Final thoughts. The book’s been a big hit in the anti/emergent literature subcultures, leveling it to the category of “one of those books you should read just to be aware of what’s being said, if for no other reason.” But people ask what I liked about the book. I actually do have such a list.
Pros and Cautions I found helpful for the emergent conversation:
-Be the action you say you believe. A lot of people on one side tell emergents they need to do more theology, while those on the other say “you’re just a bunch of young white guys talking theology. Get out there and practice what you idealize.” So while if you’re getting criticism from both sides then it often means you’re doing something right, take note: faith without works is dead.
-Don’t be a rebel, and don’t be arrogant. Which is easy to be when you think you know more than everyone. But then you’re brash and nobody will listen to you anyways. There’s always something to tear down, but humility is the key to winning people.
-Don’t just be a new Left. A common trend with emergents is having been raised in a conservative home and church (and as a voting block for a political party). But going Left as a reaction to being right is just as lame as being Right because you think the left is foolish. The church has long been in bed with the Republican party, but hopping into bed with the Democratic party just because you think you’ve seen the light that your parents or church were blind to is just as sinful. To me, the drive should be to become post-Left/Right. And be generous while you are being orthodox.
-It’s popular to search for God, but not so cool to find Him. Mystery and philo/theological humility is huge, but mystery and ambiguity for there own sakes can lean toward sloppy theology or flat-out confusion. Be careful not to take too much of a good thing. And be ok with admitting that, yes, I actually am quite sure of a lot of theological positions which I tend to remain vague on because I fear the reaction from people. That’s something which I, because of flack I’ve taken in a couple of different church settings before, struggle with a lot.
Now for a few thoughts I scribbled down while reading, thoughts that I wished very much I could call up and talk to DeYoung and Kluck about:
- I’m still not sure why DeYoung and Kluck feel, as the title suggests, that they should have been emergents. Is it because they are youngish and Christian? Is that their take- that it’s purely a conversation of youngish idealists thinking out of youthful ignorance? I can’t tell for sure, because they didn’t really explain the title all too well. But if this view of emergents is, in fact, their characterization, then that could be very telling of the undergirding philosophy behind the book.
-Emergents don’t reject knowledge or real truth- that is while they generally read so prolifically. I think this is a lot easier to see than people make it. Emergents genuinely are searching for truth, but they generally have a lot more informed perspective on the word Truth, largely because of the education they are packing behind those ears (and yes, it is true that the average emergent generally tends to be much more educated theologically than their average Evangelical counterpart, hence much of the disconnect).
-emergents don’t reject teaching or preaching- that’s why podcasting and reading and blogging have taken off and driven much of the conversation. If they aren’t getting stretching teaching at home, they go home and subscribe to 20 pastors from around to globe to meet that need. I’m what I like to call a podcast-whore, and learning from a global community of pastors, writers, and leaders has given enormous fuel to my spirituality.
-on Hell: it really, it isn’t a clear subject in scripture (hence the debate throughout the ages), so please don’t throw the heresy card just because someone knows enough to be uncertain.
-It’s not that “social action gets priority over the Gospel.” Instead, emergents see social action as part of the Gospel. If you care for the poor, you really aren’t leaving Jesus behind.
-“Emergents don’t care about theology,” is a bad way to confess “Actually, I’ve just never heard it put that way before.”
-When criticizing Emergent Village, please quit quoting Piper, Driscoll, Al Mohler or D.A. Carson. I don’t know what else to say; they just don’t get EV and show little desire to. Quote Scott McKnight or others that are inside or show understanding of it. Quoting Carson makes me instantly think “Oh, you mean that guy that’s never even talked to an emergent?” Consulting with Mohler for perspectives on emergents is like consulting with Sarah Palin for advice on… newspapers.
-If your religion is all about dying well, you may be a gnostic. It is very telling that DeYoung feels (p.120) that if your faith doesn’t get you into heaven, then it’s irrelevant. I’m not saying this is an important question, but it is very telling when this is the primary lens by which you see the world of faith and philosophy.
-If you quote someone like McLaren, who uses profuse hyperbole throughout, don’t pretend like a two sentence quote actually communicates his belief on something. In fact, don’t do that with anyone, ever.
-Thank you for parroting Driscoll’s slander that Emergent Village promotes sexual promiscuity. I’m still not sure how that even started.
-DeYoung and Kluck seem in way over their heads with Peter Rollins. I’ll admit, he can be a hard writer to grasp, but I got the feeling they were merely looking for things to criticize without even trying to understand. He’s a big name, and not that much easier to read that the brilliant philosophy giants like Derrida and Levinas. You really have to let the writing work on you, and be willing to read the same page five times over. If you don’t get it at all, then better to leave it alone than to criticize in ignorance of his point.
-DeYoung mistakes a lack of heavy criticism of certain sins for “tolerance of sin.” And, of course, he only seems to care about certain sins here. You know the ones; they are always the same.
-My question: is Emergent just getting attacked because it’s becoming a big thing in the broader, global Christianity? Would the Neo-Calvinist camp’s attacks be the same against another group if there was a resurgence of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, the Coptic’s, etc.? I suspect so.
-Do we usually attack theology in person the way we lash out at writers behind the safety of a book’s page? Why the difference in attack? Because it looks easier to attack when you aren’t face-to-face. Is any of this helpful? Intellectual disagreement is a good thing that, quite honestly, this whole conversation needs more of. But misrepresentation and slander only set emergents up for pain and ostrasization, furthering the “us” and “them” divide in a faith community.
-I think the strong artistic correlation with Emergent probably says something about who “gets it” and who is left saying “that’s stupid.” You may simply just not have the type of mind that sees things this way. Note>> I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but it’s worth noting. It really doesn’t surprise me that these two guys, given their background, don’t get into the philosophical rhetoric. Not trying to be insulting, just honest. (Weak analogy alert) I don’t understand sports at all (no, I seriously could not name a single NFL team that Kluck spends all day writing about at ESPN; I just don’t care), but you won’t see me trying to pretend like I do and bring the hell-bound heresy charge against people who are really into it and think this team or that team is going all the way this year. That would be beyond ridiculous, and that’s because it’s just imprudent to criticize what you don’t know or try to understand. If only we applied that understanding to conversations that matter.
-DeYoung, when you say we should avoid ambiguity, that the Apostles we’re vague when giving answers, I think Good thing too, because if the Apostles had ever been vague, then there might be all sorts of different interpretations of Scripture out there. Er… wait…
—–
For those of you who have asked for a recommended reading for an introduction to the emergent church conversation:
-For a fantastic introduction that may change your life, as well as a simple primer for what postmodern Christianity may look like: A New Kind of Christian, by Brian McLaren.
-For a very short synopsis of the broader, global Emergence we are seeing in Religion/Culture/Politics/Economics/Etc., read The Great Emergence, by Phyllis Tickle.
-For a history: The New Christians, by Tony Jones.
-For a postmodern philosophical and theological primer: How (Not) To Speak of God by Peter Rollins.
No comments:
Post a Comment