There is a new very interesting book out called "Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be".
With the books or blogs so far that have been written from an anti-emerging or anti-emerging church perspective, many of them (but not all) are unfortunately somewhat extremist and highly over-the-top in what they report on. I am often amazed at the hyper-caricatures made based on a sentence or two from someone's writing and then an unfortunate very large broadbrush is applied to everyone who has anything to do with the emerging and emergent churches. However, out of all the critical books so far written on the emerging or emergent church, this seems to be the more readable and overall balanced. Their tone is somewhat more gentle than others and they didn't just focusing on only one or two people for all of their conclusions. They do say some negative, or maybe a better word is cautionary things about me in it and things I have written.
I always want to be very open to criticism or listening to people who may have concerns with something I wrote or speak about. We should always be open and willing to listen or read criticism to see if there is truth to what someone is saying they are concerned about. We are all learning and growing and I have had people point out things of concern, I ended up agreeing with them and made changes. Other times I just disagreed with them and didn't change, as it became a difference of opinion. But criticism can be a very good thing. We are stretched when we are challenged by other people and it causes us to look more closely at what we are saying or believing which is a healthy and needed thing.
(You can click below here to read the rest of this post. I am copying my friend Scot McKnight in how he breaks up his posts so it isn't one long one on the page).
I love being challenged and I love discussing differences between people. My very good friend Doug Pagitt recently shared on the latest issue of Next-Wave magazine in an interview that I didn't endorse his latest book due to theological differences. I've been in touch with Doug and we will probably set up a Q and A time going back and forth together at some point in the future to post why I felt I couldn't endorse his book. So there will be differences of opinion about things, sometimes very minor, sometimes minor, sometimes major, sometimes very major. Some disagreements between people may be philosophical, some theological - some both. So in every challenge or disagreement, you can't lump them all together. I believe you always have to specifically examine each one and try not to make generalizations.
Anyone who writes books will have people disagree with what they write. That is part of the whole thing when we willingly make our thoughts or beliefs public and write a book. So, I do not mind having people disagree with me, provided that what they are disagreeing with is true to what I actually believe or wrote. When someone writes something that is not accurate about my beliefs, depending on who the critic is, I will sometimes try to communicate with them to make sure they understand what I believe (if they reported it incorrectly).
I don't see this as really isn't being overly sensitive or too defensive. It is wanting to guard what you really do believe from being inaccurately misrepresented or misunderstood. Doctrine is very important and what people believe is important. The practice of doctrine is very important as well, of course. Orthopraxy needs to matching with one's orthodoxy. One without the other can lead to trouble.
Back to the book "Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be". I read it through and I had a very, very pleasant and nice correspondence back and forth with Kevin (one of the authors) via email. I won't comment here about the specifics I shared with Kevin. But I did express that at certain times I felt they painted a one-sided perspective of what "the emerging church" believes about something when there are also other views within it. I did also share with them about some places where they wrote some things about friends of mine in the book whom I felt that they misunderstood by what they wrote about them.
Kevin's response has been so gracious, and he commented back to my comments. I can't imagine that this type of correspondence to me, isn't what would please Jesus. We have had some very wonderful back and forth dialogue. I both disagreed with some of what they wrote and I also agreed with some of what they wrote. I personally see such wonderful, beautiful exciting things about what is happening in the emerging church world, but like the authors, I also have concerns and strong disagreements with some things in the emerging church world.
This is actually a very interesting book to read and depending on where you are in the whole emerging and emergent discussion may have you getting upset at some parts which you will feel "hey, that is not true about this person." Other parts you may feel "that is a really good point they are raising....". Some parts you may feel "that is stretching things to a pretty extreme conclusion".... other parts you may feel you agree with the book and realize "I never really have stopped to considered the longer term outcome and ramifications if I go down that trail."
In looking at the endorsements on the back of the book, I respectfully do wish that D.A. Carson would not sadly fall into the over-the-top generalization he made with his endorsement of the book where he said:
"... the emerging church movement, which taught an entire generation to rebel... "
That kind of statement is the exact kind of over-generalization that makes me think "ay yi yi". Taught an entire generation to rebel?
I also corresponded with Kevin and shared that I am not too sure that the sub-title of the book makes sense to me. The sub-title is is "by two guys who should be" (referring to being emergent). I am not defending emergent here, but from what I understand of the authors, they are pretty hard core Calvinists. Being a hard core Calvinist means you are pretty locked into a very distinct theological system of beliefs. Also, just being a certain age or engaged in culture is not what makes one emergent - it is far beyond that. So from these things, I would not think that from what I read of these two authors that they naturally "should be" emergent at all. The sub-title maybe should have been "by two guys who shouldn't be". But that is petty, but it is the sub-title of the book. But, despite that, if I was to suggest reading through one fairly anti-emerging or emergent church critical book - so far, this is the one. Even though you will probably strongly agree and disagree with parts of it. I think that they did raise important questions in this book. I didn't always agree with all their answers - but the questions are good ones to be asking ourselves .
I hope as Christians have disagreements and there is criticism in the church, that we state it in honorable ways that would please Jesus. We do need to defend doctrine, we do need to take stands. I just hope we do so with honor, with knowing the facts, with respect to the others we disagree with. I hope that no one is closed to criticism. We need to open to it and listen to see if perhaps God is speaking through someone who disagrees with you. This isn't just about being open to criticism about emerging church things, this is about being open to criticism or concerns raised in our relationships, or on church staffs, or with people in churches, in our families etc.
I am sitting here in the coffee house and just chatted with Duggan who is one of the people in the They Like Jesus but not the Church book. He just went off to go golfing. I am here prepping for the sermon this Sunday which will be on "heaven". But I am looking at this book and thought I would post some caffeine-soaked thoughts about it.
