Nothing guarantees readers or gets people excited like large theological terms. Hope your blood is going already! This past spring at the 2007 Wheaton College Theological Conference, Tony Jones, the national director of the Emergent Village presented a paper called, “Whence Hermeneutic Authority?”. Tony’s appearance there caused a bit of unneeded stir, but apart from the politics and silliness of his presence at the conference I have spent some time the last couple of weeks digging through his paper. My buddy Dave and I have had an ongoing email and phone conversation about it as well, because the ideas he brings up are important to consider, especially in the context of what they mean for the emerging church. So let me summarize a bit of a far more in depth conversation and hopefully you will engage with it yourself.
Jones’ paper is all about the nature of orthodoxy, how it is created, how we use it, and just what it’s nature is. He says, “Orthodoxy is a happening, an occurrence, not a state of being
or a state of mind or a state-ment.”At the heart of his paper is a belief that orthodoxy is not a statement of beliefs that we use to evaluate people, instead it is what happens as the church lives out their faith, as we become the incarnation of our faith as Jesus came to demonstrate true faith and understanding of the true God through his own incarnation. (At least that is my understanding of his paper. I am sure someone else can summarize it better.)
To put it in another way, it seems to be a reiteration of the statement that faith is something you do not something you believe. Jones is emphasizing the connection between true orthodoxy and orthopraxy, what we believe and what we do. They can not be disconnected. The real debate about his ideas is whether or not there is a set criteria of beliefs that make up the orthodoxy of our orthopraxy. Jones believes that we never achieve real orthodoxy because our theology, our understanding of God is never perfect. We live our faith out in an effort to understand God, acknowledging our inability to ever fully understand God. He seems to believe that orthodoxy can’t be a statement, it is a life we live.
Jones has some great ideas in his paper but seems to go too far. The problem with his questioning of orthodoxy is that at the center of our faith there are a set of beliefs that haven’t been called into question and aren’t rooted in context or culture. These beliefs are a litmus test for our faithfulness, but only so much as they empower and motivate us to faithful living.
I encourage you to read the paper, (2007-wheaton-theology-conference-tony-jones.pdf) it is though provoking. I really like Tony, I have had the chance to meet him a couple of times at emergent events and I think he is a gifted theologian. He has taken some hard shots from critics, and much of it has nothing to do with his work. Check out his blog, it is good. Maybe next week Dave and I will have a podcast discussion about the paper and share some more thoughts about it.
If you made it through all of that good for you. If not, the next one will be shorter. Peace.
October 5, 2007 at 6:50 pm
As I read this definition all I can think of is…holy communion…the world needs more…and I don’t mean this in a purely ritualistic manner.
I don’t really get why the church spends so much time talking about what it means to be the church or what it means to live as the church rather than just living it. It seems as if it would be a good idea for us to just stop talking about it and just do it already.
October 5, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Hey Greg,
How are you?
First of all, it is good to see Wheaton get this so right by not including Jones’ paper in the upcoming book associated with the 2007 Wheaton Theology Conference! Way to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3), Wheaton (note that Jude 3 implies that “faith” is defineable).
I agree with Wheaton’s assessment that Jones was “off message” and “provacative but less than helpful.”
Since Jones appears to put so much weight and authority behind councils/conferences: C’mon, Tony! The Wheaton Conference has spoken….What you presented (the emergent church) was “provacative but less than helpful.”
I read Jones’ paper. It seems strange to address a theology conference without including any Scripture references.
It is interesting to compare Jone’s presentation with MacArthur’s “The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception“, which I am currently reading.
The umpire illustration is a perfect example of what MacArthur addresses “right off the bat” (so to speak) in his book.
MacArthur notes that Jesus, in speaking with Pilate, states, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” (John 18:37)
Pilate dismisses Jesus, the Truth, with the same philosophical question currently being framed by the emergent church (and many before them) in the Church today…”What is truth?”
MacArthur traces the history of this question in the Church. It is an interesting read (especially given this topic).
The way that Pilate’s question is currently being asked, and pondered, by emergents has a semblance of religiosity and spirituality…but, as MacArthur points out, it is just the same old thing (there is nothing new under the sun)…it is the sin of unbelief couched in a more “religious” tone and in a more “intellectual” way (my paraphrase). This way it is more acceptable to some (but, thankfully, not to those at the Wheaton Conference).
And “orthodoxy” (right beliefs/doctrine, conforming to established doctrine…) is not the same thing as “orthopraxy” (correct actions/conduct). They are, by definition, different.
However, it seems that, given the emergents’ goal of re-defining Christianity, it is necessary to first re-define, or at least obscure, the true meaning of orthodoxy.
Conforming to established doctrine (orthodoxy), as defined by Scripture, is not something that emergents are too fond of, especially when it comes to topics like a Christ-exclusive Gospel, hell, atonement, homosexuality, and so forth.
Like Pilate’s dismissive of Jesus (What is truth?), emergents ask, “What is the gospel?”; “What is hell?”; “What is atonement?”; What does Scripture really say about homosexuality?” (as if Scripture doesn’t speak with authority, or with any clarity, on the subject)
And like a New Kind of “christian”, emergents go even further than the subtle question, they glorify a fictional “pastor” and his daughter who don’t want to be members of their church because that church believes that Jesus is the only way to eternal life (which is orthodox), which is an outright rejection of Jesus and His Gospel(heresy) (aka the sin of unbelief…and some how this is a legitimate “conversation”/loose-gathering of like-minded individuals/terra-nova/whatever? I am glad that Wheaton saw it for what it was…”provacative but not helpful“).
And I do not agree that orthodoxy, when defined doctrinally, when seen as a set of beliefs (which is how the word “orthodoxy” is defined)…“is too easily deconstructable.” This is just a false statement.
Who is Jack Caputo (wrote The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event and What Would Jesus Deconstruct?, which is referenced by Jones)?
If any, how many of Jones’ references are relativists?
And Jones has it wrong when he boldly states, “There is no orthodoxy without orthopraxy.” It is the other way around: “There is no orthopraxy without orthodoxy.”
So… “Whence Hermeneutic Authority in the emergent camp?” Experience? Church fathers? Questioning of everything?
What about God’s Word?
October 5, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Paul,
I figured I would get a response from you on this one. I have debated Wheaton’s decision not to include his paper in the book, but I put full unerring faith in my alma mater and the excellence with which they do everything.
Jack Caputo is a really interesting theologian, he taught at Villanova but I think he retired recently. I wouldn’t put any of his references down as relativists, at least to my knowledge, but I am sure we might have different views about some of them.
I agree with your statement about the council speaking to Tony. Like I said, I have been really impressed with Tony in person and his writing, but I couldn’t cross the finish line with him on this paper. I think he deconstructed too much, tossed aside orthodoxy too easily in the classic understanding of the term and just kind of missed it with this one. But, that is the whole point of a theology conference isn’t it? To bring ideas and papers and begin conversation around them. There was so value in the strike zone metaphor, especially with looking at church history, but he seemed to discount that the majority of the strike zone of orthodoxy isn’t and hasn’t been in question for a long time. There are issues on the edge that the church has moved on and debated over the centuries, but not the whole strike zone.
Tony made some very interesting comments about your MacArthur the other day when he was preaching at UBC in Texas. You can go to his blog to pick up the link. He actually made quite a case for MacArthur showing gnostic qualities in his theology. I would suggest you listen to it and I would welcome your response.
Peace-
Greg
October 6, 2007 at 3:20 am
LOL…You figured correctly.
Yes…Jack Caputo is an interesting “theologian”, indeed. I have done some reading on his “weak theology” since reading Jones’ paper (speaking of unorthodox).
According to Tony’s own words on his blog, he was asked to “present the emergent perspective on the relationship between the corpus of patristic literature and the present church.”
So…not only was beginning a conversation not the given direction (as you suggested) for this theology conference, but he completely missed the mark on what he was asked to present.
Perhaps this is why Wheaton stated that Jones was “off message.”
He, instead, chose to go off point and attack the definition of “orthodoxy” (and orthodoxy itself) and he, then, attempted to re-define orthodoxy (which, at most, was inaccurate and less than compelling…or less than helpful as Wheaton stated).
And in a very emergent way (sound smart without really saying anything productive/concrete), Jones failed at being concise in regard to addressing the self-chosen title of his paper.
I would imagine that Jones thought that he had hit a home run with his presentation. It must have been painful to hear the umpire yell, “foul ball!”
By the way, MacArthur isn’t mine (though, the book is good…you should read it).
I will check out Jones’ comments about MacArthur (who is hardly a gnostic) and respond (but come on…I am sure that Jones is even less compelling on MacArthur showing gnostic qualities in his teaching than he was at the Wheaton conference on orthodoxy).
Have a good weekend!
October 6, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I would disagree about the nature of the conference, I used to go to it every year. I think he was trying to engage with the topic, specifically how to understand and view the work of the councils and the creeds they created.
I also don’t think what he did was an attack. That seems a bit pejorative. Tony was honestly wrestling with the nature of orthodoxy, an important topic considering the label of unorthodoxy constantly leveled at the emerging church.
But, like I said, I didn’t quite get there on this talk. I found his talk about unrecognized gnosticism within Evangelicalism to be far more on point.
October 8, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Hey Greg,
I tried to find the link on Tony’s blog but was not successful. Do you happen to have the link?
And why is it that the label of unorthodoxy is constantly being leveled at the emerging church?
Are Mclaren, Jones, Sweet, Pagitt and etc. always orthodox?
Thanks,
October 9, 2007 at 12:10 am
Paul I fixed the link to Tony’s blog in the post. It is http://www.theoblogy.blogspot.com
As for the orthodoxy question, I won’t try to make an absolute statement about any of them. I would say that I find the majority of their work and their over riding theology to be orthodox but there are definitely parts and details that remain to be classified as such. I am no threatened by those parts, I guess I am intrigued to figure them out for myself. But, I can see why so many are threatened by them.
October 9, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“I won’t try to make an absolute statement about any of them.”
Why am I not shocked? How about a relative statement?
I am not threatened by those parts, either. Fear and the feeling of being threatened has nothing to do with this topic (but it is a common pejorative, or a common “poisoning of the well” tactic hurled at those who point out their inconsistency with Scripture).
And it is most always possible to find some agreement with a heretic…But the problem always lies in the specific area of disagreement between the heretic and Scripture.
Thank you for the link but I had already been to the website and read the article that discussed Tony’s visit to UBC. I clicked the “listen to sermon here” link, which takes you to a UBC podcast page, but the sermon link there doesn’t provide the sermon. Is it just me? Was it removed?
October 9, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I put the absolute statement part in their just for you!
I will look at the link, I think I had to download it into iTunes to get it.
October 9, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I thought so!!!!
Thus, my request for a relative statement.
I noticed your personality type on the page. Did you know that Carl Jung attributes his knowledge of personaity types to a spirit guide named “Philemon”?