Pessimism, Caffeine & Satire

Reader James Altena mentioned a website in a message, where I found a Pessimist's Mug. Our Caffeinated Christianity mug is more uplifting, truly, and less expensive to boot, but the other is amusing and perhaps even useful for some. But that website was being compared somewhat to another website of posters satirizing the emergent church movement. For what it's worth. I guess I do like a bit of satire now and then, as well as selling our mugs, though I've resisted the urge to create a "Beer Christianity" mug with CSL's mug on it. (Aren't you glad?) I better sign off before this gets worse.

Comments

[Judy Warner]

I'd buy one, Jim.

[Joe Long]

Can you have CSL and GKC, arm-in-arm? Perhaps singing?

[labrialumn]

It is only sin that you must resist.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

The Emerging Church satire posters are based on the ones at Despair.com.

My personal favorite is Loneliness.

By the way, with apologies to David Mills, I wasn't a real fan of the poster slamming narrative theology (apparently N. T. Wright is an idiot).

[Bill R]

I hear James refuses to buy a Pessimist's Mug on the grounds that he fears they'd mess up the embossing. Sort of like the guy who intends to buy the Procrastinator's Cup. Some day.

[Ethan Cordray]

How about a set of "Beer Christianity" pint glasses? And you could print "usque ad hilaritatem" on the bottom of the insides, as a discreet reminder.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I wasn't a real fan of the poster slamming narrative theology <<<

Just what the hell IS narrative theology? What other kind of theology can there be?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Wikipedia: Narrative Theology

Talking about narrative theology, at least in my experience, is done in contrast to systematic theology. In this framework, narrative theology seeks to understand God in terms of the story of scripture, rather than seeking to create a static theological model using scripture as data. (e.g. - compiling lists of God's attributes on the basis of various passages, vs. talking of God in terms of the one who has set Israel free, etc.)

I don't think we can totally do away with systematic theology, but I do think that a narrative approach is a very necessary cure for certain imbalances, especially in reformed protestantism.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Talking about narrative theology, at least in my experience, is done in contrast to systematic theology.<<<

OK, so we're talking Western categories here. No wonder I don't understand it in the least. Authentic Eastern theology is much more holistic, and has nothing at all akin to "systematic" theology. In fact, in his books "Introduction to Liturgical Theology" and "For the Life of the World", Fr. Alexander Schmemann traced many of the problems of Western Christianity back to the breaking of the bond between liturgy and theology, and of the balkanization of theology into discrete academic disciplines.

For the record, traditional Byzantine theology has much in common with what Wikipedia calls "narrative theology", which means it really isn't a 20th century innovation at all, but a rediscovery of something that used to be the common patrimony of the Eastern and Western Churches alike.

[James A. Altena]

Stuart,

I think you are trying to force what you here call a "Western" issue onto a Procrustean Eastern categorical bed. If you want to criticize the West for supposedly doing that to the East (as you often do), then you shouldn't do it in reverse either.

Dear WfO,

As I see it, the problem with "Emergent Church" "narrative theology", which causes David Mills to tag this poster as a favorite, is not a rejection of systematic theology (and I agree that there should be both/and, not either/or). It is rather (cf. the sign held aloft in the "Postmodern" satiricial poster) the rejection of "metanarrative", the idea that there is in fact a single objective universal pattern or paradigm (including of narrative itself). The postmodernist approach of the "Emergent church" types instead subscribes to the subjectivist drivel of everyone "telling their own stories", all of which are equally "valid" and "meaningful". Subjective personal experience is each individual's norm, instead of the individual being required to conform to the universal norms of Christ and Scripture. Per the poster on "Truth", it's the story as "journey" and not the truth as "goal" that counts.

This is particularly on display in homiletics courses today, wherein seminarians are taught to give sermons that "tell stories" rather than present an objective exegesis of the text -- because a postmodernist rejects the very notion that a text has an objective meaning distinct from the subjective meaning that the reader constructs for himself out of it.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>For the record, traditional Byzantine theology has much in common with what Wikipedia calls "narrative theology", which means it really isn't a 20th century innovation at all, but a rediscovery of something that used to be the common patrimony of the Eastern and Western Churches alike.<<

One may hope. The danger, though, is that "narrative theology" may become so caught up in not being systematic theology that it becomes as limited and balkanized as the former has been, but with the frisson of newness that tends to attract the less responsible sort of theologians. One can innovate with a narrative method quite as easily as with a sytematic one. Take the gnostic texts, for example, which are filled with both inventive metaphysical systems and inventive stories about Christ and the apostles.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>One may hope. The danger, though, is that "narrative theology" may become so caught up in not being systematic theology that it becomes as limited and balkanized as the former has been<<<

Hence the need for narrative theology to be anchored to the worship of the Church, that is, to the liturgy. This prevents real innovation by rooting any narrative in the Church's rule of prayer.

[James A. Altena]

To get back to the real subject of the thread --

Touchstone needs a truly ecumenical soup/coffee mug with three panels on it. The first should feature some Orthodox soldiers of the Byzantine empire buring a barque at sea loaded with a group of Bogomiles. The second should show a group of medieval RC inquisitors torching Albigensians. The third should show the Reformed pastors of Geneva igniting Michael Servetus.

:-) :-) :-)

[Bill R]

"Touchstone needs a truly ecumenical soup/coffee mug with three panels on it."

Four panels: the last should show three MC bloggers burning the coffee....

[Mairnéalach]

Having read the scriptures a bit myself, I was perplexed to discover the son of man having so little regard for theology in general. Apparently, to him, theology incapable of being articulated by a five-year old was of little use.

Now, that very observation itself was a bit of theologizing on my part, I'll grant. However, it does do a dandy service in describing the relationship of theology to faith.

Most theologizing these days is not an attempt to glorify God, but is the fruit of avarice. However, as Paul said... as long as Christ is being proclaimed.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

But then, the son of man expected one to know the scriptures, and the thrust of Israel's story, enough to recognize the work of God and see that the kingdom was at hand.

[Mairnéalach]

The son of man expected one to follow the Law of God, whether they were of Israel, or goyim, or three years old, or eighty three. Strange how the three year olds were the ones seeing the kingdom at hand, and the ones who "knew the story best" were missing the point. I suspect the children saw the kingdom in his welcoming lap, and the scribes were looking for it in their "biblical worldviews".

That's no argument against knowing the story well. I find the more I learn it, the more I resemble the three year old. Darn good reason to learn it, and learn it well.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Ah well, James, I suppose I have a little postmodern in me after all.

I actually think postmodernism gets a bad rap that it only half deserves. I like what N. T. Wright says, that (at its best) postmodernism's role is to "preach the doctrine of the Fall to arrogant modernity." The good postmodernism doesn't say that truth doesn't exist, but rather that you're kidding yourself if you think you have anything like unfettered access to it. Against those who say "we're just looking objectively at the facts", postmodernism notices that these "facts" seem to conveniently support the "observer's" own agenda. Think of atheists like Richard Dawkins.

Christians do this as well, saying things like "we're just looking at the Bible objectively, and so our doctrine is the truth" while engaging in power plays and witch hunts that really do trample people down. "What is Truth", indeed. Pilate asked, and I doubt Jesus was thinking "he really needs a good systematic theology textbook." No, Truth himself was standing there in front of Pilate, and he went unrecognized.

Propositional logic can be helpful in creating a systematic and consistent framework, but I am somewhat suspicious of many such frameworks (particularly that behind the website that so glibly blasts those emergent fools). It's the old Chesterton discussion of the madman - our theological systems are often in dire need of air. At their best, they should push us beyond themselves, not claiming to be "the Truth", but rather a witness to and a guide toward the Way, the Truth, and the Life himself.

We can know the Truth, but by "know" I mean something at least as close to "Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived" than that which we do to test tubes. If I am not mistaken, this is the sort of thing the emergent movement is saying at its best.

[Wolf N. Paul]

James Altena: You seem to be painting with a pretty broad brush. Are you saying that homiletics courses today in particular, and seminaries in general (both without the qualifier "some" I note) are hotbeds of Emergent?

That is what bothered me about the posters: while funny, they seemed to be a bit mean-spirited, taking off on the worst possible interpretations of what some folks in the Emergent/emerging church movement are saying. It's a bit like evangelical satiricists producing a poster on the Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation with a cannibalism motif (I know things like this have happened, Chick tracts being a case in point, but I thought Touchstone was above that sort of nonsense).

[DGP]

taking off on the worst possible interpretations of what some folks in the Emergent/emerging church movement are saying.... Chick tracts being a case in point, but I thought Touchstone was above that sort of nonsense

You're confusing earnest, systematic misrepresentation with satire. The genres differ, and so must the interpretation. These posters may contain insight, but anyone who takes them as an entirely fair representation of the Emergent Church movement is illiterate.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That is what bothered me about the posters: while funny, they seemed to be a bit mean-spirited, taking off on the worst possible interpretations of what some folks in the Emergent/emerging church movement are saying. <<<

When it comes to unconventional theological movments, I belong to the Alice Roosevelt Longworth school.

[Bobby Winters]

Thanks very much for the link to the Narrative Theology article in Wikipedia. I find it quite appealing and I like the "post-liberal" label as I either used to be a liberal or thought I was but that is over.

[Rob Grano]

'We can know the Truth, but by "know" I mean something at least as close to "Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived" than that which we do to test tubes. If I am not mistaken, this is the sort of thing the emergent movement is saying at its best.'

True, WFO -- this is what the emergents are attempting. The problem is that one of the ways they are doing it is by circumventing, downplaying, or in some cases, ignoring or rejecting dogma. They confuse rationality with rationalism, rightly critiquing, but then overreacting to a too 'mind-centered' approach to the faith.

Because of this there is a very sketchy quality to most of the emergent church's writings. It's got this "we're- not-quite-sure-what-we're-doing-here,-but-we- hope-you-somehow-meet-God-through-it-all" quality to it that I'm sure they perceive as humility, but which actually reflects, IMO, the postmodernist suspicion of objective truth. Like all postmodernism then, the emergent movement can provide a partially valid, useful critique of modernism, but has nothing to offer in its place. In a sense it is virtually all apophatic with no cataphatic backup, to steal a phrase from Huston Smith.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The problem is that one of the ways they are doing it is by circumventing, downplaying, or in some cases, ignoring or rejecting dogma. <<<

Let's be clear, though, that in the Eastern Christian Tradition, "dogma" is a term of very narrow scope and application, covering mainly the teachings of the seven Great Councils. No doubt there are some who would seek to circumvent that, but not too many, I think.

>>>he postmodernist suspicion of objective truth<<<

If Wright is a "narrative theologian" (which I doubt--I don't think he would apply any labels to himself), his approach, as outlined in "The New Testament and the People of God" is to pick a way between the Scylla of deconstructionist rejection of metanarratives and the Charybdis of logical positivism, by saying quite plainly, "here is what we can know historically, here is what we can reasonably impute historically, and here is what cannot be imputed historically.

As for "narrative theology" as a hermenuetic approach, I think if you look at the Fathers, for the most part, this is what they did, seeing the Bible as essentially a narrative history of the people of God culminating in the incarnation, passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even before the New Testament canon emerged, they were doing this through the liturgy of the Church, which was a dramatic reenactment of this history in song, gesture and sacramental action.

[Rob Grano]

And Wright's approach, I think, is correct. But Wright is not an 'emergent church' theologian. If you read McLaren, Miller, or Rob Bell, you get quite a different picture. Not only do they demonstrate suspicion of 'dogma,' but they seem to be iffy on the very notion of doctrine itself. Everything is all very hazy to them when it comes to proposing what Christians should actually believe (even Wright unfortunately falls into this trap in SIMPLY CHRISTIAN when he discusses the Eucharist, basically saying that it doesn't really matter what you believe about the bread and the wine -- what's important is the encounter with Christ that you find there. If you apply this mentality to all, or almost all, Christian doctrine, you get the Emergents.)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>ut Wright is not an 'emergent church' theologian.<<<

Didn't think so.

>>>If you read McLaren, Miller, or Rob Bell, you get quite a different picture.<<<

Life is short, so why waste it on stuff not worth the effort?

>>>Wright unfortunately falls into this trap in SIMPLY CHRISTIAN when he discusses the Eucharist, basically saying that it doesn't really matter what you believe about the bread and the wine -- what's important is the encounter with Christ that you find there. <<<

Well, he is an Anglican bishop, and Durham is just full of low church Geordies, so he's got to cover his bases. I think he is writing for a very "Mere Christian" audience in his little (non-scholarly) books, trying to hold on to the flock he has while reaching out to those who have either fallen away or never been exposed to Christ. It's very hard to be a Christian apologist in Britain, where someone like Tony "Milquetoast" Blair was once described to me as a "religious fundamentalist" by an otherwise perfectly normal human being.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Wright is not an "emergent church" theologian. But he is quite popular in that crowd, and thinks them a group worth addressing. In my book, if they're listening to Wright, they can't be beyond hope.

I did pick up McLaren once, in my local Borders, and just couldn't get past his using Jesus' bride as a foil. I have little patience for constantly bashing "the Church" and posing your approach as the great solution.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

As far as Wright being a "narrative theologian" - I don't know if he'd call himself that, but he does call doctrines "portable stories". For instance, he says that the phrase "the atonement" is a shorthand for that entire narrative in the gospels where Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. This does seem to be the approach of the early creeds - starting with creation, going through the cross and resurrection, looking for the life of the world to come. Things became more systematic and categorical in order to correct specific errors, but correcting error shouldn't be our primary use of theology.

I like what you say Stuart about doing it in the liturgy and praxis of the Church.

[Rob Grano]

"In my book, if they're listening to Wright, they can't be beyond hope."

This is true, but it depends on exactly how they're listening. Are they really reading him in a teachable manner, or are they merely picking and choosing what they like from his overall oeuvre and using it, out of context, for their own project? Time will tell, I guess, but a good deal of their approach smacks of the cafeteria.

[Gene Godbold]

I think the objection to "systematic theology" is that God didn't give us a systematic theology. The Bible can be made to support (appropriately humble) systematic theologies, but it isn't a natural medium for them. That said, systematic theology can be a useful way of organizing the Biblical data for certain types of minds. For some I think it can be edifying. Systematic theologies often seem to become Procrustean beds in which disciples of the original systematic theologian--who are rarely as wise or as educated as their master--lop off bits of the Bible that cause them problems.

Wright's approach, not original with him, is *not* to hear the Bible through a systematic theological apparatus, but rather trying to reconstruct--through standard historical/textual means--what Jesus' message would have sounded like to first century Jewish ears who were saturated with apocalyptic expectations as a result of their scriptures, their history, and their peculiar political situation.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That said, systematic theology can be a useful way of organizing the Biblical data for certain types of minds. For some I think it can be edifying. <<<

The East makes a distinction between "theology" as an attempt to express man's mystical encounter with God (literally, an attempt to find "words fitting for God") and "theoria", an elaboration of the mysterious encounter into a system of belief. The West makes much the same distinction between "theologia prima" and "theologia secunda". By its very nature, systematic theology is theoria, or theologia secunda, while (as even the Latin Church says), theologia (or theologia prima) is most perfectly expressed in the worship of the Church. And that is due to the worship of the Church being, in essence, a constant retelling of the story of God's relationship with his people.

>>>Wright's approach, not original with him, is *not* to hear the Bible through a systematic theological apparatus, but rather trying to reconstruct--through standard historical/textual means--what Jesus' message would have sounded like to first century Jewish ears who were saturated with apocalyptic expectations as a result of their scriptures, their history, and their peculiar political situation.<<<

It is important to realize that the first century Jews were not totally isolated nor outside of the hellenistic culture in which they found themselves, so much of how the Jews heard the message of Jesus would be reiterated among the Greeks (which would include most diaspora Jews). Paul's success among the gentiles was due in large part to this congruency of expectations through possession of a common culture and language. Hence, Wright's approach to the historical Jesus also remains valid for his approach to the early Church, as seen in his books on Paul, and in the long-anticipated Volume IV of his Christian Orgins series.

[Rob Grano]

From the Orthodox side of things John Behr seems to be mounting a similar undertaking.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Stuart, you've read Paul and the Justice of God?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, you've read Paul and the Justice of God?<<<

No. It isn't out as far as I know. I expect that he will use the same methodology he used in NTPG, and build out some of the ideas he broached in his two interim books on Paul. In fact, Wright has said as much.

>>>From the Orthodox side of things John Behr seems to be mounting a similar undertaking.<<<

I haven't read anything of Behr, but I will rectify that oversight.

[Rob Grano]

Behr's THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST is probably a good starting point.

[Katherine Philips]

Narrative theology isn't the dyadic opposite of systematic theology; in fact, it's widely treated as a subset of systematics in divinity schools (at various points on the orthodox spectrum).

Furthermore, as some have already said, it's quite unfair to lump N. T. Wright with the likes of Rob Bell and cohorts. N. T. Wright is a practicing theologian--see, for instance, his helpfully precise involvement in the debates over the genitive forms of pistis Christou and dikaiosune theou, among his other writings. Even when one disagrees with his work (as I often do), one must acknowledge that he at least attempts to get a good grasp of first-century Christianity's cultural and religious contexts and makes good use of the scholarship available. Bell, in contrast, is a charismatic but notoriously sloppy preacher who is excessively fond of tossing together nearly everything that is or ever has been included in some part of the Jewish tradition and equating it with the Judaism practiced by Christ's contemporaries. If both men happen to be identified as part of the "emergent" tradition, that's more a result of gross generalization than evidence that the two make complementary theological claims.

[Bill R]

For more entertainment and emergent church-bashing posters ("Post-Critical" and "Faith"), check out the August 11 posts
at Pyromaniacs.