Emergent's Tony Jones at SBTS

Tony Jones writes of his trip to SBTS (Boyce College, really).  He met with some of the college faculty including two guys I know, Randy Smith and Jimmy Scroggins.  I'm very glad to see that something connected to SBTS is at least in dialogue with EC (Emergent) guys.  I believe that's a good sign.

Also, notice Tim Keller finds his way into the comments on Tony's post on inerrancy and atonement issues.

Side note: I think the best thing that can happen to SBTS/Boyce (or conservative evangelicalism) and the EC is if they mate and have tons of offspring.  Then we will fill the earth with a bunch of (hopefully credobaptistic) Tim Keller's.  Oh, a man can dream.

Comments

[Stuart]

Steve,
I've got some past ties with Randy Smith (and Dave Adams), and I'm curious to get your opinion on his last question for Tony.

Given your more recent (much moreso than mine anyway) interactions with Randy, do you think he's using the term missional in the philosophical/theological sense of: missional ecclesiology, church as "sent community, etc. the way the GOCN uses the term? Or perhaps a more functional sense, i.e. the Acts 1:8 pattern.

[Nick P.]

Then you can pick out your studs to sire this new hybrid of church movement.

[Timmy]

Can anyone please explain what Tony Jones is referring to when he said, "the exclusivity of propitiation in understanding the atonement . . ."?

I am glad that things went well and Jones found Boyce faculty cordial, considerate, and conversational. I think that there would be a whole lot of misunderstandings/misperceptions that would be eradicated if but we actually could use other mediums of communication than blogs. While they are good for sharing ideas/comments, I think that it would be profitable that we could have more of the face-to-face interaction to personalize the conversation.

[Keith]

Can anyone please explain what Tony Jones is referring to when he said, "the exclusivity of propitiation in understanding the atonement . . ."?

Some people who hold to substutionary atonement models view it as expiation rather than propitiation.

[Mike Noakes]

I'm so glad the meeting went well. When I first heard about it a month or two ago, I though it was going to end in disaster. But, at least as far as I know, it was happy and stuff. Randy Smith is great!

[myles]

Can anyone please explain what Tony Jones is referring to when he said, "the exclusivity of propitiation in understanding the atonement . . ."?

I think perhaps Tony's referring to the other ways the atonement can be seen: Christus Victor, exemplar, et al. In other words, there are other ways of seeing biblically the work of Christ than simply removing the wrath of God.

[Greg McRitchie]

Can anyone tell me which view of the atonement Tony holds to, and how that effects the Gospel message? If Christ is only our example then wouldn't that be like a perfect basketball player who never missed a shot, just throwing us the ball and saying: "now you try"? Good luck with that.

[JGray]

Just out of curiosity, what makes Randy Smith so great? I have never heard anyone talk about him before.

BTW, does anyone know what the point of the meeting was?

[Steve McCoy]

I don't know the point of the meeting beyond what Tony said on his blog.

Randy is a good guy who thinks a little more "outside the box" in a good way. I like him.

[Mike Noakes]

I had Randy Smith for personal evangelism this past semester. He helped me out a lot in a Bardstown Rd. ministry and taught me many things concerning not-super-traditional evangelism. He doesn't get all caught up in minors, and he has a immense passion for people of all types to see Jesus and follow him. He's great!

[Timmy]

I went over to Boyce to meet up with a student today for lunch and just happened to have a few moments to talk with Jimmy Scroggins, the dean of Boyce College. He called the meeting and shared with me that the point of the meeting was simply for "fact-finding." The purpose was not to consider endorsing the EC movement. Their intention was not to debate or counter any of Jones' beliefs; rather, they just wanted him to speak and hear firsthand whether or not their thoughts were accurate (he mentioned that he did not want to construct a "straw man").

As I have mentioned earlier, the idea of "conversation" with the EC is that one has to in some sense adopt someone else's beliefs as true, and through collaboration find a way to incorporate each other's thoughts into the conversation. To hold to your belief as true, authoritative, and absolute is arrogant and intolerant (taken from the cliff notes of modern-day religious pluralism). Having heard from Dean Scroggins myself, the it is clear that they are NOT in the "conversation" in the EC sense of the word. However, they have genuine respect for Tony Jones and enjoyed the time they had with him. They had a conversation for sure, but not one in the sense being described here. Those who are SBCers or conservative evangelicals in the EC have no warrant to becoming giddy over a meeting that had no intention other than investigation of thought and clarification of theology.

It is important to understand that only those who are allowed in the "conversation" are those whom the EC find they can benefit from. The EC leaders do not find any benefit or incorporation of evangelical theology simply because they exist largely in protest of it! They don't want us in the conversation (whether they admit it or not). Examples of this can be found in their view of inerrancy of Scripture and the atonement of Jesus Christ.

The dividing line does not come so much with methodology as much as theology, which if investigated is nothing more than early 20th century liberal theology packaged in a go-tee or soul patch. Sure, there is much to be gained from the praxis end, but one cannot go much farther before irreconcilable differences are grabbing your grill. It becomes more than "thinking outside the box." It becomes drawing "outside the lines" (which postmodernists think don't exist, right?).

[Richard A. Bailey]

Steve, given that SBs (including Scroggins) hardly represent evangelicals (if they are even in that group in the strictest sense of the word), those really concerned with the "emerging" conversation and issues can, I suppose, take heart in Timmy's comments, that is, the people who generally tend to work best alone want to keep working alone. Surprised?? Probably not. As a mutual colleague and instructor of yours and mine is wont to remind me--denominational conservatives do not equal evangelicals (to be fair, I don't think your original post claims that they do given the way you word your side note). But the tone of Timmy's latter comments seem a bit harsh to those personal friends of mine (like yourself and Joe) who are diligently striving to appreciate the work of some emergents while faithfully ministering practically and theologically within the contexts that God has placed you. Though I am glad at least to know that you guys are little more than reincarnations of Gladden and Strong, despite Joe's pleas and posts to the contrary.

[Timmy]

One must wonder, then, what is an evangelical? The idea that Scroggins, myself, or Southern Baptists are considered evangelcals in the "strictest sense" speak not so much of the evangelicalism that is as much as the evangelicalism that used to be. Evangelicalism has been in steady decline through theological compromise and evangelical appeasement, and for the sake of fidelty to Scripture and remaining Christocentric, those who wish to take a stand are considered to be standing "alone." I find it interesting that "diligently striving to appreciate the work of emergents" are juxtaposed to my "harsh" comments. I suppose no one is allowed to protest those who protest Protestant Evangelicalism (just like there are very few who are post postmodern).
I definintely want to be in conversation with those of whom I differ, but at the same time I do not want to silence the words of Christ for the sake of being considered conversational.

I realize that I might be a lone voice here, and I understand that. What I ask is that one consider my comments even if you don't agree. For those who are evangelicals and are trying to be sensitive to the emergents, why can't that same sensitivity and concern be shared amongst your own? Why can't the work of evangelicals for the past hundred or so years be appreciated rather than treated with contempt, neglect, or disdain?

[Richard A. Bailey]

Timmy, second things first. You said, "Why can't the work of evangelicals for the past hundred or so years be appreciated rather than treated with contempt, neglect, or disdain?" In saying this, you are in effect affirming my point, namely, that many of the people here, especially the runner of this site, do appreciate the voices from the past. Keep an eye on the things Steve is generally reading and encouraging others to read. Names like Packer, Piper, Dever, Calvin, Baxter, Henry, Luther, Augustine, and Edwards (though still no Salvation of Souls, huh, Steve?) regularly show up in his lists. Why then do you insist on thinking that everyone involved in this conversation/movement/thing (which I am by no mean really a part of) is doing little more than "drawing 'outside the lines?'" My point is that the friends of mine who regularly show up here (and to hear them speak of many of the other regular posters, the same holds true for quite a few of them) have no tendencies toward liberal theology--be it of the Gilded Age, Progressive Era, or the last ten years. Instead, they are men and women like yourself (many of them SBTS grads) who are seeking to be faithful stewards of their divine errands. For some of them, this means they are attempting to encourage their colleagues in the ministry to incorporate the best of these past evangelicals (both practically and theologically) into their twenty-first century ministries. I can't see how that is a bad thing. In fact, as a historian it is, I'll contend, what we see the best of many of these evangelicals of the last few hundred years or so doing as they faced the trials and contexts of their own days. I know Edwards best and Edwards certainly countered both those who opposed the revivals of the 1730s and 1740s and those who were buying into the "religion" of the Enlightenment by using their own philosophies, ideological systems, and vocabularies (among other things) to point them to Christ. In many places, for instance, JE's "Miscellanies" are beautiful examples of how he wed what at first glance appeared to be diametrically opposed systems of thought. The danger, of course, is that not every one is as careful as JE generally was. I think you are right to worry here and I join you. But, I for one am also encouraged that careful and orthodox thinkers like Steve and Joe Thorn (again, people I know and respect) are attempting to walk this path carefully and thoughtfully.

Now, secondly, while running the risk of posting a comment that is entirely too long, to your first question, that is, "what is an evangelical?' George Marsden's attempt at such a definition (in Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism among other places) included two aspects. In one sense, it might include any Christians who affirmed such beliefs as the final authority and historicity of the Bible, salvation based on the work of Christ, the necessity of missions and evangelism, and the importance of a holy, pious life. Of course, SBs (of which I am one) fit here. A second component, though, of a definition of evangelicals, according to Marsden (and Carl Henry--if my few times with he and Mrs. Henry in the guest house at SBTS and in their apartment are any indication) has to do with a common identity that crosses denominational lines, leaders, publications, and institutions. Here, I find 99.9% of SBs unwilling to go. That is what I meant when I spoke of "working best alone." And, I might add, that work is amazing, but when you hear a SB you respect and look up to tell an evangelical Lutheran that SBs won't work on a large scale with other "evangelicals" because they don't offer SBs anything--well, to me that speaks of a clear desire to work alone. Conservative, yes, but a denominational conservative. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But sometimes, we only stand alone because we decide to; not because we have to.

Better stop--sorry Steve. I'll crawl back into my cold hole and finish the dissertation.

[Timmy]

Richard, your point is well taken, and I appreciate your detail in addressing my concerns. I understand that you, Joe, and Steve have sought out to carefully and thoughtfully consider the EC movement, and I appreciate that (believe me when I say this). I also must readily admit that I am not in the least bit educated thoroughly on the issues. I simply call them as I see them at that point and willingly confess my fallibility in all issues. I make my comments pointed and my probings purposeful because I do not want to contribute to the ambiguity.

One of the ways in which the church has been guilty of is being of the world and not being in the world (while it should be the other way around). From what I understand, the EC wants the church to become "worldly." If that is the case, should it not be expressed explicitly that you are "in the EC but not of the EC?"

I simply think that there are areas where we can agree and seek correct some of the errors of our past. On the other hand, there is much to be questioned, critiqued, challenged, and even confronted (God forbid!). I have simply tried to call a spade a spade, and know that doing so I am not writing the manual for "How to Win Bloggers and Influence Emergers." But then again, I have never been really good at that! :)

[Richard A. Bailey]

I think, Timmy, that I too would be concerned with the ambiguity of all things "emergent" if I spent much time thinking about it. But to be honest, I live in an entirely different discipline in a completely different time and space, which is why I make my way to the musings of those who have carefully and thoughtfully considered this "thing"--people who are willing to question, critique, challenge, and confront other proponents of "emerging" thought. Case in point, some of Steve's recent criticisms of so-called "redemptive" cooperation between some emerging-types and Jews. As I remarked several months ago in a slightly different context, Henry certainly cautioned against this (who'd have thought, Steve and Carl Henry, thinking so similarly). As an outsider, I am thankful for such voices. They keep me current with some strains of contemporary theology without cutting off their noses, which is no easy task. Consequently, when they are encouraged about something (despite the glimpses of reality of which they are aware), I want to take heart with them. Such voices make it clear to me at least that sometimes a spade isn't a spade --or to rework Aristophanes--a fig isn't a fig and a trough isn't a trough.

[Steve McCoy]

Richard, I really appreciate your comments here. No need for apology.

Timmy, I find it curious that you have made some of the same errors of judgment on the EC that tried to explain to you in some detail through email, yet you are asking us to take your comments and think them through. I haven't gotten the impression that you are thinking through what we have already discussed.

You've said, "I also must readily admit that I am not in the least bit educated thoroughly on the issues. I simply call them as I see them at that point and willingly confess my fallibility in all issues. I make my comments pointed and my probings purposeful because I do not want to contribute to the ambiguity."

I hope you will clarify how calling them like you see them is even possible or desirous when you aren't the "least bit educated thoroughly on the issues." According to what you said, I would say you are more likely calling them like you DON'T see them, and that doesn't help any of us. Yes, you are contributing to the ambiguity and I encourage you to use your ears (or eyes in this case) before you use your mouth (or fingers, in this case).

We have many of the same concerns, and probably agree on many of the same doctrines, but we certainly don't have the same approach.

[Timmy]

Fair enough.

[James Paul]

Tony has appeared as a guest on a couple podcasts over the last few days:

1. Out of Fellowship

2. Stupid Church People

[Greg McRitchie]

Richard; You made some good points and I appreciate that there are some theologically minded conservatives in the EM.

It is not helpful to make broad unqualified all-encompassing statements about the EM without offending someone. That said; (and I'll probably get another nasty email for saying this) there is a large element of theological Liberalism in the leadership of this movement and it is irreconcilable with biblical Christianity. The seemingly endless attack on inerrency, (as bibliolatry) substitutionary atonement (as divine Child abuse) and the denial of the biblical doctrine of Hell (just for starters) are all classically Liberal positions. And no; I'm not going to substantiate every one of these charges on this limited forum for fear of exceeding the word count standard that only seems to apply to dissenters.

So when I read statements like;

"the best thing that can happen to SBTS/Boyce (or conservative evangelicalism) and the EC is if they mate and have tons of offspring. Then we will fill the earth with a bunch of (hopefully credobaptistic) Tim Keller's. Oh, a man can dream."

I wonder how being unequally yoked to theological Liberals like McLaren can be seen as anything other than unfaithfulness to God.

[Richard A. Bailey]

Not to speak for Steve, but my guess from his post is that his hope would be that such classical liberals might recognize the error of their ways and move on over to the side of the guys wearing white hats, filling the earth "with a bunch of (hopefully credobaptistic) Tim Keller's." Man, that does sound like a dream or a movie, which is why I'd be less than inclined to wave the unfaithfulness to God taunt at Steve. He made it clear his post was one of hope for what such talks might mean for some.

That aside, though, I still think I'd be wary of saying that the mating of denominational conservatives and conservative evangelicals to theological liberals has to be "unfaithfulness to God." Classifying it as "unequally yoked" does seem to be stacking the deck of the argument. I'd hope more that Jesus's prayer for unity from John 17 is being fulfilled between believers (if we can grant that some theological liberals are true, albeit inconsistent, believers). But, hey, maybe Jesus dozed off like his disciples and was dreaming a bit himself.

[Steve McCoy]

Greg,

Here's what's funny to me. You once again have chosen to do the least helpful thing you can: throw stones without giving reasons. Why do you think just repeating your accusations are going to help anything? Speaking louder, or longer, or repeating yourself only makes it look at best like you don't have real reasons for what you say.

And if I remember right, and I know I do, I sent you a very short email with one honest question. You responded with a long email that briefly answered my question and then went on to question my character, theology and more. Then I replied in detail and you have never answered.

FYI, I've had a sit down with one of the most prominent guys (a scholar) who often speaks as an EC insider, and he said he is an inerrantist. Though I quite agree that there are some in the EC who are in error on some doctrinal issues, you have once again accused without explanation.

And your excuse for accusation without evidence? Word count. Really? That's silly Greg. Don't try to shift blame on me for your laziness. I have never deleted a comment for length, though I have encouraged shorter comments. Richard is a good friend and I'm happy to be flexible with him since I know him and he emailed me apologetically about the length before I saw his comment. You are providing, though your example, exactly why some EC'rs are so frustrated with the arrogant side of orthodoxy.

Richard is once again correct (in his most recent comment) about my point at the end of my post. My point was to say that I would love for those in the EC who are going wayward to return to a more biblical theology, and those in the SBC (or evangelicalism) to get missional and charitable.

[Greg McRitchie]

Richard; You said:
"if we can grant that some theological liberals are true, albeit inconsistent, believers"

That's the big money question that should be answered before one gets married and starts having babies; Don't you think? Have you read Machen's CHRISTIANITY and LIBERALISM? He makes a very convincing argument that Liberalism is in fact a different religion altogether from biblical Christianity.

Steve; you say I;

"throw stones without giving reasons."

Unless you are specific Steve how can I respond? What "stone" are you taking issue with?

PS; I did not respond to the angry and personally nasty email you sent me because I didn't see the point in doing so. Some people respond poorly to being admonished and you appear to be one of them. You are right; I am a nobody.

[Steve McCoy]

Greg, you have been banned. There's a huge difference (that you don't see) between admonishment of someone/something you know and trying to admonish someone/something you are pretty clueless about. I explained that in detail in my email. How "nasty" of me.

I should have deleted the above comment, but I want everyone to know this is a lie. I have never said or implied that you are "a nobody." I don't believe I've ever said that about anyone. I love honest and sharpening debate, but I will not let you lie about what I've said and how I've said it. Good-bye.

[Richard A. Bailey]

I have read Christianity and Liberalism. Machen does, I think, make a fairly strong argument against liberal Christianity. But I don't think we were talking about liberal Christianity, but liberal Christians. If all liberals were of the John Shelby Spong stripe, then, sure, we are looking at proponents of a different religion. But I've known and know quite a few self-proclaimed liberal Christians, but I don't know one of them who would be of that variety. So, yes, in theory and theology maybe Machen is correct, but as usual people get in the way and mess up theory.

[Tony Jones]

Thanks for the positive comments about my time at SBTS. Jimmy Scroggins and the others were very hospitible -- they questioned me intensely and were respectful, without giving any ground on their core convictions.

Just so the rest of you know, Timmy is really quite wrong about Emergent, and he clearly has not done his homework. Ask a truen liberal and they will confirm that Emergent is NOT liberalism in pomo garb. Nor do we shun conversation with conservatives, as I hope my time at SBTS makes clear.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

[Steve McCoy]

Appreciate your thoughts here Tony. Merry Christmas to you too.