I’ll admit that I’m really bummed about today’s recording, not because Michial Farmer lacked brilliance (he ever does) but because our computers weren’t behaving, and I fear that it cut short a very interesting conversation picking up where last week’s episode left off.? I still think we got some good stuff in there, but after about twenty minutes, Skype would not let us hear one another.? While our computers were cooperating, we had a good talk about the borders of the Emergent and New Calvinist discussion, talking about other iterations of postmodern Christianity and of Calvinism and about some figures (other than ourselves) who live in both worlds, in neither, or mainly as targets for both camps.
As always, search for us on iTunes in the store’s search under “Christian Humanist,” or copy the RSS feed address below into whatever audio manager program you use for your podcasts, and send us an email when you can to thechristianhumanist@gmail.com and let us know what you’d like us to? talk about, what we’ve beaten to death, or whatever else is on your mind.
Tune in next week as we tackle questions about science fiction and fantasy, hopefully with computers who aren’t going SkyNet on us.
I agree with Farmer when he got to the point of saying Emergent/emerging is NOT postmodern. They may be able to claim some influence. But I noticed long ago that postmodern is not the best descriptor of Emerging.
Joe
BTW, I am still not sure what makes the New Calvinist “New”. Can someone clear that up?
Joe
Interesting stuff, guys. You might be interested to know that I’m just putting the finishing touches on a new little book entitled “Letters to a Young Calvinist.” It probably doesn’t exactly address the sorts of concerns you have here–and I don’t AT ALL identify as emerging or emergent–but I share your interest on the borders of both.
Thanks for reading and responding. As you no doubt heard in the podcast, Michial and I enjoy your work. I do find interesting that you don’t at all identify with Emerging–I see your project, especially in your interactions with Continental philosophy and Radical Orthodox theology, as very close to their project.
That said, Joe might be righter than I think about Emerging’s disconnect from any actual postmodern philosophy. I suppose that’s why all of this sustains my interest.
Yes, you’re very kind, thank you.
I don’t identify with Emerging/Emergent largely because the trajectory that seems to have won the day (Tony Jones, Pete Rollins, Caputo, etc.) is, I think, very much modern, although they riff on continental thinkers. This is especially evidenced by their “free-lance” stance–nothing is more prized for them than autonomy (what on earth is a “freelance” theologian?!). They’ve never really shook their evangelical, parachurch nondenominationalism. (For the record, I think this is also true of alot of “new Calvinists”!) I also tend to find that those who identify as the theologians of the emergent church are just post-evangelicals who are just now discovering how to be liberals. (Long live Paul Tillich!)
There was a moment–back when I wrote “Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?”–when it seemed like there were different possibilities for the emergent conversation, embodied in the work of Robert Webber. I think that has lost the day. Or rather, those of us sympathetic to that stream recognized that a more “persistent” postmodernism would be a “catholic” postmodernism and would have to re-embrace the scandalous particularity of institutions and authority (which is why part of me appreciated DeYoung and Kluck’s “Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions”).
This is why, in my contributions to the book “The Logic of Incarnation: James K.A. Smith’s Critique of Postmodern Religion,” I argue that a “catholic” postmodernism is the most persistent postmodernism, whereas the “skeptical” postmodernism of Rollins et. al. remains captive to very modern criteria for what counts on knowledge.
Thanks for prompting me to think about these matters.
“I also tend to find that those who identify as the theologians of the emergent church are just post-evangelicals who are just now discovering how to be liberals.”
Amen. Thanks for commenting, James, and I’m glad you liked the podcast.
Thanks Nate. I was wondering if “new” was more a qualitative description vs some kind of rethinking of the theology.
As for the double taps on the space bar, I understand. Habits are hard to break. I still can’t stop leaving my socks all over the house. My wife complains, but then I point out that she leaves her shoes all over the house… Um. Not sure where I was going with that.
I guess it goes back to the problem of universals. Sometimes we create a universal out of something that was never meant to be applied universally. By then our souls are lost.
Joe
I’m inclined to think that the content of the theology and the kairotic moment are interrelated in all sorts of complex ways, so I’d say it is a new sort of theology precisely because of its moment.