- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (05/29)
- Next Post »A La Carte (05/30)
Is Emergent the New Christian Left?
- 05/29/06
- 61
Tony Jones, one of the more prominent leaders within the Emergent church movement has recently posted a pair of articles at the "Out of Ur" blog responding to the charge that Emergent is the new Christian left. "[I]s Emergent a new camp for Christian liberalism? In this post Tony Jones, the national coordinator for Emergent, responds to critics by championing Emergent's conversational purpose and celebrating the group's diversity."
There are three things that struck me in these articles. First, these two articles highlight some of the ways in which any meaningful discussion with the Emergent leaders is little more than an exercise in frustration and futility. Second, they also highlight just how far some leaders within the Emergent conversation have gone in abandoning truth. And third, they highlight the mixed-messages sent out from the leadership of this conversation.
Like many participants in this Emergent "conversation," Jones feigns surprise and ignorance at the outcry against the Emergent church. He presents this movement as a simple, innocuous friendship, for who could possibly criticize a friendship? Here is how Jones describes Emergent Village: "And some of those blogs are deeply critical of Emergent Village, a decade-old friendship that has, after my family, become home to my most important relationships." Further along in the same article he describes the people who inhabit this harmless village. "Within Emergent are Texas Baptists who don't allow women to preach and New England lesbian Episcopal priests. We have Southern California YWAMers and Midwest Lutherans. We have those who hold to biblical inerrancy, and others trying to demythologize the scripture. We have environmental, peacenik lefties, 'crunchy cons,' and right wing hawks."
Surely those who are leery of the Emergent church would not waste so much effort discussing what this movement is accomplishing if it were nothing more than a decade-old friendship. And surely Jones and others would not bother to participate in such a conversation if they felt that it had no hope of accomplishing anything. Jones presents something in harmless terms that, in reality, has the potential to bring about a great change within the church. Thus it is ridiculous to feign surprise that people react in alarm to such a movement.
What continues to surprised Jones is "how dangerous some people consider this friendship I'm in to be. If you take some of these blogs (and books) seriously, those of us who make up the Emergent Village are a great threat to the Christian church-we have undermined doctrine, truth, and church life. The fact that we're discussing theological items that have been previously deemed 'undiscussable' is considered grounds for labels like 'heretic' and 'apostate.'" That is a ridiculous and irrational statement. The fact that this Emergent conversation discusses doctrine and theology that has long been considered heretical or apostate is surely not grounds to label those who discuss it with those terms. After all, every seminary student discusses heresy and apostasy and learns both true doctrine and false. The true objection, or the most common objection, against the Emergent church is that these doctrines, long-since deemed heretical, are often given equal footing and are discussed as if they had never been deemed harmful in the past--as if the church had never formulated a biblical consensus as to where these doctrines deviate from Scripture. We can see the fruit of this in the very fact that the conversation includes people whose beliefs are, in theory at least, diametrically opposed to each other (ie. "Texas Baptists who don't allow women to preach and New England lesbian Episcopal priests"). There is nothing that is undiscussable, but there are doctrines that are clear and settled and do not merit being placed on equal footing which what Scripture clearly presents as true.
Jones eventually stoops just about as low as one can go in an argument, arguing that those who disagree with the Emergent church simply misunderstand it. "Honestly, I care little about these critiques. They come from those who either have no idea what Emergent is all about and/or could not possibly be persuaded from their position anyway." Even though some world-class scholars and committed Christians have expressed concern about the Emergent church, Jones simply states that these people either do not understand Emergent or are hardened in their ignorance.
In the second article, Jones turns his attention in particular to Chuck Colson who has become a vocal critic of the Emergent church (of course it is difficult to know if it is Chuck Colson or Anne Morse, his writer, who is truly most concerned). Colson's latest missive against Emergent says that "truth is truth"--something Jones says is a "'self-referential argument,' or a 'circular reference' and it's non-sensical." He also turns his guns on the phrase "true truth" (a term most often associated with Francis Schaeffer). And this is where Jones' argument gets very interesting and he reveals just how far he has slipped into the postmodern mindset.
But if I can try to surmise Colson's meaning from the subtitle of the essay [Jesus is the Truth Whether We Experience Him or Not], he means to indicate that we in the emerging church have placed too much weight on "relational" or "experiential" theories of truth. The gospel is true, Colson seems to be saying, regardless of your human experience of that truth.But philosophically, the obvious follow-up question is, Why? What makes the gospel true, especially if those of us in the world have no experience of its truthfulness? Is it true because Chuck Colson says so? Because Augustine said so? Because Paul said so? Is it true because, as Karl Barth might say, God's revelatory action that breaks into our space-time continuum? But isn't even that subject to our interpretation of the event?
Jones then states his agreement with "postmodernist extraordinaire" Stanley Fish "argues that truth comes to be known in and among and on the basis of 'the authority of interpretive communities.'" Jones goes on to say, "We are subjective human beings, trapped in our own skins and inevitably influenced by the communities in which we find ourselves. And isn't this what the church is, or at least should be: an authoritative community of interpretation? Indeed, isn't this just what Colson did when he converted to Christianity in prison many years ago: placed himself under the authority of the church of Jesus Christ?"
He concludes as follows:
What I was trying to get at in my blog post earlier this week is that Emergent Village endeavors to be a catalyst of conversation, community, and, ultimately, interpretation. We want the church to reclaim its place as the authoritative community of interpretation of scripture, culture, and human existence. We want Christians to be engaged politically and culturally, and we want to provoke robust and respectful dialogue around issues that matter. Many of us think that the polemical nature of the church today precludes just this kind of necessary conversation. So, we're going ahead and doing it, with or without the imprimatur of evangelical elites like Colson and Carson.If that's a compelling vision for you, then jump on board, we're glad to have you. If, however, you'd like to first see our doctrinal statement on penal substitution or read a position paper on homosexuality, then Emergent Village isn't for you.
Jones has taken the Emergent church from being a mere conversation between friends to "a catalyst of conversation, community, and, ultimately, interpretation." Can he still feign surprise when Christians express concern that such a varied group of people, many of whom reject the authority of Scripture and other fundamental doctrines, intend to be a catalyst of conversation, community and interpretation?
Jones clearly struggles with the concept of truth. What makes the gospel true is not experience of those who hold to it. It is not because Augustine or Paul says so. It is true because God says so. The gospel is true because God tells us it is true. God, the source of truth, God who is truth, tells us that the gospel is true. We need no other authority to tell us this and to assure us of this. If God is who He says He is, the gospel must be true. An argument about truth is, in reality, argument about the very nature and character of God. Jones and other Emergent leaders are treading on some very dangerous ground when they begin to question or abandon or relativize truth.
Here are the articles I have referenced:
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (61)
As always it seems as though they are open to and welcome your conversation...so long as you agree with them.
Hey Challies, I feel like your statement at the end doesn't really respond to what Jones was saying at all. He isn't saying that truth is created by communities he said that it is discovered or in his wording 'interpreted' by communities. The way you argue makes it sound as if he is saying that that these communities should make up truth or its only true if they experience it which I don't see Jones saying at all.
The "friendship" presentation sounds a lot like what J. Gresham Machen heard from people like Harry Emerson Fosdick in the 1920's. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Where's Carla?
Nathan said,
"Hey Challies, I feel like your statement at the end doesn't really respond to what Jones was saying at all. He isn't saying that truth is created by communities he said that it is discovered or in his wording 'interpreted' by communities. The way you argue makes it sound as if he is saying that that these communities should make up truth or its only true if they experience it which I don't see Jones saying at all."
Nathan, does Challies need a "community" to properly interpret your comment? And did your intended truth-claim exist before Challies read it?
The question raised in my mind in response to Jones's post is the same one frequently asked of those who advocate various versions of social constructivism. Is the epistemological picture Fish paints merely a product of whatever authoritative interpretive community he belongs to or does it correspond to the way things actually are?
Why Christian Blogs Should NOT Allow For CommentsWe can already see where this one is going to end up...this is why I wrote this on my blog dated today, 5/29 and linked above.
I would ask that people please attempt to keep the commentary here civil. I don't see any reason, Brian, why we can't have a decent conversation about this.
"He isn't saying that truth is created by communities he said that it is discovered or in his wording 'interpreted' by communities."
See Kyle's statement. He said it better than I could. Jones is undermining the value and possibility of truth. Plain and simple.
Quote from David Wells....
"Contemporary spiritualities must be recognized as a form of temptation. The question they raise?is whether the Church is able to take its own revelation seriously?Christian faith, constituted by the Word of God and the Spirit of God, is not just an outcropping of human beings? internal spirituality but something which, in its supernatural construction, in its uniqueness, stands apart from all other spiritualities. It is by the Word of God, given to the Church, that all religions and all spiritualities are to be judged. The ?faith? of the spiritual seeker and the faith of the Christian believer may, in some way, look alike but, in fact, they are radically different. The one is the upward questing of the human spirit which speaks of human emptiness and uncertainty; the other is a work of God which speaks of His grace and judgment. As authentic as the human questing may be, it is still in biblical terms, unbelief. For the searching is not a search of the one locus in which God has spoken and decisively acted; it is a searching for its own sake, a searching for its own rewards. In religion of a Christian kind, we listen; in spirituality of a contemporary kind, we talk. In religion of a Christian kind, we accept a gift; in spirituality of a contemporary kind, we try to seize God. In the one, we are justified by the righteousness of Christ; in the other, we strive to justify ourselves. It is thus that spirituality is an enemy of faith."
Read the entire essay herehttp://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/05/eros_spirituality_vs_agape_fai.php
What is he really saying? Give me a break.That is the whole point of postmodernism. It is vague. Using lots of 'consensus' words to describe vague concepts that have no real meaning....but sound so inclusive and open...community, conversation, friendship, catalyst, village, etc.
We all spend lots of time trying to decipher the meaning behind them when in actuality there is no real meaning because the author himself is not sure!If he were, he would say so clearly so that the poor masses could understand. They write this way precisely so that people can interpret it any way they want. That is the whole point!
Take all of this back about 60 years:
We are starting a conversation with Herr Hitler in our village of world community so as to be a catalyst to reverse the polemical nature of leaders.
See, if no one can interpret it (they can always say, that is NOT what they meant) then they never have to stand on principle...we are just too dumb to understand them!
My former pdl/mega/emergent church had quite a few of these guys on staff. They are so misunderstood but of course, brilliant.
Lisa... been there, done that, sold the t-shirt at a yard sale for 25 cents. ;o)
And I appreciate Tim's discernment on this issue, big time:
Jones eventually stoops just about as low as one can go in an argument, arguing that those who disagree with the Emergent church simply misunderstand it. "Honestly, I care little about these critiques. They come from those who either have no idea what Emergent is all about and/or could not possibly be persuaded from their position anyway." Even though some world-class scholars and committed Christians have expressed concern about the Emergent church, Jones simply states that these people either do not understand Emergent or are hardened in their ignorance.
Mr. Jones said almost the exact thing to me when he sent me an email when I began to post my research into this movement in 2004. I fully confess when I first began to research this I didn't understand a lot of it, but the parts I did understand and spoke out against is what Jones had such an issue with - and why he emailed me and told me he wanted us to be friends. Yes, he really said that.
When I relayed to Mr. Jones my bigger concern than making new friends, was the "redefining" of Christian doctrine, that didn't go over too well. You can read a portion of this email exchange here, by scrolling down to 12/14/04. I assume some of those links on that page are outdated, but you'll get the gist of our conversation all the same.
What I did find interesting after re-reading this just now, is that just 2 years ago most Christians had never so much as heard of this. Funny how things change in such a short time, and how since then, so many churches have jumped on the bandwagon. Thankfully, many other believers (like Tim) are paying attention (and have been aware of this for some time) and speaking out against what is so wrong in this "movement/conversation".
SDG...
"We all spend lots of time trying to decipher the meaning behind them when in actuality there is no real meaning because the author himself is not sure!"
There is a meaning. One of the best ways to decipher what pomos mean is not what they say--but what they do not say.
And yes, I believe the pomo author does himself know what he means--they are smart folks, who know exactly what they are doing and intending.
Tim:
[Include 'sigh of exasperation' here.]
One of these days I'll learn how to do a trackback to your posts. For now, this will have to do: Saruman and the Emergent Church.
Here, too, is an excerpt from my post, which agrees with and amplifies your own:
"Seen in this light, is there any doubt about the Saruman-like means and ends of the Emergent Church? While its leaders do not seek to serve Satan (although they may unwittingly serve his purposes), they wish to establish a new order with themselves at the top. The old ways are passing: modernism in the church must give way to postmodernism; that which was true in the past is not necessarily true any longer - if, indeed, anything can be considered true."
Truth is truth and heresy is heresy; absolutely. The emergent folks are so busy admiring their own intelligence and fascinated by themselves til they have replaced the Word of God with their own books and blogs and cannot see the switch. They cleverly evade confrontation with truth by diverting the minds of their followers much in the same way that the magician diverts his audience's attention while he makes the Empire State Building disappear. Everyone knows the building is still there, but the act is so much more entertaining than reality. The magician becomes bigger than the stunt, and rightfully so, the stunt was just that, a stunt, and a very impressive one at that. One can be so impressed by his own "grey matter" that he becomes delusional. The deceivers become the deceived. Dan Brown now believes his own lies. And the emergents do not know what they believe but have abandoned the reality for the magician, the simple truth of the gospel for a complex and very impressive lie. Their audience is mesmerized by their new trick.
The emergents are the kings of equivocation (and I thought no one could top Islam). But even then, they don't even bother to equivocate most of the time, they just lie. Before going to Vietnam in 1967 we had to go through a course called "escape and evasion," the tactic seems to work well for the emergents. When a few days ago I asked Tony to answer two questions, he never responded ("is Jesus the only way one's sins can be forgiven?" and "has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?"). I take his silence and the quotes from him in the above article to be my answer. I once asked a Mormon the same questions and his answer was yes to both. That is equivocation.
Evasion is the method employed by those who know the correct answer and know that you know it, but don't believe it themselves and would simply rather not have you know that they don't. Equivocation is the method employed by those who know the expected and correct answer but wish to persuade the questioner to his way of thinking.
Reading McClaren's "The Secret Message of Jesus," and Miller's book "Blue Like Jazz" was difficult, they are a rehash of 60's liberalism. What a waste of time just to be able to say "yes, I have read their books."
Jesus Christ is Lord, the Son of God, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, the One crucified and dead and buried and raised from the dead, He is God with us, God incarnate, and the One who will return just as He left. He is the only mediator between God and man. What ever happened to the "simplicity of the gospel?"
"The emergent folks are so busy admiring their own intelligence and fascinated by themselves til they have replaced the Word of God with their own books and blogs and cannot see the switch."
I'm not sure that this is completely fair. Same with this: "The emergents are the kings of equivocation." I think if we're to have some reasonable discussion here, we'll need to avoid that type of sweeping statement since I think it will offend enough that it will preclude rational discussion.
I don't see any reason, Brian, why we can't have a decent conversation about this.
Tim,I didn't imply that it was impossible to have a conversation about this subject...but I fear it will go the path of so many other discussions on a topic as heated as this one.
All it takes is a couple of broadsweeping declaratory posts to start the fire, and we are off and running.
Maybe the bigger question needs to be, "Why is it that we have to continue to address topics such as this one among so-called evangelical believers?"
If Christians were intimate with the truth, this kind of stuff would not gain such widespread attention, even in Christian circles. Maybe we should be asking what local pastors/elders/overseers are doing to use Scripture to reprove, rebuke and exhort with great patience, those who are under their care so that they might be so familiar with the truth, that when they see heretical doctrine such as that which exists in the Emergent Movement, they will know it in an instant...and won't tolerate it.
Perhaps another option would be to just wait it out. As with other fads, this one will fade out and be replaced by whatever comes along behind it. As I have heard MacArthur and Os Guiness say, the American church is usually about 10 years behind the times when it comes to movements such as post-modernism. So reactionary...
Tim, I was very surprised at your response to my response. You should go back over your own statements. Addressing the emergents is "an exercise in frustration and futility," "how far they have gone in abandoning the truth," "the mixed message they send out," "Jones feigned surprise" at the way people are reacting to the emergents, "Jones stoops as low as one can go in these arguments?" If that doesn't offend them then I doubt anything will. Reasonable discussion isn't exactly what I have seen from the emergent side. Jones says that this negative attitude doesn't bother him; "Honestly, I care little about these critiques."
When Jesus confronted the Pharisees He wasn't concerned about offending them, "You are of your father the devil" sounds pretty sweeping to me. "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."
One of the above comments intimates that the emergents are possibly serving Satan without realizing it. Another says that it is not what they do say but what they don't say. This sounds offensive and fairly sweeping.
The Cross by its very nature is offensive to many. You may be expecting more from the emergents than God does.
I must say in agreement with one of the comments, I do not wish to see your site become like the so-called "message boards" where people go who love to argue and fight.
Good post.I still have a lot to learn about the ECM. I have read up on Brian McLaren, and he has some big time problems with his theology, if he has a theology at at all.Thanks for this informative post. And some of the comments were great, like Carla's, and Mike's, and some others.I love the truth. The Lord changed my heart 22 years ago, and I have had a hunger to know the Word ever since. I had some shirt seasons of leaness as well, but I believe by others praying for me, and by the grace of our Lord, my heart has never completely lost it's hunger and thirst for the reading, studying, and meditating on the Scriptures. I thank and praise our Father in heaven for this.I believe this is the subtle lie within the Church in our post-modern times. The Bible is important, but it's not that important.
If the Emergent Church believes itself to the the Christian left then the church is definately left wanting.
NOTE to Brian Thornton:
Your link in your first comment is broken: you left the "t" out and it reads "http://www.voiceofhesheep.org/" - which could be a Freudian thing (hesheep), I suppose, but let's not go there. But you might want to tell people to add the "t" to the URL.
BTW, I was going to leave a comment at your post informing you of the error - but you don't allow comments! Ironic, is it not?
Maybe, given our fallibility, we need to leave room for correction from others. In this case, at least, it would have been edifying (assuming that your post is edifying, that is).
"BTW, I was going to leave a comment at your post informing you of the error - but you don't allow comments! Ironic, is it not?"
The irony of posting a comment to say that comments are evil was not lost on me! Of course I know and respect Brian so I won't give him the virtual noogie he deserves for that!
Your link in your first comment is broken: you left the "t" out and it reads "http://www.voiceofhesheep.org/" - which could be a Freudian thing (hesheep), I suppose, but let's not go there. But you might want to tell people to add the "t" to the URL.
Thanks, Mike...I think you just did that for me. Sorry for the typo in my initial link to that post. People can also just click on my name at the bottom of this or other posts to get there.
The irony of posting a comment to say that comments are evil was not lost on me!
Tim, brother...did I miss something? In light of the noogie that I had coming...where did I say that ALL blog comments are evil?
Tim, brother...did I miss something? In light of the noogie that I had coming...where did I say that ALL blog comments are evil?
Well...you did say "Regardless of what intentions and motivations blog hosts and commenters have, comments to blog posts do NOT serve to edify the body of Christ." I'd say that was pretty well a statement against all blog comments.
Well...you did say "Regardless of what intentions and motivations blog hosts and commenters have, comments to blog posts do NOT serve to edify the body of Christ." I'd say that was pretty well a statement against all blog comments.
Good point, Tim.
I should have added the words "the vast majority of" right before "comments". It would then have read, "Regardless of what intentions and motivations blog hosts and commenters have, the vast majority of comments to blog posts do NOT serve to edify the body of Christ."
I wonder what an emergent “conversation” looks like in the real world. I have NEVER seen people with opposing opinions / viewpoints / perspectives come together and have a civil conversation and come to a consensus agreement. I have never witnessed this in a bible study and nor in a blog. The only time that I have ever seen people reconcile differences is when all parties involved share a common source of truth. Only when you start with scripture and let scripture interpret scripture and stick with the law of non-contradiction is it possible to have a civil discussion and come to an understanding of truth. I have not witnessed this very often because people are not taught to think this way. Everyone’s opinion is valid and we must be tolerant of everyone’s views and find a middle ground of compromise - this is what people are taught and it is very similar to the emergent movement if not identical.
"We want Christians to be engaged politically and culturally, and we want to provoke robust and respectful dialogue around issues that matter. Many of us think that the polemical nature of the church today precludes just this kind of necessary conversation. So, we're going ahead and doing it, with or without the imprimatur of evangelical elites like Colson and Carson. " Tony Jones
this idea is one of the more dangerious issues with the emergent church. they elevate the policital and cultural engagement idea and the Gospel is barely mentioned. They're very aware of the humanistic, horizontal, community arena, and seem to focus on it almost exclusively, yet where is the issue of man and God? How does a man have a "friendship" with Godnity?
This statement was very disturbing to me as well:
"The gospel is true, Colson seems to be saying, regardless of your human experience of that truth. "
Well if the truth of the Gospel was dependent upon MY experience of it, then thats a pretty useless and weak Gospel. Its hard for me to comprehend how this idea of the Gospel only being true if its experienced can be a comforting idea to anyone.
I agree that we need to discuss doctrine as christians, but our discussion doesn't make the doctrine. It seems as though Tony Jones is saying that is how it is made legitimate and even originated. This is scary and I look forward to Piper's conference which will hopefully do well in its purpose.
In case the dear readers of Tim's blog haven't done so before, I urge you to read a few of the fairly well-known articles on the ECM subject:
From Scot McKnight:
From Justin Taylor:
The favorite ECM comeback on arguments against them include lines such as:
If you read the stuff out there, you'll see/hear 'em all. It's amazing to me how they keep having to answer the same way - this preponderance of "misunderstanding" should be indicative of a serious problem in and of itself. Either a) they're really bad communicators (somewhat unlikely, considering the numbers and creds of the pro-ECMers), b) the anti-ECM folks are dense (unlikely, considering the intellectual horsepower in that community), or c) there's a problem with the message/movement, not the messenger. Most likely, the answer is c).
It doesn't take Charles H Spurgeon to identify the close alignment between liberal theology, politics and the ECM. The connection is blatantly obvious. One of McKnight's articles states: "the social gospel cannot be separated from the spiritual gospel. The Emerging Movement combines the Liberal social gospel with the Evangelical spiritual gospel and comes up with something that is neither Liberal nor Evangelical." However, in most cases the "Evangelical" seems to be lost in favor of the political.
David Wayne made the point in a posting on Jollyblogger: "I know I am putting words in the mouths of my emergent friends here and invite them to spew those words back at me, but much of what I hear coming out of the emergent church sure sounds like they are saying that Christianity cannot be defined in terms of doctrine. In that, they are affirming the essence of liberalism. I have heard and read emergent folks say they are "post-liberal" I just haven't heard or read them deny any specific tenets of what used to be called liberalism."
A recent article of note on the nature of the various EC "factions" can be found at http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22406. Good article.
The whole topic reminds me of the old saying about ducks - "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." Well, most of the ECers walk and talk like liberal ducks.
----bill
"virtual noogie"... I like that word.
I wonder what would happen if I walked in to an Emergent church with a t-shirt that said "Where's Carla?" or "Carla ROCKS". (grin)
I was first introduced to the EC when my pastor asked us to go home and do some research on how to define the ECM. Wow. Was that ever interesting. The only thing I could come up with was "The church that doesn't do church." Of course that was lacking. I found myself running in circles trying to define this movement because I found them to be running in circles unable to pinpoint what they really believe and why. I appreciate the work of those who have put themselves out on the chopping block to expose the ECM's foolish errors. You know who you are... where's my t-shirt??? And thank you for this post, Mr. Challies.
Regarding commenting on blogs... This is a refining tool people. A fantastic opportunity for all of us to learn how to articulate and defend what we believe and why for the glory of God. We obviously make mistakes. But this is a learning process with ample opportunities to rightly and boldly refute error, encourage one another, and at times, genuinely seek forgiveness. How quickly we can jump down one anothers throats when misunderstood or when our words are twisted.
Regarding commenting on blogs... This is a refining tool people. A fantastic opportunity for all of us to learn how to articulate and defend what we believe and why for the glory of God.
But shouldn't what you have described take place as one is discipled within the context of a local church body...and NOT in the context of an internet blog?
Just a thought...
"Within Emergent .....England lesbian Episcopal priests."
I don't know about you all, but I suddenly got this picture in my head of the third picture down in the Purgatorio post on Still Haven't Found What I Am Looking For. (Hope that link works....I am not that best at my html.)
Anyways, I read these comments before playing a Settlers of Catan with my family, and now I am back and can't find the statement someone made about Emergent only being a passing fad...but I want to address that....
I do think this is more than a passing fad. I have seen this stuff emerging before it was called emergent (I am not trying to be funny), and right now there are many things converging all at once. For example, the lesbian statement fits in with the trend I am seeing to become more ecumenical for the sake of "reaching" people the church hasn't reached. It also fits in with the move towards egalitarianism, which plays with the Biblical text in such a way that it will eventually open the door to evangelicals endorsing homosexuality (read Wayne Grudem's books on the subject of feminism.)
What is truly frightening about Emergent-ness it that it attempts the marginalize believers who call for a Biblical, doctrinally correct faith. For instance, on the back a brochure for Renovare (an Emergent "spirituality" favorite) they list many "streams" or "traditions" for the Christian faith. One is the "Spirit" brought to us by Charasmatics, another is a tradition is one of social justice, another sacremental....and along with all those is the "evangelical tradition" based on "the word." So what they are saying is there are different modes to truth. The Bible is just one of many ways to find truth, not the only way.
Another way Emergent-ness marginalizes Biblical truth, is that they say (or it has been said to me personally) that if you try to say "but the Bible teaches..." then you are a certain personality type, or you are still just a "modern." Or worse yet, you are "fearful." If you are a person who questions these things that appear so spiritual, it might even be said that you have psychological issues in which you are a "black and white thinker." So, Tim is correct in saying it is very hard to reason with those in the Emergent camp.
Someone also said in these comments, that the one big thing missing is the Gospel. And to that I say a hearty, "amen." Instead you hear alot about "lets talk about Jesus." But what "Jesus" are we talking about?
Tim, and everyone else, we need to be talking about these things. And I appreciate Tim so much for reading and bringing these things to us in a form I can read in spite of my busy schedule.
I would also like this to be a place I can send people I meet who are curious about emergent things, and they can come and find a serious and clear discussion that would point them to the truth. We (from our group blog) do that all the time....(no pressure Tim) But for all of you commenting, you might want to think in terms of people that might come here on the bubble and not completely discerning. Maybe your comments might be an influence for them to see the truth. I pray that they would be influenced when they come here to see the false teachings within the Emergent "movement."
(Quote): 'The true objection, or the most common objection, against the Emergent church is that these doctrines, long-since deemed heretical, are often given equal footing and are discussed as if they had never been deemed harmful in the past--as if the church had never formulated a biblical consensus as to where these doctrines deviate from Scripture. We can see the fruit of this in the very fact that the conversation includes people whose beliefs are, in theory at least, diametrically opposed to each other.' (Unquote)
Isn't this process simply the old communist dialectic dressed up in religion, where THESIS is met with ANTITHESIS, and out of that collision EMERGES SYNTHESIS, or should we rather say, Syncretism?
A
Brian... both.
I would also like this to be a place I can send people I meet who are curious about emergent things, and they can come and find a serious and clear discussion that would point them to the truth.
That sounds good at first reading, but shouldn't we be asking the question, "What context of a local body of believers are these people in (or not in) that they have to come to a blog to be pointed to the truth?"
Brian... there are ALOT of people out there who are trying to remain faithful to God and his command to not forsake the assembling together, but are finding sound churches to be sparse. Sometimes so far away, that it would take 2 hours to drive there. Other times they have found that to involve their family in any of the churches within a reasonable distance would be a HUGE compromise of truth... having to unteach what was just taught to their children. There are too many churches playing the harlot with the world and so many families desperate for truth... I would prayerfully refrain from this rash judgement, Mr. Thornton. And consider the immense opportunity that this avenue of communication provides. Enough said, methinks. If you do not like it, don't do it.
I still think many of you are missing the big picture. There's a difference between Emergent (Emergentvillage.org) and Emerging Churches.
It's almost undefinable, and it's defintely not definable by denominational language you keep trying to use.
I think it really represents the evangelical Centre, not the left or the right but the centre because it encompasses so many of diverse political beliefs.
Telling me Tony Jones said xyz, therefore the emerging church says xyz is just not true. Which is why so many of us disregard your criticisms by saying you just don't get it.
I like Tony Jones and I happen to agree with most of what he says and writes. But I have many friends who disagree.
Rob
bill,
Thanks for all the links. It's so important for me to be familiar with all this.Little by little I'm listening and learning.
"Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices". 2 Cor. 2:11
Jones quote: "Within Emergent are Texas Baptists who don't allow women to preach and New England lesbian Episcopal priests. We have Southern California YWAMers and Midwest Lutherans. We have those who hold to biblical inerrancy, and others trying to demythologize the scripture. We have environmental, peacenik lefties, 'crunchy cons,' and right wing hawks."
Is he saying that these distinctions don't matter within Emergent? It appears that that inerrantists and Bultmannian liberals are getting along just peachy, which scares me. This looks like a glowing example of theological relativism.
And consider the immense opportunity that this avenue of communication provides.
That "immense opportunity" runs both ways...both for truth to be proclaimed...and also for sin and error to abound.
For example, within this very thread the truth is basically given no greater standing in the comments than is the error of those posting comments agreeing with the Emergent Movement.
About people coming here for truth. They aren't people going to my local church! But I am talking about friends from other places that don't have a great church like mine...they are reading blogs and web pages and Emergent books anyways for the truth. And it colors how they approach Scriptures. So Challlies is a rational voice out there. It's not THE place, but it helps.
"So Challlies is a rational voice out there. It's not THE place, but it helps. "
Thanks for that, Kristie. I know I have a great deal of room to grow in knowledge and grace, but I do hope that this site presents a rational and measured voice. This is my committment and I receive much help and much grace from those who choose to comment here.
Rob,
Of course non-emergents are going to fail to characterize perfectly all the distinctions of "emerging" and "emergent", much less all the sub-distinctions.
I think what is more important are the specific critiques being raised, i.e., the postmodern epistemologies and view (or non-views) of truth. Can you address that?
Tim,
Was this a dig at Chuck Colson?" (of course it is difficult to know if it is Chuck Colson or Anne Morse, his writer, who is truly most concerned)."
Just wondering what the sentiment or intent behind this was? Colson is not so concerned but his mouthpiece is? Colson's writer may be expressing thoughts differing from Colson?
Thanks for helping us come to an understanding of the ECM
sda
"Was this a dig at Chuck Colson?"
I'm merely agreeing with Jones that it's difficult to know what is Colson's own position and what is the position of his writer.
I do not see opportunities for error abounding here as much as I see error boldly refuted ... as well as other opportunites to refine ourselves in the area of much needed discernment. I am one that needs to be refined in the area of discernment. I have a very sound church and get the bonus of both places to be refined and encouraged and admonished.Mr. Challies, we all have a great amount of room to grow in grace and knowledge. I agree with Kristie and have learned so much from your labour and example.I like what Mr. Camp said at his site regarding Christlikeness: "I certainly haven't arrived at it... have you? That is something I desperately need in my life everyday and would covet all your prayers to that end for my life and ministry."
It's funny, but the first time I began reading on the Emergent movement, I had visions of the 60s in my head. I could see Jefferson Airplane performing "White Rabbit," lava lamps and hookah smoke rising toward the sky somewhere in the vicinity of Haight-Ashbury. Then, the crowd joins hands and begins singing "Get Together" by The Youngbloods. I'm almost ready to go shopping on Ebay for the Twister game, Wheelos, Hoppity Hops and Peter Max posters. I am waiting for McLaren or some of the other gurus (not an inappropriate word in my 60s motif) to begin advocating chants of "turn on and tune out" along with recommendations to read Timothy Leary for spiritual inspiration.
All kidding aside, it is hard to keep my blood pressure from going up when I see arrogant remarks such as that offered by Tony Jones and others as to how their critics are incapable of understanding them. When you really look at it, their arguments are of the childish sort that would have merited a solid backhand from your father. If anyone is guilty of petitio principii, it is them. Misunderstood, are you? Then pray explain yourself clearly and forthrightly. But clarity and forthrightness are anathema. McLaren even brags about being unclear.
I begin to wonder if there isn't a bit of the judgment of God wrapped up in this controversy. If people who call themselves Christians are so ready and eager to embrace false doctrine, God will certainly give them over to it and say, "Go ahead, pal. Get a gut-full." I've certainly gotten a gut-full of this stuff, albeit not in the same way.
>>That "immense opportunity" runs both ways...both for truth to be proclaimed...and also for sin and error to abound.>>
A recent example of how useful blogs like this can be. My SS class is doing a study on forgiveness written by a well known pastor. One chapter in this study was on self forgiveness. The whole study was shallow but this was over the top for me. I am somewhat new to the class so I was trying to figure out a way to communicate some of the false teaching in the study when, lo and behold, that week Tim posted the Discernment Filter for Self Forgiveness! I sent it to my SS teacher with a note saying that this was interesting.
She came in last Sunday and made an announcement to the entire class about the Tim's discernment filter and that she had spent the entire week looking for the concept of self forgiveness in the Bible to no avail.
I realize this is different from comments but at the same time, the comments using scripture influence me to go to the Bible to discern truth. This is a good thing. (Martha Stewart pun not intended)
The comments can also be an accountability check for the author. (Not that Tim needs that!)
There is always going to be error, nasty comments, etc. Gee, we have that in the local church where they fight wars over music!
JCA,
The post-modern worldview is still evolving. It's really difficult to nail it down. As it relates to the Emerging Church I can make some generalities that may or may not be different from your church.
1. Belonging before Believing is something I'm seeing in general.2. Allowing those who ask questions to ask them without fear of reprisal.3. Ability to acknowledge the methodology of Christianity has been wrapped up in a particular cultural worldview, beyond a Biblical worldveiw. Ie modernity, post-modernity, Middle Ages etc. Especially as it relates to practices/liturgy.4. Trying to relate what we believe with how we act beyond personally. Although personal responsiblity is still important, we're looking at what it means to be responsible in a community.
What I'm not seeing/hearing:
1. Challenge to absolute truth. Everyone I've spoken to acknowledges absolute truth. But this relates to point # 3. We're trying to understand what is absolutely true and what is cultural. In some circumstances some of us may have gone too far. Maybe not though.2. A works based religion. This relates to point 4. The reason, I think, Tim posted this is the references to the social gospel. I haven't seen/heard many who reject Grace in the EC. However, we're placing an incredible emphasis on integrating our belief systems with how we live. For example, how does the story of the rich young ruler apply to us? For some it literally means selling everything and giving it to the poor. I don't think this is left or right leaning. 3. A threat to conservative Christianity. Mostly, we think you're doing good things. Keep it up. Just please keep Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell from speaking publically. I personally find them embarassing. Especially when Pat Robertson makes national news because he says he can leg press 900 kg. :)
Again, I'm not speaking for everyone. I'm only speaking for myself. Tony Jones may add things, or he may say I'm way off. So might Brian McLaren or Mark Driscoll etc. These are my observations from PARTICIPATING in the discussion and doing about 6 years of research.
Rob
Rob,
Thanks for clarifying. There are many things you listed I would say we happen to have in common.
But please don't assume those evangelical leaders speak for me. I'd rather follow leaders like John Piper and Tim Keller, who stand on the shoulders of the Reformation's great men. I reject the shallow evangelicalism and megachurchism as you do.
And here's where we probably differ. You would probably not want to be "wrapped" in a Reformational worldview, but I see it as the best that has been produced in its faitfulness to Scripture. I'm not saying it's the only one, but it appears to be the best, and because it is biblical it is very applicable across cultures and times and most effective in combatting cultural sins. Not saying that the Reformers were blameless, but are we any more so? What has postmodernism produced that rivals this heritage? I haven't seen it.