What I am not saying
This is a short response to some imagined critics. As more people start hearing more about the emerging church conversation there are those who make wild claims about what its "adherents" believe ("Brian McLaren doesn't believe in hell!" "These guys reject truth and embrace relativism!" "They reject Biblical authority!" "They don't believe in the Gospel of Jesus!"). Not only are these claims inaccurate, but represent uninformed opinions based not on interacting with those within the emerging conversation (or visiting their churches or having coffee with them) but making assumptions and reading books by "experts" who, ostensibly, have done the above (I point specifically to D.A. Carson's "Becoming conversant with the emerging church" where, in his research, he did not talk to a single emerging church leader or visit any of their churches, and after the book was published he didn't respond to invitations to keep talking).
So, offered to the ether of the internet, is what I (as a firm believer in the value of the global emerging conversation) am not saying:
- I'm not saying church isn't important (it is, and it is the community through which God transforms the world. The institutional church is part of the larger church body, but these two are not equivalent. I do think that some churches will be served by selling their church buildings and not building new ones, particularly those churches who contain the presence of God in their lives to their church building).
- I'm not saying people should leave (the institutional) church (although some people should, particularly where God or their lives are calling them to, or if they are in an abusive church, or a church with some form of abusive/controlling leadership).
- I'm not saying Scripture isn't important (it is! I am saying that the Word of God isn't more important that God himself, and that Scripture should not be elevated above God).
- I'm not saying I don't believe in the Gospel (I do, and we need to ask, "What is this message so that when people hear it it is Good News to them?).
- I'm not saying I don't believe in absolute truth (I do, and I don't think the Gospel can be watered down to a set of propositional statements which, if their truth is asserted, guarantees that person a place in heaven).
- I'm not saying I don't believe in Jesus and his saving work on the cross (I do, and we need to see how Jesus is placed in his political and eschatalogical context, for if we understand that we are gifted with a fresh reading of Scripture).
- I'm not saying that any interpretation of Scripture is valid (it isn't; simply look at how the Nazi's made Scripture say, "Jesus isn't particularly Jewish and actually hates Jews," or how Europe used Scripture to support their colonising of the world, or how Americans used Scripture to support their killing of native Americans, or how Scripture was used to support the slave trade, or how South African churches used Scripture to support Apartheid. Scripture has a multiplicity of readings (what Pete Rollins calls "trans-finite" readings) but not open, unbounded infinite readings).
- I'm not saying I don't believe in God (although I agree with Pete when he says we can set up our theology in such a way that it becomes "conceptual idolatry" and when this happens, the path to believing in (the true) God lies in betraying (our idolatrous concept of) God (which will initially feel like betraying God himself).
- I'm not saying I don't believe in hell (although this one is still up for grabs! I do think that all of the passages in the Gospels where Jesus talks about hell are warnings to the Jews that if they don't abandon their way of violent revolution against their Roman governors, Rome will be the means of God's judgement on them. Jesus' desire was that the Jews would know "what would bring you peace" (Luke 19:41) otherwise they would be destroyed. In other words, the hellfire-speak of Jesus finds it's eschatalogical fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 87 and for us to make it mean that "You will go to hell after you die if you don't believe in Jesus" is reading meaning into the text, not out of it).
Imagined critics, critique away!
Technorati Tags: Gospel, emerging church, Jesus, hell, eschatology
- Roger Saner's blog
- 887 reads
Stay updated
Who's been visiting?
Recent blog posts
- What would Jesus Burn?
- Joy Magazine on the EC
- Modernism and Modernist Theology
- Bridging the gap between the church of today and the world of tomorrow in an African Urban context
- On my left, postcolonial, on my right, postmodern.
- Details needed please
- Meeting others on the journey
- If you had one wish, what would it be?
- Pretoria, or Tshwane, Christian bloggers gathering?
- Missional Synchroblog
Comments
Denying propositional truth
Maybe I should've added this one in: I'm not saying I deny propositional truth. I can't put it better than the tallskinnykiwi:
"How can we deny the possibility or need for propositional truth? - the Bible is loaded with it such as “God is love” and “Your word is truth”(Jn. 17:17) and “all who live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” These propostions are true. I know. I have EXPERIENCED them and they would be true even if i had not experienced them. I think certain Baptist leaders should put down their philosophy books and go to the streets where the gospel is being shared in truth by emerging church people. Where is this straw man, anyway? How about someone offer a $100 reward for the person that comes forward and says what the critics accuse them of? If there is someone out there, and I dont think there it, i want to have a word with them - they are causing a lot of grief and confusion, even though they are helping to support the evangelical book publishing industry."
Concerns
Let's open up this discussion - by doing some futher reading. Obvioulsy Roger, you, along with many others in the EC feel the need to be correctly portrayed. I completely sympathise with that and I whole-heartedly support your endeavours in this respect. The fact that so many ECers have had to 'defend' themselves recently is testimony to the fact that there are a lot of guys out there saying negative things about the EC and their value to the broader Christian church. Here are some of my suggestions as to where its coming from:
1. Ignorant people. Ignorant people who have little grasp of postmodernism and epistemology or the EC have launched scathing attacks. These people need to be informed and responded to.
2. Fearful people. People who are afraid that the EC is undermining the very framework of Christianity. These people, are largely ignorant as well but one can sympathise with their experience of fear. These people need to be dealt with gently and encouraged to see things from all angles.
3. Defensive People. There are people out there who are pretty sharp but just don't buy into the whole EC thing at all and consider uncompatible with Scripture. I'd put John MacArthur and his new book in that category. These people need to be challenged - from Scripture (fight in their realm - plus its really not a bad place for the challenge to take place because it forces us to see what God really is saying).
4. Reasoned People. There are a group of people that sympathise with the EC, are probably even involved in ministries that have EC tendincies, but they're wary that some of what the 'Defensive People' are saying is true - that there really are elements popping up in certain segments of the EC that are not compatible with Scripture and the orthodox Christian faith of history. I'd lump people like Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller into this (although Keller hasn't made any published statements on the EC, he has made comments on blogs and been instramental in setting up the Gospel Coalition [with Carson] - and so we can get a sense of what his feelings are on the subject). These people need to be listened to very carefully as ECers attempt to vindicate themselves.
Personally I see D A Carson as kind of sitting inbetween 3 and 4 - I don't think he's anywhere near as off as MacArthur on the issue, but I also don't think he's been as reasoned (in his book) as someone like Keller. And so while I still think there is value to his book - I suggest the conversation move on from there to someone else. Brett Kunkle, last year at ETS, made a very interesting critique of the EC and particularly Emergent Village.
Honestly, I don't really care if ECers don't listen to peoples 1-3, because quite frankly they irritate me as much as they irritate ECers. BUT, I think ECers owe it to reasoned people like Kunkle to listen carefully to his critique and concerns and then understand where some in the conversation are coming from. I am convinced that there are problems in the EC that are dangerous and potentially harmful for the church (I think there are problems in other movements too of a similar nature - but we're discussing the EC here). I think Kunkle does a good job of investigating these. So give him a listen and then share some thought.
Reasoned criticism
Thanks Stephen, I'll check out Kunkle. I agree with you, it's tiresome listening to peoples 1-3 (and I respect people who make the effort to get beyond the propaganda), but I hope to always be open to engaging with the 4's (hey, I'm a 4 on the Enneagram too! hehe) - particularly those who are open to dialogue. Part of my reason for this post has been annoyance with people making (incorrect) sweeping statements about the emerging church ("They don't believe in hell!" or whatever) and then telling others about this dangerous movement (that rejects truth, for instance). I think the challenge is that some (not all) of the people involved in the conversation need to step forward and keep the communication channels open with those 4's who want to thoughtfully and respectfully discuss their concerns.
Agreed.
I completely agree with you(p.s. - I always thought you were a 4 anyway).
People 1-3
Just thinking out loud here - but we both agree, and I'm sure others do that people 1-3 really get our goat (is that phrase allowed???). I think, though, we have to be careful when we say that, and this is what I'm thinking.
It seems to me that some people within the EC have made the sort of comments, that we'd expect from those in the 1-3 camp, about evangelicalism in general. I would argue that (and I can't back this up with stats - its just my perception on what I've read) a number of voices in the EC have made sweeping and untrue statements about Evangelicalism the same way that some have made statements about the EC.
Here's an example - I posted on fallacies regarding evangelicals views of Scripture. Now in some evangelical circles I'd be stoned for that post - in other evangelical circles (as you can guage from the comments) people would be completely at home with my post. My experience is that it is the former group and not the latter that is usually painted in EC literature as being representative of the whole - and so us in the latter group feel badly caricatured, and with good reason: We don't read 'Left Behind' (or play the game), we don't think Prayer of Jabez is the greatest thing since sliced bread, we don't run '40 Days of Purpose' every time our church stops growing, we're normally not dispensational, we do have our eyes on social concerns, we do think of the gospel as more than fire insurance, we do think that the Bible needs to be interpretted with great humilty and not with unchallenged dogmatism etc. etc.
My guess is that most of the no. 4's come from this group and so I just put these thoughts out there to caution that we be fair to all. If we're going to fairly evaluate and converse about the EC we must do the same about Evangelicalism.
But it's *easy* to stereotype others!
Come on, just because I'm asking people to play fair with me doesn't mean I have to play fair with them, right?! Ok, just kidding :) It is easier to take the more weirder views of evangelicals and then say, "All evangelicals believe this and this is what we're reacting against." Just like one of the weaknesses within the pomo stream of emerging is we can say, "Postmodernism is good and modernism is bad." Not true - but at least the hearer understands what the speaker is saying. A more nuanced approach handles the material more honestly, but can be more difficult for the hearer to understand.
On some level, I think this is why there is so much confusion on "What is the emerging church?" because the more nuanced approaches don't do enough to differentiate this new thing, but the clearer approaches can simply polarise - and are so unhelpful.
Brian McLaren does this very well - he asks good questions and helps people think around where their ideas might lead. Which is great, but it's difficult to "peg him down" on specific beliefs, say homosexuality or hell - which frustrates people who want to know what he thinks.
Again, one of the temptations the emerging church can fall into is, "We're good, existing church is bad," which would be an ironic mistake.
Right, those are some random thoughts at 1 in the morning!
Post new comment