A New Kind of Christian: The Emergent Church: Part III

   Jones begins chapter two with a fairly interesting parable about a young couple who leaves the protection of the family estate back east and, because of an insatiable adventurous spirit, travels to the western frontier looking for their fulfillment.  I dare not give the tale away to those who will read "The New Christians" (TNC).  The parable's purpose cannot be hard to guess, however.   

Emergent (EC) dwells on the frontier of our culture seeking to satisfy its insatiable adventurous need to converse with an outside world.  It looks to connect; it desires meaningful dialog; and, it bids an invitation to the estate back home (a.k.a., The Traditional Church) to come and join them.

For Jones, then, EC is the church of the future.  And just what is EC?  We learned in Part I that the "twin impulses" that drive EC are a) rethinking theology and b) rethinking church.   Jones again speaks to the essence of Emergent in chapter two:

At its essence, emergent Christianity is an effort by a particular people in a particular time and place to respond to the gospel as it (once again) breaks through the age-old crusts" (p.37).

Along with Jones, we have no reason to doubt the power of the gospel.  The Apostolic witness is clear:  "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16).  Jones himself has a very memorable way of putting it.  He writes:  "The gospel is like lava:  no matter how much crust has formed over it, it will always find a weak point and burst through" (p.36).

Jones names some of the moments in the Church's illustrious history when the "crust of human institutions" was uncovered.  Catholics have seen such with both Augustine and Francis of Assisi.   The Eastern Orthodox  could claim Athanasius and Basil as being those who uncovered crusts. 

As for the Protestant side, they too claim  moments when the failure of cultural crusts had so buried the gospel into institutional oblivion that a Luther, a Calvin, a Simons reached for a shovel and started to dig.  Hence, a reformation took place:  the way the gospel was thought about was overturned.

It seems from this, that EC, according to Jones, rests on the assumption that once again the gospel must be "uncrusted", so to speak, in our own day and age.  Emergent Christianity has simply grabbed a shovel and started to dig.

So, just what is the contextual crust under which the red-hot "lava-gospel" has been buried in our own day?  There may be many crusts, but one noteworthy that surely stands out is the crust of Western culture.  Or, another way of saying it is Enlightenment Christianity. 

The way I perceive it is, unless one understands that EC is framed upon an anti-Enlightenment platform, it will be all but impossible to understand where EC is coming from in their approach to the Christian faith. In effect, that means that many of us will simply never get EC or understand the arguments they make.  We'll continue to conveniently label them as "weird", "Neo-Liberal", "heretics", etc., etc. but not even know why.  "They just are, that's all"  will be our response (if we can call it a response). 

And once I've stated that, it really gets a bit tricky here because, from what I've observed thus far, much of the punch of EC's message is not derivative of a fresh reading of the gospel.  Or to keep the metaphor we've used thus far, EC's approach is not so much digging away the crusts that's buried the biblical gospel till it's unrecognizable. 

Indeed in contrast to EC I think of what Luther did.  The gospel which Rome had long ago buried away in a secret chest under centuries of superstitious, christianity-like religion, the Monk dug up; not because he took a spade and removed layer after layer of super-imposed non-sense the Church culture had created.  Rather, Luther found the gospel where the gospel ever was--"the just shall live by faith".  It was biblical revelation that stirred Luther to action.

The "bit tricky" thing about EC is, it's not biblical revelation at all that stirs their fires to blaze.  Instead, the eureka experience for them can be summarized by the overly-used, much confusing term postmodernism.  First used in architectural circles and moving on into the arts and humanities, with a particular contribution to the discipline of philosophy, postmodernism became the buzz word of academia in the 80s and 90s here in the states.  A half generation before that, it was prominent in Europe.

What is postmodernism?  To be frank, I doubt anyone knows. It is used in such a wide range of ways, contexts, and literary genres that it escapes a clear, concise meaning.  Though I'm sure there's a blogger or two out there who can tell you precisely what it is--after all, just go to wikipedia!--most experts in the disciplines will openly admit that it's almost impossible to nail down a good working definition.  There are characteristics of those who embrace a postmodernist worldview--some of which we will eventually get around to listing--but that is about as close as one can come. 

That's one reason why EC is a "bit tricky". EC confidently embraces postmodernism.  In fact, unlike the Reformation which recovered the older Apostolic gospel through the original lens of biblical revelation, EC reinterprets the older Apostolic gospel through the newer lens of speculative philosophy.   While Luther was driven to reformation because of the recovered gospel, Emergent is driven to reinterpretation because of the new way of thinking--postmodernism.

Jones rehearses such a philosophical shift in chapter two (pp.42-46).  Names listed there possess absolutely no recall for most Christians--and that, even educated ones.  Some names are familiar to a few, especially if one has taken any courses in English literature or philosophy beyond the introductory level.  Names like Jacques Derrida, Michael Foucault, Richard Rorty, Stanley Fish and some others were the beginning influences among EC (p.43).  From these postmodern philosophers came the birthing influence that the modern church just doesn't "get it". 

With that, I am...

Peter

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V 

Comments

[Strider]

I do hope you continue this study because I am really concerned about the issues you bring up here. The EC group outline a number of problems with the Church that I too see and that I too would like to see addressed. Many of my friends are working through such concepts as what is Church and we are fellowshipping in and planting house-churches. We see this as getting back to the Bible and seeing the book of Acts come back to life. I have heard many in the EC say some good things and then head off down a road that I do not understand. They talk about change and then meet in buildings and form organizations that look remarkably like what we have- only they take 'baptist' off the sign as if that is a 95 Thesis kind of decision. I don't get it- or don't understand it. The old axiom must be readdressed:
We need change
This is change
Therefore we must do it.
So, thanks for these posts. Let us embrace all the change that the Holy Spirit is asking us to embrace and reject 'radical new thinking' as a substitute for being spirit led and Bible based.

[Byron]

Strider, you might be interested in "Beyond Radical" by Gene Edwards. The book lives up to its title. I read it, and it was wonderful. I'm interested in the house church movement, getting away from clergy/laity distinctions (but not from spiritual giftedness revealed by the Spirit), and especially getting away from the drudgery of the standard order of worship, which at times can quench the Spirit.

[Account Deleted]

Peter,
Graham Ward edited the Blackwell Readings in Modern Theology titled The Postmodern God. You would find his introductory article helpful for evaluating the way Jones' employs postmodern in relationship to theology. Ward contends "postmodern" theology is theology in service to the postmodern ethos. Postmodern "theology" is theology that rises above philosophy or any dominate platform to speak into any age, era or epoch. As such he contends theology may always, in a sense, be postmodern. It is this second stream, that I believe Tony would be supporting.

I cannot find Ward's article online and you may not prefer to buy the book just for the chapter. But, thought I might interject some of my own discoveries exploring theology in a postmodern context, as opposed to tied to postmodern philosophy.

Another helpful little book you would likely find an interesting read, Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Foucault and Lyotard to Church. James K.A. Smith is connected to the Radical Orthodoxy movement in theology and is Reformed in his theology. It is a fun and helpful read. With your background in philosophy I think you would enjoy it.

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Thanks for the stimulating comment, not to mention the recos to consider. I admit I am new to the EC literature and, consequently, I may not have considered enough but to make tentative assessments.

You cited Ward's view of Postmodern theology as servant to the ethos of postmodernism. That sounds right on the face of it (perhaps I can locate him in the library).

Albeit I do have difficulty understanding this:

"Postmodern "theology" is theology that rises above philosophy or any dominate platform to speak into any age, era or epoch."

From my reading of Jones, it's hard to accept that as a working assessment. Far from rising above philosophical influence or platform, Jones marvels at it!

Indeed, for Jones and Jones' circle, the postmodern philosophical grid, which thoroughly rejects both empiricism and rational engagement, the new way of being and thinking Christian is akin to Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm shift".

Not only does EC not rise above postmodern philosophy, it gathers all its eggs into the postmodern, philosophical basket.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Account Deleted]

Peter,

Ward postulates any theological construct runs the risk of being tied to a given philosophical framework. The late Leslie Newbigin borrowed from Berger, noting the version of Christian apologetics he encountered sought to fight the battle on the grounds laid by others but failed miserably. He notes any era, epoch, or period runs the risk of giving into the prevailing plausibility structures.

No doubt the EC cannot escape this tendency either. However, I do not read Jones' the same way. They may employ some postmodern sensibilities but to adopt it hook line and sinker is a mis-characterization. I will quickly say some may well do so, but Jones does not.

Maybe another read to consider in this vein would be Jack Caputo's Philosophy and Theology. Caputo may well offer, though I cannot speak definitively, something of what Ward describes. That is not to say you or I would "buy" it; but it is not as simple as you suggest.

Jones' makes confident assertions in his book, that to say he denies empiricism and rational engagement "seems" to be a presupposition brought to his book.

You may consider an e-mail to Tony and interview him for this review. I would not be surprised if he responded hoping to fill out some of your questions.

And, as you have demonstrated in this series, you can be critical without being condescending, so include that in the email and it may go much further. I look forward to more of your take.

And, yes, I have read the book, including an advance copy for review.

[Account Deleted]

Peter,
I re-read that comment and if you would please edit my previous comment. There are not a few typos or omissions that would make it more readable,

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Thanks. Of course, I struggled precisely how to word my assessment of Jones when I wrote "for Jones and Jones' circle, the postmodern philosophical grid, which thoroughly rejects both empiricism and rational engagement, the new way of being and thinking Christian is akin to Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm shift". Yet, in light of your comment and now looking back, that wasn't half bad.

The way I'm reading, postmodernism dealt a fatal blow to enlightenment principles--the first major philosophical shift in four or five centuries (p.68). This is a key that Jones continues to turn throughout the book. Another key on his chain is the outright rejection of foundationalism, which seems also to be wed to the former.

I am willing to read Jones without reading into him my own biases as you fear I may be so doing (And, I may be). On the other hand to place overlays of so many other authors onto Jones book not only endangers the message of Jones himself--after all, Jones is pretty clear in his writing--it also accelerates an anti-postmodern ethos by crusting over Jones work. That is, why dig up a crust of my own making?

Besides, I could just as easily laid over Jones, D.A Carson's interpretative lens, which, I'm told, is a devastating critique of postmodernism. I plan to wade through Carson when I finish Jones. I've had Carson for sometime but I've never really engaged his book.

Thanks again for the chat. With that, I am...

Peter

[Account Deleted]

Peter,

Point taken. Jones' should be judged on his own merits/words.

My intent is to draw out that there is so much more to both Jones and what he attempts in his book and so the other reading suggestions. It should not be without critique of course and I am enjoying your working through whether I come to the same conclusions or not.

No need to create a crust, but amplification is never a bad thing either when the scope of a given book is both memoir and theological description. TNC is hardly Jones' definitive work on his theological moorings.

And, when you get to Carson, I will be watching. He does do a job on Postmodernism. But, in my reading he critiques "hard postmodernism" and none of those he includes in his critique would self-identify as hard postmoderns.

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Cool. I probably will have another post or two on TNC and let it rest awhile.

Also, I see your point about Carson and I cannot say I disagree.

EC's literature base is swelling at a fairly rapid rate, turbo-charging the "datedness" of critiques, even as late as the early 2000s. Carson's, if I recall, is 03, yet he focuses as you rightly point out, on a lot of the earlier thinkers. Maybe a review would force him into a revision (just kidding).

One thing I do recall from not only Jones, but other ECers as well, is the consistent pattern in outright dismissing critics like Carson by accusation of "vitriolic" language. I have not digested the Carson critique, as I said, but reading some of Carson's other works, it's going to be hard to convince me that EC possesses a valid, fair assessment of Carson.

Carson is an eminent biblical scholar, astute philosopher-theologian, and an extremely capable thinker who does not need to stoop to such elementary tactics in order to make a case. And, given Jones offered no dialog with Carson's criticism, but instead only the accusation, may very well reveal the cards in Jones' hands. We'll see.

I have thoroughly enjoyed our short chat, Todd. Grace always.

With that, I am...

Peter