The Battle Begins - Take your battle positions

A number of us have been suggesting for years that at some point the people who are not so pleased with the suggestions of theological and methodological changes people within Emergent are suggesting would start to express their opinions and start causing trouble. And that when it happened the accusations would become personal and relentless.

I think it is fair to say that 2005 will be that year.

From books and books, to websites, to conversations (imagine a link to the staff at Bethel who were so bothered by presentation there this Fall), and to presentations, (imagine a link to Duffy Robins) there is a backlash, an expectant backlash, about all this talk of new ways and new thinking.

The critiques are at times well made, but most often seem shallow. Some chose to marginalize emergent as nothing much to worry about, while others claim that it is the epitome of what is wrong with the church (losing truth and the Gospel, that sort of thing).

But most often there is a suggestion of Emergent being "slippery", and having little or no foundation to stand on (so it is nice to hear that they are getting the message). And there is a suggestion that we are just dangerous - either out of incompetency or ill-will. The incompetency will be the most common this year, then when that falls short the ill-will will kick in.

Most of this is coming from the Radical Reformers (their title not mine), who see the reclaiming of Christian faith as the call of the church (and that means to the biblical/reformed faith) and not the remaking of it.

I have tried to make contact with a number of these people to create a friendship so we can disagree agreeably and in friendship, but to no avail. But if I saw them as dangerous I am not sure I would be so interested in being friends with them either.
But then again, that is not true. I do see these circumcisers (my term) as dangerous and that is precisely why I want to be friends with them. It seems to me that we are better served when those we are afraid of can become friends, the only other option is we view them as an enemy, and since I am suppose to love my enemy anyway, I might as well get a friend out of it.

But this face to face friendship does not seem to be in the cards in the near future.

So, it is time to take up battle positions.

I suggest these Battle Positions:
A Smile
A Wink
A Prayer
A friendly Email
Offers of hospitality
Invitation to Friendships

2005 looks like it might become the year the vomit hits the fan (a much worse visual to me than the classic "shit hitting the fan"). May we with all the graciousness of a personal care attendant have the grace and patients to clean it up when it comes.

Blessed Be the Personal Care Attendants.
Blessed be the people of Emergent.

Comments

[Noel Mark]

if you want to open a new church branch in Pakistan then reply me and i will help you i have 40 people's group but we have no church and no name and most of then are with family so if you are interested then reply me .

[Israel Kloss]

Hi Doug,
I am new to your blog and this is certainly a late posting. But I've been researching some of the critiques of emergent thought. And I wonder if you might quickly read my response to some of the critiques of you showing up online. I posted my ideas here: http://tortilini.blogspot.com/2005/12/truth-and-love-both-and.html.

If you're as busy this holiday season as I am, no worries if you can't get to it. But it would be interesting to have your perspective on my rebuttle.

Continue in love,

Israel

[the other tall guy]

great words, doug

we need to hear more of your voice

keep talking . . . keep advising . .

[bob]

this site: http://emergentno.blogspot.com
seems to take the cake on emergent criticism...

[Rachelle]

Doug,

Are you saying that when others are on the warpath we must respond by engaging in battle? I don't think you're trying to do that -- thus your un-warlike suggestions for actions. But changing our language can help here as well. We don't have to agree to the terms initially laid on the table by those who would choose to oppose our ways. We don't have to define things as a battle.

We don't often see this other-than-war-metaphor practiced in religious disputes and disagreements, do we? But I think now is a good time to try something else. I couldn't come up with an alternative metaphor myself, so I'm glad M.Toy came up with the one of parent/teenager.(Chagrined, I must admit that I thought it would be up to the women to come up with a non-violent metaphor! Wonders never cease!:-)

I remember when "The Bible Answer Man" decided to wage war on John Wimber and the Vineyard. It was brutal for years. I don't remember John's response, but I remember something Carol once said. She said something to the tune of "it was hard when John was attacked when he was alive, harder still when he was ill, but now that it's continuing even after he's dead, I can hardly bear it." (This is not a direct quote.) As I look with fondness on Brian McClaren's image similing out from "Generous Orthodoxy," I can't but hope that we can work to turn the tide away from the language of war, turning the other cheek even when we are attacked, and finding other ways to speak our piece. It's just a hope, coming from a (perhaps)naive Challenger/Healer! (I had to laugh when I saw your enegram logo on your sidebar! We just love a debate, don't we?)

Shalom,

Rachelle

[dh]

Doug, people who came up with some of the phrasiology within Emergent should have anticipated the reaction. (I know that the over-reaction is bad and totally wrong) Some of this "battle" could have been anticipated. This would give the opposing side a better understanding of what you are saying without "loaded" words or phrases. When people in Emergent start using phrases like "changing the definition of the Gospel" "changing theology" and others then some of the people who you are talking to are going to react. I understand now the foundation of these "loaded" phrases and words and have foundationally no problem with what you are proposing foundationally but I had to do research because much of it intially was concerning to me. (I know now that Emergent's definiton of Gospel is broader and does not reject the foundation of the Gosspel (The Great Commission) This all could have been avoided if the phrasing was different initially.

[doug]

The thing is when other are on a war path it is not a decision you have to make.
I think that the battle is on, but we did not start it, and we will not win it by fighting, we need to find ways to respond that are non-battle, but to call these attacks simply grwoing pains is to not understand how people are viewing this.

[Rachelle]

I'd like to chime in with Michael Toy and agree that avoiding battle language is a helpful and healthful stance. To pose this in the language of war is an ill-advised first step. That's why I love Doug's suggested action-steps. Now if we could just move the rest of the metaphor over into that generous field...

As someone who has used both the battle approach and the parent/teenager approach in her own journey out of the modern-evangelical curch and into the postmodern world of missional community, I highly advocate the later approach. It saved my realtionship with my "sending" pastor/mentor, and brought me to a number of great uncles and aunts who are now helping me along the way. In addition, as a side bonus, the parent/teenager appraoch helped my come out of the transition with my job, reputation and relationships (mostly) in tact.

Just some tips from the field...

Looking forward to meet many of you at the EC.

Shalom,

Rachelle

[millinerd]

Here is one attempt at a pre-battle peace pact.

[Bill]

Dave,

Not to mention the fact that he's suggesting that anything causing divisiveness should automatically be withdrawn. What about all of Calvin's works that he so treasures? Didn't they cause just slight bit of disruptiveness?

[Steve]

Good stuff Doug - looking forward to this unfolding!

[dh]

Bob Robinson: I really enjoyed your insights with Steve Camp. It seemed to be a beneficial discussion. I really admire the balance that you have on the many issues and concerns of our day. I really enjoyed your website and blog and will definitely add this to my list of favorite blogs.
Have a wonderful day and may God bless you and your church. Your friend in Christ.

[Bob Robinson]

As I mentioned earlier, I e-mailed Steve Camp as well and told him my concerns. I studied under D.A. Carson at Trinity, and this (I think) opened some doors of mutual respect that helped in our conversation.

He was very gracious, though he still doesn't get what Brian is really saying.

You can read the conversation we had via email here at my site

(that's http://www.vanguardchurch.com/conversation_with_steve_camp.htm )

I really appreciated Randy's conversation with Steve. Dialogue is what it's all about!

[dave paisley]

For those of you that didn't follow Randy's link to his email dialogue with Steve Camp...

From Steve Camp's last reply to Randy (referenced previously)

"One brief additional thought before I call it a day – would you consider contacting Brian McLaren and ask him out of Christian love to withdraw his materials for the sake of unity and peace within the evangelical community? You must admit, his writings along with a few others have been more disruptive than edifying."

Withdraw his materials?!?!

Rough paraphrase: "New ideas? We don't want no stinkin' new ideas! In fact - there are no new ideas!"

[dh]

I have no problem with Emergent and I agree with most of what they stand for. However, those of us who are of the Evangelical pursuation continue to be offended by being called Reformed, Pauline, Romanist, etc. Many people think that the views are from the Reformed period when in reality the view was established by the Apostle Paul. We should place ALL Scripture on equal footing rather than placing greater emphesis on one particular piece of Scripture over the other. The extremes on either side (Evangelical and the 180 degree opposite thereof) are both wrong but culture today is influenced by extremes. As Christians we should not be influenced or use extremes as a way of influence. Hence, the problem and the corresponding polarization.

[bill]

I echo the sentiments of avoiding the language of battle but I appreciate what you are saying. Regardless of what it actually means to be emerging or what happens to Emergent those of us who are self-identifying with one another must display the kind of character that predates the Reformation. We will do best to demonstrate what we are trying to say we're really about. We must be careful not to spend our energies on this "battle" when a more important battle is being waged all around us.

[Brother Maynard]

This is more of a manually-entered TrackBack but I did want to make the comments... which are online here in Their full form. Your post got me thinking about what's ahead for Emergent — that coupled with the talk about being a movement. Untintentionally perhaps, I think your post provides an argument that Emergent has become a movement.

In reality, Emergent may be facing a difficult year of grappling with becoming a movement, what that means, and how to respond to critics - all at once and under a microscope.

Excerpts from my post:

In responding (or not) to criticism, Emergent can continue calling itself a Conversation, but it'll be hard to make that stick for very long if the critics keep calling it a movement. As soon as they feel they can identify a cohesive group moving in a common direction, they'll call it a movement and start reacting. Now, since one can already pre-order, I think we may be there already.

The truth about Emergent as a movement is that it may already be one, in grassroots form — but if this is true, don't tell anyone, since it's best to hold off on the label as long as possible. In reality, that time will probably come later this year, when the phrase, "Rubber, meet Road" will ring out and Emergent will be forced to corporately pilot a destructured movement. In a fishbowl.

Emergent won't have a real choice about being dubbed a movement, one way or the other. When it comes though, it'll feel like Saul's armour, and we'll wish we could take it off again.

(more here)

Gratia Vobis et Pax.

[rick luoni]

Just blog-commenting-aloud here, but what if the evangelical arm of the church began to see itself as a part of the one, holy, apostolic, and catholic church? (I know you love the councils)

It seems that part of the language we use often suggests that the Church is made of separate bodies versus separte parts.

I think our language is often more suggestive than we are consciously aware.

The more I think about it, perhaps "emergent" or "emerging" isn't the term to use to describe what is happening within the evagelical arm of the Body.

"Emerge" means to come out of something. While this may be descriptive of how some feel and it may suggest how some may be growing spiritually-- it may also suggest to some (both emergent & non-emergent) a separation or a pulling apart rather than a cohesiveness. "Cohesive" may be more descriptive of God's "intentions" for the Body. It may not describe one's spiritual growth, but as a metaphor it prevents us from separting and drawing lines. I am not suggesting one call the Church the "cohesive church". God knows that isn't the case, nor do we need more language to define what we are or not.

Think in terms of "PHYSICS", the intermolecular attraction by which the elements of a body are held together. It is by "borrowing" energy from one another that allows the molecules to attract, versus separate.

Again, just blogging aloud.

[randy buist]

Last night I read thru Doug's post. I had a day that was keeping me awake anyway. So, I followed the links in the post. After following the link to Steve Camp's website, I dropped him an e-mail.

I was intentional about following the suggestions of Doug (and others) when I sent the first e-mail. Much to my surprise, I've gotten two healthy responses.

I have no idea if anyone is interested, but in fairness to Steve, I thought they should be available.

Here's a link: http://www.watersedge.tv/blog.html
(or follow my url)

[anonymous]

this is a dumb argument (battle). the truly emergent and "postmodern" church would recognize the position of the other as genuine and valid...it really is a liturgical and cultural issue. That is, this "battle" is really nothing but how a particular culture chooses to worship. i agree with the comment that questioned whether this is really a "right/wrong" issue. It doesn't appear to be. but rather it is just the emergent "postmodern" culture chooses to worship one way, and the traditional "evangelical" (whatever that really means???) culture chooses to worship another way. Why not just denounce this battle and let the all Christians worship within their cultural context. To get all up in arms (i.e. battle, battalion) about this would be something we should expect from a 1st century pre-vatican II colonizing Roman (or British) empire importing their culture with their relgion.

Which begs the next great question: what is the relationship between culture and faith? How much can we really separate Christ from culture? How can a faith seek to be genuinly inculturated without carrying with it the cultural baggage that is so oft critizied by a post-colonial age?

[marko]

what a GREAT post, doug! i LOVE your battle positions.

[dh]

Michael thank you so much for your post. What you said ministered to me. Your analogy was perfect. Christians need a balance and you were very balanced and I appreciate your insight. On a personal and humorous note, I guess I'm the compliant teenager rather than an atypical teenager. HAHA :) Thanks Michael you are a very encouraging brother in the Lord.

[Michael Toy]

so i'm just a spectator in all of this. my reputation is not on the line, nor is my job. so please take that into consideration.

the less we think of this in metaphor of battle the better. this not attack and response, offense and defense. we want none of the possible outcomes of a war: defeat, victory, peace treaty, eternal emnity.

maybe metaphor of parent and child. we're the teenager the parent is worried about. the teenage feels misunderstood and has no intention of listening to the parent, eager to makes its own mistakes, just like the parent did. the teenage is keenly aware, having lived in the parents house, of the consequences of the parents life choices, and is not inclined to value the parents opinion. the parent is worried sick for the teenager and gets increasingly desperate as it sees the young child approaching the power of an adult.

i deliberately chose a metaphor which casts both roles in a neutral light, as people struggling to do the right thing, because it is really important to understand that this is where we stand.

i deliberately chose a metaphor which contains inevitability. growth and maturity come over time. a teenager can read 1,000 books containing accounts of adults living screwed up lives, watch 1,000 movies, make 1,000 vows, and still have a lifetime of mistakes queued up for them.

we can find uncles who are cool, who aren't so crazy insane like our parents. they can help us survive. someday we will be shocked to discover that our parents suddenly aren't insane any more. and one day our parents will realize we turned out pretty good after all. and then we can get down to the next wave of family squabbles ... whose house gets to host christmas dinner, how to integrate families as connections through marraige bring change.

so i completely agree with you doug on the list. we need a posture, a stance, a body position, but it isn't a battle stance, because in a battle there is only building and destroying walls, and there are people on those ramparts.

[DH]

Jenell you made some good points early on. I think why people are reacting is that there are foundations of the Christian Faith that go back to the 1st Century that seem to be threatened. Read Romans, 1 Tim 3:16 etc. Some people would call these "reformed" when actually they go back to the 1st Century especially in light of Paul's epistles and even Peter and James. I think also it is a matter of emphesis and some including myself observe a lowering of emphesis in The Great Commission compared to other parts of the Gospel in those who want "change". There has to be balance.

[Charlie Johnson]

Doug et all,
I have been so blessed by and inspired by folks such as yourself, and I have given your book to many people to inspire and exhort them. When I read these 'critiques' which you posted, I feel a sense of sadness as I am reminded of Paul's comment in Corinthians Ch 12; "There are differences in ministry, but the same Lord of all." My prayer is that we as lovers of Jesus would not be exhibiting a "The harvest is plentiful but the laborors are fighting" vibe.

I also have been blessed by and immensely challenged by guys like Tim Keller in Manhatten, who I am guessing from comments posted here would not be a "proponent" of Emergent thinking. I respect his mind as well. Is this conversation a "right/wrong" thing, or simply a "different" thing as I gather from the verse I noted above? (perhaps that is a rhetorical question)

Maybe I am wrong, I am not a scholar and I tend to think in terms of "are these ideas, thoughts and methods inspiring and challenging the character of people to become more like the character of Jesus? Are lovers of Christ becoming healers of the wounded, providers to the poor, and agents of reconcilliation with strength and humility? Are we a 'tasty' people whom the "lost" want to be in relationship with?" If the answers to those question resound with YES, then I applaud, loudly (with guitars on 11:))

Sorry for being long on my first post to your blog......
Cheers-