Words or Action?
November 28, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
I’ll warn you advance: this is one of those posts likely to
get everyone upset. My intention, however, is to offer two helpful critiques in
an effort to make certain discussions better for everyone. I think blogging too
often degenerates into sniping, and I’ve tried not to do that lately, but
occasionally sniping needs to be done (if I must call it that). To be generous
to by Emergent brothers, I’ll critique my Reformed brothers first.
This year was the second year I’ve attended the ETS annual
conference. As usual, it was a blast. Not just in buying 50 books (though such fun
is not fiscally wise), but in learning from a such diverse group of scholars
and getting opportunities to interact with them. Unfortunately, I must qualify
diverse.
For some reason the bulk of distinctively Reformed scholars (men
known primarily for defending Reformed theology) were not present this year,
and frankly, this bugs me. I’m referring to people such as Michael Horton
(though present briefly last year, was not there this year), W. Robert Godfrey,
John Frame, David Wells, J. Ligon Duncan, R. Scott Clark, Meredith Kline,
Robert Strimple, D.G. Hart, and K. Scott Oliphint (to name a few). Maybe
because I’ve only gone to ETS for two years, I’ve missed some rationale for why
these Reformed academics seem to have isolated themselves from evangelical
scholarship.
This is symptomatic of what I perceive to be a practice of
sectarianism in Reformed scholarship today. I respect, study, and agree with
most of what these men teach, especially when it comes to critiquing
contemporary evangelicalism. The problem is that much of the time they seem
more interested in pointing out errors than working toward correcting them. At
best, they just have a bad strategy. Each year, ETS is full of professors and
graduate students who are engaged in the cutting edges of various theological
discussions. Some of them will be pastors; most of them will influence
important church ministers. And yet the only two men I saw consistently each
year from this group were Peter Jones and Vern Poythress. Maybe I missed some, but the point is that if
the Reformed academics truly want to make a difference in evangelicalism, they
need to get out of their Reformed bubbles and present their arguments before
their critics. I say this because I think they’ll be successful if they
actually do it and the world desperately needs them to be successful in every
way possible. So with all due respect, Reformed academics, please stop acting
like sectarian fundamentalists and start attempting to make a difference in the
academy. (Since ETS is in
next year, I see no good reason why most of the Westminster Seminary faculty
shouldn’t be there.)
EDIT: My language in this criticism was harsh (eg- “sectarian fundamentalists”), and I apologize to any who may have been offended. Subsequent discussion has shown my analysis of these Reformed scholars to be largely uninformed- I refer the reader to Dr. R. Scott Clark's comment below and his link to Dr. Sean Lucas's comments.
There’s a similar problem with those who traverse the
Emergent circle. At ETS, Brett Kunkle of Stand Reason presented an excellent
paper describing his concerns with emerging churches (the paper is here, my
summary is here). Brett was excruciatingly careful in making the appropriate
distinctions, quoting people in context, and conversing with the men he cited
in order to provide a fair and accurate analysis. As with R. Scott Smith’s
excellent book Truth and the New Kind of
Christian (our Book of the Year for 2005), those in the Emergent
“conversation” have generally responded in two ways…
Response #1: Avoid criticisms by claiming to be
misunderstood. Instead of dealing with any of the points raised by Scott or
Brett, the points are typically written off as being straw men, without any
explanation or evidence as to how the arguments are straw men. This is Tony
Jones’ “public” response to Brett’s paper (see his blog and the
leading Emergent voices actually engage criticisms that have been made of their
teaching* (please feel free point me to any you can find). Response #2: Ignore
the criticisms. Scott’s book and Brett’s paper have for the most part been met
with silence. D.A. Carson’s book caused quite a stir, but it was mostly a stir
in the vein of the first response. Scott and Brett went beyond what should be necessary
to be gracious in order avoid that first type of response. And for the most
part they did avoid that response, but instead they are generally responded to
with silence.
This leads me to believe that despite all the talk about
“conversation,” most of those on the Emergent side of things (especially
leaders such as Jones and McLaren) are really only interested in publicly conversing
with people who believe exactly as they do. At best, they are just as sectarian
as the fundamentalists they often criticize, and the Reformed academics I
criticized above. Of course, I side with Carson, Scott, and Brett, and so I’d
like the Emergent folk to engage their critics in hopes that they’d make
certain changes. However, most of us critics are open to being wrong about
where we stand and the best way to show us where we are wrong is to actually
engage us instead of dismiss us.
*Caveat- I should note that Doug Pagitt did a public debate
with one of his critics (Bob DeWaay), and I have a great deal of respect for
him doing that.
UPDATE: Tony Jones has posted a response to Brett Kunkle's paper. I truly appreciate that he did this as it provides readers with a good opportunity to compare the thoughts of each author and the character with which they're offered.
Related posts:
- ETS 2006- Brett Kunkle: Essential Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church
- Wisdom in Words
- The Corporate Church- An Emerging Church Update
- My Response to the Official Emergent Response
- Are the Words of the Bible God's Words?
- Adventures in Missing the Point: Andrew Jones
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology
content rss
November 28th, 2006 at 4:02 am
Well, I remember N. Geisler finding good reason (and here) to be less involved in ETS. Perhaps others have found circles they consider better for evangelical scholarship and are stewarding their investments elsewhere. Not sure we can call theo-hermits on this one. am I offbase here?
November 28th, 2006 at 7:05 am
Roger, I called Brett a couple of times, trying to talk to him about my specific concerns about his paper, but we were unable to connect prior to ETS. He sent me the paper about 3 days before his presentation, so it was very difficult to mount a timely defense.
I have interacted consistently with Scott, as you will see in the footnotes to his book. I'm also writing a book right now that will tackle many of these differences head-on. It'll be out in January, 2008. I've also met with Scott personally, chatted with him on the phone, and had a teleconference with his class.
So, please, Roger, know what you're talking about before tossing around accusations. I've met with Piper, emailed Carson, and convened a dinner with the A-Team and STR — as I recall, that was a very robust and several hour conversation. Recently, Greg K. has asked me to read a manuscript of his, which I did, typed copius notes, and got back to him within the month. And, I get paid for none of this — it's all pro bono.
Regarding Brett's paper, it's difficult to respond to the argument, “Tony is orthodox, but someday he may not be.” How in the world shall I respond to that?
As my in-box testified, I try to respond to everyone who emails me a specific question (yourself included). The only caveat is, if I'm already on the record (in book or blog) on an issue, then I'll defer to that medium rather than respond.
I happen to agree with you that the conservative Reformed folks are becoming more sectarian, and it worries me, too. As far as ETS, I've never been invited to come and respond to anyone. As I told you when we met, I'll meet with anyone, anywhere, anytime (no reasonable offers refused). But, most of the time (like with you and Piper), I have to request the meeting. Brett is one of the few critics who initiated the first meeting.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:16 am
I
November 28th, 2006 at 8:54 am
As a confessionally reformed believer, I think one of the reasons that many reformed scholars are not involved with ETS is because they do not see evangelicalism as a helpful unifier. For example, see D.G. Hart's Deconstructing Evangelicalism. They would rather be confessionally united (providing some necessary doctrinal boundaries), rather than loosely associated.
Honestly, I don't make an either/or out of this. I do believe confessions are important and think that local congregations need to covenant together around a common confession of faith. At the same time, true followers of Christ are a larger group than will fit into my confessional umbrella, and we need to be able to come together in our common faith to advance Christ's kingdom for His glory. As messy and problematic as ETS is, I see no reason to abandon it as a place of discussion, debate, and dialogue.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Thanks for the links regarding Geisler. It may be that there's a rationale for the Reformed scholars not being involved in ETS, but as I said, I see this as symptomatic. If not ETS, where are they engaging evangelical scholarship? My experience is that they hold their own conferences and publish in their own circles. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't see evidence of it.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:14 am
“if the Reformed academics truly want to make a difference in evangelicalism, they need to get out of their Reformed bubbles and present their arguments before their critics. I say this because I think they
November 28th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Thanks for responding Tony. Note that I referred to your “public” response. I agree that it would be difficult for you specifically to respond to that specific point Brett raised, but what about the rest of the paper? The bulk of it critiques an organization of which you're the National Director, even though he doesn't cite you throughout- and he deserves more than a rude post writing it all off as straw men. Where is your public interaction with Scott's work? For that matter, where is anyone's public interaction with Scott's work? The only one I know of is Mill's article in the Criswell Theological Review, which is primarily a reaction of the first sort I mentioned (as was his response to Carson's lectures), and he's not a leading voice.
I certainly appreciate the conversations we had in private, and I'm glad you've had such conversations with others. My point here is that the public interaction has been close to zilch. All these private meetings have done the public “conversation” very little good. Sure we've been more respectful to each other most of the time, but where's the public dialogue? I
November 28th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Senor Jefe is unto something. Roger, I appreciate your summary and it sounds like you have some particularly strong concerns about anything “emergent”. My sense is that the popularity or the attention given to the emergent movement is where it's at because it seems that it's less about it threatening Christian doctrine, but it threatens church attendance. There are a lot of things that I like about the emergent movement, and there are some definite concerns that I have (less on doctrine and more in practice), but I appreciate it's voice in the way I do my faith.
I'm sure many disagree, but I think the movement (and not just McLaren) is a prophetic movement in that it is raising concerns on the Church and calling us to God in a fresh, new way. The prophets of old were never popular, and it seems to me, this is what we are seeing here
November 28th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
my response here.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Hi Tony,
I'm really happy to hear about your reaching out to Brett (and your initiative in reaching out to other ev critics).
You mention making a timely response to his paper and I definitely understand how it would have been ideal to have been able to have done so in a public way prior just after the ETS Conference. Nevertheless, I dare say that the paper is probably just now getting maximum exposure having recently been posted on the WWW. So I would suggest a thorough written response from you on behalf of emergent would be very helpful and – for very many – quite timely. I hope you do it!
November 28th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Hi senor jefe,
I do think that it's all too common that those who disagree (or who think they disagree) collapse their interlocutor down to two-dimensions or – worse – demonize the other. This is sad. In theological conversation it's tragic. If we cannot execute the dance of disagreement in conversation, we are severely limited in what we can learn. Tony's instinct to lean into his critics by seeking conversation with them is just right though, perhaps, counterintuitive. It's understandable that we might run away from our critics or dismiss them or avoid them or turn them into cartoon figures. But just as the bicyclist leans into the pavement on a turn to keep from hitting the pavement, so also the wise Christian keeps repeating “faithful are the wounds of a friend” as she hears criticism. I respectfully suggest that some of our critics are some of our best friends and we would be sadly deficient without them!
with respect,
November 28th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I'm reminded of Richard Mouw's article in Sojourners, “Why the Evangelical Church Needs the Liberal Church.” He talks of the tendency within conservative churches — in this case, Reformed churches, which is his tradition — to continually split.
I know that you're discussing engaging scholarship and not addressing orthodoxy within churches and denominations, but I think Mouw's point of continually drawing lines in the sand and splitting from one another is germane.
I'm watching this from the stands as I've never engaged ETS and am no longer a part of a Reformed tradition. Reading Geisler's statement, it sounds like he's saying ETS may be conservative, but it's not Reformed enough. That posture strikes me as dangerously insular, which is what you've been getting at, Roger. I, for one, am extremely grateful for interaction with those outside my own theological tradition and have incorporated many of my sisters and brothers' thoughts and expressions of faith into my own.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
I don't disagree with that. I was painting with some pretty broad brush strokes in my statement about responding to critics.
Emergent Village is all about conversation. And for it to be effective, there must be differing views. After all, iron sharpening cannot occur without some friction.
I don't believe all criticism warrants reply. But you're right. How Tony has handled this is “just right”.
Sorry if I spoke a little too freely. (I've been doing a lot of back & forth on the blogs these last few days and I'm getting a little 'punchy'
Thank you for your comments and the heart behind them.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Thanks Jeff – I appreciate your response. And I totally agree with you that some criticism deserves no response. Pearls before swine and all that.
blessings,
November 28th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Since when is Geisler Reformed?
November 28th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
I had to cut my earlier comment off this morning so I could get to work, but I had a few other thoughts.
I find it odd that you brought up not getting paid for all this. Do you think we get paid to “toss around accusations”? We actually have to pay for our blog. Given my indebted-college student status, it's a bit of a sacrifice, but I see it as a ministry.
Most people don't get invited to ETS. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of the presenters were invited. The bulk of the people there are interested in putting forward new ideas in an environment where they expect to be challenged and as a result have their ideas sharpened and refined. John Piper made this point during his lecture as the main reason he attends, and he subsequently took questions after his lecture even though I don't believe the format of his particular presentation called for it.
I should clarify that I
November 28th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
I think you missed my point. I said nothing suggesting people should only read what the critics write- I agree that that's an awful idea. Rather, I'm suggesting that those being criticized occasionally take responsibility for their teachings and answer their most thoughtful critics. I agree that some criticisms should be ignored, I practice that policy here from time to time, but to ignore every criticism is foolish at best. I'm curious, why do you think Scott Smith's book has been so ignored?
Also, your questioning of people's motives is another problematic response typical of Emergent conversations (while I've seen it on both sides, I think it's a great problem on the Emergent side). Almost every critic I've personally conversed with is truly interested in glorify Christ by upholding His truth. Sure, some have bad motives, but that's no excuse to question the motives of every critic. But let's just say that all critics have immoral motives. So what? Do their criticisms all of the sudden become invalid? Not in reality. It's quite possible for people to have bad motives but still have good points worth considering.
November 28th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Thanks for posting that Tony.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Hi,
I'm not sure that your account of things is quite accurate. Mike Horton has been engaging the evangelical academy for years in a variety of forums including ETS.
I gave a paper at last year's ETS. I don't attend every year because the seminary cannot afford to send me to multiple conferences. This year I'm reading a paper in Miami at an historical conference.
In the four ETS conferences I've attended, I've been sometimes discouraged by the level of scholarship at ETS. I'm not saying that there aren't good papers but where I have to choose at AAR or the Sixteenth Century Studies Society I have to make difficult choices between good sessions at ETS I've sometimes struggled to find an interesting session to attend. Then there are strange combinations. I understand that a leading evangelical NT scholar gave a paper evaluating the President from a Biblical perspective. I'm afraid this is becoming typical of the sort of thing one can expect to find at ETS.
I can't speak for the others listed, but I don't think it's quite fair to say that confessional Reformed scholars are not engaging the broader evangelical academy. A lot of us engage the evangelical academy in print on a regular basis. Maybe the broader evangelical world just doesn't read enough? After all, Noll did write a book on the “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.”
rsc
November 29th, 2006 at 12:40 am
Sean Lucas has also replied to this discussion:
http://seanmichaellucas.blogspot.com/2006/11/its-big-world-after-all.html
cheers,
rsc
November 29th, 2006 at 1:39 am
Thank you for your response Dr. Clark,
Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing you at the conference last year- I believe at the paper Dr. Horton presented on Radical Orthodoxy. It sounds likely, considering the points you and Dr. Lucas have made, that this year's ETS was something of a fluke in regards to Reformed participants. In view of that, it seems my post here was at least over the top.
I certainly agree the broader evangelical world doesn't read enough, and I agree that ETS isn't the height of scholarship. I didn't make it to the paper you're referring to, but I was disappointed in the quality of a couple of papers that I attended. I look at the uninteresting sessions as blessed opportunities to explore the book tables, but it is a problem that with a few dozen papers being presented concurrently there are uninteresting sessions.
What I think is valuable about ETS is the variety of people present who can be impacted by the work Reformed scholars do in that environment and I'd like Reformed scholars to make use of such opportunities. If this year was simply a off year, then I apologize, especially for the strong language I used.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Senor Jefe, et. al.
I find your response to be at best an ad homonym argument. Saying that the only reason a critic wants a response is ego is like saying the only reason that a prosecutor takes a defendant to court is ego. YES, some people are motivated by ego, but their arguments can still be valid. In reality, most prosecutors would rather be in a world where people did not have to be tried for crimes and most critics would rather be in a world where they did not have to worry about orthodoxy, but both the critic and the prosecutor are (usually) primarily motivated by desiring to see truth.
I honestly do not understand what you mean by a conversation if every time there is a critic they are keeping the conversation from moving forward. A conversation is ideally a discussion of all sides of an issue. When someone criticizes, they may be right (in which case learn from them), they may be wrong (in which case teach them and show them why they are wrong) or they may be irrelevant (in which case help them to see how they are off track/making a straw man/etc. and show how they are playing unfairly with the truth). Is the emergent conversation truly an open conversation, or is it limited only to those who disagree with traditional evangelical theology and/or practice? I hope not.
I personally am grateful for critics because I would not know where to start reading and what works are leading sources if the critics weren
November 30th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
re- words or actions. You may be interested in this story
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=762
December 1st, 2006 at 11:13 pm
I too felt like no one was responding to Scott Smith, until the book Christianity and the Postmodern Turn came out. You really can't claim that no one has responded to Scott anymore. It's interesting to see Westphal, Franke and Jamie Smith respond to Scott's sincere pressing of the issue of truth. Franke seems unable to respond and resorts to claiming that philosophy should recognize its limits. Jamie is the only one that really engages Scott, and has to get into some serious Heidegger to do so. As I recall, Jamie's fundamental objection is that Scott makes an ontological separation between truth claims and reality (as have all moderns since Descartes), when truth claims are themselves parts of reality. I completely agree with Jamie on this point, and have not heard anybody from the Biola crowd respond (in fact I haven't heard anybody from the Biola crowd demonstrate that they have seriously read Heidegger). When a Biola academic stops implicitly asking me to accept the Cartesian mind-world separation, and attempts to actually engage Heidegger's attempt to undermine Descartes in Being and Time, then I'll get interested in this debate again. But, at this point, it seems like Jamie, and by extension Heidegger, are the ones who are being ignored by the Biola crowd.