My Response to the Official Emergent Response
June 3, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
Of all the odd things I had in mind to blog on tonight, this was least expected. The Emergent-Us blog has posted an official “Response to Recent Criticisms By Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, Chris Seay.” (HT: Andrew Jones)
Now, why would I call this odd? Because over and over I keep hearing how emergent is a conversation, not a movement- it’s not organized. There is no official Emergent entity, and yet, somehow there’s now an official response to critics of the emergent church. They’re free to do what they want; I just find it odd. For what it’s worth, I have a few responses of my own to critics of the emerging critics…
“We have also attempted to make personal contact with our critics for Christian dialogue. Even though most of these invitations have not been accepted, we hope that the friendly gesture is appreciated.” Specifics would be nice. Most of us have heard that D.A. Carson has not accepted invitations… but most? Who else? Seriously, I’ve seen most critics dialoguing. This characterization strikes me as false and utterly uncharitable. If it’s true, please support this claim.
“Third, we regretfully acknowledge that in our thought, writing, and speech, we have at times been less charitable or wise than we wish we would have been.” I will grant the same for many of us critics, and hope we can both work to improve.
“Fourth, we respect the desire and responsibility of our critics to warn those under their care about ideas that they consider wrong or dangerous, and to keep clear boundaries to declare who is “in” and “out” of their circles.” This last bit seems uncharitable, but is perhaps an accurate reflection of how emergent folk view non-emergent folk. If we were all about keeping “boundaries to declare who is ‘in’ and ‘out’” of our circles, we would be petty at best. Boundaries are enforced (theologically) to direct us towards worshipping God in spirit and in truth, not to label people “in” or “out.”
“We believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism” I’d like to know what you think “arrogant absolutism” is, and what you see as the difference between “radical relativism” and non-radical relativism.
“Eighth, we are aware that there is some debate about whether we should be considered evangelical.” Heck, I don’t even like to call myself Evangelical, I’m not sure why some are so eager to hold on to the label. And at least some of the “strict Calvinists” I know don’t like to be called Evangelical either.
“Instead of engaging in fruitless quarrels with our critics, we urge those who find our work helpful to pursue spiritual formation in the way of Christ…” This could easily be taken as saying that the emergent folk view dialogue with critics as fruitless. Since you say you appreciate dialogue elsewhere, I’m going to assume that’s not what you meant here- but couldn’t you have worded that differently?
“With millions suffering from hunger, disease, and injustice around the world, we hope that all of us – including our critics – can renew our commitment to “remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10) rather than invest excessive energy in “controversies about words.”” This too strikes me as uncharitable. I don’t know a single person who would say we shouldn’t be committed to the poor. This statement pits the “critics” as uncaring while emergent is. Let’s not forget that emerging people reacting against status quo Christianity started this “controversy about words”. That’s not to say you shouldn’t react, but it is pretentious to characterize your critics in this manner when it was you who were first critical of us.
We’re all critical of one another. We all think we’re at least right enough in our views to say something about them publicly. But I think most of are willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we’re trying to faithfully serve Christ. Can we please continue the discussion without such indecorous characterizations?
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that I think point 6 is the most important. It is in some sense a creed of what these gentlemen believe and reflects much of orthodox Christianity. I personally appreciated “we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors” the most. Hopefully we can use point 6 as a foundation for common ground for further discussion.
Related posts:
- Post-Official Emergent Response & The Return of D.A. Carson
- Is the Emergent Church a Threat to the Gospel? or Why Im Concerned
- The Corporate Church- An Emerging Church Update
- Defining the Emerging/Emergent-Church/Movement/Conversation
- Another Response to Phillip Johnson
- Discussing Emergent: A Plea for Realism and Charity
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts
content rss
June 3rd, 2005 at 2:52 am
fair enough.
i think point 6 is most important – an affirmation of core beliefs. there are lots of people (far less charitable than your kind self) who need to see that Emergent Village believes in truth and the heart of evangelical values.
June 3rd, 2005 at 3:10 am
I agree, and I forgot to mention that I think point 6 is the most important as well. I personally appreciated “we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors” the most. Hopefully we can use that point as a foundation for common ground.
June 3rd, 2005 at 7:18 am
June 3rd, 2005 at 4:09 pm
hi roger -
As a fan of the A-Team i was wondering what you would think of the response, so i checked your blog.
in answer to some of your comments…. (i am typing this fast as i am heading out, so excuse any spelling or grammar).
so, in response to your further questions:
i can say that i personally have tried to contact 2 well-known primary voices that have written and spoken about the EC in a very critical way. Neither of them responded to the two attempts that I tried to contact them. So, in regards to me, I have tried to contact two primary anti-emergent voices and received nothing back from either. that is my personal experience.
i think the “in” and “out” terms, were more about seeing certain web sites and blogs saying that many in the emerging church and emergent conversation aren't even “christian” or speaking a “false gospel”. this is pretty “in” and “out” language, and that is what we are talking about. not whether one is a dispensationalist or not. one rather radical and extremist anti-emergent blog even questioned the salvation (actually it wasn't a question, it was pretty much saying they weren't Christian) if they hold to women being pastors. This is the types of “ins” and “outs” that is being talked about, that to me, is very sad to see.
Arrogant absolutism is when someone says they have the absolute answer and right viewpoint to everything. It is those who claim unless you are a 5 point calvinist or unless you believe exactly like I believe with all the minor theological issues – you are absolutely wrong. it is the attidue that “unless you believe that my interpretation of Scripture is the absolutely correct one, everyone else is wrong” sort of a thing. I see this quite a bit on certain web sites and blogs. I think that when emerging church folks say that they are more free and can say “i don't know” about certain things such as end times views, Arminianism vs. Calvinism, women in ministry etc. – for those who need to say they absolutely know the truth on these issues it is frustrating for them to hear others don't feel they need to absoultely feel they know the answers to these type of things. I am comfortable holding on to certain absolutes (the resurrection of Jesus, the future return of Jesus, the inspiration of the Bible, salvation through Jesus etc.) and leave other theological issues as “i don't know, it could be a lot of possibilities, and I trust if God wanted us to know absolutely He would have made it more absolutely clear”. What He made clear was some of what I just mentioned and about loving our neighbors and Kingdom living etc. So, I will hold onto those as absolutes and leave the rest a mystery and something to approach with awe and wonder and not feel I need to nail it down absolutely, but respect others with different views and not throw stones at them. If I hold to an amillennial view, why would i want to throw stones at someone who is a premillenialist? Would Jesus be angry at those who love Him and serve Him, yet don't hold the same view of when he coming back?
radical relativism would be the same in other way – that there is nothing true to hold on to, and all is true if you want it to be true sort of a thing. As the response stated, emergent and emerging church folks DO believe in truth and DON'T believe in relative absolutism, yet i have seen us being accused of relativism. As the statement said, within the emerging church there is a variety of beliefs about certain things and even disagreements among the leaders. But that is to be celebrated, and a great thing. However, as you read – we all believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and that no one comes to the Father except through Jesus etc. – so in that way we do hold to absolutes. we never said we don't! that is what is so weird hearing people thrash some of us saying we are relativists.
i think the comment on spending fruitless time arguing, is that sadness that there is so much time spend arguing about some things we probably will never solve and anger that seems to be expressed quite often on blogs and web sites, where the time could be used to be bringing Jesus love and compassion to others. From the outside I sometimes wonder what non-Christians think of reading some of the things written and the attiuds expressed and time spent on all this. I wonder what Jesus thinks of this.
Anyway, this is some quick thoughts back to you. Let me know if there is anything more specific you'd like to know!
Dan
June 4th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Hey Dan!
I
June 4th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
hi again –
the person who did not respond to my email was the well known head of a denomination who has publicly written severe statements against anything “emergent” or “emerging”. At Talbot, I had wonderful conversations with the professors there, who most were actually very supportive of me personally and I came away very encouraged.
The part I wrote about labelling someone “non-Christian”, was when the author of an anti-emergent web site wrote something to the sort of saying those who have female pastors are not Christians and those who are Armenians pretty much follow a false gospel. Same with another web site that referred to me preaching another gospel. I emailed them to ask where they are drawing that conclusion – i asked to show me something in anything I ever wrote or in a sermon or talk to show where I have even hinted at anything apart from Jesus crucified and resurrected – and they emailed me back saying “you are part of the emergent church and therefore teaching a false gospel”. It is so sad when people do that, as it does show they really aren't aware of what they are saying and accuse people (as the emergent response was to critics) by association, not on the basis of individual facts.
If I ever write something or say something – i am more than happy to have it questioned and for people to ask me what i meant, if it is confusing. But that doesn't happen from most critics (most, not all).
You were at the Talbot event and you heard me say that the largest section on my bookshelf is apologetics types of books. At our church, we are starting a School Of Theology to have people be trained to be thinkers about what we believe, know the Scriptures, understand theology – so I believe fully in that. I sometimes have encouentered those who thrive on knowledge and apologetics however, who end up using that like bullets to shoot people down with no heart involved. So, my concern is the way we use apologetics.
OK- stay in touch! Thanks for responding. I appreciate your heart in all this!
Dan
June 4th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Dan,
I appreciate your thoughts, and as a Talbot student I'm glad that you were encouraged by your visit. I lament that there are some critics who have gone to such extremes as to accuse you of preaching a “false gospel” merely because of the emerging label. On the other hand, I think that such labeling is due to the fact that the most vocal leaders of the emerging church are also the most polarizing. First impressions count, and I would not be surprised if the vast majority of people who have written off the EC have done so because their first impression of it came through the works of Brian McLaren, who has made some statements that are quite controversial. I would not at all be surprised if many people who reject the emerging church view McLaren the same way that Democrats view Rush Limbaugh. There are other voices in the conversation, such as yourself, Andrew Jones, and Rudy Carrasco who say good things that need to be heard by people on both sides of the EC divide. My guess is that if these voices had been the first heard by people, there would be more people willing to sign on or at least tone down their criticism; but as long as the most vocal leaders are the most polarizing, there will be less common ground between those within the emerging church and those without. I applaud the steps you are taking to train people to be thinkers.
In Christ,
Timbo
June 5th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
This is Doug Pagitt, I have to admit that unlike Dan I am not a fan of this blog, in fact I had never heard of it before today, so I admit I have read nothing other than this post.
I will only comment on your concern that there is not support for the claim that those in criticism have not wanted to be in conversation.
I can assure you that I have personally made multiple attempts to connect with critics, even some you mentioned, and have been met with lack of response far more often than not.
So, I will not assume that you were insinuating we were lying about that point, and simply let you know that it is true. (But, since you not take us at face value the first time, I guess I ought not expect you would thin time.)
I am sure you can imagine that this is not the forum to name names of people who do not want to be in conversation.
One more thing – I am not sure where you got the notion that there was no emergent organization. I am not sure what I have been doing with my time in meetings, publishing deals and events if there is no organization. We have stressed that we do not control the conversation, and that this thing is much bigger than one organization, but to assume that there is no organization must come from a lack of understanding, which in light of the amount of energy put into being concerned about us seems a bit odd.
June 5th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
“If I ever write something or say something – i am more than happy to have it questioned and for people to ask me what i meant, if it is confusing.”
That's one of the reasons I like you
Re: apologetics- I can't tell you how encouraged I was to hear you talk about apologetics at the conference. That was one of those things that had me left thinking emergent wasn't as bad as I thought it was. I know some people who shoot people down with apologetics, and I agree that's the opposite of what we should be doing. “Gentleness and respect” just doesn't seem to work for some people. At Stand to Reason, as I think you know, we emphasize knowledge, wisdom, AND character, because part of our witness is how we conduct ourselves as representatives of Christ. Schaeffer called love “the final apologetic.”
I agree completely with what Timbo said below, and I'd like to echo his lament about people saying teach a false gospel. From actually reading your book (something your critics should do!) I think you have a pretty good idea of what the gospel is and you're doing a good job of presenting it. I'm proud to consider you a co-laborer for His kingdom.
Speaking of books, when is your next book coming out? (They like Jesus, right?)
June 5th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Hi Doug,
I appreciate you taking the time to comment here.
The characterization that most critics are unreponsive concerns me because I am a critic (obviously). The characterization may in fact be true, all I'm asking for is evidence. So far none has been offered aside from taking your word for it. I would like to do that, however, my experience is exactly the opposite- that most critics are engaging in dialogue on these issues, even if they're doing it poorly. I even named some of the critics I've seen dialoguing. So it's hard for me to take your word for it when what I've seen is the opposite of what you're saying. If someone's made a public criticism of emergent (or anything for that matter), they should be prepared to defend it publically. I am dissapointed in D.A. Carson for not offering any responses to critiques of his work, even though I highly respect everything else he's done. I don't see why it would be a problem to name names if these people have made public criticisms. They already set themselves up for it.
In regards to emergent not being organized, I guess I wasn't clear. I agree that it is very organized. I was referring to what I've been told about emergent- that it can't be considered a movement because it's not organized. There was a rather drawn out conversation about that on this blog maybe a month or so ago, and that comment was somewhat a reflection of that. I would argue that emergent is organized enough to be considered a movement, not just a conversation.
Thank you again for taking the time to comment. I hope we can continue to converse in the future.
June 5th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
Doug–if I can add to Murdock's response, I would say that those who are reluctant to refer to Emergent as a “movement” would probably also be reluctant to refer to it as an “organization” (which, of course, isn't to say that it's completely unorganized). Given that reluctance, I wouldn't attribute Murdock's characterization to a lack of understanding, but instead to an attempt to refer to Emergent in terms its members are comfortable with.
June 6th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Not to sound snippy, but, I can assure you that when we were referring to critics, it really was not people who are part of the blog community. I am a blogger and understand that it is a personal and open medium, so when I was thinking on that point I was not thinking bloggers.
And, I was not thinking of you specifically because as I mentioned I had not heard of your blog before yesterday.
On the organization part, I really do think it is a matter of not doing your homework. Have you read the EmergentVillage site and seen the events and coordinating group. This is why some of us feel that the critic is coming from those who spend more time critiquing and less time listening – but you may not fully qualify for that “status”.
June 6th, 2005 at 9:31 am
While I'm more inclined to believe “most” non-blogging critics have dialogued, it would still be nice if the official response actually stated that instead of making all of us critics look bad.
Did you read what I said? I said I agree that emergent is organized. I've made the same points you have against someone who said it was unorganized. We're not in disagreement here.
June 9th, 2005 at 9:10 am
B.A. used a link to my post, so I think I should speak for myself lest my “reluctance” not actually be reluctance.
I don't have any problem calling Emergent an organization, in that there is an official organization that goes by the name “Emergent.” There are Emergent YS books too. But as Doug said, there's much of the conversation that doesn't fall under the Emergent organization (Emergent Village) but is still emergent (small “e” or ec). I think it's fair to say that most in the conversation are not officially recognized with Emergent, but that it is the most public face of the conversation in the U.S.
June 9th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Thanks for your comment, Steve. So maybe we can say this: “conversation” includes everyone emergent, “organization” includes everyone Emergent, and “movement” includes … some more specific set of individuals or churches or publishing imprints?
June 9th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Hehe. My take. Conversation includes those who choose to discuss with (not “at”) others about EC issues. Emergent is a US organization, but some are using “emergent” meaning some in the EC conversation. Lines are blurry. EC movements are when a group of like minded people in the EC conversation begin to solidify a set of doctrines or platform or whatever.
So is Emergent the US organization a movement? Maybe starting to be. You can organize, after all, to talk and not to (yet) do something as a group. That might be a discussional movement, but not an doctrinal or practical one.
I think Emergent will become a movement with a platform and change their name, and then some will get on board and some others won't because they don't buy the platform.
I think the above made sense.
June 9th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
It did indeed (make sense), and I hope you're right! Here's to solidifying those doctrines …
June 15th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
“From the outside I sometimes wonder what non-Christians think of reading some of the things written and the attiuds expressed and time spent on all this. I wonder what Jesus thinks of this.”
If there are any real bad attitudes floating around, that is not good and I am in agreement with you. However, is any criticism bad?? Many of the criticisms I've read have tried to be fair in their judgment.
You said you wonder what Jesus thinks about all this. I on the otherhand I am wondering what Jesus thinks about the non-christians who are being exposed to the “fuzzy” truth/discipleship in some of the ec. I have done way too much of my share of reading (not just blogs – but many books by yourself and other ec authors), blogging, etc. And I agree with the other critics who site the lack of clarity in many issues and other problems with things written by authors within the ec. At the end of all of my research I ask – What kind of Christianity are people getting in the ec? As much as I have tried to be open to this my “gut” keeps telling me that I don't want to go there (the direction of the ec) and that there is too much error. My current church has changed and has embraced some of the ec and thus I have done all of this evaluation. It makes me want to go to another church. If you think I have a “bad attitude” then there's nothing more for me to say. This is my honest response and what I see.
As far as the non-christians go, after seeing what my pastor's have embraced and promote, I now don't even wish to bring my (unsaved) neighbors to my church because I couldn't in my right conscience expose or pass on books like Yaconelli's “Messy Spirituality” or McLaren's books (for example) to them. I think they would be better off going to some other churches in the area that are more grounded in Scripture and proper discipleship and thus have much better books to offer. (after being a Christian for over 20 years there IS better stuff – even for the postmoderns) Maybe the non-christians on the web who read all the critical dialogue, that you think is a poor choice of time spent, will be listening and have some discernment that there's something not right with certain things in the ec.
June 15th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Sorry. I didn't clarify that the quote was from Dan above.
June 21st, 2005 at 7:25 pm
My experiance on emergent, ec, or emerging websites has been that this concept of conversation “with” us as opposed to “at” us is used to control the discussion to avoid honest inquiry by labeling disagreement as negative and “at” someone!
Why can't the truth and benefit of E or e or ec be readily acertained by their responses to critics rather than their attempt to control “tone” of the conversation.
It seems that “poor” communication and mean-spiritedness on the part of critics would work in E, e and ec's favor and there wouldn't be a need to be so PC. basically it a polite way of telling critics to shut-up and mind their own business.
October 15th, 2005 at 9:18 am
anonymous – thank you for you thoughts
…this is all very interesting…I am reminded of the Jesus People movement in the late 60's and early 70s…the vanguards focussed their fears (couched as criticism) at the movement while those in the movement initially lacked the needed maturity to address the vanguard…and God still effected a radical change in worship in spite of it all. I see very positive signs that the fears are dissapating and the e movement is maturing…however, in the end, the questions will never be about being 'relevant' or being 'right' – in the end, the questions will be about love and did we or did we not beg God to make us lovers of each other and of the world…and as far as who is IN and who is OUT…try Matt 25:31-46…it is very clear.
Steve Mader