Emerging into what?
One of the biggest conversations going in within Christianity these days is the topic of the Emerging church. I recently decided that it was time for me to address this issue so I began writing, but I quickly realized that it was an extremely difficult task primarily for one reason. It is hard to narrow down exactly what the Emerging church is or what they believe. Unfortunately, many people have just enough knowledge to make them dangerous and they throw everyone under the bus if they are associated with the Emerging conversation. As usual, I have found someone else who can say what I am thinking and feeling much better than I could. I have included an article here by Brett Kunkle entitled, "Essential Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church". I strongly encourage you to read this article. Mr. Kunkle is able to point out what it is good in the Emerging conversation, but at the same time he points out some of the dangerous errors as well. So pour yourself a cup of coffee, get comfy and take some time to absorb what is being written here. Since this is a "blog" feel free to share with us your thoughts at the end of the article.
Essential Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church
Brett Kunkle
The purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, I will raise three areas of concern Evangelicals
should focus most of their attention as they assess both the Emerging Church movement
(hereafter ECM) and Emergent Village (hereafter EV). Specifically, I will point to some
examples of what three prominent EV leaders say regarding each. These concerns
culminate with my most serious concern and secondly, I will argue there is a potential drift
away from orthodox Christian views in the leadership of Emergent Village and thus,
constitutes a serious concern for the larger ECM.
Two Preliminary Remarks
Let me begin with two preliminary questions. If you are privy to ECM conversations, you
may see the value in starting with these questions upon hearing them. First, am I qualified
to offer a critical assessment of the ECM? Second, do I reject all that comes out of the
ECM?
Am I Qualified?
There is considerable concern amongst the ECM’s ranks with criticism coming from outside
the movement. Certainly D.A. Carson’s book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging
Church, has garnered much criticism from leaders in the ECM. Tony Jones has called it
“breathtakingly bad.”1 Or listen to Brian McLaren’s comments that are simultaneously an
endorsement on the back cover of Bolger and Gibb’s book, Emerging Churches, and a swipe
at Carson’s: “If you want to be truly conversant with emerging churches, this is the book to
read.”2 Of course, the implication is Carson’s book is not the one to read.
To be sure, there are criticisms levied against the ECM and its leaders that are unfair,
even vicious.3 I am just as dismayed by those criticisms which demonstrate careless
ignorance or a complete absence of Christian charity. In response, many in the ECM have
called for face-to-face meetings, to sit down over a meal, engage in conversation and sort
out differences. I have listened and made efforts to do just this. Now, face-to-face
meetings are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions a critic must fulfill in order to
assess ideas offered publicly. Indeed, I do not believe those within the ECM have required
it of themselves in cases where they have offered public critique. However, a face-to-face
conversation can be tremendously helpful and so, I have made my best attempts to arrange
them whenever possible.
I have done my best to listen, seek to understand, and to represents ECM views accurately.
I submit the following list of qualifications as proof:
1. Face-to-Face Conversations: I have had face-to-face discussions with a number
of leaders within the ECM, including Spencer Burke, Dan Kimball, Tony Jones, Doug
Pagitt, Mark Oestriecher, and Brian McLaren. Frankly, I have found them to be
warm, engaging, enthusiastic, and excellent conversation partners.
2. Attendance at the Emergent Convention: In May of 2005, I attended the
Emergent Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, for the express purpose of learning
about the ECM and having conversations with those within the movement.
3. Reading of Their Books: I have read their books, many of which can be found in
my personal library.
4. Reading of Their Articles: I have read their articles wherever I can find them, be
it online or in print.
5. Listened to Their Teaching: I have attended their workshops at the Emergent
convention. I have listened to seminar audio recordings from Youth Specialties’
National Youth Worker Conventions.
6. Listened to Their Podcasts: I have downloaded and listened to their podcasts.
7. Attend an Emerging Church: I attend what many consider to be an Emerging
Church: Rock Harbor Church in Costa Mesa, California.
Here is my point: I have listened to the ECM’s response to criticism and have attempted to
be a well-informed, fair, balanced, and humanizing voice within the conversation. In turn, I
hope my voice is thoughtfully considered and not quickly dismissed. Conversely, I am open
to correction. If I have mischaracterized a position or been unfair to a view, I desire the
same correction I humbly attempt to offer.
Do I Reject Everything Coming Out of the ECM?
As to the second question, my answer is a resounding no. Indeed, I share their
dissatisfaction with certain abuses or deficiencies within Evangelicalism. I resonate with
their criticisms of consumerism, their emphasis on an authentic lived-out faith, a move
toward decentralized leadership within the church, and with what many consider the
heartbeat of the movement, their passion to be missional.4 So, no, I am not a critic who
summarily dismisses all that is the ECM.
At the same time, while I acknowledge abuses and deficiencies within Evangelicalism, I
want to ensure we apply the same gracious disclaimer to Evangelicalism that we will to the
ECM: no segment of Evangelicalism is wholly representative of the movement. Just as we
cannot point to an example of a deficiency within the ECM and then dismiss the movement
as a whole, we cannot disparage all of Evangelicalism in the same manner.5
Clarification: Emerging vs. Emergent
Clarity is essential in this discussion and thus, careful distinctions are necessary. Let us
begin with our first: the “Emerging Church” is distinct from “Emergent Village.” Yes, others
have pointed this out but either confusion remains or else there is a disregard for its
importance. For the purposes of this paper, this distinction is critical.
“Emerging Church” is a very broad phrase that refers to a recent movement (sometimes
referred to as a conversation). It is not an organized denomination like the Southern
Baptist Convention or the Presbyterian Church of America. The Emerging Church is no
monolith. Diversity characterizes the movement. Thus, it is difficult to make
generalizations that would paint everyone in the movement with a broad brush. As Scot
McKnight points out, “…emerging Christians are as diverse as the universal Church. Some
are simply evangelicals with a missional slant, while others are postmodernists with a
Christian hangover.”6 So let us allow recognized leaders in the movement help us with this
distinction.
The Emerging Church broadly conceived seeks to rethink Christian faith and practice.
According to Dan Kimball7, “the term ‘the emerging church’ simply meant churches who
were focusing on the mission of Jesus and thinking about the Kingdom in our emerging
culture. It meant churches who were rethinking what it means to be the church in our
emerging culture.”8 As Kimball highlights, the motivation for this rethinking is a perceived
emerging postmodern culture. Gibbs and Bolger implicitly affirm this as they offer the
following definition of Emerging churches: “Emerging churches are communities that
practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures” (emphasis mine).9
What then is Emergent Village (or EV)? EV is an official organization. They have a website
at www.emergentvillage.org. They have a National Coordinator, Tony Jones, a former
youth pastor and current Ph.D. student at Princeton. They have a board of directors. They
even raise funds for the organization.
According to Kimball, the term “emergent was first used formally on June 21, 2001 when
Tony Jones, Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt met and had a conference call with some others
to come up with a name for a new network they were starting. The reason they were
starting ‘Emergent’ was because Leadership Network10 had originally formed a theological
working group as part of their Young Leaders Network” and “the…Young Leaders theology
group was disbanding and had ended. So, Doug, Tony, Brian and some others reformed it
and named it ‘Emergent’ on June 21, 2001, and got the domain name ‘emergentvillage.org
and .com’ on that day.”11
At the same time, the term “emerging church” was being used to describe the broader
movement by those involved with Leadership Network and thus, the resulting confusion of
terms. Kimball states, “Through time people started even saying ‘Emergent Church’ instead
of ‘Emerging Church’ or use both terms as describing the same thing – instead of having
Emergents focus more on theology and Emerging Church more on methodology as it started
initially.”12
To summarize, the ECM is much broader than EV. However, they are not unrelated as EV is
a subset of the broader category of the ECM. So, while acknowledging this important
distinction, I would additionally argue there is a close connection between EV and the ECM.
EV certainly recognizes this. According to their website, “Along with us, the ‘emerging
church’ movement has been growing, and we in Emergent Village endeavor to fund the
theological imaginations and spiritual lives of all who consider themselves a part of this
broader movement” (emphasis mine).13 Thus, EV explicitly states their desire to influence
the theological conversation of the ECM. Indeed, they seem to be at the center of much of
that discussion. This highlights why the EV/ECM distinction is an important one. While EV
is not the same as the ECM, it certainly impacts the ECM and has played an important role
in directing its theological conversation. This is the focus of my concern with the larger ECM
and it is why I will direct all of my concern at the leadership of EV.
The Leadership of Emergent Village
And who is the leadership of EV? I will focus on three: Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and
Doug Pagitt. Why these three?
1. First, they are three of the original founders of EV and its most recognizable and
influential leaders today.
2. Second, each has or currently does occupy an official post within EV. As mentioned
earlier, Jones is the current National Coordinator.14 McLaren currently sits on the
board of directors.15
3. Third, each of these men signed their name to the “Official Response to Critics of
Emergent” document.16
4. Fourth, others within the ECM consider these men leaders. Scot McKnight
specifically identifies McLaren, Jones, and Pagitt as leaders of EV and further claims
that McLaren and Jones are not only leaders of EV but also the larger ECM when he
states, “There is no such thing as the emerging ‘church.’ It is a movement or a
conversation – which is Brian McLaren’s and Tony Jones’s favored term, and they
after all are the leaders” (emphasis mine).17 I think what McKnight means is they
are some of its leaders but the fact he highlights these two men indicates he, like
others, identify them as two of the ECM’s most influential leaders.
5. Fifthly, Pagitt and Jones are co-editors and contributors to the forthcoming book, An
Emergent Manifesto of Hope, scheduled to be released in April 2007.
At the very least, we can conclude that these three men hold significant influence in EV and
correspondingly, significant influence on the theological discussion of the broader ECM.
A Very Important Disclaimer
Insofar as this paper deals with the ECM, a disclaimer: Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Brian
Insofar as this paper deals with the ECM, a disclaimer: Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Brian
McLaren do not speak for the entire ECM or even EV itself. Are we clear on this point? I do
not even claim the ideas of these three men are in total agreement with one another. My
claim is more modest: these three men have significant influence in EV and thus, in the
larger ECM.
If during the question and answer period or anytime thereafter, someone approaches me
and says, “Jones, Pagitt, and McLaren do not represent everyone in the Emerging Church,” I
will have you promptly removed by hotel security.
THREE ESSENTIAL CONCERNS REGARDING EMERGENT VILLAGE
At Stand to Reason, four issues have formed the watershed of our concern18 with the EV and
larger ECM. Let me highlight three: 1) the cross, 2) the authority of the Bible, and 3) the
nature of truth. Of course, we are not alone in raising these concerns.19
I will not spend time here laying out and defending an evangelical position for each issue.
This has been done elsewhere. Rather, I will spend my time (very briefly) highlighting
examples of the kind of things EV leaders are saying in regards to each.
Concern #1: The Cross
My first area of concern is the cross. Here we ask questions like “What is the meaning of
the atonement?”20 and “Did Jesus actually pay for or purchase anything on the cross?” How
are EV leaders answering?
Brian McLaren addresses the cross in his book, The Story We Find Ourselves In. His
fictional character Kerry, who happens to be a seeker, asks how Jesus fits in to God’s story.
Carol, a Christian, answers with a summary of substitutionary atonement: “Well, I believe
that God sent Jesus into the world to absorb all the punishment for our sins. That’s what
the cross was all about. It was Jesus absorbing the punishment that all of us deserve. He
became the substitute for all of us. As he suffered and died, all our wrongs were paid for,
so all of us can be forgiven.”21 Kerry responds: “For starters, if God wants to forgive us,
why doesn't he just do it? How does punishing an innocent person make things better? That
just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse.
You know?”22 Surprisingly, Kerry’s “divine child abuse” analogy is not the most disturbing
aspect of McLaren’s narrative. What is is the absence of a biblically informed response from
the other characters. As the narrative continues, the legitimacy of the analogy is never
refuted, let alone examined or questioned.
Taken alone, this is worrisome. Coupled with McLaren’s endorsement of Steve Chalke’s
book, The Lost Message of Jesus, this is cause for concern. But add to these the following
account from McLaren’s book, More Ready Than You Realize, and his views on the cross are
a serious concern. So what does McLaren say there?
McLaren describes an encounter with George, a parishioner at his church. George believes
in God but, by his own admission, is “still no closer to believing in Jesus Christ” because
Jesus doesn’t make sense, particularly his death on the cross. George asks Brian, “Why did
Jesus have to die?”23 Upon hearing the question, McLaren is struck by two thoughts. First,
George seemed to be asking the question in a way McLaren had never been asked. Second,
McLaren does not think his Christian answers fit the way George is asking the question.
McLaren asks George for two weeks to think about an answer. After wrestling with the
question but finding no answer, McLaren shares the dilemma with his brother Peter saying,
“…a couple of weeks ago I realized that I don’t know why Jesus had to die.”24 His brother
quickly responded, “Well, neither did Jesus.” After citing the story of Jesus in the Garden of
Gethsemane as evidence, Peter says, “sounds to me like Jesus didn’t really understand why
it had to be that way either. But the point wasn’t understanding it; the point was doing
what needed to be done.”25
When it is time to meet with George again, McLaren recounts his brother’s answer to
George’s question, “Why did Jesus have to die?” George, while acknowledging that Brian’s
response does not answer his question, believes this is actually better than an answer and
tells Brian, “It kind of makes the question not really matter so much.” And then McLaren
concludes the account with this: “Over the next few weeks, George progressed in his faith
to the point of becoming a committed follower of Jesus.”26
Let me say three things in response. First, does McLaren actually think Jesus did not know
why he had to die? What about Matthew 20:28? “…just as the Son of Man did not come to
be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Or what about Jesus’
words to his disciples at the Last Supper? “And when He had taken a cup and given thanks,
He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.’” Surely Jesus knew why he had to
die. One cannot read the New Testament and conclude otherwise.
Second, does McLaren think one can become a “committed follower of Jesus” without
knowing why Jesus had to die? This is certainly implied in his interaction with George. But
is there not some minimal understanding needed of sin and the cross before one can place
their trust in Christ? Is not an understanding of sin inextricably bound up with repentance?
Again, I must side with the New Testament rather than McLaren.
Third, is McLaren being faithful to the gospel when a member of the flock entrusted to him
asks him why Jesus has to die and he can give no answer? How can he allow George to
walk away thinking this question doesn’t really matter that much anymore? After reading
McLaren, we are left with serious concerns regarding his view of the cross.
Concern #2: The Authority of the Bible
My second area of concern is the authority of the Bible. Here we ask questions like “Is the
Bible inerrant?”27 and “In what sense the Bible is God’s communication to us?” How are EV
leaders answering?
Well, Doug Pagitt briefly discusses his views of the Bible in his book, Re-Imagining Spiritual
Formation. Pagitt explains his church’s view of the Bible: “…we refer to the Bible as a
member of our community of faith—an essential member that must be listened to on all
matters on which it speaks. This approach is meant to strengthen rather than diminish the
Bible’s authority.”28 Alright, this is a start but we need more. Pagitt later states: “At
bottom, our trust in the Bible does not depend on information that ‘proves’ the Bible to be
credible. We believe the Bible because our hopes, ideas, experiences, and community of
faith allow and require us to believe.”29
So, according to Pagitt, viewing the Bible as a valuable member of the community
strengthens its authority. But why should we think this strengthens its authority?
According to Pagitt, the Bible is authoritative simply because the community “allows” and
“requires” it to be. But if this is the case, who then has the real authority? It is not the
Bible but the community. On Pagitt’s view, the Bible’s authority is grounded in the
community, rather than in the fact it is the very word of God. Notice, it is nothing about the
Bible itself that makes it authoritative on this view.
But, the Bible is what it is despite what one’s community says about it. Our communities do
not confer authority upon the Bible. The Bible is authoritative because of the kind of book it
is.
Sadly, rather than strengthening the authority of the Bible, Pagitt’s view actually removes
that authority.
Concern #3: The Nature of Truth
My third concern is the nature of truth. Here we ask questions like “What is truth?” and
“Does Christianity give us an accurate picture of the way the world really is, and can we
know it?” How are EV leaders answering?
First, let me be fair to them. EV leaders have addressed the issue of truth in their “Official
Response to Critics”:
“…we would like to clarify, contrary to statements and inferences made by
some, that yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth
matters – if we did not believe this, we would have no good reason to write or
speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than
anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe
that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism…”30
Certainly, evangelical knee-jerk reactions to EV discussions of truth are unhelpful and
maybe even irresponsible. But when I listen to this clarification and then I read some of
their other claims about truth, I cannot help but wonder if EV leaders are responsible for
much of the confusion on this issue. Let me demonstrate the confusion by looking at what
Pagitt says about truth: “When we talk about truth, we’re really considering two concepts:
reality (the way things are) and truth (a person’s perspective of that reality.)…No one has
access to all reality in such a way that he can conclusively call his experience and
understanding the truth.”31
Notice first how Pagitt defines truth: a person’s perspective on reality. Truth is my
perspective or my take on things. In other words, Pagitt is saying that “truth” is merely
what one believes. However, he goes on to say that “no one has access to all reality in such
a way that he can conclusively call his experience and understanding the truth.” So here he
uses the word “truth” again. But does he mean “belief” in this instance as well? Certainly
not. To see why, we simply substitute his original definition of truth for the word “truth” in
this second statement. Doing so reads like this: “No one has access to reality in such a
way that he can conclusively call his experience and understanding the belief” or “No one
has access to reality in such a way that he can conclusively call his experience and
understanding the person’s perspective of reality.” Aha. Something is wrong here. Pagitt
has equivocated on his use of the word “truth.” In one instance he uses the word truth to
mean “belief” and in the next instance he uses the word truth to mean a correspondence to
reality.
And this gets at an extremely important point when it comes to discussions of truth in EV.
When critics raise concerns about truth, it is not enough for EV leaders to say, “We believe
in truth, we believe in truth.” First, in our postmodern context, we must know what they
mean when they say truth. This is why I point people back to philosopher Scott Smith’s
book, Truth and the New Kind of Christian. Frankly, I do not think Smith’s book has gotten
enough attention in the ECM discussion. Smith provides careful analysis, with special
attention given to both Jones’s and McLaren’s view of truth.
So here is my advice. For those outside of EV or the larger ECM, a simple dismissal of
either by claiming they don’t believe in absolute truth is inadequate. To them I say read
Smith’s book. For those inside EV or the larger ECM, a simple dismissal of critics’ concerns
about truth or simply claiming to believe in truth is inadequate. To them I say read Smith’s
book…and respond to his careful critique.
III. THE MOST SERIOUS CONCERN REGARDING EMERGENT VILLAGE
Opening the Door to Unorthodoxy
Now we come to my most serious concern regarding EV and their influence on the larger
ECM: the real potential for a move away from historic Christian orthodoxy. Is there reason
to worry about the Christian orthodoxy of EV leaders?
Again, let me be fair to the leaders of EV. They certainly claim Christian orthodoxy for
themselves. Indeed, I do not claim that at this point in time, they are not orthodox in their
views. From what I have read and heard from EV, I am not sure such a claim can be
substantiated. Once again, my claim will be a more modest one. So first, let us look at
their references to Christian orthodoxy.
In Reimagining Spiritual Formation, Doug Pagitt has a section in chapter five entitled
“Avoiding Heresy,” where he deals with the following question: “…how do we handle those
times when people say things not in agreement with what the church has held to
throughout the ages? In other words, how do we handle heresy?”32 Pagitt then goes on to
describe how they answer the question in their local church community at Solomon’s Porch.
Committing themselves to “the guidance of the Holy Spirit,” they “gently call on our
Christian traditions to help clarify why a certain kind of thinking isn’t really consistent with
orthodoxy…if someone presents a position that was held in the past but has been rejected
by orthodox Christianity, then someone else who knows the issue will provide the necessary
context.”33 So certainly, taken by itself, this passage implies that Pagitt holds to some view
of Christian orthodoxy.
Tony Jones appeals to orthodoxy as well. On his blog he states, “I would judge historic
orthodoxy on the grounds of these beliefs (to name a few): humanity of Jesus, divinity of
Jesus, monotheism, trinitarianism, and inspiration of scripture.”34 Furthermore, Jones
recounts a recent visit to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
“Specifically, I was invited by the faculty of the International Center for Youth
Ministry at Boyce College, and its director, Dave Adams…
We talked non-stop from the 11am till 4pm. We found points of agreement
and points of difference. For them, it was significant that I personally affirmed
the historic, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ – in fact, when asked
point-blank whether I could affirm it, my response was something like, ‘Not
only do I affirm it, I consider it the pivot point in the entire history of the
cosmos.’”35
Given Pagitt and Jones’s appeals to Christian orthodoxy, their 2004 seminar entitled “A
New Theology for a New World” at the Emergent Convention in San Diego seems to offer a
contradictory message. In that seminar, Jones begins this way: “We do not think this [the
ECM] is about changing your worship service. We do not think this is about…how you
structure your church staff. This is actually about changing theology. This about our belief
that theology changes. The message of the gospel changes. It’s not just the method that
changes.”36
The main line of argument as far as I could tell was this: as culture changes our
understanding of God changes. There is an intersection between culture and theology and
as we get new information from culture, be it through anthropology, biological science, or
other disciplines37, our theological understandings must not merely be adjusted but
changed. This is how we do postmodern theology. According to Jones, postmodern
theology is 1) fluid – it’s moving and we hold it loosely, 2) it is local, meaning there is no
universal structure that guides the conversation for all time, and 3) it is temporary,
meaning these things are changing faster than we can keep up with them. In contrast, “In
the modern quest for universals, we tricked ourselves or deceived ourselves into thinking
that theology is universal, absolute, it’s for all time.”38
In 2005, I attended the Emergent Convention in Nashville. This same seminar was offered,
only Jones was unable to co-teach so Pagitt taught alone. In that session, Pagitt made the
same argument. He talked about the need to “re-imagine” and “reconstruct” our theology
because “we have a changing story” and “God’s story is changing." Thus, “theology is
inherently temporary” – it is “our current best guess.”
During the Q & A, I asked a clarification question to make sure I understood Pagitt’s view. I
asked if his view implied that one day we may need to reconstruct our views about the very
nature of God. For instance, the idea that Jesus is God Incarnate may actually be
completely wrong (after all, it is only our current best guess) and we would need to
reconstruct our view of Jesus and God. Here was Pagitt’s answer: “Yeah, probably. Could
be. I’m hoping it doesn’t come to that. It’s dangerous.” He went on to say that we are
already adjusting our concepts of God – there is an adjustment about who God is and what
he is like. Thus, according to Pagitt, “the Trinity is not wrong but it may not be the only
way to understand God.”39
Again, I want to be fair to Pagitt. Elsewhere, he has attempted to clarify his views. In
response to charges he denies the Trinity, Pagitt said the following in the comments section
of Jones’s blog:
[Pagitt will speak in both the first and third person here] “Also, Doug does not
not believe in the Trinity. I have tried to be clear so many times on this; the
Trinity is not something to be believed in, it is an explanation of how God
interrelates. The language of ‘not believing in something’ is far too limited. It
is fair to suggest that the third century version of how God relates is not the
most accurate in light of what we currently know...
I simply suggest that the issues that were in place that caused the concept of
the Trinity to be formed are no longer an issue. I am not suggesting a lesser
understanding of God, or God not dwelling in Christ Jesus. I am suggesting
that we not debate the Trinity – that concept did its job, rather we need to
have Christian understanding of God that fits our day as well as the Trinity fit
the third century. I am not saying it is wrong, but it is not complete. No view is complete. That
is why all belief is progressive.
Also, Doug thinks that there ought be no Dogma. There should be nothing
that is not on the table of reconsideration. We will not be able to reconsider
everything at the same time, or even think that all things need to be
reconsidered, but nothing is exempt from reconsideration.”40
At best, Pagitt is confused and contradicts himself. At worst, Pagitt will eventually displace
the Trinity in his own theology in spite of his current affirmation he does “not not believe in
the Trinity.”
And what of Jones? He seems to bristle a bit at the suggestion he is moving away from
Christian orthodoxy. In a recent blog post in which Jones responds to comments by
pastor/theologian Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, 41 Jones offers
this challenge: “…I'd like to hear how, exactly, I am moving away from orthodoxy.
Seriously. This isn't just a question for Keller, but for all who continue to say this. I can't
speak for anyone else in emergent (or Emergent Village), but I can speak for myself. I
continue to look at my theology, and to write about it, and I have not strayed from
traditional Christian orthodoxy.”42
I think Jones can be answered with his own words. Indeed, he makes a similar claim to the
one we just saw from Pagitt. In a blog post on the topic of the Trinity, Jones says the
following:
“…my point in all this is that the doctrine of the Trinity is still on the table.
Some people, it seems to me, would like for us to no longer debate certain
‘sacred’ doctrines -- the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the nature of scripture,
the nature of marriage etc. And these persons tend to get very jumpy when
emergent-types discuss these sacrae doctrinae, especially in books and at
conferences that are being taped. ‘This is dangerous,’ they say.
I say it's dangerous to stop talking about these things, and it leads to a
hegemony among those who already control the seminaries, colleges,
magazines, radio stations, conferences, publishing houses, and magazines.
We will continue to debate such things” (emphasis in the original).43
Now, if Jones wants to keep every doctrine on the table, why does he defend himself from
charges of unorthodoxy? If he wants to remain orthodox, every doctrine cannot remain on
the table of reconsideration. Orthodoxy is limited by its very nature. To hold to some bare
essentials of orthodoxy (no matter how bare they are) just means there is a limit to what
you can believe and still call yourself orthodox.
Listen to me closely. I am not saying that Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt are unorthodox at
this moment in time. I am not saying they will inevitably become unorthodox. I hope they
do not. What I am saying is this: the door to unorthodoxy is now open. And given
their argument for the reconstruction of theology, I cannot see any in-principle way Jones
and Pagitt can close that door.
Spencer Burke and the Future of Emergent Village
Let us turn our attention to a new name: Spencer Burke. If you are not familiar with Burke
you can find a recounting of his story from conservative Evangelicalism into the ECM in the
book, Stories of Emergence. Burke has been a recognized leader in the ECM. He is cofounder
of TheOoze.com, an online community. He is the author of a book entitled Making
Sense of Church, released under Youth Specialties’ Emergent line of books. He is the host
of an event called “Soularize: A Learning Party,” which his press kit claims “is the original
postmodern/emergent annual conference.”44 In addition, he has been a featured speaker at
past Emergent Conventions.
Recently, Spencer Burke’s newest book, A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, was released. It is
aptly named. Now, before I discuss Burke’s main claims, allow me to wonder out loud with
you: Does Burke’s book give us a glimpse of the possible future of EV? Is Burke an
example of what EV’s open door to unorthodoxy will ultimately lead to? Who or what in EV
can and will stop such a slide? Let us look at Burke’s argument.
In the introduction, Burke frames his discussion this way: “At this point in our history, I
believe God is to be questioned as much as obeyed, created again and not simply
worshipped. Our views must be continually revised, reconsidered, and debated.”45 Thus,
Burke believes we need heretics to move us forward and proclaim new views. But make no
mistake. Burke is not calling us to move farther up and further in. He clearly states, “I am
not merely seeking to put a new spin on old beliefs; I am actually declaring that there are
new ways of believing when it comes to the Christian story.”46
Later, Burke argues the Christian view of God has evolved through history, it has
progressed, that nothing in religion stays the same.47 Why? Because “Our religions are
practiced within our cultural horizons, not outside of them.”48 For Burke, culture is the
driving force behind our changing views. This line of argument sounds identical to Jones
and Pagitt’s in their workshop, “A New Theology for a New World.”
Burke then goes on to outline his new views. In short, Burke claims he is a universalist, a
panentheist, and denies the personhood of God saying, “I’m not sure I believe in God
exclusively as a person anymore either.”49 There is much more we could say about this
book. But rather than offer more of my own critique, I defer to someone within the ECM.
Here is Scot McKnight’s sobering assessment of Burke:
“…I have to say the following — and I don’t do so with anything but sadness.
The emerging movement is proud of creating a safe environment for people
to think and to express their doubts. Partly because of what I do for a living
(teach college students), I am sympathetic to the need for such safe
environments. But, having said that, the emerging movement has also been
criticized over and over for not having any boundaries. Frankly, some of the
criticism is justified. I want to express my dismay today over what I think is
crossing the boundaries. I will have to be frank; but I have to be fair. Here’s
how I see this book’s theology as a Christian theologian. The more I ponder
what Spencer does in this book, the more direct I have become...
Is Spencer a “heretic”? He says he is, and I see no reason to think he believes
in the Trinity from reading this book. That’s what heresy means to me. Denial
of God’s personhood flies in the face of everything orthodox. To say that you
believe in the creedal view of God as Father, Son, and Spirit and deny
“person” is to deny the Trinitarian concept of God.
Is Spencer a “Christian”? He says he is. What is a Christian? Is it not one who
finds redemption through faith in Christ, the one who died and who was
raised? If so, I see nothing in this book that makes me think that God’s grace
comes to us through the death and resurrection of Christ. Grace seems to be
what each person is “born into” in Spencer’s theses in this book. That means
that I see no reason in this book to think Spencer believes in the gospel as
the NT defines gospel (grace as the gift of God through Christ by faith).”
McKnight rightly points out some things are not left on the table for reconsideration. He
closes with this admonition: “Spencer, you’re a good guy. But I have to say this to you: Go back to
church. Go back to the gospel of Jesus — crucified and raised. Let the whole
Bible shape all of your theology. Listen to your critics. Integrate a robust
Christology, a robust death-and-resurrection gospel, and a full Trinitarian
theology back into your guide to eternity.”50
My sincere hope is that McKnight will not have to offer the same correction to the leaders of
EV in the near or very far off future.
Now, once again, let me be fair to Jones, et al. The leaders of EV do not hold all of Burke’s
views, nor endorse all of them. Jones has issued the following caveat regarding Burke:
“Spencer is in the emerging church, in a broader sense, but he is not in the leadership of
Emergent Village. I count him as a friend, but that does not mean that I endorse everything
that he says or writes. The same goes for others in emergent.”51 However, I wish Jones
would say more. I wish someone within EV would say more but at this point, I have yet to
hear any EV leader raise even one concern with Burke’s heretical views. Why, when such a
prominent voice in the ECM has put forth such ideas, has no one in EV responded?
Lest I be charged with making some argument from silence, let me offer this: far from
raising concerns, Brian McLaren endorses Burke’s book. In the foreword, McLaren states,
“even in a book with ‘heretic’ in the title, I believe any honest reader can find much truth
worth seeking.”52 Which truths is McLaren referring to? Burke’s views on the personhood of
God? Burke’s views on the nature of the gospel? We don’t know and he doesn’t say.
Rather, McLaren leaves “you to figure out what that is when you turn the page and read
what’s been fermenting in Spencer’s and Barry’s hearts.”53 In the absence of the slightest
concerns raised over Burke’s book, McLaren’s endorsement is worrisome. Indeed, the
potential for EV to drift toward Burke’s unorthodox views is of serious concern.
IV. CONCLUDING PASTORAL CONCERNS
Two Stories
Let me conclude with two stories that demonstrate my pastoral concerns with all of this. At
the 2005 Emergent Convention, the structure of the sessions allowed for a tremendous
amount of group interaction. In a session on the nature of truth, we were given the
opportunity to dialogue in smaller groups, what the organizers called “Learning
Communities,” about the topic at hand. As we began to talk about truth in my small group,
the young man sitting right next to me began making sweeping claims. “All truth is
relative,” “No one can claim to know absolute truth,” and such. I engaged him in
conversation and was able to raise some questions in his mind about his views of truth. He
was very responsive. However, I was very concerned.
A second story. After Pagitt’s seminar at the 2005 Emergent Convention, a young man
approached me and asked, “Are you rethinking the deity of Christ?” He had connected my
clarification question to Doug with the possibility I may be re-thinking this orthodox view.
“No, no,” I responded, taken back a bit. He then went on to explain to me that he was
indeed beginning to re-think the deity of Christ. At one point in the conversation he argued,
“The Bible doesn’t even use the word ‘Trinity.’” After a few minutes, he left me and went to
ask Pagitt a question. Again, I was very concerned. These two young men demonstrate my pastoral concern here. Are they representative of
the majority of participants in the ECM conversation or even those who participated in the
convention? I have no way of knowing. But they did connect their ideas to the teaching
and training they had received at the Emergent Convention. And while McLaren, Jones, and
Pagitt may not be prone to these errors at this particular time, I wonder if the confusion of
these young men is any way reflective of the potential for confusion – confusion on very
important matters.
Am I open to the ECM conversation? Absolutely. These discussions are helpful and
important. But having a conversation is much different than teaching and training future
church leaders. And to the degree the leaders of Emergent Village are leading the larger
Emerging Church Movement and impacting the Church’s futures leaders, I will continue to
raise these concerns.
© 2006 Brett Kunkle by permission of Stand to Reason Page 11 of 15
www.theresurgence.com
*Originally presented at the Evangelical Theological Society’s Annual Meeting in
Washington D.C. November 15-17, 2006
Notes:
1 Tony Jones, “The State of Emergent 2006,” Next-Wave E-Zine (January 2006). This article
can be found here: http://www.the-next-waveezine.
info/issue85/index.cfm?id=8&ref=COVERSTORY
2 From the back cover of Eddie Gibbs & Ryan K. Bolger’s book, Emerging Churches:
Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2005).
3 However, I would not count Carson’s book as one of them.
4 Leaders within the ECM identify its missional emphasis as such. According to Dan Kimball,
“That is also why you see diversity among emerging churches that are Baptist or Lutheran
etc. as the common link among emerging churches is a missional mindset” (Dan Kimball.
“Origin of the terms ‘Emerging’ and ‘Emergent’ church – Part 1.” Vintage Faith Weblog.
April 20, 2006. http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/04/origin_of_the_t.html).
Scot McKnight distinguishes between the attractional emphasis of many Evangelical
churches and the missional emphasis of Emerging Churches by describing the latter this
way: “…it does not invite people to church but instead wanders into the world as the
church” (in a paper entitled “What is the Emerging Church?” presented at Westminster
Theological Seminary on October 26, 2006, on page 21, found here:
http://www.foolishsage.com/wp-content/uploads/McKnight%20-
%20What%20is%20the%20Emerging%20Church.pdf).
5 My comments here are probably the result of my frustration with Brian McLaren’s selfadmitted
bad habit of doing just that in his book, A Generous Orthodoxy.
6 Scot McKnight, “What is the Emerging Church?” WTS paper, page 30.
7 Author of the book, The Emerging Church (Zondervan), and pastor of Vintage Faith Church
(http://www.vintagechurch.org/) in Santa Cruz, California.
8 Dan Kimball, “Origin of the terms…”
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/04/origin_of_the_t.html.
9 Gibbs & Bolger, Emerging Churches, 44.
10 The mission of Leadership Network is “to identify, connect and help high-capacity
Christian leaders multiply their impact (http://www.leadnet.org/about_OurMission.asp).
11 Dan Kimball, “Origin of the terms…”
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/04/origin_of_the_t.html.
12 Dan Kimball, “Origin of the terms…”
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/04/origin_of_the_t.html.
13 See http://emergentvillage.org/about/, under the section entitled “Organization”
14 See http://emergentvillage.org/about-information/leadership.
15 See http://www.emergentvillage.com/about-information/board-of-directors.
16 You can find it here:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/files/response2critics.pdf.
17 Scot McKnight, “What is the Emerging Church?” WTS paper, page 3.
18 Greg Koukl. “A Tale of Two Emergents.” Stand to Reason Weblog. September 14, 2005.
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2005/09/tale_of_two_eme.html.
19 Justin Taylor. “An Emerging Church Primer.” 9Marks online article. You can find the
article here:http://www.9marks.com/CC/article/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID2249226,00.h
tml.
20 Let us be clear on one point: substitutionary atonement is not the whole story of the
cross. It is necessary but not sufficient to capture the wonder of Christ’s work at Calvary.
21 Brian McLaren, The Story We Find Ourselves In (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 101.
22 Ibid., 102.
23 Brian McLaren, More Ready Than You Realize (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 80.
24 Ibid., 81.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid., 82.
27 Again, let us be clear on this issue: inerrancy is necessary but not sufficient to account
for the Bible’s authority.
28 Doug Pagitt, Re-Imagining Spiritual Formation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003),
122.
29 Ibid., 123.
30 Jones, et al. “Our Response to Critics of Emergent.” Found here:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/files/response2critics.pdf.
31 Doug Pagitt, Preaching Re-Imagined (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 136.
32 Doug Pagitt, Reimagining Spiritual Formation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 90.
33 Ibid.
34 Tony Jones. “Keller on Emergent.” Theoblogy Weblog. October 5, 2006.
http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2006/10/keller-on-emergent.html.
35 Tony Jones. “My Day at SBTS.” Theoblogy Weblog. December 15, 2005.
http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2005/12/my-day-at-sbts.html
36 Doug Pagitt & Tony Jones. “A New Theology for a New World.” A workshop for the 2004
Emergent Convention in San Diego, CA. The audio recording of this seminar can be
purchased through PSI, Inc. at 1-800-808-8273 or via the web at:
http://sf1000.registeredsite.com/%7euser1006646/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=BASK&Stor
e_Code=YS-SD&Action=ADPR&Product_Code=NS05-057CD&Attributes=Yes&Quantity=1.
37 Jones and Pagitt cite nanotechnology as a specific example.
38 Pagitt & Jones. “A New Theology for a New World.” This quote begins at 00:37:37.
© 2006 Brett Kunkle by permission of Stand to Reason Page 15 of 15
www.theresurgence.com
39 Doug Pagitt. “A New Theology for a New World.” A workshop for the 2005 Emergent
Convention in Nashville, TN. The audio recording of this seminar can be purchased through
PSI, Inc. at 1-800-808-8273 or via the web at:
http://sf1000.registeredsite.com/~user1006646/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_
Code=YS-SD&Product_Code=NS05-057CD&Category_Code=.
40 Doug Pagitt. “Also, Doug does…” December 29, 2004. “De Trinitate” Tony Jones.
Theoblogy Weblog. December 29, 2004. http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2004/12/detrinitate.
html.
41 Jones indicates the comments were made during a Q & A session of Desiring God’s 2006
national conference entitled, “Above All Earthly Powers: the Supremacy of Christ in a
Postmodern World,” September 29-October 1, 2006. Audio recordings of the session are
available here: http://www.desiringgod.org/Events/NationalConferences/Archives/2006/.
42 Tony Jones. “Keller on Emergent.” Theoblogy Weblog. October 5, 2006.
http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2006/10/keller-on-emergent.html.
43 Tony Jones. “De Trinitate.” Theoblogy Weblog. December 29, 2004.
http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2004/12/de-trinitate.html.
44 See Spencer Burke’s press kit: http://spencerburke.com/pdf/presskit.pdf.
45 Spencer Burke with Barry Taylor, A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity (San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 2006), xxii.
46 Ibid., xxiv-xxv.
47 Ibid., 42-43.
48 Ibid., 43.
49 Ibid., 195.
50 Scot McKnight’s. “A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity 4.” The Jesus Creed. August 8, 2006.
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1319.
51 Tony Jones. “Spencer is in…” Theoblogy Weblog. Tony Jones. “Keller on Emergent.”
Thursday, October 5. 2006. http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2006/10/keller-onemergent.
html.
52 Burke, A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, x.
53 Ibid.