I know, I know. I’m not the biggest fan of Jonathan Edwards. Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone can argue against the reality that Edwards was one of the most brilliant thinkers in American history. And I think that Edwards can be very useful when confronting dubious forms of “Christianity” presenting themselves in our day and age. This is a paper I wrote a while back. I hope it proves helpful.
Emergent Church Meet Jonathan Edwards: A Philosophical Comparison of Jonathan Edwards with Emergent Theology
Imagine Jonathan Edwards sitting down to coffee with Brian McLaren. How would Edwards respond to McLaren’s concerns? How would McLaren respond to Edwards’ theology? Would McLaren conclude that Edwards is the prototypical modernist, entrenched in the suffocating epistemological certitude that his movement finds so repulsive? Would Edwards find McLaren’s assumptions familiar, maybe even similar to the radical skepticism of 18th century enlightenment thinking? Within the past few decades, the Emergent Church movement has arisen from the ghettos of modern evangelicalism with a spirit of protest against the perceived ecclesiastical modernism characterizing most churches in the 20th century. Behind the protests of Emergent Church leaders, there stands an identifiable worldview, functioning as philosophical catalyst through which their epistemological proposals find significance. How does Jonathan Edwards fit into this discussion? Edwards embodies a particular form of Protestant orthodoxy that substantially differs from the pre-suppositions of Emergent Church leaders. A careful examination of primary texts reveals that the philosophical assumptions of Jonathan Edwards and Emergent Church leaders reflect decidedly different approaches to epistemology.
To substantiate this proposal, we will examine the central concerns of emergent theology with a particular emphasis upon their proposed method of knowing truth, and their basic view of truth itself. The second part of the essay compares the epistemology of Jonathan Edwards with the thinking of Emergent Church leaders. The conclusion of the essay will examine some of the more general implications of comparing Edwards with Emergent thinking.
The 20th century witnessed the rise of liberal Christianity, an intellectual and social project centered on accommodating the gospel to a thoroughly modern culture. Threatened by the radical skepticism of this new religion, Christians fought back, attempting to reclaim the historic orthodoxy trampled upon by the liberal Christians. As it was then, so it is now. A new cultural expression of Christianity has arisen which seeks to accommodate the gospel to what the movement perceives to be a uniquely post-modern context. This movement has proposed a number of challenges to established forms of Protestant epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics. The starting point for Emergent reform lies in their epistemological skepticism, which mirrors the cultural push towards doubt, uncertainty, and the celebration of mystery. What exactly does this epistemological reform entail? What does epistemology look like in a post-modern context? In order to answer this question, it is necessary that the emergent method of knowing be examined.
In a fictional dialogue between a post-modern high-school teacher and a frustrated pastor, Brian McLaren, through the voice of the post-modern Neo, claims that “Postmodern theology has to reincarnate; we have to get back into the flesh and blood and sweat and dirt of the setting, because as I said, all truth is contextual (McLaren 106).” This emphasis upon the contextualization of truth can be traced throughout emergent literature. Emerging Church leaders place a high priority upon culture as an epistemological medium through which truth is formed. Universal constants, uniform laws of logic, the validity and possibility of objective truth claims; all of these ideas are scorned by Emergent leaders. According to the Emergent Church, all truth is contextual and will vary from culture to culture. Sounding very much like Brian McLaren, Pastor Doug Pagitt of Solomon’s Porch writes:
“All expressions of Christianity are culturally affected, and that is a good thing. Therefore, we must resist any temptation to say that one understanding of Christianity is more pure or closer to that of Jesus’. Post-evangelicals are not expressing better Christianity, only a more fitting one for their setting. (Tomlinson, 47).”
For Pagitt, Christian truth is culturally affected and individually relative. It is clear from their literature that Emergent epistemology is not so much concerned about truth and falsehood so much as it is about cultural appropriateness and inappropriateness. Ultimately, culture is the first and primary proposed method of determining which “truth” is most appropriate.
Another emphasis found in emergent literature is radical skepticism. Skepticism has always played a prominent role within the philosophical world, coming to its fruition in the epistemology of 18th century philosopher David Hume. While certainly sharing entirely different worldviews, Emergent proponents and Hume share a fundamentally skeptical philosophy of knowing. Hume reduces all knowledge to sensory experience or perceptions, while Emergent leaders contextualize all knowledge of truth to different cultural contexts. Both approaches are philosophically skeptical while differing on the precise medium of receiving knowledge. Elements of Kantian epistemology can also be observed in the views of Emergent leaders. Kant restricts all human knowing to the phenomenal world, refusing to concede that the intellect can grasp the realities of the noumenal. Like Kant, emergent leaders reflect this epistemology and Christianize it into a convoluted form of mysticism. If we cannot know, then we must embrace the mysteries of the noumenal world, and ground ethics in exclusively phenomenal categories. McLaren writes that:
“You cross the threshold into postmodernity the moment you turn your critical scrutiny from others to yourself, when you relativize your own modern viewpoint…You begin to see that what seemed like pure objective certainty really depends heavily on a subjective preference for your personal viewpoint
(McLaren 35).”
Not only should institutions, establishments, or churches be questioned, but individuals as well. McLaren manifests a profound spirit of uncertainty and skepticism as he undermines personal belief by relegating it into the realm of subjectivity. In a similar vein, Dave Tomlinson writes that Christians should move “from propositional expressions of faith to relational stories about faith journeys. From the authority of Scripture alone to a harmony between the authority of Scripture and other personal ways God mysteriously and graciously speaks to Christians (Tomlinson 42).” Tomlinson specifically targets propositional truth and the authority of Scripture as objects worthy of epistemic suspicion. The Emergent Church isn’t interested in any kind of truth claims grounded in a higher metaphysical referent. The movement seems intent upon asking questions and raising suspicions, while denying the possibility of ever really knowing truth in objective categories.
It would be reductionistic to say that Protestant orthodoxy is incompatible with the questions raised by the Emergent Church. Many of the concerns raised by Emergent Church leaders are a legitimate reaction to dubious forms of Christianity, which have deviated from historic orthodoxy. Nevertheless, Protestant orthodoxy and Emergent epistemology represent two strikingly different approaches to truth. Jonathan Edwards is one particular 18th century theologian whose ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology present an alternative to the Christianized post-modernism of the Emergent Church.
First, Jonathan Edwards manifests a weighty philosophical optimism in his epistemic approach. In contrast to the skepticism of the Emergent Church, Edwards defends the project of knowing objective truth grounded in a stable metaphysical reality. In his Dissertation Concerning the Nature of True Virtue, Edwards grounds his metaphysics in what he labels “Being in General.” Edwards later explains that Being in General is God himself, the fountain and foundation of all being and beauty, and the objective referent to which all moral agents are accountable. In one part of the Dissertation, Edwards defends the possibility of knowing God objectively. Edwards writes, “God has sufficiently exhibited himself, both in his being, and in his infinite greatness and excellency: and has given us faculties, whereby we are capable of plainly discovering his immense superiority to all other beings (Nature, 23).” Unlike McLaren
who scoffs at the very idea of resolving difficult truth claims, Edwards states that man’s natural faculties and God’s revelation are sufficient to ascertain particular objective truths about God.
Second, Edwards is concerned to defend the project of knowing by appealing to its centrality in the Christian life. Unlike the Emergent worldview, which excludes objective knowledge from a prominent place within the life of a Christian in favor of cultural expression and subjective experience, Edwards demands its prominence. In a sermon entitled Christian Knowledge, a lengthy exposition on Heb. 5:12, Edwards defends the apostles reproof to the Hebrews by appealing to the nature and centrality of truth.
“As they were Christians, their business was to learn and gain Christian knowledge. They were scholars in the schools of Christ; and if they had improved their time in learning, as they ought to have done, they might, by the time the apostle wrote, have been fit to be teachers in this school (Christian Knowledge, 9).”
Three important observations can be discerned. First, Edwards claims that learning and gaining knowledge ought to occupy a prominent place in the Christian life. Second, Edwards claims that all Christians are scholars in the school of Christ. This runs contrary to the Emergent push for less scholarship and more relationship. For Edwards, this dichotomy is unnecessary. Rigorous scholarship serves as the foundation upon which genuine relationships are built. Third, the difference in emphasis between Emergent leaders and Edwards can’t be missed. The philosophical posture of Emergent Leaders is skeptical, uncertain, and mystical. Edwards’ approach reflects optimism, certainty, metaphysical precision, and necessity of reason.
The Emergent Church is a unique cultural and religious phenomenon. The movement embodies a particular paradigm shift in philosophical perspective that has attempted to change the face of Christianity for a new generation. This shift includes a radical deviation from traditional forms of epistemology and includes the most basic of concerns. The very concept of truth, its nature, shape, and place in culture; all of these concerns find themselves addressed by the Emergent Church within a post-Protestant, post-Evangelical, and post-Fundamental system of thinking. Jonathan Edwards comes into the picture as the embodiment of traditional Protestant epistemology. While some scholars in the Reformed community might debate his theological compatibility with earlier forms of Reformed thinking, it is generally agreed that the most basic of Edwards’ epistemological and metaphysical concerns are orthodox. Edwards argues for epistemological optimism, the objectivity and universality of truth, the legitimacy of both questions and answers, the necessity of scholarship, the centrality of truth in the life of the Christian, the legitimate pursuit of the noumenal, and the unchanging nature of truth in every culture. Friend and foe alike would be wise to consult Edwards before adapting their Christianity to the Emergent agenda.
McLaren’s Bibliology reflects his suspicion of resolving difficult questions of truth. For McLaren, Scripture is a story in which the readers are presented with questions. “I wonder what would happen if we approached the text less aggressively but even more energetically and passionately. I wonder what would happen if we honestly listened to the story and put ourselves under its spell, so to speak, not using it to get all of our questions about God answered but instead trusting God to use it to pose questions to us about us. (McLaren 57).” Edwards’ approach is entirely different. For Edwards, questions can’t be separated from their corresponding answers. His approach itself in the Dissertation assumes epistemological optimism.
No comments yet
Comments feed for this article