I’m not one to write a critique of anyone’s literary work, as If I have the ability to put anything into word better than those who actually write for a living. Nor do I enjoy “being the guy” who just opposes things for opposing sake. That is why I hope folks can read this and “see the other side” of things. I’m not writing about Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guy Who Should Be) because I consider myself an Emergent Christian, though I may come across this way because I do connect with some of the things many voices in the movement have to say. I’m writing this because I think the authors Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck look at things through a particular lens (as we all do) that limits their ability to see clearly what many of the writers and communicators they critique have to say. With that said, I don’t agree with everything the Emergent or emerging guys say, and some of the critique in the book may even be legitimate! I’m writing because I can’t stand it when people pluck out one or two sentences to prove their point, and fail to actually give the context of the statement that often will give their readers a better and more accurate picture of what and why something was said or written in the first place. Of coarse this context doesn’t mean that someone will agree less with the authors of Why We’re Not Emergent, in some cases it could make for more agreement; but I can’t help but think the context is left out on purpose, or because the lens out of which they peer all things in life and theology will not allow them to see the context themselves. So I will attempt to paint some context, and give my humble opinions and hopefully do some justice to the Christian thinkers that Ted Kluck and Kevin DeYoung are picking apart in their latest work! I will take a few chapters at a time and only hit on small portions of the text, as hitting on all the issues would take forever!
The introduction is broken down into two sections because Kevin and Ted write entire chapters separately in the book, so they chose to have two different intros; stated in the introductions this is done because of their different thinking and writing styles. One is a pastor and seminary trained theology guy, while the other is a professional writer of all things sports! First up is Kevin DeYoung’s intro titled Still Submergent After All These Years. It starts with some autobiographical information detailing his traditional Christian upbringing in a Dutch Reformed community and church, with parents who saw John Calvin as a “good guy” (his words not mine). He continues to make it clear his Christianity is of the reformed type even calling the doctrines of the reformed churches of unconditional election and particular redemption “glorious truths”, admitting “others may find these two truths not so glorious”. He continues to tell us about himself, the church he pastors across the street from Michigan State University in East Lansing, only to put the exclamation point of the intro at this…“you can be all things that people have labeled as emergent in it’s followers, and not be an emergent Christian”.
The next section of DeYoung’s intro is defining the people he is attempting to critique. He explains that he will use the terms emerging and emergent interchangeably because they are pretty much the same thing. And also that not everyone they will write about would actually say they are part of the emergent church, but maybe would agree to be a part of the conversation as the leaders of the movement often call it. As Kevin invests some time in telling how difficult it is no “nail down” what it is the emergent guys believe he uses the metaphor; nailing their theology down is like nailing jell-o to a wall. Cute, eh, I thought so too upon first read! But to me he seems to poke fun and criticize how difficult it is to figure out what these guys really believe often mocking the term “conversation” which is what the fellows and followettes of the emergent group intentionally decided to call the movement. But he has serious problems with this terminology and even attributes this type of unwillingness to give “it” a label or definition to a high school mentality; DeYoung says it like this,
“It’s one thing for a high school student to be in process with his theology. It’s another thing for adults to write books and speak around the world about their musings and misgivings. I agree there must be space for Christians to ask hard questions and explore the tensions of their faith, but I seriously question that this space should be hugely public were hundreds of thousands of men and women are eagerly awaiting the next book or blog or podcast arising from your faith journey”
What are they afraid of? The implication seems to be someone is high school is allowed the latitude to sort out their faith, asking hard questions etc…but once you get past high school and enter adult-hood there should be a certain concreteness to your faith? Adults should not be having these problems; this questioning and seeking is child’s play! This is not an issue any adult should be facing. And if they are, please keep it to yourself, I certainly don’t want anyone else in the known world to have any idea that someone out there in the real world is actually questioning certain aspects of their faith! God forbid!
My issue with this approach is pretty simple; if we are not constantly wrestling with our ideas of God and making them sharper and more defined no a regular basis, we are set in our ways with no room to grow? Are we then on the same path as the Pharisees were when Jesus came along in human history? In more recent history I would have hated it if Martin Luther had not been in a mode of constantly questioning and wrestling with his faith just before posting the 95 thesis to the door at Wittenberg; if he hadn’t been in a state of constant seeking and questioning maybe we would all be catholic and have that one state approved religion here in the land of the free!
Martin Luther - "I shall never be a heretic; I may err in dispute, but I do not wish decide anything finally; on the other hand, I am not bound by the opinions of men. "
Later in the intro DeYoung is consumed by the fact that there is no clear leadership or hierarchy of the thinkers that make up the emergent conversation and after naming some names of the jell-o nailees and their insistence that not one of the conversationalists speak for the entire group he says this
“Fine. But if seven men get together to respond to their critics in one article, they should at least admit they not only share much common ground, but they are also some of the lead influencers (if they can’t say spokesperson) in the conversation. Call it a friendship, or a network, or a web of relationships, but when people endorse one another’s book and speak at the same conferences and write on the same blogs, there is something of a discernible movement afoot. Let this be crystal clear, we fully understand that emergent means a hundred different things to a hundred different people.”
My thoughts…I don’t think anyone in the “conversation” would shoot down the idea that emergent is becoming a movement of sorts. Nor do I think they would deny the fact that they are leaders to a certain degree but willing to listen to any voice within reason. What they don’t want is exactly what DeYoung wants and argues for…definition. They are not interested in defining anything and setting it in stone because they have all realized the definitions they learned as kids, and even in seminaries just don’t do it for them. Definitions in religion set boundaries and by default bring limitations, and these limitations are the culprits the people in the emergent conversation are trying to do away with. After all the boundaries set by religion are the spaces they have already stepped outside of or they are toeing the line in some cases and entire books have been written in an attempt to police the fact that they have stepped out of bounds. But hey, I say the folks in the emergent movement shouldn’t be too worried, if my memory serves me correctly it was Martin Luther and some of his contemporaries that got kicked out of the church because they stepped out of bounds (set up by the church) themselves!!
There is not enough space to quote the longest run on sentence in literary history, but DeYoung tries to sum up all things emergent in one sentence and at the end states if this sentence or most of it describes you, then you might be an emergent Christian. I guess reading this sentence made me say, “maybe I am more of an emerging or emergent Christian than I thought”, but after reading the sentence again, I kind of thought, “maybe Jesus was more of an emergent Christian than he was a 21st century evangelical or whatever. Some of the highlights (much of the sentence is clear sarcastic jargon) of his definition of an emergent Christians are
If your political concerns are poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression, and not so much abortion and gay marriage;
OR
If you disbelieve in any secular-sacred divide; if you want to be the church and not just go to church; if you long for a community that is relational, tribal, and primal like a river or a garden; if you believe doctrine gets in the way of an interactive relationship with Jesus; if you believe salvation has a little to do with atoning for guilt and a lot to do with bringing the whole creation back into shalom with its maker; if you believe following Jesus is not believing the right things but living the right way;
There was so much more but that is a small sample of his definitions, and again I would say yes to many of these things; maybe not on the same level as guys in the emergent church but certainly on some levels all of the things in this sentence speak of things important to Jesus and His followers as portrayed in the scriptures. Though some of the things in this sentence are a bit sarcastic and over the top, DeYoung admits that many parts of the list describe him and Ted Kluck and their idea of Christianity as well, but he is trying to critique the few things they really disagree with…I counted 9 things in the sentence that he mentions that are akin to his theology and the way he follows Christ, so I wonder of all the things in the sentence how many does he really not connect to? I would be willing to guess that there are just a few theological doctrines DeYoung is not willing to concede to mystery and this is his real hang up with many in the emergent church. In other words, the nailing Jell-o to the wall theory really only applies to a few points of contact in the Christian doctrine that he wants nailed down before he is willing to call emergent or emerging Christians true followers of Christ. He states in his intro that he hopes his critique comes as a brother and in love; they may be his sparring partners, but they are not “bad guys” but I’m not convinced he thinks they are true Christians.
0 comments:
Post a Comment