Last thoughts on “Why We’re Not Emergent” (part 3 of 3)

Review Part 1: Atonement.

Review, Part 2: Hell.

——–

Final thoughts.  The book’s been a big hit in the anti/emergent literature subcultures, leveling it to the category of “one of those books you should read just to be aware of what’s being said, if for no other reason.”  But people ask what I liked about the book. I actually do have such a list.

Pros and Cautions I found helpful for the emergent conversation:

-Be the action you say you believe. A lot of people on one side tell emergents they need to do more theology, while those on the other say “you’re just a bunch of young white guys talking theology.  Get out there and practice what you idealize.”  So while if you’re getting criticism from both sides then it often means you’re doing something right, take note: faith without works is dead.

-Don’t be a rebel, and don’t be arrogant.  Which is easy to be when you think you know more than everyone.  But then you’re brash and nobody will listen to you anyways.  There’s always something to tear down, but humility is the key to winning people.

-Don’t just be a new Left.  A common trend with emergents is having been raised in a conservative home and church (and as a voting block for a political party).  But going Left as a reaction to being right is just as lame as being Right because you think the left is foolish.  The church has long been in bed with the Republican party, but hopping into bed with the Democratic party just because you think you’ve seen the light that your parents or church were blind to is just as sinful.  To me, the drive should be to become post-Left/Right.  And be generous while you are being orthodox.

-It’s popular to search for God, but not so cool to find Him.  Mystery and philo/theological humility is huge, but mystery and ambiguity for there own sakes can lean toward sloppy theology or flat-out confusion.  Be careful not to take too much of a good thing.  And be ok with admitting that, yes, I actually am quite sure of a lot of theological positions which I tend to remain vague on because I fear the reaction from people. That’s something which I, because of flack I’ve taken in a couple of different church settings before, struggle with a lot.

Now for a few thoughts I scribbled down while reading, thoughts that I wished very much I could call up and talk to DeYoung and Kluck about:

- I’m still not sure why DeYoung and Kluck feel, as the title suggests, that they should have been emergents.  Is it because they are youngish and Christian?  Is that their take- that it’s purely a conversation of youngish idealists thinking out of youthful ignorance?  I can’t tell for sure, because they didn’t really explain the title all too well.  But if this view of emergents is, in fact, their characterization, then that could be very telling of the undergirding philosophy behind the book.

-Emergents don’t reject knowledge or real truth- that is while they generally read so prolifically. I think this is a lot easier to see than people make it.  Emergents genuinely are searching for truth, but they generally have a lot more informed perspective on the word Truth, largely because of the education they are packing behind those ears (and yes, it is true that the average emergent generally tends to be much more educated theologically than their average Evangelical counterpart, hence much of the disconnect).

-emergents don’t reject teaching or preaching- that’s why podcasting and reading and blogging have taken off and driven much of the conversation.  If they aren’t getting stretching teaching at home, they go home and subscribe to 20 pastors from around to globe to meet that need.  I’m what I like to call a podcast-whore, and learning from a global community of pastors, writers, and leaders has given enormous fuel to my spirituality.

-on Hell: it really, it isn’t a clear subject in scripture (hence the debate throughout the ages), so please don’t throw the heresy card just because someone knows enough to be uncertain.

-It’s not that “social action gets priority over the Gospel.”  Instead, emergents see social action as part of the Gospel.  If you care for the poor, you really aren’t leaving Jesus behind.

-“Emergents don’t care about theology,” is a bad way to confess “Actually, I’ve just never heard it put that way before.”

-When criticizing Emergent Village, please quit quoting Piper,  Driscoll, Al Mohler or D.A. Carson.  I don’t know what else to say; they just don’t get EV and show little desire to.  Quote Scott McKnight or others that are inside or show understanding of it.  Quoting Carson makes me instantly think “Oh, you mean that guy that’s never even talked to an emergent?”  Consulting with Mohler for perspectives on emergents is like consulting with Sarah Palin for advice on… newspapers.

-If your religion is all about dying well, you may be a gnostic.  It is very telling that DeYoung feels (p.120) that if your faith doesn’t get you into heaven, then it’s irrelevant.  I’m not saying this is an important question, but it is very telling when this is the primary lens by which you see the world of faith and philosophy.

-If you quote someone like McLaren, who uses profuse hyperbole throughout, don’t pretend like a two sentence quote actually communicates his belief on something.  In fact, don’t do that with anyone, ever.

-Thank you for parroting Driscoll’s slander that Emergent Village promotes sexual promiscuity.  I’m still not sure how that even started.

-DeYoung and Kluck seem in way over their heads with Peter Rollins.  I’ll admit, he can be a hard writer to grasp, but I got the feeling they were merely looking for things to criticize without even trying to understand.  He’s a big name, and not that much easier to read that the brilliant philosophy giants like Derrida and Levinas.  You really have to let the writing work on you, and be willing to read the same page five times over.  If you don’t get it at all, then better to leave it alone than to criticize in ignorance of his point.

-DeYoung mistakes a lack of heavy criticism of certain sins for “tolerance of sin.”  And, of course, he only seems to care about certain sins here.  You know the ones; they are always the same.

-My question: is Emergent just getting attacked because it’s becoming a big thing in the broader, global Christianity?  Would the Neo-Calvinist camp’s attacks be the same against another group if there was a resurgence of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, the Coptic’s, etc.?  I suspect so.

-Do we usually attack theology in person the way we lash out at writers behind the safety of a book’s page? Why the difference in attack?  Because it looks easier to attack when you aren’t face-to-face.  Is any of this helpful?  Intellectual disagreement is a good thing that, quite honestly, this whole conversation needs more of.  But misrepresentation and slander only set emergents up for pain and ostrasization, furthering the “us” and “them” divide in a faith community.

-I think the strong artistic correlation with Emergent probably says something about who “gets it” and who is left saying “that’s stupid.”  You may simply just not have the type of mind that sees things this way.  Note>> I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but it’s worth noting.  It really doesn’t surprise me that these two guys, given their background, don’t get into the philosophical rhetoric.  Not trying to be insulting, just honest. (Weak analogy alert) I don’t understand sports at all (no, I seriously could not name a single NFL team that Kluck spends all day writing about at ESPN; I just don’t care), but you won’t see me trying to pretend like I do and bring the hell-bound heresy charge against people who are really into it and think this team or that team is going all the way this year.  That would be beyond ridiculous, and that’s because it’s just imprudent to criticize what you don’t know or try to understand.  If only we applied that understanding to conversations that matter.

-DeYoung, when you say we should avoid ambiguity, that the Apostles we’re vague when giving answers, I think Good thing too, because if the Apostles had ever been vague, then there might be all sorts of different interpretations of Scripture out there.  Er… wait…

—–

For those of you who have asked for a recommended reading for an introduction to the emergent church conversation:

-For a fantastic introduction that may change your life, as well as a simple primer for what postmodern Christianity may look like:  A New Kind of Christian, by Brian McLaren.

-For a very short synopsis of the broader, global Emergence we are seeing in Religion/Culture/Politics/Economics/Etc., read The Great Emergence, by Phyllis Tickle.

-For a history: The New Christians, by Tony Jones.

-For a postmodern philosophical and theological primer: How (Not) To Speak of God by Peter Rollins.

Review (part 2, the doctrine of Hell): “Why We’re Not Emergent”

***Click here for all the research I have on the word “Hell,” including every place you find “Hell” in the Bible

—–

Review Part 1: Atonement.

Review, Part 3: Last Thoughts.

—–

“God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life, and if you don’t love God back and cooperate with God’s plans in exactly the prescribed way, God will torture you with unimaginable abuse, forever…”

- Brian McLaren, The Last Word, and the Word After That. McLaren characterizes what has become the normal view of eternal punishment within Evengelicalism.

——————

Further thoughts on Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck’s Why We’re Not Emergent (by Two Guys Who Should Be):

In my 2^nd of 3 posts on this book, we are talking about the doctrine of Hell. It’s a choice that’s made for me, really. The literal existence of Hell, or lack thereof, is probably the single biggest hangup that the anti-emergent crusaders have. For many, it is a test of orthodoxy, and for DeYoung, it was worth a hefty portion of his book. I wish it were not so; there are so many better things to express concern over in emergent-world than hell. But since anti-emergent world (DeYoung especially) wants to single this doctrine out, it calls for attention. Though the word “Hell” does not appear even once in Scripture, it has become a test of orthodoxy for a Church unaware of its own history. The first differing camps on the subject of Hell arose in the 1st century, likely due to the language of Paul and the apostles (especially given that Paul’s language, in varying epistles, seems to switch between Universalism, quasi-Exclusivism, and an Annihilationist view). Though clear as mud from the beginings of Christian faith, the concept embroils us in heated debate today. So let’s address it.

In chapter 9, entitled “Jesus: Bringer of Peace, Bearer of Wrath,” DeYoung brings to bear his doctrine of hell against emergent literature. DeYoung seems to be a traditional literal exclusivist, meaning he sees hell as a literal (meta-?)physical (pause to ponder the inherent linguistic oddity of speaking of physical, metaphysical “places”… a point for another post) place where those who have not prayed for forgiveness through Christ during life are then torture in fire forever. DeYoung brings up eight reasons we need this doctrine of Hell, and I think they’re worth mentioning due to their prevalence in anti-emergent world. I put DeYoung’s point in bold, with my thoughts following:

1. We need God’s wrath to keep us honest about evangelism. First, notice DeYoung jumps linguistically from saying we need Hell to now saying we need God’s wrath. The latter is certainly found in Scripture, although its form is inherently redemptive, a drive not found in the term hell which DeYoung substitutes in wrath for. It is telling a belief in literal Hell this is so central to DeYoung’s Christianity. Throughout the book, DeYoung constantly jumps back to the importance he sees in teaching anything, asking “Does this help my people die well?” I think Jesus was much more interested in whether or not a teaching brought someone to live well, having shalom God, men, the earth, and one’s own soul. DeYoung also mocks Spencer Burke for saying believing the correct things is not the requisite to getting into heaven. DeYoung takes this to mean that “faith itself is irrelevant.” My caution for those of DeYoung’s persuasion is this: it seems like he thinks the point of Christianity is to keep yourself and those you convert out of Hell. Very often, we I speak of my own ambivalence on whether or not there is a Hell, people ask me, “Well then what is the point of Jesus?” It’s a question that makes me so sad when asked from that frame of mind. When the value of Jesus becomes, first and foremost, how comfortable your afterlife is, I think you are starting from a perspective that, at best, needs a serious reconsideration.

2. We need God’s wrath in order to forgive out enemies. DeYoung explains that we don’t have to take revenge, because God will, and DeYoung refers to the classic “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge’ I will repay,’ says the Lord,” (Rom. 12:19). My caution here is that when your number 2 reason for wanting a Hell is about revenge, albeit in a roundabout way where bro-god delivers the eventual ass-kicking ‘cause he’s got your back, this should raise red flags in a religion that’s all about reconciliation. Or is it about that? I’m not sure it is for many people.

3. We need God’s wrath in order to risk our lives for Jesus’ sake. DeYoung goes on to explain what he means, being that “their innocence will be established when God finally judges their persecutors.” Again, you take comfort in that when you are partying in Heaven, most all of humanity will be being tortured in the basement? If this isn’t a sickening thought to you, I doubt any further commentary from me is going to help.

4. We need God’s wrath in order to live holy lives. DeYoung goes on to misuse a quote by Jesus to try to back up this point, harkening to an Edwardsian image of God holding us over the flames, just barely finding the grace to let us live. It’s a god that’s more about justice (or retribution?) than love.

5. We need God’s wrath in order to understand what mercy means. Nobody debates the realness of God’s wrath. Jumping to say that because He has wrath at sin, He must then torture most people for all eternity is quite a different picture. Again, I appreciate what DeYoung is trying to get at here, but still, do kids need to watch a sibling be beaten in order to love their father for not beating them? I think a big disconnect in Christianity’s internecine debates today around whether to display “justice” or “mercy” comes from a profoundly unbiblical understanding of “justice.” In Scripture, justice is not about getting what you deserve per se, nor is it about balancing the scales in the end. Justice is shalom, the setting of things back on track. The wrath of God, bringing said justice, is always redemptive.

6. We need God’s wrath in order to grasp how wonderful heaven will be. DeYoung doesn’t tell us much here, but this is at least revealing of his idea of Heaven as a metaphysical place somewhere else after you die. It’s only a small nuance, but it has it’s implications. Again with my question about the perspective of a kid watching a sibling being beaten.

7. We need the wrath of God in order to be motivated to care for our impoverished brothers and sisters. This is really my favorite point, as DeYoung speaks of “Jesus’ sober warning that if we fail to care for the least of our brothers we will go away to eternal punishment (Matt. 25.31-46).” It caught me off guard, because it doesn’t seem to sync with the rest of the theology that DeYoung purports, but I like it. While I don’t think Jesus thought you went to hell for ignoring the poor (perhaps he would tell you that you are already in hell), it’s a great reason to choose to believe in Hell if there ever was one.

8. We need God’s wrath in order to be ready for the Lord’s return. DeYoung doesn’t really flesh this out, except to use more lofty, fear-evoking rhetoric. I would offer thoughts, but DeYoung doesn’t offer much material to dissect here.

—-

I wish I wouldn’t come off as condescending here. I really don’t at all mean to, but do I think that, inasmuch as DeYoung represents a widely held perspective among mass numbers of Evangelicals, this section of the book shows a sadly destructive theology which has taken root. Most of us don’t even notice, and at best have skimmed over and forgotten the lessons history has taught us that this belief can lead to. I’ve heard it called evacuation theology due to it’s fierce preoccupation with afterlife and mockery of those Christians who care about fixing things in this life. It feels overwhelmingly gnostic it’s prioritizing of life-after-death over and above anything here and now. And it seems like the under-girding consolation for DeYoung, along with many holding this Protestant exclusivist Hell doctrine, is that in the end, justice (which sounds to me like revenge) will be brought (to everyone except to people believing as we do, of course). And nevermind how much eisegesis (as apposed to exegesis) we had to do to get there. And you don’t even have to back that view up when most Christians assume the whole doctrine of Hell is simply, plainly there in the Bible to begin with.

The doctrine of Hell as a place (well, a nonplace place) for the eternal destiny of those who do not believe as I do about Jesus… personally, I’m fine with dropping that altogether. I think the doctrine of hell needs to be reclaimed as Jesus taught about it, about anti-shalom, about the cycle of sin, degradation, destruction of the individual and society alike, the result of hardened hearts and semi-belief without action. It’s what we choose to live in (i.e. poverty, war, bickering) in order to avoid the same afterwards to a hotter degree. In fact, I think hell has a big Christian community in it, complete with churches and factories for mass-producing gospel tracts, and the people believe in a personal Savior that will one day rescue them from a hell they don’t even notice themselves to be in ( a la C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Divorce”). On that day, who would be the first to tell the imposter that they don’t need to be saved because they are already covered? Lots of us, I suspect.

“…if the church gets converted, the whole world will follow.”

-Rob Bell and Don Golden, Jesus Wants to Save Christians

Review (part 1): “Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be)”

I’m reposting some old reviews. First on the list: Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be)

Review, Part 2: Hell.

Review, Part 3: Last Thoughts.

———————————-

I’m reading Why We’re Not Emergent (by Two Guys Who Should Be) by DeYong and Kluck. I’m nearly done with it, and I will say it’s one of the best anti-emergent pieces I’ve read so far, though not that that’s saying much. They do have a few good criticisms and plenty of good cautions. Up until the advent Why We’re Not Emergent, the flagship anti-emergent piece has been D.A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant With the Emergent Church, but that book sucked.

Here’s my thing with emergent. I make it no secret that McLaren, Jones, Bass, Pagitt, Bell, and others have been big influences of mine, but of course, if you think for yourself, you don’t line up with someone else all the time (and for that matter, neither do they line up with each other). I’m not all to interested into boxing myself into the term “emergent Christian,” but call me what you wish. I just think it’s a bit lame to need a clear label. What I would really like to see is even one critic of emergent that is both critical and understands what the authors are saying, and how this does/doesn’t mess with orthodoxy. It seems that anytime someone throws punches at Emergent Village, the critic doesn’t actually (nor really tries to) understand what the emergent guy was saying. I know because I’ve read all the books, and I’m sorry DeYoung, but nobody in the movement is saying “Jesus doesn’t matter, Scripture doesn’t matter, we don’t believe in hell ‘cause it’s not nice,” etc. By the way, which serious detractor ever argued that they don’t believe in a literal, fiery hell because “it’s not nice and God’s nice, therefore…”??? Nobody, but I’ll hit that issue in a following post.

Put simply, I think a lot of people think they have a big problem with Emergent Village, when in fact they actually just have a problem with documented, historical facts in church history. People are very uncomfortable with the phenomenological construction of beliefs, wanting instead to belief that whatever they believe lines up with old school Christianity.

Lets take the top of snobby esoterica: theories of atonement. It’s true that you will see most emergent writers show little inclination towards the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) view. Albeit, the objection to this particular doctrine is likely a reaction to being raised to believe this is “simply what the Bible teaches,” while seeing destructive avenues this doctrine can play out in the world today and in history. Penal =punishment; substitutionary =Jesus taking our punishment. Essentially, it’s the view that Jesus has to die as a sacrifice in order for God to forgive us while also being just. You hear it all the time. The problem is that its roots can be traced to the 12^th century writings by Anselm of Canterbury, with massive developments in the Protestant Reformation era. Though you read of sacrifice before (indeed, even in metaphors proposed in Hebrews and Romans), we have no record of Christians prescribing such a doctrine as we have today before this time. IMO, it is not “orthodox” in any sense of the word. But as Protestantism was birthed in it and most conservative Protestants have never heard any other view, it is often considered to be “just what the Bible teaches about Jesus” when talking to an Evangelical.

DeYoung is quoting a lot of John Piper, and while I like some of Piper’s work, this may be DeYoung’s problem. John Piper is one of the largest comtemporary proponents of PSA, insisting that it is simple the gospel, and that rejecting PSA is akin to rejecting Jesus. Hence, Piper throws the heresy charge at emergent pastors all the time. Piper, if consistent on this would have to say that I am not a Chrstian either.

In The New Christians, Tony Jones tells of a time when he asked Piper (while Piper was explaining that Jones wasn’t a Christian), “What do you tell your congregation that people believed about Jesus before Anselm?” Piper responded with only, “You should never preach.”

If you aren’t aware that PSA isn’t that old, and certainly wasn’t around in the first century until the 12^th, then it would be far better to ask and learn rather than throw heresy charges and excommunicate.

I don’t mean to make the whole of Why We’re Not Emergent to be about PSA. Far from it. But the errors we see here with DeYoung’s handling of the historical record, the phenomenology of beliefs over time, and simple fact-checking run amok in his work. The book makes similar errors throughout, only much of it, rather than misunderstanding historical theological esoterica, is erroneous misrepresentations of men I’ve read and/or met and respect greatly. I get the feeling I’d like DeYoung and Kluck a lot if I get to know them, but they make so many errors in judgment and feed so much slander that I just get the feeling we wouldn’t have much to talk about if the conversation turned to religion.

More to come…