Happy Reformation Day - Was John Wesley "Emergent"?

As a member of the Nazarene church (the publisher of the article) and as a sympathizer with Emergent, I can say that indeed much of Wesleyan belief and practice is indeed progressive and emerging. We do have our quirks and foibles, as any human institution does though.

There is a strong pull within our denomination within the younger generations to pull us out of the ‘religious rights’ pocket and away from fundamentalist thinking.

Within the Wesleyan movement as a whole, across Methodism, the Wesleyan Church, and the Church of the Nazarene we have always held to ‘something more’ than Jesus being just a ticket to heaven, hence the doctrine of ‘Entire Sanctification’. But again, some quirkiness has crept into that doctrine via a resurgence of pharisaic attitudes, legalistic posturing, and individual piety and separateness.

Our educational institutions in the Church of the Nazarene (especially in Kansas City) have been proactive in encouraging the post-modern conversation and in envisioning what that looks like.

What a coincidence. I am busy reading the Journals of John Wesley right now. They kept me up for two hours past my usual bedtime just last night. I was thinking some of the things he wrote in the journal sounded like blog postings from those of us in the emergent church. Is it okay to say that yet? Maybe I should say, those of us in the conversation about the emergent church. Cover my bases.

Hal Knight’s piece was excellent. The response by Kalev Hinrich (at http://kalev-hinrich.blogspot.com/2007/10/hal-knight-response.html – it wasn’t linked in the post) was also thought-provoking.

David, thanks for dropping by and posting this comment—and for all you’re doing to encourage the emerging church conversation.

MikeOKC, D’oh! Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. The link that I forgot has now been added in.

I’m pretty sure that Wesley would be called a evangelical pharisee by emergent folk. There are few people that focused more on personal holiness. His “small groups” held each other accountable for each and every sinful thought, and could kick people out they didn’t improve. And Yes, Wesley thought that if you weren’t a Christian, you went to hell.

Furthermore, preachers, himself included, traveled around preaching the gospel (instead of attending poverty meetings in Africa) in such a way that people would accuse him of spreading consumer Christianity, or tickets to heaven, or some such cliche. In fact, Wesley kind of started evangelicalism….pretty much the only “emergent” things about him that I can think of is that he didn’t like the state church or Calvinsm…

The broader mistake in arguing for/against the emergent-ness of Wesley himself is indeed that he was of a different age. So to say that he speaks into post-modernity may be a bit far-fetched.

However the concerns he had for abolition, prison reform, the universal call for all Christians to be ministers. Those concepts do speak profoundly into our age, only if because they are still struggles we are facing even three centuries later.

Consumerism wasn’t a cultural imperative in the sense that it is today. Wesley was instead dealing with a very real modern africa-like poverty culture. To lay a claim of promoting consumerism (turning Christianity into a consumable object) you would probably have to look more squarely at the Church of England at the point in time, and it’s reductionism of Christianity to sacramental procedures.

I will not argue to the point that Wesley was Emergent in the sense of post-modernism. I will argue though that the work he set in motion has allowed it’s adherents a history and framework for trying to rightly balance the whole of the gospel message, and I think that is very ‘emergent.’

Yay for the Emerthodists*!

*term coined by Rebecca Murphy of the up/rooted.chicago cohort

Whatever we say about Wesley we can usually find something off in another direction to counter with… small s saint John Wesley was indeed a champion of ongoing, unfinished reformation… Saint To-Be-Continued… a work in progress who did keep changing views on many issues though arguably never on the essentials.

I liked the article but have a few quibbles.
First, Wesley’s generous orthodoxy was partial… (caveating—i’m not a deep Wesley scholar, just a Methodist who’s had seminary classes in Methodist history and polity etc and still a reader of JW)
His ‘catholic spirit’ was small c—he called Catholics ‘papists’ like other Protestants of the day… And preached stridently against Calvinist doctrine even at the funeral of his partner in revival George Whitefield… he was more ecumenically open than most at the time but no St Generous Orthodoxy by anything close to today’s emerging standards…

Re the Class Meetings (mentioned in either the article or the side by side grid or both as defunct)—these were indeed one of JW’s more brilliant innovations—and still happening, esp in the global South but also (i’ve read and been told) in many parts of the Afrian Methodist Episcopal and AME Zion tradutions. Denise Stringer has a relatively new book out on Class Meetings.

I missed any mention of one of JW’s most relevant contributions, gospel economics.
Theodore Jennings’ Good News to the Poor: John Wesley’s Evangelical Economics, Abingdon, is still probably the best intro. Highly recommended for all emergents and all Wesleyan-influenced Christians.

grace and peace,
tim

Just as a quick note of clarification: I wasn’t attempting to argue that Wesleyan-Arminian theology is incompatible with “Emergent” or postmodern theology – just that John Wesley wasn’t postmodern or emergent. I am thoroughly excited that Wesleyan-Arminian denominations like the Church of the Nazarene (of which I’m a part) have entered into the dialogue, and David is absolutely right: Many Nazarenes have been proactive in encouraging the postmodern conversation. My fear, however, is that many within the church have embraced postmodernity as a cultural movement rather than a theological/philosophical one.

By the way, Steve, thanks for the link to my blog. I appreciate it.

I look at this from another angle. It isn’t so much that Wesley was emergent as that the emerging church has many points of intersection with the Wesleyan tradition. Much of the language and concepts of emerging churches should sound very familiar to United Methodists. This was a consistent theme at the emergingumc gathering in Nashville last month. The challenges will be how well our structure can adapt to what is emerging.

What Reformation Day really is is this: The Reformed doctrine is a reformation of Satan’s character. The Reformed doctrine asserts that Satan is under the direct micromanagerial control of Christ, that “the Devil is God’s Devil and only does what God wants.” Thus, by asserting that the devil does as God makes him, and that alone, the devil is Reformed into being an obedient puppet of God. In the process, however, God is Reformed into being as bad as the Devil. Thus, the Reformed (i.e. Calvinists) chose to place their holiday on October 31st to coincide with the Devil’s holiday, which is Halloween. But Paul says that Christ has no concord with Belial (i.e. the Devil) in 2nd Corinthians 6:15. The Reformed position is a denial of this very important distinction between Christ and Belial and was invented by Belial specifically to convince men that he is nothing more than Christ’s sock-puppet and thus Belial causes men to blaspheme Christ and go to hell.

THREE ESSENTIAL CONCERNS REGARDING EMERGENT VILLAGE

At Stand to Reason, four issues have formed the watershed of our concern18 with the EV and larger ECM. Let me highlight three: 1) the cross, 2) the authority of the Bible, and 3) the nature of truth. Of course, we are not alone in raising these concerns.19

I will not spend time here laying out and defending an evangelical position for each issue. This has been done elsewhere. Rather, I will spend my time (very briefly) highlighting examples of the kind of things EV leaders are saying in regards to each.

Concern #1: The Cross
My first area of concern is the cross. Here we ask questions like “What is the meaning of the atonement?”20 and “Did Jesus actually pay for or purchase anything on the cross?” How are EV leaders answering?

Brian McLaren addresses the cross in his book, The Story We Find Ourselves In. His fictional character Kerry, who happens to be a seeker, asks how Jesus fits in to God’s story. Carol, a Christian, answers with a summary of substitutionary atonement: “Well, I believe that God sent Jesus into the world to absorb all the punishment for our sins. That’s what the cross was all about. It was Jesus absorbing the punishment that all of us deserve. He became the substitute for all of us. As he suffered and died, all our wrongs were paid for, so all of us can be forgiven.”21 Kerry responds: “For starters, if God wants to forgive us, why doesn’t he just do it? How does punishing an innocent person make things better? That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse. You know?”22 Surprisingly, Kerry’s “divine child abuse” analogy is not the most disturbing aspect of McLaren’s narrative. What is is the absence of a biblically informed response from the other characters. As the narrative continues, the legitimacy of the analogy is never refuted, let alone examined or questioned.

Taken alone, this is worrisome. Coupled with McLaren’s endorsement of Steve Chalke’s book, The Lost Message of Jesus, this is cause for concern. But add to these the following account from McLaren’s book, More Ready Than You Realize, and his views on the cross are a serious concern. So what does McLaren say there?

McLaren describes an encounter with George, a parishioner at his church. George believes in God but, by his own admission, is “still no closer to believing in Jesus Christ” because Jesus doesn’t make sense, particularly his death on the cross. George asks Brian, “Why did Jesus have to die?”23 Upon hearing the question, McLaren is struck by two thoughts. First, George seemed to be asking the question in a way McLaren had never been asked. Second, McLaren does not think his Christian answers fit the way George is asking the question. McLaren asks George for two weeks to think about an answer. After wrestling with the question but finding no answer, McLaren shares the dilemma with his brother Peter saying, “…a couple of weeks ago I realized that I don’t know why Jesus had to die.”24 His brother quickly responded, “Well, neither did Jesus.” After citing the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane as evidence, Peter says, “sounds to me like Jesus didn’t really understand why it had to be that way either. But the point wasn’t understanding it; the point was doing what needed to be done.”25

When it is time to meet with George again, McLaren recounts his brother’s answer to George’s question, “Why did Jesus have to die?” George, while acknowledging that Brian’s response does not answer his question, believes this is actually better than an answer and tells Brian, “It kind of makes the question not really matter so much.” And then McLaren concludes the account with this: “Over the next few weeks, George progressed in his faith to the point of becoming a committed follower of Jesus.”26

Let me say three things in response. First, does McLaren actually think Jesus did not know why he had to die? What about Matthew 20:28? “…just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Or what about Jesus’ words to his disciples at the Last Supper? “And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.’” Surely Jesus knew why he had to die. One cannot read the New Testament and conclude otherwise.

Second, does McLaren think one can become a “committed follower of Jesus” without knowing why Jesus had to die? This is certainly implied in his interaction with George. But is there not some minimal understanding needed of sin and the cross before one can place their trust in Christ? Is not an understanding of sin inextricably bound up with repentance? Again, I must side with the New Testament rather than McLaren.

Third, is McLaren being faithful to the gospel when a member of the flock entrusted to him asks him why Jesus has to die and he can give no answer? How can he allow George to walk away thinking this question doesn’t really matter that much anymore? After reading McLaren, we are left with serious concerns regarding his view of the cross.

Concern #2: The Authority of the Bible
My second area of concern is the authority of the Bible. Here we ask questions like “Is the Bible inerrant?”27 and “In what sense the Bible is God’s communication to us?” How are EV leaders answering?

Well, Doug Pagitt briefly discusses his views of the Bible in his book, Re-Imagining Spiritual Formation. Pagitt explains his church’s view of the Bible: “…we refer to the Bible as a member of our community of faith—an essential member that must be listened to on all matters on which it speaks. This approach is meant to strengthen rather than diminish the Bible’s authority.”28 Alright, this is a start but we need more. Pagitt later states: “At bottom, our trust in the Bible does not depend on information that ‘proves’ the Bible to be credible. We believe the Bible because our hopes, ideas, experiences, and community of faith allow and require us to believe.”29

So, according to Pagitt, viewing the Bible as a valuable member of the community strengthens its authority. But why should we think this strengthens its authority? According to Pagitt, the Bible is authoritative simply because the community “allows” and “requires” it to be. But if this is the case, who then has the real authority? It is not the Bible but the community. On Pagitt’s view, the Bible’s authority is grounded in the community, rather than in the fact it is the very word of God. Notice, it is nothing about the Bible itself that makes it authoritative on this view.

But, the Bible is what it is despite what one’s community says about it. Our communities do not confer authority upon the Bible. The Bible is authoritative because of the kind of book it is.

Sadly, rather than strengthening the authority of the Bible, Pagitt’s view actually removes that authority.

Concern #3: The Nature of Truth
My third concern is the nature of truth. Here we ask questions like “What is truth?” and “Does Christianity give us an accurate picture of the way the world really is, and can we know it?” How are EV leaders answering?

First, let me be fair to them. EV leaders have addressed the issue of truth in their “Official Response to Critics”:

Certainly, evangelical knee-jerk reactions to EV discussions of truth are unhelpful and maybe even irresponsible. But when I listen to this clarification and then I read some of their other claims about truth, I cannot help but wonder if EV leaders are responsible for much of the confusion on this issue. Let me demonstrate the confusion by looking at what Pagitt says about truth: “When we talk about truth, we’re really considering two concepts: reality (the way things are) and truth (a person’s perspective of that reality.)…No one has access to all reality in such a way that he can conclusively call his experience and understanding the truth.”31

Notice first how Pagitt defines truth: a person’s perspective on reality. Truth is my perspective or my take on things. In other words, Pagitt is saying that “truth” is merely what one believes. However, he goes on to say that “no one has access to all reality in such a way that he can conclusively call his experience and understanding the truth.” So here he uses the word “truth” again. But does he mean “belief” in this instance as well? Certainly not. To see why, we simply substitute his original definition of truth for the word “truth” in this second statement. Doing so reads like this: “No one has access to reality in such a way that he can conclusively call his experience and understanding the belief” or “No one has access to reality in such a way that he can conclusively call his experience and understanding the person’s perspective of reality.” Aha. Something is wrong here. Pagitt has equivocated on his use of the word “truth.” In one instance he uses the word truth to mean “belief” and in the next instance he uses the word truth to mean a correspondence to reality.

And this gets at an extremely important point when it comes to discussions of truth in EV. When critics raise concerns about truth, it is not enough for EV leaders to say, “We believe in truth, we believe in truth.” First, in our postmodern context, we must know what they mean when they say truth. This is why I point people back to philosopher Scott Smith’s book, Truth and the New Kind of Christian. Frankly, I do not think Smith’s book has gotten enough attention in the ECM discussion. Smith provides careful analysis, with special attention given to both Jones’s and McLaren’s view of truth.

So here is my advice. For those outside of EV or the larger ECM, a simple dismissal of either by claiming they don’t believe in absolute truth is inadequate. To them I say read Smith’s book. For those inside EV or the larger ECM, a simple dismissal of critics’ concerns about truth or simply claiming to believe in truth is inadequate. To them I say read Smith’s book…and respond to his careful critique.

III. THE MOST SERIOUS CONCERN REGARDING EMERGENT VILLAGE

Opening the Door to Unorthodoxy
Now we come to my most serious concern regarding EV and their influence on the larger ECM: the real potential for a move away from historic Christian orthodoxy. Is there reason to worry about the Christian orthodoxy of EV leaders?

Again, let me be fair to the leaders of EV. They certainly claim Christian orthodoxy for themselves. Indeed, I do not claim that at this point in time, they are not orthodox in their views. From what I have read and heard from EV, I am not sure such a claim can be substantiated. Once again, my claim will be a more modest one. So first, let us look at their references to Christian orthodoxy.

In Reimagining Spiritual Formation, Doug Pagitt has a section in chapter five entitled “Avoiding Heresy,” where he deals with the following question: “…how do we handle those times when people say things not in agreement with what the church has held to throughout the ages? In other words, how do we handle heresy?”32 Pagitt then goes on to describe how they answer the question in their local church community at Solomon’s Porch. Committing themselves to “the guidance of the Holy Spirit,” they “gently call on our Christian traditions to help clarify why a certain kind of thinking isn’t really consistent with orthodoxy…if someone presents a position that was held in the past but has been rejected by orthodox Christianity, then someone else who knows the issue will provide the necessary context.”33 So certainly, taken by itself, this passage implies that Pagitt holds to some view of Christian orthodoxy.

Tony Jones appeals to orthodoxy as well. On his blog he states, “I would judge historic orthodoxy on the grounds of these beliefs (to name a few): humanity of Jesus, divinity of Jesus, monotheism, trinitarianism, and inspiration of scripture.”34 Furthermore, Jones recounts a recent visit to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

Given Pagitt and Jones’s appeals to Christian orthodoxy, their 2004 seminar entitled “A New Theology for a New World” at the Emergent Convention in San Diego seems to offer a contradictory message. In that seminar, Jones begins this way: “We do not think this [the ECM] is about changing your worship service. We do not think this is about…how you structure your church staff. This is actually about changing theology. This about our belief that theology changes. The message of the gospel changes. It’s not just the method that changes.”36

The main line of argument as far as I could tell was this: as culture changes our understanding of God changes. There is an intersection between culture and theology and as we get new information from culture, be it through anthropology, biological science, or other disciplines37, our theological understandings must not merely be adjusted but changed. This is how we do postmodern theology. According to Jones, postmodern theology is 1) fluid – it’s moving and we hold it loosely, 2) it is local, meaning there is no universal structure that guides the conversation for all time, and 3) it is temporary, meaning these things are changing faster than we can keep up with them. In contrast, “In the modern quest for universals, we tricked ourselves or deceived ourselves into thinking that theology is universal, absolute, it’s for all time.”38

In 2005, I attended the Emergent Convention in Nashville. This same seminar was offered, only Jones was unable to co-teach so Pagitt taught alone. In that session, Pagitt made the same argument. He talked about the need to “re-imagine” and “reconstruct” our theology because “we have a changing story” and “God’s story is changing.” Thus, “theology is inherently temporary” – it is “our current best guess.”

During the Q&A, I asked a clarification question to make sure I understood Pagitt’s view. I asked if his view implied that one day we may need to reconstruct our views about the very nature of God. For instance, the idea that Jesus is God Incarnate may actually be completely wrong (after all, it is only our current best guess) and we would need to reconstruct our view of Jesus and God. Here was Pagitt’s answer: “Yeah, probably. Could be. I’m hoping it doesn’t come to that. It’s dangerous.” He went on to say that we are already adjusting our concepts of God – there is an adjustment about who God is and what he is like. Thus, according to Pagitt, “the Trinity is not wrong but it may not be the only way to understand God.”39

Again, I want to be fair to Pagitt. Elsewhere, he has attempted to clarify his views. In response to charges he denies the Trinity, Pagitt said the following in the comments section of Jones’s blog:

At best, Pagitt is confused and contradicts himself. At worst, Pagitt will eventually displace the Trinity in his own theology in spite of his current affirmation he does “not not believe in the Trinity.”

And what of Jones? He seems to bristle a bit at the suggestion he is moving away from Christian orthodoxy. In a recent blog post in which Jones responds to comments by pastor/theologian Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, 41 Jones offers this challenge: “…I’d like to hear how, exactly, I am moving away from orthodoxy. Seriously. This isn’t just a question for Keller, but for all who continue to say this. I can’t speak for anyone else in emergent (or Emergent Village), but I can speak for myself. I continue to look at my theology, and to write about it, and I have not strayed from traditional Christian orthodoxy.”42

I think Jones can be answered with his own words. Indeed, he makes a similar claim to the one we just saw from Pagitt. In a blog post on the topic of the Trinity, Jones says the following:

Now, if Jones wants to keep every doctrine on the table, why does he defend himself from charges of unorthodoxy? If he wants to remain orthodox, every doctrine cannot remain on the table of reconsideration. Orthodoxy is limited by its very nature. To hold to some bare essentials of orthodoxy (no matter how bare they are) just means there is a limit to what you can believe and still call yourself orthodox.

Listen to me closely. I am not saying that Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt are unorthodox at this moment in time. I am not saying they will inevitably become unorthodox. I hope they do not. What I am saying is this: the door to unorthodoxy is now open. And given their argument for the reconstruction of theology, I cannot see any in-principle way Jones and Pagitt can close that door.

Spencer Burke and the Future of Emergent Village
Let us turn our attention to a new name: Spencer Burke. If you are not familiar with Burke you can find a recounting of his story from conservative Evangelicalism into the ECM in the book, Stories of Emergence. Burke has been a recognized leader in the ECM. He is co-founder of TheOoze.com, an online community. He is the author of a book entitled Making Sense of Church, released under Youth Specialties’ Emergent line of books. He is the host of an event called “Soularize: A Learning Party,” which his press kit claims “is the original postmodern/emergent annual conference.”44 In addition, he has been a featured speaker at past Emergent Conventions.

Recently, Spencer Burke’s newest book, A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, was released. It is aptly named. Now, before I discuss Burke’s main claims, allow me to wonder out loud with you: Does Burke’s book give us a glimpse of the possible future of EV? Is Burke an example of what EV’s open door to unorthodoxy will ultimately lead to? Who or what in EV can and will stop such a slide? Let us look at Burke’s argument.

In the introduction, Burke frames his discussion this way: “At this point in our history, I believe God is to be questioned as much as obeyed, created again and not simply worshipped. Our views must be continually revised, reconsidered, and debated.”45 Thus, Burke believes we need heretics to move us forward and proclaim new views. But make no mistake. Burke is not calling us to move farther up and further in. He clearly states, “I am not merely seeking to put a new spin on old beliefs; I am actually declaring that there are new ways of believing when it comes to the Christian story.”46

Later, Burke argues the Christian view of God has evolved through history, it has progressed, that nothing in religion stays the same.47 Why? Because “Our religions are practiced within our cultural horizons, not outside of them.”48 For Burke, culture is the driving force behind our changing views. This line of argument sounds identical to Jones and Pagitt’s in their workshop, “A New Theology for a New World.”

Burke then goes on to outline his new views. In short, Burke claims he is a universalist, a panentheist, and denies the personhood of God saying, “I’m not sure I believe in God exclusively as a person anymore either.”49 There is much more we could say about this book. But rather than offer more of my own critique, I defer to someone within the ECM. Here is Scot McKnight’s sobering assessment of Burke:

McKnight rightly points out some things are not left on the table for reconsideration. He closes with this admonition:

My sincere hope is that McKnight will not have to offer the same correction to the leaders of EV in the near or very far off future.

Now, once again, let me be fair to Jones, et al. The leaders of EV do not hold all of Burke’s views, nor endorse all of them. Jones has issued the following caveat regarding Burke: “Spencer is in the emerging church, in a broader sense, but he is not in the leadership of Emergent Village. I count him as a friend, but that does not mean that I endorse everything that he says or writes. The same goes for others in emergent.”51 However, I wish Jones would say more. I wish someone within EV would say more but at this point, I have yet to hear any EV leader raise even one concern with Burke’s heretical views. Why, when such a prominent voice in the ECM has put forth such ideas, has no one in EV responded?

Lest I be charged with making some argument from silence, let me offer this: far from raising concerns, Brian McLaren endorses Burke’s book. In the foreword, McLaren states, “even in a book with ‘heretic’ in the title, I believe any honest reader can find much truth worth seeking.”52 Which truths is McLaren referring to? Burke’s views on the personhood of God? Burke’s views on the nature of the gospel? We don’t know and he doesn’t say. Rather, McLaren leaves “you to figure out what that is when you turn the page and read what’s been fermenting in Spencer’s and Barry’s hearts.”53 In the absence of the slightest concerns raised over Burke’s book, McLaren’s endorsement is worrisome. Indeed, the potential for EV to drift toward Burke’s unorthodox views is of serious concern.