All Comments for: Emergent's New Christians and the Young, Restless Reformed | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > May (Web-only)

Christianity Today, May (Web-only), 2008 |

Emergent's New Christians and the Young, Restless Reformed

Tony Jones and Collin Hansen find connections as they discuss each other's books and movements.

Collin Hansen and Tony Jones | posted 5/02/2008 09:38AM

Tony Jones is the national coordinator of Emergent Village and author of The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier. Collin Hansen is editor-at-large of Christianity Today and author of ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Tim	Posted: May 05, 2008 11:40 AM

It seems that my fellow commentors are more interested in throwing stones at a movement than in looking at the dialog in an attempt to understand the movement and the generation that it is far more successful in reaching than ours is. In the process they throw the baby out with the bathwater. Remember that Nicodemus asked a lot of questions of Jesus and ended his days as a devoted follower of Christ while his fellow Pharisees who did not ask questions, but rather gave religious answers ended their days in hell. Be careful who you throw stones at. May I never stop asking questions of the scripture and Jesus and never stop looking to other Christians and/or Christ Followers for guidance and warning. Thanks CT for continuing the dialog of the ages.

Steven

Posted: May 04, 2008 7:30 AM

One of the challenges for Emergent Theology (yes, there clearly is one), is the base concept that the asking of questions is preeminent. I see more value in asking a question, that produces a search, which results in understanding/enlightenment and that leads to viable solutions. There is nothing inherently valuable about simply asking questions. The Traditional Church[TC] (whatever that really looks like) has spent a couple thousand years trying to teach Biblical answers and solutions. Jesus did command us to "Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you" (Mt 28:20, NLT). The TC has had its issues, but so has the Emergent Village[EV]. Perhaps we could borrow from Hegel's dialectic: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. The TC does not hear from the EV that they are willing to dialogue w/o the presupposition that the TC is fundamentally wrong and the EV has the right way; end of discussion.

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: May 04, 2008 6:06 AM

For the record, all Christian theological theories explaining the atoning work of Jesus on the cross are the anti-types foreshadowed in the death-producing "tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad" --an infinitely far cry from "people looking at Him whom they pierced" (John 19:34-37) --the anti- type of eating from the fruit of "the tree that gives life" (Gen. 2: 9). These are verifiable life and death issues not theological theories!

Rolle

Posted: May 04, 2008 3:16 AM


Very intriquing article...visit me at http://www.rollebooks.com

yakob1000

Posted: May 03, 2008 11:26 PM

Tony, Not only are six even better but I expect to hear more. I see from the above posts that sometimes people's comments reveal whether they are still looking for a doctrinal statement, in this case of the antonement, that is true no matter where or when or in what community they articulate it. My experience as a missionary in Ethiopia has shaped me to ask what articulation of the atonement arises from the reading of the text, the reading of a context, and actual lives and events being shared together in a particular place as led by the Holy Spirit. This is what theologians and missiologists, I believe, call "doing theology." In trying to do theology, I'm looking for logical coherence between a life lived, the text of scripture, and a community's life before God. Most missionaries with any training are looking for at least redemptive analogies (i.e. The Peace Child), and missiologist look for the emergence of "insider" theology. We await new articulations, each welcome. JM

Rob	Posted: May 03, 2008 8:50 PM

I am very thankful for the work of Tony Jones. I appreciate his openess and respect for persons who end up at a different place than he does. This is the kind of dialogue that can help us build bridges and bring the kingdom of God to earth. I am especially thankful that all questions do not have to have absolute answers. The mystery of faith is just that...mystery. I plan on visiting a couple of emergent events this year and will read everthing that I can get my hands on related to the emerging church. Peace

Why marry the skeptics....

Posted: May 03, 2008 12:07 PM

Historically, only the most extreme skeptics have embraced an anti-foundational view. Consider the simple fact that Christ claimed his miracles were evidence that he is one with the Father (John 10:37). This claim works on the most basic assumption that we are capable of correctly observing physical phenomena and making deductions from the observations. Evidence is not the only issue. Jesus consistently corrected faulty interpretations, clearly implying that if a person is willing, they can come to an understanding of the truth. This belief is foundational to our understanding the Scriptures and to our daily interaction with friends and family. If we are not capable of coming to knowledge of the truth by way of evidence, reason, and interpretation, then why bother? Most people are not anti-foundational - they are just confused.

Jody	Posted: May 03, 2008 10:49 AM


Chuck, I thought the same exact thing. I think Hansen had a very thoughtful and inquisitive beginning, while Jones failed to really address anything except name drop.

Anonymous

Posted: May 03, 2008 9:31 AM

I agree with Tim Pattison. Tony did not answer the question. He just said that Emergents want to embrace all theories. Sounds typical. He also managed to put down the Reformed camp as being haters without ever admitting that there is at least as much anger coming right back from the Emergent bloggers. The difference I see is that Emergents respond with obfuscation devolving into curses, while the reformed usually use the Bible as the starting point. It sounds like hatred to the oh-so-tolerant pomos.

Chuck

Posted: May 02, 2008 10:31 PM


I'm sorry, did I miss something? Did Tony Jones' reply supply ANY answers to Collin's questions?

Keith McCallum

Posted: May 02, 2008 10:01 PM


Well said Leroy, well said. "PR" is the name of the game. I've been a PR professional for 20+ years and this is word-smith politicking at its best: those "crazy haters out there" and those with "an openness to conversation and even friendship," as Jones paints it. Jeesh. The emerging "feelings-driven dialectic" is so very thin-skinned.

bill borch LtCol

Posted: May 02, 2008 7:19 PM

Leroy summed it nicely for me: "More confusion...complete lack meaningful substantive content". Frankly, it is terribly depressing. Years ago when "panel discussions" were pop, 4 people were asked to sit at the table. They were given a topic and told to discuss it. Someone remarked: 4x0=0! And 10,000x0 still=0. Where did these folks get the idea they had anything to contribute by simply having an opinion without knowledge? The arrogance of Rome created the Reformation and they jumped on their horses and rode off in all directions. They're still riding and it appears by these comments they're going nowhere. Theology is about truth, not "fun". If I need brain surgery I'll ask for a brain surgeon- I don't care what your opinion is! forestphilosopher.blogtoolkit.com

Anonymous

Posted: May 02, 2008 4:06 PM

My sympathies are with the Emergents - the direction of their reforms I see as important and healthy. But, as Collin & some commenters note, they have staked out a tough position... trying to use and affirm inspiration and divine authority for Scripture, without the full foundation that makes it logically cohere. (Not validly so, to me now, but logical.) It seems the crux of things will come around the nature of the Gospels/Acts. After seminary and PhD theological studies as an Evangelical, and years in ministry, I had a chance to step back and re-look (extensively). Now, on both surface reading and close analysis, it seems quite apparent that they are largely theologically motivated and spun stories, based in an undecipherable core of history. Still incredibly powerful, yes, but having no valid claim, either historically or theologically, to a uniquely inspired status. It's hard to retain the core concepts if you revise authority in needed ways, so Emergents won't yet revise.

Patrick Dennis

Posted: May 02, 2008 3:40 PM


One difference I have with both Tony and Collin is the value of doing theology through blogging. It just doesn't work. Theology needs to be done in a Church community or even a seminary. I have served God in inner-city NY and also in North Africa for most of my ministry. Real ministry roots theology and Biblical exegesis in God and real-life. The internet does not.

Anonymous

Posted: May 02, 2008 2:44 PM


Whoa, I have sympathies with the emergent movement, but if I was an outsider looking in on this conversation, I'd say one side does all the thinking, and the other side, well, avoids dabbling in the realms of reason. Are there a half dozen views? Ah well, even if it defies the law of noncontradiction, let's say that we hold to them ALL, cuz 6 is better than 1.

AM	Posted: May 02, 2008 1:38 PM

Tony Jones Takes A Called Strike Three Well, I happen to come from a baseball family which is pretty well-known in New Hampshire. My dad Ralph Silva was the high school baseball coach of Hall of Famer Carlton Fisk; he’s won numerous high school baseball state championships with multiple schools, and is himself in the New Hampshire Coaches Hall of Fame. The point being, I know a bit about baseball and have even been an umpire myself. This is why I can tell you that “the postmodern conversation” is wrong and Tony Jones really hasn’t a clue what he is talking about above. In fact, the point of Bill Klem’s story is the actually the exact opposite of the point that Jones is trying to make. Klem most assuredly knows that balls and strikes do, in fact, exist as real facts in the real world:

AM	Posted: May 02, 2008 1:36 PM

This all stems, it seems, from the irrepressible literary critic, Stanley Fish, who years ago told this story about the legendary umpire, Bill Klem, “Klem’s behind the plate,” Fish said. “The pitcher winds up, throws the ball. The pitch comes. The batter doesn’t swing. Klem for an instant says nothing. The batter turns around and says, ‘O.K., so what was it, a ball or a strike?’ And Klem says, ‘Sonny, it ain’t nothing ‘till I call it.’” What the batter is assuming is that balls and strikes are facts in the world and that the umpire’s job is to accurately say which one each pitch is. But in fact balls and strikes come into being only on the call of an umpire.”

AM	Posted: May 02, 2008 1:31 PM

I don't know if you've ever visited an Emergent Village. I never have. I suspect the Emergent Village is a lot like Chelm but with swine. Someday I want to go to an Emergent Village,... Eventually I want to make it to their ball park. Tony Jones is the National Coordinator here on emergentvillage.org, and he claims to have been an umpire. He told a bunch of people over at Wheaton College what a strike was [Whence Hermeneutic Authority? available here], and while I haven't collected all the details, I gather there weren't a lot of people cheering him around third... Here are some of Tony's “thoughts”. They are really bad thoughts: Of course, it’s not lost on me that since the earliest days of the postmodern conversation, there’s been story floating around about three umpires, • The pre-modern umpire says, “I call ‘em as they are!” • The modern umpire says, “I call ‘em as I see ‘em!” • The postmodern umpire says, “They ain’t nothin’ ‘till I call ‘em!” This all stems, it seems, fr

Doug Drysdale

Posted: May 02, 2008 1:29 PM


I commented on episode 1, and my reaction to this episode is about the same: The relationship of God's sovereignty and human free will is best explained by Arminianism. Not the straw man erected by some Calvinists, but the real thing. If anyone would like to pursue this further with me, I would be delighted.

Journeyman

Posted: May 02, 2008 1:00 PM

Tony -- I acknowledge that, as you pointed out in installment 1, we are indeed finite. I also acknowledge mystery There are a lot of questions about God I can't answer and if I could, I'd be God. The issue of paradox is interesting -- if one accepts the concept, then God is contradictory; is it reasonable to accept the notion of a God who contradicts himself? Or am i being too rational in my modernity? Given that indeterminacy, is that why you did not or would not answer Collin's questions? I'd really like to read your responses or are you withdrawing from the conversation? Why would those questions be a stimulus for withdrawal, if that is what is happening?

Gary Ridley Sr.

Posted: May 02, 2008 12:57 PM

In D.A. Carson's book, Christ and culture Revisited he writes, "One should not so much speak of differing, discrete "models" of the atonement, as of different aspects of the one atonement, trying to find out how these aspects cohere and relate to one another (as, for instance, in I Peter 2) and whether one aspect of the atonement rightly organizes or illumines or controls, and thus takes precedence over, the others." (62) Good discussion, keep seeking clarity of understanding!

Tim Pattison

Posted: May 02, 2008 12:52 PM

Is there more to come? Tony seemed to "spin" his response to how Emergents view the atonement of Christ. Does Tony embrace a particular view of the atonement [substitution, redemption, Christ the Victor, etc.]? Paradox is present in many doctrines---i.e., election, extent of the atonement, Sovereignty of God v. human responsibility/free will, now-not yet tension concerning the Kingdom of God. However, the existence of paradoxes does not negate the need for sound doctrine---IT AMPLIFIES THE NEDD! Scripture is to be the final authority for ALL church doctrine and practice. Anything that does not square with Scripture [open theism] is to be rejected and viewed as incompatible with Christianity. So, how do Emergents view the atonement? According to "Emergent theology," What is the Gospel? How so Emergents seek to fulfill the Great Commission? ---Tim Pattison timpattison55@yahoo.com

Leroy

Posted: May 02, 2008 12:47 PM

More confusion from the confused in the form of friendly banter masking the complete lack meaningful substantive content. One side wants to return to the dogmatics of the past; the other side is dogmatic about not being or wanting to be dogmatic about much of anything. With so much jargon, rather than substantive content, being tossed around, this dialogue has (quickly) spiraled into the postmodern morass of relative opinion making and posturing. Doctrine is man made, culturally biased and the superimposition of an analytic system onto the story of God's creation, man's rebellion and God's rescue operation in light thereof. Rather than discussing the 6 views of atonement, perhaps taking a look at what Jesus intended by his death within its historical context and what Paul says about it by way of explanation of the significance of Jesus and his death, might provide a some what more constructive way to jettison theological constructs without embracing a relative position towards truth.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment