Five D’s of Emergent Christian Mansplanation

Last updated on: July 17, 2014 at 2:17 pm by Morgan Guyton

Five D’s of Emergent Christian Mansplanation 2014-07-17T14:17:51-05:00 Morgan Guyton

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Yesterday I talked about Christian mansplainers who operate according to 18th century principles of epistemology. You might call them “objective” Christian mansplainers. But there’s a different category of Christian mansplainers that are actually more exasperating than the first kind. They prefer late 20th century French philosophers to 18th century field preachers. They are superior to you because they’re better at irony. This species is called mansplainer emergenticus. I am an expert in their nature because I live with one; I see him every morning in the mirror. So here are the five D’s of emergent Christian mansplainmanship: dialogue, deconstruction, disingenuous use of the word “we,” difficulty with labels, and dialectic.

I. Dialogue
Emergent Christian mansplainers don’t have debates; we do dialogue instead. We are very ideologically committed to the concept that everyone we talk to has something valid to say, except for people who are so focused on ideology that they ignore praxis and who aren’t open-minded enough not to disagree with us. It’s okay if you agree with something different; just don’t disagree with me. That’s why dialogue is so much richer than debate.

II. Deconstruction
We deconstruct everything, because everyone has an agenda. I’ve got an agenda too, and because I recognize it and can write essays about all the psychoanalytical repercussions of my socialization as a straight white bourgeois male, it gives me the right to deconstruct you too. Sufficiently deconstructing yourself is kind of like receiving a vaccine against other peoples’ irony. It’s like playing laser tag where everyone else’s gun is jammed.

III. Disingenuous Use of the Word “We”
This is kind of like the pick and roll of the emergent Christian mansplainer playbook. Basically, we use the word “we” to as a label for people we’re bashing, which is most commonly the evangelical church that we’ve spent hundreds of blog posts trying to decide whether or not we’re still a part of. It’s really a “they” but technically I can use the word “we” because the “they” we’re talking about are usually straight white bourgeois males no different than I am who just haven’t yet learned how to deconstruct themselves and live ironically. (I’m disingenuously using the word “we” right now because I’m really not down with the whole emergent program whatever it is, but I didn’t want to write another blog post in which I’m dissing a group of people who I call “they” so I figured I would pretend to be emergent at least for the purposes of this post.)

IV. Difficulty with Labels
Emergent Christian mansplainers really don’t like to be labeled. It’s kind of like the way you know you’re a hipster if (other) hipsters completely disgust you with their embarrassing predictability. We hate the word emergent almost as much as we hate the word postmodern. We haven’t decided whether we’re post-evangelical, anti-evangelical, devangelical, or maybe some version of the word in Greek like euangelicos. I was wondering if the term “gospeler” would catch on as an alternative to “evangelical” after Scot McKnight’s latest book, but there’s something about the baggage of the evangelical label that is such an attractive thing to be completely obsessed over.

V. Dialectic
To be honest, I don’t really understand what dialectic means, but Zizek talks about it a lot so I figured it should make the five D’s since you cannot be an emergent Christian mansplainer if you haven’t read Zizek. I used to think dialectic had something to do with a thesis and antithesis coming together in a synthesis, but apparently everyone has always misunderstood Hegel and we have to read Hegel through Lacan in order to get him right which is critically important to being able to “move forward.” I don’t really understand Lacan but he says something like jouissance is the goal of human existence and that’s the French word for joy (right?), but you have to say it in French for it to have the right meaning. I wonder if Lacan would be down with John Piper’s Christian hedonism. Maybe jouissance and Christian hedonism form two corners of the emergent Christian dialectic, but dialectics need to be triads (right?) so we need a third word to complete it, preferably in German. All I know is whatever it is, it’d better involve a thick cigar and an inappropriately crass form of hard liquor or it won’t cut it for an emergent Christian mansplainer.

Previous Post

April 6, 2013

Nominations for most contentious Bible verses?

Next Post

April 8, 2013 Rewrite: Abraham

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Advent Beauty Will Save the World Bible Big Picture: Ephesians Bloggers Book Christian salvation and the Beautitudes Culture Daily Office Danceable Homiletics Deadly Sins Deep Roots: Genesis Devotions Dominican Republic May 2011 El Principio Misericordia (The Mercy Principle) Five verses God tattooed on my heart Fundraising FutureGospel Good Biblical Words Henri Nouwen Interview Jennings' Christian Imagination Jesus inside the beltway Jesus Is My Candidate Jesus vs the Pharisees Jesus vs. Plato Journey to Eternity Looking Back on 2012 Love Actually Monday Merton Monday Merton Music Occupy the manger On Earth As It Is In Heaven Original Sin Podcast Poetry Politics Prayer Psalm 119 Radical Jesus 101 Reviews Sermon on the Mount Sermons Spanish Bible study Special Series Spiritual but not religious Synchroblog Theology Things that made me think Thomas a Kempis Ugliness Into Beauty Uncategorized Viaje Dominicano 2013 Walking in the Valley (Lent) Welcome: It's More than a Mat Wild Goose 2013 Wrestling

Select a Month March 2022 January 2022 December 2021 September 2021 April 2021 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: In Revelation, the number of the beast is 777.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE