My Monday morning blog post announcing my departure from Emergent drew far more attention than I ever expected! E-ver! Geesh, I’m just a 29 year old pastor/theology student from G-Rap who’s happened to blog for several years through my theological journey. This is one more iteration in that progression. Thanks to all those who gave encouragement and critique, questioned my motives and theological endeavor, and expressed solidarity. Your comments and interactions have given me much to think about and consider, comments I’m sure to carry with me over the course of the next several weeks.
I know I promised I would begin offering my bottled-up critiques, but I thought I should pause and clarify the obvious elephants: why? and how? Why did I leave? Why did I strap on the platform shoes and Christmas lights and strut myself down the blogosphere making my announcement. (How immature, right? How positively arrogant!) How did I come to the point in my theological/spiritual journey where I decided it was time to move beyond this conversation?
So, why? How?
First, I should clarify that I don’t want to cast aside my friendships and relationships in the conversation. In fact, Doug Pagitt and I had a great conversation yesterday about my change of heart where we reiterated our commitment to friendship, despite theological differences. My departure is much more theological than relational, so I hope similar relationships will still be preserved.
Now, in answer to the questions, here is some short context to my frustration and reasons for walking. Perhaps they will mirror some of your own. I know the comment section and my inbox is filled with similar stories, so I add this to the mix. On Friday I will begin explaining my theological frustration and perspective with some of the emerging church theology, beginning with interacting with Pagitt’s A Christianity Worth Believing through a 6 post series (Btw: I emailed him a copy beforehand of the original 30 page examination because I thought that would be fair.) Before then, here is some context:
As I explained a few days ago, I’ve been part of the emerging church conversation for half a decade but have grown increasingly uncomfortable and saddened by the theological trajectory of the project. Deeply saddened, actually. This isn’t disillusionment. This is a deep sadness and heartache over what is happening from the top ranks. And what is that? A departure (perhaps deliberate?) among the leaders of Emerging Church Inc. from the historic Rule of Faith and a fashioning together of a new, fresh version of Christianity built on “other forms” of Christianity that have been deemed foreign to that Rule.
That version questions God’s “clear and certain” self-disclosure/revelation; ((Rollins, Speak of God, 46.)) minimizes actual individual culpability in rebellion; ((Pagitt, Christianity, 165)) ignores the deity of Christ; downright denies the exclusivity of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ; ((Selmanovic, All About God, 9; 60-61)) reduces the cross to simply an example of love; ((Pagitt, Christianity, 194-195)) denies real judgment and universalizes salvation, ((Pagitt, Christianity, 230-231)) among others.
It wasn’t always like this, though.
At the beginning, from what I remember back in 2005 when I entered the conversation it really was an exploration. Such sites as emergentvillage.org and opensourcetheology.net were catalysts for bursting and burning through the cobwebs and rickety structures of conservative evangelicalism. It tried to root itself in the more ancient, forgotten parts of our faith—like the Creeds—to moor itself while forging ahead with re-imagining the Church as centered around the teachings of Christ and the Kingdom He bore.
Theologically, it was a deconstructive tour de force with it’s crosshairs aimed squarely at conservative evangelicalism, and rightly so. Reconstructively (is that a word?) it helped construct a missional response to a real, genuine shift occurring within Western culture known as postmodernity. Most of the church was ill equipped to deal with the tectonic shifts our culture was undergoing, and Emergent helped navigate those shifts for church leaders as New Tribes Missions does for tribal missionaries. At the time I greatly appreciated and benefited from both, because it intersected with my own faith exploration.
Since late 2003, I had been ministering on Capitol Hill for a little known entity (The Center for Christian Statesmanship) of a more well known entity, Coral Ridge Ministries (run by an even more known entity, Dr. D. James Kennedy). During this season I became increasingly uncomfortable with the theology behind this thoroughly conservative evangelical ministry, especially their theology of the gospel. The gospel Story it told was rooted in Dr. Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosion, which started God’s Story of Rescue in the end and middle, at heaven/hell and sin. Jesus, we were told, came to inaugurate a cosmic transaction between me and Him in order to beam me outta here “some glad mornin’ when this life is o’r.”
The theology of the Story disturbed me, so did the methods methods we used to sell that Story and manner in which we did ministry in our context. You see, the mission context of Capitol Hill is thoroughly postmodern and young adult: at the time there were roughly 24,000 congressional staffers (an average age of 27) who were from the brightest liberal arts institutions this country has to offer. Missionally, we sucked because we were ill equipped to engage this young adult postmodern culture. Theologically, God’s beautiful, majestic Story of Rescue was reduced to 5 talking points and Jesus was reduced to a product sold like a vacuum cleaner or set of kitchen knives sans nifty accessories. After my first year in ministry I began to wonder: is THIS what I’ve committed myself too?
Then along came Emergent.
My story follows others, me thinks. Many others have endured similar frustrations before wandering into the oasis-village of Emergent, finding solace, healing, and inspiration from a band of sisters and brothers making a similar trek. There I found what I needed at the time and am thankful for what Emergent was during those years. I absolutely appreciated the theological deconstruction and missiological reconstruction this conversation provided.
Over the past year or so, however, it seems like the later (missiology) has faded and the former (theology) has shifted. I have been struck in recent months by this: now that we’ve gotten the missional response to postmodern culture down, many believe the time for theological construction has begun; we “get” postmodern ministry, now we need an alternative Christian faith built on an alternative Christian theology.
So began this new era of theological construction.
Four books crystalize for me this progressive theological construction effort: Peter Rollins’, How (Not) to Speak of God
While I sound way more conspiratorial than I actually mean, the conversation absolutely has moved from simply talking to sketching, especially the last few years. While I am fully aware (thank you very much!) that the emerging church is bigger than three or five voices, we all know it is intimately bound-up with them. Furthermore, those closely associated with the emerging church are by-and-large ensconced in their theological reflection. If I am wrong, please point me to someone on the inside of the conversation who has offered a proper, pointed theological assessment of Peter or Doug or Samir or Brian. I realize I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure it has yet to been done.
Now it will be.
It’s not personal. It’s academic.
Rather than reacting out of hurt or pain or woundedness (as some have annoyingly suggested) I am trying to provide space for an academic “airing of ideas” for the sake of healthy discussion and disclosure. I’m not blaming all things emerging for the problems of the church. What I am trying to do is live out of the person I have become through the past three years of academic training: I have a deep concern and passion for God’s Story of Rescue and for people to experience the rescue that Story provides through Christ; for theologically rooting the Church in Her faith by properly understanding the Story History and the Spirit has given us and seeing those outside the Church rescued from rebellion and put back together again in Christ. .
That’s why I wrote my first book. That’s why I’m doing this. That’s why I’m moving beyond Emergent.
Now, perhaps I am immature and petulant for bidding “au revoir” and “goodbye.” Perhaps that’s a fair critique. I don’t exactly want to leave my friends who identify with this conversation or invalidate my friendships in order to critique it. Goodness no! I just don’t know what to do anymore with the sad, devastating theological constructs being packaged and sold to thirsty, hungry, unsuspecting souls who long for rescue and re-creation and re-connection to their Creator. I can no longer sit idly by while said leaders fein innocence and drape themselves in “I’m just a mild-mannered guy” excuses in an attempt to ignore legitimate critique of their other faith.
In short: I’m tired of people being hoodwinked by the “different” theology being pushed and the hoodwinkers getting a pass, especially from those inside. Their version of Christianity isn’t different. It is other. We’ve seen this before, and I think something should be done about it. I guess someone should do something about it, so I’m stepping to the podium.
You may disagree with and decry my method, even my critiques. I’m sure both are flawed. Please grant me one request: deal with the ideas. The Emerging Church is an idea; it pushes ideas. In fact, how about those of you who think I’m whack actually deal with the ideas by giving a reasoned, intellectual defense for the theology that is pushed by Emerging Church Inc.
Yes, thats a direct challenge: Someone, anyone—Steve, Mike, Makeesha, Jonathan, Trip, or Julie, perhaps—please deal with the ideas by posting an 8-10 post theological series on both Doug and Brian’s book explaining why their theology is good and correct. I’ll even host it here, free of charge.
I myself am an ideas person. I’ve got plenty of them strewn about throughout novus•lumen, most having little to do with the emerging church and even less blasting it. The idea I am most passionate about, that is the impetus behind what I do as a pastor and theologian, is that Jesus Christ is both Lord and Messiah.
Lord. Messiah.
Both are ideas the New Testament is clear about. Unfortunately, evangelicalism all around seems incredibly confused about both, especially Emerging Church Inc.
Perhaps I can speak into the conversation (especially the Grand Rapids one) by pushing back against emerging church theology and help bring better definition to the contours of God’s Story of Rescue, for the sake of the Church. Perhaps I can follow in the footsteps of J. Greshem Machen, who wrote nearly 90 years prior: “The purpose of this book (blog) is not to decide the religious issue of the day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible.”
Perhaps.
I appreciate you providing this background, Jeremy. I'm interested to read what is forthcoming.
For the readers of *Novus Lumen* I know Jeremy very well. I officiated Jeremy and Melinda's wedding and Jeremy and I serve together at Fellowship Evangelical Covenant Church. I affirm that Jeremy is not "wounded" or in despair over Emergent Church, Inc. He is a perceptive, passionate scholar-pastor who laments the pathetic theological direction Emergent Church, Inc. is heading. In an age where theological "conversation" has become cool and trendy (in emergent circles), Jeremy is asking, yeah, but is it right? You can be very cool and very wrong. So, I applaud Jeremy's foray into the white water rapids of emerging thought and theological reflection. Aware, yes, of his weaknesses and yet willing to "duke it out" with ideas. As a young scholar he will energetically critique (Pelagian) ideas draped in new, cool wool; and as a young pastor he will care that others are led down a path far off the trail of historic, orthodox faith.
Jeremy, do you think that in leaving EE and the Religious Right behind, you overreacted in embracing Emergent?
Perhaps, corey. But I dont look at it that way. I dont look at my journey into and through all things emerging as an overreaction. I am thankful for what it was for me during that time. Now I've moved beyond that. I wish people could see that and accept it for what it is…oh well 🙂
Please forgive the simplistic understanding of your nuanced story, but it seems to me that you feel like you are re-finding a theological equilibrium. I am concerned about this. I've always found theology to be effective when it had both feet on the ground (ie affected my piety and ethics). If you feel that Emergent set you out of theological "balance," then I assume that such an imbalance led to spiritual and ethical imbalances. I can understand that. That imbalance is what drove me from traditional evangelicalism.
Sorry for the pragmatism. I am Midwestern.
Hi, Jeremy. Thanks for the further background.
From my perspective, EV is not primarily 'and idea', but a people and practices. Certainly, there are ideas at stake, but I don't see that as the entirety of this group. But that's a small quibble with your larger point, so fair enough.
Jeremy, you say you want this to be about ideas, so that's where I'm trying to engage you. If you want to enjoin a theological debate, then I think we can expect you to portray your opponents fairly and kindly. Which is why I've commented here. It doesn't mean that I think you're 'whack', and it doesn't obligate me to defend whomever you're critiquing. This is your project, and I thought you wanted folks to mix it up a bit. But you don't seem very willing to change your mind (or your writing), even when you agree that you've mischaracterized and/or misread your opponents.
Yes Mike, I do want to be fair and kind. Absolutely. Man I'd hate to come across as white-knuckled! I want to be open to change, while also being honest about my convictions. I am open to correcting misunderstanding mischaracterization. I did that in the original post by revising Doug's fear post, btw. Are there other ways in which I have mischaracterized or misread people?
Thanks for your interest in dialoguing and helping course correct my own attitude toward this endeavor.
Hey, Jeremy, I didn't see those edits when I posted this. My apologies.
Hi Jeremy,
So I haven't purchased Brian's book new yet, though I've read Doug's and found it to be a great work.
That being said, I have one question. I've read both of these posts with various thoughts in my mind, and the one that sticks out the most is this: you are very willing to hyperlink Emergent Village, various Wikipedia articles, the site for the city of Grand Rapids, and any number of other things. However, you mention the phrase "Rule of Faith" – once in this post, and five times or so in the previous post – without linking to a definition of what that rule is. I looked around to see if I could determine what seminary you attend, as that might give some context as to what rule(s) you accept, but I can't find that either.
I say this without any malice and I hope that is apparent, but how are we to know what to think of your Rule of Faith if we don't know what it is? Different and often contradictory Rules have been created by everyone from the church fathers to the Benedictine monastics to the Protestant reformers to students in an undergraduate English class I took in 2004.
Can you give us some context there? It may be that some of us will (hopefully lovingly) disagree with your Rule of Faith, which won't allow anyone to write on Brian or Doug's book in a way that would be positive for you. That is certainly okay, but it is important to know before anyone attempts to defend the critiques you present, if anyone does feel the need to do so.
I'm about 100 pages in to Brian's new book. I may have more to say about it once I finish, but for now I think this point is the crux of the matter. What does the "historic rule of the faith" even mean? Is it the neo-orthodox Barthian perspective? What about those of us that are more Tillichian? What about the liberation and postcolonial theologians? What of the process people?
It seems to me that the issue here is how we deal with theological difference, how we understand the tradition, and whether the tradition can speak against itself (and whether that is healthy or not). Frankly, it doesn't seem to me that Brian is drawing a line in the sand as much as he is clarifying his own position (which he argues is not an Answer but rather a response among many). He is articulating a different perspective and he's not the first one to do so nor does he claim to be some sort of crypto-gnostic brokering the more enlightened path. Again, the question is how we deal with diversity.
I have no desire to be a Barthian. Is there no room under this umbrella for more progressive theologies?
Hey Blake and Jonathan! Thanks for asking for me to define my term RULE OF FAITH. Look for that definition tomorrow. (2.13.10)
-jeremy
it would be helpful for me to hear this as well.
Thanks, Jeremy, for giving some of your journey as the backdrop for your posts on Emergent. I think we sometimes lose the reality of a storyline context for where our paradigm and theology comes from, just like we sometimes lose the cultural context that Scriptures and church history documents were written in, and treat them as if they were pure ideas.
But then, if we can't interpret our own stories of life in God's providence, however can we expect to interpret the Scriptures in their context and understand our times and we as disciples should do?
Looking forward to hearing more from your perspective, and those who engage with you …
Jeremy, I think much of the concern regarding your "good bye" is not about your questioning. The table of conversation is meant for questioning, even painfully. I know Brian well enough to know he would welcome your questions.
The concern is that you've communicating a walking away from the table, yet want to be heard. See the tension in this. Emergent has no boundaries for questioning and theological debate. It's open to any possibility, which means sitting in the tension of someone's ideas without getting personal. So when you say "Emerging Church Inc" it seems personal. We're all part of the kingdom, which means seeing our current theological constructs as something being molded and developed.
I look forward to your critique of Brian's work. I would also ask that you consider your own trajectory in the dialog. You've actively declared your own concern for some of your previous theological constructs, and are now expressing concerns with present emerging theological ideas. What are you replacing them with, if any. And if nothing, please share how you feel about this.
This is a fair response, Jonathan. I get that I have communicated a "walking away." I am walking away, theologically. I am not walking away relationally. I understand these things are person, the ideas and theology that people carry, so perhaps the perception I am leaving people cannot be avoided in light of my rejection of much of the theology come from Emergent. Thanks for helping me see that.
So let me say it here, again: I am walking from the theology, not the people.
As for Brian's willingness to be questions: I don't buy it. I don't know him personally, but from the recent FUNDY QUIZ on his blog to his comparison in his book of those of us who hold to the authority of scripture to nazi's and witch-burners is insulting. Those who critique his new book because it absolutely violates our "religious/ideological community or belief system" called "historic Christian orthodoxy" are written of as fundy whack-jobs at best or nazi's and witch-burners at worst.
Jonathan, the table of Emergent SEEMS to be open and inviting for those who play nice. Those who don't (aka ME, apparently) are castigated and verbally marginalized. And that's the way I see it…
that's very unfortunate that it's been your experience. I think some of us who have been involved in face to face relationships and conversations have had such a different experience (most of the "emerging" people around here are strongly evangelical and in conversation with many of us who aren't) we don't really even understand what you're saying – but certainly, if your experience is such that you've felt marginalized for your theology, that makes me sad.
Well said Makeesha.
Jeremy, I would offer that the fundy quiz was not aimed at you but people like Ken Silva who bash and vilify without being informed like you have. I didn't really like the quiz either but to attach yourself is to categorize yourself in ways you don't like. Brian didn't make you a fundy. You put yourself in that category.
I don't think anyone is castigating you. But I'm also not the one under the microscope so I have to be fair and validate that this is the way you feel. But as I said before, I would suggest that what people are responding to is not your ideas or critiques but your "goodbye."
If these last few years have proven anything…they have proven that you can't 'walk away theologically without distancing yourself relationally' in most every situation…it's kind of like saying to your fiancee 'we can always just be friends'…it usually doesn't work–it is just the way it is.
Hey Jeremy,
Yeah, man – I appreciate Emergent's conversationalism, but after the hyper-deconstruction, some of the reconstruction gets based on our culture rather than the Bible (made way for by anti-"Religious Right" thought that can tend towards "Bible = conservative [= stuffy]"). I like being led to think for myself, but at some point teachers need to teach me truth, too. Tell me both the "what" and the "why;" it can still be personal for me, absolutely. Conversation is healthy but some measure of it has to about rediscovering the meaning of the original thing, not just wiping it all away. Making the goal a tabula rasa probably means you're going to do some trying to reconstruct the world in your own image.
Jeremy,
Thanks for this initial post. I am so very grateful for the emphasis within Emergent on social justice, but in the end this can only be sustained by the main tenets of mere Christianity. The cross is not just about forgiveness, though it is about that, it is also about the kingdom of God being more and more realized here and then fully in the hereafter. My concern is that when the theological foundations of a commitment to social justice and personal salvation are gone, the commitment might end up going away as well. As a philosopher, I'm also concerned with the caricatures of philosophical thought (Descartes, for example) and their implications for theology and social justice.
Sorry for the awkward final sentence, my point was that there are unfortunate inaccuracies in the references to Enlightenment philosophers and their views in some of the Emergent writings.
Howdy! I, too, would like to know what you mean about 'the rule of faith.' I'm thinking of the Benedictine and other Rules of Life, but beyond that I'm drawing a blank.
Also, while I can see where you might be going with some of your theological critiques, the one about emergent folk denying 'the deity of Christ' seems absolutely base-less. Brian devotes several chapters in his ANKoC to defending the Incarnation and Deity of Jesus, showing how important it is not only that Christ is God-like, but how God is Christ-like.
Here's my take on some of these matters. I look forward to continuing to read yours!
Hey Mike! Thanks for asking for me to define my term RULE OF FAITH. Look for that definition tomorrow. (2.13.10)
-jeremy
Hi Jeremy; I'm one of the organizers of the Emergent Cohort in Boston, along with Blake and personally active in an "Anglimergent" community at Boston's Episcopal Cathedral, also wrapping up an MDiv at Harvard Divinity. Baptised Catholic and Methodist (co-officiated, talk about a postmodern journey 😛 ), I've been growing into the Episcopal tradition for a few years now. Want to thank you for this clarifying post, and your attempt to raise your concerns in an honest, and intellectually nuanced way for people to freely respond to.
I admit much of the "emergent is dead/heretical" claims going around the net seem a little premature and disingenuous to me– but I also realize that as someone merely at the edges of the evangelical world (for the most part) and with greater experience of how this conversation, and its "generous orthodoxy" is actually revitalizing and, in some ways theologically GROUNDING some of the more liberal mainline denominations- though still in a liberative, deeply community/grassroots and honest way, I'm a little less worried. Of course, many of my traditions produced ideas like process thought, liberation theology, (and in the case of Catholics, a more universal, though still Christocentric view of salvation since the 60's) and other streams of theology which evoke aspects of some of the things that I suspect are concerning you. What I find interesting is the way that, as a form of deep, but also broad ECCUMENICISM, the emerging/emergent movement is helping to stimulate conversations across time, space and politics in ways I find healthy.
For example, the Episcopal Church, in its historic theological diversity is no stranger to one community holding many diverse ideas — ideas some other traditions might even be more prone to heresy trials or challenges of. Personally, for all its freedom I also see the downsides and risks of this, especially today as people spin off on MANY directions, or there is no clear common center — not to mention where disagreements over scripture and sexuality (things I feel Mclaren wrestles honestly with, though I look forward to your comments) are splitting the church.
For me, Emergence thought pushes us all outside our theological boundaries, into conversation and, hopefully greater integration. The BIGGEST thing for me is not anyone thinker, thrust or theme– but the broader FAITH that this isn't just a theological endeavor, but a movement of God's Spirit which is forcing churches, denominations and communities to look outside themselves, learn from their neighbors and forbears in honest, genuine ways, and see us all as part of God's bigger Kingdom. Phyllis Tickle's "Great Emergence" sums this up magnificently, including a "fountain" image of traditions swirling and mixing in some places, yet maintaining their identities, roots and, in all fairness a good number of people who just aren't interested in the conversation. (she works from some pretty respected ecclesialogical models around for a few decades now, encourage you to actually look at her work if you haven't yet for a more mainline perspective, though broad take on the movement)
I've been, in my time here deeply influenced by folks in the Friends (Quaker, though the term is somewhat pejorative to some), Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Episcopal and numerous evangelical traditions, all who see themselves as part of the conversation and part of a broader movement of Christ's mission. Its breathing new life into communities and whole churches, and generating unexpected partnerships on the ground.
I encourage you to honestly engage with some of the "big names" of Emergent/emerging thought– but also be mindful of just how BIG this conversation has gotten denominationally. Ilook forward to hearing from you, and also bringing some of my own denominational heritage and theology into the conversation.
As a side note, I find it interesting that you still have "emerging" on your title– are you distancing yourself from "emergent" but still seeing yourself as part of a larger stream of things?
Jeremy,
You may not remember me, but you did a weekly Bible Study with me, and another intern named Joe at the Cosi on Capitol Hill in the summer of 2004. I saw this series blow up on twitter, and had one of those "I know that guy" moments.
I sensed in those studies that you both were strong doctrinally, but wanted deeply to find a better method than those traditional Christianity offered to pursue God's mission for us. I'm both sad to see that you went the emergent path, and overjoyed that you have seen truth after all.
Keep on loving truth. Be enthralled with truth. It is the truth that will set you free, not story. This is a great blog series that mixes humility with courage so well. I'm now a deacon at a church plant in N Va. Thanks for showing gospel courage. I hope it bears fruit.
Yours Respectfully,
Shayne McAllister