Ingrid and Doug...

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.

Comments

[todd]

Thanks for a great post, Bob. Your insight into the people involved and the discussion itself are right on. I always enjoy reading your perspective, and usually find myself saying, "yeah, that's right." Keep it up!

[Helen]

Hey I ran across a 'define the Kingdom of God in 5 words' challenge recently - I wonder if it was Pagitt inspired. This is the first time I'd heard of Doug Pagitt's 5 word challenge.

Here's the post:

Kingdom of God challenge

Bob, as to why McLaren and Pagitt don't talk about what they don't believe - do you think it's because they are trying to move away from the obsession over propositional belief which pervades the traditional evangelical church? I think it might be.

In the Great Commission what was Jesus' instruction? Literally "disciple the nations". I.e. train them to be my followers. Not - add propositional truth to their minds so they can be more right than everyone else.

My own opinion is - as long belief is held as pre-eminent, by making it the condition for eternal life, the church risks seriously missing the point.

Ingrid is all about propositional truth. Was Jesus? Did he come so everyone could be 'right'? Did he die for that? Is the greatest commandment 'be right'?

Hey I'm just asking ;-)

[bob]

I'm not going to get into all the debate over "propositional" vs whatever.

I will just say that Doug believes in truth. I know he does.
And I also know he DIS-believes in certain things.

What I see him get criticized for generally is not what he believes, but what someone THINKS he believes. Since that is the case, it would serve him and others like him to clear a couple of those misconceptions off the deck by, when speaking positively about what they DO believe, taking a minute or two to rule out some of the implications that people often erroneously infer.

I think Doug, Tony, Brian, Chris Seay and Andrew Jones did this in their "Statement to Critics". It was good, containing both positive and negative statements of belief "We DO believe such and such", "We DON'T believe such and such."

They also make this interesting statement: "Fourth, we respect the desire and responsibility of our critics to warn those under their care about ideas that they consider wrong or dangerous, and to keep clear boundaries to declare who is "in" and "out" of their circles. These boundary-keepers have an important role which we understand and respect."

Finally, belief will always be held pre-eminent as the condition for eternal life. Because it is :)
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

[Helen]

Thanks Bob.

You probably know more about all those guys than me. If you're saying, why don't they just speak out more often about what they do/don't believe, to minimize misunderstanding? - then I understand your point.

I did hear Brian say at the 2007 Off The Map conference "If you're not kind, you're not right". I was glad he said that. I live more by "Jesus isn't mean" than "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". But then I'm almost an atheist so what do I know? ;-)

[Doug Pagitt]

Hey Bob, one of the issues with going on about what one does not mean is that there is no end to it. How do you stop saying "what I don't mean is..."
The only meaningful way to do it is to respond to a persons request, so when someone says, "are you saying..." then a response makes sense.

There are many times in the interview where I said what I didn't think was right - Original depravity, that kind of thing, but that was not the concern of the listener.

Truth be that if someone is looking to prove a point with their questions then you are at the mercy of that person. They set the agenda. But being manipulated and mis-quoted isn't the worse thing in the world. It is kind of what happened to Jesus and it allows "those who ears to hear".
So, the reason for going on shows like that is not to make more clear statements about things, for the clarity and truthfulness is the furthest thing from what is important for the host.
The reason for going on is to constantly extend openness and possibility to all, even "stated enemies". In this we can try to love God, our neighbors and enemies by treating them all the same.

[bob]

I hear you Doug...

I realize it may seem like an endless quagmire. I think, though, that certain people like Ingrid have specific wrong inferences that they have drawn, so it's not necessarily an endless thing, maybe just something that feels endless to respond to those specific inferences.

I think you can extend your enemies a courtesy by giving them the gift of informed dissent- that is, they're going to crucify you anyway, right? So at least help them to do it on the basis of something you actually believe :)

[Helen]

Doug wrote: for the clarity and truthfulness is the furthest thing from what is important for the host.

I'm not 100% sure what this means. I can't figure out any meaning of it which fits with your next statement about showing 'love' to 'stated enemies'. If you're saying Ingrid doesn't care about clarity and truthfulness I'm sure she does, so that is unfair. Just because she disagrees with you doesn't mean she cares less about truth than you.

But maybe that's not what you meant - as I said, I'm not sure what you did mean.

[Rick]

"Benefit of the doubt" is so huge and so missing from what's become "that side", isn't it? I'm right with Bob on hearing some things, going "HUH??" and then filtering it out and going "well, you know, that's not half bad".

[Makeesha]

I agree with Bob and Doug, how's that for a liberal emergent answer ;)

Bob- my husband David, a communications guy is doing a series on his blog about communication in the "church" and makes the point about the meaning lying with the listener/receiver and if we want to be understood we can't just think about what we want to say we have to think about what we want to be heard...

however, Doug, as you said, this can end in quagmire and I personally think you handled Ingrid very well, since she wasn't going to "hear" what you were saying anyway. It WAS an ambush and was inexcusable. I'm sure she feels justified but it was a sad display of "take that-ism".

In the end, you were the better man, taking the higher road and the narrower path. She was shown to be a bully, you were shown to be open and respectful.

..and anyone who has ears to hear will hear what you said.

So that's all I have to say about that hehe.

[ken]

Helen,

I think what Doug meant (correct me if I am wrong, Doug) was that she wasn't there "for clarity and truthfulness" with regards to the emerging church. It wasn't her intention to have a two-sided discussion with an exchange of ideas.

She believes that she is seeking (or sees with) clarity and truthfulness and that the emerging church is misguided at the very least.

She seems to believe that it is her Christian imperative to expose the evil that she believes the emerging church is. It is hard to see the other's point of view with clarity and truthfulness when this is your starting point.

I mean no disrespect to her. I actually come from a similar background where you define your beliefs and church by what you are not (non-denominational...). I find it sad that some christians require legalism in order to be a christian. But I like Doug's attempts at loving his "enemy" (a position chosen by her not necesarily labeled by Doug). This is something I forget in the heat of the discussion at times and respect Doug for it.

[Helen]

Thanks for your response Ken.

Yes, I see that Ingrid interviewed Doug in order to illustrate her view of the Emerging Church, which is that it lacks truth and clarity. And that the reason she did that is because she does care about truth and clarity, based on her definition of them. And she's not open to finding them in the Emerging Church.

I've run across a number of people who believe it's their Christian imperative to expose false teaching. I was one myself for a little while.

[ken]

I don't think you meant that we shouldn't expose false teachers at all. I believe in exposing false teaching. But I think that some take it on as a career, which I don't see as Biblical. Many confuse different ways of worship with doctrine. I try to be slow to call someone a false teacher for this reason. Am I against this person because they are leading others away from salvation and God or simply because I don't like the way they do things? That can be a tricky question to answer at times.

[iggy]

Bob,

You could hear the "set up" and Doug would miss it... Ingrid would ask, "what do you base truth on" (or something on that line of thought) Doug would give his 2 minute dissertation on the question and in it say, ....Scripture... history... tradition... experience..." and Ingrid would not acknowledge he said scripture and ask again... she was phishing for him to say "the bible" and when he did not give the "answer"... (even though he did) she would ask again... I stopped about 5 minutes in as it was just to painful to listen to Doug trust her and knowing she was just setting him up...

It just goes to show the true integrity of those people... and I still think we need to realize they are not concerned for the lost... they are trying to convert the saved... in that I think if we realize they are doing that... we can reach out to the lost while they aim at us... I say let them... and continue preaching the Kingdom. If they are not reaching the lost them they are not harming anyone but themselves... as most people have no clue who SOL or AP or CRN are... or even care.

Blessings,
iggy