Another Response to Phillip Johnson
August 5, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
I’m grateful for Phillip Johnson’s “short answer” to my
criticisms. I didn’t think a clear distinction was made in his original post
between emerging and emergent, but I appreciate him clarifying that in his
coda.
PJ said: “But it's premature and ill-advised to try to spin
the Emergents off and pretend they constitute a whole separate movement
with absolutely no relationship to the larger “Emerging
Conversation.”” I agree. As I noted, all of the examples he originally gave
are part of the “emerging conversation.” The problem I’m raising is that saying
someone’s part of the “conversation” doesn’t tell me enough about their beliefs
to judge whether or not they’re heretics.
“Emerging” is used in too many different ways to accurately
be used as a heretical label. It’s been used to describe the early church,
churches built by missionaries in other cultures, culturally sensitive churches
(my preferred usage), and culturally embracive churches.
Johnson seems stuck on Driscoll as the sole relatively
conservative voice in the “emerging conversation.” While I agree that the
majority are heading in the wrong direction, there are more on the conservative
side of the spectrum than Johnson seems willing to admit. Dan Kimball and Timothy
Keller, for example, are still popular in the conversation and still orthodox.
He’s right that Andrew Jones is a more fitting figurehead for mainstream
“emerging” than Driscoll, but Driscoll is still a prominent voice.
My main point here is that it’s not helpful to point at
heretics in the conversation and therefore stop engaging in it. Is the
conversation going anywhere? Probably not (hopefully not if they follow
McLaren), but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from it, and it doesn’t mean we
shouldn’t try to be helpful to those who are in it. Even if the majority in the
conversation are wrong-headed, I’m not convinced the majority are heretical.
Since the movement is so reluctant to being self-critical (as Johnson had
rightfully pointed out), we should be more engaged as critical voices. Lets
label deserving individuals heretics (e.g. Burke), but let’s encourage the
masses toward historical-orthodox Christianity instead of dismissing them all
together.
PJ: “And Driscoll's dream that “Reformed”
doctrine can be successfully blended with postmodern epistemologies and/or
dialectical methodologies is likewise hopelessly naïve, in my estimation.” I
also agree here, since Driscoll denies Limited Atonement. If he’s successful in
blending anything with postmodern epistemology (though I’m not sure he’s doing
that), it won’t be Reformed, and wasn’t entirely to begin with.
Related posts:
- Is the Emerging Conversation Going Nowhere?
- My Response to the Official Emergent Response
- Post-Official Emergent Response & The Return of D.A. Carson
- Defining the Emerging/Emergent-Church/Movement/Conversation
- What is the Emergent Church?
- The Corporate Church- An Emerging Church Update
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts
content rss
August 5th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Roger:
Thanks for the further feedback.
You wrote: “My main point here is that it
August 6th, 2006 at 10:38 am
What's interesting to me is that emerging/emergent folk are now wanting others to be very sensitive to finely-graded distinctions of nomenclature. “No, I'm not Emergent, I'm emerging.” But according to postmodern theory all reality is socially and linguistically constructed, nothing of objective reality can really be known with any certainty, and all truth claims can only be made and understood temporally and locally.
That being the case (and I am fully aware that less hardcore Emergent/emerging folk like to take a cafeteria approach to postmodern theory, picking and choosing which postmodern ideas they find palatable), how can any Emergent/emerging pastor or leader take umbrage when some other pastor/leader/blogger in another local context wishes to use terms in a certain way?
Isn't arguing over definition of terms, as if fixed meaning which communicates authorial intent was really attainable, a thoroughly modern enterprise?
August 6th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Roger,
Where has Driscoll denied limited atonement? I don't think that's true.
Justin Taylor
August 6th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Driscoll calls his position “Unlimited Limited Atonement”
August 6th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
August 6th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
August 6th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
“I
August 6th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
That's true. But I think what Barna's looking at is a larger evangelical problem, not necessarily an emerging church problem. I agree, though, that Hauerwas, Grenz, and Franke have been influential in promoting postmodern epistemology.
August 7th, 2006 at 1:53 am
Roger: “I know too many people who are open to this stuff to just walk away and let them walk down that path. If we have a voice in the conversation, we have a better chance of influencing them.”
I can appreciate that. Those same people are who I am most concerned for, too. But I'd rather be a voice from outside the movement itself. It seems to me church history shows a pretty consistent pattern on this: people who try to remain in an abberant movement or a mixed multitude in order to be an “influence” ultimately have less influence than those who stand outside and try from that position to minister appropriately to those still on the inside(distinguishing as carefully as possible between the convinced and the merely confused). See Jude 21-23.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Driscoll does hold to a position known as “Unlimited Limited Atonement” – in my understanding it is very similar to that of Bruce Ware. Interesting enough, Dr. Ware will be speaking on Mode of Providence in partnership with Resurgence in Seattle. I think the more the Mars Hill guys interact with good reformed theologians and the more the reformed theologians interact with the Mars Hill guys the better the both shall be. Driscoll's sermon on the subject can be found here. Personally, I like the paths being blazed which are theologically driven and missiologically contextualized…a narrow road, but one which ought to be forged in the wilderness of the contemporary West.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:29 am
I'm not familiar with Bruce Ware's position on atonement. Where is that available?
I'll be posting tonight after work on Driscoll's view of atonement since apparently some don't think his is much different from the traditional Reformed view. I too appreciate his generally good theology balanced with missional adeptness. This is the only point in his theology I've had a problem with so far.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:39 am
It would seem to me that Driscoll is not attempting to “blend Reformed theology with postmodern epistemologies.” The truth claims he regularly makes regarding doctrine and his bibliology alone are enough to show the man holds postmodern epistemologies in contempt. I would like to see Phil Johnson (or others) be more specific regarding particular manifestations of how Driscoll is flirting with and dabbling in postmodern approaches to theology which doom his theology. I ask that not rhetorically but as an honest question seeking to understand this critique better.
It may not be fair, but when I read critiques of Driscoll I always wonder in the back of my mind whether or not the critic is more uncomfortable with Driscoll's theology or the way he packages it. If Driscoll made the same truth claims (doctrines) but wore a tie, didn't use illustrations from Ultimate Fighting Championship, and moved out of the Pacific Northwest would that make him any more or less “hopelessly naive”?
SEZ
August 7th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Scott Z: “when I read critiques of Driscoll I always wonder in the back of my mind whether or not the critic is more uncomfortable with Driscoll's theology or the way he packages it.”
Well, in my mind the latter concern is admittedly a factor, but I don't think a neat line can always be drawn between content and medium. Marshall McLuhan was right about that.
I have to say, however, that my concerns are hardly as gauche as whether someone wears a tie. Getting facial piercings and tattoos in order to “contextualize” oneself for the goth and skater communities would be more in the direction of the kind of thing that concerns me.
On the specific example you cited, I'll admit to you that I don't know enough about UFC® to know whether it's wholesome or not. But if a preacher starts illustrating tales in such a way as to suggest that he sees no inconsistency between the blamelessness required of an elder and a pastime or personal passion that is clearly unwholesome, he has already compromised his message.
With that in mind, let me say that the remark I made about Driscoll was in reference to language he uses and anecdotes he tells, such as the one Tim Challies cited at the end of his review of Confessions of a Reformission Rev.
By the way, the “phil” who has posted comments in this thread is someone other than me, in case anyone might be confusing us.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
He gave it out to us in class as a five page outline…I'm not sure if it is a public document. The file is entitled:
Extent of the Atonement:
Outline of The Issue, Positions, Key Texts,
and Key Theological Arguments
Bruce A. Ware
Professor of Christian Theology
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
In a nutshell his summary is as follows:
“Un/limited Atonement or Multiple Intentions View (Four Point Calvinist Position)”
Statement of the Position
God
August 8th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Bruce Ware gave permission for me to post his document outlining various positions on the atonement. The third option, letter C, un/limited atonement or multiple intentions view is the one I find to be very close to that of the elders at Mars Hill. The pdf can be found here. It is in outline form but touches all the texts and positions quite well. Now one can say “this is not the reformed position” if you choose. Dr. Ware is an outstanding scholar who holds firmly to the doctrines of grace and as strong a postion on meticulous divine providence that one will find…a fine infralapsarian and a great teacher as well. So the Mars Hill guys are in now way “modified Arminians” in my opinion.