The first chapter of Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be begins with the story of two guitarists who possess different talents and levels of musical knowledge. One is a virtuoso; the other (the author) can just get by. The virtuoso, during a conversation with the author, says regarding the music scene of which he is so engaged and knowledgeable, “In the music scene it’s really cool to search for God. It’s not very cool to find him” (32). The author goes on to write, “That line has stuck with me ever since as an apt summary not just for the world of entertainment, but for spirituality in the West. The destination matters little. The journey is the thing” (32).
That line is sticking with me as well. It is an apt summary of popular spirituality in the West. It is also an apt summary of “Emergent” spirituality. This charge should not take anyone by surprise, especially those who fly the Emergent banner. After all, their engagement of contemporary culture often includes an assimilation of the culture into their expression. So, as goes the West, so goes Emergent. And in the West, it is cool to vaguely search for God, but it is not so cool to actually find him, especially if he is found sporting propositional truths and a loving and clear call to believe and repent.
The rest of chapter one is a literal cache of edifying information concerning the theological and philosophical limitations and problems inherent to the Emergent expression. The chapter’s focus is aimed squarely not only at the Emergent penchant for the term “journey,” but also the utter disdain many of its aficionados have for the concept of “destination.” It’s hard to not see the good points being raised by the author.
The author begins by unpacking the Emergent/postmodern expression of “journey.” He writes:
“Because the journey is an experience more than a destination, the Christian life requires less doctrinal reflection and more personal introspection. The postmodern infatuation with journey feeds on and into a preoccupation with our own stories. If my parent’s generation could be a little stoic and not terrible reflective, my generation is introspective at a level somewhat between self-absorption and narcissism. We are so in-tuned with our dysfunctions, hurts, and idiosyncrasies that it often prevents us from growing up, because maturity is tantamount to hypocrisy in a world that prizes brokenness more than health” (34).
This is a fair critique of postmodern spirituality. In our own setting and ministry (church planting), we were confronted with the challenge of identifying with “journey” or “destination.” Some of us championed “journey,” others understood us to be working towards a “destination.” Unfortunately, we failed to see this challenge for what it really was - a totally unnecessary “either/or,” and we consequently stumbled towards “journey.” Fortunately, we were not beyond the point of no return, and we prayerfully made the necessary community corrections. The very fact that we were forced to acknowledge this challenge in ministry is a testimony to the truth contained in the above quote. For sure, church planters will be forced to wrestle with the issue of “journey” over “destination.” We have learned that the choice of “journey” over “destination” ultimately leads to a skewed view of the Bible and a vacillating core group or launch team. We all would do well to address it early and firmly. It is an “either/or” that is totally unnecessary and detrimental to very important aspects of community building - like doctrine.
The remainder of chapter one offers readers a near exhaustive dismantling of the theological weaknesses of the Emergent expression of “journey.” The author outlines the more serious problems in clear, articulate, and solid fashion.
He beings by tackling what could arguably be called the “Emergent Doctrine of God’s Unknowability.” Many Emergents seem to have a very skewed understanding of the basic theology of Immanence and Incarnation. This lack of understanding should come as no surprise, since the Emergent preference for journey over destination leads towards a misplaced and unfortunate focus on praxis over doctrine (another “either/or”). A lack of prayerful doctrinal attention results in an overall weak theology and a misunderstanding of basic Christian concepts such as Immanence and Incarnation. The result is this thing called the “Emergent Doctrine of God’s Unknowability.” Many Emergents cite God as nearly unknowable, if not utterly unknowable. The author explains the situation:
“But emergent leaders are allowing the immensity of God to swallow up his knowability. In good postmodern fashion, they are questioning whether we can have any real, accurate knowledge about God in the first place. Brian McLaren, in noting his agreement with Tony Campolo, argues that in one sense all theologies are heresies because we can’t truly speak of God using our human formulation. what is needed is ‘not absolute certainty about our theologies, but a proper and humble confidence in God’” (35).
McLaren’s statement, however, and as the author duly notes later in the chapter, is nonsensical, if not straight up self-contradictory. How so? Well, if real or accurate knowledge about God is nothing more than an untrustworthy impossibility, how - or better yet why - does one then place a humble confidence in this god? From where does such “humble confidence” originate? Is it a product of the self? If it is not, from where does such a thing originate? This is the postmodern dilemma. How does one come right out and say spirituality is nothing more than an individual expression of self without actually saying “spirituality is nothing more than an individual expression of self?” It’s simple: “You say God is unknowable, but worthy of our humble confidence.” No other sense or purpose for such self-contradiction in expression can be wrestled from the thin concept. It is an utterly postmodern expression, and totally removed from the redemptive pages of the Bible. The author summarizes this point succinctly:
“Such statements fly in the face of redemptive history and nearly every page of Scripture. The God of the Bible is nothing if he is not a God who speaks to his people. To be sure, none of us ever infinitely understand God in a nice, neat package of affirmations and denials, but we can know him truly, both personally and propositionally. God can speak. He can use human language to communicate truth about himself that is accurate and knowable, without ceasing to be God because we’ve somehow got him all figured out” (37).
This statement serves as a good segue into the chapter’s next point: the seeming allergic reaction Emergents have for certainty as regards knowledge. “Certainty, for the emergent church, is the same as pinning down Jesus and summing up God, while uncertainty is a breath of fresh air. ‘Drop any affair you may have with certainty, proof, argument - and replace it with dialogue, conversation, intrigue and search,’ argues McLaren. Clarity, after all, is usually boring and wrong ’since reality is seldom clear, but usually fuzzy and mysterious; not black-and-white, but living color’” (39).
McLaren, as the author rightfully points out, is only continuing to perpetuate the “either/or” error. There is no need to trip backwards towards an “either/or” when a “both/and” will do. It is an unnecessary and false dichotomy. The Emergent preference for an “either/or” in this case substantiates their preference for vague expressions of intrigue and search, but at the expense of certainty. The practice begs the question: for what exactly does the uncertain one actually search for? If you have absolutely no idea what you are searching for, how do you know if or when you find it? Or is it a matter of searching for the mere sake of searching? If so, that’s a sad testimony, and a vain expression of spirituality.
The author, however, offers a very solid Biblical alternative to such vain searching. He simply asks, “But why do intrigue and search have to mean the end of all certainty” (39)? That’s a fair question. The author then goes on to cite Paul as a Biblical example of one who not only “…did not claim to fully understand the depth of God’s wisdom and mercy (Rom. 11:33-36),” but also as one who did not hesitate to chide “his fellow Jews for having a zeal for God ‘not based on knowledge’ (Rom. 10:2)” (41). If you are one who is uncomfortable with confident assertions concerning God, Christ, and Spirit, then you will most assuredly be uncomfortable with the Bible. The Bible is the only foundation for the Christian faith; without it’s story, believers have no context for their assertions about the Christian God, Jesus Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit. A faith without a context might be a lot of things, but it is not - and can not be - Christian. In fact, it can only be called an expression rooted in self.
The author points out another pretty devastating problem embedded in the Emergent expression of uncertainty. He writes, “Arguing for the inherent uncertainty of knowledge causes problems when you write books trying to convince people to believe or behave in certain ways. That is to say, radical uncertainty sounds nice as a sort of protest against the perceived dogmatism of evangelical Christianity, but it gets in the way when you want to prove your point. At some point, no matter how often you rag on certainty and boast in the great mysterious unknowability of God, you will want people to be clear about your beliefs” (42).
This chapter is a must read for those who want to engage postmodern expressions of the Christian faith honestly. The philosophical presuppositions and theological assumptions that are so foundational to the Emergent expression of the faith are isolated, investigated, tested, and ultimately found wanting. God is knowable, regardless of what some Emergents would have you believe. The author lays out the case for this God - the God of the Bible - extremely well. The author, near the close of this chapter, and in an effort to drive home the point about God’s knowability by applying the Emergent expression to real-time relationships, leaves readers with the following and unavoidable question: “If I doubt all that I believe to be true about Frank, how does that make me more able to trust Frank the person” (50)?
That’s a fair and great question. Think about it …
Work Cited: Deyoung, Kevin, and Ted Kluck. Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008.
Deacon & Usher were here…
deaconandusher.wordpress.com
Excellent conversation, Mike! I’m thrilled to be able to chat about this subject in a cordial and collegial way. We are all, after all, brothers and sisters at the end of the day. I think the whole conversation would be much more edifying for everyone if we all could dedicate ourselves to that simple fact. So, thanks!
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.
Hi Shawn,
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.
Hey, Mike. Just read your take. It’s a cordial response, at least. That’s cool. A friend of mine gave me How Not To Speak About God. I glanced through it, having no time as of yet to dive deeper into it. But from my cursory glance I can already tell that I’d prefer Keller.
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.
Intriguing interaction with this book; the part about ‘journey’ was my favorite part too. I’d be fascinated to hear what you think of my take.
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.