I am a blogger. What exactly does that mean? It means I’m a semi-intelligent, computer savvy, and opinionated. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have anything to say. So, let’s toss more into the mix. I’m a Christian blogger. Uh oh. Now, I’m a semi-intelligent, opinionated blogger who, by his very nature, is supposed to be humble.
Doh.
Can one actually be a blogger and be humble? Isn’t part of blogging to toot one’s own horn? **SIGH**
Many of you know that I have claimed to be Emergent in thought and theology. I still claim that. However, I remain humble and realize that my theology is growing, changing, and until I have an opportunity to really work things through, balancing against Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason, I can honestly, sincerely, truthfully be completely and utterly wrong.
But, I don’t think I am.
Emergent is a conversation. Yeah, yeah, yeah…stop that. Well, it is. It’s honest, sincere Christians from all walks of life, and all different communities of Christian faith coming together to talk about what it means to live in the way of Christ. I am proud to say that I have friends who are Catholic, although we disagree on many things. I have many friends who are Episcopalian, although we disagree on many things. I have many friends who are Lutheran, although we disagree on many things. I have many friends who are Baptist, although we disagree on many things. Guess what, if asked, we’d all say that we are emergent. We are a community of people with common interests.
As a part of this worldwide conversation around the Bible and Christian thought, I have to say that there are “voices” in the conversation that I really, really disagree with, and there are others with whom I am greatly intrigued, and would even go so far as to say that I agree with them. So, guess what, it’s okay for me to be a part of this conversation and disagree with others. SHOCKING, isn’t it? Now, are you ready for this next part? I’m not going to tell you who I disagree with!!!! HA!!! Take that!!! It’s up to YOU to talk to me, read what I write, and figure that out for yourself. If you want a vitriolic manifesto of Christian leaders, writers, and philosophies, I can point you to other sites. You won’t get that here.
Many of the critics of the emergent movement and emergent thought fit solidly into that vitriolic bunch that I mentioned previously. In fact, it is rare to find objectivity in the critiques.
Enough prea
mble? This brings me to the book, “Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be)”, the new book by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. These two gentlemen have written an honest and sincere critique of Emergent. And, based on my previous comments, one can be honestly, sincerely, truthfully and utterly wrong. DeYoung and Kluck are not “utterly” wrong, but I will say that I disagree with a handful of their precepts, notions and conclusions.
First and foremost, I disagree with their claim that “Defining the Emergent church is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.” Jell-O is best applied with double sided tape. (Please tell me that made you at least chuckle. I need to know that people have read this far.) Brad Cecil wrote comments on his blog addressing exactly this point….
Numbers 6, 7 and 8 are questionable in my book. I dislike terms like “enslaved”, and a forced push for Reformation, followed by “New” theological thought. However, I do believe that reformation is happening, theology is changing by embracing pre-enlightenment ideas, and that the modern assumptions are being properly framed. So, I can denounce what he’s saying out of one side of my mouth, and partially agree to it from the other side.
That, my friends, is the sound of Jell-O being nailed to a wall. HA HA HA HA.
DeYoung and Kluck do start out their book by explaining that they recognize the sincerity of those that they say are “leaders” of the Emergent movement, and that not all of their theology is bad. The things they want to point out in the book are the things in those peoples’ writings to which DeYoung and Kluck have great concerns. This is where their objectivity impresses me. Instead of turning vitriolic and developing “Christian Tourette’s Syndrome”, shouting out theological ideas, or negative statements about people in the Christian community with whom they disagree, they actually say, “We love Jesus and love the church. We believe emergent Christians love the same. The shape and substance of that love is what we disagree on.” EXCELLENT!!!! Kudos to the authors. Guys, you get it. Welcome to the emergent conversation.
Doh! Sorry, you said you aren’t emergent, yet you’ve openly allowed yourself into conversation with some who you describe as leaders in the Emergent church. (See Dan Kimball’s blog on his review of the book…here.)
One of the most important statements that the authors make is, “One of the hazards of being part of a movement whose only statement of faith says that you don’t believe in statements of faith is that you are bound to be misread and lumped together with some ideas you don’t like.” This statement is a key to what they “don’t get” about emergent. I know NO ONE in the emergent conversation who eschews statements of faith. The Lutherans claim statements of faith. The Baptists, by their very nature, claim statements of faith. I, while growing up Nazarene, but not really claiming all of Nazarene faith, still cling very much to statements of faith. The authors do get it right, though, that we are all lumped in with ideas and people with whom we disagree.
Question: Have you ever read a movie review that was just scathing against a film, then you saw the film and you thought it was incredible? Have you ever read a movie review that was lauding a film with all sorts of accolades, then saw the movie and thought, “What were they thinking?” So, you saw the movie. Uh oh….who are you associated with? The people who liked the movie? The people who disliked it? If you say you disliked it, what happens to the people who liked it? Sorry, just a gestalt – a thought problem. Think about it.
Next post, a continuation of the review, and “The Knowability of God”.
Doh.
Can one actually be a blogger and be humble? Isn’t part of blogging to toot one’s own horn? **SIGH**
Many of you know that I have claimed to be Emergent in thought and theology. I still claim that. However, I remain humble and realize that my theology is growing, changing, and until I have an opportunity to really work things through, balancing against Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason, I can honestly, sincerely, truthfully be completely and utterly wrong.
But, I don’t think I am.
Emergent is a conversation. Yeah, yeah, yeah…stop that. Well, it is. It’s honest, sincere Christians from all walks of life, and all different communities of Christian faith coming together to talk about what it means to live in the way of Christ. I am proud to say that I have friends who are Catholic, although we disagree on many things. I have many friends who are Episcopalian, although we disagree on many things. I have many friends who are Lutheran, although we disagree on many things. I have many friends who are Baptist, although we disagree on many things. Guess what, if asked, we’d all say that we are emergent. We are a community of people with common interests.
As a part of this worldwide conversation around the Bible and Christian thought, I have to say that there are “voices” in the conversation that I really, really disagree with, and there are others with whom I am greatly intrigued, and would even go so far as to say that I agree with them. So, guess what, it’s okay for me to be a part of this conversation and disagree with others. SHOCKING, isn’t it? Now, are you ready for this next part? I’m not going to tell you who I disagree with!!!! HA!!! Take that!!! It’s up to YOU to talk to me, read what I write, and figure that out for yourself. If you want a vitriolic manifesto of Christian leaders, writers, and philosophies, I can point you to other sites. You won’t get that here.
Many of the critics of the emergent movement and emergent thought fit solidly into that vitriolic bunch that I mentioned previously. In fact, it is rare to find objectivity in the critiques.
Enough prea
mble? This brings me to the book, “Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be)”, the new book by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. These two gentlemen have written an honest and sincere critique of Emergent. And, based on my previous comments, one can be honestly, sincerely, truthfully and utterly wrong. DeYoung and Kluck are not “utterly” wrong, but I will say that I disagree with a handful of their precepts, notions and conclusions.First and foremost, I disagree with their claim that “Defining the Emergent church is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.” Jell-O is best applied with double sided tape. (Please tell me that made you at least chuckle. I need to know that people have read this far.) Brad Cecil wrote comments on his blog addressing exactly this point….
I hear comments like: Defining emergent is like “nailing Jell-O to the wall” and “postmodernism means a hundred different things”, I disagree - it isn’t all that hard to describe if you are listening
and reading. Here are the simple basic ideas of what fueled the emergent conversation and friendships:
1. Post modern refers to the period after
modernity. It appears to “us” that a significant epistemological shift is
occurring - the likes of which we haven’t seen in 400 years.
2. Language is limited
3. Human concepts are limited
4. There is no place of irreducible certainty (foundation)
5. Considering the above it would be very difficult to convey absolute meaning using language and human concepts
6. Christian theology has become enslaved to the 1st order assumptions of modernity and is far more Cartesian than Christian and has become ashamed of faith
7. A Reformation of recognition and repentance is needed
8. New theological thought is needed to free Christian theology from the enslavement of modernity and enlightenment assumptions and conversation and friendships would be more productive than
developing imperatives.
9. This is just the beginning of the transition and a great deal of work and theological thought lay ahead for those who desire to join the conversation
Numbers 6, 7 and 8 are questionable in my book. I dislike terms like “enslaved”, and a forced push for Reformation, followed by “New” theological thought. However, I do believe that reformation is happening, theology is changing by embracing pre-enlightenment ideas, and that the modern assumptions are being properly framed. So, I can denounce what he’s saying out of one side of my mouth, and partially agree to it from the other side.
That, my friends, is the sound of Jell-O being nailed to a wall. HA HA HA HA.
DeYoung and Kluck do start out their book by explaining that they recognize the sincerity of those that they say are “leaders” of the Emergent movement, and that not all of their theology is bad. The things they want to point out in the book are the things in those peoples’ writings to which DeYoung and Kluck have great concerns. This is where their objectivity impresses me. Instead of turning vitriolic and developing “Christian Tourette’s Syndrome”, shouting out theological ideas, or negative statements about people in the Christian community with whom they disagree, they actually say, “We love Jesus and love the church. We believe emergent Christians love the same. The shape and substance of that love is what we disagree on.” EXCELLENT!!!! Kudos to the authors. Guys, you get it. Welcome to the emergent conversation.
Doh! Sorry, you said you aren’t emergent, yet you’ve openly allowed yourself into conversation with some who you describe as leaders in the Emergent church. (See Dan Kimball’s blog on his review of the book…here.)
One of the most important statements that the authors make is, “One of the hazards of being part of a movement whose only statement of faith says that you don’t believe in statements of faith is that you are bound to be misread and lumped together with some ideas you don’t like.” This statement is a key to what they “don’t get” about emergent. I know NO ONE in the emergent conversation who eschews statements of faith. The Lutherans claim statements of faith. The Baptists, by their very nature, claim statements of faith. I, while growing up Nazarene, but not really claiming all of Nazarene faith, still cling very much to statements of faith. The authors do get it right, though, that we are all lumped in with ideas and people with whom we disagree.
Question: Have you ever read a movie review that was just scathing against a film, then you saw the film and you thought it was incredible? Have you ever read a movie review that was lauding a film with all sorts of accolades, then saw the movie and thought, “What were they thinking?” So, you saw the movie. Uh oh….who are you associated with? The people who liked the movie? The people who disliked it? If you say you disliked it, what happens to the people who liked it? Sorry, just a gestalt – a thought problem. Think about it.
Next post, a continuation of the review, and “The Knowability of God”.
8 comments:
I just thought I should let you know that reading that it takes double sided tape to attach jell-o to the wall did make me smile.
Peace,
James
Thanks for that, James. I'll be writing up the next post tonight.
I would have posted yesterday, but I was cleaning my gutters....what a nasty, nasty job.
Brad
So if I don't believe in statements of faith (for me) does that make me unemergent? ;-) Or does that just shatter your math?
I simply don't like to be overly specific about my faith, because as soon as I do someone disagrees with me and then I have to defend it.
Conversation is all we require...all we want...and through that relationship and through that commitment and through that a change. There is such a disconnect with me, in what I was taught in Sunday School (not by my dad! Very emergent before it was "cool") and what I hear and read and interpret in the Gospel texts.
A friend once told me "did you know that often times, after church when everyone was deciding where to eat lunch, we'd go home and have one can of tuna fish to share between the four of us?" WHERE did I go wrong? It was from this conversation that I knew I had to change and where I went to church had to change. This is one story..a catalyst if you will...to ask different questions, wonder about different things...and hope for a life/church that matches what I read in the Gospel.
Thanks Brad - very timely and very humorous.
Well, just great....just great. Erin, you completely destroyed my math. Now, I don't know what to believe.
If anyone says that Jesus was the Messiah, they have made a statement of faith. If anyone says Jesus was the son of God, they have made a statement of faith.
What gets tricky is when I disagree with someone else's statement of faith.....like, "The only evidence of infilling of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues"....so, if you have faith at all, you must have some way of defining it. Statements of faith can be touchy at best.
Now, I do, absolutely, understand not wanting to put up a wall that you have to defend. I get tired of that as well.
OK Brad, I get you there about the statement "Jesus was the son of God", I guess I was thinking more like a creed or doctrinal statement. So yeah, I have one or two...but I try to keep it simple.
Rock on, Erin!!! You nailed it. "I try to keep it simple." This is one of the things I appreciate about you. You help me keep my thinking grounded!!!! (Between you and Pam, ha!!!)
I look at many of the "creeds"....and some of the things I haven't accepted yet. Oh, that doesn't mean they aren't true. (The whole scholarly debate over the "he descended into Hell" discussion) It just means that I haven't added that to a hard core statement of my own faith, as it seems like a secondary faith issue.
And herein lies a major concern with emergent thought. Emergents, it would seem, pick and choose from a laundry list of statements of faith like it's some menu in a Chinese restaurant. (I've actually heard people use this argument. I think that the Holy Spirit works on us...leads us...teaches us...and someday we may eat from the whole menu, or go to a different restaurant. Or, and here's where Emergent comes in....the menu may change because we made mistakes with the ingredients!!!
How's that for an analogy?
Wellll, I don't know. Are you saying emergents do choose from a menu or that they are accused of that, but don't? Do you think it's wrong to choose from a "menu"? And do we have to choose a statments(s) then hold hard and fast to them, rather than "shopping around"?
Because I do know that my beliefs do change as I mature. That's partly why I keep it simple. Because there's only one belief I hold to that is guaranteed not to change, all other things are subject to ongoing growth.
I like to say "Jesus was (is) who he says he was (is)", and that's about the size of it.
I'm actually NOT emergent. I don't claim the label nor particularly identify with it, except that I think questioning is permissible and beneficial...so on that level, yeah. But I'm not looking to defend the label, just wanting to better understand what you mean.
Post a Comment