Of all the odd things I had in mind to blog on tonight, this was least expected. The Emergent-Us blog has posted an official “Response to Recent Criticisms By Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, Chris Seay.” (HT: Andrew Jones)
Now, why would I call this odd? Because over and over I keep hearing how emergent is a conversation, not a movement- it’s not organized. There is no official Emergent entity, and yet, somehow there’s now an official response to critics of the emergent church. They’re free to do what they want; I just find it odd. For what it’s worth, I have a few responses of my own to critics of the emerging critics…
“We have also attempted to make personal contact with our critics for Christian dialogue. Even though most of these invitations have not been accepted, we hope that the friendly gesture is appreciated.” Specifics would be nice. Most of us have heard that D.A. Carson has not accepted invitations… but most? Who else? Seriously, I’ve seen most critics dialoguing. This characterization strikes me as false and utterly uncharitable. If it’s true, please support this claim.
“Third, we regretfully acknowledge that in our thought, writing, and speech, we have at times been less charitable or wise than we wish we would have been.” I will grant the same for many of us critics, and hope we can both work to improve.
“Fourth, we respect the desire and responsibility of our critics to warn those under their care about ideas that they consider wrong or dangerous, and to keep clear boundaries to declare who is "in" and "out" of their circles.” This last bit seems uncharitable, but is perhaps an accurate reflection of how emergent folk view non-emergent folk. If we were all about keeping “boundaries to declare who is ‘in’ and ‘out’” of our circles, we would be petty at best. Boundaries are enforced (theologically) to direct us towards worshipping God in spirit and in truth, not to label people “in” or “out.”
“We believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism” I’d like to know what you think “arrogant absolutism” is, and what you see as the difference between “radical relativism” and non-radical relativism.
“Eighth, we are aware that there is some debate about whether we should be considered evangelical.” Heck, I don’t even like to call myself Evangelical, I’m not sure why some are so eager to hold on to the label. And at least some of the “strict Calvinists” I know don’t like to be called Evangelical either.
“Instead of engaging in fruitless quarrels with our critics, we urge those who find our work helpful to pursue spiritual formation in the way of Christ…” This could easily be taken as saying that the emergent folk view dialogue with critics as fruitless. Since you say you appreciate dialogue elsewhere, I’m going to assume that’s not what you meant here- but couldn’t you have worded that differently?
“With millions suffering from hunger, disease, and injustice around the world, we hope that all of us – including our critics – can renew our commitment to "remember the poor" (Galatians 2:10) rather than invest excessive energy in "controversies about words."” This too strikes me as uncharitable. I don’t know a single person who would say we shouldn’t be committed to the poor. This statement pits the “critics” as uncaring while emergent is. Let’s not forget that emerging people reacting against status quo Christianity started this “controversy about words”. That’s not to say you shouldn’t react, but it is pretentious to characterize your critics in this manner when it was you who were first critical of us.
We’re all critical of one another. We all think we’re at least right enough in our views to say something about them publicly. But I think most of are willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we’re trying to faithfully serve Christ. Can we please continue the discussion without such indecorous characterizations?
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that I think point 6 is the most important. It is in some sense a creed of what these gentlemen believe and reflects much of orthodox Christianity. I personally appreciated "we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors" the most. Hopefully we can use point 6 as a foundation for common ground for further discussion.
