- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (4/9)
- Next Post »A La Carte (4/10)
The Perfect Storm
- 04/09/08
- 19
Today was a perfect storm. I spent Monday and Tuesday in Grand Rapids to meet with a client out there and got home yesterday evening. I came home to find Michaela (who is a month away from turning two…can you believe that?) just starting to show some signs of illness. Sure enough she spent the night doing her utmost to keep the rest of us awake while dealing with the inevitable consequences of some kind of stomach virus. This is, by my records, the 437th time a member of the Challies family has been sick this winter/spring. We can’t figure out why this is!
Anyways, I had great plans for writing book reviews today, and perhaps posting an article entitled “Don’t Let the Redneck Choose the Restaurant” (based on experience gained in Grand Rapids) but those plans have gone by the by. I’ve long since learned not to try to write anything profound (or humorous) while existing on far to little sleep. Michaela’s sickness combined with my trip left me unable to do any good writing. I did manage to update Discerning Reader and you may like to catch up on reviews over there. We’ve also got the scoop there on a long list of forthcoming titles by your favorite authors (check September, for example, to see what the next books will be from Mark Driscoll, John Piper and C.J. Mahaney). So check out DR and see what’s happened there since you last visited.
I’ll leave you with a couple more quotes from David Well’s forthcoming The Courage to be Protestant. In the book he focuses a lot of attention on two segments of the church: the emergents and the church growth advocates. Here are a couple of snippets where he discusses emergents. Next time I’ll share some of his thoughts on the church growth movement.
Emergents—at least those who read theology—seem to have stumbled on the postliberals, and this is what is now driving this new understanding of the function of Scripture. They have taken up this fad as if it were the most current, cutting-edge expression in contemporary thought, though in the academic world it has already disappeared.
And again,
Plain language and clear communication are not in vogue in postmodern circles. They reveal the speaker as being too much of a realist, too obviously rational, too modern, too unchic. No, we can’t have that! The required alternative speech is subtle parody, contradiction, being indeterminate, being ironic, being playful. This, however, is not as easy to do as it seems and many postmoderns, lacking the skills, settle simply for being obscure.
There are tricks to this. A plain speaker might write of someone else’s “view.” A “view”? How flat-footed and prosaic! How about that person’s “voice” or, better yet, their different “vocality”? And prefixes are a treasure trove for those in search of depths beyond the grasp of the reader, prefixes such as pre-, hyper-, post-, de-, ex-, and counter- - as in words like de-confusing and re-constructing. These all open up new possibilities as do a new constellation of suffixes to go with them. We today, you see, are living in a moment when the multivocalities of post-colonial others are entering our intra/post/spacialities and are exposing the anti-sociality concealed in the hegemony of our discourse and sensibilities.
Listen to the emergent church and this kind of empty obfuscation is what we hear all too often, though usually without this kind of veneer of intellectual sophistication. In its place (and usually on the internet), we hear the confidence of those who have a sense of being on the edge of What-is-Happening-Now but who, for that very reason, are diffident, unsure, tentative and, more often than not, simply confused.
I guess you’d have to agree that Wells cannot be accused of using obfuscating language of his own. He says it as clearly as you could hope.
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (19)
The required alternative speech is subtle parody, contradiction, being indeterminate, being ironic, being playful. This, however, is not as easy to do as it seems and many postmoderns, lacking the skills, settle simply for being obscure.
This sums up so well the way I have felt many times when trying to cyber-converse with some postmoderns regarding theology, etc. Most lack the skill as Wells describes here and so only succeed in being obscure. And think they are exceedingly intelligent in doing so. And dismiss me when I try to bring logic and clear language and meaning into the picture.
This is a book I have to add to my shelf when it's released. Thanks for the pre-snippets, Tim. (Uh-oh, I just used a prefix...)
I tend to be put off by the tendency in emergent circles to be "cool" and part of that is sounding obscure. Yet, for me at least, there are things I believe that are not easy to map out. I believe in theology and my positions on many issues are clear (I would not be thinking if eveything was blurry and undefined). But Mystery is a big part of my faith, I would like to think this mystery is enshrined in Orthodoxy and not running rampant. This belief that some things were not meant for us to understand fully in this life as well as the nuances in Scripture make my thinking undefined on some issues and this may be generalized as being "sophisticated" or "obscure".
I tend to be put off by the tendency in emergent circles to be "cool" and part of that is sounding obscure. Yet, for me at least, there are things I believe that are not easy to map out. I believe in theology and my positions on many issues are clear (I would not be thinking if eveything was blurry and undefined). But Mystery is a big part of my faith, I would like to think this belief in mystery is "enshrined" in Orthodoxy and not running rampant. This belief that some things were not meant for us to understand fully in this life as well as the nuances in Scripture make my thinking undefined on some issues and this may be generalized as being "sophisticated" or "obscure".
"There are tricks to this. A plain speaker might write of someone else’s “view.” A “view”? How flat-footed and prosaic! How about that person’s “voice” or, better yet, their different “vocality”? And prefixes are a treasure trove for those in search of depths beyond the grasp of the reader, prefixes such as pre-, hyper-, post-, de-, ex-, and counter- - as in words like de-confusing and re-constructing. "
Tim,
I hope and pray that your daughter is feeling better very soon! A sick child is no fun, especially in that we hurt for them, and we would much rather bear the sickness rather than have them suffer...
Do you remember in school, especially in high school how cliques were formed along the lines of attractiveness, interests, and affluence? There was a definite sub-language that each clique would develop and use to delineate themselves from the rest of (us) the plebian class of kids. There seemed to be a high level of elite pride in establishing a special language that only the "in" crowd is permitted to use. How everyone not in the "clique", not speaking the right language was "flat-footed and prosaic"! I couldn't help but see a form of this in Mr. Well's description of the postmodernist.
Is there credibility and validity to be gained by creating a new, might we say post-modern vernacular? It would appear that some think so... It never occurred to me before to think of postmodern adherents as being in a clique of sorts. But then again, I may be pre-judging, or hyper-insensitive, or post-postmodern, or, ex-new age, or counter-Emergent! But to think clearly and to read the Holy scripture plainly would be de-un-confusing and un-re-constructing wouldn't it!?!?!?
I watched Erwin McManus last night on TBN being interviewed by the youngest Crouch and his wife.
I just about drove me nuts. Not this man isn't a "follower" of Jesus, as he says, but why is there such a reluctance to simply speak the words of the Holy Bible.
Too much human wisdom. He said things that were not biblical, but he says that mysticism is a great part of his relationship with God.
He also spent a lot of time talking about the rules and requirements of the Church, and he and Crouch simply said that there are no rules and "do's and don't's" in a relationship with Jesus.
How absurd. There was no real substance. Erwin's Jesus is a better Jesus, then the one he couldn't see in the traditional Church.
Same old same old. It's very frustrating and boring to me. Especially when we have the truth, the Word of the living God all about us. To read, study, ponder, mediatate upon, pray with, and ask the Lord to embed in our hearts, and renew our minds.
I just don't get teachers like Erwin. And I'm sure there's more to his theology, but I wish he would have shared more of the Bible.
David wells' book looks like a good one for me. I need some wisdom, for I like some of what the EMC is doing. And maybe I'm just to fuddy duddy.
donsands,
Two things came to mind while reading your comment:
1) Human wisdom is quite often an oxymoron...
2) You wrote: "Not [that] this man isn’t a “follower” of Jesus, as he says, but why is there such a reluctance to simply speak the words of the Holy Bible."
Perhaps he just doesn't want to appear "flat-footed and prosaic"! ;--)
When clear biblical terms are abandoned, Emergents and GGM advocates end up sounding less like Christianity and more like pagan religions (Is this what they want?). Of concern to me is that words no longer mean what they really mean. And if words cannot mean what they mean, how do we talk? How do we preach? How do we write? How do we interpret the Bible? How do we interpret a newspaper or any book for that matter? In a conversation with an Emergent, the person who believes in absolutes has already been silenced, because an Emergent can simply redefine what you say, or just deconstruct it. With an Emergent, many times, you are not in a conversation, because you are not even speaking the same langauge.
This concerns me with CGM advocates because now we have a whole new meaning for good words such as "community," "fellowship," and "authenticity, and now we must contend with the kitchy "doing life together," and "getting connected." Emergents have their words too and they like to use "glocal," "missional," and "convergent." Those who "do church" in cutting edge fashion assert that traditional words such as "justification" and "sanctification" and "evangelism" are too hard for the seeker to understand. Really? You mean "doing life together," and "getting connected," and "reaching your God-potential," are easier to understand? "Glocal," "missional," "convergent" all have to be defined as well. Their remedy for making the gospel clearer is actually a self-defeating task.
Biblical terms, in biblical dress, using biblical methods is what is needed. In this, the gospel is presented in its clearest form.
Now that the author has dissected the style of the emergents as a flat -footed and prosaic attempt at semantic condescension/obfuscation, perhaps we can look at the reformed faith's love affair with laser verbal precision. After all, nothing goes so well with modernism than a nice big alphabet soup of:
...need I go on. There might be a prefix or suffix mixed in there as well. The point here is that this excerpt paints all emergents as people who use language as a cover for intellectual impoverishment and deception. Is this how we discourse? You've dispensed with the broad brush, and gone with the paint roller. The reformed church has its own jargon and buzzwords as well. You castigate the emergents for their connotative imprecision, yet if I ask the reformed arena for a definition of the gospel what will a get? Agreement? Precision? I know this is a bit of a rant, but it seems that more reformed blogspace is taken up in self congratulatory partisanship every day.
Grub, I think you missed the point. Well's issue is not with the specific words or prefixes or suffixes used by postmoderns and emerging/emergent adherents, but rather to the apparent intentional lack of meaning and clarity that those terms bring about. In contrast, all the "Reformed buzzwords" you listed have very clear meanings, to those who desire to have clarity. Wells isn't painting with a roller, he's simply expressing the reality of the frustration he and many others have in trying to glean meaning in this type of intentionally-vague language.
To your question, "Is this how we discourse?" Discourse is based shared understanding of certain terms and words. Again, when one side of the discourse devalues clarity, the exchange of meaning is lost.
Phil,
I think I understood him precisely...He is highlighting one of the 'tricks' that one has to resort to, when one is 'lacking the skills' to communicate with 'subtle parody, contradiction, being indeterminate, being ironic, [or] being playful'. Unfortunately, he limits his description of the 'tricks', to a trick: use of prefixes and suffixes. We are never told what the other tricks are, so that device is what I addressed. The 'intentional lack of clarity' must be shown by argument, not by fuzzy 'expression'.Here is whom he is speaking of: 'postmodern circles' & 'emergent church'. His 'circle' circumscribes the movement. There is no limit implied or explicit.
I think perhaps, you missed my point here. It was to emphasize what I have seen as a love for systematic precision in the reformed movement. My feeling is that this is just as much an error, as some parts of the emergent church's fuzziness on tradition and orthodoxy. They are, in my mind the two ditches.
Thanks for replying to my comment, BTW. I appreciate the consideration you have shown.
Grub, if you read Well's carefully, the flat-footed comment had to do not with the EC delight in obscure language, but as a description of those who use clear language.
To quote,
There are tricks to this. A plain speaker might write of someone else’s “view.” A “view”? How flat-footed and prosaic! How about that person’s “voice” or, better yet, their different “vocality”? And prefixes are a treasure trove for those in search of depths beyond the grasp of the reader
There is nothing wrong with striving for precision or technical terms as long as they are not used to make things less understandable. Of most of those words you listed, I only use them in technical discussions with others who understand them, not from the pulpit or when speaking to those who are unfamiliar with them.
I think this garbage is invading my presbytery. Where does "framework theology" fit into this elitist verbiage? When I attempt to dialogue about six day creation with the new framework wonder boys coming out of Westminster, I get a condescending sort of: "You haven't been to seminary, dear, you don't understand the nuances of the framework theory. . ."
I am on base? Is framework theology part of the emergent movement? Or is it just a local problem for me?
ha!
"...the 437th time a member of the Challies family has been sick this winter/spring."
I heard you there... we've gone through all the usual influenzas and strep and general URI and so forth, and finally when we got through all that, we started in on the less seasonal stuff: herniated disc, gallbladder... it's been rough spring all around, and I have no idea why either.
(And since the gallbladder was mine, until yesterday, I'm not even gotta try to address the actual post content...)
Pardon me but I am no Bible Scholar or Intellectual or Theologian so the comments below should be read with caution.
Darn those labels!! I mean it should would be nice to have no labels on anything. To describe the content of something is just wrong. One problem though, how do I know what is in the bottle or box or can? I mean come to think of it, I would not know what gasoline to put in my car or if I should stop at a red light or go? Then again, maybe I could just feel my way through the intersection. After all, as long as I do not hurt anybody else then I guess it is okay. But that brings up another question...How do I know if it is okay or if it is not okay? If we can't know anything for certain, then why believe anything at all? This brings us back to the comment that I mentioned earlier..."To describe the content of something is just wrong." How do we know that it is wrong? Not sure, because I have just educated myself right into a corner. Sorry to use the words right and wrong and okay so much. Not sure how those words ended up in our vernacular, especially since none of you can actually interpret what I am saying because we can't know anything for certain. Except that we can't know anything for certain.
Maybe this is narrow or too unedcuated for the elitists in the room...but how can you fault me if we can't know if my comments are wrong or not. I mean if you can't understand me then at least that is consistent with not knowing anyting at all. Have I said enough yet? What does enough mean? Isn't that a quantifiable term? No need to measure anything here. Okay...I'll stop...what do you mean by stop?
Sorry everyone for my grammatical error in the above comment. Not sure why I am apologizing since errors do not exist in our current culture, but I felt as if I should.
All sarcasm aside...have we just completely gone nuts! This is ridiculous. It seems as if we just want to extract our brains and never use them. How in the world did we get here?
"How in the world did we get here?"
I don't know about you, but I just typed challies.com in my web browser.
mikbry24,
Ha! Ha! Thanks for bringing some lightheartedness to my day. I needed that. Have a great weekend!
And I thought being unclear in my speech was a flaw! I have been working all these years to be less unclear, and now I come to find out that it is considered "cool."
Sigh. . . yet another way that the "modern church" has "improved" life.