I subscribe to the Emergent Village podcast. It typically just annoys me and puts me in a bad mood...and, generally does everything that a good political debate does for my soul. For some reason I keep hitting the play button, though. Since, I've plowed through a couple episodes this week, I thought I'd share my disgruntled spirits. Maybe you'll end up thinking that the world is coming to its end as I do.
Before I get into ranting and raving, here are a couple quotes from one of the Emergent head honchos...Tony Jones***.
From: http://www.emergentvillage.com/podcast/aar-panel-part-1
"This is a message problem, this is not a method problem. The gospel has been gotten wrong and we need to start trying to get the gospel right."
"Listen...this is a thorough-going reconsideration of the gospel in America. This is about whole new ways of thinking. This is about epistemology...How do we reconsider the gospel and everything that goes along with it?"
"We were of the minds that everything should be up for consideration."
And, because I'm old fashioned a Bible verse:
Galatians 1:9
"As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (anathema)."
I'm not going to try to tackle the argument that Tony Jones is preaching a different gospel than the one preached in the Bible. I'm merely going back to the point I made last time I harped on the emergent movement...hopefully with more clarity this time. And, if I can boil things down to one question, I think it would be:
"Is the emergent conversation characterized by wisdom?" I think there are some red flags that many are paying little attention to.
For example, when the Bible is so clear about the consequences of tampering with the gospel...wouldn't wisdom lead a person to be cautious with statements such as "we've gotten the gospel wrong...thorough reconsideration of the gospel in America...everything should be up for consideration". I suppose there are some instances where these statements can be said legitimately...but, in my mind there are so few instances...that I cringe when I hear someone say these things without disclaimers.
But, as much as I'd like to give Tony the benefit of the doubt...it does seem as though the emergent troops are questioning everything. For example, inerrancy of the Bible, the doctrine of hell, penal substitution...virgin birth. It's no wonder that people argue that emergent is just a reworked liberalism.
One of the problems is that the "conversation" is packaged in a cleverly appealing way to evangelical minds. I'm quite comfortable agreeing with the emergent folks that most Christian grew up in fairly pathetic churches. It's easy to take pot-shots at these churches and get a reaction...and feel a commonality with someone. But, it's easy in the way that a dirty joke is easy...anybody can do it. Simply bonding over a shared problem isn't a guarantee that together you can beat the odds and find a better way.
More caution flags show up in the hyper-individualism of the relationship-friendly emergent church. As a good Protestant, I'm pretty individualistic myself...but, again, I think "wisdom" tells us to forsake tradition with great hesitancy and last resort. What's ironic about emergent is that the tradition from 100 years ago is meaningful to them...and the traditions of our parents are the death of the church. Along these lines, I think a small army of bloggers thinking together can form a very deceptive community in which you think you truly understand things...when in reality you are simply dumbing down Christianity in the same non-scholastic way that old-time fundamentalists are accused of doing. There is something to say for academic scholarship.
More red flags...lack of cultural diversity. A person can argue that most churches are racially segregated...and, they are, to their detriment. However, my church is still preaching the same gospel as the Korean church down the road...and the Afro-American church next to it. We have this is common.
...also, my least judgemental criticism of the emergent church is probably the inherent temporariness of it. Can a movement perpetually be in the process of moving/emerging/complaining about the entity that is inspiring their movement? Are they emerging into the very thing that they will emerge from again down the road? What's the goal? Where are they headed? Are these questions still fair in a postmodern's mind? If everything is up for grabs...then, where's the urgency stemming from?
It's only fair that I add my own disclaimer...the emergent/emerging church is growing (I have a hunch it's currently at its peak, I could be wrong, though). And, with the breadth of the movement I can't lump everyone who considers themselves to be emergent or emerging into the Tony Jones variety. There are some voices that I would find myself agreeing with for the most part. But, in an overarching sense, emergent is not something I would want to be associated with. It's good to ask questions and think things through, but there's a wise way to do it and a foolish way. ...it's my opinion that much of the emergent movement is heading about things in a foolish manner.
*** Tony Jones
12 comments:
I admire the emergent groups for questioning everything. That is how the protestant reformation started. I am not implying that that is what is happening currently, I am simply saying questions should be encouraged.
I am not all that familiar with the emergent "players" I enjoy reading Mclaren, but dont subscibe to any podcasts, although I should. However I dont think you are being fair to Tony Jones. I am intrigued by his quotes, I may disagree with him, but I couldnt tell you that without reading more of a quote. But quotes saying we need to rethink the gospel do not bother me, if he challenged key issues of the gospel, then we can debate.
Regarding Galatians 1:9, the emergents' point is that potentially the gospel of the typical american church is contrary to the gospel originally recieved.
Also , from my limited knowledge the emergents are purposefully trying to avoid just attacking and trying to move on in a positive spirit of change. I agree that all the complaining gets old without a solution.
I dont know about your claim of hyper-individualism and raging against tradition. They are a group defined by their efforts to create compelling community. Clearly they dislike the traditions of their "parents" but their parents disliked the traditions of some other time period as well. Every generation has a beef with some form of tradition from the past.
Emergent is potentially a passing fad but that doesnt mean we need to boycot it and condemn it. In a post modern sense I think we need to ride the wave and learn from the strengths and weaknesses that it reveals about Christianity.
I enjoyed your post and matt's comments also. I agree with you both in many ways. Like Matt, I was ok with the quote about needing to get the gospel right. In the sense that we need to question our understanding of it and how it informs our life. I think that cultural fundamentalism has diminished the power of the gospel on a daily basis. But, I think that the emergent churches are on a relativistic tailspin which is leading them to a gospel that says "I'm ok and your ok, lets have a cool community."
I agree that questions should be encouraged. My point is just that there are wise and not-so-wise ways to formulate your questions and your question-making communities.
The point I was trying to make with the gospel quotes might have been misleading. I was only trying to point out that many of these guys seem to be charging full steam ahead without alot of caution about the implications of what they're rejecting and/or rethinking. So, the quotes about the gospel may or may not mean anything significant...but, in my mind, when I heard them, they expressed that lack of caution.
But, emergent people are fully comfortable questioning things like hell and penal substitution, which I think do have deep implication on what the gospel actually mean...so, as gracious as I'd like to be to these guys, I think all they are doing is modifying the story of the Bible in (ironically) a very "modern" sense...but, instead of using science as their judge (which I'm sure they would do with evolution) they use philosophy to prove their point.
I'm tempted to say that we should let the emergent church move along...and, let it be what it is. However, as much as you and myself might benefit from this new way of framing old questions, I think in general the movement is very dangerous because it's so easy to enter the doors of it through disgruntled church experiences. ...I feel like the inside of the building is a very unsafe place to be. A place where all questions are up for grabs...where any answer is temporarily acceptable...and, where, there is little accountability to stay true to the Bible (except when it comes to ministries of mercy)...I think this is a very dangerous place for disgruntled Christians to try to follow Christ.
Of course, someone could always respond...fundamentalistic churches where questions are prohibited are dangerous places to be as well. And, yes, they definately are. ...but, that doesn't logically prove that the emergent followers have a better way of pointing people toward God.
So, at this moment, my view toward emergent is pretty much the same that I have toward most mainline demoninations...there are some that are good, but for the most part, their liberal view of Christianity does little to help my faith. This isn't to say that "emergent" can't be helpful to people...but, I would say (going back to my original point) that there seems to be signs of a lack of wisdom to the movement...which would cause me not to reccomend emergent.
Amen. I agree. Yes.
I heard Ravi Zacharias say once that when the tide is low every shrimp has his own puddle. When it comes to "emergent" theology I think you must see the movement as a whole and not focus in on one comment. In light of the observations I've made, I'm probably going to take this a step further and say that I do not agree with questioning the "message" of the Gospel in any form. The "message" I've received is from the Bible and in my opinion there is nothing to question in regards to what we've received. Paul says clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:3 the following: "For I delivered to you of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures...". Now, we know from Acts and Paul confirms in Galatians that he "received" his message directly from Christ himself. To be confirm what he received he went to Jerusalem and compared his message with that of the apostles and it was clear they received the same message. The entire book of Galatians Paul is spending time defending and proclaiming the Gospel. In fact he uses the harshest language that he uses in any epistle to rebuke the Judaizers for adding to the Gospel that he had origianlly laid out for them. He said he wishes they would "emasculate" them selves or "castrate" themselves. One of the largest pagan religions during this time was the worship of Isis in which the priests were all eunuchs and practiced self-castration. I believe Paul was saying if your going to teach the Gospel as Jesus plus circumcision, step it up big boy and go ahead and snip away and cut it all off. You are no different than the pagan priests of Isis! Now, apparently someone had "questioned" the Gospel that Paul had preached and infiltrated the believers to the point where they were abandoning the Gospel. In pop-culture we are experiencing the very same thing. Think about the DaVinci Code, the Jesus Seminar, etc. and they are ultimately questioning the "message" of the Gospel, not just methods. Jones makes a scary comment when he says, "This is about whole new ways of thinking. This is about epistemology...How do we reconsider the gospel and everything that goes along with it?" I don't know Jones' background or what "message" he received but I know that several people within the emergent church are questioning things such as homosexuality. Brian McClaren just decided to take a five year moratorium on the topic to see if we still feel the same way about it then. To me, the movement as a wholed doesn't know what the hell they believe. I don't see how any good can come out of questioning the message of the "Gospel", at least the one I know to be true and receieved from the Scripture. Now, it is obvious that the emergent movement operates from a post-modern epistemology in which truth is relative and many operate from a trajectory theology in which theology is dynamic and changing with time and culture. So, rather than questioning our methods in light of the unchanging "message" and truth of the Gospel to contexualize and reach the post-moderns, they have reversed this and began questioning the message itself. It's Gnosticism all over again. It's taking a pagan world view and trying to reconsider the message we've received and just like the Gnostics, they will pass and the true Gospel will stand the test of time and eternity.
Rodney Stark wrote the following in "Cities of God" in regards to Valentinus: "Valentinus was very much the academic intellectual, and his movement had the charcteristic of a philosophical school...What he and his students aspired to achieve was to 'raise Christian theology to the level of pagan philosophical studies; in fact, 'the very purpose of the school was speculation...many scholars 'see in Valentinus' teachings the apex of gnosticism, the greatest and most influential of the gnostic schools...What made Valentinus so successful, and such a threat to conventional Christianity, was his effort to reconcile the New Testament with classic elements of Gnosticism by applying 'a peculiar allegorical interpretation of those commonly accepted texts, thereby discovering hidden and deeper levels of meaning consistent with those revealed to Gnostic visionaries." Two leading emergent leaders, Brian McClaren and Rob Bell, have both referenced a book entitled "A Brief History of Everythig" by Ken Wilbur. Ken Wilbur is an evolutionary integrated spiritualist and his book can be found in the "New Age" section of any book store. They both credit this man for having a large influence on their interpretation of the Christian faith. Brian McClaren has recently published a book called, "The Secret Message of Jesus". Apparently there is a secret message that we've missed the last two thousand years.
To quote Rodney Stark once again: "...Moritz Friedlander traced the origins of Gnosticism to Jewish roots and claimed that Christianity and Gnosticism were parallel off-shoots of first-century Hellenic Judaism...As for the intense anti-Judaism of much of this literature, it was said to reflect the antagonism of bitterly ex-Jews against the faith of their fathers." It appears to me that much of the "emergent" camp are the disgruntled children of legalism and fundamentalism.
I know I've expressed a ton of info here, but I do believe that anytime you borrow from a pagan/secular world view and try to interpret any Scripture or "message" that you're treading on dangerous waters. If you're going to question things, go to the source of the Word! Paul commends the Bereans in Acts 17:11 for the following: "Now these Jews were more noble minded than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." So please, if you're going to ask questions, go to the Scriptures. Don't drink from the toilet of pagan/secular philosophy. Now more than ever, I feel that we as believers need to fight for the truth of the Gospel and not allow these philosophies to toss us to and fro like a wave in the storm of a very unstable ocean. I love you guys and I am truly sharing my heart here. So, please, don't be a stranded shrimp while the tide is low! May Jesus be lifted high!
...it's about time someone left a semi-naughty word in my comment section.
I dont have time to respond at length right now, but the emergents are not questioning the gospel that paul recieved, they are questioning the gospel as we understand it today. Can you not understand how perhaps contemporary Christianity could have distorteed or misinterpreted a portion of scripture?! All they are doing is saying can we consider that.
Furthermore, Modernism is just as "pagan" as post modernism. They are both "secular" philosophical thought processes. Today most people look at the Bible from a modern perspective, the emergent group is challenging us to look at it with post modern eyes. Both modernity and postmoderntiy have serious flaws. But dont get so high and mighty as to think that you have the same worldview as the apostle Paul did. We all filter the truths of the Bible through our worldview, and the emergents are saying, how has our different worldviews affected our understanding of the gospel?
You can not escape the "toiletbowl" as much as we should aspire to. So we should try to understand how the "toiletbowl" affects our faith. I heard someone just the ohter day say how stupid McDonalds commercials are and that they dont eat McDonalds because of the commercials; they are not affected by Mcdonalds marketing. . . . how absurd, just because you cant recognize it dosent mean it is not affecting you. We have been affected by modernity, and we dislike postmodernity, not because of our spirituality, but because we really like modernity.
Lastly, I saw the title to Mclaren's book and thought, I wonder if I have missed something about Jesus' message. Maybe my worlview, experiences, prejudices, flaws, have blocked me from seeing him from a certain perspective. You read the title and seem offended that there could possibly be a message of Jesus that you are not aware of. I guess its all about perspective.
Love you Mike.
Matt...I respect your take on the matter at hand, but I believe that the Bible as a whole should dictate our world-view, not modernism, post-modernism, post-Christian, etc. Besides, post-modernity is nothing new under the sun. If you study the Roman culture in which Paul lived and wrote, he was basically living in a post-modern culture. The Romans were very tolerant of religion and philosophy so long as you weren't exclusive and posed a threat to the empire. When you were exclusive, they were some of the most intolerant people history has ever known. I'm not so arrogant to believe that other world-views have/are affecting each of us, but I believe that we should all strive to develop a world-view that is based on Scripture an not a man-made philosophy. Like Ecclesiastes says, there is "nothing" new under the sun. Modernity, post-modernity, post-christian, it's nothing history hasn't seen before. The beauty of the Bible is that it transcends time and is a timeless book that should dictate timely methods.
Lastly, I wanted to post a link for a testimony I listened to and see what you think of this individual who was clearly affected by the writings of Brian McClaren. My heart goes out to him.
http://www.emergentvillage.com/podcast/postmodern-testimony
Love you Matt.
Wow, great post, great comments. It took my nine hours to read it all.
I think there are some great points being argued here, but I come back
to being bothered by the relativism, and the relatively little importance placed on the Bible, from emergent leaders.
The Emergent Movement likes to paint itself (I know, not a monolith, but for argument's sake, lets go with the consensus of Bell, McClarin, and Padget) as a new Reformation. But I would argue that the emergent thing is an anti-Reformation. The principles that flowed into and out of the Reformation can be understood (narrowly, again, lets go with a realistic consensus and not bicker over little details) from the five solas.
1. Sola Scriptura: The Scripture Alone is the Standard
2. Soli Deo Gloria! For the Glory of God Alone
3. Solo Christo! By Christ's Work Alone are We Saved
4. Sola Gratia: Salvation by Grace Alone
5. Sola Fide: Justification by Faith Alone
See any problems there? The Emergents basically reject (in practical terms) the heart of the Reformation (and the Head).
I agree with Michael that the message of the gospel is not in question, but the implications are ever encroaching on our rebellious hearts. The statement by Terry Jones is, to me, absurd in it's implications. We certainly MUST NOT QUESTION "EVERYTHING" ABOUT THE GOSPEL.
Here we stand...we can do no other. That is not to say that orthodox Christianity does not need questions, and all of us personally need to question our lives, our views, our doctrine (is it the Apostle's doctrine?), our prejudices. But Emergents have fog, not light, as a solution.
My psuedo-summary: The Emergent Converchurchiation is refried liberalism with cooler clothes. It is about being cool and philosophical with an ever diminishing connection to orthodox (yes, or, we could say fundamental...pertaining to the foundation, essential, actual) Christianity.
My non-accepting statement based partly on emotion:
I'll be glad to see it fade away with secular (modernist) liberalism and Gnosticism and all the isms throughout history as the glorious and blood-bought church of Christ, by HIS power and grace, goes on to the end of doom. His Kingdom is forever.
Please, tell me I am wrong. We conservatives always think we're right! And sometimes we aren't. So tell me.
The definition of "reformation" according to Wikitionary - "An improvement (or an intended improvement) in the existing form or condition of institutions or practices etc.; intended to make a striking change for the better in social or political or religious affairs."
So I dont see the problem refering to the changes involved in this emergent movement as a type of new reformation - an intended improvement in the existing condition of Christianity. ( I realize that most of you wish that I had underlined "intended" but I purposefully did not)
I dont think it is fair to the emergents to claim that they are anti-the protestant reformation without some evidence. But to be honest I am probably not as well read as youall are, and I tend to have a postive attitude towards the emergents (innocent until proven guilty). I admire what they are doing to stir the pot.
Furthermore I dont think it is fair to label the emergents as anti the reformation just because they are asking taboo questions. I am reminded of some conversations I used to have with my Pastor/Dad. I was a stubborn know-it-all back in the day and on Sunday afternoons I would question many of the points in his sermons. In my mind I was not "anti" my dad/my dad's teachings, I was just questioning his propositions. However, he interpretted my questions as though I was "anti" his message. I could be wrong but I feel like a similiar situation may be playing out here.
I like the phrase The Emergent Converchurchiation, very nice.
Unlike Samuel I am never wrong, I thought I was once, but . . .
I forgot to say: love you Matt.
Everyone else is. And like a good post-modern emergent type, if it's cool, I want in on it!
And if you are the Matt I think you are, then I really do love you.
Let's take a five year moratorium on this topic and see if we all feel the same way about it then. I don't know how to answer this issue with out offending someone or stepping on someone's toes, so, I'm just not going to answer it! I love you guys.
Post a Comment