Tony Jones on The Church in the Present Tense

Tony Jones is an ecclesiologist. He blogs and serves as the theologian in residence at Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis. His second book on the ECM drops in August, 2011: The Church Is Flat: The Relational Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church Movement.

 

It turns out that David Fitch is disappointed with the Emergent/ing/ence Church Movement (ECM). Well, he'd better get in line. It seems that all sorts of people are disappointed in us -- in the last week, I've read accounts on Facebook and blogs of evangelicals, liberals, mainliners, and GLBT persons who are disappointed with the ECM. Imagine my surprise, via Facebook, to discover that we had disappointed the bisexual and transgendered people of thew world.

No doubt, a lot of people have put a lot of hopes in the EMC, hopes that we were bound to disappoint. More interesting to me than how we've disappointed people, however, is what has led so many people, Dave and the authors of Church in the Present Tense among them, to be so disappointed with the modern church that they'd like to overhaul the entire thing.

So, it's like this: a bunch of us got together about a decade ago and said, "This patient is sick, really sick. Let's see if we can't help her get better." So we did our level best.

Turns out, other physicians and metaphysicians (see what I did there?) also care about this patient, so they started chiming in with their diagnoses. It's like we were doing our own little surgery on the church and suddenly, there were a bunch of other surgeons in the gallery, shouting directions at us.

"More radical reformation," said Dr. Fitch. "She needs to be more radically anti-imperialistic."

"No," countered Dr. Jamie Smith, "Put some Milbank in that IV bag and give her a radical orthodoxy drip."

"You've strayed too far from evangelical hermeneutics," said Dr. McKnight. "Just give her some blue parakeet pills."

"You're all wrong," shouted Dr. Corcoran, "These guys don't even believe that the patient is real; they think this is a game. What they need is a dose of reality."

I could go on, but I think you get my point. The very openness to conversation that has been engendered by the ECM is also our downfall. We've take a pastiche approach to church and theology -- we take a little bit from here and a little bit from there. The benefit of that is a great deal more freedom than many leaders in the church feel. The other side of that coin, however, is that we inevitably disappoint anyone who comes from a particular camp, because we're never really enough of anything.

Church in the Present Tense, in my reading, is along these lines. Each author takes the ECM gently to task, asking us to be more of something. Funny thing is, they don't agree on what we should be more of, and neither does Dave, who's interaction with this book precedes mine.

I happen to love this aspect of the ECM. I think that the pastiche model really works, thus I read each of the chapters in this book with keen interest, both challenged by them and wishing I could take each author to the theological woodshed.

I do wish that CitPT had done two things: 1) presented the diversity of the ECM more boldly (a book with four white, male authors just doesn't wash), and 2) dealt with the very pastiche model that I mention above. Do the authors reject that aspect of the ECM, or are they happy that their tradition gets a hearing therein?

Comments

[brad/futuristguy]

Dr. Jones’ prescription for *CitPT* (1) being more diverse and (2) examining the pastiche model of ECM/Emergent is certainly valid.

As to the former, I can only offer several additional elements of personhood diversity to the conversation about the conversation, should I ever be invited so to participate.

But, on the second issue … I dunno … in my opinion as only “Bachelor Brad” (unable to complete a masters degree and thus will never be a doctor), I find that the pastiche approach advocated by Dr. Jones falls short for me and whoever else may be part of my burgeoning Big Bad Brad Movement.

I am/we are looking for a holistic and integrated epistemology that organically incorporates the bits and pieces in a coherent system where actions consistent with our assumptions emerge. I’m/we’re no longer intrigued by the semi-systematic approach found in ECM/Emergent that seems to orbit around particular questions – valuable as those issues are, I’m/we’re concerned about more. I’m/we’re not attracted by the surface-driven church; I/we want more than something that’s just dissected theobitbytes glued together in an assemblage for the assembly of the saints. (Personally, I find Dr. Jones’ pastiche prescription creates what I’ve been calling “The Frankenstein Syndrome.” All the parts may be accounted for and stitched together – but that doesn’t mean the system’s alive!)

The closest system to integrative and holistic that I’ve found in almost 40 years of looking would be in Robert Webber (see *The Secular Saint: A Case for Evangelical Social Responsibility*) and some of the things presented after the 1977 Chicago Call (see *The Orthodox Evangelicals* edited by Robert Webber and Donald Bloesch). At this point, I suspect more of a coherent paradigm system shows up in the missional movement than in the emerging movements. Maybe someday I’ll be able to make a more direct R&D contribution to a different kind of conversation about (re-)construction with some blogging about how deepest-level assumptions from epistemological systems get us to where they do, and map out the gaps and overlaps in epistemologies of emergional, transitional, missional, etceteral. Til then, adieu. Back to my cave to work on my Venn mapping of movements …

P.S. I'm sure at some point I'll be disappointed in my own Big Bad Brad Movement, as will others, finding I/we were too limited in our research parameters. Oh well. Reality check. At least by posting this postscript, archive searchers on ECM will find I've been conveniently prevenient.

[Alice]

I find this piece frustrating. First, Jones suggests that he & his little band started the ECM conversation, which is wildly off base. Then he suggests that they were the primary "surgeons" and everyone else was just shouting in suggestions- a dangerously arrogant assumption, in my mind. Finally, he avoids any meaningful engagement with the criticism, simultaneously rejecting it as inevitable, then praising it as part of the beauty of the movement. Yes, Dr. Jones, I am sorely disappointed.

[Dan Brennan]

Loved this perceptive analysis, Tony.

[david cl driedger]

Ummm, yah, a bit of what Alice said. Didn't see the point of this post other than making Tony feel a little better . . . but of course he is the surgeon.

[Jason Clark]

As one of the authors of CitPT, I'd appreciate some examples from your 'theological woodshed', that engage with the issues we raised in the book.

So as an 'ecclesiologist' are you positing that 'pastiche' is not jut the theological model for the E/C but the ecclesial model/process too?

If so I do think I engaged with that in my two chapters, and spoke to ecclesial concerns around related notions of bricolage.

You suggest that as one of the authors that I am so disappointed with the EMC and modern church that 'to overhaul the entire thing.' I think that's claim not warranted by the brief for the book, or the content. We were invited to bring our experiences of being involved with ECM into a kind and yet robust theological engagement.

Again some engagement with what we as authors wrote would be more helpful, at least it would for me.

[Jason Clark]

...and please excuse my typos above, as I make these comments from my phone.

[Dale Lature]

I personally don't see much lack of wanting to "deconstruct" or "complain" or "point out perceived shortcomings" in any of the involved parties. It's kind of a "required piece" of any journey to articulate church. The rub seems to come in the differences encounteredbetween articulation and practice/embodiment. And on the latter, we're still left with "articulating practice", which is , from what I take away from JKA SMith's Desiring the Kingdom, is not really all that possible or desirable. Aren't we ultimtely down to the "fruits of formation" forged in us by a community's liturgical practice and accompanying social embodiment?
This is a similar thought I posted on the Fitch post a couple of items back, but since this post seems to have gotten more engagement, thought I'd try the same thoughts here.

[Mike Clawson]

I'm with Tony. I confess, I prefer the pastiche approach. I think this is for a couple of very basic reasons:

1) Truth is really big.
2) I am not so big.
3) Therefore I should remain open to truth wherever I happen to find it and should not think that it can be neatly contained within only one system, tradition, approach or whatever.
4) Also, each of these systems/traditions/approaches probably get as much wrong as they get right, therefore we need to always keep listening to each other and using the God-given gift of discernment to correct and balance each other. After all, if we're all part of the Body of Christ, can all these different groups really say to each other "I have no need of you"?

[Dlature]

Agreed, Mike. A lot of times I get an uncomfortable feeling that we have crossed over into linguistic condescension re: our theologies and conversations. And I hate to see that. Especially when I discover that I have been engaging in it.

Dale

[brad/futuristguy]

I agree with much of the content in Mike Clawson's comment above, I just don't think it goes quite far enough. His four premises understandably arise from revelation that God has the most comprehensive view in the cosmos, that we are limited and should remain open, and that our systems are flawed. I'm most troubled by what seems to be Emergent paradigm satisfaction with pastiching. My take on human nature is that we are designed to be much more than explorers and experimenters; we're designed to move toward paradigm consistency and coherence. Pastiching does collage together a collection with its own sense of internal consistency perhaps, but I think it is still turns out too small and the set doesn’t have a larger sense of coherence.

I'm drawn toward an integrative paradigm, which I believe makes us uncomfortable and motivates us toward being *comprehensive* (includes everything that Scripture requires of us as Christ’s disciples), *organic and holistic* (interweaves these parts into life-giving patterns, not just assembles them together as a glued-together collage), *appropriate* (matches the cultural context without overcontrolling it or being controlled by it), and *dynamic* (orients personal and social change toward “redemption transformation”).

I've been following this thread on Emergent pastiche theology, and considering what seem to be some outcomes of this approach. Just posted a response on "The Problem with Pastiche Paradigms" at http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/the-problem-with-pastiche-paradigms/. Maybe it will contribute something toward understanding why the conversation between pastichers and holistic paradigm integrators eventually and inevitably seems to break down.

(Though, in response to Dale, why the conversation with the modernist "linguistic-perfectionism" philosophy breaks down is its own related issue for another time. Check out Umberto Eco’s book, *The Search for the Perfect Language* for some ideas on how this quest leads toward theory/static and away from action/praxis.)

And yes, everything I needed to know about constructing a transformational theology, I learned from the Bible and … *HGTV Design Star*!