Discussing Emergent: A Plea for Realism and Charity
March 28, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
Over the past few days I’ve been accused of being judgmental, ignorant, ridiculous and likened to someone who betrayed Jesus with a kiss (here and here). I don’t think I’m guilty, at least in the context of the discussions. Rather, I think these are emotive responses to criticism. While I understand some of those within Emergent don’t like criticism from the outside, it does not help the conversation to belittle those raising objections.
The over generalization and lack of charity goes both directions. In the Introduction to his book, A Generous Orthodoxy (p15-18), Brian McLaren lists six categories of people who may be reading his book. The only room for disagreement he leaves is for the reader who “may be looking for dirt so you can write a hostile review.” He leaves no room for someone to be a nice person who has legitimate concerns about his non-traditional positions.
On the other hand, non-Emergent theologians typically over generalize what’s going on within Emergent. A recent Baptist Press article, “Leaders call 'Emerging Church Movement' a threat to Gospel,” seems to assume that Brian McLaren is the leader or spokesperson for Emergent (see discussion of this article on Andrew Jones' blog, as well as McCoy's here and here). It is likely the case that there isn’t someone in Emergent who hasn’t heard and read some of McLaren. However, McLaren is only one voice in the movement and most people in Emergent don’t agree with everything he says. Some have also assumed that everyone in Emergent has bought into postmodern philosophy (a coherence theory of truth, relativism). While some have, many have not.
I think it would be helpful if we could lay out some guidelines for discussion. Stephen Shields (a friend of McLaren) has some good ideas here. We should all strive to be like Christ, and I think this creed is a good summation of what that looks like. Here are my ideas pertaining to discussing Emergent…
1) Can we give each other the benefit of the doubt that a) both sides are doing their best to understand one another b) both sides have legitimate concerns that should be discussed instead of mocked?
2) Can we refrain from taking criticisms of ideas personally and emotionally overreacting?
3) Can we attack ideas without attacking the people who hold them?
4) Can we be specific and clear about what our concerns are, either in criticisms or against criticisms? (Without assuming too much and over generalizing.)
5) Can we remember that in the end what matters most is not how we feel about something but that God is glorified in our thoughts, comments, and deeds?
If we can follow these principles, I think the discussion will be far more fruitful and perhaps less painful for some. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll start to come to some understandings of one another.
Related posts:
- Reconsidering Emergent Theology
- Connecting Emergent Ideas (1 of 2)
- What is the Emergent Church?
- Is the Emergent Church a Threat to the Gospel? or Why Im Concerned
- Where is Emergent Going?
- Defining the Emerging/Emergent-Church/Movement/Conversation
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology
content rss
April 3rd, 2005 at 11:04 pm
by Anonymous at 02:44PM (PST) on Mar 28, 2005
Murdock,
I think you have overstated accusations against you. For example, the judgmentalism I talked about in my comment was not directed at you specifically. I only know of one place where the word is used.
I said: “…critiquing a diverse conversation shows we not only don't understand emergent, but have decided to judgmentally broadbrush and demonize those involved. I think I worded that right.”
Notice I said “we.” I was trying to speak as one of us, evangelicals. And as I look back, that's also why I used the word “demonize” that you were upset about. It was a response to so many who are overreacting to emergent.
If you really desire a good discussion as you say, I encourage you to recheck the accusations and try to be generous about it. Maybe you aren't giving the benefit of the doubt to those who are trying to make clear argument, not statements about you personally.
Either way, I'm glad you are trying to work for good discussion. There is little of that going on, and I appreciate it. I came to discuss things on this site because I know how frustrating it is to want the discussion but people who criticize only talk AT you, not with you.
Per your comment, please provide evidence where those in emergent aren't open to and willing to accept criticism from the outside. I think that's a false claim.
I agree with Stephen's guidelines and I'm glad you reposted them.
Steve
Re: Re: Discussing Emergent: A Plea for Realism and Charity
by Anonymous at 02:53PM (PST) on Mar 28, 2005
I also want to add, I'm far from perfect in these discussions. It's much easier to “fire back” than to be thoughtful and generous in our responses. Where I have failed at that, all apologies. I will try as best I can to read generously.
Blessings and Peace.
Steve
http://www.stevekmccoy.com
http://www.stevekmccoy.com/sbc
Re: Discussing Emergent: A Plea for Realism and Charity
by Bill Ekhardt at 02:56PM (PST) on Mar 28, 2005
I think attempts to keep conversation healthy are called for. It is not easy. I appreciate your desire to support that end.
Re: Discussing Emergent: A Plea for Realism and Charity
by Murdock at 03:54PM (PST) on Mar 28, 2005
Steve, the “Rhymes with Kerouac” commentor on Andrew Jones' is an example of someone who doesn't want to engage criticism. Also, as Brett Kunkle pointed out in his post on whether or not Emergent is a movement, the desire to call it merely a conversation at least appears to be an avenue of avoiding critique. If all people are doing is asking questions, then what is there for us to critique? You've obviously engaged some criticism here, so I don't think you're guilty of this per se, but I think some are.
I'll add to your addition, I've probably been just as guilty of “firing back” as you have, so I apologize as well for anything that is out of line with the goals Iv'e stated here.
Thanks guys.
Re: Re: Discussing Emergent: A Plea for Realism and Charity
by Anonymous at 04:55PM (PST) on Mar 28, 2005
I don't know what purpose the guy on AJ's blog has behind his words. What's his motivation? Do you have reason to believe his motivation is to not engage criticism? Show it. He didn't want the kind of dialogue that was “endlessly arguing for no apparent purpose.” He doesn't seem to be against criticism or argument, but endless and purposeless arguing. If he has said things to prove what you claim, I invite you to show it. The evidence is against your point.
But you did say “many of those within Emergent don
April 12th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
I appreciate these words, thank you.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
Carla Rolfe
http://emergentno.blogspot.com