Post-conservative Evangelicalism: An Attempt at Definition
Steve Bush’s article A Different Kind of Evangelical on the emergent-us site has helped me realize that, while I definitely have increasingly “post-conservative” leanings or sympathies, there are things included in his broad definition about which I guess I’m still pretty “conservative.”
Share on Facebook
December 8th, 2005 at 9:13 am
I was also disappointed by Bush’s blog entry. I wound up dedicating an entire blog entry of my own in response! Here it is.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Bush seems to use the term “progressive evangelical” even more than “postconservative,” which seems helpful and more accurate to me.
“Postconservative” is a more negative definition, expressing what one is not, while “progressive” seems to carry more positive content (even if I don’t agree with all of that content). After all, any number of folks might be “postconservative” without being “progressive” (e.g., by reaching back to a kind of pre-conservative evangelicalism or more catholic evangelicalism, etc.).
I think I could live with the “postconservative” label, though I’d be wary of the “progressive” one. My concerns theologically involve far too much interest in a pre-modern and counter-modern catholicity to be “progressive,” even if such a catholicity would untangle one from, for instance, a too easy embrace of American evangelical political aspirations.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
I’m with you there, Joel. “Progressive” smacks too much of “novelty for novelty’s sake,” something with which the emergent movement (for example) is all too easily charged (and undoubtedly sometimes guilty).
December 8th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
John wrote:
John:
You’ve misunderstood me. I don’t join your “disappointment” with Bush’s post, especially after reading the all-too-typical misrepresentations on your own blog post response. As soon as someone equates ALL postconservative evangelicals with “emergent types” they’ve lost any chance that I’m going to take their comments seriously.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
I like to call myself a post emergent, that way it irritates anyone who thinks its cool and cutting edge to be emergent. Just don’t ask what that means as far as theology or ecclesiology, umm… I’m way past all that stuff… yeah, that’s it.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Hi Mark,
I agree that a distinction should be made, but I’m curious: What do you see from your perspective as the relevant differences between “postconservative evangelical” and “emergent”?
Thanks!
December 9th, 2005 at 11:48 am
So, Mark, are you going to come clean about what aspects of his postconservative paradigm you’re not comfortable with?
Just from reading Franke’s The Character of Theology, just over half of Vanhoozers The Drama of Doctrine, and a couple short articles by Roger Olson, I’m finding that “Postconservative Evangelical” is a fairly broad tent in its own right.
December 10th, 2005 at 1:55 am
Roger:
The former is a serious theological movement that seeks to address the increasingly apparent problems with foundationalism and too close ties of Christianity with modernity. The latter is a much looser association of Christians who only true commonality seems to be that they believe that something new and different is “emerging” from the church as it is, althought what it is that is emerging is defined in widely varying ways. There is indeed overlap between the two (there are post-conservatives who would consider themselves emergent and vice versa) but they are not equal. To address more directly what I was criticising above, post-conservative evangelicalism has absolutely no concern with being “hip” or “trendy.”
Daniel:
On reflection, I think what I was really having reservations about where some very small particulars that Bush was dragging into PCE that I think he shouldn’t have, as I don’t think all PCE theologians would necessarily embrace those items. They are small and unimportant enought that I demur from naming them, as I’d rather not see this thread derailed into pointless debates about trivia.
December 10th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Wow. You spiritually out-flanked me. Strong move!
December 10th, 2005 at 11:03 am
Perhaps, but then sooner or later you know I’m going to type “shibboleth” instead of “sibboleth” when entering your blog, and your guards will put me to death.
December 10th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Thanks Mark, that’s pretty much what I had in mind. I suspect, though, that people who consider themselves emergent would thank they’re not concerned with being “hip” or “trendy” either. In as much as something is new and becoming popular, it seems that “hip” or “trendy” may likely apply, but I don’t think that should discredit something. So postconservatism may be “hip” or “trendy,” but that may not be why people are into it, and it may not be a bad thing (that may be said of Christianity in the early centuries as well).
December 10th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Agreed, Roger. But if you’ll check out the current discussion in my thread linking to the satirical quiz “You May NOT Be Emergent If…”, you’ll see that I think it may be healthy for us to self-examine to what extent any of our motivation for involvent in whatever new Christian movement is from a desire to be “hip.” Always a danger. In that thread, I posit that satire, along with a healthy attitude of not taking ourselves too seriously, can help to be a corrective to that trend.
Emergents may rightly bristle at critics too easily dismissing them as just being “hip” or “trendy,” but they should be willing to always examine just to what extent that may be true of some of their practices. And if the shoe truly doesn’t fit, well, sell it on eBay I guess!
December 13th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Don’t worry, Mark. The s(h)ibboleth thing doesn’t work the other way.