Another Voice
It's been three days since April Fools and I still fell for the scam. Unfortunately, this scam is all too rooted in reality. The scam being perpetrated was that a group had been commissioned to write a new addition to the historical statement of the manual which would recognize the place of the emergent movement in the Church of the Nazarene. The bigger scam, however, is the emergent movement itself. To be clear, I do not think that those who align themselves are con-artists, in fact I think most of them are good people with good intentions, namely bringing the gospel to the world. However, I think they are blind to their own deception. In their evangelical fervor to spread the gospel they have exchanged, or rather disposed of, the radical claims of the Christian faith and instead supplemented them with a seeker-sensitivity that is embarrassed of it's own history and void of any truth. In their fervor they have forgotten that it is the role of the church to be the church and to tell the world that it is the world. Without going into a long diatribe, I say all this to say that the "emergence", to borrow the term, of the emergent movement in the Church of the Nazarene is my "line in the sand". I have long been a critic in the shadows, like I'm sure many of us are on any number of issues, but I think the time has come for a "call to arms." For too long the conversation has been between a "traditional" church who, rightfully so, is wary and skeptical, but apparently either not concerned enough, or in the case of many lay people, lacking the ability to articulate their fears and doubts, and the emergent movement who see themselves as the only alternative, or solution, to whatever problems the church may (or may not) be facing. I propose the "emergence" of another voice, one which celebrates the tradition of the church which has been passed down through the blood of martyrs, which rejects the accommodation of the world, and which exposes the ontotheological grounding and nihilistic end of the emergent movement. As members of the Nazarene church, in particular, we have heeded a call to a distinct way of life, one which cannot be forsaken, or "re-narrated", because it makes outsiders, or even insiders, uncomfortable. The emergence of the emergent movement and it's re-narration and relativising of the church can only lead to one place: the death of the faith. I do not know what form all of this would take, however, I think the easy place to start would be here. I think that the legacy of those who have come before us in the faith calls us to be a voice of truth and the future of the church depends upon it. For those of you who adhere to this movement, and are living and loving this 'realm of relativism', please help me to understand if I am wrong in my assertions. Invite me, invite us, into the 'conversation' and 'come let us reason it out.' If we are all in this together we need all voices heard. Grace and peace.
Zack
Zack
posted by Zack | 6:01 PM
16 Comments:
That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with there.
"Without going into a long diatribe" - Too late!
Zack,
I want to say first that I have my feet in three different areas that I think qualify me to respond to your criticisms.
One, I've grown up in the Nazarene church, at least as far as my faith life is concerned. I started attending when I was about 11, then returned to the church in my teenage years. I went to a Nazarene school for a Christian education degree, married a nazarene pastor's daughter and am still in the nazarene church where my wife is a pastor.
Two, I've been involved in a few communities of faith who, though they wouldnt label themselves this way, were emergent.
Three, I'm finishing my master's work right now and have taken a lot of time researching various faith movements, including the emergent movement.
I want to respond first to the claim that emergent groups are "seeker-sensitive" and "disposing radical claims of christian faith." In both my experience and research of emergent groups, these two claims you list are the biggest critiques of the emergent movement of the traditional church. Emergent theology is based heavily on the idea that the church has lost much of its traditional and and first century emphasis on the most difficult teachings of Jesus: simplicity, nonviolence, concern for others and the world, etc. Many emergent members come from churches whose only emphasis was on personal morality, and in the case of former nazarenes, the emphasis was almost universally on sexual morality, abstention from alcohol and conserative political values. Emergent theology seeks to look beyind these individualistic issues and into the larger world of social concern. In addition, the idea that the emergent movement is seeker sensitive seems to find no base in either experience or research. I would be interested to hear how you came to this conclusion. Evangelism as it has come to be known in the evangelical church in america is almost universally eschewed by emergent groups. there is little proselytizing in the manner we are used to. Rather, emergent groups see their witness and evangelism as something that occurs because of the manner in which they live. Certainly there continues to be the spreading of the gospel through conversation, etc. but to say that this group is seeker sensitive is way off. Of all the emergent groups I have been in contact with, or been a part of, none has had more than a few dozen members after several years of existence as a faith community. This in my mind is different than mega churches appropriating emergent theology and teachers, again for the sake of accruing members, which I believe is probably your experience.
I do agree with you that there is a growing condescension and arrogance among those in the emergent church. Much of what occurs actually reminds me of the verse "and they will gather to themselves teachers who will tell their itching ears what they want to hear." While I wouldnt agree that most emergent groups see themselves as the only solution to traditional church problems, I think it would be safe to say they feel they are the best solution and the most authentically Christian one. I, having maintained my ties to the nazarene church (and am in a pretty conservative church in the midwest), see the dangers in jumping wholesale into ANY form of faith as THE form. That should include the structures we call traditional.
"one which celebrates the tradition of the church which has been passed down through the blood of martyrs, which rejects the accommodation of the world, and which exposes the ontotheological grounding and nihilistic end of the emergent movement."
Again here you are saying the emergent church derides tradition when it is exactly the tradition of the church fathers and martyrs that the emergent church is trying to polish and use as an example for Christian living. The second portion of this quote leaves me puzzled since I don't know where you would even come up with such ideas about emergent theology other than berating conversations about their nature. Specifically, where do you get the notion that they have a nihilistic understanding of "the end," whatever you mean by that.
I think you are wrong in your assertions, as you asked. The emergent church, while it has many flaws as does every form of ecclesiology, does not exhibit most of the characteristics with which you labeled it. I wouldnt mind at all if you were uncomfortable with the movement, I myself am. But I believe the criticisms I have are based on my experience of that group (and continuing experience of it) and my research, not simply on what I have heard about them and the books I have read designed to tear it down.
If you believe the assertions you have made, it would be helpful to the conversation to discuss where they come from and how you have come to believe them as true...
Brandon,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. While, obviously we don't agree on everything I really appreciate your comments, especially since you are doing work in the field.
To answer your question of where I am coming from it is from own experience in churches that I have worked at or attended, supplemented by a few "emergent" speakers that I have had the chance to hear speak and some reading I have had the chance to do. Althouth I will confess that I have not had the time to read as much as I want to as I am also in the middle of a master's program.
In particular, the church that I am currently serving at is a United Methodist church. We have 2 VERY distinct services led by 2 VERY different pastors. One is a traditional high church service and the other is a contemporary emergent service. Believe it or not I actually attend the emergent service.
My associate pastor who leads the "contemporary" service is very much into Dan Kimball and emergent worship. We do some great things like serve the Eucharist every Sunday and we do some odd things like serve hot chocolate after communion during the Christmas season. Just to be clear even though I think some things we do during our service are odd, or maybe even inappropriate, I think my associate pastor has a wonderful heart for people.
That said, my frustration stems from what I see as a flawed approach, or basis to our service. Everything we do is intentionally designed to make the outsider feel comfortable. Perhaps you could argue that this is because we are a mid-size church that sits next door to a mega-church, but it has been my experience that it has more to do with a philosophy than competition. I see this same accomodation in the mentality "they love Jesus but they hate the church." While I certainly understand where that comes from, and I agree that as a church we should constantly be examining and reexaming ourselves, I have a problem when 1)you begin by seperating Jesus from the church, which I think that montra clearly does, even if it is unintentional and 2)we construct, or reformat our churches because of coffee shop conversations with outsiders over their idealized form of Jesus. Or take the other line "Everything must change". I think, hope, this is hyperbole, but to the average person who is already frustrated with the church, those whom I have encountered have taken this as a free license to literally change everything, which I find neither approriate or necessary. With the claims we make about incarnation, virgin birth and resurrection I don't think there should even be a time when the "insiders" feel completely comfortable with the claims we make.
One thing I do like about the emergent movement is their interest in the church fathers. My problem is what you called the "polish" that they seem to give to church tradition. This stems from a basic issue I have with the movement and with non-denominational churches in particular, although I do acknowledge that they are not always one and the same. Who gave them the authority to do this? Even though I currently serve in the Methodist church I have my district license in the Church of the Nazarene. When I go to be ordained men will lay hands on me and give me the authority to preach the gospel and lead the church. They have had men lay hands on them and so on and so on all the way back to Christ commissioning his disciples. So who gave these people the authority to re-narrate or polish church tradition, let alone start their own churches?
As to the nihilistic remark, it is the path that I think much of the emergent movement I have come in contact with will end up because of their refusal to acknowledge the radical claim of the Christian faith, namely that Jesus Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life" and that "no one comes to the Father except through Him." I realize that in this wonderful post-modern age we want to me as "pc" as possible and we have decided that the meta-narrative is dead, but universal truth is exactly the claim that Christianity makes. I had a similar conversation with Nazarene pastor friend of mine, who after reading "Generous Orthodoxy", just came out and said "I'm not going to say that we're right and everybody else is wrong." Salvifically speaking, that is exactly what the Christian faith claims. I speak of a nihilistic end because if we begin to accomodate for other faiths and other traditions, then we will end up in a place where we accomodate, or believe everything and therefore nothing.
I hope this helps to clarify my position a bit more, although I know I've only skimmed the surface and probably left plenty of more questions.
Good post Zack, I am glad to see another point of view up on a blog, which has been typically seen as the emergent sphere of conversation since its inception, or beginning, or, well, those who would call themselves emerging would not claim a beginning, middle, or an end, it is just a conversation. Another point of view can and should spark a wider 'conversation', one that involves all groups of people. I am a part of all groups, so I have decided to put in a word or two for the mainline churches, as they have been labeled.
One observation that I have seen as I have been reading, listening to podcasts, and talking to others is the fact that this 'emerging conversation', is just that, a conversation that has no beginning and no end. Now, I am all for renewal and reviving of the Church, but when the renewing and reviving has no certain purpose or goal or direction, things get a little fuzzy. Walking through the fog does not always lead to a good thing, in some cases it can lead you to a good place, but in other cases it can lead you right off a cliff.
The point I would like to make is a lesson that we can learn from history. Emerging movements are not a new thing. There have been many groups of people within the Christian Church who attempted to revive and renew the people with what may have been weird, different, or confusing methods. Anyone remember a little thing called the Reformation? But that is not the story I wish to present. The story I wish to present for our remembrance is the story of monasticism.
There were two types of monasticism that 'emerged' (pun intended) in the formative years of Christianity. One group thought that to get closer to God, you had to be alone and deny yourself of things, ie, food, clothes, warmth. So they went into the desert and lived in caves. When this happened, people began to talk about the ascetics and they wanted to learn about their 'holiness', so they went to visit them. But this defeated the purpose of ascetic monasticism, no longer could the holy ones be alone for people were interested in them, and they went to talk to them and learn from them. Desert monasticism ultimately was rejected.
The second group became known as communal monastics. These were people who wanted to be alone with God, but do it with other people in a community. All over modern day Turkey, France, Italy, and other places in Europe, these groups began to form and gather in certain places. They began to live together. But it was not a pretty sight, once people live together without a purpose or a goal or a means to that goal, chaos ensues. As a result, many of these groups disbanded because they couldn't work together.
But we have monks and monasteries today, so how did they survive? Simple answer: Benedict of Nursia. Benedict observed these monks in chaos and was one of them himself. He asserted that the only way these people could live together would be if they had order, purpose, and, dare I say, rules. From him, we have the Rule of St. Benedict, the primer for all Monastic Orders. Once and order was in place and followed, the monasteries flourished and many still exist today.
My point is this: The monks were an emerging movement within the Church. They were passionate about following the ways of Christ, but they did not know how to go about doing it. They tried to go to the desert to be alone, but that didn't work, then they tried to live together, but that only led to chaos. They were talking about how to be a monk, and trying different ways of being monks, but it was not until someone came up with an order, a goal, a Rule, that the monks began to be successful.
Emerging movements can be good, reform can be good, but until someone makes a claim, a solid, formative, unapologetic claim, then we will only be left in the fog, and ultimately, we will have chaos, or separation. This is the reason for Confessions, this is the reason for Rules and Order. Without them we are only talking and walking in the fog. The Church of the Nazarene has made a confession, we have a rule, and we have order. For this reason, we have existed as a church for 100 years. Granted, our order may not be the best, and our ways and rules may need reform, but our confession is unapologetic: We preach Christ crucified and holy living through the work of the Spirit.
I am not saying that the Emerging Conversation is bad, and I am not saying that it is what the Church needs, either. All I am saying is that emergence can only last so long. A conversation can be great, but an on-going conversation that lasts years and years with no results is drudgery. All I ask is that those who are a part of the mainline churches, ours included, please remember who you are, and please push for renewal and reform, but not rejection. Read all you can, learn all you can, but do not deny who you are.
Peace to All,
Joseph
I'll just ditto Brandon's observations. I don't know if I or the church I pastor count as "emergent" (I don't use that label), and I don't spend a lot of time on those websites, but I've read several of Brian McLaren's books, and a smattering of others, etc.
I haven't seen emergent folks deny Christ or deny that he's the way/truth/life. Their frameworks & approaches may be different, which has caused many folks to feel uncomfortable with what they're saying, but when it boils down, they seem to take Scripture very seriously, including the parts about Jesus. :)
Re: "Who gave them the right?"... (1) The Church of the Nazarene doesn't claim an unbroken line going back to the apostles. (2) But what if these emergent folks were ordained as part of an unbroken line? Then do they have a right to reform the churches they pastor, in your opinion? I don't see why not.
Hey Rich,
Thanks for joining the conversation. I just have time for a quick response, but as to the "framework" issue, although the emergent movement/conversation/etc. doesn't seem to think that is a big deal, it is of monumental consequence. When you lose a point of reference you have nothing to speak about. It is our ideas that shape our lives, and the framework that shapes those ideas,it makes an INCREDIBLE difference whether or not doctrines such as the trinity and the incarnation define our framework, without them (and others) we are simply not Chrisitan. For example, a person who "just believes in Jesus" is going to live a different life than one who worships a triune God. Also, to echo joseph, there has to be an edge, a limit to that framework or else you end up with universalism, or nihilism. Furthermore, the framework we have had for the past 2000 years has seemed to hold up to countless other philosophical or cultural movements, so I find it profoundly difficult to believe that "everything must change." To quote N.T. Wright - "You don't respond to postmodernism with more postmodernism".
In regards to the authority issue, obviously the Nazarene church doesn't claim an unbroken line, however we do claim an unbroken story, whereas the emergent movement has decided to write it's own. And "in my opinion", no, local pastors do not have the authority to make the type of reforms in the local church that the emergent movement is calling for. It is neither their job, nor their responsibility to make theological or structural changes in the local church that are contrary to the greater denomination. This is why the church has had the wonderful tradition of church councils. We make decisions together, not as individuals. That approach to reform only results with church's breaking apart/away.
Zack,
Funny that you quote N.T. Wright, as he seems to be a favorite among emergent folks. Obviously, it's a diverse group. I don't know the folks you're responding to, but I don't recognize them from your description.
I used "framework" in kind of generic way... sorry about that. Yes, frameworks are a big deal. Which is why I love the way some emergent folks are trying to get back to Scripture and the frameworks of the people who originally wrote & read them. For hundreds of years, we've read these same words of Scripture, but through a modern lens/filter/framework. Seems to me one of the positive things coming out of the emergent movement is a recognition of this and a willingness to really looks for what Scripture is saying (over and against what we've made it say by reading it the way we have). I hope I'm making sense. Seminary was a good 10 years ago for me, so I'm a bit rusty. :)
If it seemed like I was minimizing the "different framework" thing... perhaps I was. It's more important to me that we're committed to Scripture & to understanding it on its own terms. So if someone differs from me on some point, but can demonstrate that it's flows from their commitment to the Scriptures, not from a lack of such a commitment, then I'm satisfied.
So the "edge" in emergent thinking seems to be Scripture itself, from my limited observations. But you've seen something different....?
Just a few observations to add to this roundtable:
1. I seriously have no idea what "the ontotheological grounding and nihilistic end of the emergent movement" might refer to - and I have read an immense amount of literature on postmodernity and postmodern theology (not to too my own horn). I understand what all these words and phrases mean, but I am befuddled as to why they are strung together in this fashion. It seems to me that if the accusation of "nihilism" validly applies to emergent, then there is no way an "ontotheological grounding" could be exposed, as nihilism is without ground, and is certainly antithetical to ontotheology. Tossing out terms like these and then quoting N.T. Wright and plagiarizing Stanley Hauerwas (e.g. "it is the role of the church to be the church and to tell the world that it is the world") does not increase the credibility of Zack’s statement.
2. Scott accuses Zack of painting in broad strokes, and I think Scott is absolutely right - it seems to me that any attempt to characterize the entire emergent movement as X, Y or Z doesn't really understand what emergent is in the first instance - hence the fact that they seem to prefer the language of "conversation" to "movement" - because it is anything but a monolithic or programmatic ideal!
3. Perhaps Brandon is right that a useful distinction needs to be drawn between, on the one hand, evangelical churches who still buy into the mega-church/seeker-sensitive/church-growth paradigm adopting emergent ideas/methods/styles to attract newcomers, and on the other hand the kinds of authentic, "less-is-more" quasi-monastic communities that Brandon describes and with which he has experience. The first is just the next in an endless line (side note: you want to talk about nihilism - this is a picture of Nietzsche's "eternal recurrence"!) of programs designed to draw people into evangelical churches who cannot be content unless they’re charting numerical and financial growth. The second is a rejection of that whole ideology, preferring instead to invest in a small community of committed disciples who are willing to at least attempt to live out the kind of example Jesus has set for us. So yeah, in sum, it seems to me like Zack's diagnosis points toward the first, which I agree is problematic; but is at best misdirected if it's directed toward absolutely everything that might be labeled as or associated with "emergent." I have my criticisms of the movement as well - which, to my constant amusement, is what my emergent friends claim qualifies me as "one of them" - but this "call to arms" scares me more than anything they seem to be about.
4. Brandon refers to "Emergent theology" at one point...really? I mean, REALLY? I'd like to take your word for it, but up until now I was convinced that this was kind of an oxymoron. But no, seriously - I know what you mean, and by no means do I disagree with your characterization of the shift from individual moral issues to social concern. I just always giggle when somebody tries to talk about “Emergent Theology” (in caps) like such a thing even exists.
5. I genuinely don't understand people who turn "Jesus is the Way, Truth and Life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him" into "We're right and everybody else is wrong." These phrases are not, it seems to me, synonymous; nor, I believe, is Jesus claim to this end mutually exclusive to a certain kind of mild agnosticism when it comes to religious pluralism. I guess this is coming from the sense that I too believe this about Jesus, but that I too would never want to find myself saying "We're right and everybody else is wrong." I don't see any value in saying this. I'd much rather simply find myself saying, "Jesus is the Way to God, the Truth of God, the Life in God." Isn't that what Christians are called to proclaim? I never find Jesus saying, "I'm right - all you other suckers are wrong."
6. Zack responds to Rich at one point with "it is our ideas that shape our lives, and the framework that shapes those ideas... (etc)" This exemplifies one reason I’d rather be labeled a postmodernist than a modernist. Go re-read (or read more) Hauerwas - you'll find him to say quite the opposite: our lives shape our ideas - our praxis (worship/leitourgia/life-together) shapes our theoria (belief/faith/ideas). Incidentally, it is from this conviction that his whole "liturgy as ethics" project arises.
7. How can one speak of a framework that has lasted for 2000, as though it has always stood impervious to the influences of (secular) cultures and philosophies? Our Christian "framework" has been in a perpetual state of evolution since the beginning, and has always not only responded to but even appropriated aspects of secular culture and philosophy, from the Fathers to Aquinas to Kant to the Wesleys to postmodernity. Have certain creedal statements remained in tact and guided this evolution? Absolutely. Should we feel we can dispense with those things? Absolutely not. When we do - you nailed it - we cease to be distinctively Christian. However, let us not swing to far the other way in branding as heretics all who wish to test and question these claims. But like Brandon, I do not see emergent communities seeking to "write their own story" - I witness them actively striving to confront Christianity with the radicality of its own (forgotten story) and reinvigorate that story for a generation that couldn't care less.
Peace to you all.
oops - I misplaced a parenthesis. That last line should read "...it's own (forgotten) story..."
So obviously I am more than a little bit late responding, but I have been out of town.
Just a couple of observations. I say that the emergent conversation, movement, etc. has ontotheological groundings because it is allowing the culture, or "life" as it were, to define it's theology. I think this is clearly this case with lines like "they love jesus but they hate the church" and the refusal of the term "emergent theology" as some sort of oxymoron. If the emergent [whatever] isn't theology, then 1)their primary concern is with the culture, or "life" and therefore onto-theological, and 2) why in that case are "they" even bothering to have a conversation with the church?
As to the nihilistic endings, I think that the sort of accomodation that many of "them" in the emergent "whatever" seem to espouse only leads to universalism, and by beliving in everything you believe in nothing, nihilism. Furthermore, ontotheology and nihilism are not contradictory terms. (See Scotus, Ockham, Hegel, Heidegger, Cunningham, etc.) The attempt of nihilism is to posit something as nothing, or in other words it is the attempt to have being be nothing. So, no they are not "antithetical".
Brannon, you also pointed out the biggest issue I, and others, have with emergent ____________. You said 'I too would never want to find myself saying "We're right and everybody else is wrong."' Well, aesthetics aside (although I would probably agree with Milbank here that even in that arena we really don't have anything to learn), salvifically speaking, that is exactly the claim of christianity. (of any major religion really, can you even imagine someone of the muslim faith arguing 'many paths to god'?)
You also said "Jesus is the Way to God, the Truth of God, the Life in God." Isn't that what Christians are called to proclaim?" Well, no, it's not. That is a revision of the message we are called to proclaim. Again, this is one of my biggest issues with the emergent ___________. The "details" matter a great deal. I like Rob Bell, but his revision of the virgin birth with the whole "dad named Larry" idea is the most ridiculous, and non-christian thing I have heard in a long time. 'I never find Jesus saying, "I'm right - all you other suckers are wrong."'I sincerely don't mean this sarcastically, because I am very curious, but what do you do with the narrow/wide gate, or even further in John, only one gate, language Jesus uses? Why bother with incarnation with all of its particulars, crucifixion, and resurrection, if it doesn't really matter how or what God you worship?
If emergent __________ is not comfortable with the basic claim of chrisitanity as the sole source of salvation why bother being Christian? (since apparently it doesn't really matter anyway)
Finally, "plagiarizing Stanley Hauerwas", in your words "I mean, really"? I wasn't aware that we needed to footnote our sources. I'll make sure to use proper Turabian format next time. (ok i'm kidding. I'm sorry, but i just couldn't resist the temptation of sarcasm. It certainly wasn't my intention to respresent Hauerwas as my own thoughts, i just assumed we were all familiar with that line, so you have my apologies...but if reading and using someone else's argument doesn't "increase crediblity" to one's own argument then why bother ever reading a book or taking a class?)
Grace and peace
Zack,
I have been following along this thread for the past week and have enjoyed the conversation. I certainly agree with the comments concerning your original post that you are painting a picture of the emergent church with a pretty broad brush along with some misconceptions; like confusing the emergent church with being “seeker sensitive”. I certainly do not think the emergent church conversation is beyond criticism, but I think there is more legitimate criticism beyond such stereotypes.
I don’t think that it is allowing the “culture, or "life" as it were, to define its theology” any more so than any other expression of theology that emerged from the particular wrestling in a cultural context. We can see this even in the book of Acts as the church wrestled with what it meant to follow Jesus in the cultural context of the gentiles. If anything the emergent church has become aware of how in many ways the cultural context of western modernity has corrupted the gospel; I think then the real caution is whether post modern Christians will be as self aware of the potential for post modernity to corrupt the gospel as they have been about the modernity that they emerged from.
I think over all most people in the emergent church see culture as what we are to be incarnational in. This idea comes from strong missional and Christ centered theology and hardly throws out foundational Christian beliefs. I will admit that navigating incarnational living is not necessarily easy to do as it still wrestles with balancing being a part of culture while also being transformational in it; but such is the life of Christ.
I think the emergent conversation is a diverse one, and yes their does seem to be some revisiting of what seemed untouchable on the fringes, but as a whole I think much of the conversation is about getting back to a more robust understanding of Christian orthodoxy than the evangelical roots of most of the participants of the emergent church conversation. Yes Jesus is the only Way, the Truth and Life, but perhaps some of our religious forms, systems, and lenses are out of focus? Our Christian religion points to Jesus as the Way and I think this is on target, but as a religious construction in the world it does not always reflect the Way of Jesus itself.
To clarify about the things “on the fringes”, I don’t necessarily mean that some of what I consider “fringe” ideas doesn’t occasionally come from central voices in the conversation- just that I don’t think these ideas are central to their point. I agree with you, for example, that the virgin birth is essential; it points us to the incarnation and I don’t think we would have Christianity with out it. I would argue with Bell that the jumping on the trampoline would be impossible as a Christian community without this particular spring. Even in Bells analogy at some point if too many springs fall off the trampoline it won’t work. But I do think that Bell was talking more about the individual journey in this case, their jumping, and perhaps such a person might be able to get some functionality out of that broken trampoline enough to start on their way without embracing the virgin birth. I think his point was that we are inviting them to follow the Way and they can’t start even before they have all these things worked out.
I think it is a fair question to ask how much information a person has to embrace about Jesus in order to star following him. We might not have the same opinion about the answer, but it is a fair question. What theological concepts can a person wrestle with or struggle with and still be “saved”? I think creating space for people on this journey is important (perhaps this is where you think we are being “seeker sensitive” but that movement is more about having “cool contemporary music” in worship to make people comfortable and is quite different from the liturgical and table centered leanings in worship many in the emergent church resonates with) but as a whole I think there is a strong commitment as a body to the church and historical Christian orthodoxy. Christian orthodoxy goes beyond just these confessions and is also about entering into the Way of Jesus.
As for the “narrow gate” of this “Way”, again I think this has been part of the conversation too; it has not been tossed aside. I don’t hear anyone saying that “anything goes”. If anything I think the conversation has focused on living the Way and embracing lives of compassion, love and charity that reflects the narrow way that Jesus walked. I am encouraged with the re-association of love, compassion and justice with holiness and holiness moving beyond just being understood as personal piety. These types of conversations are begging for transformation, and not just as individuals but as a community. Certainly these things aren’t narrow or easy.
Zack, you seem like a real smart guy, well read with a good understanding of many things. You also seem to be someone who loves Christ and his church and I think your voice is needed in this conversation. I encourage you to keep pushing and challenging and exploring all these things- that’s what the conversation is about as we help one another follow Jesus more closely.
Peace,
James
I say that the emergent conversation, movement, etc. has ontotheological groundings because it is allowing the culture, or "life" as it were, to define it's theology...their primary concern is with the culture, or "life" and therefore onto-theological
This is not "ontotheology," Zack. At least not in the common usage of this word in contemporary philosophical and theological discourse. I'm with you on nihilism/"nihilistic end," and I understand your critique of emergent along these lines, even if I remain unconvinced. But you're not getting "ontotheological grounding" quite right and it's creating an impasse here.
The "onto-" in ontotheology doesn't imply "life" or "culture" but Being (Dasein in Heidegger - since you dropped his name), and so ontotheology has to do with the linking of "Being" with "God." Ontotheology is metaphysics (and vice versa). The postmodern critique of metaphysics is precisely that metaphysics is concerned with that which is beyond (meta-) the physical, and so beyond things like "life" and "culture." I don't mean to pontificate here, but I do want to help you understand my original comment, and maybe clarify your terms for you, because you aren't using this one in the commonly accepted sense. To quote John Caputo, ontotheology "is a search for grounds (logic) in the highest ground (theo-logic) and in the most general ground (onto-logic). All metaphysics, as this paradigm makes plain, understsands Being in terms of ground and being in terms of the grounded, and it thinks the difference between Being and beings as the difference between ground and grounded. God Himself, therefore, enters metaphysics as the highest ground, the first cause, the causa prima and ultima ratio of beings" (Heidegger and Aquinas: An Essay on Overcoming Metaphyics, pg. 150).
Now, in a kind of ironic way, you could link ontotheology or metaphysics with nihilism, or describe a nihilistic end to ontotheology because, as Jean-Luc Marion (cf. God Without Being) and others have tried to show, ontotheology reduces God to the ground of being or Being itself - ergo God can be described according to human logic or philosophical constructs, and the radical "otherness" of God is reduced to the same, and is thereby diminished until God is nothing, no thing, more than the ground or guarantor of being(s). But this isn't, it seems to me, what you're talking about - you're talking about a preoccupation with life/culture that issues in a relativism/universalism that ends in nihilism. Fair enough, but this preoccupation with life is not "ontotheological." Because it embraces (to whatever degree) postmodernity, emergent is critical of all things ontotheological (=metaphysics, =Modern). Although granted, it takes a level of philosophical sophistocation that your average emergent-church-goer might not have to be able to articulate this.
Now, onto the bigger issue here - you call me out for revising the message when I interpret or explicate Jesus' statement ("I am the Way, the Truth and the Life") by adding "to/of/in God" at the end of each phrase. I take exception to the claim that this is a "revision" but it is indeed an interpretation, an attempt to explain and understand what Jesus meant. But you, too, are interpreting Jesus' statement, only you interpret it in (narrow) terms of salvation history and later theories of atonement. I think we would agree that Jesus is making a specific claim about his role in the salvation of the created order, but you assume that “no one comes to the Father except by/through me” means belief in or some kind of cognitive acceptance of Jesus as the Way/Truth/Life. I think it is possible to understand Jesus as the only Way/Truth/Life, the only path to God, without adding to that claim some notion that salvation is contingent upon one’s intellectual assent to this claim. Do you see what I’m driving at here? We’re both involved in the process of interpretation, trying to make sense of Jesus’ claim – you seem to understand it to mean, “unless you know/believe in/ have accepted as your savior/have a relationship with Jesus, you’re wrong.” What I’m saying is, I accept Jesus claim: He is the only Way to the Father – I’m just not willing to say anything more than that. Perhaps you accuse me of not carrying his claim to its logical conclusion, but in short, I don’t accept that the only conclusion one might draw from his claim is the one you represent. Leaving open the possibility that one might be walking the narrow road or entering through the gate called “Jesus” without necessarily realizing it does not negate the truth that Jesus is the only path to God.
See, I’m not comfortable (although, again I’d point out: not because I’m emergent, because I’m not) saying “the basic claim of chrisitanity as the sole source of salvation” because I believe Jesus, not Christianity (per se), is the sole source of salvation.
Finally, re: the plagiarism accusation – what I meant by “does not increase credibility” is that you really weren’t (in my mind) strengthening your argument in the way you might have thought. I can see now an internal consistency to your argument, now that I understand how you were using “ontotheological grounding” – but on first reading it just came off as dropping fancy phrases, and then citing (Wright) and alluding to (Hauerwas) what appeared to me to be inappropriate sources. Inappropriate because (as someone else pointed out) emergent folks seem to pretty consistently dig Wright, and even Hauerwas. I was being snarky by using the word “plagiarize” (sorry.), and maybe I’m alone on this, but I do think it’s important, even in the blogosphere, to give credit not only to those we quote but also to those whose ideas we borrow.
Peace y’all.
P.S. Nice to hear James’ take on all this – he is a bonafide emergent!
Thanks Brannon, I may be "bonafide emergent", but I am not nearly as well read as you guys. Thanks for the conversation, and the education;)
Peace,
James
James - it just occurred to me that you (and maybe Rich, although he did deny it in one comment) were the only one to join this discussion who would profess an association w/ the emergent "conversation/movement" (whether you do so comfortably or not is another matter!).
I'm always reminding even my close friends that, despite the opinions I've formed and am quick to offer, and despite my liturgical/sacramental leanings which should make me at least sympathetic to emergent (and it does, actually), I have absolutely no first-hand experience w/ the emergent church...I've never been to anything that identifies itself as an "emergent" service (or anything I'd identify as such, for that matter), or come in contact w/ a community that would be identified as such. I've read a fair amount about emergent, and I love getting involved in a good argument about it, but really, it's all just a conglomeration of ideas to me. I remain, and feel I must remain, kind of ambivalent until such a time as I am able to observe an 'emergent' community living out their faith together - I suspect, if it's an authentic sort of community and not just some program some church is trying to put on to reach young hipsters I will even be inclined to wade out into those waters a bit and see what it's all about. But for now, I find myself working toward liturgical and sacramental renewal in a pretty by-the-book Nazarene context - even if I do slip over to the Episcopal church every chance! (Maybe those 6 folks I meet with for the Eucharist on Wednesdays at noon are my "emergent church"...even if they're all 60+ yrs old!)
As I told Joseph today over IM, I'm really not interested in being "emergent," at least not for "emergent"'s sake. And the likelihood is that if I ever become anything other than a regular 'ol Nazarene, it'll be a regular 'ol Anglican. :-)
BH
Brannon,
I’ve honestly never been to a church that identifies itself as “emergent” either; and frankly I am not even sure what an “emergent service” is. To me the “emergent church” represents just a conversation in which you often take part of yourself.
Two years ago when I first tried to express what I wanted our church plant to be, I did use that as one description, but there is nothing on our website or anything else about us that identifies us as such today. I think our community tries hard to be as authentic as possible and do life together as a faith community. We don’t really have any programs and really do not have any “young hipsters” in our community. We have 6 families, all of us with children, and half the families have grown children. We meet together weekly to reflect on the scriptures from the lectionary, share in the table, and then we have a meal together. Beyond that we do our best to keep up with each others lives and do community service kind of stuff together. I honestly don’t know how “emergent” it all is myself. I grew up in the Episcopal Church and my folks think that our community is like an “Episcopal home church”.
Brannon, I actually greatly appreciate you ambivalence, because while I think this is a great conversation, I think it makes a terrible “program” or “style” as many people are just trying to take advantage of a popular term in a “church growth” kind way. I think the term itself only has a limited application and a limited lifetime, but my hope is that the conversation will have lasting fruit that makes an impact on how we (particularly those of us who are evangelicals or influenced it) think about and live out our faith. I think the greatest impact the conversation can have is not to create a bunch of churches that are clearly identified as “emergent”, but to participate with the body of Christ we are already connected with in a way that we can all help each other continue to live Christ out together in our lives.
I also appreciate Zack’s expression of his concerns as well, as he seems to see the conversation as a “break from tradition” and gives us an opportunity to really look at the depth of what we all think is so “traditional” (maybe a better word would be “orthodox”?). In contrast to Zack’s concerns I think the emergent conversation has largely been about getting more “traditional”, not less. I think the “emergent church” has simply provided a catalyst to talk about all these things, like what it means when Jesus said he “is the Way, the Truth and the Life”, beyond the ways we may have reduced such claims through a particular lens in the recent past. I am thankful for the conversation and as a conversation I do admit that it has played a big role in my own journey in the last 8 years or so.
Peace,
James
I've been slammed with church stuff lately, so I haven't had a chance to read anybody's comments in depth, let alone respond, but, as random as this might seem, I just wanted to thank you guys for taking the time to respond and share your thoughts. Obviously, tone and the like don't come across so well online, but I've really enjoyed reading what you guys have to say, even if we don't always agree. I think this sort of conversation can only help the church we all love so much.
Grace and peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home