for a post on the Christian Humanist Blog (and a link back here) soon on this topic. :)
great. i look forward to it.
http://www.christianhumanist.org/chb/2011/08/postliberal-and-progressive-a-primer-from-a-postliberal-english-teacher/
Lemme try that again:
Progressive and Postliberal
Post a Comment