SHAMELESS COMMERCIAL PLUG: The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier

First, a lame joke about Western churchianity:

KNOCK-KNOCK
WHO IS THERE
NEW
AHHHHHH - GET HER, GET HER - SHE IS NEW, SHE MUST BE CAST OUT, LET’S SMITE HER

Not so funny, but it makes my point in this post.

My biggest observation about Western churchianity is that it is united in its reaction to most things new.  That reaction is

fear, uncertainty and doom

Liberal or conservative, high church or low, one atonement metaphor or another – the flavor does not really change the reaction to new.  Western churchianity works at quarantining new, at denying the needed resources for new to exist, works to cast out all things new.  Positions of power & prestige are usually focused on reviewing and approving new.  Most of the time, when new is finally approved it is drained of the spirit that so many find energizing.

This seems to be part of our story – from table fellowship to the divinity/humanity of Jesus to the rubrics of liturgy to what is in the canon…it just goes on and on, all the way to battles today about openly gay people, who has authority & how they weld it and the factual nature of Scripture and so on and so on and so.

A lot of knocking at the door.

All this fear, uncertainty and doom that new elicits is invested in following a man who came as a new Adam, who talked constantly abut a new kingdom, whose followers live in rhythm with a Scripture called the New Testament.

Yep – now that is funny.

In my professional life, I have mainly worked in new.  My income comes from working for big companies or investors to nurture new.  In these 20 years of working in new, I have found that new is usually about finding (a) simple solutions (b) to overlooked problems (c) that actually need to be solved, and (d) deliver them as informally as possible, (e) starting with a very crude version 1, then (f) iterating rapidly.

When I first laid out these principles explicitly, I noticed something striking: this is practically a recipe for generating a contemptuous initial reaction. Though simple solutions are better, they don't seem as impressive as complex ones. Overlooked problems are by definition problems that most people think don't matter. Delivering solutions in an informal way means that instead of judging something by the way it's presented, people have to actually understand it, which is more work. And starting with a crude version 1 means your initial effort is always small and incomplete.

Contemptuous initial reaction. That captures Western churchianity’s reaction, in great part, to the emerging church phenomenon.

And a face of that change, what many websites and right-minded folk consider a veritable Imperial Potentate of new, a person your church elders warned you about is……Tony Jones.

Yep – a person with the second most frequently used surname.  Tony is that guy in the minivan next to you.  He grew up in a good, normal mainline tradition – he was your kid’s youth pastor.  He volunteers as a police chaplain.  He reads good night stories to his kids, he adores his wife.  He went to colleges and seminaries that are the bastions of not new.

The white guy  from Minnesota (insert hockey joke or FARGO reference here) with a Howdy Doody face is the face of new, the guy who church elders and countless websites warn you to stay away from.

Now that is funny.

Tony Jones makes most of his living writing and selling books.  For that reason alone, you ought to consider buying his books, so that his kids and wife can…um…ya know...eat.  Take a minute right now and go buy a book of his.  We can wait - it's the Internet for crissakes, we got nothing better to do.

His newest book The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier is unlike any he has written before.  He writes about his sense of the history of this emerging/emergent phenomenon in the U.S. – if you are hungry for that, buy the book.  He writes about the incredible cast of folks that find safety from fear, uncertainty and doom in this phenomenon – if you are hungry for that, buy the book.  He writes about theology in a way that is pretty impressive for a fella with a fancy East Coast PhD, as well as a bunch of other -ologies – if you are hungry for that, buy the book. 

His newest book  is unlike any he has written before in one other way, at least from my POV.  This is Tony’s story – personal, messy, even disjointed or not fully figured out.  This book is small and incomplete, almost like listening to Tony talk…and talk…and talk.  Tony think in ways that are really interesting - he also writes in ways that are very personal in this book.

A bit of my own story is in this book as well.  A year ago, Tony interviewed me about my experience in seminary.  Tony was gracious and loving when he interviewed me about this excruciating time in my life.  His writing of this story is also gracious and loving – a bit scary to read in print, but gracious and loving.

Tony writes about the crude manifestations of new, the rapid iterating that accompanies the new, the brave efforts so many people engaged in new must endure in the context of Western churchianity.  This is my tribe – holy broken people, new Christians who look for God’s spirit moving in their midst, then try as best they can to follow that Spirit.  This is my institution - I must confess to an up-to-date membership in Western churchianity , the modern institutional church system which continues to  replace Christianity with its own brand of organized   religion.

As unlikely, even funny as it may be – Tony is one of many embodiments of the new that is breaking out all around.

Go buy his book The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier, or read for free The New Christians - Chapter One or go see him in person – but even more importantly, take heart in his stories of faith and practice in the face of fear, uncertainty and doom.

KNOCK-KNOCK
WHO IS THERE

Comments

[Tony Arens]

Hey Tyler -
I tend to do it as well. But hey - that's passion! I agree on your reference that those who preach a different gospel be accursed. However, what a quandry!! If I believe your gospel is "not right", you believe mine is "not right", maybe Tony Jones' version is "not right", Piper's is "not right", McLaren's is "not right" - we can't really go around accursing each other - what kind of a witness would that be? So maybe we focus on the side on kindness and care. I dunno... Have a great week Tyler!
Tony

[Tyler]

Thanks for pointing that out, I do tend to use words that add absolutely nothing to the discussion and are not very 'loving' toward my opponents. I really mean that too - I like it when my friends shoot straight from the hip and tell me when I act up like an idiot and need to repent. That said, all but one of my friends are dispensationalists - we really don't make it an issue because we don't make eschatology the center of our faith. When I said 'nutbars' I had in mind the Rapture-Ready folk who use their eschatology to legitimate Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the oppression of an entire nation.

But at the same time, I'm not so sure that the flavour of my words toward those who present new doctrines was necessarily wrong. Paul said that if anyone was to preach a Gospel that was not the one he preached, that person was to be accursed (that of course, in the context of legalism). And while Jesus said "if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell" (Mt5.22), He was also the one who called the Pharisees a generation of vipers (Mt23.33) and condemned them to 'the fires of hell' - whatever you may think that means, it isn't good news. I try to keep that ‘New’ Covenant tension active; maintaining a category for 'antichrists' & 'accursed' and at the same time 'correcting opponents with gentleness' (2Tim 2.25). I'm not there yet.

[Tony Arens]

Tyler -
Of course you can discuss and argue about it. However, you might want to keep shot "nutbar" out of the dialog and treat them with respect. Is that so difficult?

[Tyler]

If I ever run into a Left Behind nut, I usually argue that they read their innovative eschatology into the Bible, not the other way around. It is also mentioned that 'Left Behind' models of eschatology are relatively new interpretations, not ancient - they were invented in the 19th century and are completely foreign to Historical Christianity.

Are you saying that I can't argue along those lines anymore? Are you saying that I have to give these 'Christian Zionist' nutbars the benefit of the doubt, that they might have something meaningful to contribute, that I shouldn't completely write off their new perspective on the Bible?

[Tony Arens]

Thanks Bob - I agree, not as simple or clear. I do believe we can be generous to moderns and post-moderns and appreciate their views, their fears, and their uncertainties. We all need to learn this. It doesn't mean that we need to agree or even find common ground - it means that we begin to respect each other and refrain from such stark reaction and being so quick to slap a label on another. Hey man, I do it all the time, and I need to repent of it.
Peace!

[bob carlton]

tony,

i hear your concern - having spent most of my life in what seems like a bastion of old, old, older, i really have a sense of the pain you talk of.

my personal experience is that people connected with new are far too often abused or even cast out - they are NOT in power. people in power are typically grounded in the status quo.

i suspect it is not as simple or clear as either one of us is presenting.

[Chris Enstad]

What I can't reconcile with Tony et. al is how they are open and inclusive to everything *except* this question of institutional Christianity... it seems only in THAT case is it all of the sudden either/or. Frustrating. Sad. Cutting off the nose to spite the face perhaps?

[Tony Arens]

Are you fearful and uncertain about the older, more traditional ways? It sounds as though you are.

Rather than "smite" those who care so deeply about what they beleive that they might fearfully question or be uncertain about a direction or a movement, maybe you might consider a more generous approach.

Turn your knock-knock joke upside down and consider your opinion of the "old" AND of the "new".

[Jonathan Brink]

It's sad because God is always creating us in His image to create the new.

[brett]

This is hilarious! Awesome post.

Cheers

[Heidi Renee]

oh heck, they're pretty afraid of "old" too - they just fear everything except the "right answers"...

[P3T3RK3Y5]

yea man - i noticed it takes about a hundred years for a bar song to be sanctified as a "hymn". only about twenty if it started out as a "christian" song in the first place.

growing up, i couldn't see movies in theaters because someone might see us going in there and think we were going in for pr0n. you know – as families of five are wont to do visiting mainstream theaters. it apparently took three or four years for a movie to be sanctified before it was shown on TV and we could watch it in the privacy of our own home.

in general - we apparently needed to be awkward and behind the times to be godly and "not of this world". ah, the good ole days.

the reactionary churchianity in cool new flavas are just more adventures (along the same continuum) in missing the point.

so thankful for guys like tony.