The New Christians

     

And now, in non-Pagan Christianity news...

I'm really enjoying Tony Jones' new book The New Christians. I had a bit of trepidation on picking this up- I wasn't sure if I'd get treated to another late 90's, early 2000's version of "Here's what the post-modern shift is all about!" And while there are elements of that here, it's really the next stage in that discussion- describing the Left-Right polarity in America ad in Western Christianity and how emerging church folk are trying to work past that:

"So these two boxers, "Liberal" and "Conservative," tired, bedraggled and lacking enough power to land any more punches, come back to the center of the ring for the next round of their eternal match, and they can do little more than grasp at each other, wrap each other up. There's a lot of clutching and grabbing, and an occasional shouting match on Larry King Live, or Hardball with Chris Matthews. The referee can't separate them, and neither of them has enough strength to land the winning blow. But they keep fighting.
Meanwhile, a generation of Christians aren't even boxing anymore. They're flying kites. They've entered an entirely different conception of what game we're really playing. They've opted out of the boxing match between liberal and conservative. They're finding a third way between the bipolar strife that has racked our churches and our society."

It's good writing, some good storytelling and some good challenges to those on both sides of the Left/Right spectrum, followed by discussions of theology, post-objectivity and truth.

The only thing that bothers me (and Tony and I have been around this bush before, so I won't go into it too much) is that with this book all vestiges of "emerging" are gone. It's now "Emergents," "Emergent Christianity" and "Emergent Church."
I've often thought that a too-strong tie between Emergent Village (the organization) and the emerging church (the overall movement) was a net-negative in that it made a small group of folks the de-facto spokespeople for us all, and subjected everyone who wanted to be along for the ride to endless confusion between EV and everyone else and between what we actually thought and what critics thought Brian McLaren (and others) thought.
Whew.
My hope was that Emergent Village would change their name, or at least settle for talking about the "emerging church" so as to avoid the appearance of branding, but...

Anyway- it seems like a really engaging book, one that I'm looking forward to working through.

I think you should check it out.

Comments

[josh]

i have a strong hunch that tony purposefully chose the language of emergent over emerging church. especially after he took 4 or 5 asides on that one page defining the various terms.

i personally think it's a great distinction to make. as the group that tony is a part of and his specific experience is EV. i also think that the "spirit of emergent" is much more comprehensive in it's nature. this is in no way to poo-poo on "emerging church" but there are many of us who feel like the word has been co-opted by those who aren't as willing to "do the theological work" as they are in looking for a trendy fix. i know that's a gross overstatement. but i think that in many ways tony might be trying to reclaim the word. because "emerging church" means a thousand things to a thousand different people. and a 60 year old pastor can start an "emerging church" service if he has a few candles lit or serves starbucks out of a vat before the service. which i think is far removed from the spirit of what emergent is and wants to be. which is less about changing or dressing up the "forms" and instead working through the theological foundations.

to that end, thats why i think tony spends a great deal of time describing the history of emergent. and making the distinction early on of the "split" between the two camps at leadership network. with the one being more concerned with dressing up church for gen x and the other wanting to explore the waters of theological foundations.

as an example, i know ed stetzer well. and i absolutely love the guy. but what he's doing within the sbc under the banner of "emerging church" with methods is drastically different than what most "emergents" are doing with these sorts of large, comprehensive, integrative approaches to theology and practice. again . . . i know it's a gross overstatement.

i don't think "emergents" are any way trying to hinder or poo-poo the "emerging church" stream. but let's be honest, they are two totally different groups doing two totally different things. and will in all likelihood have two different outcomes.

i've got a friend who says he's "emerging church" but he's not in any way at all interested in social, economic, political, theological, or relational work. he's interested in boosting the numbers of his "contemporary" service so that he can break away from his pastor and start his own deal. he uses "emerging church" because it's trendy and doesn't require a lot of work.

that's a far different picture than what an "emergent" might be doing.

again, i know most "emerging church" guys (and they are mostly guys on this side of the stream) aren't as shallow as my friend. but they're are a growing number of people jumping on that on-ramp of shallow, quick fixes. and in that vein, i think it's a proper and important distinction for tony to make as what he is describing and moving towards is drastically different.

[Bob Hyatt]

Well- that's a really interesting take.
Hadn't thought of it in those terms before... thanks for taking the time!

[Bob Hyatt]

Of course, I wrote this for Next Wave (later published in Out of The Ooze). It was really meant to say to those guys who just want to light a couple of candles and turn down the lights- there's not just methodological work to be done, but philosophical (ministry philosophy) and theological as well and to the degree that you engage in that, you should claim that label of "emerging."

It was written about 2-3 years ago and might not describe the reality on the ground then, but...

[josh]

i remember that article. in hindsight, it seems like some of the 3 categories people might have borrowed from your list. did driscoll give you a hat tip?

[ryan]

I think your point is well taken bob. The distinction does need to be made for the sake of clarity. Maybe its time for you to write a book on the matter...

[Bob Hyatt]

All in all, I really cringe at the distinctions...

BUT...

the shorthand way of distinguishing Lutheran from, say Catholic Christians is helpful- there are real differences, after all...

I wish it weren't necessary, though

[Tony Jones]

Bob,

Reading your review of Pagan Christianity, I was nervous about when you'd get around to my book (even though I have a problem with the very let's-get-back-to-the-2nd-chapter-of-Acts-church mentality that you found in that book). I'm glad you like it so far, and I'll look forward to your thoughts (positive and negative) in coming days.

The terminology was tough, and I went round and round with editors and friends on what to do. In the end, I chose to go with "emergent" for three reasons:

1) It's what I'm a part of, and it's what I know. Yes, it's narrower than "emerging," and that's OK with me. I didn't want to be accused of misrepresenting the broader category.

2) I hope that my book will be read by a broader group than those who know these internecine disputes. My editor prevailed upon me that moving back and forth between "emerging" and "emergent" would be, in her words, "too insider" and thus confusing.

3) What Josh wrote above. I find "emerging" to be so broad and watered down as to be virtually meaningless. Plus, the MSM has gravitated toward "emergent" in their coverage, so it seems to be the label that is sticking (for now).

I realize that these won't satisfy you, but at least you'll know where I'm coming from. Maybe in heaven we'll all just be "Christians," but until then, labels prevail...

[Julie Clawson]

I'm really interested to see what Tony's use of "emergent church" does for the term. So far when I've heard that term used (as opposed to "emerging church") it is generally used by people who have little understanding of the whole conversation are are trying to ridicule/discredit it by saying stuff like we are a denomination that worships Rob Bell and Brian McLaren. I like the label, and would like to see it used positively from the inside as opposed to its current negative use by "outsiders."

[Bob Hyatt]

Hey Tony- thanks for stopping in- actually, I think what you and Josh have written here about the terminology does make a lot of sense.
I think maybe doing some things different in that regard 3 or 4 years ago would have been helpful, but with where things are at (which you just did a great job of summarizing) I can see how your choice of wording makes perfect sense...

[Helen]

I chose to go with "emergent" for three reasons:

1) It's what I'm a part of, and it's what I know. Yes, it's narrower than "emerging," and that's OK with me. I didn't want to be accused of misrepresenting the broader category.

That would have been my guess - writing about what you know makes most sense. I expect you'll be criticized enough already without adding onto that 'emerging' Christians who accuse you of misrepresenting them.

Maybe in heaven we'll all just be "Christians,"

Tony, I know you didn't really mean that.

[tony jones]

Helen,

I meant that labels will no longer apply.

[Helen]

Thanks Tony.

[lisa c]

Great review, Bob - discussing the hunger to get past the binary is such a welcome shift