* Andrew Hamilton (Hamo) did us a great service by posting up his recent conversations with D.A. Carson – and confirms to me the need to be quick to listen, slow to speak and slower to publish. That is partly why people like me in Asia have been pretty silent and cautious on matters regarding emerging church movement or emergent conversation unless I’m asked. Hamo did ask me to give some thoughts which was nice – and I said I’d try to do it after an article i wrote on “the emerging church movement” for a local monograph/magazine. For now, I’ll pick out the stuff Hamo wrote that caught my attention.*
The Carson Conversation I
“I re-read Carson’s book on the day before and as I did got quite angry at the criticisms he levelled which just are not true of most of those I know in the Australian scene. I found myself needing to stop and pray that we would listen to each other and not just fire a bunch of bullets, because I was not impressed.”
… In his book Don comes across at times fair and reasoned and at times ‘spiky’ and harsh. He does not sound at all impressed with the emerging church crew. However in person (as is the case with many authors) he was personable and easy to speak to once we got past the small talk. I appreciated that he asked questions of Geoff and I that sought to understand who we felt we were, what we were doing and how we were using terms (“church/mission/pastor/missionary”) Without actually stating it, I think he was able to gauge from our conversations that the ’emerging church’ in Australia as we were speaking about it was a somewhat different beast to the one he was critiqueing in his book.
We share similar but also different theological positions, however the common ground would be a comitment to orthodoxy and the central tenets of the faith.
.. I would have really liked to address some of the issues surrounding Carson’s comments on Brian McClaren, as I don’t believe he has been entirely fair to him, but given the brevity of time we needed to let those issues drop and simply speak of how his criticisms looked in the land of Oz.
… One thing he did stress was that he felt the EC in Oz (at least as defined by Geoff and I) would not be considered EC in other parts of the world. Hmmm
And therein lies much of the problem.
the Carson Conversation II
“Those who know me would know that I haven’t always sat comfortably with the term ’emerging church’, because it has such different meanings around the world and I don’t want to sign on to some of those definitions.
If it’s the next clever trick out of America to make your church grow then I sign off now.
In Oz we choose to use the term ’emerging missional church’ to emphasise the focus of our attention the recovery of a missionary identity in the west.”
… I am not worried that most here will believe me a heretic because of Don’s book those who know me certainly won’t but I am concerned that those who are new to the area will accept the word of a respected theologian over and above a local missionary they do not know personally. And I am concerned for the shadow his book may cast over those seeking to experiment and explore new ways of being church and doing mission.
… My understanding (please correct me if wrong) is that there was no actual face to face interaction with emerging church leaders or interaction with specific ’emerging churches’.
The sample group for research were the writings of a limited number of texts which may or may not have been read accurately. (At this point I was ‘gonged’ giving me 3 minutes to wind up my talk. I wanted to address some issues related to B Mc but just didn’t have the time )
As well as being limited to the writings of Americans (Chalke excepted) it does not explore the variety of nuances of the Emerging church around the world. It seems to define what is happening around the world by what is happening in America. This is problematic.
… Not everyone is down on propositional truth. In fact I don’t think I know too many EC Aussies who would dismiss propositional truth at all. A more humble approach to scripture is not a denial of its truth, simply a recognition that we do not know completely.
Our primary concern as with all missionaries has been how to live in the culture and yet not embrace its negative aspects.
… As we engage with people we do risk syncretism but we are already syncretistic and I believe we kid ourselves if we think we are untainted by our context. We just don’t see it as well.
… Ironically we don’t speak a lot of the whole post-modern deal over here. It was talked about 5-10 years ago, but it doesn’t seem to be the primary issue. We just accept that this is the world we live in and get on with it.
… In conclusion I would like to think we are as concerned for biblical fidelity as I am sure Don Carson is concerned for seeing the gospel transform our world.
We may come at these questions from different angles and that may shape our understandings and perceptions.
We need each other and we need to listen to each other. We need quality biblical scholars to help us read the Bible more effectively and we need earthy on the ground missionaries who can keep the scholars honest.
… A large part of my concern with what Carson had to say was related to the fact that I don’t know any theologically aberrant ECers, but the book seemed to suggest they were the norm.”
The Carson Conversation III
“Someone asked me if I still see myself as part of the emerging church, given Carson’s critique and his statement that ‘we may not actually be considered emerging in other parts of the world’. My response is to say ‘Yes I am.’ Not because I subscribe to all that he critiques, but largely because I am not about to allow him to define me out.”
The Carson Conversation IV
“He did however mention yet again that we seemed to be of a different breed to the North American scene and that he was not concerned that we drift off in eccentricity. That’s an interesting comment because (as much as I am ignorant) I would assume there is great diversity in the US scene also.”
The Carson Conversation Final Reflections
“Perhaps the critique that is offered of the EC would be better received if it were not given (by some) with the implication that many of us are probably no longer Christians. In the face of those kinds of comments I do get tempted to sign up for a crazy liberal theological position just out of frustration. Usually its only the more wacky ‘reformed’ bloggers who make these suggestions, but others sometimes walk a thin line too.”
Sivin makes the point that even if there is some validity of this stuff to the English speaking western world, there is still Asia and Africa to consider. Do they fit the critique also? Sivin – I’d love to hear your take on it all.
“If I had to choose some issues to say ‘yes’ to, then I’d sign on to the final warning about sectarianism. There is always the danger of creating divisions and polarising, not what we are about (see Geoff’s section) Of course the publishing of the book actually contributed to a further marginalisation of the ECs as churches became somewhat more skeptical and other significant leaders (Piper etc) began to speak out also. So in a sense the sectarianism was actually foisted on us by the critique.”
Glad to hear that the EC Australia unequivocally has “the common ground would be a comitment to orthodoxy and the central tenets of the faith”…
Now, is that so hard to do in Asia? π
If ‘central tenets of the faith’ like the Nicene/Chalcedon creeds which united christians of all theological stripes are considered not essential, then i guess we can’t really blame ‘wacky’ reformed bloggers and significant leaders like Carson and Piper from making a stand for biblical faithfulness…
Even Greg Boyd thinks Oneness pentecostals and JWs (who deny those central tenets of the faith) should not share a common ‘mission’.
Of course wat EC Aus. says does not necessarily reflect views elsewhere π
Hedonese, not too sure why you seem to be beating the same drum on an issue that is non-existent (i.e. the implied denial that the Nicene/Chalcedon creeds are not essential).
Er… did i imply anything? If it’s not true, then it may apply ‘elsewhere’.
So what are the central tenets of the faith?
How do we ‘justification by faith’ is not essential while nicene creed is? π
Dear Hedonese,
I refer you to http://blc.net.my/values.htm.
On another matter, even as a Lutheran recognizing and appreciating the whole doctrine of “Justification” (and the context in which Lutehr articulated his understanding) it doesn not mean it’s meaning is exhausted. As Biblical scholars help us expand our interpretive horizons on catergories of “Justification” and “sanctification”, there is room for dialogue and deepening of theological insight.
I don’t think anyone is questioning the central tenets of faith here. What is being questioned is how these tenets are being interpreted and applied. This seems to be recurring theme I see occuring in many of the resources that lay claim to being part of the emerging church conversation.
I for one, find great difficulty in upholding one tenet in the name of Biblical faithfulness, when that means closing one eye to or dismissing as irrelevant another Biblical injunction. But that seems to be very normative in my church experience. Maybe that’s why I see myself drawn to the conversation, even if I do not wish to be identified as emergent; at least right now.
yup, there is a danger in upholding biblical faithfulness and dismiss the other injunction to love, for example… just as it is tempting to uphold love to closing one eye to biblical discernment too.
Sivin, thanks a lot for the link with nicene creed and luther confession of faith! Fascinating stuffs, thanks for the conversation bro.
And I assume that those statements are recognized, appreciated and affirmed by EC Msia, rather than just speaking for a few individuals only… i sincerely hope so…
Now, isn’t it simply wonderful to have clarity on such issues?
I may be wrong here, but I’m confident biblical scholars like JD Crossan and Marcus Borg can also help us expand our interpretive horizons on catergories of Jesus’ “deity” and “humanity” and there is room for dialogue and deepening of theological insight…
No question abt that! And dun u think it is just possible the folks at Jesus seminar went further than just dialogue and deepening insights into “denying” the historic understanding of the Nicene creed?
If it’s possible, then perhaps the same can also happen for justification sola fide.
Hmm .. it seems to me that this emerging reaction (to the emerging conversation) is very based on hypotheses and “possibilities”.
Sure it is possible to enter into the realm of heresy when questioning and re-examining theology and dogma. It is also equally possible to enter into a much more deeper relationship with both God and man. Why focus on what I would perceive as the straw men on heresy when none is actually to be found yet?
This whole tendency of needing to be in control (as opposed to allowing and trusting in God’s sovereignty that He will be in control in almost ironical contradiction to one of the sacred cows of us evangelicals) is precisely why me and many of the people I know are so jaded with the Church.
I can’t speak for all but my personal experience is that upon re-examination and critical questioning of a lot of the “untouchable” questions and contradictions, I end up still re-affirming a lot of what evangelicalism is all about, but with one big difference, that of finally “owning” a lot of those propositions rather then being forced to conform to them by convention or tradition.
That doesn’t mean that I haven’t discarded many “propositions” as well but I do find that by having the space to commune with God and his people inquisitively and critically (without resorting to ad-hominems) and yet also having the space to exercise and engage with one another’s God given intellect within a community has definitely made me much more discerning about what matters and what doesn’t.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that Hedonese may simply be fighting against opponents of his own psychological construct?