• Home
• Events
  • Google Calendar
  • Subscribe
• Cohorts
  • Find a Cohort
  • Contact Cohort Support
  • Cohort Blogs
• Groups
• About
  • FAQs
  • Values and Practices
  • Support
  • Leadership
  • Emergent Worldwide
  • Publishing Partners
• • weblog
  • podcast
  • press kit
  • donate
  • Feeds (RSS)

Blogologue Part 5: Wrapping Things Up

Posted Sep 29, 10:01 AM | 2 comments | by Editor | Link

By Steve Knight:

With the end of summer and the month of September, our month-long Emergent Blogologue between Christian futurist Bill Easum and Tony Jones is also now coming to a close. I wanted to wrap things up today with a meta-post looking at some of the bigger statements that were made by Easum and Jones, as well as the insights that came from everyone who posted in the comments and/or wrote their own blog posts in response.

Introducing an Emergent Blogologue
This was just the beginning …

Blogologue Part 1: Bill Easum on the Emergent Conversations
Bill Easum gave his description of “the Emergent movement” and asked several incisive questions, such as “Do you really believe broken people are going to be satisfied with never being eternally certain about anything?” and “Do you really believe you can reach the bulk of the population when you take the conversation as deep as you do? Or are you really only concerned with appealing to philosophers?”

Henry, from Canada, responded to Easum in the comments: “In my view you posit a false tension in the emerging conversation between what the Gospel is and what we can know about the gospel. To say that everything we know about the gospel is qualified by language is not to say that the event of which the gospel speaks is qualified by language. ... There is more to the event of the gospel than our words, but all we can know of the gospel is conditioned by language …”

In response to the question of “reaching the bulk of the population,” Henry wrote, “I fear that to lay it out as a question of adopting a postmodern faith in order to reach the postmodern world is to miss the point. If postmoderns are onto something significant in their criticism of modernity then to posit this choice is to posit an option that is fundamentally ‘unreal’.”

Jonathan Brink responded at length to a number of points raised by Bill Easum over on his blog (1, 1.2).

Chuck Warnock suggested, “The church growth crowd and the emerging crowd will have difficulty with this dialogue because of differing perspectives.”

Ashlie Pertler complimented Easum on his engagement with Emergent, “I think it is good to have some ‘older’ voices probing the emerging movement. We tend to have an overflux of youth (which adds dynamic and vitality), but we could really use some tradition and wisdom too. ... Emergent will become part of church history, whether we want to deal with it or not. I think as long as we stay within the perimeters of the Creeds before us though, I truly believe both our narratives will intertwine, and we can learn deeply from one another. We need the previous generations stories in order to continue the larger one: how Christ compels and affects all of humankind.

Writing from Nigeria, Mike Blyth asked, “Assuming for the moment that modernism is so dead, and so unbiblical, why is post-modernism the best alternative?”

Writing from South Africa, Nic Paton responded, “Postmodernism is not necessarily the best alternative, I just see its liberating potential for a more biblical framework. We will move through this phase, and God’s truth will continue to unfold. Further, postmodernity is for me simply the culture in which I, with my particular history, find myself. ... The question of where is Africa in this is an interesting one; is it pre/post/modern? In my limited experience it is moving both into modernity and into postmodernity/the postcolonial at the same time.”

Tim Thompson wrote, “I believe that the Emergent conversation is very relevant to the faith of believers in general, but it does need to ‘trickle down’ a bit for that to show. ... I remember how unsettling it was for me personally when my Inner Modern felt the ground dissolving under his feet. But the thrill of these things has more than compensated in my faith life for the loss of what used to feel like certainty.”

Bill Easum graciously responded to all of these comments and offered even more insight, with comments like this one: “I am as unhappy with most of modern-day Christianity as are the Emergents. Where we probably differ is I have great hopes for two movements underfoot today—church planting and multiple sites. I see these as reproducible ministries that can grow people and churches. I’m not willing to give up on the established church, not yet anyway.”

There is much more in the comments on this kick-off post. They are all worth reading.

Blogologue Part 2: Tony Jones Response to Bill Easum
In this response, Tony Jones stated, “We’re not, as you and others have wondered, trying to follow culture’s dictates, nor are we trying to impress philosophers. Instead, we’re still interested in creating culture.” And he added, as a result of that, “Theology will be just as innovative as methodology.”

Ben Bush asked, “In coming to view yourself and others as ‘creating culture’ as opposed to ‘preserving culture,’ how do you resist, as the creator of a new culture, the urge to preserve that which you have created? By you own definition, aren’t you to be engaged in constantly creating instead of preserving, which means that the culture you have created or are creating, by your own admission, must not be preserved, but give way to an even newer culture? And if this is the case, you never really have a culture except the culture of change?”

Nic Paton responded, “Cultural creatives, especially in the spiritual sphere, are, as part of their creativity, re-ligionising (‘binding-back’) to rediscover Tradition as a nourishment for the future; so preserving has a role. Likewise I intuit consuming needs to be reclaimed/redefined/subverted by the cultural creative POV, but don’t currently know how to do that in light of the ‘in-fashion enemy’: consumerism.” He closed by asking, “How might cultural creatives and/or emergents reach (speak to/help transform) those who at heart either preserve or consume?”

Blogologue Part 3: Bill Easum Response to Tony Jones
In his follow-up post, Bill Easum explained, “What has concerned is whether or not Emergents have gone too far in innovating the Gospel. I don’t think the issue is innovating the Gospel; I think it is rediscovering the Gospel. ... I’m not willing to say that theology has to be as innovative as methodology. ... I think adaptability of the Gospel is OK but innovation isn’t.”

Easum concluded by saying, “If you are calling us back to rediscover first-century Christianity and contextualize the methods to fit into this weird world, I applaud your efforts and pray for your success. 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.”

But most of the comments came in response to Easum’s statement: “My experience has been if the church is faithful to the Gospel it grows—period. I could say the same thing about a house church or small group. I base this on the Book of Acts—it is about the growth of Christianity and suggests to me that God wants the church to grow and spread.”

Michael Gray responded, “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.”

Jeremy wrote, “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.”

In the comments, Bill Easum further clarified his statement about theological innovation, “I’m talking about innovating so far as to altar the fabric of the gospel. There is a big difference. ... And I’m not saying Emergents have done that. Not at all. It is a question in a dialogue, nothing more.”

Geoff Matheson blogged, “I think that Bill hits at the things that both interest me the most, and scare me the most about the Emergent guys. Because I’m deeply passionate about experimenting with methodology … [And] I do get a little bit scared (at times) that we don’t take that beyond what we can find in Scripture. That’s where reading Dan Kimball, and Scot McKnight and this response from Bill Easum has been an important part of working this stuff through for me.”

Again, this post generated a lot of great comments and discussion, including input from Mike Leaptrott, Nic Paton, Theresa Seeber, and others.

Blogologue Part 4: Tony Jones Response to Bill Easum
In this final response, Tony Jones defended the emerging church against the accusation of being “all talk and no action” and, in addition, stated: “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.”

Responding directly to Easum’s question about theological innovation, Jones wrote, “To the question of whether emergents are trying to get back to the original gospel or to innovate a new gospel, I say, Neither. ... 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.”

Bill Easum responded in the comments, “I think you put your finger on where we have a difference. I am looking for more concrete evangelistic action rather than social justice. ... 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. ... In my mind church planting any kind of church, and converting people, is the prime directive of the Gospel. ...

“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 too deep for the average person on the street to figure out what you’re saying.”

Easum added, “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.”

David Gladson commented, “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.”

Greg wrote, “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.”

Easum commented again, “One of the primary purposes of the church is to be a witness by how it lives. If this is true, then the vast majority of established churches are truly apostate because they aren’t 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.”

Easum also gave a plug for Jimmy Long’s forthcoming book Leadership Jump and mentioned a forthcoming article he’s written for Rev magazine entitled “Down the Rabbit Hole,” in which he writes, “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.”

Again many more great comments, too many to mention them all here. Go read that thread and post your further thoughts on the blogologue overall here in the comments.

Also, this blogologue seemed to be quite helpful and well-received. Are there other topics and/or people you’d like to see addressed in future blogologues? Please post your ideas and suggestion in the comments here.

Thanks for reading and engaging!

---

Steve Knight is local organizer for the Charlotte Emergent Cohort and a member of the Coordinating Group for Emergent Village.

Bookmark this article using Remarkable!