Caron's Club Continued

I said I would keep you up-to-date on the DA Carson book club and have not done a good job. I could give excuses, but really, excuses don't become me...

So here it is, my half-way through the book, half-baked opinion: DA Carson has set up a straw man to beat down in order to fling burning marshmellows at a group of people who have made him and others feel bad about a system of church that is popularly referred to as "modern."

(Havn't you always thought what an amazing medievel weapon burning marshmellows from a catapult would have been?)

At the halfway point, he has spent most of the "named topic" part of the book splitting hairs over definitions and such. While hair splitting has it's place, I find myself wondering when he actually is going to get to the point. In other words, instead fussing over whether or not "modern" is a good label for churches other than Emergent (perhaps a valid point on Carson's side), why not deal with the ways Emergent is trying to be different than Whomever-Else-Is-Out-There.

I'm sure Carson will get to that, but it is laborious waiting for him!

And in the mean time, he is taking pot shots at Emergent and not being clear about what is postmodern and what is Emergent.

That in fact is my biggest deal with Carson to present. Unless you are a careful reader, you will think that Emergent and postmodern is the same thing. And sometimes, even the careful reader cannot see where Carson has clarified Emergent from postmodern.

But on the good side, this book will force Emergent to form an identity, which it seems to have largely lacked since it's formation. I say that, though suppose they (Emergent) could continue to resist identity formation but I believe that would be the death of them as a movement. Of course, death or no, the lingering affects of Emergent on the church will flavor our development for decades.

I find myself in such a peculiar situation for I do not consider myself Emergent yet I feel obligated to defend them. Why I am not Emergent? Number one reason - they have no identity and I am hesitant to throw my hat in the ring when I know not what shall emerge from the curtains - prancing ponies or lions, tigers and bears?

Secondly, I hate labels. They have a usefulness, but in this fragmenting society, I cannot bear them. Hating labels, I am told, makes me Emergent, but of course I cannot accept it.

Incidentally, I can certainly appreciate Carson even if I think he's mostly just got his feelings hurt. He is right that Emergent has not always been kind to the "modern" church. What is ironic is that Emergent is criticizing the very thing it is doing. How many times have I heard that the modern church is a marriage of the American Marketing Machine and Christianity? And yet, I know Emergent is also a marriage of culture and Christianity. What is sad is that apparently the church continues to operate approxiamtely 30 years behind the culture. "Seeker-Friendly" Modern Church married to the American Marketing Machine was a movement occuring on the tail end of our friendliness with marketing. Likewise, from all the lips of all the smart people out there, postmodernity is over and now we are post-postmodern.

Whatever.

Blindness is common disease. And I sure as hell can't tell what's going on.

Another jewel from Carson was a statement he made about tolerance. He made reference to the quote "I may disagree with you hartily, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say that which I disagree with." His point was that in times past, tolerance was seen not as a "you're ok, I'm ok" situation, but as a very real disagreement within the context of a commitment to expression.

Fundamental to this "old-world tolerance" was the belief (I'm speaking now, not Carson) in a "market place of ideas." The idea, of course, being that if all ideas competed on equal footing, the Truth would win out. You can see, of course, the humanistic underpinnings of this belief.

"People will chose rightly if given all the information."

I used to believe that too, but not so much anymore.

Still, I like the market place of ideas. I like to be there. I believe there is a TON of value in the concept and I believe there is accuracy in description, limited that it may be. Though there are some people (or some parts of all of us) who prefer lies over Truth, there are others who are seeking. I am seeking, always.

So Carson is right to level this argument at the popular use of the word "tolerance." I don't "agree to disagree" because I think Truth is really important and not something to cop out of. However, I think disagreeing is the process of coming to agreement. We have to stick it out. We have to grapple with it.

At least, the Church who claims there is Truth must do so.

So there.

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 9/18/2005 11:10:00 PM