|
 |
|
|
|
A couple weeks ago, Zondervan asked me if I’d be interested in reviewing a new book. And I, being the quintessential sponge for soaking up anything that will make me think or piss me off, eagerly agreed. The author is Michael Wittmer. The book title is Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough.
If you’re anything like me, you have to forgive the initial impulse to belt out Journey when seeing the cover. But if you can get past that, I think you’ll find one of the most graceful and informed critics of the Emergent church yet on the market. Wittmer is a seminary professor in Grand Rapids, which means he is in an uberconservative Christian culture with an enigmatic emergent crowd among Rob Bell disciples. I’m not saying anything critical of Rob Bell disciples; I have a bit of a man-crush on the prophet of G-Rap myself. I’m just saying that when Wittmer writes about emerging(ent) church, it’s because he’s swimming up to his eyeballs in the tension of it all.
Wittmer’s book is structured around a series of issues on which Wittmer thinks we need to land a middle road between theological Conservatives and Postmodern Innovators (or PI; his catch-all term for emergent, emerging, neo-progressive, etc.). I felt that latter term failed in some spots because PIs are often articulating a position far more old than Conservatives (who tend to date the early church back to 1517AD). I’ll be the first to confess that there were times where I wanted to reach through the book and punch Wittmer in the face for blatant inaccuracies (or so I thought at first), but he had this knack for usually bringing me back with a wealth of extra information by the end of the chapter to where I could see his perspective and generally agree with him. He covered most of the major hot topics: necessity of cognitive belief for salvation, original sin, homosexuality, atonement, existence of hell, epistemology, inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture, and more. I don’t think there was a single chapter where I completely lined up with his conclusions, but he was very informing, challenging, and persuasive nonetheless.
I particularly liked his chapter on atonement. He is the first conservative voice I’ve heard in the contemporary conversation who admits that Penal Substitution Atonement (the idea that Christ died as the result of God literally taking the punishment for sin in order to preserve both God’s justice and His love) is a construct of the late medieval and early Reformation periods rather than a doctrine dating back to the early church. Nonetheless, he still sees PSA as the primary model for the Gospel, but he described a Christus Victor/PSA synthesis as his middle way between Conservatives and PIs. I thought it was helpful. I still say it’s incomplete, because I think the Gospel has got to be way bigger than something described by any and all atonement models, much less just two, but then again, I have no solid position on the exact workings atonement anyways.
Like I said, there were moments when I wanted to toss my beliefs about nonviolence (I wish he had addressed that). When he started saying that it’s obvious “that the Bible says that homosexual acts are sin.” Now I don’t have my mind made up on this subject, but I tend to agree with him. Nevertheless, if you’ve researched this issue at all, you know that it is nowhere near perfectly clear what the Biblical position on homosexuality should be, because there are very legitimate arguments for it. Nevertheless, Wittmer does quickly concede this fact while still remaining hardline on his orthodoxy. So I ended up siding fairly close to him on the issue of homosexuality.
I can’t say the same for Hell. Researching the history of ideas about Hell and its (non?)appearance in Scripture has been a bit of a pet project of mine over the past couple years. The chapter on Hell largely centers around Brian McLaren’s work in The Last Word, and the Word After That (which I highly recommend). My advice for anti-emergents is this: if you want to bash emergent church, don’t write against whole doctrines by knocking on McLaren. McLaren is a pastor, not a theologian. He is a base that emergents start from, not the sum total of theological construct. And please, quit using the “Jesus talked about Hell, so we should believe in it” line. If that was a legitimate argument, then it would have settled the issue of Hell and saved us 2000 years of debate. As with most vicissitudes into the debate of Hell, there were so many stones left unturned. It could have been a lot more (though perhaps tripling the length of the book). I was left with this oft-occurring feeling that I, with no firm belief in a literal Hell, could craft a better argument for the existence of Hell than most anti-emergents do.
I look back through this review, and it looks a bit harsh. I’m going to release this interview to the world, and it’s going to form your opinion of a book that will become available in December. In case you glazed over the former half, I truly did find this book both informative and a challenge. If you are emergent, read it. It’s a quick read from a sharp prof who actually understands the point of view emergents take- which is rare in Christian media. Regardless of how sure I am in my opinions, I haven’t devoted my meager 22 years to studying theology, so what do I know? So far as I can tell, Michael Wittmer is a thinker, and while he defaults to feeling safe on the side of theological conservativism (as I subconsciously do), he synthesizes a massive amount of authors and materials I’ve never seen before to bear his arguments. So as a theological whore, I’ll always appreciate hearing a different perspective, whether conservative or postmodern and innovative.
|
Check out the facebook group "Don't Stop Believing by Michael Wittmer" for more discussion.
Great review. I tend to avoid books like these as they too make me want to reach through the book and punch the author in the face, but I realize the importance of being patient and aware of points of views I strongly disagree with. Plus, if I am truly on a pursuit of truth, I suppose I must not block it out even if it stings a little. Thanks Tad for the review.
I would like to comment on what you said about "anti-emergents" and Brian McLaren. However, he is not the only one who represents a large voice for the emergent church. So I am including Doug Padgitt, Tony Jones, and others who share his views and publish books about it. Aren't they more or less the founders of the movement? It doesn't matter if they claim to be theologians or not. They are teachers and pastors. Therefore, they will be held accountable one day -- as will all other teachers and pastors -- for what they taught and how they led others in belief. They are like shepherds.
There are good shepherds and bad shepherds. If a good shepherd noticed that what he was saying/teaching was influencing people into unbelief or false belief, he would go to those people and clarify what is truth and what is not. He would take responsibility. If McLaren was a good shepherd, he would start writing books to all those christians who look up to him and lead them away from the confusion that emergent belief has created. But he does not. He likes his reputation of being out there on the controversial edge. He does his best to be so unclear when questioned by those who question his beliefs. I used to admire McLaren when his earlier books came out, but then I woke up. Discerning through the Holy Spirit, I cannot say that he is a good shepherd (and he is a shepherd whether he claims the role or not). Those who have allowed themseves to be influenced by McLaren and the others need to take responsibility themselves for the bad spiritual food that they have taken in.
Is there a "middle road" for conservative christian tradition and emergent thought? I don't think so.
Holly, First off, I'm not quite sure to what you are specifically referring to when you say Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and others share the same beliefs as McLaren- they all have much differing theologies, so I don't know what you are specifically referring to. You don't think the theology of Emergent Village is monolythic, do you? And while they are the founders of the Emergent Village non-profit organization, they are certainly not the founders of the emerging movement (none of these guys were even in professional ministry yet when emerging church began to 'emerge'). So I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that either. And yes, they are somewhat responsible for their flocks (I said nothing to the contrary).
Your second paragraph sounds as if you think McLaren knows what he thinks about everything and chooses to withhold information and opinion. I don't think that's the case. His writing has certainly aided my faith in an extraordinary way, helping me work though a lot of questions (and helping me to ask even better ones).
Hi, Tad. Yes, you're right that McLaren, Pagitt, and Jones are not the "founders" of the emergent movement. But they have had a great amount of influence within emergent circles. Over the years, they have come together to create a more distinct definition of what it means to be "emergent" -- especially in philosophical terms. They really are not that different. I do understand, however, there have been others who have networked with them and share in that influence.
McLaren seems to have been the most influential. He tends to be a bigger target for critics based on what he has written. He is interviewed quite a bit. If you like what he (along with the others) has to say, you will not see what the critics see.
Yes, I do realize that Emergent Village and other such entities (including the Ooze) do not represent one way of thinking and believing. There is no denomination. There are those christians who are devoted to Christ and want to find/learn better ways to reach out to the culture. At the same time, there is a core of emergents who are moving away from biblical truth. It has been progressive. I think that the difference between emergent church and actual biblical truth will become even more apparent as time goes by.
|
|
|
|
(2)
Check out the facebook group "Don't Stop Believing by Michael Wittmer" for more discussion. Posted by Andrew Rogers | Posted at 11/04/2008 6:17 AM
Great review. I tend to avoid books like these as they too make me want to reach through the book and punch the author in the face, but I realize the importance of being patient and aware of points of views I strongly disagree with. Plus, if I am truly on a pursuit of truth, I suppose I must not block it out even if it stings a little. Thanks Tad for the review. Posted by Beth | Posted at 11/11/2008 5:25 PM
I would like to comment on what you said about "anti-emergents" and Brian McLaren. However, he is not the only one who represents a large voice for the emergent church. So I am including Doug Padgitt, Tony Jones, and others who share his views and publish books about it. Aren't they more or less the founders of the movement? It doesn't matter if they claim to be theologians or not. They are teachers and pastors. Therefore, they will be held accountable one day -- as will all other teachers and pastors -- for what they taught and how they led others in belief. They are like shepherds.
There are good shepherds and bad shepherds. If a good shepherd noticed that what he was saying/teaching was influencing people into unbelief or false belief, he would go to those people and clarify what is truth and what is not. He would take responsibility. If McLaren was a good shepherd, he would start writing books to all those christians who look up to him and lead them away from the confusion that emergent belief has created. But he does not. He likes his reputation of being out there on the controversial edge. He does his best to be so unclear when questioned by those who question his beliefs. I used to admire McLaren when his earlier books came out, but then I woke up. Discerning through the Holy Spirit, I cannot say that he is a good shepherd (and he is a shepherd whether he claims the role or not). Those who have allowed themseves to be influenced by McLaren and the others need to take responsibility themselves for the bad spiritual food that they have taken in.
Is there a "middle road" for conservative christian tradition and emergent thought? I don't think so.
Posted by Holly | Posted at 11/15/2008 11:31 AMHolly, First off, I'm not quite sure to what you are specifically referring to when you say Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and others share the same beliefs as McLaren- they all have much differing theologies, so I don't know what you are specifically referring to. You don't think the theology of Emergent Village is monolythic, do you? And while they are the founders of the Emergent Village non-profit organization, they are certainly not the founders of the emerging movement (none of these guys were even in professional ministry yet when emerging church began to 'emerge'). So I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that either. And yes, they are somewhat responsible for their flocks (I said nothing to the contrary).
Your second paragraph sounds as if you think McLaren knows what he thinks about everything and chooses to withhold information and opinion. I don't think that's the case. His writing has certainly aided my faith in an extraordinary way, helping me work though a lot of questions (and helping me to ask even better ones).
Posted by tad DeLay | Posted at 11/16/2008 1:50 PMHi, Tad. Yes, you're right that McLaren, Pagitt, and Jones are not the "founders" of the emergent movement. But they have had a great amount of influence within emergent circles. Over the years, they have come together to create a more distinct definition of what it means to be "emergent" -- especially in philosophical terms. They really are not that different. I do understand, however, there have been others who have networked with them and share in that influence.
McLaren seems to have been the most influential. He tends to be a bigger target for critics based on what he has written. He is interviewed quite a bit. If you like what he (along with the others) has to say, you will not see what the critics see.
Yes, I do realize that Emergent Village and other such entities (including the Ooze) do not represent one way of thinking and believing. There is no denomination. There are those christians who are devoted to Christ and want to find/learn better ways to reach out to the culture. At the same time, there is a core of emergents who are moving away from biblical truth. It has been progressive. I think that the difference between emergent church and actual biblical truth will become even more apparent as time goes by.
Posted by Holly | Posted at 11/18/2008 12:01 PM