Emergent Collective Response

Doug Pagitt writes,

A number of us have been working for a few months on a collective response to criticisms that have been made about us and Emergent.  We decided to put a document together, not for the purpose of settling all matters, but to try and put words around our hopes, and to give those who have to respond on our behalf some indication of what we are thinking on these matters.

I imagine that others would like to "sign on" to this response, if not in words then in spirit. Those listed are among the people who have been "called out" either for what they have written or said, but mostly what has been written.

And here's a link to the collective response (PDF file) by Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Chris Seay, Spencer Burke, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, and Tony Jones.

I think it's a great response that needs very wide reading, from the staunch critic who has likened Brian McLaren to a cult leader to the blogger who hates emergent because their pastor told them to.  These four pages won't answer all the questions or do enough to moisten the dry tongue of the critics, but I think it carries wisdom as well as a humble spirit.

I want to play briefly with one thought that came to mind while reading this.  Often in church history the greatest theologians, authors, hymn writers (and so on) were pastors.  The practitioners were writing and their writing was informed not only by their preaching, but their daily involvement with the pains and joys of the local church ministry.  Is the Emerging Church about recovering that?  I'm not sure, but I think it's worth thinking about.

OTHER LINKS: Official post and conversation at Emergent-US; TallSkinnyKiwi; Justin Taylor; Emergent No; A-Team Blog; Subversive Influence;
 

Comments

[kaleobill]

Great link, Steve. Thanks for pointing it out. Should be interesting to see what the resonse is to the article.

[John Mark]

have you read A-Team's response?
http://ateam.blogware.com/
I see a mix of humility and arrogance in the response. They probably don't mean it, but it comes off that way. I think you're on to something with the last paragraph.

[Steve McCoy]

JM,

Humility and arrogance in the original response or A-Team's response? C'mon Mr Seminary Student, you should know better than to confuse us like that. :)

I take it you mean the original, and I think critics often see things like this and view parts as arrogant. They are trying to change the way the conversation about the conversation is going, and to do that they have to say some of how things are done are done wrong. How arrogant! ;^)

So I try not to read arrogance or humility in the things said, but rather how they are said. I think they were said in a humble manner, and that is to be commended considering the EC has been under pretty significant attack for a while now.

Also, having discussed things with A-Team before, I could have told you their response before it came. :)

[THilton]

Steve,

Do you not see even a hint of arrogance in that responce? I hate to say this Steve, but in the "conversation" I have witnessed on this site arrogance in various forms. I think some of it comes the sin nature that we all have inherited, but it also comes from a lack of concern over what the Emergent Church represents.

I think some of the comments about being "missional" have been right on, but whether you agree with it or not, the whole promotion of "all things emergent" IS a movement, not mere conversation. These guys obviously march in lock step. There is much to be excited about being missional, but not about post-modern theolgy. I beleive we need to examine deeply how we respond to our culture, but not by embracing reductionism, lest we become Neo.

[John Mark]

sorry about that. I realized after I posted that it was confusing. I will say that the EC people have been much more charitable in the engagement than others(those referred to in bold in the EC statement). Although I have to say that A-Team has done better than most. A-team seems to like Kimball, but not McLaren. I have a question, in the EC statement they say abstain from adding your critique unless you have read our books, heard us speak, and dialogued with us. Do they mean you have to do all three or are they just asking for honest appraisals and not heresay?

[Steve McCoy]

And see, THilton, I can't say "you don't understand" the EC because you obviously do. Uh, that was sarcasm.

You have mischaracterized the "movement," broadbrushed, and made everyone a McLarenite. For me, I have never on this site, or my other site, ever (not one time) promoted "all things emergent." And even emergent guys don't promote "all things emergent." Have you ever read TallSkinnyKiwi's blog? He signed this document and said on his own site after: "...the Emergent guys in USA wrote it up and sent it to me a few days back - i told them it looked good and was willing to put my name on if it would help. And they did."

And..."I dont agree with everything they come up with, but we are on the same team..."

I think that shows your statement "These guys obviously march in lock step," is false. It took them months to write this because they don't do this.

Listen, I'm not about defending myself as "emergent." I don't even know if I could be called emergent. I don't care if anyone calls me emergent. But I think there is value in the conversation, but problems as well (some big ones too). My biggest goal is to get people making silly judgments on the EC to stop and let good criticism come against it as well as having the EC give good criticism to evangelicalism - which it does.

[Steve McCoy]

"I have a question, in the EC statement they say abstain from adding your critique unless you have read our books, heard us speak, and dialogued with us. Do they mean you have to do all three or are they just asking for honest appraisals and not heresay?"

They said, "We would only ask, if you accept our critics’ evaluation of our work, that in fairness you abstain from adding your critique to theirs unless you have actually read our books, heard us speak, and engaged with us in dialogue for yourself. Second-hand critique can easily become a kind of gossip that drifts from the truth and causes needless division."

They are saying don't bash emergent because your pastor said so. Something like that.

[THilton]

Steve,

Thanks for the reponse. As I re-read the EC statement I realized maybe I should give them credit for humility. The things they say about that are a good example for all of us. My first read of the statement on the poor I thought initially came across as if "no one else cares about the poor like we do." But I still don't think they deal directly with the legitimate concerns some of us have.

Yes, I have read TallSkinnyKiwi's blog, and a host of others. You know, Steve I have really tryed resist generalizations. Didn't accuse everyone of being McLarenites, my mentioning "Neo" may have led you to beleive that. But when you sign a statement with a collection of people who are notoriously known for emergent views, are you not endorsing their movement in some way?

Here's another question: How can you say, "I'm not defending myself as emergent" but at the same time say, "I don't care if anyone calls me emergent?" I haven't read a lot of criticism of EC here. I know, I know, I just wasn't reading on that day, right?

[Joe Thorn]

Wow,

THilton - Your line of thought doesn't wash with me. Everyone who is a part of the EC endoreses the conversation itself, but not all of the views held by all of the people in the conversation. This should be easy for anyone to understand. I endorse the SBC itself, but not all of the doctrine or behavior found within. God help us.

Steve - I would say it more plainly. The best theologians, et al throughout history have always been pastors up until the twentieth century. I hope both the EC and other groups (like Founders.Org) will recover this.

[Roger Overton]

"Although I have to say that A-Team has done better than most. A-team seems to like Kimball, but not McLaren."

Thanks John Mark, I do try to be more charitable than the other critics. Yes, although the A-Team is a team, so I like Kimball and not McLaren, but B.A. probably doesn't like anything emergent- of course he never posts so I guess that doesn't matter.

"The best theologians, et al throughout history have always been pastors up until the the twentieth century."

I'd love to see this happen again. I recently left a church where this would have been impossible. The issue there had a lot to do with a lack of concern for theology, both their own and their congregation's. Pastors need to once again see that what people believe is part of their responsibilities, and that if they are taught well it will imrpove the other areas of their lives.

[Steve McCoy]

Joe, thanks for a concise and helpful comment. Good statement on pastor-theologians.

THilton, thanks for the thoughtful and generous reply.

"But I still don't think they deal directly with the legitimate concerns some of us have."

Emergent isn't monolithic, at least not yet. But they did say as a group that they believe in truth (can't believe they had to say this), deny epistemological relativism and confirm the ancient creeds. That does deal with legitimate concerns pretty directly, though not all of them to be sure.

"But when you sign a statement with a collection of people who are notoriously known for emergent views, are you not endorsing their movement in some way?"

Sure, insofar as it's a movement. It's not much of one yet, and again, there is no theological consensus, so whether it's a movement or not is moot since it can't be a theological movement, yet.

"Here's another question: How can you say, "I'm not defending myself as emergent" but at the same time say, "I don't care if anyone calls me emergent?" I haven't read a lot of criticism of EC here. I know, I know, I just wasn't reading on that day, right?"

What I mean is, I don't need anyone to call me emergent. It's not a part of my personal identity or concern to have that label. There are plenty who are giving good critique of the emerging church, plenty who are giving bad. It's loud and clear from many in SBC camps and other camps. I don't need to add a lot of critique right now, though I say that I don't agree with some EC stuff more often than I should have to.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks for the comment Roger. I'm pretty sure the A-Team blog is a movement, so if one like Kimball you all are Kimballites! ;^) I do appreciate your comments on the piece over at A-Team.

[THilton]

Joe,

How much plainer can it be? If I have a web blog that displays a majority of books and web sites that I supposedly say that I disagree with would you beleive me? Guilt by association may not seem fair, but it is a reality. I wouldn't sign statements with people which I may have serious differences in doctrine (even though the statement seems to communicate that they do have differences). BTW, if I didn't agree with the general doctrine of the SBC, I wouldn't associate with it.

[Joe Thorn]

But this is my point. Southern Baptists are clear where they agree and stand unified. Basic theology and mission program is what unites us. The EC is very new and diverse, but have begun to come out to say where they ARE unified. Let's allow them to tell us where they agree as they continue to write.

[Steve McCoy]

THilton,

True on SBC, but it's also a denomination. Very different, at least at the moment. But I'll bite: Please describe for me the general doctrine of emergent. That should clear it up.

Can you say you agree with the letter just based on what it says? If you just take it at face value, what do you disagree with?

[THilton]

Steve,

But you can't bite, only slurp, because it's jelly:) Ofcourse, its ambiguous. That's the problem. I would say, at face value, most of it, I could. It would be hard in that statement alone to find a lot to disagree with. But I do think they could be making generalizations about WHO is making generalizations. I don't think D.A. Carson made generalizations, nor did the writers of Reclaiming the Center.

[THilton]

Alright, I will be accused of generalizations if I don't clarify: not everyone's ideas associated with EC is jello. There, I took my own medicine. Some are clearer on what they beleive on some things that we may consider essentials of the faith...but on other things...there is ambiguity.

[Steve McCoy]

"Some are clearer on what they beleive on some things that we may consider essentials of the faith."

Cool, so, "Please describe for me the general doctrine of emergent. That should clear it up."

[THilton]

Steve, I don't think that is possible. The problem is the embracing of antifoundationalism, which leads to an aversion to doctrine. I think my point about ambiguity speaks to that point, there is no general doctrine of emergent to examine, only a rejection of "modern" epistemology.

[Steve McCoy]

Who is embracing antifoundationism? Is Emergent? Can you show me where this is true?

[THilton]

Those who reject propositional truths or the use of them, I would consider embracing antifoundationalism.

[Steve McCoy]

THilton, the point I'm trying to make through my questions is that you are making sweeping comments about emergent and then not giving specifics because you can't.

You assume antifoundationalism because some people wrote some books that some in the EC like, and so ALL in the EC must be like that b/c there is some guilt by association. Whether you know you are doing it or not, that's what you are doing. But it's not denominational association, it's conversational. And I can talk with people about some issues even when I disagree on others (even essentials!).

Touchstone Magazine is a good example. Russ Moore (SBTS theology dean) writes on their blog along with all sorts (Anglicans, Orthodox, Roman Catholic). They have serious differences, but enough similarities to be about a conversation together.

[THilton]

Steve,

One comment and I have to go visit four people in the hospital... I did't make a sweeping comment, I just gave you the qualifier for those who are antifoundationalists. Now Steve, if I was strictly worried about guilt by association I don't think I would be submiting any comments here. Those EC's attempting to defend themselves together in a statement is a lot different than Russ Moore at touchstone.

[Todd]

John Franke wrote "Beyond Foundationalism" with Grenz. A careful read would clarify they are not "anti-foundationalists." "Beyond" implies something needs to be "tweaked."

A conversation with any of those who signed the statement would uncover "soft-foundationalists." I am not going to go into a definition. Franke's "prequel" to "Beyond Foundationalism" will be out this summer. Could help? Also, Books and Culture reprineted a piece by "Roger Olsen titled, "A Pieetist with a PhD" about Grenz. Reading through the description of Grenz's positions as given by Olsen would find him happily accepted by even some of his critics if they were not so quick to dismiss.

There are a couple of other bombshells in the works (from a literary standpoint). They may make dialogue betweeen those in the EC and even Carson more of a reality than writing a book that carries the root for conversation in the title and yet reveals no "conversation" with those criticized whatsoever. We will have to wait and see on this one.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks for the input and book news Todd. Good stuff.

THilton,

Sheesh. You can't be guilty by association when you come to a blog to disagree. Please be reasonable.

Moore in some sense agrees with these other faith traditions, so he enters a conversation with them. I in some sense agree with some of what's happening in the EC so I'm happy to be in a conversation with them. There are differences, but enough similarity to discuss.

[THilton]

Steve, I am being reasonable. You may think I'm not since "I've come to this blog to disagree." Actually, I've come to this blog to clarify, maybe to understand some things. You're avoiding the differences. I sense by your expression that this "conversation" is tenuous for you. I don't wish to bring out your frustration. I would be glad to talk to you about that in another format...by phone preferably. That way I can disern whether your tone matches what I'm reading.

[Steve McCoy]

"Now Steve, if I was strictly worried about guilt by association I don't think I would be submiting any comments here."

That is unreasonable: yes or no. Every time your point isn't made you just move on to something else. Learn, grow, stretch. C'mon. Just say your statement was dumb and move on.

I talk on this blog, on my other blog, and on a number of other blogs and discussion boards without any problem. With you, it's like nailing petrified wood to a wall.

[tom montali]

re: Emergent response

A masterful declaration of dialetic deceit. The apostle Peter warned the church of these.

2 Peter 2:17-19
"These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage."

By the way, the church of Jesus Christ is not a "human endeavor" (to quote you), this is where you do greatly err. If you are presently involved in this work of 'man' you need to come out. If you're "contemplating" entering the movement, be warned also by the apostle Peter....

2 Peter 3:17
"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

Run. Fast.

To those who would deem this to be "harsh".....the standard is and must always be the Word of God and not the words of men.

TM

[THilton]

Steve,

I think that it is you who decides to end the conversation when its not going your way. You become rude and quite honestly, a bit arrogant.

The statement I made was intended to convey that I was actually on this blog communicating with someone (who I thought welcomed open discussion)that I agreed with on some things, but possibly disagree strongly on others. I didn't "move on to something else" I just responded to your interigation.

[Joe Thorn]

Tom,

The thing about the Apostles was that they confronted heresy head-on. Lay out there false doctrine on the table and deal with it. You have turned a cute phrase at the beginning of the comment, but said nothing.

What is the deceit? What is the lie? What doctrine is in jepordy? And if you can identify one, does this conern apply to everyone who signs that response?

[Joe Thorn]

*passes THilton a tissue*

I'm kidding man. I think dissenting voices in the conversations are good, as long as we seek unerstand each other.

[Steve McCoy]

Tom, how's Hawaii? Wish I were there.

I hope you respond again because I have the feeling that was a drive by post. Usually no email is left when people are afraid to actually engage in the issues. You didn't engage in anything specific, as Joe noted. Please clarify.

[Steve McCoy]

THilton. The "arrogance" card again. You started with it and ended with it. Nice inclusio. ;^) I've wanted to call you arrogant since your first comment, but rarely does any good. I encourage you to realize that.

You originally talked about how you like the missional stuff I've been talking about, but I never heard from you during those discussions. You lurk until you find something to turn against. Ask yourself if that isn't intentional, that you are looking to pick fights (disagreements, whatever).

For instance, last time you were here it was the Kevin Ezell thing, and that didn't go well either. Could it be you? I get hundreds of hits a day, over a thousand on the other site, and I don't have these problems with anyone else but guys like Tom above, who post something worthless and run. Sure you stick around, but we don't get anywhere.

I have comment after comment responded with evidence from the document, from other blogs, and so on to show that the EC is different than you think. Yet after doing so, you just press on in another direction. I think you have decided what's bad and nothing will change your mind.

I won't have much time to comment anymore tonight, and I'm busy through Sunday afternoon. See you around.

[tom montali]

(Hawaii's pretty ok)

re: emergent church doctrine

Doctrine? What is that?....hard to discern.... if in fact there is any clear doctrine.

Lack of clear and accurate presentation of the truth which leaves an effete religious "experience". Another 'gospel' quite simply. In fact, let's re-define it as we go. That's what the diabolical dialectic dialogue that you have been enticed to engage in is for. To engage is to be incrementally drawn into the abyss of the harlot church.

Jeremiah saw this day.....

Jer. 50:6
"My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace."

Wandering, then scattered, then lost....will be the stages that the movement will take all who are enticed.

Hbr 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

Mat 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[THilton]

Well Steve, that was the reason I would have preferred a private conversation to public grandstanding. It brings out the worst in people. I thought reconciliation would be good (on the things we can agree on). I think the reason you don't have a lot of people to come here and disagree with you is because it doesn't take long to pick up from your tone that they aren't really welcomed. That's O.K., it's your blog.

"You lurk until you find something to turn against."
Well, I guess I can't win. If I ever decide to respond to something(on a rare day when I'm not busy) then I'm deviously waiting for the right moment to attack. However, if I don't read all the EC blogs and books and make sure that I understand the conversation on Steve McCoy's blog sites, I'm out of touch and uninformed. Maybe that's the reason D.A. Carson hasn't joined the conversation, he's much wiser than I.

Thanks for the tissue, Joe.

[Joe Thorn]

Tom,

At this point I think everyone can see you simply cannot articulate a real problem here. Your sound bite warnings are the kinds of thing that get some people excited and "amening," but you still have said nothing. To claim someone to be a heretic, or is embracing another Gospel is a serious charge. Back it up man. As I see it, a few in the conversation are intentionaly vague where I think they should be clear. And even when they start to clear things up - I think they are wrong. But this is not the whole - only the part.

I have no fear of disucssing doctrine or truth, because as Jesus said, God's word is truth. As David said, it is perfect. As Paul said, it is God-breated. No one I have read in the conversation would disagree with what I have just said.

[Rodney McCarty]

All I can say is "Wow" Read the post by the guys out front. Thought it was well written. Then I read the comments - wow. Came here, after Emerging SBC leaders - again - wow. I guess my comments about color on the other side were more true than I care to think about. Feel like I need to go take a shower! Wonder what Luther thought......

[Steve McCoy]

"I think the reason you don't have a lot of people to come here and disagree with you is because it doesn't take long to pick up from your tone that they aren't really welcomed. That's O.K., it's your blog."

You can think what you want. You are coming here telling me about my arrogance, about how you know more about my blog than I do. THilton, arrogance is shown by its fruit. If you don't want to discuss the issues and instead desire to point the finger at me, please just move on and go argue with someone else.

"Well, I guess I can't win. If I ever decide to respond to something(on a rare day when I'm not busy) then I'm deviously waiting for the right moment to attack."

Evidence is evidence. If you don't intend it, it's a pretty dramatic coincidence. But having read your comments in other places, I don't think it's a coincidence.

"However, if I don't read all the EC blogs and books and make sure that I understand the conversation on Steve McCoy's blog sites, I'm out of touch and uninformed."

Please THilton, this is another example of wild overstatement. I mentioned one blog, and never implied you need to read all the books.

"Maybe that's the reason D.A. Carson hasn't joined the conversation, he's much wiser than I."

Carson is wiser than both of us combined, but that's not the reason he isn't in the conversation.

Thanks for commenting here again. I hope we can meet sometime. I'll just bet we have a lot more in common than we have differences.

[Steve McCoy]

Tom,

My favorite comment from you, and the only one that gave enough info to respond to is, "Hawaii's pretty ok." I would argue that to most it would be "very okay," but I don't want to fight with you over it.

Other than that, I agree with and love every passage you quoted. The Bible rocks.

Please, if you want to comment, leave a working email address. If you don't, I will determine that you desire to be hostle (already pretty evident) and untrackable (but I know you are in Hawaii, pretty good eh?). I consider email a requirement for commenting on my sites and will cut you off if you don't start leaving one. Thanks.

[Joe Thorn]

Steve - can't you set typepad to require email for commenting? I thought you could do that.

[Steve McCoy]

I believe I can, but I don't mind letting people make the mistake of not putting it there and then remind them to do so. Am I not merciful? (what movie, Joe?)

[Joe Thorn]

Gladiator baby! hahaha.

[Steve McCoy]

Ohhhh. Very nice. That's a great scene.