Scot McKnight has a post discussing whether "emerging" should be distinguished from "emergent." In it, he refers to an article in the June, 2008 issue of Missional Journal, by David Dunbar of Biblical Seminary.
Dunbar writes,
In the previous Missional Journal I began sorting though some of the distinctions between the missional, emerging, and emergent groups. While these categories are not sharp-edged, they definitely have different flavors. In this article I will try to tease apart emerging and emergent.
Some would question whether this distinction is even appropriate. Tony Jones, national coordinator of Emergent Village, has recently blogged his objection:
“. . . people are making a huge mistake, methinks, because they are perpetuating the very modern mistake of separation and fragmentation. . . . Drawing lines and defending borders never ends well for the line-drawers because before you know it, someone has drawn a line right behind your heels and, guess what, you’re suddenly on the other side of the line with me.” Well, yes, but map-makers do draw lines and not always with sinister intent. The question is whether there are discernible differences; I believe there are.
I agree with Dunbar. Satan is always happy whenever we "miss the mark," that mean between extremes of excess or deficiency.
Elsewhere, I have written about those my friend Carrie has labeled "water samplers," people who stand on the edge of the Water of Life and refuse to drink it, or dive in, but instead are content merely to analyze it. That is one extreme. And yes, sadly it is all too often the case that analyzers tend to be pharasaical.
Dunbar writes,
In the previous Missional Journal I began sorting though some of the distinctions between the missional, emerging, and emergent groups. While these categories are not sharp-edged, they definitely have different flavors. In this article I will try to tease apart emerging and emergent.
Some would question whether this distinction is even appropriate. Tony Jones, national coordinator of Emergent Village, has recently blogged his objection:
“. . . people are making a huge mistake, methinks, because they are perpetuating the very modern mistake of separation and fragmentation. . . . Drawing lines and defending borders never ends well for the line-drawers because before you know it, someone has drawn a line right behind your heels and, guess what, you’re suddenly on the other side of the line with me.” Well, yes, but map-makers do draw lines and not always with sinister intent. The question is whether there are discernible differences; I believe there are.
I agree with Dunbar. Satan is always happy whenever we "miss the mark," that mean between extremes of excess or deficiency.
Elsewhere, I have written about those my friend Carrie has labeled "water samplers," people who stand on the edge of the Water of Life and refuse to drink it, or dive in, but instead are content merely to analyze it. That is one extreme. And yes, sadly it is all too often the case that analyzers tend to be pharasaical.
But it seems to me that Tony Jones represents another extreme: the refusal to engage in the authentically human activity of analysis, period. He perpetuates the very postmodern mistake of conflating discernment with judgementalism. There's a baby out there crying because she got thrown out with the bathwater. If modernism emphasized "distinguer," postmodernism emphasizes its opposite, "unir"
Dunbar does us a service to point out that not all distinctions are made out of sinister, ulterior motives. Wisdom, understanding, and life pleasing to the Lord depend upon our ability to analyze arguments and situations, in order to make distinctions. Otherwise, what do we do with the following scriptures? Conveniently ignore them? Sweep them under a postmodern rug of artificial unity? Consign them to a premodern worldview that is passe?
Leviticus 10:10
You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean
1 Kings 3:9
[Solomon's prayer] So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?"
Proverbs 3:20-22
My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight; they will be life for you, an ornament to grace your neck.
Proverbs 10:13
Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks judgment.
Judges 24:15
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
Ezekiel 22:26
Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
Philippians 1:9-11
And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.
1 Cor. 2:11-13
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words
1 Cor. 12:9-11
...to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
Hebrews 5:13-14
Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
3 comments:
Well, yes, analysis and discernment are important, but the question is whether or not strict classification and labeling (or "drawing lines", as Tony Jones puts it) is helpful or more of a hindrance in this regard.
We tend to put things in boxes because that makes it easier for us to deal with them without having to grapple with the nuances of difference. But sometimes the boxes just get in the way of us really understanding the things we are putting in the box. Saying that Church X is an "emerging" church while Church Y is an "emergent" church doesn't really tell me anything about the churches in question except how you have chosen to classify them.
Ted, what do you mean by "strict classification?" Would you say its the same thing as what Carrie calls "water sampling?" If not, what is it then?
Comment 28, by Matt Edwards on Scot McKnight's June 9 "Jesus Creed" blog entry puts it way more succinctly than I was able to: "Just because we make labels doesn’t mean that we can’t work with folks from another label. Differentiation doesn’t necessarily imply division and/or hostility."
I also wonder, do you think all classification arbitrary? Nominalists and scientific anti-realists think so. Metaphysical realists don't.
The big metaphysical question is whether or not things have "natures." If so, that means there are some "boxes" which are built into the structure of the world, and are not just arbitrary social constructions.
Whoa, Beth, that is a lot of questions to answer in an itty-bitty comment box. I decided to address the first set of questions with a post over on "Things Above". As for the other:
Do you think all classification arbitrary?
No, "arbitrary" is not the word I would use. I just think that in many cases it is not all that useful in leading to discernment. The level of utility for a classification can vary. Classifying some elements in the periodic table as "inert" is useful because it tells me something very specific about the element. Hearing a radio talk show host classify a politician as a "liberal" is not so useful because "liberal" can mean different things to different people, and the label doesn't tell me anything specific and concrete about the politician.
Post a Comment