Derek June 30th, 2008

Yeah…

This was sort of a weird one. I never quite "got" what exactly they were objecting to. I guess you'd have to be hardcore "reformed" to appreciate this one.

Maybe if you have these guys on again, have Tony Jones too, so these guys can actually TALK to people who might actually (gasp!) be "emergent."

It wasn't fun or profound, and seemed kind of pointless. And the mischaracterization of emerging folk got annoying after awhile. Maybe these guys shoul put down their quills and actually have a few conversations outside of their safe zones…

Erik June 30th, 2008

From the Truth in Advertising Department:

"…fun and thoughtful…" was in reference to their book, not the show.

From the Confused Producer Department:

I too haven't fingered out what all the hubbub is about and was disappointed that they didn't actually talk to any Emergent folks before writing the book on why they aren't them.

In the end, meh. I'm not a big fan of either Coke or Pepsi.

Chris June 30th, 2008

Um, guys, they don't need to talk to a bunch of the Emergent folks; they read what those folks wrote! One can safely imagine that when authors take the time to write a book they are writing what they believe. Do you really believe Tony Jones or Rob Bell or Brian McLaren would say something in conversation that is radically different than what they've put their name on in the bookstore?

Kluck/DeYoung are offering answers to those who take joy in saying there are no answers.

thomas July 1st, 2008

I had similar feelings about the interview. The difference for me was that I heard them on another radio show before and it was excellent. Given that the format of the other show they were on was much more focused on the issues (where they differ from the emergent movement). Don't get me wrong, I always enjoy SBE. For some reason though this interview didn't quite bring out what I heard on the other show.

Here is a link: they were on the April 20 show.
http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Radio_Archives

Sign up for free account to download archived shows or podcast on iTunes. No, I do not work for STR.org or DeYoung/Kluck, and I love SBE!

Derek July 1st, 2008

"Kluck/DeYoung are offering answers to those who take joy in saying there are no answers."

That is a misrepresentation, and actual conversation with people you disagree with helps you avoid discrediting yourself with cute little (untrue) statements like that.

I've read their books too. They value wrestling with God. I've never heard an emerging author say "there are no answers" just – "there are too many easy answers unwrestled with." They never say "there is no truth" – they say, "How come so many people who claim objective truth have such subjective views of God?" That crackpot televagelist that makes your stomach churn believes in objective truth. Is that enough?

I would love to see these two guys who should be and are not talk to those who did have to be and became. That would be "good radio" at any rate.

Derek July 1st, 2008

oops..try to be fancy….that lat line should be

the two guys who should be and aren't talking to those who DIDN'T need to be and became.

Derek July 1st, 2008

"Do you really believe Tony Jones or Rob Bell or Brian McLaren would say something in conversation that is radically different than what they've put their name on in the bookstore?"

Their books are about conversation, because conversation helps clarify things, while books are mostly long long monologues.

Bill (cycleguy) July 1st, 2008

I found their book very well done and much needed in this discussion. Like Steve's clarification of Campolo's stand on the gay/lesbian issue in Key Life, there is a lot going around of "he said this or that." It was good to see it in print. I benefited tremendously from the book. Way to go K & T!

Jeff July 1st, 2008

I thought that these guys and SB on occasion were very dis-respectful in the way they discussed this issue. They talked as if they were the theological elite and clearly pointed out that they DO have a corner on the truth market. Another word that would describe the interview was, Pious.

They assume that all people that have given up on what we would call church in America (notice that I didn't say traditional church) are emergent and therefore heretical. I haven't found two people that would define what emergent is in the same way yet.

It is possible that some that associate themselves as emergent are NOT followers of Jesus and don't understand truth. Fortunately, none of the denominations have ever had someone in their ranks believe and/or teach something that wasn't correct. Especially those that are "reformed". …sorry for the sarcasm…

I have begun to call organizations that like to call themselves churches, "OFKC's", or Organizations formerly known as church. A church should be about being a community that encourages people to love and good deeds. Instead, they are full of people that think they aren't spiritual enough to really do anything… that is what the professional pastors are for. The structure, and the leadership push this idea. Many in the congregation worship the guy at the front and in most cases, the guy at the front controls the board to ensure the "success" of the organization, or growth. Growth is not about the hearts of the people, but rather the building, the staff, and the people with check books that will come each Sunday to the "worship" (a well organized event). Even to a simple guy like me that hasn't been to seminary, this doesn't seem Biblical.

I know that there are many people in these OFKC's that have bought in to the idea of "church", love Jesus, and have a heart for their lost friends, etc. However, the organization MUST protect itself from anything that takes away from it's cash flow. As people in the OFKC's realize that they aren't being encouraged they leave. The OFKC feeds them some guilt so that they feel "left out"… Or they just ignore them as was true in our case. This couldn't happen if true community was going on.

If Emergent were defined as groups of people that were sick and tired of religion (hmmm that sounds familiar) and wanted to follow Jesus to a Biblical view of being THE CHURCH rather than just going to one something BIG would happen. Everyone would join in the mission of The Church rather than just the pro's that we pay, and all of that money that goes to payroll and mortgage could be used to make a difference in our communities with the name Jesus attached to it.

The OFKC's wouldn't be able to make payroll or pay the mortgage and so they are fighting this hard.

I am not sure that I would call myself emergent, but I have stopped playing religion at the OFKC's. Too many Christians are being discarded by OFKC's and are marked as damaged goods. It is my hope that they can find that they are more valuable to The Kingdom outside of religion anyway and are encouraged to love their neighbor.

Chris July 2nd, 2008

Jeff, you said they, "…clearly pointed out that they DO have a corner on the truth market."

I don't think they're saying they have *the* corner on the truth market as much as they're saying there *is* truth and it can be known.

Bill, thanks for the link to the other interview. Sounds like that guy actually read the book and the conversation seemed more thoughtful. I assume SB read the book – I could be wrong, obviously. However, it seems Erik didn't read the book because on the 7th page (page 19), DeYoung clearly states they are focused on critiquing the writings of emergent leaders: "We want to point out some serious concerns in their thinking (especially as expressed in their writings)…" Their goal wasn't to engage these folks in conversation.

I go back to my first comment: "Do you really believe Tony Jones or Rob Bell or Brian McLaren would say something in conversation that is radically different than what they've put their name on in the bookstore?"

To which Derek said, "Their books are about conversation, because conversation helps clarify things, while books are mostly long, long monologues." Authors have as many pages as they want to get their points across. If a writer can't clearly say what he want to say then he shouldn't be writing.

Derek July 2nd, 2008

"To which Derek said, "Their books are about conversation, because conversation helps clarify things, while books are mostly long, long monologues." Authors have as many pages as they want to get their points across. If a writer can't clearly say what he want to say then he shouldn't be writing."

Then should writers go on radio shows? They already said everything they needed to on paper.

Why are the "two guys" doing so many radio spots (conversations)?

What's going on right now is a big conversation – across denominational lines and across "standard" theological boundaries. A book like this one, if it wants to be taken seriously, must thoughtfully engage the issues at hand. One really good way is to give the other side an opportunity to respond, clarify, and ask their own questions of the "critiquers."

But in this case, the critiquers are "ensconsed" in a self-inflicted ivory tower. Listening to the show, there were a few snide remarks that blatently mischaracterized emerging authors. There were also quite a few strawmen-heads being lopped off and windmills attacked. A benefit of letting the other side respond is that both sides can refocus and look at the real issues. There's no reason why this can't happen in a friendly, Christ-honoring manner, especially in the "low BS zone" of Steve Brown Etc. We don't need more people throwing hand-grenades from a safe distance, we need people who actually care about other people, whether they agree on everything or not.

But then again, the "two guys" are misrepresenting themselves. They are not simply innocent bystanders who are bemused and bewildered by emerging trends in theology. They are hardcore reformed believers who see emerging theology as a threat to their 1600's-flavored way of thinking about theology. And their solution is just going back to the reformation, not "always reforming." So the whole "by two guys who should be" is flase advertising. There is no reason why two guys who are hardcore reformed "should be" emergent.

I think having someone like Tony Jones defend himself and ask the "two guys" some of his own questions would be good radio… why not?

Derek July 2nd, 2008

Oh and by the way…by their definition of emergent…

is Michael Spencer emergent?

he doesn't believe the "infallibility" argument is worthwhile and is seeking a "Jesus Shaped Spirituality" – he also talks about being real and authentic, while understanding that "truth" is much more than cognative data-assimulation. (And he recommends reading Merton!) Are they talking about people like him too? Where does the critique stop?

Jeff July 2nd, 2008

Chris said… I don't think they're saying they have *the* corner on the truth market as much as they're saying there *is* truth and it can be known.

I agree… They did say that there IS truth and that it can be known. They acted like they had the corner on the truth market… I would agree with Derek's comment about their self-inflicted ivory tower. I agree that there is truth and that it can be known, but I also believe that there is Truth and that He can be known. I thought that the "two guys" kind of poo-pooed this idea.

Saying that all "emergents" are exactly as emergent authors would be just as bad as saying that all evangelicals are the same as Dobson. It doesn't work. I

Derek! Great points about the misrepresentation by the "two guys".

I still think that the underlying issue here is self preservation of jobs, control, and salaries. Some of the most impressive leaders I have seen have eliminated their own jobs because they realized that they weren't needed any more. That takes integrity. I personally think that while we will have pastors in The Church, what we call a pastor is a man made position that is no longer required. They should all go find real jobs, join a group of believers, start acting the way a Church would act and then actually be a Pastor to someone.

I would think that Michael Spencer is in fact emerging. He is moving from religion (proposition) to relationship (Jesus). If you have relationships going on, then you probably don't need to go to listen to some guy tell you how to think propositionally.

Chris July 2nd, 2008

Correction: I thanked Bill for the other interview. Should have thanked Thomas. Sorry about that.

Derek: just read the book. Your questions are answered there. And as SB noted, their tone is not judgmental. They go out of their way to be fair.

I wish you could see it form their point of view. From where they're standing they see a train barreling down on innocent bystanders. They're simply sounding an alarm. And they manage to do it, not by calling names or hurling insults but simply pointing out where they disagree.

Derek July 3rd, 2008

"Derek: just read the book. Your questions are answered there. And as SB noted, their tone is not judgmental. They go out of their way to be fair. "

Sorry, but it is their job to make me want to read the book, and they didn't.

"I wish you could see it form their point of view. From where they're standing they see a train barreling down on innocent bystanders. They're simply sounding an alarm. And they manage to do it, not by calling names or hurling insults but simply pointing out where they disagree."

I see them peddling in non-personal god who is more concerned with our right opinions than with our transformation as persons. That's always been the weakness of reformed theology in my mind, and nothing they said on SBE changed that much…

Church Voices » Blog Archive » They shouldn’t be…… July 24th, 2008

[...] recently listened to the episode of Steve Brown Etc that included an interview with the authors of the book Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys [...]