Why We're Not Emergent - A Review, continued

Why We’re Not Emergent (by Two Guys Who Should Be) – second and final post in a review by an old man who shouldn’t be Emergent.

In a previous post, I highlighted areas where I agreed with DeYoung and Kluck in their critique of the Emergent Movement: The movement struggles with epistemology. It evinces the us/them dichotomy characteristic of young movements (a dichotomy that borders on arrogance even in its protestations of humility). Its commitment to inclusivity and diversity appears more theoretical than experiential. It is ahistorical, seemingly unaware of the rich, untidy tapestry Christian thinking and experience across the centuries. (From here on I'll refer to DeYoung as the author, since he is the principal author.)

Taking these points in reverse order, I’ll describe why an “Old Man Who Shouldn’t Be” might consider himself a “fellow traveler” of the Emergent movement. (For those too young to remember this political/social term, check Wikipedia.)

Social/ethnic homogeneity

In my first post on the Emergent movement, I described its theology as reminiscent of “classic apophatic theology but without the stability and wisdom offered by deep connections with the history and traditions of the Christian Church.” And I wrote it was “a youthful, generational fad . . . populated almost exclusively by young, White people.” In response, Spence of the TheOOZE.com, which sponsored Soularize, pointed out the conference included speakers with roots in historical traditions–e.g. Roman Catholic and Methodist clergy–and speakers from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds. In addition, his online community includes people from over 100 countries.
I would argue the diversity of speakers at the conference is primarily an expression of the theoretical commitment of the movement to diversity, because the audience–those who paid to listen–was rather homogenous. I suspect the “people from over 100 countries” who form the online community are mostly young, educated White people from “Western” countries. The non-Western members are mostly likely “Westernized” or at the very least, “urbanized” young people.
However, while this observed homogeneity contrasts with the movement’s words about diversity, it is, in fact, inevitable. Ideas always find their first life in socially homogenous groups. Galileans were disproportionately represented among Jesus’ disciples. Post-Pentecost, the church first spread in a narrow demography–Jewish people and friends of Jewish people. The early Adventist Church was largely White young adults from the Northeast. Both the Christian Church as a whole and the Adventist denomination have become global, international, pan-ethnic realities. But they didn’t start there. Why would we expect the Emergent movement to be any different?

Us/Them

As an old liberal, steeped in Christian history, I smile indulgently when I hear young zealots of any variety declaiming the radical newness, effectiveness, and authenticity of their movement. They are going to do church like it has never been done before–and not just different–better. I know what they are doing is not truly different from what has ever been done before. And it is not better–by any objective, rational yardstick.
But without the conviction that they are onto something so valuable and powerful that it is better than everything else, how would they have the fire and zeal needed to take it to the world? So I smile indulgently, then wipe the smirk off my face and cheer them on. Give money. Bless them. And remember my own fiery certainty of three decades ago. Of course, the Emergent Movement is not perfect. Of course, there are elements of Emergent culture that will prove unhealthy and unsustainable over time. But right now it is touching lives and providing hope for many people unmoved and unserved by the rest of us.

Epistemology

How do we know? What is the truth? The simple answer of classic Christianity is the Bible. God spoke the Bible. We hear God by giving attention to what he has said in its pages. This is a simple, devout, classic epistemology. I have known wonderful saints for whom this is enough. They were happy, generous, compassionate and moral. If you question them about what they know and how they know, they answer, “God said it in the Bible.”
It seems to me this is the model DeYoung holds up. Within Adventist circles, Samuel Pippim and Fernando Canale are leading champions of this approach to truth.
The problem is, this “high view” of Scripture actually settles very few of the major theological conflicts that divide Christians (never mind the divisions between Christianity and non-Christian religions).
Did God choose some people for damnation and some for salvation before creation? DeYoung, citing the Bible would answer emphatically, yes. Adventists and other Armenians answer equally emphatically, no! Citing, of course, the same authoritative Bible. When did life first appear on earth? Classic Adventist doctrine, citing Genesis, answers 6000 years ago. Other Adventists–Sabbath-keeping, praying, devout Adventists as well as many non-Adventist Christians–argue the Bible does not answer the question.
What happens when people die? According to the Bible, they depart and go to be with the Lord. According to the Bible, they sleep. And sincere Christians who take the Bible as their infallible authority dispute with one another, sometimes vehemently over just how to interpret these different pictures of death.
What happens to the wicked after death? According to the Bible, their worm never dies, and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever. According to the Bible they are burned like wheat straw in a furnace.
The Emergent writers do conservative Protestantism a favor by challenging from inside the church our certainty that if we will all agree to acknowledge the Bible as our ultimate authority in theology that theological wars will cease. So instead of calling us to renewed vigor in prosecuting the classic wars over the nature of the atonement and divine will and precise definitions of soteriology, they call us to join Jesus in his kingdom work. I think they are on to something.

In his introduction, DeYoung gives a page long list to describe the amorphous movement called Emergent. At least half of the identifiers he lists do not apply to me at all. But I found myself saying Amen! to many elements in his list, especially the political and social implications of following Jesus. I do not believe it is more important to be right in one’s soteriological theories than to be faithful in following the Savior, here and now.

If I were engaged in the Emergent conversation, I would ask how can we know when a person’s “openness to the leading of the Spirit” has taken them away from Truth. At what point do we emphatically separate ourselves from the claims of someone like a Jim Jones or David Koresh. On what basis do we publicly declare “That person is wrong, evil, dangerous”? A church that specializes in defining boundaries cannot remain healthy over the long haul. Neither can a church remain healthy that never draws boundaries.

Right now, the Emerging Church is experimenting. It is engaged in the exhilarating exploration of a new and youthful expression of the community of Jesus. It is appropriate that it should be out there, defying tradition, trying new forms of worship and spiritual formation. But within a few years Emergent congregations will face crises that will compel them to draw lines, to define themselves—their beliefs and practices. Emergent congregations will eventually become the establishment which their own children and grandchildren will feel called to reform. And some of that reformation will be a reversion toward the mean. The children of Emergents will discover that some of the “old-fashioned” ways of doing church, actually work pretty well. They may even find that doctrinal definitions, while perhaps not structured according to the pattern of the ancient creeds, are still an important part of a church’s identity and mission.

If you think the Emergent movement is the final solution to the challenge of being authentically Christian, then you should give serious attention to DeYoung’s criticism. As with all human movements, Emergent is flawed. I think DeYoung has offered a thoughtful, careful critique of the movement. If you are headed down the Emergent path, you would be well-advised to ask some of the same questions DeYoung raises. On the other hand, if you are a conservative Adventist looking for support in your opposition to all things new, be careful. While the Emerging Church is DeYoung’s target in this book, it is obvious that were he to give any attention to Adventists he would have at least as many complaints against us. You can’t hold him up as an authority when attacking the Emergents then dismiss him when he holds his same “Bible yardstick” up to us.

Ironically, the primary value of Why We’re not Emergent is precisely its participation in the Emergent conversation. DeYoung’s positive “truth claims” are mostly unhelpful, but he raises good questions. If we respectfully engage the Emergent movement, hearing its own questions and challenging it with the kinds of questions DeYoung asks, we should come to a clearer understanding of our mission as the Church of the Living God.

New Blog for Pastors

I am moving my posts that are intended specifically for pastors to a new blog at MrAdventist.blogspot.com. I will continue to try to publish a piece for pastors each Friday.

I will continue my blog here. It will be aimed at a more general readership.

Why I Am Not Emergent--A Review

At our January pastor's meetings, the conference president gave all of us the book, Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung (a theologically educated pastor) and Ted Kluck (a sports writer). [Yes, it's a curious combo.]

I don't ordinarily read books that are "anti-"

And I laughed when I read in the introduction DeYoung's description of his own preaching: Long, doctrinal, expositional sermons that proclaim the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the reality of [eternal] hell, the demands of obedience, the call to evangelism, the duty of mercy ministry, and the glorious truths of unconditional election [predestination]and particular redemption [the belief that Christ's death was targeted only toward those already predestined to be saved--if I understand it correctly].

So I'm supposed to read a critique of the Emergent Church by an author who sees eternal torment as the second most important component of his preaching and views predestination and limited atonement as "glorious truths" central to his gospel proclamation?

But the book was given to me by my conference president. Given my own outspokenness in pastors' meetings, I owe the president the courtesy of reading books he recommends as a way of listening seriously to him.

So I kept reading past the introduction.

I am puzzled by the book. It is clear that one of the authors' major concerns with the Emergent Church is their downplaying of eternal torment. Both authors return to this repeatedly throughout the book. Of course, we Adventists applaud the Emergents for their "seeing the light" on this doctrine.

The larger concern of the author, however, though he never uses the word, is epistemology. He insists we take the inerrant Bible as our guide. He argues the Emergents have no clear authority--not the Bible, not the Church, not "their church", not the Holy Spirit. It is not only that the Emergent movement is intentionally doctrinally amorphous. It is that the movement insists there is no proper way to be definite about any truth.

Reading the quotations DeYoung cites, I am reminded of classic apophatic theology but without the stability and wisdom offered by deep connections with the history and traditions of the Christian Church. Emergent authors question all theological affirmations while appearing to uncritically make strong ethical, social and political affirmations. I am sympathetic to the social concerns characteristic of the Emergent movement, but I think DeYoung's criticism of their epistemology is apt.

I think DeYoung is right in some of the questions he raises. From attending a Soularize conference in Seattle, I would agree with his assessment that the Emergent movement is primarily defined by its rejection of conservative Evangelical beliefs and practices. It does poorly in articulating its spiritual, theological core.

It reminds me of some Adventist dissidents and former Adventists who are nothing without their contempt for Adventism.

DeYoung also highlights a certain arrogance among the Emergents that I think is characteristic of the young and idealistic: Emergents scorn or view with condescension all those poor, unenlightened traditional Evangelicals who are doing regular church. If only they could see the light and join God's true church, the Emergent Church!

I agree with DeYoung that the Emergent Church at best is a youthful, generational fad. It is populated almost exclusively by young, White people who grew up in conservative Protestant churches and now have "found freedom and relevance" in congregations that celebrate the arts and endorse drinking beer.

Of course, the minute I consider the remedies DeYoung proposes for the problems of the Emergent Church, I am repulsed. His remedies are: An inerrant Bible, eternal torment, predestination, and a keen focus on God's demands. In response Adventists would point out our belief DeYoung's "inerrant Bible" requires Sabbath-keeping, allows for human choice, and points toward annihilationism. (Of course, our high view of Scripture is not identical with his "inerrant Bible.")

I honor DeYoung's quest for a "preachable gospel" and for "truth." But his dogmatic confidence in hell, predestination and inerrancy makes the tentativeness in doctrinal assertions which is a hallmark of the Emergent Church look rather attractive. DeYoung's dogmatic certainty appears to me to also be more properly the characteristic of immature zeal than mature spiritual development.

More later.

John

Annual Pastors Meetings

I attended our conference’s annual January pastors’ meetings the first part of this week. Three observations:

1. The major presenters at pastors’ meetings in the Adventist Church are seldom themselves pastors. In our case, the presenters were a theologian-turned-university-administrator and an itinerant revivalist. The administrator delivered polished sermons with solid biblical content. He evinced respect for the pastors he was addressing. But his sermons had originally been crafted in a different era and sometimes it showed. One of his sermon repeatedly alluded to a counterculture classic from the early seventies. He didn’t explain the allusion and pastors under fifty did not get it. The revivalist was full emphatic declarations about just how pastors can accomplish spiritual renewal in their congregations. I listened and smiled. I have a doctor in my congregation who also dispenses prescriptions for church renewal with absolute confidence. I’d like to get the revivalist and the doctor together.

2. If you go to pastors’ meetings very many times you are likely to hear some visiting non-pastor declare with great earnestness, “If you don’t ________ [fill in the blank] you should have the courage to resign from the ministry. The blank might be a specific point of doctrine or prophetic interpretation or a particular approach to pastoral leadership. I used to be wounded by these comments. Now I just smile and think, “That bozo might delight to see the Adventist ministry purged of people like me, but I’m sure he would not consider switching places with me. He would find no glamour in the kind of faithful, steady pastoral service that is associated with the annual increase of tithe that comes from my little congregation. The truth is, the money associated with my ministry is what funds his opportunity to denigrate my ministry.”

3. God doesn’t require perfection. In spite of my criticisms, I acknowledge God uses theologians-turned-university-administrators and wandering revivalists even when they invade pastors meetings. There were pastors at these meetings who were deeply touched with healing and encouragement through the ministry of these men. With that in mind, I will step onto my platform tomorrow morning confident that for all my defects and deficiencies, God will use me, too.

Whoever you are—administrator, revivalist, erudite pastor, stuttering shepherd, model of confident faith or struggling friend of Thomas—preach tomorrow with the confidence God has something to say through you. And he will say it.

Good Enough Preachers

It’s a bit after midnight, Friday night. Eleven hours from now, I’ll step onto the stage at North Hill Adventist Church. About a hundred people will sit and listen to me speak for God.

I know something of the needs of my people. Marriages wracked by insatiable desires for the other to change. Cancer. Heart disease. Unemployment. Alcoholism. Young people devoid of evident faith, linked to church primarily by birth and mom’s urging. Recent divorce. Long, unwanted singleness. Violence at home.

In view of their needs and my inadequacy, how dare I stand up tomorrow and speak for God? On the other hand, since I have been called how dare I not?

A couple of lessons from Jesus to give me (and you) courage:

First, when Jesus wanted to feed five thousand, he ordered his disciples to serve dinner. They, of course, protested all they had at hand was five loaves and two fish, Jesus replied, “Bring them here.” Five thousand hungry men and all the disciples had was five loaves and two fish. And it was enough.

Second, in Luke 22, after predicting Peter’s miserable failure, Jesus asked the disciples, “When I sent you out purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“No. We lacked nothing.”
“Well, now if you have a purse, take it. If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
“We have two swords.”
“That is enough.”
Is Jesus serious? They are headed straight into an ambush that will scatter the eleven and result in Jesus’ arrest and subsequent death. A legion of swords and swordsmen would have been more appropriate to the occasion, it would seem. But Jesus assures them two swords is sufficient. And they were for God’s purposes.

So tomorrow I will stand up to speak, no more adequate for the heroic work required than the disciples were with their five loaves or two swords. And no less adequate.

What I have–and what you have–is enough. So let’s hand out the bread in our baskets. Let’s swing our swords, however clumsily. And God will make our bread and swordsmanship enough.