Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

Posted 11 May, 2007 - 14:44 by Andrew

I have been reading with some considerable frustration An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. The book describes itself on the back cover as:

a coming together of divergent voices into a collection of writings that will bring you the latest thinking of the emerging church. You will have a front-row seat as both established leaders and up-and-comers in this influential international movement grapple with how to be faithful Christians in today’s ever-changing cultural context.

It frustrates me, first, that the book promotes itself so self-consciously and self-importantly as the product of an elite friendship. Tony Jones describes the origins of Emergent Village in a ‘crummy hotel meeting room in Arlington, Texas, in August of 1998’:

And, as so many have found, being in a room with these individuals was an exhilarating experience. The energy in the room was palpable. The room positively crackled. I think that’s because we had the feeling, even back then, that we were on to something…. Even as we struggled to determine what that “something” was, we talked about an element of the connection that was seemingly even more important, and surely more elusive, and that was and is friendship. (11)

Mark Scandrette offers a telling word of advice in the opening chapter: ‘You are invited to embrace your own celebrity - recognizing the importance of your own journey over simply being a fan of others’ - and cultivate a local culture of faith-seeking’ (25). Surely a movement supposedly grounded in humility, equality and inclusive community should not have to invite people to embrace their own celebrity?

It frustrates me, too, that a book purporting to offer a manifesto for an ‘influential international movement’ is written entirely by Americans and almost entirely about the emerging movement in America. The only exception - and for me by far the most invigorating chapter in the book - is Brian McLaren’s interaction with the work of the Congolese theologian Mabiala Kenzo on post-colonialism. I understand that this is an Emergent publication and is bound to reflect limited organizational interests, but it seems to me that McLaren’s argument, sitting at the heart of this book, already has the potential to deconstruct the Emergent perspective, which would be a sad irony.

A biblical deficit

But what most frustrates me is the fact that a book offering a ‘manifesto of hope’ for the post-Christendom, post-modern, post-colonial church is so weak biblically. This is not to say that there is not some good material in it. There is. But it is very difficult to see how the ‘eschatology of hope’ which Tony Jones believes constitutes a ‘core conviction’ of the emerging church (130) is meant to arise out of the biblical narrative. It’s not enough to dismiss the pop apocalypticism of Peretti, LaHaye and Jenkins and then blithely announce that ‘the folks who hang around the emerging church tend to see goodness and light in God’s future, not darkness and gnashing of teeth’. The Jesus whom the emerging church is so keen to follow frequently spoke about wailing and gnashing of teeth. Why has that now been erased from his gospel? I’m not saying that Jones is wrong. It’s just that this book does not show that the leaders of the emerging church in America have seriously thought this through.

Why are these friends not struggling to tell the biblical story together? Where is the fascination with the narrative that was supposed to be a hallmark of postmodern biblical theology? Why does the ‘latest thinking of the emerging church’ not include even one chapter that attempts to sketch - hesitantly, paradoxically, inconclusively if necessary - a biblical theology for the emerging movement?

Tim Conder highlights the fact that under the emerging paradigm our theology has shifted from ‘systematic/propositional’ to ‘narrative/missional’, that the objective of the gospel has shifted from ‘eternal salvation’ to ‘present reign of God in this world’, that mission is now defined by ‘God’s redemptive agenda’ rather than by ‘personal, spiritual needs’ (100). But as far as the book is concerned, these developments are merely notional. Sherry and Geoff Maddock write: ‘our ideas about salvation - what it means to be saved - break out of old paradigms as we move out in mission’ (81). Well, I understand that much of the change of thinking in the emerging church has been driven by praxis. But by now I would have thought that this mission-driven rethinking would have been supported by careful and explicit biblical reflection.

What we have are practitioners flicking through their commonplace books for disconnected, decontextualized snippets of biblical wisdom that they can cut and paste into arguments that are essentially the product of those endless rambling missional conversations. The arguments are not necessarily bad and the practical outcome of the conversations is not necessarily bad, but there is very little sense of living in and out of the biblical narrative. If (to borrow N.T. Wright’s suggestive analogy) they are Shakespearian players acting out the unwritten fifth act of the biblical drama, they appear to be doing so on the basis of random quotes remembered from English lessons at school, not on the basis of an intense and thoughtful immersion in the first four acts of the play. To be biblical, or not to be biblical - that is the question.

Rudy Carrasco’s passionate appeal to the Old Testament prophets in support of justice-oriented ministry is something of an exception (248-250), but in theological terms we jump very abruptly from 8th century Israel to 21st century Pasadena with no evidence of a connecting missional narrative - and Carrasco admits he is ‘puzzled’ by the violence of Amos’ God. So why are we basing mission on the fulminations of an angry and violent Old Testament God? I’m not saying we shouldn’t. But do we know why we should?

Following Jesus and the kingdom of God

If the ‘gospel’ now has to do not with ‘eternal salvation’ but with the ‘present reign of God in this world’, where is the biblical exploration of that radical and complex claim? There are some vague pointers in the endnotes, but the impact of the debate on the content of the book itself is fragmentary and incoherent. If we are going to make following Jesus and the concept of ‘kingdom’ central to, and paradigmatic for, the mission of the emerging church, over against the preferred categories of modern evangelicalism, then we have to show how this argument works biblically. I entirely approve of the emphasis on a narrative theology, but I would suggest that it is precisely the biblical narrative that makes the emerging church’s preoccupation with following Jesus to the margins of society problematic. What has happened to ‘eternal salvation’? Has it merely vanished in a puff of smoke? What has happened to following Paul, for that matter - or at least listening to him? What happens to the ‘kingdom of God’ after the Gospels?

Let me illustrate what I see as some of the rather careless assumptions made about the kingdom of God. Mark Scandrette cites the suggestion of his colleague Dr. Linda Bergquist that ‘renewed popularity of the “kingdom” language is related to the emerging global narrative of the deep ecology movement - a consciousness and awareness that everything matters and is somehow interdependent’ (27). But no attempt is made to show how Jesus’ announcement to first century occupied Israel that the kingdom of God was at hand might have some relation to the quasi-mystical concerns of modern environmentalists. Bergquist’s suggestion sounds like modish, sub-biblical theorizing. If it’s not, we need to be shown why it’s not.

Similarly, Samir Selmanovic writes: ‘It is worth being reminded that Christ never proclaimed, “Christianity is here. Join it.” But Christ did insist, “The kingdom of God is here. Enter it”’ (192). But it is one thing to challenge the ‘idolatry of Christianity’; it is another to reinterpret the kingdom of God as some sort of transcendent divine power or principle at work in the world, accesible to anyone (such as Selmanovic’s ‘non-Christian friend’ Mark) with good intentions. I understand the inclusivist instinct here, but we are not going to make sense of it by bending Jesus’ language out of shape. If we don’t have simple answers, let’s at least show that we understand that these are complex issues, that we are aware of what is at stake biblically.

The biblical concept of the kingdom of God makes no sense apart from a particular historical community, a people over whom and on behalf of whom God reigns, a community called to serve a particular purpose. Nanette Sawyer gets irritated with a pastor who claimed that it was unbiblical to speak of all humans as ‘children of God’ (45). She offers a rather weak biblical rebuttal, but this is not the real issue. The problem is that phrases such as ‘children of God’, ‘sons of God’, are used biblically to define a distinct people that is consciously and purposefully in relation to the creator God. To adapt the pained and scornful insight of Dash Parr in The Incredibles: to say that everyone is a child of God is just another way of saying that no one is. There must be some sense in which the heirs of the promise to Abraham are ‘special’ to God and, more importantly, have a shared sense of responsibility to live paradigmatically and prophetically as God’s new creation in the world.

As final example, Ryan Bolger argues that the purpose of the church is to get behind God’s mission and run with it, and that ‘God’s mission resembles the work Jesus performed within Palestinian culture’ (133). But Jesus’ mission to Israel cannot be seen as merely exemplary. The Jews who came to be baptized in the Jordan did not merely repent of the way they understood their faith and then join a new movement ‘within the religious structures of the day’. Jesus did not simply transform a culture. He saved the people of God from destruction. However exactly we understand the eschatological narrative that underpins the Gospels, it certainly cannot be reduced to an instance of cultural transformation, a model for doing mission in our own culture.

I’ll make the point again. This is not at all a bad book: it brings together within the confines of the American emerging movement a diverse group of practitioners who reflect thoughtfully on the implications of their activities for mission. What bothers me is that a ‘generative friendship of missional Christians’ such as this can be so lacking in biblical imagination. If the emerging church is to establish itself as a viable alternative to ‘modern’ forms of Christianity - and certainly if it aspires to supplant them - it must demonstrate a consistent willingness to think biblically, to act out of a profound familiarity with the biblical narrative, to articulate hope in determined dialogue with the complex and disturbing text of Scripture. An Emergent Manifesto of Hope ought to offer something more compelling, more adventurous, and more urgent, than loose talk about following Jesus and a bowdlerized version of the kingdom of God.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

Comments

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by brianmac - 13/05/2007 - 13:48

Hey Andrew,

I have read your review of the book with some interest. Having not read it yet it makes me want to avoid it! Which I'm sure wasn't your intention. I wonder how much of the books narrrow perspective comes from an American centerdness (I am not anti-american) or the lack of interaction with academics due the pragmatic focus within the emergent church? It is interesting how you singeled out Brian McLaren in this matter. He perhaps exceplifies the reverse of both. He has spent much time in Africa trying to understand what an emerging church (try leave some of the Western terminology baggage of the term) would look like. He has made several trips to South Africa and Uganda that I am aware. In fact he is there at the moment (Uganda). I wonder if this openess in trying to understand the African context is seeing a shift in his theology which you hinted at? He has been in a close relationship with a Proffessor of mine from South Africa Prof.Hendriks which I think has been influencial. Hendriks is in fact with him in Uganda at the moment. You can read his session on the Growth of Christianity in Africa at the following link http://www.futurechurch.co.za/?query=future+church&amount=0&blogid=10

It contains some interesting sociological information on what is happening on the ground. So what could an African perspective on the emerging church offer us. It would help create a broader international perspective. It would also shake the emergent church out of its Western approach (whether modern or post-modern). And here is where I think its greatest help will be. In an appreciation for the biblical narrative and how to live in it. African cultures are holistic in there approach to the bible. There communities for thousands of years have learnt to live in stories and define their community by that story. With the arrival of the bible and its translation into the local dialects they were able to make an easy connection (taking into account some of the missionaries cultural exploitation) with the story of the people of God and the hope that it engenders, having more in common with the cultural context than much of the Western world. The African churches although being experiential live in the biblical text and seek to understand it. Of course much of this has been tainted by modernism and modern evangelicalism. Yet as Lamin Sanneh notes it was in fact the translation of the biblical narrative which helped preserve much of Africa's cultural identity. It is this cultural identity and its interaction with the biblical narrative which I think would add immensly to the limited nature of the emergent discussion which Andrew picked up on in the book and to which Brian McLaren seems to be beggining to engage with.

Brian

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by Andrew - 13/05/2007 - 19:34

Hi Brian,

Yes, the intention was not to deter people from reading the book, merely to give air to my frustrations - and perhaps not with the purest of motives!

I’m sure there are good reasons for both the book’s limited American outlook and its failure to grapple seriously with scripture. The question is whether that excuses a group of leaders that has presumed to write a ‘manifesto of hope’ presenting the ‘latest thinking’ for an ‘influential international movement’. Why are they seemingly so reluctant to bring biblical theology to the foreground?

Your observations about narrative and African culture are excellent, but can you really imagine African theologians, even with Brian McLaren as their sponsor, having any serious impact on the current emergent conversation? A lot will depend on how the post-colonial experience is interpreted - as you say, much of what is coming out of Africa has been tainted by modernism, and there are some well-worn ideological ruts that the wheels of a post-colonial theology can get stuck in. Still, maybe there is hope here!

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by Crazybilly - 15/05/2007 - 08:20

I think Brian hits the nail on the head with his comment about the rather pragmatic approach that the emergent crowd takes.

Having been a rather emergenty-type in the past, I can understand a desire to move away from deep biblical analysis in writing a relatively accesible book. Writing of that sort often smacks (rather loudly) of modernist thinking, particularly to people leaving the modern mindset. I can certainly recall reading something by McLaren (I think) and being annoyed at all the biblical talk and theology and him later rebutting my thoughts, saying ‘theology IS important…etc.’

Having thought the issues through a bit more, I can now see the value in the kind of biblical thinking that you’re asking for. That sort of deep thought and analysis IS important.

While, the Emergent cult of celebrity troubles me as much as it does you, I have to come to the defense of these folks, though. I very seriously doubt any of them HAVEN’T spent a lot of time thinking these issue through biblically. I’m guessing (definately guessing), that they’re purposefully leaving a lot of that information out to provide a substantially more accessible book, knowing that the majority of their readers would start skimming at first sight of biblical references.

That said, I agree with you—I’d like to see/read a book like this that DID take the biblical implications seriously and grappled with the accordingly. Not that I’ve read this book either, heheh.

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by Robin Christofi - 16/05/2007 - 13:38

There’s a youtube video about the book at the following website

 http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/manifesto-of-hope-video

Just over 3 minutes

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by danutz - 17/05/2007 - 18:12

Hi Andrew,

I haven’t commented here in such a long time, but I did read and review this book on my site recently. I felt the book was weak because it is mainly an a collection of short essays. I think it is unfair to expect a theological treatment of ideas in short essays. The format is meant to introduce a larger community to some new voices (fyi… that means launch the writing careers of a few new people that likely will write for this publisher).

I’m a big fan of the people that put the book together and many of the writers, but I agree the book is very shallow and I wouldn’t recommend it with the exception of a few bright spots. Samir Selmanovic is WONDERFUL. I’m a fan already. I loved his essay.

Also, I don’t think you can openly discuss theology with people, Andrew, if you are going to insist that your way of looking at the world (and the bible) is the only way. You can argue everyone else is wrong (you have that right to do so) but you can’t expect them to frame their views into your language and write to YOU everytime they write a book. The world doesn’t revolve around Andrew. I know I’ve heard you focus on narrative of Israel over and over and it grew so tiring that I stopped listening. You can’t expect everyone else to want to play your game or use your language.

The fact is that these people HAVE THOUGHT THIS TROUGH and they have moved past those aruguments. For many it is over. I can’t speak for them, but I’m tired of having to go back and frame every discussion so that all the people who can’t (even for the sake of discussion) imagine a different image of God or interpretaion of scripture will be able to “get it”. There is a growing feeling of frustration with the need for apologetics. Every conversation doesn’t have to be an apologetic argument over details and enterpretation to come up with ONE SINGLE CORRECT solution. I think that is the heart of Emergent Village/conversation/church. We are all done fighting over it. Sometimes the answer is that the Bible is wrong. Sometimes the characters were wrong and sometimes the authors were wrong and when the authors write God as doing wrong things then in that context, God is wrong too!

For me, Emergent theology or the “core conviction” is this: Stop fighting over this crap and start living it. PERIOD. If your theology doesn’t impact how you treat your neighbor, spend your money, and vote, then throw it out. It is uesless. If it does then it is working so you may want to keep it, but it may not work for everyone else.

That conversation may not be for you and that converstaion may not be appropirate for OST. Open source theology may just be a place to sell N.T. Wright and that is fine if that is what you want it to be, but if it is then change the friggin name already.

Collaboration in a true “Open source theology” could really shine a light for the world if when people read other views they would allow themselves to read through the lens of that person’s view of God and view of scripture. You are not going to be able to read someone like Samir Selmanovic and “get it” unless you can for a few minutes imagine that God is not what you think it is or that the Bible is not what you think it is. Let go of your view long enough to understand him. You are free to throw the views away when you are done, but it is silly to think that his logic is going to fit with your world view.

Danutz (Progression of Faith)
http://www.faithprogression.com

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by Andrew - 18/05/2007 - 12:14

Danutz, thanks for your comments. I did wonder if perhaps I was being a bit heavy-handed. However, I don’t think the stance I took with regard to the book is entirely indefensible.

Obviously the editors of the book are entitled to make of it what they want. They do not have to pander to every self-appointed lobbyist within the emerging church movement. My problem is that not only does the book profess to be a ‘manifesto’ for the church but it also claims, both implicitly and explicitly, to be biblical. I don’t think it takes either of those objectives seriously enough.

I know I’ve heard you focus on narrative of Israel over and over and it grew so tiring that I stopped listening. You can’t expect everyone else to want to play your game or use your language.

Damn. That’s a shame. I’ve taken note of it.

The fact is that these people HAVE THOUGHT THIS THROUGH and they have moved past those arguments. For many it is over.

Have they really thought it through? One of the things that most disappointed me about the book was the lack of imagination in dealing with scripture. But even if they have thought it through, that does not necessarily mean that they have reached good conclusions. My view is that we are a long way from getting beyond those arguments. There is a lot of criticism of the emerging church out there, and much of it has to do with the fact that many within the movement appear to play fast and loose with the Bible. For the sake of the whole church I would like to see the emerging movement listen more carefully to the complaints and develop an appropriate theological and biblical response. I think it can be done - not by insisting on a single correct interpretation but through an open and faithful process that keeps us all talking to each other.

This is not simply about my reading of the biblical narrative. I do want to insist that we have to take the Bible seriously - and that trying to understand how the Bible spoke to its original audience is a legitimate and necessary task. I would also ask what is to be gained by misreading the Bible. You have come to the conclusion (no less dogmatic than my own position - arguably more so) that sometimes the Bible is wrong, but I have seen too many people reach that conclusion on the basis of a misunderstanding of the text or as a reaction to someone else’s misunderstanding of the text. The debate over penal substitutionary atonement is, to my mind, a prime example.

I would suggest, therefore, that there are ways of addressing the problem of inclusiveness that do not require us to re-interpret the word ‘gospel’ in the way that Selmanovic does, but it takes work. Deconstructing the dogmatism of modern evangelicalism is only a first step - and it’s too easy then just to give up and move on, to recreate Christianity in our own image. I think we are both theologically and morally bound as those who profess to follow Israel’s messiah, who are Christian because we confess Jesus as Lord, to ground our faith in the particular narrative about the descendants of Abraham. You will hear that as narrow-minded and reactionary, but I still think that this offers the best hope for reconstructing a viable post-Christendom, post-modern Christian faith.

In the long run I think it would be better to find a way to be comfortable with the whole biblical story, not just the bits that fit our emerging post-conservative sensibilities. We are not there yet, but my personal hope is that a coherent biblical mindset will emerge that will help us to resolve many of the theological issues that currently divide us - and I think that should be an explicit part of an ‘emergent manifesto’. It may prove to be wishful thinking, or it may turn out very different to how I imagine it; but I don’t see how matters are helped by giving up and moving on.

Yes, I think that the historical narrative about Israel is important - that is what the Bible is, a historical narrative about Israel. I think that a misunderstanding of that narrative has been responsible for the distortions and blindspots of much modern Christianity. I also do not believe that we can generate something new simply by abandoning the biblical narrative. So I would argue that one of the things (and only one of the things) the emerging church needs to do is persistently go back and re-examine the Bible as it presents itself to us and ask what it means to live and act self-critically and faithfully in continuity with that narrative. That seems to me a sine qua non of being Christian. The danger otherwise is that the emerging church will simply repeat the mistakes of modern evangelicalism, propagating a reduced theology in the interests of a culturally conditioned, pragmatic agenda. This will sustain a movement in the short term, but I do not think that it will provide an adequate foundation for Christianity in the long run.

Finally, I must admit that I have worried at times about how the ‘open source’ aspect of this site should be preserved. I’m sure there are plenty of people who would agree with you that the focus of the site has become too narrow; others no doubt think it is far too wide. In the end it is only one conversation among many. I actually find myself increasingly in disagreement with Wright; and despite my remarks above, I also find myself agreeing with much of what John Dominic Crossan has to say - I greatly appreciate you putting me on to his book (with Borg) The Last Week. The whole thing is in a state of flux. But I strongly believe that the biblical narrative is much more expansive, much more coherent, much more powerful, and much more credible than you seem prepared to allow. If this doesn’t sound too self-important, I see it as part of my role to lobby for that credibility within the emerging church in particular - I hope not as a crude rationalist apologetic but as the experience of indwelling the story of the creative God. I don’t think we need to be ashamed of the Bible. In a sense, concretely speaking, it’s all we’ve got.

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by Stranger - 18/05/2007 - 15:31

Amen Andrew.

It seems (from my limited, distorted and partial position) that most new books tagged with the label 'emerging' have some very broad theological brushes. In the case of introductory books (like McLaren's 'New Kind of Christian' trilogy), that's perhaps not a bad thing. But we can't keep on painting these big pictures, which differ significantly from what conservative evangelicalism has proclaimed as 'gospel' for a few decades, without engaging the criticisms that have been levelled against the emerging church conversation. One of these criticisms (the one Andrew seems concerned about here) is a failure to really engage the biblical text. And so 'emerging' authors make all sorts of claims about what Scripture really says, or what Jesus really meant, but those claims come without the full weight of proper exegesis. It'd be good (and I take it this is Andrew's primary frustration) to see a book published from within the emerging church conversation that takes seriously the need for a close reading of Scripture. This is what COSM was, and I can empathize with Andrew's feelings of loneliness in doing this kind of work. For the emerging church to be Christian, it must be biblical, and too few of us are making the effort to be just that.

For what it's worth Andrew, I see a tension between what the emerging church wants to be (viz. a conversation that includes) and the theology that it desperately needs (viz. a theology closely informed by solid biblical scholarship—which requires 'experts'). How (if?) that tension will be resolved remains to be seen…

Cheers,

-Daniel-

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by danutz - 18/05/2007 - 16:57

Andrew, Thanks for taking my comments to heart and thanks for not striking back as I’m sure you could have. I was more harsh than I needed to be. You always respond well to criticism here and I respect you for that.

To clarify a bit…

When I say “these people have thought this through” I mean a much more broad collective debate that has gone on even before our own lives began. I don’t think that everytime a person says “the gospel is about social justice” that they have to footnote the thousands of written debates that have taken place between liberal and conservative theologians. For many people the debate is over and liberals won so WE have moved past that (others would disagree). What I mean is that these arguments are old arguments and I’m not sure it is fruitful to have them any longer. I’ve only been having them for maybe 10 years and I’m already tired, but the truth is they have gone on for centuries.

Is it possible for you to embrace Samir and see the value created in his actions because of his different theology? I’m not asking you to agree with his theology, but recognize that his theology motivates actions in his life that your theology simply will not. That doesn’t mean yours is wrong. Your theology likely motivates certain actions in your life that his will not. That recognition and mutual respect for one another across a wide spectrum of theology is what these people (and myself) find hopeful.

The real HOPE found in this book is that in the next century people will move beyond arguments and the types of reactions found in your post. We all have hope that in the next century we can be united in the love of Christ rather than divided amoung doctrine. How many books were published even 50 years ago that had such a diverse collection of theological perspectives? That is amazing progress and it gives me hope. If you can, please try and see this larger “narrative” of the emergent church!

If you liked “The Last Week” then you may want to check out Crossan’s “God and Empire”. It is remarkable!

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by Andrew - 18/05/2007 - 18:02

Thanks. Your comments are much appreciated. So now I can counterattack?

When I say “these people have thought this through” I mean a much more broad collective debate that has gone on even before our own lives began.

But isn’t that just another way of saying that they haven’t thought it through? Again, my point is that the emerging church is extolled as wonderfully innovative and radical, and it puzzles me that that doesn’t show up in the way they use the Bible. What’s so cool about throwing in a handful of biblical platitudes, like stale cherries into a cake mix?

Remember, my objection was not to what they were doing in terms of missional or pastoral praxis - it was to the half-hearted and trivializing way that they were invoking scripture in support of the praxis.

The problem we still face (it’s not going to go away that easily - and we shouldn’t let it) is put very sharply by your statement ‘the gospel is about social justice’. That simply does not serve as an adequate account of the New Testament. We can certainly choose now to announce to the world a message of good news about social justice - rather as a couple of years back Tony Blair and Bono proclaimed good news for Africa (we would have to make sure we had some basis for our optimism). But neither John the Baptist nor Jesus nor Paul nor anyone else in the New Testament writings announced such a gospel. Their message certainly had implications for social justice, and we cannot afford to neglect those implications. But it is a fundamental and serious distortion of the biblical narrative to reduce the gospel to these terms. Even Crossan does not make that mistake - he recognizes that the gospel had to do with sovereignty over the people of God.

I’ve read his God & Empire and made passing reference to it in the ‘Eschatology and global warming post’. I agree with much of his biblical analysis (it’s a very biblical book). I agree with much of the ethical and theological outcome. I don’t, however, agree with the way he connects the two. I think there is a better way of integrating the biblical narrative and the ideological commitment to a non-violent God, one that does not force us to wreck the texts in the process.

To be honest, Crossan’s book rather gives me hope that we don’t have to settle for mutual respect across a wide spectrum of theology. That’s better than nothing - and certainly better than what we’ve got. But I believe that there is still considerable scope for rethinking and reintegrating what are currently divergent and often antithetical positions. The biblical narrative as it is - not as we would like it to be - has to be a generative and catalytic part of that synthesis. How it does that is the interesting question.

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by danutz - 18/05/2007 - 23:22

But isn’t that just another way of saying that they haven’t thought it through? Again, my point is that the emerging church is extolled as wonderfully innovative and radical, and it puzzles me that that doesn’t show up in the way they use the Bible.

NO, that is NOT another way of saying they haven't thought it through. It is another way of saying that they and hundreds of others HAVE thought this through. Just because they don't fill in the details in this book doesn't mean they haven't through it through.  When you read those essays you may hear something that you feel is radical and want detailed exegesis. For most of us, the concepts are already part of our theological DNA so we are not apt to unpack those concepts everytime we speak or write.  Just because they didn't upack all those ideas and fill in the blanks with detailed references doesn't mean they treat the bible lightly.  Numerous quotes and references does not make an book biblical. They could make it dry, packed with references and footnotes, but void of inspiration like many other books I've read. Do you give refunds for "the coming of the son of man"? (I'm just kidding!!! wink wink)

The problem we still face (it’s not going to go away that easily - and we shouldn’t let it) is put very sharply by your statement ‘the gospel is about social justice’. That simply does not serve as an adequate account of the New Testament

Yes it does serve an adequate account of the New Testament. Actually it serves as an adequate account for the whole Bible. The entire point of the entire narrative of Israel is social justice. The story starts with the words "no more bricks". It continues to the idea of the first document of workers rights ("Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy") and it finishes with the hope for  the end of Roman Imperialism. The whole point of the bible is to craft a just society.  Every story is there to paint a vivid picture about the need and hope for social justice.  Everything else is commentary.  What story from the bible is NOT about social justice?  Some books are written at the macro level and others are very detailed.  This book was obviously the former.

Social justice and the biblical narrative

by Andrew - 21/05/2007 - 12:05

The entire point of the entire narrative of Israel is social justice. The story starts with the words “no more bricks”. It continues to the idea of the first document of workers rights (“Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”) and it finishes with the hope for  the end of Roman Imperialism.

Like Daniel below I can appreciate the power and relevance of the appeal for justice - and I don’t dispute for one minute that this must be lived out in the church. But it still seems to me that at each point you have trimmed the narrative in a significant and misleading way - and my guess is that you are well aware of that.

i) I presume ‘no more bricks’ is a reference to the Babel story - and to be honest I’m not sure what you’re getting at. But I don’t see how the story can be construed as being about social justice. There is no suggestion of exploitation; the people agree to work together to build the tower; and their reason is to resist the creational mandate to spread abroad across the face of the earth and instead to make a name for themselves. The tower is a symbol of their defiance of God, not of social injustice and exploitation of the labour force.

ii) The Sabbath has social implications, as does legislation deriving from the Sabbath principle, but in the first place it is a ‘Sabbath to the Lord’, it is a means of acknowledging the role of YHWH in the creation of Israel and the maintenance of the rhythms of its existence.

iii) I agree that the biblical narrative of Israel ends (sort of) with the hope for the end of Roman Imperialism, but the central issue here is not the injustice of Rome but its defiance of the Lord and his anointed, its idolatry, its blasphemous presumption in exalting Caesar to the position of divinity above YHWH (cf. Crossan). Social injustice is a consequence of this fundamental religious stance (cf. Paul’s argument in Romans 1:28: ‘since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done’). The celebration of judgment against Rome in Revelation 19:1-3 highlights not the restoration of social justice but the victory of the God of Israel and the avenging of the blood of the martyrs.

That’s why I said earlier that the theme of the ‘kingdom of God’ is not primarily about social justice, it is about sovereignty, it is about who reigns over God’s people. The answer of the New Testament is that it is not the corrupt and godless leaders of Israel, it is not Pilate or Caesar, it is not satan, who will determine the hope and destiny of Israel, but the suffering servant, the Son of man against whom the beast makes war, the lamb who was slain, who is exalted to the right hand of the Father and given the name above all these other names, the name of Lord.

I think that this argument about sovereignty over the people of God lies at the heart of the New Testament, but it is not the final resting place of the biblical narrative. It is rather the means by which the story of an authentic humanity is recovered. Here, to my mind, is where the issue of social justice comes into play. My general problem with much modern evangelical (and indeed much emerging) theology is that in its eagerness to emulate the New Testament church it has set up camp at the wrong point in the narrative.

I think that the post-eschatological church (the post-Roman imperialism church, if you like) finds itself back in the story of how the creator God brings into existence and sustains an alternative to the rebellious creation - a creational microcosm that models in its community life the right relationships (to the living, creator God, to others, and to the earth) that should have flowed from the original blessing of humanity in Genesis 1:28. The existence of that microcosm ought in principle to constitute a prophetic challenge and invitation to the macrocosm - but social justice, as an aspect of relationships between humans, is only one part of the whole picture of creation renewed around the presence of the living God.

Re: Social justice and the biblical narrative

by danutz - 21/05/2007 - 16:14

i) “No more bricks” is the cry of Israel in Egypt. They left for workers rights issues. They went to Egypt voluntarily to seek refuge and get work in a world that had little to offer. They left because the work was too demanding in return for the harsh treatment. The work had turned to slavery. 24x7 brick making was the last “straw”. Had pharoh treated them with dignity and respect they would have gladly stayed. In fact, after a little time in the desert they considered going back.

ii) The Sabbath was instituted like many of the other rules in the formation of Israel to prevent the type of unfair treatment found in Egypt. Jubilee, debt / land ownership, marriage rules, etc. were all part of this drive for justice and part of a desire to make sure the new nation would not end up like Egypt. The Sabbath was their proclamation that they would never again force their own people to work 7 days a week. The story of creation was created AFTER the formation of Israel’s policy of a 6 day work week. The creation story had NOTHING to do with explaining the creation process, but was instead a story written to explain how important the Sabbath was. The poem was written to highlight the importance of the Sabbath by saying that even God rested on the Sabbath when he created the world. The most important point in any story is it’s climax and in this story the punch line is “on the 7th day God rested”. The first 6 days are just a poetic setup for the punch line and were never meant to be interpreted as science.

iii) I think that you and Daniel both misinterpret social justice to be ONLY about economics. A just society means one where people have the liberty to worship their God. Part of the injustice instituted by the Roman Empire was the enforcement of worship to Caesar. It is all tied together. For Israel, a just society is one where they are free to worship thier God and partake in the fruits of their labor. You are thinking too much in modern terms about “social justice”. For them there is no concept of separation of church and state. We may compartmentalize that because we’ve lived our lives under this separation, but they would not have had any reference. Religious freedom is a social justice issue just as much as economics.

In the Old Testament, the term is Shalom. In the New Testament, the term is the Kingdom of God. They both mean to tell us that God seeks for us a just society. That is God’s will on earth.

Re: Social justice and the biblical narrative

by Andrew - 21/05/2007 - 17:48

i) Ah, I see.

ii) I’m not sure I buy the argument about the creation story. It’s one thing to say that it was never meant to be interpreted as science (I agree), quite another to reduce it an etiology of the six day working week. Why is the sabbath not an issue in Genesis 2:4-11:32? Why does the failure of creation have nothing to do with the sabbath? Other problems are mentioned (disobedience, wickedness, violence, self-aggrandizement) but not the exploitation of labour. The sabbath becomes a key theme, but so does the idea of blessing and the pattern of being fruitful, multiplying, filling the earth. Surely there is more to these other parts of the story than mere ‘poetic setup’. Aren’t you a little too anxious to keep the creationists at bay?

iii) Well, yes, if you are going to define ‘social justice’ in those terms, there’s less of a problem. But then why use the term ‘social justice’, which most people are not going to understand in that modified sense? For a start, surely ‘social justice’ is a corrective term - it sounds like it has to do with correcting injustices, even within the broad definition that you want to attribute to it. Does it really serve to capture the positive calling of being the people of God? How does it relate to terms such as ‘holiness’ or ‘righteousness’? Or love? Or worship? I don’t hear in the phrase ‘social justice’, which you say is what the Bible is all about, a summons to worship the one God who made the heavens and the earth, who chooses a people for his own possession, who says:

Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him. In the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory. (Is. 45:22-25)

To go back, finally, to where we started (now that I understand you a bit better), what is the problem with the narrative of Israel? Or to be more precise, what is your problem with my (slightly obsessive) emphasis on the narrative of Israel?

Re: Social justice and the biblical narrative

by danutz - 21/05/2007 - 21:26

i) Sorry I didn’t make that more clear to begin with. I hadn’t planned on getting that deep into the explanation here.

ii) I’m talking about the chapter 1 story and first 3 verses of chapter 2 which were written later by preists or the “P source”. Genesis chapter 2 was a story created earlier (from the “J” source). I’m sure you have studied the sources of the Torah at some point, but I’ll recap it here to provide the historical order of the stories to illustrate my point and provide background for anyone that is unfamiliar with the sources. There are 3 main sources in Genesis (and the rest of the Torah).

1) “E” stories of Israel or northern kingdom (God is referred to as Elohim in these texts)

2) “J” stories of Judea or southern kingdom (God is referred to as YHWH in these texts)

3) “P” stories of the priests and scribes which were added to join the two into one unified text

There are possibilities of a few other smaller sources, but the language, writing styles, and cultural references all point to these 3 main separate sources.

Each of the 2 kingdoms had their own stories which were combined later by priests. This was done well after the creation of the nation of Israel and hence after the establishment of the Sabbath as a tradition. This is why we have more than one creation account. Genesis chapter 2 is one of the original stories of the “J” author or the people of the southern kingdom. Chapter 1 (the 6 day creation story) and the intro 3 verses to chapter 2 comes from the “P source” authors which were priests that added text to tie the two traditions together and make the stories fit and often provided a preface to introduce the story and sometimes to provide commentary or more detailed interpretation of a story and tie the story into the established rituals. One of the goals of this new combined Torah was to provide unity in the now reunited kingdom (post-exile).

So in Chapter 1, we have priests interpreting the chapter 2 story and adding in the emphasis of the already established tradition of honoring the Sabbath. I don’t see that the intent was to inform about creation as much as it was to reinforce the importance of the Sabbath. We see this again with the first 3 verses of chapter 2 which were added from the “P” source material to introduce the “J” story and tie it to chapter 1.

I realize that is confusing boiled down into such a small space. IF anyone hasn’t seen this or wants to know more check out this book which is one of the better illustrations of the sources. It makes it really clear by displaying the text in color coded sections. http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Sources-Revealed-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060530693

iii) I’m not sure why you are hung up on the term “social justice”. It seems simple to me. I must be missing something. You mention that you have a problem that it might mean a correction of injustice. That seems adequate to me. What would “kingdom of God” mean if it didn’t mean correction (or replacement) of the current kingdom/system which is not operating on God’s value system. Asking that God’s will be done on earth is saying that the current order of things needs to be corrected.

I do hear the message of social justice in those words of Isaiah. The idea of “one God” is a notion created to enforce identity of a community (family or tribe). We have to remember that these people were accustomed to living in and around a pluralistic society prior to the establishment of Israel and the reunited kingdom. In that pluralistic society, each individual village had their own god. To say we all worship the one true god means that we are all aligned under the same system of rule (kingdom/government/tribe). A tribe’s “god” was what united people and gave them identity. By speaking of YHWH or Elohim, these people were meaning to say “us” or “our community” or the force that gives us our identity. That too is social justice. To say, “there is no god but god” means that our allegiance is to our community and our group identity. By fighting against the Roman Imperial theology that had been enforced, they were fighting for their need to have their own unique identity preserved. That is very much an issue of social justice. Even today, identity preservation is an important part of a just society in a multicultural area. Think about issues surrounding language and culture assimilation in a migrant society. We are dealing with that issue of social justice in America today and it has always been an issue in Europe.

For these people to say “there is no god but god” is not so much saying that we believe our god exists and your god doesn’t. I think ancient Israelites believed the Baal existed just as much as YHWH, but they believed YHWH was more powerful. YHWH (Elohim) was the only god for them. He was all powerful but there was not a push to renounce other gods as not being “real”. It was about proper allegience not proper belief. Allegience to one system of rule is absolutely about social justice. These people had no concept about electing leaders they instituted their rule of allegiance, justice, law and order through their religion. There would not have been a distinction between religion and social justice. It was all the same and the point was community (a peaceful just society) or in other words, it was about “Shalom”.

Re: Social justice and the biblical narrative

by Andrew - 21/05/2007 - 22:39

I am not much of an Old Testament theologian but I am familiar with Pentateuchal source theories, and can see that that may account for thematic discontinuities between the two creation narratives. However, I also made the point that other aspects of Genesis 1 play a crucial part in defining the identity and purpose of Israel, including the activity of a creator God, and that not everything can be reduced to the theme of social justice. Moreover, at some point Israel apparently opted for an integrated creation narrative, presumably believing that it gave a more adequate account of the state of the world. Neither here nor anywhere else in the New Testament, as far as I am aware (I could be wrong), is it maintained that human society generally would be more just if people observed the sabbath.

He was all powerful but there was not a push to renounce other gods as not being “real”.

Doesn’t Isaiah 45, which is addressed in the first part to Cyrus, suggest otherwise: ‘I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I gird you, though you do not know me…’?

Re: Social justice and the biblical narrative

by danutz - 21/05/2007 - 23:55

Moreover, at some point Israel apparently opted for an integrated creation narrative, presumably believing that it gave a more adequate account of the state of the world.

I think they opted (and created) the story that best fit their traditions and supported their community values. 

Neither here nor anywhere else in the New Testament, as far as I am aware (I could be wrong), is it maintained that human society generally would be more just if people observed the sabbath.  

Which is more just, a society with laws that enforce a day of rest for workers or a society that has no rules about when work can be forced?  It seems obvious that Jewish culture was built around just distribution of wealth and just treament of workers.  It is all through the law.

I'm suggesting that "by no other god" they don't suggest that none exists, but that none is declared God by Israel. In the accounts of the exodus, it makes it clear that these people thought Pharaoh's magicians could work miracles also and there are other refernces to other gods having actual powers. These people believed in literal gods with literal "otherworldly powers". That goes for YHWH as well. By having God say "besides me there is no God", the writers suggest that God is declaring his superiority.

 Of course we likely disagree becasue I don't see these as God's words. I see them as ancient Israel's declaration about what God was for them. For them, this meant they would not offer allegiance to any other God.

various frustrations...

by Stranger - 20/05/2007 - 06:24

While you may have a compelling synthetic reading of the biblical texts at times, Danutz, I fear Andrew is correct to say that 'social justice' as a summary of (all of!) Scripture is woefully inadequate. 'The establishment of a just society' gets perhaps a little bit closer to the idea, but it eliminates God as the main character in the story, which is an irreducible element of the Scriptural narrative. Further, your refusal to let Jesus be truly unique in the sense that the biblical story intends him to be, prevents you (in my humble, barely-educated opinion) from fully engaging the claims of the NT writers.

Inerrancy is a bad idea because it is an a priori conception of the biblical text which precludes genuine engagement with difficult and/or challenging passages. Liberalism (/'metaphorical' readings of the NT/reducing the biblical story to 'social justice') is a bad idea because it is an a priori conception of the biblical text which precludes genuine engagement with difficult and/or challenging passages. If the 'emerging church' conversation means anything, it means (at least I hope it does) a re-opening of the dialog over key biblical themes, texts and ideas which will necessarily confront both fundamentalist assumptions (e.g. 6 day Creationism) and liberal assumptions (e.g. 'social justice' sums up the Law and the prophets… and the epistles…).

My two cents.

Cheers,

-Daniel-

 

Re: various frustrations...

by danutz - 21/05/2007 - 22:17

Daniel, it is convenient to call everyone else’s interpretation “synthetic”. My suggestion isn’t synthetic at all but true to the best exegesis that I’ve found.

Also, I do mean “just society” when I mention social justice (see my reply to Andrew above). You should not let social justice become reduced to economics. It involves every aspect of society and human rights.

If it had only been about beliefs then Christianity would not have been a problem for the Romans. These people lived in a pluralistic world and the Romans never attempted to remove the religions of the people they conquered. They simply added the additional allegiance to Caesar. It was the changes in social policy that Christians wanted which got them killed. Romans would not have cared about the deification of Jesus. They did care when the Christian language was directly attacking and mocking the language used for Caesar in Roman imperial theology (son of god, lord, savior of the world, etc).

belief and praxis

by Stranger - 21/05/2007 - 23:03

Danutz, you said: "It was the changes in social policy that Christians wanted which got them killed. Romans would not have cared about the deification of Jesus." But wouldn't it be fair to say that it is precisely the 'deification of Jesus' which led the early Christians to restructure their communities (I'm not 'changes in social policy' quite conveys what happened) in radical ways?

Romans clearly cared about the deification of Jesus because Christians pledged allegiance to Jesus (and worshipped him as God), and therefore refused allegiance to Caesar (because he wasn't god).

My comment about your views being 'synthetic' wasn't intended as a put-down.  It's a normal response to the biblical text to try and synthesize it all (this is what systematic theology is all about, and what Andrew's use of the 'coming of the son of man' motif is all about).  My point was simply that 'social justice' isn't, in my opinion, the most central theme of the biblical narrative.

I'm troubled by what looks like (though I know I must be wrong about this) 'chronological snobbery' at 'primitive' peoples and their gods in your posts: "A tribe’s 'god' was what united people and gave them identity. By speaking of YHWH or Elohim, these people were meaning to say 'us' or 'our community' or the force that gives us our identity."  I'm sorry, but to claim that when early Israel talked about YHWH, they really meant 'the force which gives us our identity'… … I think that is very condescending.  I think we can disagree with Israel's claim that YHWH alone is God, but I don't think it's fair to Israel's written witness to say that what they actually meant by 'YHWH' was in fact 'our community' (or the force which makes it cohere).

My dislike of 'social justice' (though I now realize you intend that in a very broad sense) as a summary of Christianity is a sense that your view assumes the same reductionism that you apply to a people group's claim to worship the one true God.  Israel really believed there was a YHWH beyond Israel (cf. Brueggemann on YHWH's sovereign indomitable freedom), and the early Church really believed that New Creation had come and YHWH had returned to Zion in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  Because you can't agree with the ancient Jews or with the early Christians on their (what in the end are) ontological commitments, your Christianity filters out that which is distinctive to Christianity and which makes it not Buddhism and not Islam (etc.).  This isn't automatically 'bad', but I do think it's problematic if one's goal is to take the Scriptures seriously…

My eyes are starting to cross (this is what I get for looking at a computer screen all day) so I'll call it quits here.

Blessings,

-Daniel-

Re: belief and praxis

by danutz - 22/05/2007 - 00:10

Daniel,

Romans clearly cared about the deification of Jesus because Christians pledged allegiance to Jesus (and worshipped him as God), and therefore refused allegiance to Caesar (because he wasn't god).

I don't agree. The Romans occupied many countries and always allowed them to keep deification of whatever god, godess, or ritual they wanted. They just asked for an additional allegiance (and tax) to the god called Caesar.

I never suggested that Israel didn't believe in a literal YHWH. I'm saying the opposite. I'm suggesting that ancient beliefs don't make something a reality. Just because they believed it, doesn't mean that it is real. That is the problem with the approach so many literalists take to the Bible. They assume that since one of the authors believed a particular thing, then it must be fact. I don't look to the bible to find out what to believe about the universe. I look to the bible to find out what my faith ancestors believed and allow their message to influence and shape my actions but not dictate my understanding of the universe. Either way that portion of the discussion is irrelevant to this discussion which is pretty far off topic at this point.

thanks for the lively discussion as always!

Re: belief and praxis

by AG - 09/06/2007 - 07:04

This particular column began with the title, “Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope.” After reading through everyone’s responses, I can only say that I’m getting frustrated with the insipid ramblings of pointless conversations that have absolutely nothing to do with anything! If this all the emergent church can offer, they are already doomed to complete irrelevance. These emergent blogs remind me time and time again of a bunch of chickens in a coop - day in and day out aimlessly running around and around in circles, and making lots of noise………

I just shared the Gospel a few weeks ago with someone and they placed their trust in Jesus Christ. As I returned home that day, I was reminded yet again of the purpose to which we are called. I’m all for a good and lively discussion provided it has a point and a purpose, but I fear that we allow ourselves all too often to drift off onto secondary and otherwise unimportant issues and miss out on the primary task at hand.

When was the last time you share the Gospel with someone? When was the last time you witnessed someone trusting in Christ for their salvation? For all the time you spend debating, intellectualizing, and pontificating about the latest and greatest revelations from the emergent camp, don’t you think your time could be better well spent actually sharing the message of salvation? So stop with debates and endless chatter, turn off your computer, obey your Master, and get out there and tell someone about Jesus. And when you return to this website, bring encouraging and edifiying stories of how the King of Kings and Lord of Lords ministered in and through you to touch someone’s heart and even save them. Now that’s worth conversing about! Blessings…AG

AG, I appreciate your

by Andrew - 16/06/2007 - 23:36

AG, I appreciate your frustrations and up to a point sympathize, but I’m not sure your rudeness is really going to help the situation.

I would guess that most people who have entered the emerging church conversation have done so because they believe that the way of faith that they have inherited from modern evangelicalism lacks wholeness and integrity. That may be a debatable point, but my impression is that by and large the emerging church is genuinely struggling to do faith better - at a very practical level, as a concrete expression of following Jesus.

Inevitably that struggle is going to entail first disentangling ourselves from the modern evangelical worldview and then slowly piecing together a belief system that is both true to scripture and which fits our minds. We are admittedly doing this in a very chaotic fashion - but I believe it has to be done.

I suppose you should ask some of these bloggers whether these online conversations actually help them to work through the real issues of life and ministry. Remember, you only see one small part of their lives exhibited in these blogs that you so deride.

The main point I’d make, though, is that much of the discussion above is about how we understand Scripture. How do we tell the story that makes sense of Jesus? I strongly believe that the tradition that has reduced mission to personal evangelism has not understood the biblical narrative well - and until we assimilate a better understanding of the biblical narrative, we will not do mission well. That may seem presumptuous - and it is one of the premises of the emerging church that needs to be tested. It is good that people find Christ - I happily praise God for your testimony. But for too many people at the moment the really urgent question is: What are they being saved into?

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by Goestates - 21/10/2008 - 19:36

Congratulations! You and the rest of your emergent friends are effectively leading people to hell. If only people would read their Bibles they would see how truly deceitful and false your teachings are. What about Jesus saying He is “THE way, and THE truth, and THE life.”? You are deviating from THE truth and spitting in the face of Jesus Christ and the One, True God. Hope your having fun now, because the worse is yet to come.

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by Ryan SA - 21/10/2008 - 22:18

Goestates, most of us who contribute to or frequent this site love the scriptures and treat them very seriously. Like you we have a longing to know and understand the scriptures and better know what God is up to. Your sarcasm does nothing constructive and does not reflect the open and honest interaction that Andrew and others are trying to achieve through this site. In your passion for truth dont forget that you should engeage with people respectfully, especially those that are searching through and wrestling with the scriptures. I beleive the best is yet to come…

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by KurtJohnson - 22/10/2008 - 00:01

Andrew, great review. I wonder if you have had an opportunity to read “the new Christians” by Tony Jones. A much better perspective of what is going on in the emergent frontier. “The manifesto of hope” was an definite over-title. I think Rob Bell’s new book “Jesus wants to save Christians” is a far better “manifesto” for the emphasis on social justice. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on either of those books.

Kurt
www.kurtjohnson.info

Re: Getting frustrated by An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

by Andrew - 22/10/2008 - 00:52

Thanks, Kurt. I have read Tony Jones book and, to be honest, found it somewhat in the same vein, with similar problems. But I don’t have the book to hand to give a more detailed response.

I think, having looked at the review again, that I might have misunderstood Mark Scandrette’s remarks about celebrity. His point appears to be simply that people should focus on their own local journey rather than be obsessed with Emergent celebrities. Sorry, Mark.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.