The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier by Emergent author, Tony Jones has captured my attention for a few weeks now as I have reflected upon this trendy new version of the Christian faith that's appeared over the last fifteen years or so. Self-described as being an expression of the ancient faith, specifically dressed in the spiffy new postmodern attire, Emergents (EC) gladly hold hands with one another as they preside over the memorial service of traditional Christianity, which has thoroughly but unknowingly sold its soul to the failed promises of the Enlightenment's modernity.
Whereas Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), the philosopher whose genius was not notably tapped until The Third Reich, proclaimed, in what may be his most inspired moment, that "God is dead", EC, with as much confidence as they can assemble, proudly proclaim "it's not God who's dead. It's the church" (p.4).
In this particular section, we'll consider chapter five: "After Objectivity: Beautiful Truth" (pp.138-169). I have to confess, after three readings of chapter five, I am yet without understanding precisely why Jones wrote it. It is not that it is difficult to understand. Jones is an interesting read. Rather, the argument Jones attempts to make in this section stands, if I must be honest, as the most vivid, picture perfect example of irrelevancy I have read in a good long while.
For me, reading this was an exercise in frustration. Not because Jones was formulating new premises; to the contrary, Jones states premises that are very much what one would find in traditional pastures where I myself graze. Yet, by the chapter's end, he's confidently drawing conclusions nowhere near what's required from the premises. I sat down at the table expecting a bowl of soup. I was instead served a bowl of bolled water.
Following are a few carrots I'll throw toward the reader and then you are on your on:
1) ECs really like the thrill of raising the objection against traditional Christians that they have been wrong in the past. For example, evangelicals were wrong about slavery (p.140). Yet for centuries they claimed they were right. This makes a good clarifying juncture for what EC dubs as their "humble hermeneutic". Concludes Jones: "I'm humble," an emergent might say, "because I don't know what I'm wrong about today. I'll speak with confidence, and I'll speak with passion, but I won't speak with certainty" (Ibid).
First, what Jones fails to note--of which I'm confident he's aware--is that whatever evangelicals believed about slavery, it was evangelicals themselves who overturned slavery's stronghold. Even more, it was these same evangelicals as post-Enlightenment interpreters who overturned slavery. That is, the slave-reformers read the Scripture precisely as a traditional Christian reads Scripture today, definitively not the way postmodernists like Jones wants us to read the Bible. That in itself seems to suggest that living in modernity does not necessarily mean believers are at the mercy of modernity's hermeneutic.
As traditional Christians, we embrace a robust supernaturalism. And, while we cannot expect infallibility as inspired interpreters of Scripture, we confidently hold that the very same Spirit Who inspired the Apostolic writings can and does illumine the inspired text, supernaturally peeling away the cultural crusts that many times have buried certain truths, crusts that trendy believers like Jones wants to strangely assign to the duties and insights of postmodern philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. No offense to Jones, but I think I just might stick to my non-trendy traditionalism, thank you very much.
2). In speaking of the "humble hermeneutic" Jones makes a sharp distinction between possessing certainty on the one hand and confidence on the other. The latter Jones fully embraces, while the former he flatly denies (humorously, one thing Jones IS certain about: that one cannot be certain!). He writes, "For if one has rock-solid certainty, it's only natural to suppose that all other viewpoints are wrong and therefore impose one's certainty on others" (p.141).
First, I am not satisfied that Jones makes a valid point of difference between certainty and confidence. A quick trip to several dictionaries was of no assistance to me and really worked against Jones. Confidence and certainty were listed as synonyms in them all. Secondly, I would ask Jones not if he really believed that certainty is not possible--anyone can assert a statement like that (though it does possess a self-contradictory air about it)--rather I would ask Jones if he could live as if certainty is not possible.
If he thinks he can, I would invite him, upon his next trip to the freeway, to pull his car to the side, get out and when the next oncoming car is roughly 20 feet away, step out in front of it. Let's see if Jones can live as if certainty is a myth. My own guess is, Jones would not stoop over and pick up a bee much less stand in front of an oncoming vehicle. He can call it confidence if he likes. But he is hard-pressed to distinguish his confidence from my certainty.
But, heck, let's cut the bull here. When I tell somebody sin is black, hell is hot and Jesus saves, I hope, under God, they do think I am telling them every other view point is wrong. Anything less they could conclude would be incorrect. For that is what I believe. Even more, I hope I do impose my certainty upon them. Why should I offer the gospel the way Ryan's offers lunch--one price, many options? Please.
I am also wondering how our Lord escapes the blade Jones wants to sling. Did Jesus possess certainty about His understanding of the Pharisees when He lampooned them in Matthew 23? Was it certainty or confidence He possessed about His Father? Nor can Jones run to the "But Jesus was God" corner and stand. He makes that very plain in his wearisome insistence upon the "humanness" of Jesus (see below).
3) EC believes that Christianity should dialog with other faiths. Jones writes, "emergents are enamored of story, particularly of telling their own stories and listening to others' stories" (p.142). They believe it's "actually being faithful" to the historic Christian faith. This is one of those times I almost gave up on this book. I just about walked away. The reason is simple: what nincompoop has ever argued otherwise?
4) EC basks in reading the entire Bible. The "dispatch" from the frontier here is: "Emergents embrace the whole Bible, the glory and the pathos" (p.144). Jones assembled evidence for his dispatch--interestingly arguing like the enlightenment empiricist EC so much detests--from two biblical stories: Noah and Jephthah (pp.143-148). His point is, traditionalists have been unfaithful to the Christian faith by picking and choosing what they want to emphasize from the Bible. For example, we teach our kids about Noah, the flood and the Ark resting on Mt. Ararat but leave off the other part about Noah, his drunkenness, nakedness and his two sons. Jones thinks we've slighted Scripture by not getting into the gory details with our kids.
Furthermore, he thinks any moralizing of the text belittles Scripture (p.146)--another one of Jones' many non-certain albeit confident assertions about traditional Christians. I have only one thing to say here: to assume, as Jones apparently does, that every portion of every text serves the same significance as any portion of any text misunderstands both the nature of inspiration and the sufficiency of Scripture.
On a final note, and really an extension of the above, part of the difficulty EC has with traditional Christianity is that, from their view, traditionalists have cleaned up the truth too much. That is, for us who are children of modernity, we sort of white wash the dirty walls of our fortress, bleaching out the weathered stains of our faith, ignoring the unsavory bits of the Bible. EC likes to think of themselves as "messy saints" who embrace the whole Bible, "even if that means that some passages are basically inexplicable" (p.144).
That "messiness" also means that since God is truth, and God cannot be fully articulated, neither can truth (pp.152-153). Aside from the obvious attempt at Aristotelian logic of which Jones vehemently objects and to which Jones here curiously reverts, he uses such to validate what can only be called a mushy skepticism.
Moreover, since Jesus is the embodiment of truth, there are some "messy" things about Him concerning which we do not often like to refer. I quote this not because of its profundity but because of its clarity:
"...if we affirm that 'Jesus is truth,' then truth had lice, toe jam, smelly armpits, and a daily bowel movement. It is unquestionably more difficult to think of truth in these terms. Too often, when we consider truth, it's as an ethereal concept that hovers somewhere above the earthly realm, untouched by the messiness of human existence...Is it disrespectful, even blasphemous to consider Jesus' bodily habits? No. To the contrary, it's bad theology and possibly unchristian to avoid the realities of God's incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth" (p.161).
Jones appears to think it's beautiful--even orthodox--to reflect upon Jesus' humanness and, quite frankly, I cannot at all disagree. To deny the authentic humanity of Jesus is to deny the faith once for all given to the saints. In this EC and I agree.
I must register, however, my profound disagreement with Jones on precisely what constitutes both being beautiful and being human. Let Jones tell his wife about her smelly armpits and daily bowel movements, all the while handing her some roses. I think I will pass using that with my wife.
Nor can I fathom where Jones ever got the idea that authentic humanness is defined by stink, toe jam or daily bowel movements. I concede such of humans. I also concede such of monkeys.
I cannot help but think that EC marvels in shock language. Jones was a junior high youth minister and I dare say, some of this thinking surely is a bleed over. Kids that age love to talk about such mundane matters.
Indeed if you want to be a hit with them, talk to them about smelly armpits, passing gas, stinky feet, etc. and you'll be a grand hit. Bring that into serious theological discussion and expect to be handed a can of shaving cream and told to go back downstairs. This really borders on the juvenile. I don't think I want to read anymore stuff like that. It's just too corny.
With that, I am...
Peter
Now I know the source of some of the crude, rude comments about my Savior.
David R. Brumbelow
Posted by: David R. Brumbelow | 2008.08.11 at 12:40 PM
David,
This stuff has been around awhile. About 2 years or so ago, the founder of SBCOutpost put up on his blog such a provocative post, referring similarly to what Jones does above about Jesus, that within two hours or so he took it down. His own circle of supporting commenters bucked him on it! To my knowledge, that's the only post SBCOutpost has ever taken down because of its unpopularity.
It grieves me when not only the irrelevant but also the mundane is paraded as something new, something cool, something profound.
Grace, David. I'll give you a call later. Check your email :^)
With that, I am...
Peter
P.S. For the record, I hope I did not come across indicting all junior high workers as corny or juvenile. I certainly did not intend such.
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.08.11 at 01:33 PM
Peter,
I have the same couple of thoughts as I read each of your posts on this subject. This sounds just like new packaging of the neo orthodoxy of 50+ years ago. I have not read the book but you have not reported a single concept that wasn't postulated 50 to 70 years ago by neo orthodox thinkers and churchmen. Funny thing is that such doctrine is what killed the church in the first place. The other thought that I have is tied into the fact the stat that says that the church is growing on ever continent except North America and Europe. I wonder if the doctrine of those churches more resembles traditional Christianity or the emergent variety.
Tim B
Posted by: Tim B | 2008.08.11 at 02:07 PM