Rumors and Lies
So this has been a busy week again. Sorry for the lack of posts, comments, or returned emails. I’m working on it. So once again I give you a weekend rant out of frustration.
This past week on Andrew Jones’ blog, he hosted some comments from Chuck Colson who was promoting his new book The Faith. Now I’ve not been a fan of Colson for awhile now. I remember being disappointed when he was chosen to speak at my college graduation, appalled by his CT opinion piece saying that not dressing up for airplane trips is a sign of the moral decay of our society, and always uncomfortable with his personal definitions of postmodernism. But I know he’s popular in certain circles and is the voice for some segments of Christianity. So I generally quietly disagree and just try and ignore him. I was a bit offended though by his comments this past week when he wrote (about his book) – “You will notice in chapter 4 of the book that I distinguish between the “emergent community” which rejects the Bible, and the “emerging movement.” There’s much about the emerging movement that I applaud.”
I know others have commented on how absurd that statement is, asking for him to name just one emergent church that rejects the bible. While the part of me that stands for truth and reality echos that call, I know that such an accusation is easily flung about (it surfaced here just this past week). “Rejecting the Bible” is of course code for “does’t think the same way as I do.” But it is never phrased that way. “Think as I do” is warped into “biblical” or “how all Christians have always believed.” I’ve written here before that such concepts are basically a myth and demonstrate a complete lack of historical perspective. The assumption that the modern evangelical belief of the last 150 years or so represent “all Christians ever” is fairly arrogant, but apparently it’s easier to believe the myth than act humbly.
I guess I’m just sick of the repeated accusations that I reject the Bible. People who don’t know me (or other emergents) revel in spreading this lie and refuse to accept the truth of our actual beliefs and experiences. Do they hate and fear us so much that they choose falsehood over the truth? Yes we may disagree, arrive at different interpretations, or develop divergent doctrines. But “rejecting the Bible”? Are you kidding? I know how I interact with the Bible. I dig deep into it each week, I see it as God’s word, I let it teach and inspire me. I desire to discover more about it and the world it describes. I don’t worship it, or make it fit into modern boxes. But I most assuredly don’t reject it. So I would appreciate it if people would stop spreading rumors that I (and my friends) do. Talk to us, engage (gasp) with us, disagree with us, but stop telling lies about us. Please.
Tags:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
That one gets to me, too, Julie – thanks for posting your thoughts. My other one is when postmodern or emergent gets called out on “they don’t believe in absolute truth”. Argh. If you need “absolute” in front of it, what’s the point?
Word.
“Chuckie” would call anyone a “bible rejector” who is not an inerrantist and who does blindly accept a hermeneutics of the 1950’s and a cultural lens through Ozzie and Harriet (the good old days before people of color and women had equal rights).
And now the hard part – sustaining an olive branch campaign to those who spout all kinds of vitriol against the movement, because the exact divergence of emergent doctrine is itself inclusivity – friendship over dogma.
Wow…great stuff Julie. Thanks!
Unequivocally, “Emergents” are much more willing to dispose of 2,000 years of established Christian orthodoxy by simply dismissing it on epistemological and hermeneutical grounds. To say that Christian orthodoxy is perspectival and elastic divorces emergent from the annuls of history and denies the movement of the Spirit to bring about the creeds and confessions that so many within emergent simply see as “politically fabricated.” While I too shudder at some of Colson’s comments and generalities, his accusation is at least partially true.
Example: Christian history/orthodoxy for the last two thousand years has condemned homosexuality as a viable alternative to monogamous and heterosexual relationships. Though I know there is no monolithic statement regarding homosexuality within the emergent movement, there unwillingness to “take sides” is by a lack of admission, “taking sides.” So much of the Emergent movement is duplicitous and fails to substantively address its critics because is idly appeals/brags about not being able to be “pinned down.”
Prove it. Show me in the ancient creeds where they say anything about homosexuality. And I’m not talking about the writings of some random early church fathers. I want to know where exactly the creeds say that beliefs about homosexuality are a definitive requirement for Christian orthodoxy, on the same level as say, the dual nature of Christ.
I agree Julie, very frustrating.
Rick – the relativism accusation is equally annoying.
This is a perfect example of the difference between a modern and post-modern paradigm. Colson, a modern, sees
Not Conservative = Liberal = Rejection of (the authority of) the Bible
A post-modern sees there being multiple (infinite?) aspects of the Bible, some of which they may personally embrace, some of which they may personally reject, and many of which they have not decided or don’t care to decide or don’t see as dichotomous at all.
From a modern perspective Colson is merely stating a fact, from a post-modern perspective he is being slanderous.
This kind of radically different interpretation of the same content is why paradigm shift is a big deal.
Wow Mike, that strikes me as a little bit unfair. Where did he say the creeds say anything on the topic? In fact he said off the top that they don’t. What does that have to do with it anyway? You’d have to stretch pretty far to argue that the unified position of the church for the first two thousand years has been anything other than that sexual activity is designed, and to be reserved, for heterosexual marriage. Even with a trajectory hermeneutic, you have to be intellectually dishhonest or else ill informed, to argue any kind of trajectory in scripture on this topic. The proscription stays the same from OT to NT, and the arguments to the contrary are weak and tortured.
Robert Gagnon has done the most thorough study of the Bible and homosexual practice to date. If you haven’t checked it out, as a pastor you should before you say much on the topic – kind of the flip side to Rob Bell’s suggestion that we shouldn’t say anything on the topic unless we have friends who are gay or lesbian. Gagnon’s book has been called:
“A thorough, irenic and socially-concerned book. Here you will find the most up-to-date survey of the evidence and arguments all wrapped into a hard-hitting, unflinching commitment to Scripture which at the same time is sensitive both to pastoral and counseling issues. The trend today is to duck the issue or to offer non-evaluative remarks; Gagnon stands against the trend with uncommon grace and insight.”
—Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies (New Testament), North Park University.
Andrew … what the hell? Since when does one’s stance on sexual relationships become a litmus test for faith. That is unadulterated crap and you know it.
Well Said: “The assumption that the modern evangelical belief of the last 150 years or so represent “all Christians ever” is fairly arrogant”
And just wrong. It is one view and interpretation of scripture and the “gospel”. It seems that instead of viewing Christianity as one tree with many branches, some belief their view IS the entire tree.
Just when I thought I was beginning to get a handle on this emerging and emergent thing someone comes along and smears it with grease.
As I have come to understand it (over the last two years since I first heard of it) the “emerging church” is a movement largely in reaction to suit-’n-tie American evangelicals of the 1950s to try to find an expression of Christianity more appropriate to the emerging postmodern world (whose complete shape, since it hasn’t fully emerged, is not apparent yet). Because of this it is sometimes called “post-evangelical”. And the “Emergent Church” is a particular expression of this movement, linked to a particular group of people called Emergent Village. At least that’s what I’ve read in various places, including here.
Now I know very little about this Colson guy, but is he saying that these Emergent Village people reject the Bible, or what?
Sonja, I think Andrew was giving an example of a larger concern regarding the way in which some in the emerging church handle scripture – not stating a litmus test for who’s in and who’s out. He mentions the Christian moral teaching that has been considered orthodox (on this topic) for the last two millennia. What examples are there in the first 2,000 years of Christian history where a main branch of the faith (not just an isolated dissenter, as Mike rightly notes), taught that the design and place for sexual expression was anything other than heterosexual marriage?
I think a person is better off (or at least more honest and on firmer ground intellectually) if they just come out and say the Bible (OT and NT) is wrong on this issue and the church has been wrong for the last 2,000 years, and we now know better and need to change, rather than try to find some way to argue that 21st century sexual mores are somehow hidden in scripture and the teaching of the church.
By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with those who point out that the issue of sexuality should not have to be at the top of most Christians’ agenda. In most evangelical churches it should probably hardly ever come up, as their blind spots tend to be elsewhere. However, the authority of scripture and the historically unified teaching of the church are undergoing great challenge by our culture in the area of human sexuality, and many Christians (especially those in mainline denominations where the teachings of scripture and the church are being challenged) feel they have little choice but to defend the truth where it is being attacked/eroded, while still striving to practice foremost the love of God and neighbor. To quote Anglican David Mills:
“To forestall the usual criticism that we are “obsessed” with sex, I should note that if orthodox Anglicans seem to talk too much about sex, it’s not our fault. Of course some “traditionalists” are homophobic, and some organizations do raise money by trumpeting the horrors of homosexuality in a way that approaches gay bashing . . . [y]et I and my colleagues think far less about sex than the Bishop of Newark, Integrity, and the faculty of the Episcopal Divinity School . . . But if we tend to talk a lot about sex, we do so only because it is the aspect of biblical teaching most obviously challenged by our culture and powerful and vocal movements in the Episcopal Church. The use of sex is the question of the hour. To accuse orthodox Anglicans of being obsessed with sex is somewhat like accusing firemen in a city victimized by arsonists of being obsessed with fires.”
Steve- he’s not specifically calling out anyone person or organization. He’s making a generalization of Emergent, which is false (or at least I’ve never met/read a blog from/ listened to a person affiliated with Emergent who rejects the Bible.)
Karl, my point was that Andrew said homosexuality was an issue of “orthodoxy”. There’s a difference between the opinions of church people on moral issues throughout the centuries, and doctrines that the church has made into standards of orthodox belief. Opinions on homosexuality are not standards of orthodoxy or heresy IMHO. Maybe Andrew didn’t mean to say it was a litmus test for faith, but that’s how it came across.
I understand Mike, and didn’t mean to jump on you. Maybe we need a different term to avoid confusion between instances where “orthodox” is used to describe one’s overall faith (i.e. “as a matter of definition, can you accurately be described as a Christian if you hold this view”), and instances where “orthodox” is used in a more narrow sense on a particular topic, to describe the near-unanimous historic stance of the church and the witness of scripture on a particular moral issue.
Sometimes it’s hard to differentiate between the two uses of the word, and many conservative Christians fail to do so at all. I myself can fall into that trap – but I do think there is a distinction.
Wow lots of comments… I’ve been way too busy to respond the last few days, so my apologies. A few quick reactions.
Nitika – I agree with the way you describe the positions and it is hard to have a decent dialogue when the person whose worldview you disagree with doesn’t admit they have a worldview (or that theirs is the only correct one). I respect the choice to adhere to their beliefs, but I just can’t historically limit truth in those ways.
Andrew – You do a great job of proving my point. Since encountering the emergent conversation I have greater respect for the past 2000 years of Christian tradition – much of which the modern evangelical church has itself ignored and thrown out. I see that there have been disagreements though and am not deluded into thinking that Christian theology has ever followed one smooth direct path. But I appreciate the humility to admit that perhaps in certain areas the church has been wrong (anti-semitism, slavery…). It is a commitment to living out the message of Jesus without letting the traditions of theology usurp or trump the Bible. And of course the emergent movement may (is) wrong on certain things. No one is claiming to discover the one correct theology, we are just trying to be faithful and would appreciate the freedom to do that.
Steve – For some the emerging church is just about being relevant, for others it goes much deeper into examining our beliefs. For those who have built empires on shoring up certain theological traditions, taking an historical perspective and digging deep is very threatening.
colson’s comment about emergents “rejecting the bible” are just irresponsible imo. all it does is sow dissension. he and others continue to characterize postmodernism as relativism which is inaccurate as well. i continue to hope that those in emerging/emergent and those in the institutional church would cease to generalize about each other and lay down their swords. there are healthy–and unhealthly–fellowships in both. we are called to love our brothers and sisters and be peacemakers–not to stir up dissension.
It also seems to me that we need to stop thinking about emergent and institutional churches as polar opposites or as mutually exclusive. There are definitely those who are a part of institutional churches who have distinct emerging tendencies. Unless I’m understanding either church faction incorrectly, it seems that there exists a “sliding scale” of emergent/institutional sympathies and self-definition.
Andrew,
Great summary of the divide between emergents and ‘orthodox’ Christianity. The emergent church, if it can be called ‘church’ in a historical context, has more in common with the Unitarian Universalist community which seeks to define the divine in a strictly personal mode, i.e., what works for me doesn’t have to work for you. Therefore, there can be no ultimate, overarching meaning of life in a postmodern view. You can bash Chuck Colson all you want about his style, but it doesn’t invalidate his concerns about emergent-ism.
Therefore, there can be no ultimate, overarching meaning of life in a postmodern view.
Steve – it’s naive statements like this that assure me that most of emergent’s critics have no clue what they are talking about.
Julie,
I would turn that around. What I hear from emergent-ism is that meaning (or tradition or Scripture) is what you need and define it to be. Meaning becomes personal and can’t be dictated by orthodoxy. ‘Post-modernism’ implies something new that has superseded that which came before, but it reads like 1st and 2nd century gnosticism. Despite gnosticsm’s re-emergence (what an appropriate word for the discussion), it’s no more valid today that it was 1800 years ago.
Steve – like my wife, I wonder if you have any clue what you’re talking about. Have you even read anything by emergent authors? Gnosticism? If anything, the emerging church is critiquing the neo-gnosticism of contemporary evangelicalism. For instance, NT Wright’s latest book, Surprised by Hope, which challenges the gnostic-like dualism found in a lot of evangelical eschatology. Or, as another example, Brian McLaren’s latest book, Everything Must Change, which recaptures the historic Christian notion that salvation is both global as well as individual, public as well as personal, and that it isn’t just about, again, a gnostic-like insistence that salvation comes solely through “special”, “personal” knowledge of Jesus apart from our connection to the rest of his world.
It seems that “emergents” are being contradictory in their critique of my earlier comment- they are in fact trying to divorce orthodoxy from orthopraxy. Surely, emergents wouldn’t be so naive to believe that orthopraxy is divorced from orthodoxy. Regardless of one’s admission, practice clarifies our beliefs. Thus, while there are no precise confessions or creeds regarding Christian understanding of sexuality such as there is regarding Christology, there has been an unqualified, un-institutionalized understanding that Christian sexuality is best defined as heterosexual and monogamous. To clarify: no, I do not see homosexuality as an issue of orthodoxy, but I do see the issue of homosexuality in direct correlation to our understanding of orthodoxy and authority.But then again, what do I know, I am just an oppressive white male enslaved to a modern hereneutical agenda?
By the way, I used to be deeply involved in the “emergent” conversation, and am cognizant of its hermeneutical trajectory. Since then, I have matured and have come to understand that theology and hermeneutics are not issues to be pursued in an attitude of rebellion.
Mike, I wholeheartedly disagree with you.I believe you are being entirely naive by basing your understanding of Christian sexuality by appealing to the absence definitive creeds. Not all issues of orthodoxy and orthopraxy have been channeled through councils, creeds, and confessions. For example, are there any councils or confessions regarding the issue of social justice? No, but at the same time, it is a perceived understanding that Christian discipleship involves the pursuit of biblical justice. Not every issue relating to Christian belief and practice has to be in the form of a confession to be perceived as orthodox.
One last comment, for being an atmosphere conducive to “conversation,” the attitudes demonstrated on this post have been far from anything resonant with following in the way of Jesus (or, to use my overly-modern, 1950 evangelical word….”discipleship.”)
(line deleted by blog owner)
Peace.
Andrew – I don’t know the details of your spiritual journey, but please don’t project your issues onto everyone in the emerging church. For some of us our theology developed as we matured (not out of rebellion). It would be a step backwards into immaturity to return to certain structures you seem to promote.
And yes, while I want conversation here I do not tolerate cruel and direct insults so I deleted your last line.
Andrew, I apologize for my hasty reply to your first comment. I misunderstood what you meant by “orthodoxy”. I agree with Karl that perhaps the terminology is confusing, and we should come up with better ways of talking about historic teachings of the church. Invoking the word “orthodoxy” downloads too much of the spirit of exclusion and heresy hunts and declarations that someone is not really a Christian if they disagree with your personal beliefs on sexuality. Personally, while I agree that sexuality (including homosexuality) is an important topic, I would not at all say that one’s opinions on it are a measure of whether or not someone is truly a Christian (nor even one’s view of “authority” necessarily – it is quite possible to believe in the authority of the Bible, and also that the Bible makes no authoritative statements about committed, monogamous homosexual relationships – you might disagree but that doesn’t mean the person you disagree with doesn’t believe in biblical authority).