Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

Post-Pluralist Christianity

Published by

Matt Stone

2006-02-21

Is it time for some conversations about ‘post-pluralistic’ Christianity?

Following Dave Tomlinson, many within the Emerging Church describe themselves as being ‘post-evangelical’. Related conversations tend to revolve around the pains and struggles associated with deconstructing inherited fundamentalist assumptions and practices as the church incarnates into post-modern culture. A necessary conversation, certainly.

Yet there is another kind of conversation that very much needs to happen. And which sort of is on the side lines. But no one has really put a name to it. And consequently it is marginalised. It’s a conversation about what it means to be a ‘post-pluralistic’ Christian.

I would describe post-pluralists as follows:

Post-pluralists are people who find themselves in the same space as post-evangelicals, as Christians struggling to missionally incarnate in post-modern cultural contexts, but who came to be there from a radically different direction.

They are people who have embraced Christianity out of consumerist spirituality and/or the new religious movements that feed into it, and who consequently have no prior identification with evangelicalism and thus no identification with the post-evangelical tag either.

Post-pluralists may have had prior experience with neo-Buddhism, Spiritualism, Wicca or more eclectic styles of new spirituality. They may have previously bought into pluralist Christologies, such as those promoted by Dan Brown or the Dali Lama. They may have previously considered Krishna or Buddha or Lao Tsu to be on equal footing to Jesus, but one way or another, they have come to recognise a uniqueness about Christ that has led them to embrace the way and life teachings of Jesus and accept him as the master of life.

Post-pluralists tend to have a far more intuitive understanding of pluralism than many post-evangelicals, but they also tend to struggle far more with training institutions and therefore rarely gain the professional qualifications that grant them a voice in the wider church. Without recognised leadership they struggle to organise and – from the conversations I’ve had with some of my co-conspirators – wonder if this is a good thing anyway.

Post-pluralists are also, IMO, essential to the future success of the Emerging Church. If the Emerging Church is to become increasingly indigenous you would expect that post-pluralists would eventually come to outnumber post-evangelicals wouldn’t you not?

My take on this is largely anecdotal and thus no doubt prone to eccentricities, so take this as a conversation starter rather than a conclusive word on the matter. I welcome other ‘post-pluralists’ to correct me if they disagree with any aspects of the picture I have painted. Or add to the picture for that matter. We have our own pains don’t we not?

Tags Christian

6 responses to “Post-Pluralist Christianity”

John W. Morehead

2006-02-21

Matt, I think you are right on track, and that this is yet another example of the type of conversations we should be having. I think I fit more along the lines of the post-evangelical in terms of where I am now in faith and ministry, but I resonate with this post in that I minister within a post-pluralistic context. I believe that incarnational missions ministry must be done in dialogue with post-pluralists and with an eye toward a pluralistc Western world. One of the major challenges will be for post-pluralist evangelicals to find a voice within Western evangelicalism given our continued preference for professionalism in ministry as evidenced by academic and ministerial “qualifications.”

LikeLike

Reply
philjohnson

2006-02-21

It is good that you feel compelled to draw attention to those who now identify with Christian faith and have done so by a sjourn through alternate pathways. It is appropriate to differentiate these people from those who have drifted into the Emerging Church from a fundamentalist or classic evangelical church background.
I believe that those in Emerging Church experiments that see themselves as moving beyond the evangelical/liberal split, feel the strong need to work through their experiences of institutional churches as they aspire to reimagine the church in contemporary times. That is fair enough.
However, those discourses still reflect to some extent the traits of a paradigm that many in Emerging Church blogs believe they have left behind. That is, the search for an appropriate nomenclature to designate “this is us, we are EC, we are post-liberal/post-evangelical”, is itself still very much a product of the European Enlightenment. In short terms, the need to codify and classify religious parties is a phenomenon of modern times. The Enlightenment project pursued the course of classifying knowledge into tidy categories. The suffix “ism” in English (“ismus” in German), was applied with routine vigour in books by orthodox heologians, Deists and humanists alike. Hence we today routinely add the suffix without so much as a blink — Marx-ism, agnostic-ism, femin-ism, Mormon-ism, Buddh-ism, Hindu-ism etc etc.
In turn, the Enlightenment approach, based in its supreme confidence of creating a scientific system of classification of knowledge (especially with religion), owed the idea of an “ism” to the heritage of Christian theology. For the idea that there is an “ism” presupposes there must be an “orthodox” creed, from which the “ism departs into error. In other words, orthodox belief vs heresy is a theological notion, and it has been carried forward by the Enlightenment project into our ordinary usage of words.
Now, how does this relate to EC and the search for nomenclature that suits its supporters and detractors? Well, I find it interesting that some feel very strongly that they must identify themselves in a way that says “I’m not one of those anymore”.
The term “post-evangelical” is interesting because it suggests “I used to be evangelical, but I have now moved on”. The use of the prefix “post” is itself yet another trace element of the Christian theological paradigm (orthodoxy vs heresy), and the Enlightenment project of religious classification of “isms”.
I find it all doubly intriguing.
First, Dave Tomlinson, who popularised the term in his book from a decade ago, started a church experiment “Holy Joes” in a pub. It is fascinating to see him work out some of his struggles with a fundamentalist heritage. But now he no longer directs Holy Joes, and has become an ordained Anglican priest — a fascinating sojourn to reflect on (and perhaps various ironies occur to you in meditating on this).
Second, if we look at how the word evangelical has functioned semantically, it has a history to it, and with it is a sense that the evangelical hosuehold consists of many rooms. It stands for a trans-denominational movement in Protestant churches, that has centred on specific theological elements: cruci-centric (Cross), biblio-centric (Bible), conversion-centric (evangelism) and so on.
Evangelicals have felt a sense of bond and unity with one another that rises above respective church loyalties (e.g. baptists and presbyterians collaborating in missions in para-church organisations etc).
I feel that the EC has identified itself, in part, by what it believes it has left behind. Hence some have opted to call themselves post-evangelical. But I wonder if we were to honestly ask some questions, whether “postevangelical” is the right label. EC is identified by collaboration beyond traditional loyalties, is driven by mandates for missions and evangelism, and is assuredly transdenominational in its features. Is it perhaps the case then that the post-evangelical is really just a new tribe living inside the bigger household of the family of evangelicals?
I raise this point because one can back-track to the 18th century “Great Awakening” that propelled evangelicals to the forefront of Protestant activities, driving the missions of the day and so on. The earliest preachers were Whitfield, Edwards, and Wesley. Some of the earliest converts were genuinely unchurched (like the poor of London, the coal-miners of Wales, the evangelisation of Amerindians, evangelisation of colonial peoples of Africa, China etc). These converts in turn gave shape to the impulses of evangelical-ism as it unfurled in the 19th century.
Evangelicals have emphasised the need for formal church renewal, and those efforts have spawned many fresh expressions of faith in congregations, communes etc. These impulses occurred in response to changing social conditions. So in this respect, the post-evangelical impulse seems to me to reflect many of these same classic elements. For evangelicalism is not coterminous with denominationalism. For evangelicals are found in mainline Protestant churches, in the Anglican tradition, Wesleyan-Holiness, Mennonite, Pentecostal, Baptist etc.
What EC people seem to be debating is how adequate is the theology of evangelicals, and finding gaps in praxis and shortcomings in personal experiences, are seeking to reimagine church. As they reimagine church they pick up diverse biographies and influences. The EC cannot help but mirror the eccentricities of those who have come to the foreground as movement intellectuals/leaders.
As many of those leaders come from an institutional background, no matter how much they deconstruct their respective pasts, they necessarily develop discourses about church that still echoes their past. Yes, they also pick up certain sociological points about pop culture, but as many EC people are from a pre-existing church culture, their identification with pop culture comes through those backdrop lenses of church.
The weakness all round has been that new spiritualities (which are not necessarily creedal, organised, or even just Internet-surf-driven as some EC bloggers seem to imagine the new spirituality to be), have not been a major sociological, missional or theological issue for evangelicals and post-evangelicals. The focus has in some discourses been all about effecting internal changes of the institution of church that seems to be dysfunctional and ill-suited to this era. So no surprise that the converts from new spiritualities do not appear at the moment to be prominent in the EC movement.
As I’ve indicated in other forums, some in EC reify images of what they think they know about today’s pop culture, but the picture is often incomplete. New spiritualities are often dismissed as if they are just part of the old Enlightenment. Well New Age does indeed celebrate secular society and funnels it through the esoteric lenses; however, it is a fundamental mistake to assume that anyone in a “New Age” approach is taking esoteric equivalents of catechetical instruction and following creedal affirmations and doctrines.
Half the problem with many Christian refutations of New Age is that New Age is primarily analysed for its heresies (and that assumes New Age is offering another Christian theology, when it is not premised on Christian creeds to begin with).
So don’t be surprised that EC people (who come from evangelical ranks) on sighting New Age carry with them the unexamined assumptions of traditional evangelical ways of refuting, negating other religions. The idea that “oh that’s old hat fringe stuff”, is a serious blindspot to how mainstream new spiritualities have become. They are so much a part of the air we breathe we keep breathing without even thinking about “I am breathing”. The closer it is to our nose and is unnoticed, the more difficult it can be to see the proverbial forest for the trees.
The other difficulty is the assumption by some EC people that new spirituality is essentially experience-based, and closely linked to Internet-consumption. So if you cannot find a website on it ergo it doesn’t exist (another emerging fallacy that the Internet perfectly replicates contemporary culture and that the whole world is hooked into the Net; while Third World poverty, famine, disease and drought persist, those necessities of life will prevent huge chunks of the world’s population from ever joining the middle-class western preoccupation with technology).
So, while you have pondered the post-pluralist Christian, think about the category (and the need for a category how it reflects certain entrenched ideas and concepts), and whether today’s new evangelical is mirroring some of the Great Awakening impulses for church renewal.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2006-02-22

Philip
Thanks for your comments. You said:
“But I wonder if we were to honestly ask some questions, whether ‘post-evangelical’ is the right label.”
That is pretty much the nub of what I want to draw attention to. This ‘Post-Evangelical’ language that has become so popular in the Emerging Church scene presupposes a prior identification with evangelicalism that some of us don’t share. Those that conflate the terms ‘Emerging Church’ and ‘Post-Evangelical’ risk boxing the nascent movement into an ideological corner that excludes Christian converts from new spiritualities. My suggestion of the neologism “post-pluralist” is an attempt to shove a stick through the spokes of this runaway vehicle.
Your point is taken as to its problematic nature of any neologism with ‘post-‘ suffixes. Backwards looking I agree. Consider my neologism as a semi-satirical aping of the contemporary convention.
For the sake of clarity let me define the neologism in the sense of your option 4 “A post-pluralist Christian might be a tag for one who says I travelled many non-Christian paths and am now a monotheist disciple of Christ.”
Re: Dave Tomlinson. As it happens I saw him when he was out in Australia last year. I had a sly smile on my face through most of his story, yes, very ironic for me indeed. He’s almost back where I started.
Another irony is how so many EC leaders are so much more informed on new spirituality than me. What would I know? I only lived it. I didn’t study it at collage.
Matt

LikeLike

Reply
Fernando Gros

2006-02-22

Again, great thoughts!
First off, I agree whole-heartedly with the distinction you are trying to make. To me the post-evangelical tag works best when used in the limited sense you describe (and there is it’s a great tag that describes well the spiritual journey of some folks).
Second, if I was to define post-plural, I would go a little broader, maybe start with those who came to faith from a non-fundamentalist, non-localised, maybe non-foundational background. It seems to me that the post-evangelical tag is just as ill-fitting to someone from a cosmopolitan, or socially liberal background as it is to someone from a new spirituality background.
That said, the meat of the distinction comes down to the things that remain unchallenged, or perhaps implicit in the discourse. I’m not convinced the EC really has anything new to add on racism or social friction, for example. However, for post-pluralists those issues are like breathing.
Finally, Phil is spot on about the tendency to behave as if the internet mapped reality. The stuff I recently blogged about a-lists is a scary example of that.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2006-02-22

Yeah, I had the ‘post-liberal’ Christians in the back of my mind too, but at the end of the day I think the issues come into sharpest focus with those who come to the EC from completely outside of Christianity. Feel free to have a stab at a more inclusive definition of non-post-evangelical-emerging-churchers. Tehe. Maybe I need to add a few more hyphens?

LikeLike

Reply
wes ellis

2006-02-23

I think a lot more “post evangelicals” struggle with pluralism a lot more than they might like to admit. I would put myself in that bunch. I have a hard time sometimes dealing with the issue. I think you nailed it: “post pluralists” are essential to the future of the emerging church. this is true for two reasons, they can minister to a growing pluralist culture and to their fellow Christ followers who need help understnading.
Great thoughts!
shaolm,
Wes

LikeLike

Reply