Blogologue Part 4: Tony Jones Response to Bill Easum
By Tony Jones:
First of all, let me say that I am sorry you’ve been chased from your home by Hurricane Ike. I pray that your family and friends are all OK, and even that your house weathered the storm. (For ways to help Ike victims, see Chris Seay’s post.)
Actually, that brings me to my first point. I continue to find it maddening that you and other friendly critics of emergent Christianity paint a picture of emergents sitting around, drinking lattés, and talking all the time without ever doing anything. In point of fact, I think that the very strength of emergent Christianity is the nexus of theory and praxis that I see in so many congregations. Whether it be the Advent Conspiracy, pioneered by Chris Seay and Rick McKinley, my own church’s participation as a charter abolitionist church in the Not For Sale Campaign, or myriad ways that emergent congregations are involved in their own neighborhoods, I just don’t see how anyone who has even visited an emergent church could say that we value conversation over action. The facts just don’t bear out that criticism.
But, I think you might mean something more evangelistic than what I’ve just outlined. When you write about the activity and telos of the church, you seem to mean that persons come into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. While I do not know a single member of my church, nor a single emergent church leader, who would deny the importance of that, you can already see in the comments below your last post that some of your terminology strikes emergents differently. Several people asked what you mean by the “gospel,” and others questioned the certainty with which you seem to understand the gospel.
To those concerns, I would add that I find your use of the term “pagan” offensive. My dictionary tells me that a pagan is a “heathen, infidel, idolater, idolatress.” First, let me say that I am chief among idolaters. Second, let me say that those people I know who are not (yet) followers of Jesus are not heathens and infidels. In most cases they are deeply spiritual persons who want the best for me and for the world. I take it as my duty to urge them to consider Jesus as the pinnacle of this care and love for creation—in fact, as the One who was sacrificed on behalf of us and creation for our redemption.
But there I go again, having a theological conversation. :-) OK, you got me. You’re right, we do like to talk some heavy theology. But the reason, I must say, is that many of us found theology to be sorely lacking in our home churches. You and I both bemoan the current state of the church in America. In all too many instances, it is either driven by non-biblical consumeristic impulses, or it is, as you say, “small, petty attitudes.” But here’s where you and I may part ways: I am convinced that the problems with the modern church are, at their core, theological problems. And whether it be the emergents or the radical reformers or those who are converting to Orthodoxy, there is a move among GenXers and Millenials to develop a robust theology.
Which brings me to your final challenge. To the question of whether emergents are trying to get back to the original gospel or to innovate a new gospel, I say, Neither. To the latter, methinks it impossible to really innovate a 2,000-year-old story all that much. People make up religions from scratch all the time, and that is the furthest thing that any emergent wants to do. In fact, I think many critics are surprised at the depth of knowledge of church history and historical theology that most emergent church leaders have.
But neither do I think it’s possible to “get back” to the original gospel. People have been trying to do that since a few generations after Jesus—theologians call them “primitivists”—and none has yet been successful. To think that we can “get” the gospel as it was originally meant is, I think, either naiveté or hubris. Instead, I think the emergent movement is calling all followers of Jesus to move into the future with the gospel. That may seem like a nuance or a tricky turn-of-phrase, but let me try to explain. Instead of going backward-in-time (which is impossible) or moving into the future with the intention of pure innovation (which is foolhardy), I say that we step boldly ahead, into the future, being bolstered by the gospel as it has been read, proclaimed, enacted, and lived for millennia.
Thanks again, Bill, for agreeing to this dialogue. Like you, my prayer is that it will encourage many.
Note: This post is part of a month-long “blogologue” between Bill Easum and Tony Jones.
There will be a wrap-up posted on Monday, September 29, featuring a summary and quotes from comments and related blog posts to conclude this blogologue.
Tony Jones is the national coordinator for Emergent Village. He is the author of a number of books, including The New Christians.
Bookmark this article using Remarkable!
Welcome to the Reader's Forum
First, let me say thanks for asking about our home and the storm (I can’t even use the H word). Some parts of our town were flooded but we didn’t sustain any damage. We were just a bit weary from bugging out. So we feel fortunate.
Also, let me thank you for this opportunity to dialogue with you. It has helped clarify some things for me and I hope for others. It is an important dialogue for me since I’ve known and had conversations with many Emergents before they were Emergent and value their friendship and hope it is still intact.
I think you put your finger on where we have a difference. I am looking for more concrete evangelistic action rather than social justice. It’s not that I’m against social action. I was a community organizer for nine years while in San Antonio. So I have the battle scars from challenging the root causes of social justice. But still I do not think social justice is the heart of Christianity; it is just the other side of evangelism, which I would like to see more of from the Emergents. So you see why I’m still confused by your statement “Emergents start new churches to save their own faith, not necessarily as an outreach strategy.” In my mind church planting any kind of church, and converting people, is the prime directive of the Gospel.
I’m also not against theological conversation. I think that is what we’ve been doing in this dialogue. To me the key theological issue is the nature of the church. In my mind it has one purpose – the transform the world. I just think Emergents spend too much time trying to come up with either a new or better theological position and go to deep for the average person on the street to figure out what you’re saying.
My use of the word “pagan” is intentional and descriptive. I know the word draws a sharp line between Christian and non-Christian- a line which you seem to not want drawn. I can’t see any legitimate need for the death of Jesus without a clear cut either/or understanding of the condition of humanity. Modern day Christianity has become too soft on the difference between Christians and non-Christians. What we are seeing right now on Wall Street is the result of pagan actions.
I find the last section of your response an example of how hard it is to get ones head around Emergent theology. What does it mean to “step boldly ahead, into the future, being bolstered by the gospel as it has been read, proclaimed, enacted, and lived for millennia,” when in another place you say, “But that means, Bill, that theology will be just as innovative as methodology.” I still am not convinced we have to adopt a postmodern faith in order to reach a postmodern world. I do believe we have to change our methodology. I guess we will leave that for another conversation.
The last word I would like to share is a suggestion: Don’t let your movement become little more than a reaction to the ineffectiveness and brokenness of the modern church. Don’t search for a new theology simply because Christians have got it wrong for centuries. Too much is at stake and you have too many big guns in your movement. I still believe we can get oh so close to the original intent of Jesus that we ought to search for it.
“To think that we can ‘get’ the gospel as it was originally meant is, I think, either naiveté or hubris. Instead, I think the emergent movement is calling all followers of Jesus to move into the future with the gospel.”
But doesn’t understanding the past help us to fully comprehend and appreciate our heritage so that we may more accurately and fully move towards the future? How can we begin to share a gospel that we have no “set” standard of understanding?
Rick, that is part of my problem with the statment also. We have to have a certain confidence in the reality of the original Gospel inorder to move into the future with it. this a good example of why I ask if we are leaving the original Gospel for one we think fits today. This is an old argument among theologians. The Protestant Principle of Inspiration is the way our predecessors dealt with this issue. I believe the story we have has been guided down through the centuries. If I can’t believe that I have serious issues with any kind of authority other than my own (and I know the question still begs- whose interpretation). Still, I have to have a point of departure or origin in order to have any continuity and certainty about the future. Of course I know we dont have the original anything except- our own experience with the risen Christ. In one sense, that is enough for me. In another sense, when it comes to theology and the practice of the church, I need much more than my own experience. The problem with the established church today is that it values opinion more than reality. Otherwise it would be focused more on transforming the world than institutional survival.
To Bill:
“I was a community organizer for nine years while in San Antonio. So I have battle scars from challenging the root causes of SOCIAL JUSTICE.”
Perhaps you meant to say social INjustice?
Bill,
You really need to think about words and the power they have. This was just a slip of your finger on the keyboard and it can change the ENTIRE meaning of your sentence….that is if it is taken literally. However, if I take the “whole” of what you said in your response and all that I have read in your previous posts, I know better. I can look past the literal error and see your intent. This is what I am trying to do as an emergent. I am trying to get to the spirit of the matter, not the letter of the law. I agree with T.J. we have wacked out beliefs because of our wacked out theology. Im not saying we can ever “get” it nailed down. But we can move closer to the center of Christ’s message.
To Daniel:
Are you seeking to use Bill’s typo as a comparison to the possibility that we (Christians) fail when we take the Bible to be literal?
Why does evangelism have to be intentional or verbal? St. Francis said something of the sort: “Preach the gospel and if necessary use words.” I find that the evangelism which emerging Christians engage in is much more centripetal rather than centrifugal – we are much less about promotion through verbage than about attraction through being and demonstration. As a counselor and community missionary, I wonder why can’t there be such a thing as evangelistic listening and even to use an eastern term social in-action, in a quest to point to the sovereignty and compassion of a God who is bigger than a Wall Street/ Madison Avenue world.
Rick
I was trying to point out how crazy it would be for someone to do that. Actually I thought I spelled it out when I said
“I can look past your literal error …”
As far as the Bible, what do you mean by take the Bible literal? which part? The part where Jesus says gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin? Or what about hating your father and mother in order to follow Jesus? Should we take these verses literal? No one takes the whole bible literally. Its just a question of where do you pick and choose…or use hermenuetics and exegesis and textual criticism and blah blah blah…you get the point. any ways, blessings in Christ
To comment further on the evangelism piece, I know I have found evangelism to be much easier, and I do it much more frequently, having become a part of the emerging conversation. I think we just do it a little differently than traditional evangelicals. I’m not trying to hand out tracts, convince others how utterly evil at the core they are, or get them to say the “Sinner’s Prayer,” but I approach it as simply having a conversation. So I talk with Muslims, with other Christians, with agnostics and atheists, but as an equal, rather than as the one with the truth against their heathen paganism. I share my thoughts and my faith, they share theirs, and hopefully we both grow and learn along the way. I find this to be so much more natural, and it can be so much more fruitful, as I’m not constantly trying to steer them towards a conclusion I’ve predetermined or get them to say a prayer. And they know I’m not. People spot a sales pitch a mile away, but most everyone I run into anyway is very interested in discussing their spiritual experiences and faith.
Thank you Bill and Tony. I’ve found the content and tone of this blogologue to be very encouraging.
It is my conviction that pagan is not only NOT equivalent to “evil” or “unsaved”, but in fact posesses a prophetic quality, addressing the urban chauvinism of modernity.
The word translated “pagan” from the Hebrew (mostly goyim) meant by and large gentile, non-Jew. By that, I am pagan.
And the original sense of it comes from Roman soldiers who found themselves amongst country dwellers. It’s the civilisers and road pavers view of the farmers and simple people who relate to the earth. The term pagan itself is from the Latin paganus, meaning “an old country dweller, rustic”. This is distinct from “Of the City”.
Peter Gabriel sang, “I’d rather trust a country man, than a townsman. You can see in his eyes take a look if you can.”
And I think Jesus had quite a bit to say about Gods bias towards the simple, the poor and the country folk.
I propose we recycle this word completely.
Daniel:
While I know that this idea may seem confusing and almost hypocritical by seeming to choose which we accept to be literal or allegorical, it really boils down to proper literary criticism. Just as human authors use imaginative literary devices such as metaphor, simile, allusion, personification, metonymy, synecdoche etc. to emphasize a point, God does the same in His word.
The question is then, who decides what to take literally and what to take figuratively?
Simple. We let the text itself decide.
Instead of reading into the text our own pre-conceived thoughts and feelings on a particular passage, we read the context of what is being said and then interpret the text. For example, you pointed out the text in Matthew 5, 18:8, 9 and Mark 9:43-48 where it seems that Jesus is advocating self-mutilation. However, if you read the passages in their entirety, you see that what is being discussed here is doing whatever it takes to avoid sinning. Jesus is using the common literary device of hyperbole in order to get His point across to His audience. The painful images of gouging out eyes and cutting of appendages are used to show us how difficult removing sinful habits will be to us.
The decision to take any text literally or figuratively is indeed made through proper exegesis and hermeneutics rather than up to any whim or slant I may have.
So, back to the issue of literal versus allegorical.
What is so dangerous about a primary allegorical interpretation of scripture is that it is up to the reader to decide meaning and truth rather than the Author. As James R. White writes in an article entitled “Dangerous Airwaves” posted on the Christian Research Institute website:
“Allegorical interpretation ignores the grammar and original context of the Scriptures, which is why it must be rejected as a valid method of interpretation. It is simply unverifiable. In other words, no person using the allegorical method can honestly and logically affirm that his or her conclusions are actually based upon the text that is being interpreted. Because the actual meaning of the text is ignored, the allegorical meaning can have no more weight than one invests in the allegorical interpreter. Since each allegorical interpreter may “see” or “feel” something different in the text, allegorical interpretations can never be verified by others working with the same text.”
(http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2715797/k.B1E9/DC989.htm)
I hope this helps clarify my position.
Grace and peace.
Bill,
Your use of the word ‘pagan’ is the same as the Pharisees saying ‘sinner’. The Pharisees differentiated between ‘sinner’ and ‘non-sinner’. Modern christians differentiate between ‘saved’ and ‘un-saved’. Jesus did neither. He would heal lepers whether they thanked him or not. He would feed the hungry whether they knew him as God or good teacher.
Also, take into consideration, that what we see on Wall Street is also your doing. If you truly want to be distant from it and have the authority to point fingers at who’s to blame you will have to give up your rights as an American. Just by living here you are part of the system. The condition of the economy is the effect of all OUR sins and selfishness, not paganism.
Adam,
It seems easy for you to pull out the “Pharisee” card a lot.
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” -Jn 3:36
Wrath, no wrath…a bit of a distinguishing characteristic between believers and unbelievers, you think?
1 Cor. 2:2,
Clint
Rick,
That does help clarify although I noticed you said that Jesus was using a common literary device. I find that odd considering we have nothing in the “canon” that Jesus ever wrote. As far as we know the only writing Jesus did was in the sand. I think He did this because He was a deconstructionist of sorts. He didn’t use writing. He used oral communication. peace out!
Daniel, sure In mean Injustice. I am dyslexic and at times it causes me problems. Im glad you knew what I meant.
Greg, I agree with your use of evangelism. Evangelism is more who we are and how we live than what we preach. I’ve long compared the world of the four spiritual laws with the emerging world.
I would take it a bit further, however, and say that one of the primary purpose of the church is to be a witness by how it lives. If this is ture, then the vast majority of established churches is truly apostate because they arent a witness when most of them are conflicted. The main force of evangelism is when the church is so loving and nurutring that it functions like an incubator of faith. that is why I never bought into the seeker type of worship. non-believers need to see believers worshipping.
forgive me if this is a commercial, but I will have an artilce in Rev sometime in the near future, titled Down the Rabbit Hole. It will be loved by Emergent folks.
Here’s a quote from the article
“The only way to share the indescribable news that God really can make all things new in the blink of an eye is through vulnerable, humble conversations (this is where our Emergent friends are so on target) with friends. The day of the four spiritual laws and the big revival meetings is over.”
Hey, let me alert you to a great book coming out later this year. Jimmy Long has written a book, Leadership Jump in which he talks about how to transition from the top down command and control leadership model of Modernity to the bottom up, team based, permission giving way of leadership of the emerging world. I think emergents will find it to be one of the best books of this decade.
Bill,
If I could offer one point of clarification: Emergents (most of us anyway) don’t chose postmodern tactics so we can reach a postmodern generation. Rather, we think and act postmodernly because we are in fact postmodern.
It’s about our worldview, more so than our strategy.
Daniel:
Jesus was quoted in the passage I mentioned. It is possible to use literary devices in public speaking. It’s very common.
Grace and peace.
A comment on evangelism, I’d be interested in hearing people wrestle with this.
John 12:47-48 (NIV) “As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.”
So, who are the people in this paragraph? Who hears and does not keep? Who hears and rejects?
I just want to say to Bill Easum that, as a pastor of a emerging church but not an Emergent church, I am really enjoying your postings and look forward to reading more.
I have to wonder if Tony will give us a better understanding of what evangelism is to him. I have seen a video of him and another gentlman talking about salvation and Tony seems against one accepting Jesus as leader and fogiver by acknowledgeing Him with your mouth and believing in your heart. Though written by Paul in the Scripture, Tony seems to have a disrespect for this little “sinner’s prayer” experience and thinks it’s a crock. So what does evangelism look like to him? To become a “Jesus Follower”? In the Scripture, thousands wanted to follow Him when He fed a few thousand in a miracle. However, when He explained what it took to submit to Him, they all said it was too hard and left except for the 12. They stayed because “You are the Lord, where else can we go? You have the keys of life!” (My wording) So what is evangelism Tony? What is the goal? I can follow Jesus’ teaching and example without ever knowing Him. I can feed and clothe thousands and not know Him. What it the goal of evangelism? What it the call of the Great Commission? I’d love to hear real answer to there questions….
Tony,
I wholeheartedly agree with Tom. Could you explain your understanding of evangelism?
Grace and peace,
Add Emergent Village to
Join our mailing list:
Subscribe!
You can subscribe to the Emergent Village RSS feed or get the same updates e-mailed to you.
Recent Weblog Posts
Current Podcast
Reader Comments
- Travis Mamone (2010 Emergent Village Theological Conversation Synchroblog)
- Adrian (Atonement Argument Scuttles UK's "Word Alive" Youth Conference)
- andrew jones (2010 Emergent Village Theological Conversation)
- Lisa Domke (2010 Emergent Village Theological Conversation)
- Peter J. Walker - EmergingChristian.com (Reflections on God, Nine Months After Cara's Birth and Death)
- Laryn (Reflections on God, Nine Months After Cara's Birth and Death)
- Bronwyn Williams (Reflections on God, Nine Months After Cara's Birth and Death)
- thomas (Reflections on God, Nine Months After Cara's Birth and Death)
- John Speers (Reflections on God, Nine Months After Cara's Birth and Death)
- Doug Sloan (Reflections on God, Nine Months After Cara's Birth and Death)
Best Weblog Posts
Links
I have really enjoyed this conversation.
Bill, I KNOW that just because you have enterec into this deep conversation does NOT mean you have forsaken action. Why should it be any different for most emergents. The action taken might just not be what you are looking for or expecting.