July 17, 2008
New Christians VS. Vintage Jesus (Part 2)
Tony Jones responds.
As writer, I am always thankful for reviewers who are thoughtful and evenhanded. I’m afraid that Chad Hall is neither.
(Read Chad Hall's review here.)
Firstly, I clearly do not write that the emergent movement is the exclusive purveyor of the reformation that is currently underway in Christianity. I make it clear in the pages that Mr. Hall cites that it is the gospel that is red-hot lava, bursting through the centuries of accoutrements that have been collected by the church. It would, indeed, be the height of arrogance to suggest that the emergent movement and the gospel are one-and-the-same, but I do no such thing. Instead, I write (and believe) that there are major, tectonic shifts taking place in the church, and the emergent movement is part of that landscape.
Next, to caricature my treatment of convention and traditional Christian worshippers as “crusty old Christians” is, of course, Mr. Hall’s right, but it does not accurately reflect my feelings or my writing on the subject. I am frustrated by the reified theologies of the Protestant right and the reified bureaucracies of the Protestant left—and I make no bones about that—but I refer throughout the book to my own journey through those systems and with those people. Indeed, my parents are among those people.
Speaking of that journey, I don’t know that it’s “condescending” and “supremely arrogant” to write negatively about a theological system of which I was a part and which I now reject, that of Campus Crusade for Christ (at least as it was practiced and taught at Dartmouth College in the 1980s). Is it similarly arrogant for a convert to evangelicalism to write about the failings of the Catholicism he left? How about for the Catholic to write about how Catholicism is superior to Protestantism? Is that supremely arrogant? (Indeed, isn’t it supremely arrogant to write a review accusing an author of being “supremely arrogant”?)
And now to defend my friends in Seattle. Mr. Hall refers to them as “intellectually superior egoists.” Honestly, I find this label shocking and demeaning. In that chapter, I write that the people at Church of the Apostles are working hard to find common ground on the sexuality issues that are tearing at their denominations (Lutheran and Episcopal), that they feel caught in the shadow of Mark Driscoll’s imposing mega-church, and that, above all else, they have an unremitting fear: “is this possible to sustain? How long until politics or gender issues or something else tears COTA apart?” (209) And I wrote about their East Coast benefactors to show just how tenuous their little cohort really is. Seriously, how many “intellectually superior egoists” do you know who are on the dole?
This goes to the very heart of my concern with Mr. Hall’s review. The people of Church of the Apostles are the very “crusty old Christians” I’m accused of constantly disparaging: They abide by the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, they are faithful members of two mainline denominations, and they are reliant upon the subsidy of a wealthy, old endowment. And yet I portray them so glowingly that they come off as arrogant as I supposedly do.
So, I wonder, which is it, Mr. Hall? Do I admire them, or am I surreptitiously undermining them by writing honestly of their struggles.
And to Mr. Hall’s final warning, let me say this: Truly, the deconstructive tendencies in the emergent tribe may be our undoing. Or they may be the very characteristics that infuse some Christlike humility in us. In either case, I’m counting my blessings that God, and not Mr. Hall, will be the final arbiter of that decision.
Tony Jones is the author of The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier (Jossey-Bass, 2008), and the national coordinator of Emergent Village.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga on July 17, 2008
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1347
Comments
Tony.
Great stuff.
The thing about tony is that, in the body of his work (writings, blogs, podcasts, etc.), he comes across as a very loving, humble, learning, fresh man.
Thanks for responding.
Adam
Posted by: Adam Lehman at July 16, 2008
Just an incidental comment regarding Mr. Jones' question "Seriously, how many 'intellectually superior egoists' do you know who are on the dole?"
This is an astonishing question. I'm a grad student and almost every "intellectually superior egoist" I know or have ever met is on someone's dole. I can't think of one that isn't, and I challenge anyone else to try.
Posted by: James Rienstra at July 16, 2008
In what other forum do author's debate reviewers?
Posted by: Richard Dennis Miller at July 16, 2008
Though I am glad that Mr. Jones posted in order to defend his position against Chad's original claims, I can't help but feeling that this post just leaves more questions.
For starters, does Jones honestly think that by "crusty old Christians" that Chad meant Christians who claim traditional denominations and perform liturgy? I think it is clear by the female pastor, wacky service, and major homosexuality issue that the people at COTA can bear no claim to the title crusty old Christians in anybody's book.
Second, Jones really seems to avoid the whole issue involving CCC. The issue that I see Chad raise, and which I would want to expound on, is that according to Jones, CCC had bad theology which lead to ugly Christianity. But, the rub here is that by looking at p.105 we see that what Jones views as "good theology" is just simply his version of orthopraxy. But then what is "beautiful Christianity"? Well, again I think we would have to say that is also orthopraxy. So, Jones' claim is basically "orthopraxy begets orthopraxy," and what appears to be implied here is that living the way Jones deems appropriate is the only right way for a Christian to live. Thus, the charge of supreme arrogance would be merited.
Lastly, we again see the issue of humility brought up. Apparently to Jones, "Christlike humility" comes from deconstructing things. And while I'll agree that Christ did deconstruct the standing worldviews of his time, that action did not stand alone, but instead was immediately followed by his making a stand on the correct viewpoint revealed by God. Thus, if all our "humility" does is deconstruct without taking a stand, then what we are left with is a void in our worldviews where all sorts of hell is allowed to run loose.
Posted by: Todd Burus at July 17, 2008
Sadly I walked away from Chad's review wondering if we read the same book. Oh well.
Posted by: Jonathan Brink at July 17, 2008
You know...one of the rules of conflict resolution and just being fair and mature is to "let someone define themselves and what they intend in a conversation".
Sounds like Tony just declared his intentions/heart, etc.
Can't wait to see people say:
Yeah, Tony, you say XYZ isn't what you meant/your outlook/etc., BUT...(insert immature insistence to paint him however you want.)
And Tony's critics claim to eschew the supposed "truth is anything I want it to be/interpret" relativism of their 3rd-grade grasp of post-modern theory.
sheeesh.
I can't wait to watch the astonishing, yet predictable spasms.
But I get it...some of us need an enemy to battle so we can feel faithful.
Posted by: nathan at July 17, 2008
Thanks Tony,
I was a bit taken aback by Chad's perspective of your book. Although I would admit that the Emergent Conversation CAN be a birthplace for intellectualism, I think it's sad that such a strong blanket statement was given.
Posted by: Dan Ra at July 17, 2008
Todd,
Have you attended CoTA's gatherings ? Talked with someone that is part of that community ?
Posted by: bob c at July 17, 2008
Todd,
Have you attended CoTA's gatherings ? Talked with someone that is part of that community?
No, why? I don't believe I have stated anything that is out of line with the community which Jones described in his book, do you? I don't think it's fair to play that card unless someone attempts to speak from personal experience on a matter. Besides, when you hear "crusty old Christians," do you envision the congregation Jones set forth in his book? If you say "Yes" I think we'll all know you are just pushing an agenda.
Posted by: Todd Burus at July 17, 2008
Todd,
I suspect I have an agenda, just as all of us do.
But you summary - female pastor, wacky service, homosexual issues - describes a great deal of what was once characterized as "mainline denominations".
Posted by: bob c at July 17, 2008
attending CoTA or not is not the issue.
The issue is that Tony has stated his intent and meaning with respect to his use of the phrase "crusty old blah blah blah".
Sorry, Todd, it's clear you're the one "carrying water".
Posted by: nathan at July 17, 2008
The problem with Chad Hall's review is that once he "Driscolled" in the article (see the Ur Lexicontest for definition) his critiques, at least the ones that actually had substance and possible merit, were lost in all the noise. Likewise, Tony Jones spends most of his response taking issue with the more flamboyant, and less substantive, critiques made (i.e. ego, arrogance, sugar daddy's, crustiness, etc.). To me it just goes to show how unproductive that kind of crap (childish chiding clothed in intellectual debate) really is. It gets people posting comments on here. But I still don't know what to make of the books, the reviews, or the responses. Seems like a waste of time.
Posted by: Jonathan Stone at July 17, 2008
Regardless of what the rest of us think, the only one who should be commenting right now is Chad since Mr. Jones has taken exception to the review.
Posted by: sheerahkahn at July 17, 2008
Nathan said:
"You know...one of the rules of conflict resolution and just being fair and mature is to 'let someone define themselves and what they intend in a conversation'."
I'm 85% with you but for the realities of conversational evasion and lies, both purposeful- and self-deception. I'm not accusing Mr. Jones of anything...just saying that the "rule" is a starting point for reconciliation; discernment of intent and truth still has a role to play. Your argument, as valid as it is as a side-note, certainly isn't the silver bullet to kill the debate-beast.
Posted by: Paul Dalach at July 17, 2008
But you summary - female pastor, wacky service, homosexual issues - describes a great deal of what was once characterized as "mainline denominations".
Yeah, I know. That's unfortunate, isn't it?
Posted by: Todd Burus at July 17, 2008
I can't say it better than Jonathon Stone, so I will just say I agree completely with his comment.
Posted by: Jorie Cantrell at July 17, 2008
Paul D,
it's not about killing the debate beast.
It's about Person A saying: You said X and you mean Y.
Then person B says: No. I said X and I meant Z.
We're not talking about obfuscation, we're talking about clear statements.
Tony clearly used certain terminology.
Chad clearly asserted the use of that term means Tony thinks along certain lines.
Tony responded and said what his intent/meaning was in the use of that term.
If you have to start "discerning" beyond that --after an issue was raised and answered--then the issue isn't discernment, etc. It's people just don't like the answer OR they're assumption laden characterizations have been repudiated and they just don't like it.
I'll grant that there are other pastoral circumstances where you and I may need to probe deeper.
But this is dialogue, not church discipline.
Posted by: nathan at July 17, 2008
attending CoTA or not is not the issue.
The issue is that Tony has stated his intent and meaning with respect to his use of the phrase "crusty old blah blah blah".
Actually, if you look at the historical record, I am fairly certain that "crusty old Christians" is never a phrase Jones used prior to Chad's coining, so if anybody get's to determine how it is used it would be Chad.
That said, as Chad uses it he seems to be refering to Jones' comments on around pp.35-40 of his book, in which Jones is clearly talking about the new crust which has formed as being the crust of "bureaucracy, institutionalism, and dogma" and "the individualism [of] our democratic system of government" as well as "consumerism." From here he says that "emergent Christianity is an effort . . . to respond to the gospel as it . . . breaks through the age-old crusts."
So, we are on the horns of a dilemma. Following Chad's coining and Jones' usage and remarks, it seems that CoTA has to be one or the other. If it's crusty then it can't be emergent, and if it's emergent it can't be crusty.
This is how the argument looks to me. If I wrote a book and said "Black people are lazy and need to be changed" and "People in the black community talk funny," and then said "I like Heidi Klum," what would you say? You would say that I am a racist, which I think is a reasonable claim given the evidence. But what if I came back and said "Racist. Didn't I say I like Heidi Klum? Isn't she married to a black guy?" Does that make any difference? Of course not. Same diff. (And yes, before anyone tries to sound smart, I know that is hyperbole.)
Posted by: Todd Burus at July 17, 2008
Nathan,
I have a friend who weekly tells me a strong, clear statement about WHO SHE IS (she's very fervent). Sadly, those statements all contradict. Over time, I've stopped trusting this statements.
How this applies to Tony Jones? I've watched the epistemological-wars (epistewars?) over the last couple of years. From what I can see through blogs, books, and podcasts, it hasn't gotten more civil and, if anything, we are much further divided as a Christian community than when the conversation began. I for a time considered myself, if not Emergent, emerging...maybe I still do a bit. I was and am very sympathetic to the call for true, Christian orthopraxy and a reevaluation of our cultural assumptions.
But at this point, people have stopped
trusting the motives, intent, and truthfulness of each other's statements. Bottom line.
People call Jone's clarifying statements into question because they don't trust him. Much like many on the Emergent side don't pause a moment to consider the voracity of their hatred and suspicion of Driscoll. (and yes, many of the statements by some I've heard concerning Driscoll would by even worldly standards be considered hatred).
More specifically, Todd has validly expressed how most of those even nominally on the "other side" from Jones, "heard" him criticize old church institutions. The criticism wasn't for the likes of old, theologically liberal institutions like the Episcopal Church. What was "heard" was a poke at the (old or new) theologically conservative brands of christianity...those that are not "local, conversational, and temporal". From that side of things, a claim to have great affection to for the old, liberal COTA means little as a clarifying comment and seems, rather, an evasion through intentional misunderstanding.
(consequently, I'm trying to take a page out of Brian McClaren's book by not showing which "side" I'm not...probably, I fear, with little success)
Posted by: Paul Dalach at July 17, 2008
Todd,
Wow. Are you kidding me?
Your Heidi Klum/racist thing isn't even in the ball park.
That's 2 different statements.
We're dealing with one thing from Tony.
Re-read what the man wrote in his response.
He's writing about people who are living in a very real space: That being faithful to their denominational identity and still being frustrated with the clearly petrified realities of those ways of doing church.
YOU'VE created the either/or scenario.
sheesh.
Paul D.,
You know...you've hit the nail on the head. People don't trust Jones.
Guess what?
That means those who don't "trust" have the problem. Not Tony.
It's not about what Tony has said and clarified. It's about other people's hang-ups.
And please don't put Tony in the same ring as Driscoll.
Tony's clear critiques are not personalized attacks that demean and dehumanize the character and intent of people different from him.
Even at his (admittedly) somtimes snarkiest nothing compares to the adolescent attempts at lockerroom social emasculation of Driscoll and his "chickified, limpwristed", blah, blah blah ad nauseum ad infinitum.
Folks, I'm all for fairness in critique, but I'm disappointed, really disappointed in some of you here.
But I get it.
I really do.
You can have the last word.
I'm done.
Posted by: nathan at July 18, 2008
And with that last comment from Nathan, this thread should now close, because he said it all!
Posted by: Elle at July 18, 2008
I rarely read blog arguments because I rarely find them enlightening, and I came across this one in the course of some research. It would be so refreshing, and world-changing, if we had a lot less talk and a lot more action.
Posted by: nate at July 18, 2008
Elle,
ummmm... Nothing I've said indicates that I think this thread should close or that I'm the final word on this whole issue.
I've just indicated that I've said my peace on this Chad/Tony/Mark thing... Welcome to the blogosphere where people engage to the degree they so desire.
Posted by: nathan at July 18, 2008
good response to an insulting, condescending, arrogant and convoluted review.
Posted by: Rick at July 19, 2008
I've always found that the more helpful response to an accusation of arrogance is compassion, gentleness, charity. I don't think Tony's response does much to really change the impression that self-identified 'emergents' are critical and self-serving. In other words, I would think it would be more helpful to say something like "I'm sorry that's how I came across; I was trying to tell stories of courage and hope, but perhaps I focused too much on the challenges presented by other churches." Note Mark Driscoll's response in the more recent post--he appreciates the negative criticism.
I'm a self-identified 'emergent' (I've worshipped at COTA when I visit my family in Seattle) and I am continually dismayed at how many enemies we seem to be making. Perhaps we need to look harder at ourselves and whether we are really partnering with the larger American church, or just patting ourselves on the back for being cool. In some ways, we are the victims of false accusations by folks who misunderstand us. But for a bunch that believes so strongly in dialog, we seem to be doing a poor job of fostering it.
Posted by: Nate at July 20, 2008
Nathan,
I am not so sure I asserted you were the final authority on this topic. I was making note of your comments and how I felt they summed up the issue beautifully. I apologize that my compliment somehow indicated otherwise. I will think next time before posting something similar to that. Welcome to the blogosphere were compliments get turned into critiques!
Posted by: Elle at July 21, 2008
Ack! Ick!
My apologies...I made some assumptions and we all know what that ends up making me.
One of my favorite writers stated, "Worse than mistaking an enemy for a friend is mistaking a friend for an enemy".
Again, my apologies.
Excuse me while I open mouth, insert foot and chew...
Posted by: Elle at July 21, 2008
UrL,
I put "Elle" in the NAME field of that last post instead of my own. I was so frazzled. I was trying to address my respone to Elle...
my bad.
I don't know if you can edit that or not...
Posted by: nathan at July 21, 2008