 |
|
Question from Emergent Convention
In one of your presentations at the Emergent Convention, you made an analogy to a tree, and spoke of a ring of absolutism followed by a ring of pluralism followed by a ring of relativism followed by post-relativism. In terms of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, wouldn’t absolutism be the thesis, with relativism as the antithesis, and pluralism as the synthesis?This is a great question, but it’s hard to answer since the definitions of each of these terms can mean different things. It would take a long conversation in person to be sure we’re talking about the same things.
So let me offer this: the idea of integral or emergent thinking departs somewhat from the idea of Hegelian synthesis. It sees each new “ring” embracing what has gone before – so there’s a kind of synthesis going on at every level, but this synthesis seeks to preserve the thesis and antithesis.
In other words, it works like a conversation, where previous disagreements are remembered and even valued for the way they have advanced the conversation.
The important thing I was trying to get at in my presentation at the EC was this: absolutism (which I see as being closely aligned with colonialism) has proven dangerous (consider the many modern holocausts). Relativism is like a chemotherapy introduced to stop the spread of holocaust. (I’m thinking here in terms of social history – not just intellectual history, which is only one narrow slice of the pie. The older I get, the more I think that social history leads intellectual history.) Modern Christians often see the danger of relativism and seek to retreat into absolutism.
My belief is that we are wiser to seek something beyond both – beyond absolutism and relativism. That “beyond” is, I believe, more fitting with the gospel than either “conservative” absolutism or “liberal” relativism. This is a huge subject, and it may actually become a book in the next year or so.