nuance

In Scot McKnight’s ongoing review (pt. 4) of the book Reformed and Always Reforming by Roger Olsen, there is great information about a category for theology called “postconservative.” I was recently chatting with a couple folks about shades within the emerging church movement, and this tag seems to be an apt description of one of those shades.The most obvious aspect of defining the postconservative view is the word itself - it is a view that seeks to go beyond the rigid approach of conservative theology. One could take this as a starting point for the emerging movement in general; it is seeking to reform an evangelicalism that has become (increasingly) defined by a certain, narrow way of thinking - that is, increasingly resistant to continuing reformation.

In the 6 points, numbers 4 and 5 stand out:

4. Its [Postconservatism's] vision for evangelicalism is not shaped by a who is in and who is out. Postconservatives are centered sets while conservatives have boundaries. The centrifugal power of evangelicalism is diminished by the boundary setting some use and it turns it into an organization.

5. The enduring essence of the Christian faith is spiritual experience rather than doctrinal belief. Here he appeals to Stan Grenz’s convertive piety. Grenz: To be truly evangelical, right doctrine, as important as it is, is not enough. The truth must become personally experienced truth. Doctrinal language of the church [is] second-order language.”

The idea of a centered set is helpful. Postconservatives are not arguing for the abandonment of all doctrinal claims but are instead asking that we identify a doctrinal/confessional center (Jesus? The gospel?) and allow for varying sets or groups within evangelicalism that revolve around the center. Scot’s use of the word “centrifugal” is striking - the core belief of Christianity drives groups outward into varying (really different) expressions of that core. Conservatives differ here in that they painstakingly obsess on the doctrinal boundaries (black and white on all sides) of evangelicalism in order to define precisely who’s in and who’s out. One commenter on the article added a smart warning, however:

I also think that it is important to remember that as a centered set we are centered on a concrete reality, an anchored point. That anchor is in the actions of God in the world, in specific times and places, in the person of Jesus and his message, and in the foundational understanding of the church (not monolithic - ever) of these anchoring events. That is - on one important level, the center anchor point does not change.

If everything is up for reconsideration we must realize that it is distinctly possible to come to a position that is no longer anchored in God’s story, and thus - in my opinion anyway - is no longer Christian. In that case we enter a world of individual preference and relativism. Why even claim to be Christian?

So the centered set is still anchored in truth and makes doctrinal claims, but it is more open, theologically speaking. The bounded set is primarily concerned with intellectually defining all aspects of right belief according to the Bible and is very closed to groups that differ, seeing a primary task in defending right belief from any variance, even if it is not particularly threatening. The latter could be characterized by an overly systematic party-line approach, while the former may actually be more biblical, in the sense that they are wanting to be open to new or different things Scripture might reveal. They get that there is nuance in the biblical story, and they seek to respond humbly. You might say that the centered set approach reflects openness to correction and reform in doctrinal matters; as McKnight sums, conservatives tend to “…take a defensive stance every time correction is suggested. At that moment one sees the postconservative from the conservative. It’s not about claim; it’s about capacity and willingness to correct.”

To complement the above definition of postconservatism, number 5 reflects the emerging value for experiential truth. The “discerning” conservative reader will probably find his head jerking at the smell of secular humanist subjectivistic relativistic heresies in that phrase, but do not be misled - this is not a value for subjectivism or relativism. Instead, spiritual experience as the essence of Christianity is an acknowledgment that truth is inherently more than intellectual. In fact, truth is not primarily intellectual but primarily practical and experiential. To consider the truth to be mainly a function of right thinking is to get dangerously close to hypocrisy, for he who hears the word but does not do it is almost insane (like a man who looks at himself in the mirror and, after walking away, forgets the color of his own eyes).

I have often said that our postmodern era has gotten something right in this sense. The skepticism towards absolute knowledge, especially in regards to ultimate things, leads to a perspective where the act and the deed, moreso than the word, are the key to the truth. When Grenz says that doctrine is second-order language, he may mean something close to this. The first-order language of the church is the transformation caused by encountering the living Christ through the Scriptures. This is the experience of God, by means of the Scriptures, within the community. The second-order language is doctrine, the more intellectually and systematically defined beliefs. This doesn’t mean that one precedes the other chronologically - doctrine and life are interwoven - but one takes precedence over the other as the vital ingredient in the Christian faith.

To put it another way, we ought to acknowledge the simplicity in Christ. We know him through the word; we know him through spiritual relationship; he impacts our lives, changes us, and we know God through him. This is primary. This is central. The doctrinal expressions that emerge from that center are valid, as long as they are open to the reforming voice of Scripture.

Whaddy’all think?