A number of people have asked me what I think of the interview between Doug Pagitt and Ingrid Schleuter, she of the newly re-imagined Slice of Laodicea website, sworn enemy of all things emerging church.
First, I know Ingrid isn't hiding her position on the Emerging Church at all...
Postmodernism’s war against the meaning of words came through loud and clear today. Yet ironically, the emergents use words to undermine the Word. They are inconsistent. If words can’t mean anything authoritatively, why are these guys writing so many books? Why do words mean something when Pagitt or McLaren undermines basic biblical doctrine, but not when a Bible-believing Christian shares the fact that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”? At bottom, the emergents believe very much in the power of words. Without them, they could not do the work of destroying confidence in the Word of God. With their endless questionings of basic teachings like original sin, a literal hell, etc. they chip, chip, chip away at the faith and beliefs of Christian young people. They use “great swelling words” of wisdom, as the Book of Jude describes, but are clouds without rain.
and I am amazed that Doug doesn't seem to have known who this top-ten emerging church enemy is (though in some ways, that's actually kind of nice, if you think about it...), but at minimum a Google search previous to appearing on the program probably would have been wise... and probably would have provided enough info to at least suggest that this isn't the nice, book-plugging interview that Ingrid wanted Doug to think it was. Yeah- I think Ingrid was a bit tricky with this one- calling Doug's book "fascinating" in the beginning of the interview and not at least giving him the courtesy of a bit of back story of her involvement in harshly critiquing both him and the emerging church in general. I may be wrong, but it seems this was an ambush. I think Ingrid's questioning showed her true colors as the interview went on, but still...
To let Doug speak without knowing that he would be not only critiqued but mocked afterwards was dirty pool. Doug deserved to know to whom he was speaking, I think...
But, the last time I was with Doug, I told him something that had been on my mind for awhile...
I saw a quote awhile ago by John Updike that said something along the lines of "In a family, even exaggerations are understood."
That really resonated with me. See, I get Doug. Not that I
understand everything he says, or even agree with everything he says.
But man, I love the guy and time after time I find that when I hear
something out of his mouth that at first blush makes me say "Whaaa???",
if I give it a moment, run it through the grid of other things I know
Doug thinks/believe, I find that I get what he's saying, and generally
like it.
In other words, I give Doug the benefit of the doubt.
Problem is, not everyone does. And one of the biggest problems (if you can call it that) with guys as smart/sharp as Doug, or Brian McLaren, is that they are very hesitant to tell people what they don't believe. I think it probably seems like a waste of time and a potentially endless endeavor to start talking about what I DON'T believe.
But when you take the huge smartness of these guys, combine it with
a desire not to waste time talking about what they don't think AND THEN
add on a very irenic spirit, I see where some people might come away
with some misconceptions about what these guys think. Personally, I
think descriptions of Doug or Brian as "squishy" and relativistic are
completely bogus. I understand (somewhat) where people who say things
like that are coming from, but I think they're not listening hard
enough.
For example, I hear in this interview Doug specifically
responding to the idea that all religions basically boil down to the
"shades of the same color" and saying he disagrees with that thought.
The problem is, he's trying to be as nice as he can in saying so, and
so gets tagged as "jello" and "confused" by people like Ingrid.
And if there's anything Doug is not, it's jello... or "confused." But... you have to be smart enough to know how people are going to use (and MIS-use) your words, intuit where you might be misunderstood, and speak to it- say things like "Now, what I DON'T mean by that is..."
I sense a great unwillingness to do that at times.
I would love, love, LOVE to see Doug and others speak apophatically,
that is, to spend a bit more time with negative constructions, speaking
about what the implications of their thoughts are not.
Because
honestly, most of the time when I hear people critiquing the emerging
church, they aren't even criticizing something that was actually said,
but rather some inferences from something that was actually said (Phil
Johnson's latest broadside on Dan Kimball being a great example),
inferences which the speaker most likely never meant to imply.
So, all that being said, I liked what Doug had to say.
I hear him stating a basically CS Lewisian view that some truth is found everywhere, even other religions. Doug denies, however that all religions are the same and equally true. He also affirms the uniqueness of Christ with his definition of the Gospel, which I loved, by the way. I love his "5 word, 50 word and 500 word " idea ... I think this is born out ALL OVER scripture... you see many formulations of the Gospel, some extremely short "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" or "Repent for the Kingdom is at hand" and some much longer and much more detailed (like 1 Cor 15 or the entire Book of Romans).
The formulation I use for my "5 word" Gospel (even though it's a bit longer...and ripped off from Tim Keller) is "The Gospel is the Good News that God Himself has come to rescue and renew all of creation through the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf."
Doug's 5 word version is: "God's invitation, through Jesus, for people to participate in what God is doing in the world." I think that is fantastic FOR A 5 WORD VERSION. It contains the same basic concept as mine, but even shorter. No, there's nothing in there about sin, repentance of forgiveness. But let me remind you, neither are those exact words contained in "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will saved."
But see, if you are looking to nail Doug and find fault with his theology, you'll definitely have a problem with that statement (as Ingrid does). And if you actually understand what he's saying about 5 word, 50 word and 500 word Gospels, you'll get it too- but not if you expect that 5 word formulation to do all the work of a 500 word, and that's exactly what Ingrid and Co. do.
I plan on interacting with the book more soon... I do have some concerns. In the meantime, see Dustin's review on Next Wave.
