Joe, after reading that “clarity is often overrated” I still must ask, “what do you mean by this?”

(And please remember that by ec standards, I’m old, part of the problem, in need of being enlightened, etc.)

Joe, there are scathing reviews on this stuff — and even the ones supporting it are difficult to follow and vague. What’s so wrong about being clear? Generations have spent volumes on making sure that what they were trying to say was clear. Jesus spoke in parables, true, but they were meant to HIDE the truth from those who “couldn’t hear” — he later went on to explain them CLEARLY to his disciples. PLEASE be clear. I have a million other things to do than try to figure out what these guys are thinking/saying… just say it!

If you are wondering about specific ideas/theologies that would take a long time. Much of it is reflected in traditional reformed thought – I was surprised how much of what was said/criticisms of the church are shared by reformed thinkers (one example, the emphasis on the story of redemption in preaching over 5 things you need to know to improve your life). Some of it is a matter of renewed emphasis. For example, those in the ec emphasize a more communal understanding of salvation and the Christian life. The modern church has boiled it down to a hyper-individualistic soteriology (Jesus-and-me-ism). But Jesus saves us to be a part of a community. I’ve touched on this in recent preaching. The individual aspect of salvation is important, but not everything. The ec also emphasizes missional work from local churches in our communities as the natural outgrowth of the Gospel, whereas many of our churches tend to rely on the CP to do the work for us.

The conversation is very broad and new and therefore hard to nail down. I think guys like Wislon and Mohler are having a hard time wth it for the wrong reasons. See my post on A Generous Orthodoxy
http://www.joethorn.com/wog/2005/02/brian_mclarens_.html

It tends to be feared by those who 1) do not understand it, or 2) do not want to enagage in discussion, or 3) want to treat the conversation as if it were monolithic.

For now, it’s a good conversation that is seeking a clear identity. In the end the whole thing can turn sour, but it may turn out to be something great. For me, it’s a sharpening tool forcing me to remain true to Scripture and keep Jesus at the center.

We should be concerned about what some of the ec guys are saying, but we should also be excited about many of their points and thankful for many of their criticisms.

1. If this is truly of God, where is the scripture? (in looking at websites both pro and con, it is extremely difficult to find any references to support this “position” — in fact, it’s just plain difficult to find “a position”. I’ve found a lot of criticizing of the perceived problems rather than suggested solutions, but that’s another issue.) Since God decided to use the written word and his son, the Word, to reveal himself to us, it seems critical that any movement (or conversation) that claims to be truly Christian would have deep roots in it. Is this more an avoidance of all things “churchy” or are there real things to sink your teeth into?

2. If this is truly of God, why are the old guys whom we’ve trusted a great deal in many other areas suddenly labeled as “afraid to engage in the conversation” because they disagree? I don’t recall the likes of Douglas Wilson, et. al. ever being afraid to take on a real debate.

The problem I’m having with this, Joe, (and perhaps it’s the same for others?) is that this fuzziness breeds suspicion rather than conviction. When people are in their 20′s and 30′s (especially if they’re intellectual) it’s common to play the heady game of “figure me out while I use big words that I don’t think you know”. I played it, too. It’s an ok game, I guess, as long as you don’t really expect people to figure you out. I does get old, though — usually around the same time you start to yourself! You find it’s not worth having to explain yourself over and over again when you could have said it plainly in the first place.

Words, it seems, and the uses of words, are exceedingly important to God. “Let your yes be yes and your no be no” seems to have a lot of weight on this in particular. Perhaps my “old fashioned” thinking will be easily dismissed by those savvy and hip and in the know. But if they can’t communicate what they’re thinking or believing or standing on or not standing on — how in the world are they going to communicate the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ????? I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I’m not a dough-head, either, and I can’t figure out what they’re trying to say!

I’m all for having a conversation about the weaknesses and faults of “the church” or even “our church”. I am not one to hold onto tradition for the sake of it’s familiarity or comfort. Nor am I one to throw out the new simply because “we haven’t done it that way before”. But I would have to ask anyone I’m conversing with to not play games with me, especially where Truth is concerned — it’s too important. Say what you mean. I might hate what you’ve said, but at least then we can have meaningful dialog about what you really mean. Otherwise, we’re both skirting around what I think I heard you say you thought I meant to say you thought, etc. etc.

I’m not sold. In fact, I’m suspicious at best. I’ll keep reading for a while, but if the boundaries and definitions don’t get formed at some point, I find it strangely familiar to other, harmful things that have crept into the church in the name of “enlightenment”.

Just my initial, but very frustrated thoughts.
Laurie

“A warning: as in most of my other books, there are placed here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity.”

There’s the whole paragraph, for what it’s worth. You may not agree with his approach. I wouldn’t necessarily agree everyone in the emerging church does either, although I have to say that I, for one, don’t necessarily hold it against it him.

By the way, I’m not so sure Jesus explained “clearly” the way you are saying he did. I think we still have trouble understanding his parables.

I wonder if the perceived fuzziness comes form people trying to make the “conversation” into something that it’s not. By the way, Joe, I liked you thoughts about what the EC is and is not.

As to the question about scripture, I think emerging types tend to throw around scripture a lot less. That doesn’t mean they don’t read it. That doesn’t mean they don’t spend time reflecting on it and living it out. Some emerging churches are known for reading long portions of scripture. I also wouldn’t be surprised if they spend more time in the Old Testament than a lot of evangelical churches do.