Blogologue Part 3: Bill Easum Response to Tony Jones

I am afraid that I agree with much of what Bill has said here, and I am a huge fan of the emerging movement.

“Perhaps the difference between most Emergents and me is I think Emergents put too much emphasis on conversation, deep theology, and on reinventing the Gospel than they do on transforming the world.”

Wow. In fear and trembling, I posted a “New Scretape Letter” re: the Emerging Church (before Bill’s piece was up) where I have Screwtape saying precisely the same thing.

Maybe the Spirit is telling us (well, me, anyway) something.

Grace and Peace.

This dialogue has been wonderful, but I wonder just how many churches out there are actually seeing growth whether they be mainline, evangelical, charismatic, house churches, emerging, or anything else. In my experience as a United Methodist pastor, I have seen a lot of emphasis on church growth here in New England over the past decade, but I still see decline. The churches that are growing stand out so obviously that it is hard not to recognize them as “the exception that proves the rule”. In this case, the rule is that organized (re: institutional) religion is in serious decline.

Bill, can you give us some idea of where the church is seeing growth? Is it a certain theology? A certain methodology? A certain geography? The emerging movement is just starting to catch on here in the New England United Methodist Church and there are many more “conversations” that need to take place before we can get a true sense of the future of the movement, in my estimation.

My experience has been if the church is faithful to the Gospel it grows—period.

This quote is one that I believe deserves attention. On one level fidelity to the gospel can be a magnetic attractor that draws people in because of the love resonantes from the church. On the other hand, Jesus said he came to bring the sword. I don’t believe that dwindling numbers discouraged Jesus. In fact, I would argue that people think more when they have been offended or challenged not pacified and encouraged. So perhaps true loyalty to the gospel doesn’t always increase church attendance. It could diminish attendance because quite frankly the gospel is uncomfortable, challenging, and demanding.

Michael. glad you are enjoying the conversation.

There are two places where the UMC is the weakest, New England and California, and both Conferences tend to be very liberal theologically and promote the social gospel over the evangelical gospel instead of combining them equally.

Where you see the growth is in the conservative pastors who combine evangelism and social action. In fact there is more social action now among the growing evangelical churches than among mainliners who talk about it a lot.

Of course you are correct about mainline church declining. But what most people dont know is across the country there are almost as many new church starts every month as their are closings of mainline churches. Most of these new church plants are outside of mainline protestantism.

Ive been saying for three decades that the future does not belong to any mainline group. The reason: we are stuck in the past and when we think growth, we think revitalization instead of church plants.

One of the problems with mainliners is that our vision is myopic. We dont see much beyond our own tribe or area of the country or we would see what God is doing in the church planting churches as well as the multiple site churches.

Where we see growth is primarily in the pastors with conservative theology who see the Great Commission as the most binding command on their ministry.

I hope this helps

I have a question for Bill (if he is reading these comments). My concern is with your statement…

“If, however, you are seeking to rewrite the Gospel or innovate it so far as to change it substantively, then I pray for Emergents quick demise.”

Are you implying that there is only one correct take on “the Gospel”? I don’t mind the prayers for a quick demise of Emergents. You are entitled to that opinion. However, I do mind any assertion that one particular generation’s take on the gospel IS THE GOSPEL. You need to realize how that sounds to us. It sounds like you are suggesting that it’s okay to ask questions and dive deep into theological inquiry as long as we don’t come to a different conclusion than Bill Easum. Is that what you really mean?

Your statement implies that there is a single interpretation (happens to be yours) that must be preserved in an unaltered state for all time. You imply that your view is the view of the authors (or even of God). Do you mean to make that implication?

I think EVERY generation should rewrite the Gospel. It is possible that the Church has struggled lately because it has not done a good job of rewriting the story through a current understanding of the universe. I think that the best way to preserve a story (keep it alive) is to keep rewriting it. The story must take into account all the lessons and mistakes of modernity or else it is an incomplete and dead story. Emergent is giving the story life.

Nietzsche made an important point in critique of modernity and I interpret it as such… If our image of God (and our interpretation of the Gospel) stopped changing to accommodate our latest understanding of our situation, then it is dead. It will be buried with the last generation.

Mike, certainly Im not talking about interpretation. Im talking about innovating so far as to altar the fabric of the gospel. there is a big difference. Notice the word “Substantively.”

And Im not saying Emergents have done that. Not at all. It is a question in a dialogue, nothing more. I think tony’s response will be as “certainly no” as mine was to you. But that is why conversation is important. It clears up misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Ive followed Emergent from the beginning. Many of the leaders are personal friends of mine. So it is important to me that we enter this conversation with all our questions handed out.

But I stand by my statement, If Emergent is apt to innovate (their words) the gospel to the point that it is substantively changed so the fabric of the Gospel is altered, then I hope it fails. If not, power to it to interpret the gospel in a way as to speak to this generation.

I guess if we read “substantively change” to mean “preach a different Gospel,” then Bill is not saying anything altogether new.

If, however, we’re talking about substantively changing the tools of communicating the Gospel (and I think that’s what Emergent is all about, at its best), then let substantive change be a gift of grace to us all.

Raffi

Bill, in response to your key challenge:
Are Emergents attempting to rediscover and contextualise first-century Christianity or are they seeking to rewrite the Gospel or innovate it so far as to change it substantively?

Mike L points out the dangers of “the gospel” becoming synonymous with “my gospel”. Your response was that you were not talking about interpretation, but I don’t think it’s possible to NOT talk interpretively.

The Incarnation tells us that G-d was prepared to muddy the distinction between divinity and humanity, and the dark and difficult presence of evil in this good world is the price the Creator paid to have us know and love freely.

But it appears that for you there is a fairly well defined line between truth and its interpretation, between medium and message, between the subjective and the objective. But I think it is far more unclear than you make out where these things start and stop. It is a feature of the modern mind (and perhaps due to the Hellenised (neoplatonic) mind?) to categorise truth / the ideal from its expressions / the real.

Now I am a celebrant before I am a critic, a worshipper before a protester. So I am not saying this in order to “change the gospel substantively”. But I am recognising that it is nowhere as clear as I once thought what this gospel is. The relativity and unpredictability that post-enlightenment science tells us is a key part of the cosmos, I used to demonise in the name of clarity, but now that I recognise these attributes of Creation, I feel so much closer to perhaps a first century (Hebraic?) understanding of the gospel.

A brief insight I gained from a saying attributed to Jesus: “Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” [Matthew 9:17]

The modern view of this is “Newness is key, preserve it at all costs. New ideas need new forms.”
But a postmodern take might be “Honour the new, but also the old. Do not remove tradition for removing traditions sake.” (I explore this further in http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2007/08/23/newoldwineskins/)

So what one might see as substantively changing the gospel, another might see as rediscovery and recontextualisation. So what one might see as substantively changing the gospel, another might see as rediscovery and recontextualisation.

I guess that’s why we need conversation, imagination and faith.

Bill, I enjoyed hearing your thoughts in this last post. Here’s a comment to consider: Emergents are still young. There simply hasn’t been enough time to see the growth you are talking about.

Bill,

Could you give an example of what you mean by “changing the Gospel”?

If the Gospel is the idea that a person needs to espouse intellectual certainty (belief) in one or more propositional truths in order to avoid eternal damnation, then I hope Emergents do substantially change it. If the Gospel is convincing people to claim intellectual certainty in 6-day creation, virgin births, afterlife, or a particular take on atonement as absolute facts, then I’m up for that change. More importantly, I hope we change it so that people (like yourself) who do believe some of those things can coexist with those (like me) who don’t try to claim those allegorical elements as facts. I think there is a Gospel underneath those stories that draws us together rather than divides us. I think this Gospel can speak to people like my grandparents who lived in a small rural community, were largely uneducated, and never had a chance to know much about evolution, the big bang, or modern brain chemistry. I also think this Gospel can speak to a highly educated philosopher, astronomer, or neuroscientist without asking them to reject their findings. I don’t think the Gospel is about picking the right balance or retreating to a compromising position between those two modes of thinking. I think the Gospel is found inside both of those attempts to describe the universe.

I hope we steer clear of the modern fundamentalist response and the modern secular response. Both camps bet the farm on the facts of our sacred stories. One side bet on the facts the other side bet against them. As the modern age ends, we see that both bets are losing because the value of our stories was never in their historical facts. I hope we don’t attempt to throw away the stories or attempt to bend reality to fit the details of the stories. I hope we preserve the living stories by telling them again through a post-modern lens. I hope we do modernity justice by allowing its light (modern enlightenment) to shine on the stories and show us where literalism was misplaced. I also hope we do the authors of our stories justice by continuing to embrace their stories, revisit them, tell them repeatedly, and live out their deeper meanings.

If what you mean by Gospel is our collective hope for a better world and recognition of the Bible’s declaration against the evil methods of Empire, then I hope we preserve it. So your judgment about changing the Gospel has more to do with what you think the Gospel is rather than if anybody having conversation here is out to change it. Do you view the Gospel as something locked to one single interpretation of our sacred stories or do you view the Gospel as a light revealed through the reading and interpreting of these powerful stories?

Bill, thanks for the post. It was helpful in understanding where you’re coming from.

Personally, I think the issue is really about understanding the implications of the gospel, rather than a definition of the gospel itself. And maybe this is where the “change” everyone is talking about comes in. Although, perhaps “progression” is a better term. As we understand more about ourselves and the world around us, we find new ways that the gospel should be applied. This is where some people misunderstand the Emergent conversation. In my mind, the conversation doesn’t exist to change the gospel, substantively or otherwise. Rather, the conversation is about discussing the trajectory of the NT writings and early church community, and carrying that forward as we consider the implications of God’s restoration plan, and our role within that plan as followers of Jesus.

i just found this site and this is the only thread i have been on, so forgive me if i am at a loss for understanding the broad scope of what it means to be ‘emergent’. after reading the comments from bill and then the replies that followed i am a bit amazed that there is such a lack of understanding of the ‘gospel’. it seems that comments like that of mike l. above bring light to what bill referred to when he said that there cannot be an altering of ‘the gospel’. how about this definition from romans 1:
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God, the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures
regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.
without having done my research it seems that for some such as mike l. the emergent theology does not include the belief that the scriptures are God given and true. but perhaps a bit more flexible, like a good story passed along from grandfather to grandson. as long as the essentials are there you can take the liberty to draw your own conclusions and change it as needed. is this the case?

I’m in the middle of faciliting a seminar so my response will have to be brief till Friday.

By Gospel I mean the Good News that God has done in Jesus what we can not do for ourselves, namely redeem ourselves from our broken condition so we can unconditionally love others as God has loved us. Everything else in the scriptures is dross compared to the above.

So, you see, what one says or does with Jesus is all I am concerned about.

Mike, changing the Gospel to me is saying that the only reason Jesus is the savior of the world is because we chose to believe that and talk about that in our community. To me it is absolute fact not because the bible says so but because my experience with Jesus is that real, totally without the community, but much better because of it. Ive never espoused intellectual certainty. I do espouse experiental certainty that goes way beyond “bomb proof” certainty.
Ill try to say more Friday

one more post before I call it a night. I dont see the Gospel as just a story that has been passed down from generation to generation. i see it as much more. It is the way God is and the way God want us to be. Real life is found only in Jesus. Period. that is not subject to interpretation. everything else is up for grabs. this form of logic does away with the need for ALL denominational interpretations and opens the door for Kingdom conversation.

Bill,

I completely agree with your definition of the Gospel as stated in comment #14. I would consider us brothers aligned under the banner of that good news. The only issue I’d have is your next assertion that the rest of scripture is “dross”.

“dross”:
1) Waste or impure matter
2) The scum that forms on the surface of molten metal as a result of oxidation
3) Worthless, commonplace, or trivial matter

I can’t say that about the rest of our sacred texts. I would hold them in a higher regard as I see them supporting this good news from the beginning to the end.

You also added:
“To me it is absolute fact not because the bible says so but because my experience with Jesus is that real, totally without the community, but much better because of it.”

In this statement I hear you making a very clear claim of your intellectual certainty (absolute fact) based on your individual experiences. Have I misread your intentions?

Are you absolutely certain your definition is absolutely factual even though it leaves out any reference to the cross or an empty tomb? How about eternal life, heaven or hell? How can you make such a short vague interpretation of the Gospel (which I do agree with on that level) and attach the phrase “absolute fact” to it?

I’ve not heard anyone in this emergent dialog express doubt in the truths of scripture. I think what you might hear is a level of uncertainty and humility in any person’s ability to summarize or interpret the word of God. I don’t feel comfortable attaching the words “absolute” or “fact” to any person’s interpretations. That is probably where we have a disconnect.

I also have never heard anyone in this conversation make a claim that the bible is “just” stories passed from generation. I’ve only heard scripture mentioned in extremely high regards as a something unique, holy, and divinely inspired.

You added:
“Real life is found only in Jesus. Period. that is not subject to interpretation.”

Interpret:
1)To explain the meaning of
2) To conceive the significance of; construe
3) To present or conceptualize the meaning of by means of art or criticism

Well, I hope that idea is open to interpretation other wise we couldn’t talk about what it means to find life in Jesus. Shouldn’t we be allowed to unpack that term and describe this life with Jesus? Shouldn’t we speak about how that life might work? Shouldn’t we “interpret” that phrase together and live it out on a daily basis? I think you confused the term “interpret” with “conflict”. Did you mean to say we shouldn’t conflict with that phrase? If you did, then we might agree.

re: “My experience has been if the church is faithful to the Gospel it grows—period.”

I think the danger I have seen in my own, and Bill’s former, denomination is that our leaders have taken on the initiative to start churches and if they grow the assumption is that they are true to the gospel, when in fact they are repackged country clubs that become more of the same as they reach a certain size. The planting pastor leaves and the disfunctional “experienced” pastor comes in and we perpetuate our disfucntion, albeit with a flashy beginning.

Mike, okay, not dross, but not in the same universe when it comes to importance. what I was tryin to convey is the only thing in Scripture that is absolutely important to me or my ministy is “Who do you say that I am.” Aside from our relationship with Jesus all else pales into not much.

the comment about real ife only in Jesus is meant to convey my belief that salvation is found only in Jesus, that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and…. perhap conflict is a better word instead of interpretation, since the two questions that drive everything I do is, “What is it about my relationship with jesus that my neighbor needs to experience?” and “How can I be rabid about Jesus without being a bigot?” I guess that is interpretation.

wademan, I guess your experience has been somewhat different from mine. the last 10 years I have had the privilege of working in some great Kingdom based churches.

I grant you that most of the churches Ive seen that were started more than 40 years ago are far from the Kingdom. that’s sad, but Im not ready to throw in the towel and say most established churches, especially the mega churches, are fundamentally flawed. i think that is one of the issues I have with most of the Emergent writings.

mike Sep 17, 07:24 AM
No, that is not the case. I recommend you read Tony Jones’ book “The New Christians” and/or Doug Pagitt’s “A Christianity Worth Believing” to get the true emergent scoop.

Bill, you said:
“By Gospel I mean the Good News that God has done in Jesus what we can not do for ourselves, namely redeem ourselves from our broken condition so we can unconditionally love others as God has loved us. Everything else in the scriptures is dross compared to the above.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Mike L. Sep 17, 08:41 PM in his brilliant exposition… wait, did I use the right word? :-) No really, I love it Mike, thank you. I would love to find you on Facebook someday…. Anyway, Bill, the whole of Scripture is a history leading to the cross, and a history leading from it. It all pertains to our relationships with our Savior, and it is a beautiful narrative of His story and ours. There is no dross, no lesser texts, no greater ones. I think you agree, but that you used a phrase you now regret. I think you meant to say that as long as we don’t begin to say we don’t need Jesus, you’re cool with whatever ideas we come up with. Is that right?
Also, you said “Real life is found only in Jesus.” I agree! But what is real life? Is it only a spiritual life in the after-life, or does it begin here and now? That is a major focus of EC, and a major focus of Jesus. When we talk about understanding the gospel, or re-writing it as you said, we are not talking about changing the gospel, because you can’t do that without literally changing the words of the Bible to say something different. But there is no “Holy Emergent Bible” with extra verses added or some taken away. We seek to paint the Scriptures in a clearer light for those who have misunderstood a group of people who claim to have the light of the world living in them, who then turn around a let the children starve, let the poor go without, let the needy need, let the lonely ache, etc. because, after all, only the after-life matters to them. And the after-life does matter, but it isn’t something that is off and away in the future somewhere, in some place we have never been to. It started the day Jesus resurrected, and that was here on earth, where those who need to hear it actually reside. The good news, AKA gospel, is that there is freedom and life and peace and love and relationship and forgiveness, and reconciliation, and more to be had here, today, now. A good book to read in regards to such a concept would be the third book in the “Emergent Visions” series entitled “Soul Graffiti” by Mark Scandrette.

i think the main reason conservatives grow is pretty simple: they work their asses off because it is a “the lost go to hell” situation. for me, I don’t think the agnostic down the street is going to burn in hell. so why bring the gospel? because if I love my neighbor I can see that he is truly lost…no meaning in life..and needs the healing power of the gospel. when “liberals” care as much as conservatives do about bringing people to the kingdom, they will grow.

Teresa, your commit, ” I think you meant to say that as long as we don’t begin to say we don’t need Jesus, you’re cool with whatever ideas we come up with. Is that right?” is on target with what I meant. Also, I agree with you that we are saved to live like Jesus lived as well as an afterlife. I believe in both- I dont believe Christianity is a mere fire insurance policly and never said that. So we are in agreement on that. ANd if all Emergents are about is making the Gospel clearer then this conversation has done its job. I have no problem with that at all.