The New Christians - Chapter 3: Who are the Emergent Christians
“This is about a complete shift in worldview, about the first major philosophical watershed in four or five centuries.”1
Within this shift, the emergent’s are.
Defying classification, dodging doctrinal statements and some embracing the church others distancing themselves from it. It is in this emergent populace that Tony begins his discourse in trying to give some characteristics of the emerging crowd.
1. Disappointment with modern American Christianity - a response/rebellion to where they have come from, many answer curious questions with, ”Well, I know we’re not like…”
2. Desire for inclusion - lurk in the grey of the “certainties of evangelicalism and the openness of liberalism.”
3. Hope-filled orientation - they embrace a more hopeful eschatology, meaning that they focus on the Kingdom of God on Earth and move towards partnering with God’s work in the world.2
In culture of of culture? Are Emergents influencing the culture around them or are they influenced by the culture. A question that goes back to Paul and his dissertations on being in the world but not of the world.3
Dispatch 6 - Emergents see God’s activity in all aspects of culture and reject the sacred-secular divide.4
Tony’s strongest verbiage on this issue of culture, starts with ignorance; many don’t know what the definition of culture actually is… that “culture” is not some monolithic entity out there that Christians can either resist or acquiesce to…
If life is a messy field full of dirt and weeds and rocks an plants, culture is the chisel plough pulled behind the tractor that fashions the mess into an assemblage of rows so that we can make some sense of it.5
Emergents look for ways in which life intersects with God, a more active and engaging lifestyle, then sitting and waiting for God to interact with their life. Tony then goes on to talk on the ‘envelope of friendship’ that is missing from most theological discussions, and inter-religious debates. A great admonition to many of us who constantly fight the tide of fundamentalism, and want to encourage discussion without the accelerated heart rate of an argument.
Dispatch 7 - Emergents believe that an envelope of friendship and reconciliation must surround all debates about doctrine and dogma. 6
The last portion of the chapter deals with community, individualism, and politics… a topic I will tackle more in-depth later.
______________________
1. TNC, p. 68
2. ibid, p. 70-72
3. Paul in Romans 12:2
4. TNC, p. 71
5. ibid, p. 76
6. ibid, p. 74
10 comments ↓
“Dispatch 7 - Emergents believe that an envelope of friendship and reconciliation must surround all debates about doctrine and dogma.”
Reconciliation? I would enjoy some expounding up for the context of this word. Any chance of this happening? It just popped out at me as I was reading.
I believe what he intends the word, ‘reconciliation’ to mean is that as we talk about doctrine (certain set of beliefs) and dogma (a set of principles passed down as incontrovertible truths)… instead of coming against each other aggressively, we come in friendship, as allies.
For example, in war, two aggressors come together to dominate the other, and the winner gets to write history, set mandates, and treat the dominated as slaves. Tony is saying this is how we have approached doctrinal differences, without any compromise and little empathy.
So, as we begin a new conversation/debate we must come in knowing the past injustices doctrine and dogma has mandated… and we first must reconcile or restore the relationship (make things consistent, fess up to the wrongs, seek forgiveness) and then in this new blight of friendship begin the conversation, again not as aggressors but as friends.
How often do we get a chance to recognize our ‘past injustices’ with out feeling offended? Unless I am mistaken about what you mean, it appears that to become aware of one’s “old doctrinal injustices” would be a large shock to one’s beliefs.
In one way, it seems that the wording implies that forgiveness must be sought for wrongs that are not actually a person’s fault. Does that mean that in order to converse, one side must dump out all of the dirt that they have so that the other party is satisfied enough with their ‘reconciliation’ to proceed with the rest of the conversation?
Another way of interpreting this word, is that the old tradition (doctrine and dogma) of the one has offended the other. So the one must set aside what they hold to be true and play the game without their so called gear.
While I fully agree that conversation should take place in the bounds of friendship, the idea of reconciliation seem s like a I should be like a dog and submissively roll over to accommodate the debate.
“I’m sorry that I believe this, but it is what I believe.” Hardly sounds like it would fit in the context of debate.
Don, did you read “Blue Like Jazz”? If you did do you remember when Donald and some of his friends set up a confessions booth in the middle of the college’s square or U? And instead of taking confessions they confessed all the past injustices that had taken place in guise of the Church…
Reconciliation, in my mind, is not rolling over like a submissive dog to be steamrolled… it is disarming prideful arguments with humility and helping the other, see the topic with new eyes.
And yes, to some seeing the old doctrinal injustices will be a shock, but to many of the disillusioned it may be shocking that we (as christians) actually recognize and try to reconcile these injustices… and that humility may be enough to bring them back in relationship with God. Most people aren’t mad at God, they are mad at ‘bad theology’ of which they ascribe to God… Let’s show others a better (not best) theology that begins and ends in humility and love.
This is an interesting debate. I have discussed the introduction of Tony Jones’ book on my blog in my series on emergent. As I read this, I have many of the same reservations as Don. How are we supposed to come together to a table of brotherhood when we don’t believe the same things? The emergents are saying that we should do things like come together, but their rhetoric has been divisive towards the fundamentalist movement. It is the classic move that, because they are fundamentalist and because fundamentalists are unwavering, they cannot be part of the debate. Thus, because of Jones’ rhetoric, the fundamentalists are put outside the circle because they are not willing to compromise what they believe their interpretation of scripture.
I am not a fundamentalist, but I cannot see how we could ever get them to the table. If we cannot get them to a table to discuss, what are we going to do except create two churches? This seems to be the road that emergents are going: old vs. new church. Those in the past are going to be left behind, and there will be a whiplash of literature (MacArthur’s “Truth War” is only the beginning) that will divide these two groups for years to come.
So I think it is time to decide whether emergents will either stay with the church as they see it or if they are just going to break off and start something new.
Off-topic and in response to your latest comment to me: All in good time! I promise
Hey Sam,
I have a question about the definition of “culture”. I think of culture more as a two way street - both reflecting people and molding them at the same time. It seems that the weaker ones are molded more and the stronger are the ones whom it reflects (this is tenative and a huge generalization).
However, the emergent movement seems to follow culture and modern (meaning current) philosophy rather than the Word. It’s like looking at the Bible through the lens of postmodernism, instead of looking at the world and all it entails through the lens of a biblical worldview.
I know exactly what you’re talking about in the review of chp 2 concerning the particular minestry, but one’s faith cannot be dictated by other people. A church building is still filled with sinful people, and this gives us great joy to look forward to the only perfect Church ever - in heaven.
What are your thoughts?
Ali,
true, the definition of culture is paramount to how we react to the words of Jesus… but we have to remember that all of our known theology was influenced by the culture of the day, namely the enlightenment, and then modernity.
Even Jesus’ teaching reflected a cultural understanding, or influence. So in that sense we must read the Scriptures with different lenses then our own. And in reading we begin to deconstruct (yes, Derrida: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction), or better defined, we begin to look at the text through the cultural lenses of Jesus and his disciples.
The Enlightenment and Modernity brought with it a dualistic theology - secular and sacred… But Jesus did not live in such a realm, he lived life in the grey, life between the ‘righteous’ and the ’sinner’, the clean and the unclean. In doing this he was always moving within culture(s), though not corrupted by them.
Emerging Christians are most definitely following culture, though not in the sense that you espouse. They are trying to take the message of the gospel, which is to love thy neighbor (enemy) as thyself, just as God has loved you and you love God.
When I was getting my Master’s in Youth and Family Ministry, we had a project of cultural exegesis. Which basically was a project in observing a subculture, interviewing the participants, and constructing a plan to show them the Gospel message. In the 60 different papers that our class had to write, there were many different routes to sharing the gospel message of love. In this setting an emerging christian flourishes… looking for ways to integrate faith within the daily lives of non-believers.
Like it or not we live in a Postmodern world… a world vastly different than even 20 years ago. A world that communicates, disseminates, and circulates information in the blink of an eye (a shift in epistemology). In this flat world we cannot be stalwarts clinging on to the particular doctrinal pillars of our local church, rather we must cling on to the words of Christ and his commandments to Love one another, and in doing this we bring the Kingdom of God to the here and now… the perfect church is not something to look forward to, rather it is something to take part in. We are to be a light on a hill, salt to the earth, we are holy and righteously broken. And in this humble state we are to be the body of Christ, the incarnation of his will to the marginalized, the poor, and the fatherless.
[...] that was posed (here) (copied below in its original [...]
Hello Sam ~
I’ll keep this short, because you hit the “hinge upon all else turns”(Luther): the message of the gospel.
You stated that the message of the gospel is “to love thy neighbor (enemy) as thyself, just as God has loved you and you love God.” This (reference to the second great commandment), and the greatest command (to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength) are quoted by Jesus (Matt. 22:37-40) in a Palestinian/Jewish/Greek culture from the Old Testament (much different culture). So I’m just going to conclude that we can throw culture out the window here, because these commandments are for all time.
Jesus continues (in Matthew)that upon these commandments hang all the Law and Prophets. Law and Prophets = Old Testament. Too bad for your argument the Bible doesn’t end there. Or, really a good thing, because what would the conclusion be if what you quoted above were the real gospel?
A: There would be NO salvation. Why?
Not one person in the entire world can keep that commandment. And that’s precisely why Jesus gives this answer to the scribes and pharasees.
The beautiful thing about the real gospel is that God gave us the Law for the purpose of showing us that we can’t possibly keep it. We can’t possibly earn our way to Him.
The logical conclusion is that we are sinners, deserving hell, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were DEAD in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” (Eph.2:4-5).
If you don’t understand the reason for the Law - to expose our need for a Savior - and the Truth of the Gospel - God’s provision as Savior, then there’s no way anything else could possibly make sense, theologically, because this is the heart of it all.
Please dwell on this, and contemplate how the Really good news changes the way one sees Truth, culture, and everything else in the world.
Leave a Comment