Without Author|ity 4: Tray Tables Up
OK, time to bring this plane in for a landing.
First of all, I have no truck with those who say that postmodernism never happened or that it's already done or that it's passé. And to those who say that postmodernism has lost its credibility in the academy, let me just say that I am neck-deep in the academy, and postmodernism the problem. That is, every field of study is attempting at some level to forge a way ahead after the "postmodern turn."
To drastically oversimplify, the postmodern philosophers have been trying to do philosophy after Auschwitz (Derrida and Levinas say as much). That is, the grand, unifying, utopian vision of the Enlightenment evaporated into the mist that it always was in the death camps of WWII, the oppressions of Apartheid, and the mess of Vietnam. The Enlightenment ideal led to a century of blood and horror.
So along came the postmodernists, attempting to hang on to philosophy but unwilling to resurrect Platonic metaphysics. That is, big, overarching, totalizing schemes for knowledge only lead to The Final Solution. So their response has been to problematize concepts like truth and knowledge.
One of the most compelling responses (for Christians at least) comes from Stanley Fish. Although people like Chuck Colson accuse him of total relativism, Fish is adamant that he does in fact believe in authority, but it is the authority of "interpretive communities." Persons do speak (and write) authoritatively, as I am doing right now; that authority comes not from "on high," not from a bishop or a judge or an elected official, synod, dictator, president, supreme court, or pope. It comes, instead, from the community in which the speaker/author has embedded herself. Here's Fish:
"We see that (1) communication does occur, despite the absence of an independent and context-free system of meanings, that (2) those who participate in this communication do so confidently rather than provisionally (they are not relativists), and that (3) while their confidence has its source in a set of beliefs, those beliefs are not individual-specific or idiosyncratic but communal and conventional (they are not solipsists)."
Fish is being both descriptive and prescriptive: this is actually how meaning is formed (in contextual, interpretive communities), and this is how we are to be sure that it is formed in the future (rather than letting it rest in the hands of a dictator or oligarchy). Here's how Steve Bush put it in a comment from an earlier post:
"My community exercises authority not through an appeal to the objectivity of a tradition or denomination nor through a solipsistic "take matters into your own hands" approach which would destroy community, but through a process of dialogue and discussion, in which we process together the decisions that need to be made, present suggestions, give reasons for our suggestions, and critique the reasons that we give. This is "authority from below" which is neither hierarchical nor individualistic."
Implication #1: The emerging church will deliberately practice a communal hermeneutic "from below."
Sub-implication: We will find ways to continually root out authoritarian tendencies, to unmask power structures (they grow like weeds, but we cannot quit weeding the garden). (If this can happen in denominational churches, in established and institutional churches, in "conservative" or "liberal" churches, then to God be the glory. I am not ruling that out (for God's Spirit is capable of all things), but I am skeptical -- I invite anyone to prove my skepticism unfounded.)
First of all, I have no truck with those who say that postmodernism never happened or that it's already done or that it's passé. And to those who say that postmodernism has lost its credibility in the academy, let me just say that I am neck-deep in the academy, and postmodernism the problem. That is, every field of study is attempting at some level to forge a way ahead after the "postmodern turn."
To drastically oversimplify, the postmodern philosophers have been trying to do philosophy after Auschwitz (Derrida and Levinas say as much). That is, the grand, unifying, utopian vision of the Enlightenment evaporated into the mist that it always was in the death camps of WWII, the oppressions of Apartheid, and the mess of Vietnam. The Enlightenment ideal led to a century of blood and horror.
So along came the postmodernists, attempting to hang on to philosophy but unwilling to resurrect Platonic metaphysics. That is, big, overarching, totalizing schemes for knowledge only lead to The Final Solution. So their response has been to problematize concepts like truth and knowledge.
One of the most compelling responses (for Christians at least) comes from Stanley Fish. Although people like Chuck Colson accuse him of total relativism, Fish is adamant that he does in fact believe in authority, but it is the authority of "interpretive communities." Persons do speak (and write) authoritatively, as I am doing right now; that authority comes not from "on high," not from a bishop or a judge or an elected official, synod, dictator, president, supreme court, or pope. It comes, instead, from the community in which the speaker/author has embedded herself. Here's Fish:
"We see that (1) communication does occur, despite the absence of an independent and context-free system of meanings, that (2) those who participate in this communication do so confidently rather than provisionally (they are not relativists), and that (3) while their confidence has its source in a set of beliefs, those beliefs are not individual-specific or idiosyncratic but communal and conventional (they are not solipsists)."
Fish is being both descriptive and prescriptive: this is actually how meaning is formed (in contextual, interpretive communities), and this is how we are to be sure that it is formed in the future (rather than letting it rest in the hands of a dictator or oligarchy). Here's how Steve Bush put it in a comment from an earlier post:
"My community exercises authority not through an appeal to the objectivity of a tradition or denomination nor through a solipsistic "take matters into your own hands" approach which would destroy community, but through a process of dialogue and discussion, in which we process together the decisions that need to be made, present suggestions, give reasons for our suggestions, and critique the reasons that we give. This is "authority from below" which is neither hierarchical nor individualistic."
Implication #1: The emerging church will deliberately practice a communal hermeneutic "from below."
Sub-implication: We will find ways to continually root out authoritarian tendencies, to unmask power structures (they grow like weeds, but we cannot quit weeding the garden). (If this can happen in denominational churches, in established and institutional churches, in "conservative" or "liberal" churches, then to God be the glory. I am not ruling that out (for God's Spirit is capable of all things), but I am skeptical -- I invite anyone to prove my skepticism unfounded.)
posted by tony at 4:55 AM
9 Comments:
What is the identity that the community is rooted in? If everyone in the community is participating in the dialogue, where is the source of their ideas (the "authority") that they are forming their opinions from and speaking from? What happens to Scripture? Must we let go of the idea of Scripture as authority for our lives? I recognize the difficulties that it brings to affirm that, but should we be so quick to let it go? I think we should be hesitant to cut ourselves off from the Christian tradition completely, it has been formative, there's no escaping that. Although Christ redefined much in his Jewish tradition, he still did not let go of it.
Doug Pagitt (in Reimagining Spiritual Formation) proposes that we consider the Bible as a member of our community. Kind of like the President (though maybe not this President): The First among Equals.
so we're supposed to all become baptists? ;)
Now is a time when cultural context, or a large number of collected subcontexts, allows for churches and denominations to do as Tony mentioned about the emerging church. Even denominations who are top down are in some way, "from below". I mean, how did each denomination get started in the first place?
The problem comes that once they go "from below" for a while, they return to top down. From a macro perspective their group is "from below" in that they are not governed by another, but from a less macro perspective, they are top down again in that their authority flows in that top down direction, but only within their group.
If emergent churches can start with a "from below" authority is not really in question. Can they stay that way? Is it sustainable? How will the emerging church avoid becoming top down once they exercise their freedom? The emerging church cannot stop emerging, ever, and it cannot emerge in ten years like it is emerging now.
Revolutionaries make great dictators once they get power...for the sake of the revolution, of course.
urban emeregence and suburban emergence and rural emergence will not look alike...should not look alike. Rural Arkansas will not emerge multicultural anytime soon. Metropolitan Detroit must emerge multicultural.
Compare the way "authority" is communicated in Matthew 28 and Mark 1. Jesus declares "all authority" after his ministry (in the flesh on earth) and after the resurrection. However, in Mark 1 people notice his authority. He uses process to communicate his authorty, not content. He teaches, and heals and badda-boom badda-bing, people start saying he has authority...and it's different than the people with authoritative titles and no authority. "He's no yes-man, middle manager, putz. I like this guy." I think is how people might have seen him. So, did he have authortiy assigned to him by the people or did they notice the authority he already had? Well, there seems to be a both/and thing going on there.
Jesus has all authority, including the authority to release authority. Here is the place where the modern church struggles. It is very had to release authority once it is obtained, noticed, procured...whatever. It takes humility, trust, faith, risk and whole lot of other virtues(?) to release authority...ironically, the very traits likely to get people saying, "She (or he) speaks with authortiy."
Enjoying this conversation very much.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
To help unseparate people from God is a beautiful process to watch and a privilege to participate in. I get the privilege to see it happen in my counseling office quite a bit. When I see it or notice it happening, almost always, I feel like a spectator with great seats watching God do something special in the life of my client. When it happens, it is so cool and so obvious that the result of what is happening far outweighs the efforts I had to put into it. I got this bread and fish...out comes a feast.
I have found that the authority to forgive sin does not necessarily have to be communicated in the verbal package, "I (God/Jesus/Holy Spirit ...whatever) forigve your sins." These words are too often (but not always) contaminated by false assumptions, bad popular theology, or crazy Christian TV shows about "Jeeeezus." Sometimes it comes in a metaphor; other times it is in the unraveling of confusion; other times it comes in a new understanding; and other times in community (usually in community). Jesus came to set people free so that they can set people free. He has the authority and gives the authority to set people free. Setting people free is forgiving their sins, said in whatever way.
I've only scanned the previous conversation, so I have no clue if this comment has any connection, but since this post appeared again on my Bloglines account it set me to thinking about Tony's original comments that "the emerging church will deliberately practice a communal hermeneutic 'from below.'"
Of course this is a true statement, but I would argue that it is true for all faith communities, be they congregational in structure or connectional (denominationally affiliated). Yes, I am a part of a denominational system, and yes there are times when the hierarchical nature of the the denomination intrudes into our lives and gets in the way.
Yet, in the stuff of everyday life, that identity is far less important that the congregation's self identity -- whatever that may be. When Mrs. Jones is on her last legs in ICU, the hierarchy doesn't intrude but rather people of faith gather together to pray and cook and do all the things that people of faith do. When the folks I hang with got together to bag potatoes for hunger ministries in Nashville, there was no sense of doctinal propriety in how we got covered with potato goo.
Maybe it's the nature of my tribe. A couple of years ago I was invited to be a part of a focus group for Thomas Nelson on adult curriculum (I got a couple of free books out of the deal). I was the only Methodist, sitting with a group of Baptists and independent Church of Christ leaders. The conversation turned to how the leadership of the church decided what curriculum to purchase. I listened with amazement at these churches whose pastors determine what the flock will study. When they turned to me, I laughed. "You think I get to choose? In the Methodist churches that I have been in, Sunday School classes operate on the feudal system -- each is autonomous and choose their own topics and method of study. If I tried to tell the people what to study they would run me out."
As I understand what you are suggesting you are saying that the point or method of interpretation of the traditions of faith (be they scripture or whatever) should arise from the people rather than being declared from on high. While I value and agree with that notion there are probems with that approach. If one is not careful it is easy for the prevailing hermeneutic to be based in popular interpretations or the lowest common denominator rather than honest discernment of God's intentions for those traditions.
Take the "Left Behind" series (please!). Most pastors that I know would say that the "Left Behind" series is a fun read, but is at best a creative interpretation of Revelation and Biblical prophecy (while some of us say that it's simply crap). Yet the hermeneutic from below gives that series of books far more authority that is deserving.
That is where the notion of pastoral leadership is, I think, helpful. Part of the process of the communal hermeneutic is for the community to recognize that there may be the need for persons who focus exclusively on the task of discerning God's voice at this time, and helping to lead the community to be faithful to that call. In a real sense, that is what Doug Pagitt is doing. Yes, he is very much rooted and based in the community and avoiding hierarchical power trips (I think), but he still functions as a primary voice of discernment for the community. He uses all the skills that he has obtained through the years, including his seminary education and reading to inform how he helps the community to be faithful to God's call.
That is true for any church, denominational or otherwise. The issue ultimately becomes whether a congregation places their faith in the institutional structures of the denomination, or whether they see the denomination as a resource to assist them in their faithful response to God's call. My experience has been in the latter, which is part of the reason that I continue in the denominational realm.
Peace,
jv
Post a Comment
<< Home