Len Sweet on Emergent...

From a back issue of Relevant...

“I am both an absolutist and a relativist,” he [Len Sweet] says. “You can’t escape absolutism. To say there are no absolutes is in itself absolute. The Pharisees were the absolutists. Pilate [was] the relativist, asking ‘What is truth?’ I find both of them within me. But both the Pharisees and Pilate stared truth in the face and didn’t see or hear it.”
 
The tricky part with truth, he says, is how it resonates with people.
 
“I believe in absolute truth, but the New Testament presents a new understanding of absolute,” Sweet answers. “Fundamentally, truth is relational. Absolute truth is Jesus, God’s perfect pitch—His tuning fork to the eternal. Every tuning fork needs to be struck to be heard. The striking of the eternal, unchanging tuning fork took place on Good Friday with the pounding of six-inch nails.
 
“This is the real reason I fear that Emergent may be losing its way,” Sweet continues. “It isn’t striking that tuning fork nearly enough. Jesus said, ‘If I be lifted up, I will draw all people to God.’ We sit at drawing boards, trying to design all sorts of blueprints and experiences to draw people to church and to God, while Jesus Himself is the draw. It’s all about truth, which means it’s all about Jesus.”

I think he nails it. When we start talking more about life in the way of Jesus than Jesus Himself, we're in trouble. When we nod at the many facets of Jesus' atoning work on the cross, but emphasize only one (whether that be emphasizing only His example or His victory OR emphasizing only the substitutionary aspect) we're missing some things that are essential.

Like I say, Len nails it.  What say you all? (Sorry for the O'Reillyism)

Comments

[Mak]

I'd like to hear what this means for you as a pastor working with your people to shape a community - - this all sounds well and good but I'd like some examples about why he and you think that emergent is missing the "jesus as center" thing and what should we be doing to make this happen?

I don't like nice sounding catchy paragraphs like this that don't really say a whole lot.

[Bob Hyatt]

In my mind, this is applicable to the emerging church as a whole, not just Emergent Village...

People need to know who Jesus is/what Jesus did for us, not just who He asked us to be. It's a both/and... and my fear is that in trying to swing the pendulum from an evangelical obsession with the former, the EC often ends up swinging it towards a post-evangelical obsession with the latter...

[Mak]

where do these fears come from? can you cite anything cuz I don't get that impression.

and can you explain to me how one would "fix" this? what does it mean to communicate who Jesus is?

I'm asking sincerely, I'm interested in your answer because as I said - it sounds real nice to say we need to focus on who Jesus is but what does that mean really?

[Aaron Stewart]

I have no idea what he's trying to say by this

"Fundamentally, truth is relational."

[Nate]

Bob, good post and good questions raised. I know how it might be too easy to swing too far the other way. If Jesus.truth, is relational and embodied, is it not though a danger to merely talk about it. I know this isn't what all evangelicals do, but it seems to me that there is a frustration that the EC simply doesn't talk about Jesus enough.

Is it possible that in the world we live in, people are becoming increasingly turned away because we come at them talking? We start saying things like church, christianity, christ, etc... and they (perhaps mistakenly) know what's coming. If we believe that the Spirit in us allows us to be Jesus' continued physical presence today, isn't consistently living in the way of Jesus a good start... one that doesn't scare people off?

I know... both/and, both/and... (I'm hearing that a lot these days) If it is both/and, then perhaps we don't need to critique the two poles, just live in the middle... thanks for the invitation to that place.

[Joey Davis]

No Smoking!!!

[Bob Hyatt]

I do want to live in the middle- that's a great way to put it.
My sense is that one good thing the emerging church movement has definitely accomplished is to push mainstream evangelicalism back towards action, toward "embodiment."

I also know there's good theologizing happening in the emerging church... my hope would be that in all the necessary recontextualization that happens, we wouldn't go overboard- for example- the Trinity is more than just a useful construct for 3rd/4th century questions :)

[Greg Laughery]

Bob,
I like this post and the focus on truth as relational. This sets up what we so often want to ignore. Tension. As followers of Jesus we're living lives in tension.

One caveat. I think Sweet, in this quote at least, underplays the significance of creation as an informer of truth. "It's all about Jesus" seems to ignore the truth that Jesus comes into a context. Scripture is a mega-story and truth reverberates from creation to a new heavens and earth.

[Mak]

I'm still not feeling ya Bob - what exactly does it mean to focus on Jesus?

And where are you seeing this pendulum swing of which you speak?

[Nate]

Yes! By all means, let's not give up the Trinity. Definitely, this is something that I am struggling with in my context here in Bend. I have been writing a bit on that lately... I don't want this questioning, deconstruction, "EC" thing to become something we do because it is simply trendy. I, for one, am not ready to give up the things that seem to be the basis for Christianity.

[Mak]

really?! you all truly think that emerging christians are giving up on the trinity? what does that mean? what does that look like? and what is your solution?

[Sam Andress]

For too long the person of Jesus has been separated from the life and teachings of Jesus. We have ended up with significantly malformed and often anemic pictures of Jesus. As Hauerwas said at his lecture a few years back at Wheaton, "The Sermon on the Mount IS Jesus." So only when we are constantly in dialogue with the didactical framewrok through which Jesus lived and ministered are we in a posture to move towards the real Jesus and the real life in the way of Jesus. As Tony Jones says and you quoted--Jesus is always more/beyond/greater.

I find Len's statement to simplistic and even naive, in that I see the boomer-seeker-sensitive-institutional production as a bait-and-switch which never brings into wrestling with Jesus and his life and ministry. It's emergents/ing that are in my experience seeking to loose ourselves from all the methodological posturing that passess as the latest and most "innovative" thing so that our communities can actually be postured by the transforming life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

[Mak]

my sentiments precisely sam

[Bob Hyatt]

Makisha-

Two concerns I have...

1. A downplaying of the work of Christ on our behalf in favor of the example of Christ to us. Both are vital and necessary- but the pendulum swing is that in reacting to evangelicalism's over-emphasis on the former, we're seeing a mirror-image over emphasis on the latter.
The current abandoning of the substitutionary aspect of the atonement is hugely troubling...

"really?! you all truly think that emerging christians are giving up on the trinity? what does that mean? what does that look like? and what is your solution?"

No- especially since I consider myself part of this "emerging" thing and haven't given up on the Trinity by a long shot.

But...
(and the Trinity thing was just one example)...
A friend of mine who's pretty influential in emerging church theology has suggested that maybe the Trinity was a helpful construct back in the day but might not be so helpful today.
I think there's deconstructing theology and then there's just burning down the house you live in, while you are still in it.

[Mak]

I think it's more helpful to point out specific instances than to say "this troubles me about emerging" when only a fraction of a percentage of folks who classify themselves emerging demonstrate those concerns.

I have not seen abandoning of sub. atonement BUT I HAVE seen a much more appropriate, scriptural and ancient/historical view of the atonement that does not focus on the sub. part - - a very very important shift that I for one am so glad for

I think perhaps there is some downplay of certain things because they've already been emphasized for so long - - to regain some above the line thinking a dramatic shift in emphasis does need to occur.

I think what sweet said sounded nice but I dont' think he really said much.

[Bob Hyatt]

I really do try to avoid making broad, generalizing statements unless I've seen multiple instances of things- having spent so much of my blogging career defending the emerging church from exactly that- broad, generalizing statements.

Len's caution is significant in that he is very much a friend of emergent, has a brain the size of a planet, and if he felt compelled to put a concern into print, I think we should pay attention.

My statement was simply: "When we start talking more about life in the way of Jesus than Jesus Himself, we're in trouble. When we nod at the many facets of Jesus' atoning work on the cross, but emphasize only one (whether that be emphasizing only His example or His victory OR emphasizing only the substitutionary aspect) we're missing some things that are essential" and I stand by it...

The hard part with naming specific instances is that I really do want to remain friends with folks, even if they do have some ideas I disagree. I'm hesitant...

But if you want to see what is increasingly a fairly typical emerging church discussion of substitutionary atonement, check here- and make sure to notice the comments as well: http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/spilled-blood-the-cosmic-christ-atonement-dissonance/

[Dan Brown]

http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/spilled-blood-the-cosmic-christ-atonement-dissonance/#comment-116>This comment sums up my view on atonement. What do you think?

[Bob Hyatt]

I think this

[Mak]

I still don't get it bob, you still haven't answered my question - what does it mean LITERALLY to "lift Jesus up"? And how do you focus on lifting Jesus up without focusing on the life of Jesus.

[Mak]

oh and bob, I think it was unfair to point out that blog because it's clear from the comments that you all agree and zoe's final comment is explicit on that point of coming to a healthy synthesis

[Mike Morrell]

Don't worry Bob, we're still friends. And I'm not sure if I articulated this http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/spilled-blood-the-cosmic-christ-atonement-dissonance>on my post that you reference or not, but I haven't given up on the penal substitutionary atonement model of Jesus' saving life, death, and resurrection just yet--I just haven't found one in recent times that resonates with what I see in Scripture to be the character of God as revealed in Jesus. But I'm open to the possibility. I hear that Tom Wright shares some good, balanced thoughts, and I hope to get to them some time this year.

I find it interesting, though, that you equate this particular model of atonement with sounding a clear tuning fork of Jesus' central, alluring presence--as though the non-emphasis of one model could extinguish the flame of the Spirit from our Candlestick, so to speak. I know that P.S. Atonement has reached favored-and-unquestionable status among we evangelicals, but it's never been the model used by, say, Franciscan Catholics, Anabaptists, Quakers, East Orthodox...you see what I mean? I just don't see how 'o'rthodoxy and the supposed decline of emergent hinges on this.

But now, to end on an agreeable note. You say "I think he nails it. When we start talking more about life in the way of Jesus than Jesus Himself, we're in trouble." I was just talking to your nemesis (wink) http://ptmin.org>Frank on the phone about this very matter today. He agrees with you (this post wasn't the topic of our conversation, but Len Sweet's comments were) that sometimes emerging/ent folk can emphasize the teachings and ethics of Jesus to the exclusion of the indwelling and empowerment of Jesus. And I can totally see this. I hope we can move from Hegalian pendulum-swinging to some holism and balance here: Jesus is way as well as life, and the latter empowers us to live lives of service. I was telling Frank that I think most of us grew up with a gospel of self-referential, watered-down churchianity, where our version of the good news was to get involved in some rather banal, self-serving church programs. By contrast, an invitation to the inward/contemplative journey of intimacy with Jesus and the outward/active journey of following Jesus are each, on their own, better than the Gospel of Churchianity. But oh, wouldn't it be great to have both the inward and outward, the active and contemplative, together? I think this is the heart of the gospel--sense and substance, beauty and vocation.

[Mak]

how very charismatic of you Mike ;)

the indwelling of Jesus is the whole point of why and how we do the things of Jesus - - I guess that has always been pretty clear in my emerging conversations...but whatever. I agree, *if* this is an issue then it would be good to reclaim....and frankly, I think it's just because this whole thing is so young

[Mak]

I thought this was curious as well, I agree with Mike - it's odd to me that you use SA as an example of the error of the emergent ways

"Atonement has reached favored-and-unquestionable status among we evangelicals, but it's never been the model used by, say, Franciscan Catholics, Anabaptists, Quakers, East Orthodox...you see what I mean? I just don't see how 'o'rthodoxy and the supposed decline of emergent hinges on this."

[Mike Morrell]

Thanks, Makeesha--though my whole quote was "*Penal Substitutionary* Atonement has reached favored..." I'm pretty sure that most Christians in most times and places have affirmed some form of atonement--that in some real way, Jesus has taken away the sins of the world and reconciles us to God. And I concur. : )

[Mak]

yeah, that's what I meant to quote :)

and of course atonement is important. what's the point otherwise?