All Comments for: Emergent's New Christians and the Young, Restless Reformed (Conclusion) | 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 (Conclusion)

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

Collin Hansen and Tony Jones | posted 5/14/2008 10:00AM

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 - 13 of 13 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Darren King - Precipice Magazine

Posted: May 26, 2008 9:42 AM

Chad, By saying that the reason why Total Depravty is a true conception is because comes via the grace of God, as opposed to from our own human understanding, you missed the point altogether. Don't you see that interpretation happens? And that interpretative differences demonstrate that the biblical truth is not black and white, not clear via the grace of God? If the doctrine of total depravity were so clearly articulated via the grace of God then why do so many Christian groups not agree with the conception? That's Tony's point. You want to claim that we humans suffer from total depravity of mind, and yet declare your interpretative viewpoint as crystal-clear and untarnished. Don't you see the irony there? Please... Our biblical viewpoints are ALWAYS a combination of the biblical text poured through the filter of our own interpretive grid. There is no unfiltered interpretation that comes via the grace of God.

Kory	Posted: May 22, 2008 11:03 AM

I actually think "open-source" theology saved the church from some unbiblical doctrines. Over the years when certain teachings were coming from the "magisterium," it was lay people, monks, and parrish priests that said, "Hey, wait a minute here." Isn't that one of the fundamental (at least theoretically) principles of the Reformation -- priesthood of all believers? Isn't that why it was so important to have scripture in the hands of everyone? The Reformation is the father of "open-source" theology and clearly a good thing as long as it's done in community.

Alan House

Posted: May 16, 2008 8:01 AM


You GO, Leroy! What an exercise in futility producing many words to be printed clarifying nothing other than how wordy can we be while we are each informing the other side that they are in darkness still!

Pablo Vermillion

Posted: May 15, 2008 10:54 AM

the article was very informative. the idea that bill has posted about becoming a catholic because protestanta actually allow for diversity is sickening. does he not believe that Catholics also have very diverse opinions and practices even about doctrine around the world and especially within the Catholic nation where I live, Spain. Anyone who could see what I see in Spanish catholicism would do what most spaniards have been doing for a generation - abandon the Catholic church.

Chad	Posted: May 15, 2008 10:41 AM

I just read the five parts. I really enjoy the discussion. To be honest the Emergent world is a bit of a mystery to me. I really know very little about their specific theology. I know Collin's book well having read it this week. There is one question from Tony that did bother me, generally it was: If our minds are depraved how can we be so sure about the truth? Which is a very good question, so I will attempt to give an answer. We know the truth by the grace of God. Obviously, and Sproul points this out in his book, the human race could sin more than it is. There is a general grace, but that doesn't mean we can come to Truth (Jesus) on our own reason. We simply believe that if you know Truth, it is because of the grace of God. For a believer to say that they know the Truth is not an arrogant statement, but rather, I would say, it is a statement of giving God the glory, because He led us to that truth.

Jeffrey

Posted: May 14, 2008 7:06 PM

I have to question the argument that if a community agrees on theology, it is truth. It all dpends on the size and expanse of the community. The recent Christian cult that was featured on the news, declared that their community was true in theology by group consensus. They would say that they had consensus in community for their theology. What is to say that those outside the Emergent Village community aren't calling out things within the EV community to say it may be incorrect in the theology it is developing? Just because like-minded people agree on something does not mean it is true - even when looking at the same Bible.

Barry

Posted: May 14, 2008 5:34 PM

Being outside of either genre; may I make a comment on what I hear. I hear a silent cry. Not spoken, but nonetheless discernible. A cry going forth out of a body of a believing people, with holy writ tightly clutched to their chests, crying, "Oh!, if we only had a living and breathing Paul or Peter walking among us now. Surely we would yield to him in all things and finally make strait the church." Ironically, the very thing they yearn for and need, they have anathematized from their theology; Divine revelation! So, this disunity will always be the lot of the body Christian (and all religion) until they humble themselves, and cry unto the Lord that Prophets be sent again. Someone having "a more sure word of prophecy".

MP	Posted: May 14, 2008 2:57 PM

Following this "conversation" has been rather interesting but not all that encouraging. I wonder how these guys think that its possible to create a "new orthodoxy"? Why would we want to do so, even if we could? This "dialogue" has been rather vacuous and disappointing, on the whole. Worse yet, its symptomatic of the narcissitic Christianity that seems to predominate our time. Nothing could be less "relevant" than to listen to a couple of guys go on and on about themselves, as if no one in the whole tradition has ever thougth their thoughts. If this is any kind of indication as to the direction in which so called "evangelicals" are heading, God help us! I think they need to realize that not all of us are reacting against fundamentalism, which seems to be a big issue for them. Perhaps this is the service they have to render at this time; but I dont think their set of issues is capable of creating consensus. Many just want to be faithful without the excessive self - reflection

Gene	Posted: May 14, 2008 2:05 PM

Because we can think and also talk we assume that we are communicating. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is particularly disheartening when discussing "theology" (the science or knowledge of God). None of you understand God any more than I do, and when we try to "show off" our knowledge, we only show how little we know. Faith in God does not depend on how much we can "express" about Him. It depends on how much we trust Him to see to our needs, and that does not include a "need" to "understand" Him. With all of our vaunted knowledge we are still destroying this world and each other. If we had as much intelligence and knowledge as we claim, we could see that we have not dome God any service, no matter how much we owe Him. All this palaver is just one many trying to impress another with his "brains." How pitiful!

Geoff

Posted: May 14, 2008 12:48 PM

A word on "postmodernism" in theology: The point is NOT that there is no "Truth with a capital T", but that we, as finite humans, are incapable of grasping that absolute Truth on our own. To assume that all "postmoderns" reject Truth is to create a straw man. What is important, however, is to understand that all knowledge (especially knowledge of God) involves interpretation. Christians believe we have received revelation from God. But we can only respond to that revelation as human beings, and this means interpreting through finite lenses. Thus, a statement like "I prefer to follow Paul, rather than someone else interpretation thereof" is really just saying "I prefer to follow my own interpretation of Paul." So, let's not flaunt our epistemological presuppositions and pretend that "we" have the Truth, while "they" are confused. We have faith, grounded in Scripture and, yes, also tradition. There are orthodox statements that ground our faith. But we are all interpreters.

Howard Pepper

Posted: May 14, 2008 12:27 PM

I agree with key points by Journeyman and Leroy to the effect that Collin's position is a more consistent one (though misguided) than is Tony's and Emergent's in general, it appears. However, the Emergent approach IS much closer to that of the Church "Fathers" and also the New Testament authors who actually made up their theology as they went. I say this after an extensive re-examination of the NT and the early Church, though I was "orthodox" and very well biblically educated for 45 years (and now am a "heretic"). What theology emerges from a truly open conversation that takes seriously its partners who are not in institutional leadership (or are mavericks there) is anyone's guess. But we can be assured it will keep emerging for some time. I, for one, will be encouraged if that direction continues to broaden Christian views, particularly of salvation and the nature of God.

Journeyman

Posted: May 14, 2008 11:47 AM


If I understand you,Tony, there is no propositional Truth. Nothing other than consensus among humans is possible. What the early church fathers forged was a consensus. Now a new consensus is being formed. If I am understanding you correctly, then there is no transcendent truth, no propositional truth. Or, if there is, we can not discern it. What am I missing in this assessment of your position?

Leroy

Posted: May 14, 2008 11:30 AM

Having read all 5 parts of this exchange, and having commented to the first 4, what's obvious is that Tony and Collin are confused. This makes sense for Tony since he has bought into the post-modern morass (post-modernism should be seen as a critique of modernism, not a substitute for it!), but not for Collin, who seems to have embraced the certainty (albeit illussional) that Calvinism seems to offer. In any event, its amusing from an epsitimological perspective to see Tony discuss the topic of heresy, the very concept of which requires at least a vague notion of Truth w/ a capital T which of course is not within the post-modern lexicon (maybe no one told him this). Whats more amusing is the comment that heresy could be rooted out by a group, as if truth were subject to a majority vote or when the last monkey believes that the world is flat, then the world will be flat. Regarding the Atonement, I prefer to follow Paul, rather than someone else interpretation thereof.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment