deaconandusher.wordpress.com

I’ve read most - almost all - of the works and authors you cite above. I’m a huge fan of NT Wright. I do, however, think a very real separation exists between the authors and thinkers you cite above and the most recognizable figureheads of the emergent conversation because they (the emergent leaders) are so much less clear on their positions, if they even take any. I see a very real and very huge difference between Wright, Brueggemann, Snyder and say Doug Pagitt, Jones, Bell, and a huge percentage of “emergent bloggers.” I don’t think a mere citation of NT Wright makes these obvious difference go away. There is a gap there, and I think it would be a good thing to address it head on. At some point, emergent leaders will have to stop existing as constantly moving targets, articulate theological positions all on their own, and stop trying to get by with mere citations of articulate theologians who sympathize - in varying degrees - with the cause.

As far as emergent eschatology, or the emergent reliance on eschatology, is concerned: if it is present at all, it is a very, very weak expression of the eschatology embedded in the pages and story of Scripture. There is no way around that charge, bro. The writings and expressions of emergent leaders is actually pretty clear on this subject, ironically. You say that emergent eschatology is “firmly placed within the kingdom of God,” but I have read no emergent material that seriously unpacks this whatsoever. Is the emergent placement of eschatology in the kingdom of God a “realized” expression of eschatology? Is it futuristic, preterist, historical, or idealist? If it is any of these things, what role does evil actually play within them? What role does Christ’s unique invitation to salvation play within them? Given what most emergents express as regards evil and Christ’s unique invitation to salvation, I’m hard pressed to attribute any expressed eschatology to the emergent church. What purpose would eschatology serve within the conversation if its foundational theological points are considered to be non-relevant for today, or worse, ignored? What does the emergent church do with the “end times?” That’s the question, because good vs. evil and eschatology is beyond prominent in the New Testament. Simply saying that the emergent church firmly places eschatology within its expressed understanding of the Kingdom of God doesn’t really say much, save “yeah, it’s there!” If it was really there, I think it would inform other aspects of the conversation, which read as if there was no attention given to the subject at all! And this is only one subject; it’s only one point! There’s many more! I think the emergent church would do well to discuss and solidly express its position concerning those points and subjects. Perhaps more of us would understand where the conversation is coming from. Make sense?

And I do appreciate your reminder that there are many facets to the emergent church. If you look closely, I tried to use the phrase “many emergents” as much as possible because I know monolithic statements don’t apply to everything flown under the banner of emergent. I’m sensitive to that fact. But, and I have to say as much, the “many facets” is often used as a sort of pass card to avoid strong statements and/or positions. I don’t think this strategy has a long shelf-life, bro. In fact, I think it’s actually hurting the whole conversation more than it is helping. It also makes proper theological thinking and discussions nearly impossible.

Again, I love conversations like this. They are good. Collegiality is a good thing. It’s something we all should be much more aware of when conversing because believe it or not there is a world far from Christ watching and taking notes. Shame on us all if our bitter infighting sends them the other way. At the end of the day, that’s what matters.

Good conversation!

I would say that emerging church folks are *very* eschatologically oriented, placing their journey and destination firmly in the “kingdom of God.” Have you read any NT Wright, Walter Brueggemann, or Leslie Newbigin (the latter a huge influence on Keller and emergents alike)? These folks are each major scholarly voices who have shaped emerging thoughts regarding mission and practice - and none of them, interestingly enough, major on ‘postmodernity.’

As far as Scripture goes, I guess I just don’t see the authors’ claim that emerging churches don’t value it — we just value it differently. (BTW, have you ever attended an ‘emerging’ church locally? Just curious) Having been both Calvinist and (I suppose) ‘emerging,’ I can tell you that both hold the Bible in very high regard, as inspired and worth teaching from. The difference is that Calvinists express that value by constructing systematic theologies around the Bible, and emerging types express the value via taking pains to recover the narrative/story of Scripture to speak into people’s lives today.

I hear you, re: the Wesleyan resonance. I have a ton of respect for that tradition. Have you ever read any Howard Snyder? Read everything you can from him, seriously. An amazing contemporary Wesleyan voice.

While I’m recommending resources, I’d check out Emergent Wesleyan, Jay Voorhees‘ blog (a Methodist pastor), Emergent Nazarenes, Nazarene Cohorts, Emerging United Methodists and the The Emerging Worship Initiative - all Wesleyan expressions of faith today that you might find interesting.

Anyway…I’m not trying to dissuade you from you’re finding to be true about the emerging conversation. I just think there are many, many facets to it, and that DeYoung and Kluck tend to caricature and pigeonhole what isn’t their brand of Calvinism. But even with that said, I think theirs is the most engaging, fair critique of emergent I’ve yet encountered.

And I’m no Calvinist either. I’m a BIC, with a strong lean towards Wesley’s expression of holiness. So, while the authors of this book link the journey’s destination to Calvinist real estate, I don’t. But I do understand their point concerning the actual need for a destination. Yes, Jesus taught us to live in the moment, but not merely for the moment’s sake alone, but for the destination too. After all, Jesus was as eschatological as it gets, right? The New Testament is rich with eschatology. That fact alone promotes the concept of destination to a place of very high priority. Given the priority of eschatology in Christianity I think it is completely fair and accurate to point out the emergent (mostly) lack of destination in the conversation. Now, I may see this destination a bit differently than the authors, but the bigger point is to actually have one, right? After all, conversation just for the sake of conversation is only conversation. I can have a conversation anywhere at anytime. Christianity must be a bit more unique than that, I hope.

Also, I think the authors touch on a very valid point regarding the Bible, and you touch on it briefly in your response. I undoubtedly live in a place that looks more like the authors than yours, as regards the Bible. I believe the Bible is the final authority on matters of faith and practice. I’m not sure where postmodern, emergent types base their personal expressions of Jesus if not in the Bible. I’m equally unsure how a postmodern, emergent claims a base in a Bible that has been cut and pasted, so to speak. It seems to me that many postmoderns and emergents proudly base their personal expressions of Jesus in “self,” and consequently express a religion derived from self. I’m not sure how one could disagree with this seeing as how postmodernism itself is a cultural assimilation and/or an assimilation of culture, and a proud witness of the transient nature of culture (and its inherent epistomology(ies). What is foundational in such a situation if not the self? This foundation, incidentally, runs contrary to the larger narrative of scripture that is written around the theological implications of God’s Imminence and Incarnation (I’m saying nothing about the individual parts of scripture that so many emergents take issue with; I’m talking about the very plot of the larger story itself!). So, I think these guys make a very good and relevant point about the Bible and the context it offers us all. without it, what context do we have for Jesus at all? and if it has been cut and pasted, it only offers a wobbly context at best.

Overall, I think this book is going to be the catalyst for some very important conversations concerning the faith. Good stuff, bro.

By the way, have you ever read any Peter Rollins? My guess is that he’d be the epitome of what they fear. Ian Mobsby, on the other hand, they might actually like if they gave him a fair chance.