The Radical Center?

Again, a dual-post until the Methoblog Aggregator gets me updated.

Andy Bryan put up a great post in which he questions the usefulness of centrism, especially as an elixir to the church’s woes. Andy claims that:

(T)he solution to the divisiveness in the church is not to artificially move to the center purely in order to find common ground…. The solution is to learn how to have conversations with people from all points on the spectrum without needing to pretend like we agree on stuff, when we really don’t. The solution is to learn how to speak openly and honestly with one another, grounded in the love of God, seeking to build one another up in love, and disagreeing about our ideas and beliefs with vigor and integrity, but without beating each other up.

I, like Andy, am a liberal (if that label even means anything anymore). My problem with claiming that label is the tone of dialogue these days. If being a liberal means that I agree with everything John Shelby Spong says, then I am not a liberal. If being a liberal means denying the virgin birth or the resurrection, then I am not a liberal.

However, if being a liberal means that those things are open to questioning, scrutiny, and an exploration of the nature of truth, then I am definitely a liberal.

My problem with that label is that those who self-identify as conservatives often accuse liberals of denying that there is such a thing as absolute truth. “Liberal” is equated with extreme relativism. Because liberals are relativists, they argue, we deny not only the absolute truths of Christianity (that Jesus is the son of God, etc.) but that there is such a thing as absolute truth at all. It is a well-articulated argument, but off the mark. In my opinion absolutism and relativism are both reflective of a modernist worldview.

Let me explain. Earlier in a randomness post, I asked a question about the nature of truth that reflects my postmoderinist views. I believe that:

• Conservative modernists see truth as black-or-white
• Liberal modernists see truth as shades of gray
• Postmodernists see truth as shades of color.

(Caveat: this is not meant to insult anyone whose worldview is more modern than postmodern - it is meant only to point out a philosophical difference. Different does not mean better or worse, just different.)

To understand what I mean, check out the movie Big Fish. In the movie, the Albert Finney-Ewan McGregor character is a storyteller. His son contends that he never knew his father because the stories he told about his own childhood were obviously “not true,” tall tales. By the end of the movie the son comes to understand that by knowing his dad’s stories he not only knew his dad’s truth, he knew the truth of who his father really was. Dad’s stories told the truth in ways that simple historical facts could not. Narrative, with all of its tools (allegory, metaphor, factual reporting, poetic license, personification, hyperbole, foreshadowing, etc.) can express truths that simple newspaper-style “just the facts, ma’am” reporting cannot.

My Old Testament prof puts it this way. The grandfather is telling stories to his grandson. His grandson looks up, bewildered, and asks, “Is that really true, grandpa?” Grandpa answers, “Well, I don’t know if it really happened that way, but it sure is true.”

One logical solution to differing positions within the church is to try and find common ground upon which we can all agree, and I don’t really fault anyone for pursuing that. However, as a person who is influenced by process philosophy I believe that it is more helpful to find points of contact from which we can both move forward together. Of course, that assumes that we are both willing to question our own positions and to carefully, thoughtfully and lovingly consider the positions of the other. That doesn’t mean we are willing to abandon our core beliefs at all, it just means that we try and see things from each other’s point of view for a moment and that we are committed to making the journey together.

I think that (like absolutism and relativism) liberal, conservative, and centrist are very modernist terms and therefore kind of unhelpful in a postmodern context. At the same time, I realize that we don’t all live fully in a postmodern context. (In my opinion the field of science is philosophically rife with modern reductionism. Most scientists are very advanced modern thinkers.)

Like Andy, I don’t think that reclaiming the radical center is the answer. For pastors to claim territory on the left, right or in the middle still sets us at odds with people of good faith in our congregations. I believe trying to understand each other’s truths so that we can pursue the absolute truth (of God’s goodness and love, for example) together is a more excellent way.