Chad,

On previous occasions I've enjoyed and concurred with many of your thoughts. I'm afraid I can't say that this time around.

Speaking of postmodern slipperyness, calling Driscoll "humble" smacks of remaking a word into whatever you'd like it to mean. Serioulsy, I'm that confused and concerned with your application of the term here. And calling some of Driscoll's childish, dismissive name-calling "funny" really drags at your credibility.

There's more to be said about your article, but these two points alone make the post seem less than sincere... less than thoughtful... less than honest - in terms of really interacting with the material you propose to engage.

What an incredibly uncharitable review of Jones' book. It seems like you jumped to the worse possible conclusion regarding virtually everything he wrote and the tone in which he wrote it - I have a difficult time believing that you started the book with anything resembling an open mind to his ideas.

And the idea that in contrast you would hold up Driscoll as an example of humility is astounding - Jones' presents himself in a far more humble fashion than I have ever seen from Driscoll.

chad,

i really appreciate your review - the way you framed it in terms of expectations and the way you contrasted your reactions to these two books.

let me push back at a core premise: The New Christians is a true and honest depiction of the emergent church movement.

It's a book, intended to sell so the author can support his ministry. It is partly personal reflection, partly theological reflection, partly stories of a group of people.

You seem to...um...not care for it.

That is fair.

I actually agree with some of your critique of it, but I also am part of it - both figuratively in my own journey and literally in that my story is in it. [full disclosure]

Rather than buy into the marketing frame of a brand & a movement, with books sold supporting & attacking, I'd encourage you to do a bit of what SAS Institute is so great at - listening beyond the noise, for the signals that lie in so many folks. Step away from "rock stars" and look for patterns, for stories of transformation like Gideon Tsang or Kelly Bean or Dean Smith or the countless other folks who have no books or blogs or platforms.

As for me, I must confess I have been in that church that you described with some disdain - the rag-tag community that you seemed to intuit so much about. Trust me, if you were to spend a week or a month there, as so many people all around the world have traveled to do, you would find a very different place than you describe.

The church you used as a type of scapegoat - Church of the Apostles - is the type of community that my friend Bob Hopkins describes as "loyal radicals":

First, they really love the church they are a part of, even though they are passionate for change and often immensely frustrated by the built-in institutional resistance to change.

Secondly their commitment to missional transformation of the church is fired by a gift of faith that God is able to bring about change even where it seems impossible.

This gift of faith leads them to believe that whatever the appearances, God must have a way through. This positive perspective is probably essential to sustain the love behind the loyalty in the face of apparent considerable inertia.

These loyal radicals have long past given up on trying to be "cool churches", have stayed away from the power & the prestige - heck they can not even get a book published most times. They are not perfect, surely not, but spend some time with them (rather than with a book or a blog) and I am certain you'll get a sense of how life altering following Jesus in community has been for so of these many folks, these loyal radicals.

Thanks again for sharing Chad - I'd love to buy you some BBQ if you are ever in Austin.

From what I see most of these guys are just young, inexperienced kids who are trying to "leave home" and they do so by rebelling against the past. Anyone who differentiates himself/herself by criticizing Mom and Dad are still stuck at home.

When Driscoll and Jones grow up they, like the rest of us, will look back at their youthful sermons, books and papers and say, "What was I thinking?" Then they will text themselves as a reminder to grow up and have patience with the new kids on the block.

It is an ever repeating cycle but made more obvious now that these kids can get a book contract, sell DVDS and put up a blog. And, even CT will take them so seriously they will review their adolescent ramblings.

I find it interesting that Hall's description of Jones's "self-sealing" thinking process is precisely what is repeatedly heard and seen with Barack Obama. In Hall's analysis: "There is no way for emergents to be wrong."

This review does not define emerging or emergent so it seems very weak and limited. At least offer how you would define emerging or emergent.

Also. "sensible and sound Christianity" doesn't sound very much like Christ, thus, I'm disinclined to strive for it.

Thanks for posting a bold review! I loved reading your criticisms and sharp points, and I look forward to reading the responses from the authors.

Just as a side note to anyone reading the review who has not read the books, I had the opposite reaction to Jones' "New Christians," finding it a very helpful summary, a humble explanation, and a hopeful treatise. I've recommended it to many people, emergent and not.

What about what Mark Driscoll can learn from the "emergent" wing of the emerging thing?

Any thoughts there?

"Evidently the emergent movement is red-hot gospel lava bursting forth from the confines of crusty old –isms: individualism, consumerism, institutionalism, Presbyterianism, Catholicism and Methodism.(37)"

So, from what you're saying is that they're trumpting their tossing out of the old 'ism's, and yet...

"My jaw really dropped when Jones described an emergent church in Seattle. The congregation came off as a band of intellectually superior egoists."

Guess this guy forgot that old timey pharisetical 'ism..."intellectualism."

What really bugs me about this whole emerging emergent...whatever it is...is the intangible doctrine of "hey, lets talk." which is all well and fine, but there comes a time when the feet must hit the ground.
When that moment comes, if it ever does because it seems to me that the emergent movement is in a continual state of theological and doctrinal freefall, will they be able to hit the ground running, or at the very least...standing; Or will they crumple into a doctrinal and theological heap that the rest of us are going to have to clean up?
I see a lot of interesting "spiritual and intellectual candy" coming out of them, but I also get that same candy from non-christians as well...what separates them from each other?
I don't know...and so I'm left with the feeling, the idea that this emergent church thing is a spiritual fad because it has embraced doctrinal and theological intangibility over biblical bedrock, and nebulousness over scriptural clarity.
In short, I've given up trying to make sense of them, and I leave them to G-d's infinite mercy.
Fare them well.

I just re-read this review.

I'm disappointed that you would only see Driscoll's ancedotal and demeaning descriptions as "unhelpful".

How about "untrue"? Or even "unchristlike"?
"Slanderous" maybe?

Sometimes I am left wondering if UR or CT are into the "shock and awe" of bold, abrasive writing at times. Perhaps sensing that if they "shock" the audience of UR with blanket statements, generalizations or biased critiques that they will ramp up page hits and conversation on the posts.

I was very interested in checking out BOTH of these books, but this review wasn't in the least helpful to me. I was really hoping that Chad would have provided a review that was thoughtful and even-toned. I didn't sense that here. I was disappointed.

But UR you got me! The "shock" did work on me when I read the words that Mark Driscoll was humble...enough said.

Like Chad, I fully expected Driscoll's book to be pompous and Jones's book to be chill and groovy. I haven't read Driscoll's, but I was shocked at how cavalier and cocky Jones came across. He makes a lot of snarky comments about "the establishment"--especially for someone currently receiving a degree from the establishment. Jones's arrogant tone (whether intended or not) was a real turn off for me, too. Those of you who think Chad's being unfair need to cut him some slack.

First of all, since when is a book review supposed to be objective? The whole point of a review is give one's opinion. It's fine to disagree with Chad's take on these books, but don't jump on him for having an opinion. That's just silly.

Secondly, Chad says at the beginning that he used to consider himself part of the emerging church. He didn't read Jones' book with an ax to grind. He wasn't looking to trash all things postmodern. And he's certainly not a disciple of Driscoll. What's illuminating about his review is how a person sympathetic to emergent was totally turned off by Jones' book.

if i hear one more time that mark driscoll is a saint for starting a church where it is "tough to do ministry" i'm, i'm going to shake my head.. like every time. oh the dark dark abyss of seattle. surely god is in tough there. stealing a page from doug pagitt, there are no dark places. there are great opportunities for the gospel to live, for the kingdom of god to be realized.

i have much more to say about the staged objective/critical viewpoint of this article but i'll save it. suffice to say, can we just all honestly own our biases and not try to pretend as though it is possible or even helpful to objectify the lives of others?

Gee whiz. So sad to not see Driscoll's picture of the gospel as "interesting." The problem with most of the emergent stream is that they're trying to make things more interesting. Hopefully Jesus doesn't read this review and get offended that His person and work you didn't find interesting.

i've appreciated many of the reviews and articles from Out of Ur. With that said, I struggle with this one. I realize that book reviews will always reveal the authors opinion to some degree, but this one seems to very much reveal the authors bias against Jones and Emergent. I found the arrogant tone of the article ironic since he kept coming back to Jones' "arrogance". And I agree fully with other commenters that if we keep seeing Driscoll's attitude and inconsiderateness as cute or funny we aren't taking his destructiveness serious enough.

chad, try to review just one book at a time in the future; surely you know by now that us Urbanites don't have an attention span that long ...

before i read these review(s), neither of these books were on my reading list.

after i read these review(s), well, neither of these books are on my reading list.

everyone strives, it seems, to define...
...the ONE way ministry should be done;
...the ONE theology that is right;
...the ONE way sermons should be prepared;
...the ONE kind of music that should be played;
...etc.

and then they write a book about it. after that, they write a book or four (depending on their publishers) showing how/why/where others are wrong.

all in the name of 'defending the faith' or 'keeping the faith pure and untainted by the world.'

a lot of wasted effort if you ask me.

i did chuckle a bit at chad's reference to self-sealing thinking. if this isn't the perfect description of nearly every reformed or calvinist or, heck, even plain old evangelical, i don't know what is. when you have those God-will-explain-this-more-fully-when-we-get-to-heaven and God's-ways-are-not-man's-ways cards in your leather bible cover, you can set up just about any unreasonable position you want, e.g., that God electing some to heaven doesn't mean He damns everyone else to hell; that Jesus only died to save some; that burning people forever in hell is good because God is good; that sticking guilt on everyone for what adam and eve did is fair because God is fair; that matthew can say 'two donkeys', mark can say 'one', and the bible can still be 'inerrant'; etc yada yada.

so, if, after reading all of that, you still wonder what i believe, all i can say is:

...wait for the book.

mike rucker
fairburn, ga, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

As someone who has also read both books critically (as well as listened to the corresponding sermons by Driscoll) I would have to agree almost completely with this review.

Driscoll's book was a somewhat disappointing because in the end it was a little incoherent and wordy for what amounted to a primer on Christology.

Jones book was everything Chad said and more. Not only did Jones come off as the most pompous of the "New Christians" (what a self-agrandizing title by the way) but he also makes arguments throughout the book that are full of error. The most accentuated one to me was the complete mockery which was his story about Trucker Frank. The charcter in this tale portrayed fully everything that is wrong with this movement. He was boisterous, confrontational, condescending, and flat out wrong. His interpretation of a text, which Jones found illuminating, was absoultely laughable because it was so far off point.

I have a feeling that most people here are reacting only to the names. Shame on you. That is the opposite of everything that the emergent movement claims to stand for, not buying into names but thinking critically.

I think that people here have a very skewed idea of what humility is. If you follow the emergent line of thinking you will believe that humility is self-abasing, lowered head, unwilling to take a stand on anything deference. That is not humility. That is pride under cover. Humility, as defined by CJ Mahaney in the book of the same name, is "honestly assessing ourselves in light of God's holiness and our sinfulness." This is not what emergent stands for. They can barely even speak of sinfulness or make stands on what it is, let alone assess it in their own lives. And God's holiness? If God's holiness mattered to emergent then they wouldn't be so quick to challenge what his Word says and adopt things like trajectory hermeneutics to back door the authority of Scripture.

People want to bash Driscoll as not expressing humility because he is loud and has convictions, but in reality it is that honest assessment which allowed him to have those convictions and to stand on them so firmly. Moreover, I have not witnessed another pastor who is so willing to confess his sins and mistakes in front of his congregation. I agree with Chad in his statement and I think that those who disagree should take another look at just what true humility is.

Well, I appreciated the review. Sad to hear that Jones' tone came off as condescending. That's one thing I appreciate about McLaren's work, he always seems to be willing to be self-critical, even when he is taking others to task or suggesting a new way forward. And Driscoll as humble? I think the author goes a bit off base in suggesting that emergents are deconstructing the faith while Driscoll simply submits to it. Each tend to warp it around their own ways of thinking. That's what we all do. That's theology.

As I was reading the review I was thinking, "Boy, the URbanites are going to hate this review!" I think I was right! Well, we tend to have a good bit of love for the Emergent church here, and, well...not so much for Driscoll. So, I guess I'm no prophet for seeing that coming.

Personally, I thought the review was unique and interesting. Chad was pretty harsh, which gave it a Driscoll-ish feel (ironically enough). I assumed the article was meant to be challenging, meant to stretch our considerations. While I could have done without some of the antagonizing and less-than-humble characterizations (but hey, who knows what humble is after reading this?), I thought the actual critiques on the emergent church were pretty interesting, and very valid points to consider.

Todd,

Your second post was all too predictable. Despite your thoughts to the contrary, emergents do not see humility as "self-abasing, lowered head, unwilling to take a stand on anything deference".

That was a laughable comment; a strawman that I could hardly stand up long enough for you to knock down.

Come on man, you can do better. If you want a conversation, let's talk. But stop passing us emergents off as politically-correct drones. That's so off-base its hardly worth addressing.

Was Jesus humble? Yes? Let's see...

"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Matt 15:16 (NIV)
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
Matt 23:33 (NIV)
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Matt 23:24 (NIV)
Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
Matt 23:26 (NIV)

And that's just in Matthew!

Humility is NOT your tone or, strictly speaking, your words. The prophets of the OT and Jesus were very "arrogant" by today's standards. Humility is properly recognizing, and yes at times what seems like humiliating yourself before, true authority and power. Jesus, Paul, and the OT prophets showed humility by choosing to submit to God's authority by speaking things personally unpopular and that, in the end, riled up the populace so much that most of them were put to death for it.

Problems of humility is not strictly shown when tone and content are personally challenging. The problem is revealed when the hard message is spoken with a heart of "I'm better than you for knowing this" rather than a heart-broken "repent!!!".

Honestly, I've seen both hearts from Driscoll at times. To his people in the church, always "repent!!!" In the past to those who have strayed from the truth, some times "I'm better than you". Lately...I've seen almost exclusivly "repent!!!".

Humility is a process, not an arrived state. I've heard from Driscoll his difficult journey (reference sermon "Rebel's Guide to Joy in Humility"). I've heard a lot of "we are open and humble...but you suck and your theology is wrong, outdated, and in need of MY brand-new-never-before-seen (even in the bible) overhaul" coming from Emergent.

There are almost certainly better humility teachers out there, but yeah I agree, Chad...comparing the two, Emergent could learn humility from Driscoll.

“Emergents believe that theology is local, conversational, and temporary."

A a call for help...

I can intellectually grasp that the belief that actual truths of theology expire after some unspecified amount of time. Is Jones saying that theology, literally the "study of God's divinity", is generated out of nothing...out of "conversation"? Is that what he means? Not special revelation, but conversation?

Could someone help me understand where he is coming from on this? What he seems to be saying is even stranger to me than the truth of God expires after a while.

"Can the Christian faith withstand the deconstructive doubts and curiosities of emergents? Of course it can. That’s not the point. The point is that emergents may not be able to survive their chosen path."

Heh! How old school is that statement? Don't go out there and explore, you might hurt yourself. Just do what you are told by those who know better. No wonder the writer is enamored with Driscoll.

it seems there are different views here of what 'humility' really is.

maybe this can help us:

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death..."

a lot of 'defenders of the faith' err in justifying their outspokenness because they have made the bible their god (no capital 'G' there). then, thinking they own the one interpretation of it, believe they have the responsiblity to play mini-me-God for the rest of us.

imagine how appealing the faith might be if we let Jesus and the kind of humility described above be our guide.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

Darren,
You may find it "laughable" and "predictable", but you didn't say anything to the contrary. Have you read Jones' book? What about watched Rob Bell on one of his videos? These guys feign humility by dressing in black, wearing Weezer glasses, and talking about how closed-minded everyone else is. Open-mindedness does not equal humility. The whole emergent movement seems to me to be characterized by a breed of intellectual arrogance which is as far from humility as one could possibly get.

And by the way, nothing is more predictable than an emergent apologist accusing someone of using a strawman :)

Chad, At my age I get alittle discouraged with the views of others concerning the Gospel of Christ. I am a 66 year old wife and mom of three grown sons. I am sad to say that the so called church that thinks it needs to change the churches thinking on Christ and His Gospel is out in left field and needs to get with it or just go the way of the world. It clutters the thinking of those who are young and gulible and need salvation. I guess one might say I am angry over the idiots that think they can bring people to Christ by changing His Gospel of The Cross in our lives.
Jeremiah says we need The Old Paths to get us where we need to go. The problem is they don't want to die to self and be changed into His LIkeness, they want what Adam wanted, his own way! Where did that get us? In a world of trouble, literally.

What is clear to me, in reading through the various responses to the original article, is that there is still quite a gap between those who are "postmodernly-informed" and those who are not. Now, before half the class jumps all over me for being one of those arrogant emergents, please let me explain…

Someone asked if emergents think "conversation" rather than "special revelation" was our way to understanding God. Well, freind, it’s just not that simple. It’s not that we (emergents) don't believe in revelation. But we understand that it is always filtered through our lens of understanding (which it turn is a bi-product of many factors - our culture, our familial background, our faith tradition, our personality, etc.)

And that leads to the second point: this knowledge leads (at least, should lead) to a humility of approach in explaining God and His ways. Humility is not just an outward posture. It’s an understanding that under-girds our entire approach to God and to the world.

One could say that humility involves a right understanding of our place in the Cosmos. It just makes no sense to claim humility and then exemplify pure bravado in one’s certainty over one's understanding of God. None. Even if you claim (again, falsely) that this certainty comes from God Himself.

You can't separate the two. You can't say "I'm weak, and biased, and the worst of all sinners, but “my hermeneutic and my theology is spotlessâ€.

Do people not see the irony here?

Either humility touches all areas of one's life and understanding, or it’s not really humility at all.

i've commented here too much already (hey! watch it - i heard that 'amen!'...), but the discussion has been good. i've been trying my best to fix that, but...

let me just echo darren's point: You can't say "I'm weak, and biased, and the worst of all sinners, but “my hermeneutic and my theology is spotlessâ€".

i've always called the claim of being the "worst of sinners" - perhaps even when paul said it - to be pride in reverse. (and, in the interest of full disclosure, i stole this idea from the 'big book' of aa...)

to me, it's like james and john arguing about who is going to sit closest to Jesus.

then, somehow, as darren notes, this "worst of sinners" somehow becomes the "world's greatest theologian" knowing the (only) way to God and espousing an arm's-length list of doctrines to which everyone should subscribe.

mike r.
(you all know where i live by now...)

One could say that humility involves a right understanding of our place in the Cosmos. It just makes no sense to claim humility and then exemplify pure bravado in one’s certainty over one's understanding of God. None. Even if you claim (again, falsely) that this certainty comes from God Himself.

But then, if you follow this to it's logical conclusion, one would have to say that Christ was not truly humble! So, to steal from Driscoll, if our interpretation disqualifies Jesus then maybe we need to reconsider our position. Either Jesus didn't exercise humility or humility has nothing to do with uncertainty.

Of course people will have a slippery argument to try and escape this but the fact remains, if we are supposed to be imitators of Christ (1 Corinthians 11.1) then should we not strive to speak with the same conviction which Christ had? And to argue that we're humans and so can't reach that level of conviction is bogus, since we see scores of Godly mean who are being testified of for eternity in Scripture that exercised the same "pure bravado in one’s certainty over one's understanding of God" that emergent wants to decry.

I haven't read either book, only read the review and the responses. Sadly, all I see is the "liberal" v. "conservative" / "republican" v. "democrat" debate. All the while, the marketing machines for both sides are churning out more and more propoganda. The look, the style, the "confrontationalism" are all there to sell books and line the pockets of the publishers, and get people to buy tickets to the next "event."

I'm sorry, but I don't see God at work in any of it. I feel like I'm seeing the ads for a Michael Moore film where he'll berail the institutions and tools of market capitalism while using those same institutions and tools to sell his material in the marketplace. It's hypocracy.

And here I be, just another hypocrat trying to find my way out.

I wonder if Mark Driscoll jumped off a cliff and told his congregation to follow would Todd Burns would follow? Just a little friendly poke brother! :)

I was debating, after I first read this, whether I should sell tickets to the Emergent VS Reformed (or whatever the Driscoll team is now) grudge match.

On a serious note, I really like what Darren had to say on humility. There has always been something very un-attractive about any preacher/teacher that won't hold humility in the other hand, while gripping so tightly to the bible. Always thought humility and the bible went hand in hand...

Mike. Your comment and your quote do not go together. How do you reconcile your interpretation of Phillippians 2: 5,6 with John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."?

Above are some great comments by passionate folks. That seems like a good thing and I look forward to seeing how the conversation unfolds, especially as Jones's and Driscoll's responses come online.

I also offer a few points that may be helpful.

1. I'm not really very enamored by Driscoll. I don't dislike him, either, since the truth is that I don't really know him. I know some guys in the Acts 29 network, but I'm not close to the network and I'm like maybe a half-point Calvinist. So I don’t think I went into the books with a bias toward Driscoll. Really, if anything, the opposite is true. I think J. Joyce above captured my pre-read sentiment better than I can.
I think that sheds some different light on the discussion, maybe.

2. I expected to like New Christians because I count some people within Emergent to be significant contributors to my faith in recent years. I've hosted the emergent godfather McLaren for three or four conferences dating back to 2001 and I've had dinner with him on occasions. I also was responsible for inviting Jones's pastor, Doug Pagitt, to lead a conference for the denomination I served (he was “uninvited†after I left and before the conference, to my dismay). I have received my share of nasty correspondence and nearly lost my job as a denominational consultant on more than one occasion for being “too emergent.†So again, for what it matters, if anything my bias ran toward emergent before reading the two books.

3. I poorly worded the red-hot gospel lava portion of the review. To be fair, Jones wrote (I think this is what he meant!) that the emerging church is where the red hot lava of gospel is bursting forth. He did not say the emerging church is gospel. I still think that is an arrogant claim/metaphor, but I also extend sincere apologies for poor writing that wasn't accurate.

4. I find the discussion about humility fascinating. In addition to the more declarative/definitive statements posted by some, I’d appreciate any explorative, curious, or confessional comments that shed light on the topic.

Continuing the conversation,
Chad Hall

Todd Burus said:
"Moreover, I have not witnessed another pastor who is so willing to confess his sins and mistakes in front of his congregation."

It makes for great shtick, anyway. But what about those who have been hurt? The gospel calls us to go to those we have wronged and seek personal reconciliation. Otherwise, we are just clanging gongs.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ReallySad1
.

Todd,

I don't know about you, but I give Jesus some licence that I don't allow myself, you, Tony Jones, or Mark Driscoll.

So the argument that my definition of humility excludes Jesus as a model is miseleading, or misguided, or both.

And yes, I've read the New Christians and have spoken with Tony on numerous occasions as well.

Peace,
Darren

Thanks for the review. I value the various opinions on this matter and I am fascinated by the "emerging" opposition to the emerging church. Eveything gets old, especially when one puts the label "new" on it.

I too am one who would have said two years ago that I was greatly attracted to the emerging/emergent movement. That attraction has grown quite cold, even though I keep myself tuned into what is going on. My turn away has come about because of the adolescent posturing I too frequently see. It simply tires me. I have simply moved on from these voices back toward the broad stream of Christian thinking and living.

I don't know about you, but I give Jesus some licence that I don't allow myself, you, Tony Jones, or Mark Driscoll.

So the argument that my definition of humility excludes Jesus as a model is miseleading, or misguided, or both.

Obviously I would not have expected any less of a defense for this, but what about the various characters throughout the Bible who showed absolute resolve in their conviction? You don't see Elijah roaming around going "I believe that my God is real, but you may be equally right that Baal is god and so let's just live in harmony because none of us can really be certain."

And Peter doesn't sound very emergent, I mean humble, when he is speaking in front of the Sanhedrin telling them that irregardless of what they say, he is going to continue preaching his convictions of what has been revealed.

Or what about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who are surely lacking in the emergent definition of humility when they tell Nebuchadnezzar that whether God saves them from the furnace or not they will not bow to the golden image because it is against God's Law.

From where I stand the Bible appears to be 66 books worth of people standing firm in their convictions as to what the truth is. Maybe they are all just arrogant traditionalists, but I can't help feeling that that is not the case.

Darren,

Can you explain to me Emergent theology and core tenets in less than a paragraph?

"You can't separate the two. You can't say 'I'm weak, and biased, and the worst of all sinners, but 'my hermeneutic and my theology is spotless'."

Of course you can. In fact, it must be that way. Those who are not brought to their knees in humiliation before God will not acquire the correct hermeutic or theology from Him.

It is laughable to watch Christian bloggers debate about who is humble and who is not. What is Mark Driscoll supposed to say in response?

"I am too humble!"

One thing is clear from the comments. Many contributors have a personal grudge against Driscoll.

I am confounded that anyone can read this review and conclude that Chad is enamored of Driscoll.

Darren, you engage in precisely the same sort of mock-enlightenment that the review describes. Here are some examples:

"Now, before half the class jumps all over me for being one of those arrogant emergents, please let me explain… "

You are framing the response on your terms. To take issue with your worldview is to pounce upon you like an animal. Of course, this also implies that we have made up our minds beforehand that you are wrong, and are not listening to reasoned arguments. Do you see why this mindset might be a tad offputting?

""You can't separate the two. You can't say "I'm weak, and biased, and the worst of all sinners, but “my hermeneutic and my theology is spotlessâ€."

But I needn't claim that my theology is spotless in order to ascertain that certain theological strains are severely flawed. You present a false choice, and again make assumptions about those who do not share your worldview.

And then this:

"So the argument that my definition of humility excludes Jesus as a model is miseleading, or misguided, or both."

Why? How so? He made a valid point and explained it to my satisfaction, though I disagree with his point, and you leap to pejorative. Any criticism is misleading and misguided.

We've all met religious people who seem to possess an excessive confidence, one that makes us prone to overstate, intimidate, misrepresent, react, insult, threaten, and worse. What I yearn for is a humble confidence that would move us toward respectful conversation and thoughtful acknowledgement of common ground, while at the same time realizing that a healthy faith means more than "mere opinion."

In a powerful meditation, Henri Nouwen gets at this posture of humility:

The greatest among you must be your servants. Anyone who raises himself up may be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be raised up. Matthew 23: 11-12

“This is the way of Jesus and the way to which he calls his disciples. It is the way that at first frightens or at least embarrasses us. Who wants to be humbled? Who wants to be the last? Who wants to be like a little, powerless child? Who desires to lose his or her life, to be poor, mourning, and hungry? All this appears to be against our natural inclinations. But once we see what Jesus reveals to us, in his radically downward pull, the compassionate nature of God, we begin to understand that to follow him is to participate in the ongoing self-revelation of God. . . . It is the way of suffering, but also the way to healing. It is the way of humiliation, but also the way to resurrection . . . the way of tears . . . that turn into joy.â€

RDM wrote:
"Those who are not brought to their knees in humiliation before God will not acquire the correct hermeutic or theology from Him."

I don't know that I'd put it quite that way, but overall, I agree with this notion.

However, humiliation before God does not deliver us into a vacuum- where we are no longer subject to the filter of a worldview. To think it does suggests you misunderstand the meaning of worldview. Having and being subject to a worldview is not optional. It is a presuppositional framework through which one interprets all experiences - even that of being humiliated before the God of the Cosmos.

Richard, somehow I don't think you're seeing the point. One cannot claim, on the on hand, to suffer from a depraved mindset - a thoroughly corrupted ability to interpret reality - and then say, on the other hand, almost magically - that this is true EXCEPT in the realm of hermeneutics and theology.

And wishing otherwise just doesn't make it so.

"One thing is clear from the comments. Many contributors have a personal grudge against Driscoll."

I guess it depends on how you define personal grudge. I am offended by Driscoll as I would be offended by Howard Stern. Like Stern's listeners, I think some people like to hear Driscoll's shocking statements and tune in to hear what outrageous thing he is going to say next. I know people jump to Driscoll's defense declaring all the good things he does. I am sure Stern has his good points (I liked Private Parts) but that doesn't change the wake of dissension that he creates. I think the Christian Community needs many voices... I am not convinced we need the Christian version of Howard Stern.

"One cannot claim, on the on hand, to suffer from a depraved mindset - a thoroughly corrupted ability to interpret reality - and then say, on the other hand, almost magically - that this is true EXCEPT in the realm of hermeneutics and theology."

That is not what I'm saying since I am not relying on myself for my hermeneutics or theology.

Daren,
Are you forgetting the possibility of sanctification? The "renewing of one's mind"?

In fact, God speaks of this issue directly in Romans 12: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

So yes, we can suppose that as our minds become cleansed, we will find ourselves being able to understand God's perfect will. This doesn't seem a particularly difficult concept. Our minds ARE corrupted and thus degraded in usefulness, but like any limb that begins to heal, we regain the use.

Pragmatically, the inability to see with 100% clarity does not invalidate sight. One who is color blind is still fully able to discern if a truck is bearing down on him. Even one who has severe near-sightedness sees enough not to tumble into the grand-canyon or see the beauty painting if they are near enough.

This seems clear to me. It's the same with epistemology. We may not be able to alway discern shades and colors of theology, but we can distinguish large errors and truths. Perhaps aspects of God's justice on earth is difficult to understand, but the bulk description of scripture points to a final just judgment of all who live.

"I guess it depends on how you define personal grudge. I am offended by Driscoll as I would be offended by Howard Stern. "

I have my problems with Driscoll, but this comparison isn't even remotely fair. Driscoll has created dissent because he has dissented, and has been persuasive in doing so.

"I think guys like Erwin McManus and John Burke tend to deliver better on what I expected from Vintage Jesus: how ageless truth is renewed within each generation."

Whatever Dude. "ageless truth renewed within each generation," is exactly the strength of Vintage Jesus. I couldn't diagree with you more. It proved to be a Christology that my son will read. You totally missed it my friend.

We don't have personal grudges against Driscoll. We just believe that his teachings on women are false teachings, and that he has un-Christ like attitudes. Time will expose him.

Paul,

Yes, I agree! We can discern large errors and truths. It is the nailing down of the gray areas that I'm calling into question. God invites us into mystery. Not blindly, no... But also not with full sight.

We go with what God has given... what he has clearly revealed. Not dividing our issues that are unclear or ambiguous. What I'm saying we should not do is be dogmatic about those issues that are less than clear.

And yes, I do believe in the renewing of our minds. We can move a long way along that continuum. But we never see perfectly- and we never see without a worldview- although that worldview itself shifts over time with our knowledge and understanding.

All I'm ultimately saying is that revelation does not come in a vaccum state. Some people seem unwilling to admit this.

Darren,
Agreed with all you say. I really appreciate your response. And, brother, I'd love to agree and lay it to rest without picking a further fight. I've read your comments in the past, however, and sadly I think we would differ on the particulars of the gray areas which do exist within the realm of mystery.

What grieves me is how so many seem to use these gray areas. I have observed many, admittedly without being able to judge their motives, who seem to define clear shades as gray. And, yes, I know it is perhaps "clear" only from my perspective. But I don't think it is an ignorance of epistemology that is my hang-up or the root of my fervent disagreement away from Emergent theology (though with strong agreement with their praxy). What raises my hackles is that the areas redefined to gray are so convenient/typical/cultural. Again, you could argue that MY theological positions are rather convenient for me. Some, but not entirely. There are aspects of this "local, conversational, and temporal" theology that appeal to me greatly...but I just don't see it as being rationally or spiritually honest to ascribe to them.

Ultimately, these things don't end of being solely debates of truth, but also of intent and motive. Only God can sort those out. I distrust how many truths are up for "gray-ification" in this new theology...some things are clear. And you have to admit, there exist people who don't put of with sound doctrine (2 Tim) and/or suppress the truth (Romans).

We don't have personal grudges against Driscoll. We just believe that his teachings on women are false teachings, and that he has un-Christ like attitudes. Time will expose him.

I was waiting for someone to pull this card and am a little surprised it took 50 comments before someone did. For those of you who seriously think that Driscoll's view of women is a "false teaching" I challenge you to listen to his sermon on Ephesians 5.22-33. He delivered it on 1/5/2003 and it is readily available online. Listen to this and then we can talk to see if your issues are with Driscoll or if they are actually with the Bible.

Chad, enjoyed your review. I think that there are so many debates today to be post modern or reformed. As well certain preachers get a platform and we treat them like rock stars. The two authors have a right to write a book and share what they believe. But I think a lot of writers are trying create a buzz and have that move that everyone follows. We have to get back in our bible and live that out. Share our faith with others and stop attacking eachother. I am not looking to debate nor am I really update like all of you on these subjects. But I hope you can share your faith with someone today and advance Gods Kingdom. Thats what its all about. Chad, I understand your review and even that he is humble. Keep your firing burning, Tommy

"All I'm ultimately saying is that revelation does not come in a vaccum state. Some people seem unwilling to admit this."

Nobody is advocating a vacuum state. This does not change the fact that emergent theology is a muddle.

"We just believe that his teachings on women are false teachings, and that he has un-Christ like attitudes. Time will expose him."

Clearly, no grudge exists. Rather, the expectation that "time" (whatever that means) will expose him. Thank you for the clarification.

Reading blogs like this brings my realization of how grateful I am for God's Love for me in the light of His Love for us. I'm not sure if I understand Theology, but boy, I know that Jesus understands me and that is paramount as far as I'm concerned.

I guess that this sort of blog wouldn't be found on a Mormon's, Christian Scientist, Muslims and all the rest of the assemblies web pages.

Kevin,

Before you say "nobody is advocating a vaccuum state", I suggest you go back and read the comments. In reference to RDM's comments for instance, that's pretty much exactly what his position amounts to.

Paul,

I agree with you that once we start defining what falls into the gray area things get more complicated- our lists may not be the same.

But the question is: what does that say of our ability to "know" in such matters? Some would want to say, and have come close to saying in here, that all it takes is a miraculous experience of revelation and all that gets taken care of. I'm saying that even WITH that miraculous experience of revelation the gray area remains ambiguous.

Again, I don't fret about this, because I have come to see our ability to "know" on these kinds of matters as limited. So we delve deeper into the mystery of God, holding lightly to stances on issues that our brother and sister would see differently. That doesn't make God any less powerful, or amazing, nor our jounrey towards him any less real or sincere.

Lastly, to Sheerahkahn, who asked me to succinctly describe Emergent theology, I would say that since Emergent is not a denominational entity, this doesn't really apply. That isn't to say that people involved in Emergent don't have theoligical stances, they do, but they're not necessarily all in unison like on would expect of certain denominational groups (though that too can be more complicated in reality!). So, all that said, all I can really do is speak for myself, Tony for himself, Brian McLaren for himself, etc.

re: the renewing of one's mind, the mind of Christ, 'world's greatest theologian,' etc... if the diversity of views (i was going to say 'opinions', but restrained myself...) on all matters theological is reflective of the 'mind of Christ' we've supposedly been given, then i'm not the only one that needs to be on medication here.

or, it seems, in Heaven. :)

our minds may be 'renewed' in the sense that they look past the natural and physical realm and start examining things in light of the spiritual. however, to say that someone who is 'saved' and had their mind 'renewed' now can be trusted as the sole (soul?) authority on all biblical texts is, i would think, misguided at the very least.

re: whether we are arguing with driscoll or the bible... i hear this kind of argument a lot - i am accused quite often of being in opposition to the bible and 'absolute truth'. the error is really with those who select a few verses in the bible and determine that they override differing passages in the same book. and those that argue that everything the bible speaks of is normative for all time are similarly in error.

but that's just my opinion ... er, uh, view...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

re: whether we are arguing with driscoll or the bible... i hear this kind of argument a lot - i am accused quite often of being in opposition to the bible and 'absolute truth'. the error is really with those who select a few verses in the bible and determine that they override differing passages in the same book. and those that argue that everything the bible speaks of is normative for all time are similarly in error.

Mike, come on. The Bible is pretty clear on the teachings as to how men and women are supposed to view each other and themselves in relation to God's plan. I would be interested what verses you think override Ephesians 5.22-33 and similar passages in 1 Corinthians, 1 Peter, and 1 Timothy. I agree, there do exist thin theological arguments made on isolated or miscontextualized verses, but I do not believe that what I offered up is one of those places.

"Lastly, to Sheerahkahn, who asked me to succinctly describe Emergent theology, I would say that since Emergent is not a denominational entity, this doesn't really apply. That isn't to say that people involved in Emergent don't have theoligical stances, they do, but they're not necessarily all in unison like on would expect of certain denominational groups (though that too can be more complicated in reality!). So, all that said, all I can really do is speak for myself, Tony for himself, Brian McLaren for himself, etc."

Thank you Darren for at least giving me an answer...it saddens me, but you did answer it honestly, and because of that honesty I will leave it be.

"re: whether we are arguing with driscoll or the bible... i hear this kind of argument a lot - i am accused quite often of being in opposition to the bible and 'absolute truth'. the error is really with those who select a few verses in the bible and determine that they override differing passages in the same book. and those that argue that everything the bible speaks of is normative for all time are similarly in error."

Mike, well said...written...you know what I mean.

If Mark can call people like Rob Bell and Brian Mclaren heretics, then I don't think it is so preposterous to liken him to a "christian" Howard Stern. Thought it was a great example.

Mike and Darren,
The debate on epistemology is an endless one. I wish there was a forum to talk in particulars since much of the abstraction is insufficient. Much of the "gray area" specifics are debated between orthodox and emergent positions based on a hermeneutic that, from what I can tell, is entirely new. And while we can debate the merit of trajectory theology, many currently debated "gray" areas only become gray only in the light of this hermeneutic. Most liberal, nonemergent Christians I talked with will discuss, for instance, sexuality in light of their avowedly low view of scripture and, and thus, with an intellectual integrity to their position. Now, we obfuscate the whole issue by claiming a high view of scripture and then speak to the "temporal and local" nature of the biblical content and interpretation through a trajectory hermeneutic. No matter how many verbal and academic maneuvers the issue is put through, the result is not entirely honest.

And here is where it bottoms out for me. The bible in clear terms talks about false teachers and false sheep. It says they did exist and that we will always have them. Therefore, I have to believe they exist, as unpopular and unconsidered as that thought is nowadays.

Part of my obedience to God is the discernment of false teaching as best I can. So I study, grow, talk to others, listen to and seek out those who will rebuke me, and pray pray pray. Out of that, though I hope their motives are godly, it seems that many have shaped the gospel to what they desire...conveniently in lock-step with our pluralistic, postmodern licentious culture. I distrust those who have ingratiated themselves with the modern culture as much as those who are thoroughly postmodern. There IS clear mystery...and clear truth. In the past, we have wrongly claimed all is clear truth so "suck it up and fall in line!". Now, we go the direction of claiming all is mystery, all gray, so "stop oppressing me with your perspectives of truth because how can YOU know?!"

I pray all have clear motives across the board, Emergent and Fundamentalist alike...but I know that the Judaizers, Alexander's, and Hymanaeaus' of the world exist and we are to reject them. More difficult, according to Galatians, they are damned.

todd -
i would put the role of men and women in the second category: that everything isn't normative for all time. and, to answer the question i've no doubt will be in your response - 'so, mike, who makes the decision on what's normative?' - you, me, and us - the same people who need to rationally look at this and everything else in light of who God is.

paul -
it seems that many have shaped the gospel to what they desire...conveniently in lock-step with our pluralistic, postmodern licentious culture.

funny you should mention that ... for the past few days, i have been in a back-and-forth-in-the-comments-section exercise with a number of people over at Justin Taylor's blog. the post started out as a memoriam for Tony Snow, who passed away last weekend (and who, everyone should know, was a tremendous Jethro Tull fan...). unfortunately, it digressed into an argument about whether or not he was saved, primarily centered on the apparent fact that Tony was - gasp! - a Catholic!

so i put the question to everyone who consigned him to hell: what must a person do to be saved? the people who were most vocal in criticising Snow's faith were, not surprisingly, the main ones who refused to reply - afraid to go on record even though they were more than willing to pass judgment.

one person responded - with two different answers. another responded with an answer different from those two. a third offered something succinct, but then added three paragraphs of 'qualifications.'

my point: if we can't even agree on what the formula for the gospel is ... how can we accuse ANYONE of 'shaping' doctrines and not think EVERYONE is guilty of it?

So, mike, who makes the decision on what's normative? : ) Personally, I feel like your response to this runs dangerously close to a trajectory hermeneutic, which I can't say loudly enough has absolutely no biblical basis for existence (though I am in no way mean to be accusing you of using this method if you aren't).

I do sympathize with your opinions on this issue because I understand how easy it is to view all issues of gender relations in terms of their cultural context, but I honestly feel that if we slow down and hash-out what Paul is saying in these various passages I think we will remove a lot of what seems to be culturally-based and uncover very unbiased biblical truths.

For sure, men have often mishandled these words in order to advance their power over women, but that doesn't make it any wiser to respond in what I would generally consider a reactionary manner to these obvious excesses.

This is definately a volatile topic, but it is one that is worth engaging honestly, as you've done with me, and not just offering up the typical "feminist-chauvanist" bravado which most people want to place on it. Thank you.

"If Mark can call people like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren heretics, then I don't think it is so preposterous to liken him to a "christian" Howard Stern. "

Howard Stern produces vulgarity for the sake of shock value. While I am reasonably certain that emergents regard as vulgarity any stark criticism of Brian McLaren, there is a reasonable case to be made that his theology, however humble and generous, has heretical implications.

I'm absolutely fascinated. Pretty much no matter where we start, the comments of any article that touches on theology and ecclesiology eventually degenerate to discussions of epistemology.

Gee Chad, you write sooo well!

Jealous

paul:
I'm absolutely fascinated. Pretty much no matter where we start, the comments of any article that touches on theology and ecclesiology eventually degenerate to discussions of epistemology.

can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, paul. but to say things 'degenerate' to questions of how we know (or think we know) what we know seems a bit negative to me. after all, this is what it all comes down to, ain't it?

do i 'know' things because the church tells me? do i 'know' things because, yes, Jesus loves me and the bible - at least how i interpret it - tells me so? do i 'know' things because experience has proven them in my life?

i'd say we have a little bit of everything in this potpourri of comments and commentors. and that's not a problem, it's a plus.

to quote ian anderson (since i mentioned tull above) in his remembrance of tony snow: “Life would indeed be a bore if all of your buddies agreed with everything you said and tap-danced to the same tired riff.â€

The comments about self-sealing are interesting. Certainly all groups are "self-sealing" to a certain extent. To have a distinct identity as a group means to have a certain way of looking at things, and to listen to outsiders in a different way than insiders. To some extent, it's simply a human thing.

What may be more distressing to Chad is that he realizes that emergents have significantly different assumptions which often render traditional critiques of the movement long discussions in missing the point. This is a more charitable way of reading what appears to be emergent "self-sealing". Emergents do not "self-seal" because they don't like criticism, but because of the implications of their assumptions.

Finally, at the end of the day, there is simply less to be immediately gained by dialogue. Members of both positions get more acclaim, prestige, and pats on the back when they talk to themselves than when they talk to each other. We have to ask ourselves, wherever we find ourselves in this discussion, if we really want to come to agreement. Agreement usually means compromise, meeting in the middle. As the conversation of emergent has proceeded, more and more diverse voices seem to be concluding that such compromise is not possible or even desirable. We need to be reflective enough to realize that the motives for arguing against compromise are not always the purest, obviously when found in others, but also in ourselves.

Which is kind of sad if you think about it. When discussion seem to revolve around accusations someone saying one thing but meaning another, of hidden agendas and misleading word usage, there is clearly an breakdown of communication caused by a lack of trust. Wherever you find yourself on the theological spectrum of emergent or traditional, if the fundamental issue of trust is not addressed (and soon) than either position will find it increasingly impossible to genuinely communicate to the other. And this is, after all, what everyone claims to want to do.

Mike,
I see how you can take my words as purely negative...mocking. It's not what I intended...to degenerate is to move back in complexity, to settle somewhere 'lower'. I have a strong background in math, if that helps understand my, admittedly irregular, usage a bit better.

To the point, our more complex topical discussions seems to perpetually wind back to the place of real division...what is truth and can we really discern it? In my other comments in this series (including parts 2 and 3), I've already said my 2-cents on the subject: the extent in which the ability to discern truth has been called into doubt is either silly ignorance or dishonest and agenda driven. Posed as an honest academic query, it leads us to this point of spinning in the cul-de-sac of epistemological discussion where a conclusion and/or a compromise in any other area of inquiry is almost impossible.

TJ is right...I don't even know if we have the tools to communicate any more. Dialogue will increasingly become impossible as more participants become jaded and mutually distrustful on the underpinning question of epistemology.

As this topic gives way to cartoons, I thought it potentially good to post some reflections and responses. I’ll post this at the end of each of the three articles (my review, Tony’s response and Mark’s response) in hopes of spurring more, and perhaps even better, conversation. At the least, I can say I have beaten a dead horse and we’ll know the topic is done.

1. My blog article was too provocative. I knew this was true when Scott McKnight at JesusCreed.org highlighted the article as “how not to write for a blog.†Ouch. Painful, but true. I don’t mind being honest that I found one book a bit boring and the other a bit cocky, but I should have toned down my rhetoric. I wanted to write an interesting piece, not an offensive one. I’m disappointed that my writing did more to provoke fighting than to provoke thought and thoughtful discussion. I’ll aim higher next time.
2. I underestimated the polemic environment into which I was writing. I wrote this as the follow-up to a shorter “review†I did for Leadership Journal, with this being my “reaction.†I assumed that most readers would have entered this conversation through the door of the print review. I was wrong. I also missed the heat that was already in the kitchen, so to speak, especially as it relates to the twinges of cults of personality going on in the environment. My critiques of books and ideas sometimes got taken as critiques (or compliments, see #5 below) of persons. My proposed title did not bear the word “versus,†which I think contributed to a polemic tone, Yet my content didn't bring in anything to cool the conversation.
3. My rhetoric about COTA was over-the-top and unhelpful. I didn’t precisely enough distinguish how the church “came across†in the book from what I might actually believe or think to be true about the church, in general. I once met Karen Ward and experienced her in only the most positive of ways on that occasion. Aside from that encounter five or six years ago, I know very little about the church and should have been more clear about that.
4. Evidently, in a polemic situation, everyone assumes a bias. I found it interesting how this played out in the ongoing conversation. Some readers assumed I had a bias for Driscoll and against Jones, neither of which is true. I also noticed folks assuming biases and misinterpreting comments from other posts. I’m sure the tone of the article fed into this. Still, a silver lining was the unexpected yet welcome branch of the conversation re: one limitation of text-based conversation is that it’s easy to assume wrongly and assume the worst.
5. I found interesting the conversation re: “humble.†I chose this word as a description of what I think should be our proper stance with the doctrines and theologies of the past, but many readers (including Driscoll) seem to have considered it in a more general sense of one’s demeanor or humility in inter-personal interactions. To me, a substantive conversation can occur here. I’m not ashamed to confess that I think some emergents go too far in deconstructing the faith, yet my aim in saying that is to enter into dialogue, not debate. I could have done a much better job framing this topic in a way that was curious, invoked conversation and sought to understand those who see it differently.

Now that my reflections nearly equal the initial review, I’ll stop typing and start reading.

Cheers,
Chad Hall

I certainly agree that epistemology is at the heart of the disagreements/divergent perspectives one comes across in a discussion such as this. But I'm not sure why Paul wants to call it "degeneration" or moving backwards in complexity. I actually think that mature interaction and consideration will lead us exactly where we are; at an impass of sorts, yes... But an intellectually honest one.

And while this may be uncomfortable for some, let us at least retreat to our respective corners amiably; respecting one another, not merely dismissing each other as "unbiblical", "fundamentalist", or "liberal".

When one realizes the issue is one of epistemology, one also realizes that these one-dimensional tags leave so much to be desired. In fact, in such circumstances, these tags become almost worthless- even worse, they are often destructive. It is when name-calling sets in that we see degeneration.

In my opinion, Driscoll seems to get that Christianity is the rock against which humans are broken, the fire that purifies us, the sieve through which our lives are sifted and sorted and made good. By taking a deconstructing stance toward Christianity, theology, and life, emergents seem to be getting this backward: they can’t help but to break, burn, and sift the faith.
In my opinion (oops) this statement is key to the underlying problems of the whole review. It makes the classic error of confusing Christianity and Christ. The same mistake is made when Jesus' statement "I am the Way..." is changed into "Christianity is the way". Christianity is one of the great world religions, but as such it is a system of beliefs just as are Judaism, or the Hindu faith. This is not to say that they cannot be evaluated and found more or less truthful, but the rock that breaks, burns, and sifts is not Christianity. It is Jesus the Christ, Incarnate God. This may appear to be a subtle distinction, but it makes a world of difference. The writer's failure to discern this distinction makes it easy to see how many other similar nuances of the emerging conversation are easy to miss, resulting in a review that, in many instances, is simply off the mark. Provocative read, though. Thanks.

This is not to say that they cannot be evaluated and found more or less truthful, but the rock that breaks, burns, and sifts is not Christianity. It is Jesus the Christ, Incarnate God. This may appear to be a subtle distinction, but it makes a world of difference.

It appears to me that this is actually the problem with s number of "emergent" theologies, that Christ and Christianity aren't synonymous! What is Christianity but the act of following Christ? So what should the difference between the claims of Christianity and the claims of Christ be? None.

Notice how Paul calls Christianity "the Way" (Acts 24.14). Then to Paul, his sect, Christianity (Acts 11.26) is "the Way." But Christ is also "the way" (John 14.6). How can this be? Because there is no difference in the two.

All this said, I believe that it is the emergent types that want to make "Christianity" to be the other in an Us v. Them battle (Check out Rob Bell's upcoming book if you don't believe this). If they can paint "Christianity" as something to fight against then they can rationalize their unorthodox interpretations and methods as being opposed simply because they are unwelcome to the bad guy and not for the real reason which is that they are unbiblical.

Darren,
I clarified my usage of degeneration...to return to something less complex, aka more fundamental. That is as clear an explanation of my atypical usage as I can come up with.

I'll refer you to C.S. Lewis' work "The Abolition of Man"...and though this was written against the strong modernist societal trends of his time, it is, surprisingly, at times as relevant a polemic against obscurantist epistemology. If one continues to undermine the attainability knowledge, what will you have left? What do you teach of the subject: "we can't know anything conclusively and I'll teach you conclusively why this is true"? Silly...foolish. If you can explain away everything, you'll find you've explained explanation away. And maybe you think you've not gone to that extreme. How far WILL you go though? Isn't it convenient that our little epistemological song and dance so conveniently rids of nasty little categories that inconvenient us personally? Because that's all I've seen from this little jig: "For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear." (2 Tim 4). Apparently, the Apostle Paul thought that sound and wholesome teaching was clear and lasting over the ages. I'll strive to stay within the Apostle Paul's position...I don't feel the desire to follow after Pontius Pilate's "What is truth?"

You want to get rid of "liberal," "unbiblical", and "fundamentalist"...will you loose also "uncharitable", "ungracious", and "imperialistic". So you've substituted the categories, but you still have them. What about the bible's "judaizers", "mutilators of the flesh", "wolfs in sheep's clothing", "false teachers", "wanderers away from the truth", "those who loved the world"? Are those useless categories that, through our social evolution, have become meaningless? Was Jesus foolishly destructive to call some "a brood of vipers"?

Paul, I hear you. All I can say is that your points all makes perfect sense for someone speaking from your paradigm. I'm not trying to be dismissive or arrogant there. I'm just stating "the truth" wink, wink... I'm sure the choir agrees with you. But I don't see it that way.

Seriously though, all I really hear you saying is that if we follow this deconstruction through, we may end up with some less than desirable consequences. Fair enough. But one can't go about reconstructing one's epistemological views based on what that may bring to fruition in other areas. One has to align oneself with reality as best one can- and deal with the consequences as they arise. It does us no good to align under one particular paradigm simply because it’s more convenient. To do otherwise would be a form of situational ethics- would it not? You follow what I mean? I'm very aware that you don't see it this way. But I'm afraid that many of us do.

Also, let me clarify an earlier comment: I wasn't saying we can or should get rid of the categories "liberal" or "fundamentalist" per se, I was merely stating that these terms are meaningful only within a certain worldview. I'm saying, apply them when they make sense. But only then. For instance, if one has a modern worldview, one tends to err EITHER for a fundamental, OR a liberal perspective on the Bible. But in a postmodern world these terms are somewhat obsolete. Sorry, I could have been clearer on that one originally. Didn't mean to be so cryptic or so broad-sweeping.

Also, because we are talking around things, rather than actually listing off a laundry list of doctrinal positions, we don’t really know where each other stand. All that is to say, I’m probably not as far down the deconstruction rabbit-hole as you might assume. But then again, I guess that all depends on where you really stand.

Okay, one last point. I’m not a strong believer in the slippery slope argument- the one that I hear you indirectly referencing throughout your post. I don’t believe, as some do, that opening up some of these questions is going to create a vortex of everything-is-nothingness and nothingness-is-everything kind of dilemma. I really don’t. One of the reasons I don’t worry about this is because I have a strong belief in the ministering nature of the Holy Spirit. All that is to say, we are not alone in a vacuum of our own thoughts.

Todd and Paul,

It is interesting an interesting argument that you both make. You claim that emergents believe something about the world or truth, (specifically holding a different epistemology than you), not because they have become convinced of its truth, but because they have vested interests, (hiding unorthodoxy, avoiding personal inconvenience). Not only that, but they are attempting to spread their beliefs to others, (the Us vs. them comment) also for the the reason of serving their own interests. I wonder if you would agree that they are creating their own church "culture" which seeks to squash out dissent through a clever "epistemological song and jig".

If I'm not mistaken, what you are doing is deconstructing emergents. You are attempting to show that their claims about "truth" are not philosophically grounded but rather a cover for an agenda to gain power and control in the church. At this point, I'm not sure whether to critique you, or welcome you to the party. This could really be a textbook example of deconstruction. Be careful, as your method says as much about your beliefs as your words themselves.

As to your comments, I think you'll find that (most) emergents are deeply stung by such accusations (which I assume is your intent, no?). Indeed, we feel them all too strongly. How can we be sure that we are not "false teachers"? Emergents are suspicious of even their best motives to be faithful to the biblical text, knowing their ears to "itch" in subtle and not-so-obvious ways. I would be interested to hear, how, when you read the scriptures, your own "itching" ears don't lead you to hear what you want as well? Is "inconvenience" always the best guide? That is, when choosing between interpretations of a text, one easier and one harder, is it that the "harder" way is the better one? I don't ask these questions to try and corner you, but it does seem to me that you misunderstand emergents somewhat if you think we are not sensitive to the "itching ears" argument. It is "itching ears" which has lead many of us to begin to question whether we can really trust fully what we hear, especially when we know how easily our own motives and desires can cloud our hearing. In turn, we then apply the same reasoning to others, and begin to wonder about their motives as well. How is what they say influenced by their understanding, desires, motives? How is their reading of scripture influenced? I would be interested to hear how both of you have addressed this issue in your own understanding of faith.

Blessings,
T.J.

I have my issues with Driscoll but saying "mean things" (Driscoll) isn't the same as saying things that are patently, unquestionably heretical and go against sound doctrine (Tony Jones). Driscoll is brash and boorish at times with his message and as such gets most of the heat. The Emergents' are generally more calm in their approach and don't raise as much ire (at least initially). I'll go with loud, ham-fisted theology over the quiet "nice" variety as long as it's rooted in the Orthodox Gospel. Neither is anywhere close to ideal but one is at least remotely based on something solid.

Chad,

I've read Driscoll's book, but not Jones'. I used to be very intrigued by the whole emerging/Emergent stream and I completely fit their demographic. Then I listen to a couple of podcasts featuring the usual suspects and both podcasts had the same tone and approach that you describe in the book.

Driscoll is talented, charismatic and is on the fast track to becoming John McArthur if he is not careful - using all that theological education to condemn other Christians instead of preaching the Gospel.

Jones and crew are self absorbed, hyper nuanced and apparently in permanent deconstruction mode. Emergent guys seem to happily use the systems they despise - especially the PUBLISHING system.

Meanwhile we have a handful of people our age who are great role models: Kimball, John Burke, McManus, Andy Crouch, Brian Walsh....

thanks for writing a great article