Tony Jones claims that EC is a great way to navigate between the “cocksure certainties of conservatism and the perceived tepidness of liberalism.” Odd, he seems pretty cocksure that consensus is a misguided notion. And in the place of “cocksure certainties of conservatism”, Jones inserts what can only be described as, well, tepid.
Jones quotes from a book, “The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event”, by one Jack Caputo:
"To think theologically is to make the mind’s ascent toward God, which means toward whatever event is astir in the name of God, where the name of God is not a linguistic object that can be stretched out on the table for analysis. To use the name of God is an unstable, destabilizing act that exposes us to whatever event is transpiring in that name, to whatever chain of events this name provokes."
Hmm. “Whatever chain of events this name provokes”. In the place of a rule book, be it rules about strike zones or foul balls, we now have the theology of “whatever”. I am looking in vain for what are the precise or even imprecise limits of “whatever”? How do we know if a “chain of events” leads us heavenward or toward the pits of hell? In the absence of definitions, propositions, truth statements, what is the means of discerning the difference between ascent and descent?
Now I’m sure Jones will protest he is not advocating an “anything goes” viewpoint. He writes:
"To look at it from the side of our weakness, orthodoxy is an event and not a statement because, to put it colloquially, not one of us will score a perfect 100 on the Big Theology Exam in the Sky. We’ve all got a little heterodoxy mixed in with all the orthodoxy, and most of us will admit that. I’m wrong about some things; the problem, of course, is knowing what parts I’m wrong about. “O my fellow orthodox theologians, there are no orthodox theologians”.
While admitting that we all have a mixture of orthodox and heterodox ideas rattling about in our limited brains, he again throws down the “provocative” gauntlet, “there are no orthodox theologians”. None. Wonder why so many who might consider themselves to be orthodox theologians were upset with him.
Most of us would admit that we don’t get it all correct. So I can agree with him here…
We are, each of us, searching for truth, scratching our way toward orthodoxy. It's the land we will never quite reach, but we can't stop reaching for.
But here I get nervous…
"Looking at it from the side of God in the God-human relationship is far more profound. 'Naked Truth,' is the phrase of Pseudo-Dionysius - this is God who is ultimately “unutterable,” “unknowable,” ‘invisible,’ ‘incomprehensible’. How does one speak with any confidence of this God, much less pray with any confidence?"
So, should one conclude that we know nothing at all truly about God?
And here I have to get off.
"Orthodoxy is an event because God is eschatological. God is the future, and God calls us into the future."
This is meaningless gibberish. What exactly is this “eschatological future”? No one knows the future of course, which is perhaps the point. Because EC Orthodoxy is “future” and nobody knows where it is going, nobody can put any limits on where it ends up. Limits are oppressive. Limits are arrogant. Propositional truth and doctrinal statements are passé, silly notions from a less enlightened time. EC gurus refuse to be constrained by such totalizing constructs. Am I overreacting? Well, let’s let him speak for himself…
“We in Emergent Village have been asked repeatedly for a statement of faith, a statement of orthodoxy. I asked LeRon Shults, a theologian now stationed in Christiansand, Norway, to respond on our behalf, and he wrote a wonder(ful) little blog post about statements and their weaknesses. For Emergent to issue a statement of orthodoxy would be “unnecessary, inappropriate, and disastrous”. Shults wrote, a response to 'modernist anxieties'. He concluded his post thusly, 'Emergent is dynamic rather than static, which means that its ongoing intentionality is (and may it ever be) shaped less by an anxiety about finalizing statements than it is by an eager attention to the dynamism of the Spirit’s disturbing and comforting presence, which is always reforming us by calling us into an ever-intensifying participation in the Son’s welcoming of others into the faithful embrace of God'”.
I have to ask some obvious questions. Just how is the Nicene Creed, which is undoubtedly a statement of “orthodoxy”, somehow a response to “modernist anxieties”. Did the modern period begin in the fourth century? Is the Nicene Creed, “unnecessary?” “Inappropriate?” “Disastrous?” Would Christianity be better served if the statement “I believe in one God” were somehow more “dynamic” and less “static?” How does this “eager attention to the dynamism of the Spirit” work? How does one distinguish the “comforting presence” of the spirit from the warm fuzzies of delusional mysticism? How does one know if the “disturbing presence” is in fact “reforming” us? Which direction does this spirit move? How does one tell? Is there a difference that can be communicated in language between up and down? True and false? Truth and nonsense?
I have come to expect no answer for these types of questions. Vagueness, inconclusive statements, nebulous pronouncements issued with supreme confidence are the stock in trade of EC leaders. Odd that they protest when they are accused of sliding toward relativism, when they loudly trumpet relativism in their own words.
"You have heard it said that the emergent church is run by relativists, but I say to you that we are all relativists. We walk into the Christian bookstore and choose a Bible off the shelf, one that’s been translated by a particular group of people with a particular theological bias. You choose that Bible relative to all the other choices in front of you.
"And you make a relative choice about where you go to church, what college you attend, and whom you marry. Like the umpire who has to call out 'Ball!' or 'Strike!' a split second after the ball hits the catcher’s mitt, some calls are easy: right down the heart of the biblical plate. But others are tougher, painting the outside corner. We make the best call we can, and live with the consequences."
Again, the missing of the point is beyond comprehension. I ask, is anyone saying that there are not some things that are a tough call? No! Nobody is saying that. What folks are asking of Jones, McLaren, Shultz and others is that they simply take a firm stand on which items they are willing to say are clear strikes, or better yet, clear home runs. Their language continually insists that ALL propositions are relative and fuzzy. Their abject refusal to refer to anything at all as solid and unchanging is what gets them into trouble.
When coupled with their undying commitment to postmodern epistemology, one has to conclude that no doctrinal issue can ever be “settled” in their minds, and that every doctrinal issue remains open to be reinvented, rethought, and redefined. One has to conclude that a day could well come when EC advocates will champion ideas that are diametrically opposed to ideas that the vast majority of believers in every age and culture have considered settled and non-negotiable, such as the trinity, the deity of Christ, and the resurrection.
I note with frustration the rather pompous borrowing of Christ’s words in Jones’ paper “you have heard it said…but I say…”. No doubt this was intentional. Christ used this phrase repeatedly to establish his own authority with the Pharisees, contrasting his teaching with the Pharisees interpretations of the laws of Moses. Jones apparently felt comfortable standing before numerous scholars at this Wheaton conference contrasting the views of his critics with that of EC, using the very phraseology that Christ used to separate his own authority from the Pharisees. And he ends with this corker…
"And you have heard it said that the emergent church doesn’t stand under the hermeneutical weight of church history, but I say to you that we are more true to the church fathers because they are part of our dialogue. No, they do not rule over us, but they do enter into our event of orthodoxy with an authoritative voice."
How nice of Tony Jones to “include” Athanasius, Tertullian, Cyprian in his “local” emerging conversation. I’m sure they must feel quite honored. And note that he considers his radical “local hermeneutic” to be “more true” to the church fathers than those who might actually believe in “universality, antiquity and consent”. I am still flabbergasted that he is seriously miffed that his talk was considered “off topic” by some and a “disaster” by a few.
No comments:
Post a Comment