Tony Jones, the national director for Emergent recently came out with a new book called The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier. For the next week or so I am going to post some thoughts on the book and offer questions to interact on from the book.
But, before I do, I am offering some suggested blog etiquette for the discussion.
1) The dialog will be on the book and the questions I offer. This will not be an Emerging Church free for all.
2) Being concise is not only polite but a wonderful writing skill. Please keep your comments to a manageable size.
3) No long quotes, Biblical or otherwise. (See above rule)
4) Please offer your original thoughts and not someone else’s that you are regurgitating. If you think someone else has a good thought on the subject post a link to their stuff, we can read it ourselves.
5) Honor God above all else in your comments, please
6) If your comments seem inappropriate because of the above rules violations I will feel free to edit or delete them.
Now on to the book!
The New Christians is an attempt to map out the history, theology, church life, and criticism of the emerging church. This is no small task and no easy task, especially for a group whose history is short, theology is wide ranging, and whose churches are vastly different for each other. With all of those considerations, Tony does a wonderful job of not only cataloging, but adding needed commentary and definition to much of the past 15 years and what has become the emerging church. The only other work I have read does that does as thorough of a job is Emerging Churches by Gibbs and Bolger. This was a great book but lacked the personal insight that Tony is able to offer. I recommend this book for both those inside and outside the emerging church if for nothing else than it provides a much better platform for discussion than most of the useless debates I encounter.
Throughout the chapters are case studies, stories, parables and allegories, theology, history, definitions, and dispatches that help map out the emerging frontier. Within the first dispatch (located in a section detailing the present battles between the left and right wings of the church and the changes in our culture) is this statement.
Emergents find little importance in the discrete differences between the various flavors of Christianity. Instead, they practice a generous orthodoxy that appreciates the contributions of all Christian movements.
This seems like a really good place to begin our conversation. One of the realities of the emerging church that really unnerves and upsets its critics is this spirit of generous orthodoxy. (This term is the title of a Brian McLaren book that covers the subject well.) This generous orthodoxy is problematic for both the left and right of the church. It is a problem within fundamentalism because fundamentalists by nature are separatists. They work to separate themselves from the rest of the church by defining how they are different and holding fast to those differences. Liberalism within the church claims to be the opposite, to be open to all, but they don’t like fundamentalists or those that disagree with their theology and typically exclude themselves from those critics. (I am obviously making large generalizations for the point of discussion, not out of ignorance from exceptions and nuances. )
Emergents really are trying to build bridges on both ends and find ways to appreciate, support and live in unity with the entire church. My question is, can this be done and if so how? Emergents always talk about dialog and conversation. Is this enough? Where does our faith in the Kingdom of God enter these conversations and efforts at unity? Can I disagree with someone on the nature of atonement or homosexuality and still be in unity with them? Can I believe that despite our differences the Kingdom of God is at work through them too? I think how we answer those questions defines our ability to experience unity? What do you think? Is this generous orthodoxy a waste of time or idealistic nonsense? How does it connect to our kingdom theology?
Share your thoughts and I will post my next reflection on Friday.
March 20, 2008 at 8:05 am
I just stumbled across this, so please pardon my lateness. I’m a 33-year-old pastor of a Nazarene church plant in Indiana, just so you know where I’m coming from. There’s probably a link to our church’s website with my name, for those who are curious.
First comment: For crying out loud, some of you need to look up the word “discrete” in a dictionary. It sounds like you think it means “minimal” or “insignificant.” It doesn’t. Sorry, but it’s driving me nuts!
Second: Paul, you seem to be trying really hard to misread Greg’s comment about emergents and the Eucharist. He didn’t say emergents compare the Roman Catholic view and “the Protestant view” (whichever one you’re referring to) and choose the Roman Catholic. Hopefully his latest explanation makes that clear to you. He’s saying that emergents tend to find good and helpful things to celebrate in nearly every flavor. Do you believe that there’s absolutely nothing worth celebrating in the way Roman Catholics practice the Eucharist? Sure, there may be a lot to disagree with, but is there nothing to appreciate as well?
(Side note: It’s not only Roman Catholics who call communion “the Eucharist.” So it’s not quite accurate to contrast “the Eucharist” with “communion.”)
Third: I’m a big fan of a generous orthodoxy approach. I’m not sure which of your questions to tackle, Greg, since there are so many of them. But, yes, I believe we can build those bridges and live in unity with people with whom we disagree on many issues. Sure, there are some central beliefs that we must agree upon… but I think that becomes much easier to do when we stick to the language and story of the Bible. So when it comes to theories of the atonement, for example, those are mostly built “on top of” what the Bible has to say, as explanations for how Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection have an impact on us today. Which theory you hold to isn’t as important to me as whether or not you’re trusting Christ and following him.
And with that, I’ll have to stop, since I’ve probably already violated rule #2.
Thanks for posting your thoughts on this book & for giving us a chance to dialogue about it!
March 20, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Rich,
Great thoughts, especially about discrete. Discrete is defined as
1. apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts.
2. consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; discontinuous.
That is helpful.
Second, thanks for some clarifying thoughts on the Eucharist. We may be discussing an artificial choice. There isn’t really a need to choose between Protestant and Catholic views. There are a variety of views of the Eucharist, and all we can try to do is be faithful, mindful of 2000 years of teaching and practice and make the best sense of it we can.
March 20, 2008 at 3:31 pm
FWIW, I interpret Jones’ remark to mean that while there are distinct differences among the various flavors of Christianity, a generous orthodoxy focuses on the areas of agreement while celebrating the unique perspectives and contributions of everyone involved.
It’s just like when I talk to my Lutheran or Baptist or ___ friends. Sure, we differ on some things, and those differences aren’t all minor. But if I’m going to be their friend and have conversation with them and work alongside them for the glory of God, I can’t spend all my time focusing on those areas where we disagree. I can accept that they have arrived at their positions in these areas in good conscience, doing their best to responsibly interpret and apply Scripture, same as I have.
My comment on the Eucharist was simply to point out that “Eucharist” does not equal “Roman Catholic view of communion.” And that you weren’t saying what he thought you were saying.
March 21, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Thanks for the clarifying thoughts Rich.
The question ultimately becomes then, at what cost unity? Then tension in this conversation is the tension we face in scripture. The tension between desiring unity through Christ and keeping our fellowship pure and faithful. It is the tension we see in Jesus condemning the Pharisees and then eating at Zacheus’ house. It is the tension we read in Paul as he talks about our connection to one another as the Body of Christ, and then a call to dispel false teachers.
Do we decide based on doctrine? Which doctrines? How different can they be? Who should decide that? Is is about us as individuals, as faith communities, as denominations?
That is the rub, and I don’t think we have shed much light on it yet.
March 23, 2008 at 10:20 am
Well, when it comes to doctrine, it seems that different denominations/churches have different “orthodoxy” criteria. For some, it’s the Nicene Creed. For others it’s some doctrinal statement out of the Reformation or from the early days of fundamentalism or evangelicalism. As long as you can affirm that statement (whichever it is), then you’re seen as being on the same side. If you can’t, then you’re viewed with some level of suspicion… or even hostility.
For some, it boils down to some particular point of doctrine, like your doctrine of Scripture. For some, as long as you use the words “inerrant” or “infallible,” in yours, you’re probably OK. Of course, if you interpret Scripture differently on some point, they may decide that you don’t really believe the Bible after all. Because of course, if you did, you would agree with them.
Of course, for some, this is narrowed so far that the only people who are truly acceptable are those of their own denomination, or even their own local church.
You’re exactly right when you say that we see this same tension in Scripture. It seems to me that Jesus had specific reasons for condemning the Pharisees, and Paul had criteria for what makes a prophet true or false. And those reasons and criteria were different from those others had been using previously (like Jew-Gentile distinctions). So it’s not as if we’re left totally without guidance here…
March 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Wow, I have just read through this entire thread and I could write a lot about it all. Since I am coming in late here, I will try to be brief.
Whose job is it to sort our the heretics and sinners from the orthodox and righteous? (Matt. 13:24-30)
We are free from the law, but have a new commandment to love God and love one another. Much of our God, our faith, our theology is a mystery so none of us has the full answer. So, it seems that if a group of people claim to love Christ and try to love others, I have no right to exclude them from God’s Kingdom even if I think they are wrong on certain aspects of theology. When I begin to judge them and criticize them out of anger for hurt that I have experienced or self-righteousness that lives in me I am the one breaking the commandment given by Christ.
Each biblical reading is a biblical interpretation and thus we are forced into humble generous orthodoxy as we realize that each of our own interpretations is limited by our individual and corporate sin and by our limited experience of God and the world.
From time to time I find myself questioning 2000 years of Christians and I have to stop myself and ask if I, Shay, know better than billions of people that I am certain are a part of a great cloud of witnesses. I will accept the best from your theology and Roman Catholic theology and Nazarene theology and Methodist theology and I will lament the parts that cause even more brokenness and I will confess my role in that.
March 24, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Shay,
Whose job is it to sort our the heretics and sinners from the orthodox…?
The Church’s, their pastors and even individual Christians (according to Scripture).
We are free from the law, but have a new commandment to love God and love one another.
We are free from the law…but commanded to be holy.
And…That is Jesus’s summarization of the commands…It is a general statement and not specific in nature. The New Testament commands get very specific in regard to the totality of what we are required to do.
Also, we are commanded to make disciples (the Great Commission) and teach them all things that Christ commanded, among other things (including holding to a sound doctrine, rejecting false teaching, and contending for the faith once delivered to the saints).
I have no right to exclude them from God’s Kingdom even if I think they are wrong on certain aspects of theology.
Ummmm…who said that anyone has this right (this is another strawman)?
And…Furthermore – if they reject Jesus Christ as Savior, then they are excluded from the “Kingdom” (which is not earthly and cannot be inherited by flesh and blood – according to Scripture).
If they reject Jesus Christ (in favor of universalism, or some other religion), then they are excluded from the kingdom and the Church (and all Bible-believing churches).
According to Scripture, people are excluded from the Church (body of believers) when they reject Christ.
When I begin to judge them and criticize them out of anger for hurt that I have experienced or self-righteousness that lives in me I am the one breaking the commandment given by Christ.
Strawman…The majortity of anti-emergents, including me, are not personally angry or hurt (although, things that are an afront to God do tend to get me riled – denying the Gospel, Hell, atonement, and etc.).
Checkout Acts 17 (a fav. of those who strive to be cultural)…The Apostle Paul was driven to give the Gospel to non-Christians over his anger related to the sin of the Athenian idol-worship.
Each biblical reading is a biblical interpretation…
No..Each one is not.
…is limited by our individual and corporate sin and by our limited experience of God and the world.
Biblical interpretation is a science (hermenuetics) and there is a defined system/procedure. “corporate sin” (however you are defining this) and “our limited experience of God and the world” are not sound hermenuetics.
And…God’s Word transcends each of these (sin and experience).
From time to time I find myself questioning 2000 years of Christians and I have to stop myself and ask if I, Shay, know better than billions of people that I am certain are a part of a great cloud of witnesses. I will accept the best from your theology and Roman Catholic theology and Nazarene theology and Methodist theology…
Will you accept the best part of Mormon theology?
Are Mormons part of the “great cloud of witnesses?
Who/What makes up the “great cloud of witnesses?
How are you CERTAIN who is a “great cloud of witnesses”?
How do you make this judgement of certainty?
Maybe you are not being humble and you are wrong in your certainty? Will you allow for this possibility?
Will you lament the parts of some theology that are an affront to God (or only the ones that cause “brokeness”)?
And Romans 16:17 commands us to mark false teachers and to avoid them…Given your proposed “generous orthodoxy”, how does a Christian practically apply, and practice, this new Testament command?
March 24, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Greg,
The question ultimately becomes then, at what cost unity?
I agree with you, again, Greg!
This is the question.
Do we want to be in unity with God through Christ, and worship in “Spirith and Truth” with those like-minded in Christ (the Body, the Bride), or do we want unity (false, man-made unity) amongst a group (a community) of people (even including universalists as McLaren intimates in his New Kind of Christian)?
And why do emergents want to create this atmosphere in established denominations and churches?
Why don’t they just create their own emergent denomination?
If (like they say) emergents are truly humble and unsure of the certainty of their doctrines (but favor certain doctrines and practices – usually not historic orthodox Christian ones), and the doctrines of others…why do they want to establish themselves in existing denominations and thereby making changes to existing denominations?
March 24, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Paul and Shay,
There are some interesting questions raised in your exchange. As far as the responsibility that exists to decide heresy and orthodoxy I actually wrote a specific post about this. Outside the constructs of accountability and connection that the church community offers, I am not sure what responsibility individuals have in this matter. Here are my thoughts if you want to find them: http://holinessreeducation.com/2006/05/17/heresy-in-the-church-who-decides-and-how-do-we-act/
I will once again disagree with you Paul, we are incapable of not interpreting the Bible when we read it. We can not read the Bible in a vacuum. Even first century readers interpreted it, that was why they had so much controversy.
I think we do have to question, explore, prod, and engage with all the theology we are taught from whatever part of Christianity, no matter how long it has been around, because that is the only way we can really embody and internalize that teaching. If we accept it without wrestling with it, will it ever have an anchor in our lives? There must be humility in how we come to this task (there is that word again) but we will loose out if we do not undertake it.
March 24, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Rich,
It’s just like when I talk to my Lutheran or Baptist or ___ friends. Sure, we differ on some things, and those differences aren’t all minor…
Are emergents not humble enough to allow differences and separations to exist?
Why are emergents so anxious about denominational separation?
Why do emergents want to bridge this gap?
And don’t emergents go farther than just denominational separation (bridging gaps with universalists, buddhists, hindus, new agers, etc.)?
In a New Kind Of Christian, Mclaren’s fictional pastor character did not want to be a member of his church that did not allow his non-Christian, universalist daughter to join in membership…Do you not think that this is waaaay beyond denominational separation (and the pale of orthodoxy – “generous”, or not)?
Are you anxious over the “lack of unity” in this type of situation?