This question has interested me for at least three years and here is why. I entered the door to postmodernity in the mid-90’s (in Doctoral work) through a whole different response than the deconstructionists, a.k.a McIntyre, Hauerwas (who never uses the word postmodern), Lindbeck, Milbank etc.. Personally I learned much from Derrida, his followers, and the rest of the Continental thinkers that have grounded the postmodern critique. I have read them with fascination. I have in large part embraced their critique of modernity. I must admit however that appreciating their critique of modernity has not led me to then embrace their work as the means for doing theology that can lead us in a new faithfulness to Christ for our time. I want the critique, but I have found one or two of the other trajectories (that respond to the demise of modernity) much more promising for theology (Hauerwas, Lindbeck, Milbank and the many derivatives flowing from the Yale, Duke and Cambridge streams). At first, whenever I would talk about this in “emergent” circles I would get “blank stares” like I was some kind of sectarian fundamentalist. It wouldn’t be the first time. But I am far from it. Based on these experiences however, I think some of the reaction to Hauerwas et. al. within the emergent circles is too quick. Perhaps this sector of the emergent crowd lacks an understanding of how these thinkers are respondents to the postmodern malaise of our time before it even became a prominent topic for the N. American theological scene. I don’t know. Now I hear through the grapevine that there is a “Hauerwas mafia” in the emergent theological gatherings. If so, can I be a member?
All of this background is why I was pleased when Geoff over at “Church and Pomo” asked me to write a response to this question “Why is the emerging church drawn to deconstructive theology?” My post can be found here. Preceding me on their own take on this question were LeRon Shults, , Carl Raschke, Tony Jones, Jason Clark. I was honored to be included in the conversation. The conversation provides excellent background to the upcoming Emergent Theologians Conversation 2007. Wish I could be there! But even if you can’t be there, this whole discussion is worth reading for the philosophically oriented thinkers among the emerging church. If anyone goes over there to read it, I’d be interested in hearing what you’re thinking on this question.
Missio Alliance Comment Policy
The Missio Alliance Writing Collectives exist as a ministry of writing to resource theological practitioners for mission. From our Leading Voices to our regular Writing Team and those invited to publish with us as Community Voices, we are creating a space for thoughtful engagement of critical issues and questions facing the North American Church in God’s mission. This sort of thoughtful engagement is something that we seek to engender not only in our publishing, but in conversations that unfold as a result in the comment section of our articles.
Unfortunately, because of the relational distance introduced by online communication, “thoughtful engagement” and “comment sections” seldom go hand in hand. At the same time, censorship of comments by those who disagree with points made by authors, whose anger or limited perspective taints their words, or who simply feel the need to express their own opinion on a topic without any meaningful engagement with the article or comment in question can mask an important window into the true state of Christian discourse. As such, Missio Alliance sets forth the following suggestions for those who wish to engage in conversation around our writing:
1. Seek to understand the author’s intent.
If you disagree with something the an author said, consider framing your response as, “I hear you as saying _________. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, here’s why I disagree. _____________.
2. Seek to make your own voice heard.
We deeply desire and value the voice and perspective of our readers. However you may react to an article we publish or a fellow commenter, we encourage you to set forth that reaction is the most constructive way possible. Use your voice and perspective to move conversation forward rather than shut it down.
3. Share your story.
One of our favorite tenants is that “an enemy is someone whose story we haven’t heard.” Very often disagreements and rants are the result of people talking past rather than to one another. Everyone’s perspective is intimately bound up with their own stories – their contexts and experiences. We encourage you to couch your comments in whatever aspect of your own story might help others understand where you are coming from.
In view of those suggestions for shaping conversation on our site and in an effort to curate a hospitable space of open conversation, Missio Alliance may delete comments and/or ban users who show no regard for constructive engagement, especially those whose comments are easily construed as trolling, threatening, or abusive.