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 24, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Paul, you asked, “And why do emergents want to create this atmosphere in established denominations and churches?
Why don’t they just create their own emergent denomination?”
Very valid questions.
The reason emergents are engaging the established church is for love of the church. Anywhere the church isn’t functioning to the fullness of the Gospel, emergents want to help change that.
But, most emergents don’t believe in the institutional structures of denominations. Here is where I struggle with many emergents, because I know my call is to a denomination. For better or worse I feel strongly my call is to help my denomination be the church and honor Christ in all ways that it can.
You continue to make basic statements about emergents, however, Paul, that I disagree with strongly. Those statements being that emergents mainly favor doctrines and practices that are not historically orthodox. And statements about McLaren and universalism and Padgitt and his openness to other religions. These are off base.
March 24, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Greg,
I will once again disagree with you Paul,
Not again!
we are incapable of not interpreting the Bible when we read it. We can not read the Bible in a vacuum.
So much is easily understood and to lump it all in the “depends on your interpretation” pile…leaves us with a mess. And the Bible, and God, do not leave us with a mess!
There is also sound hermeneutics that we can apply to make sure that we get the best possible interpretation (other Scripture, context, history).
March 24, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Greg,
But, most emergents don’t believe in the institutional structures of denominations.
Why?
How do emergents know that they have the correct interpretations and the “fullness of the Gospel”…and that the denominations are indeed wrong?
And statements about McLaren and universalism…
Then…why the New Kind of Christian pastor that did not want to be a member of the church in which his non-Christian universalist daughter was not allowed to be a member?
And…You forgot to mention Bell.
March 24, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Greg,
Promoting Catholic mystics like Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton, and others (all clearly false teachers), as emergents do (and their eastern in origin “prayer” practices)…is beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
March 25, 2008 at 12:28 am
Paul,
Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding your stance here. You say that you can read and understand scripture without any bias AND you say that understanding the scripture in a way other than exactly as you understand the scripture leads to hell. So are you saying that anyone who understands scripture in any way other than the way you do is going to hell?
Also, you assumed I was talking directly to you in my first post and I was actually not talking about you at all. You were READING INTO my literal words. I actually used myself as an example and you still felt a need to defend yourself. You also lumped me in with the emergents. I have never said I agreed with what they stand for. For someone who doesn’t read anything into scripture, you sure do read a lot into what people post on blogs.
Hypothetical question for you: If someone earnestly loves God (Trinitarian Christian God) and earnestly loves others (in a holy and selfless way), but believes women can speak in church and wear gold and men can get circumcised (just for a few examples. You can put whatever “sinful” “unbiblical” act or belief in here that you want), would you say that person doesn’t actually love God and/or will still go to Hell?
I hope we can find unity even in the midst of disagreement. Thank you for continually challenging my theology (I read this blog a lot more than I post on it) and giving me a place to check why I believe what I believe.
Peace,
-Shay.
March 25, 2008 at 3:46 am
Hey Shay,
Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding your stance here. You say that you can read and understand scripture without any bias…
No…I didn’t say that. But I did say that through a proper hermeneutic (historical-cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, and theological analyses) we can get through bias.
And…Biblical text says what the Author (God the Holy Spirit) wanted it to say…It does not have different meanings for different peoples.
…you say that understanding the scripture in a way other than exactly as you understand the scripture leads to hell.
I definitely never said that!
According to the Bible, there is only one thing that leads to eternity in hell – A lack of faith in Jesus Christ (His work on the cross (atonement for sin), and His resurrection).
And…we know from the Bible that:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (II Timothy 3:16)
Given this scriptural passage, and several others, it is obvious that there are clear biblical doctrines that we can stand firmly on and proclaim boldly.
Hypothetical question for you: If someone earnestly loves God (Trinitarian Christian God) and earnestly loves others (in a holy and selfless way), but believes women can speak in church and wear gold and men can get circumcised (just for a few examples. You can put whatever “sinful” “unbiblical” act or belief in here that you want), would you say that person doesn’t actually love God and/or will still go to Hell?
Uh…no.
But some clarification may be necessary:
If someone earnestly loves God…
The criteria, according to the Bible (Acts 10:43), is
that in order to be a Christian, a person has to believe in Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. I am not sure what your phrase really means.
If they truly have faith in Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, then they won’t go to hell.
But…Christ is the Judge of these things (Acts 10:42 – this was a part of the Gospel that was preached in the book of Acts).
…and earnestly loves others (in a holy and selfless way)…
This is not a requirement for salvation, according to Scripture, but it is a by-product of salvation.
Thank you…
You are welcome.
March 25, 2008 at 4:01 am
Shay,
Additionally:
Also, you assumed I was talking directly to you in my first post and I was actually not talking about you at all. You were READING INTO my literal words.
Nope…but you commented on points made in an ongoing discussion and I addressed your comments from my perspective. Is this unusual in a “conversation”.
I actually used myself as an example and you still felt a need to defend yourself.
Nope…just having a “conversation”.
You also lumped me in with the emergents. I have never said I agreed with what they stand for.
When you use emergent buzz words and phrases (“humble generous orthodoxy”, “our theology is a mystery so none of us has the full answer”, “I have no right to exclude them from God’s Kingdom”, “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”, and so forth)…
You sound just like an emergent and seem to agree with what they stand for.
Do you not agree with the emergents and what they stand for?
March 25, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Shay,
You posted: If someone earnestly loves God (Trinitarian Christian God)…
Why do you use the Trinitarian qualifier?
Why do you use the Christian qualifier?
What about Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons and New Agers…Do they not earnestly love God?
March 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Greg,
I bought the book (and will read it).
March 25, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Paul,
You write- Biblical text says what the Author (God the Holy Spirit) wanted it to say…It does not have different meanings for different peoples.
If the Word of God is living and active, can’t it speak differently to different people? If not, what is the value of the Word being living and active? The same scripture can speak differently to me each time I read it. If scripture only has one meaning and one interpretation, why would I bother reading it more than once?
On the point of calling me an emergent- I didn’t realize those were all emergent buzz words. I used generous orthodoxy because it was a part of the original conversation. Maybe I am an emergent.
I used the qualifiers “Trinitarian Christian” in order to avoid silly questions like the ones you asked me. I am not talking about faith in Buddhist or Hindu gods nor am I talking about faith in new age energy and positive thinking. I am talking about faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Your comments have helped me understand you some, I think. So let me try to restate what you are saying so I am clear:
You believe that if someone believes in Jesus as savior and puts their faith in Him, but also happens to read scripture in a way that allows for certain behavior that you find to be sinful according to your reading of scripture, they can still receive salvation and eternal life with God. Is this true?