Don't Be Fooled: The Conversation Is Not Open To Everyone

The Emerging Church is quickly becoming a liberal movement that pushes tolerance expect those who do not tolerate them.  This is an unfortunate side affect of liberalism.  Whether it be political, secular, social, cultural, or religious liberalism, liberals in postmodern society cry foul when conservatives take traditional stands and accuse them of intolerance.  What they fail to miss is to accuse one of intolerance is itself intolerant.  So while asking to be tolerated, liberalism rarely tolerates views other than their own.

This is exactly what is happening to the Emerging Church.  The Emerging Church defines itself as a conversation where nothing is off limits.  The Emerging Church pushes community because community implies conversation.  For the past decade, conversation has been its battle cry.  At the Emergent Village website, the movement's "theology" is defined as:

“We believe in God, beauty, future, and hope – but you won’t find a traditional statement of faith here.  We don’t have a problem with faith, but with statements . . . Whereas statements of faith and doctrine have a tendency to stifle friendships, we hope to further conversation and action around the things of God.”

Likewise, Phyllis Tickle's important book, The Great Emergence defines the movement as a conversation.  This conversation “is not only true but which will always be true.”* Though simple, the Emerging Church is, in essence, an ongoing conversation.  Its adoption of postmodernism and theological relativism that stresses mystery and narrative along with its stance on social issues are all rooted in their belief in the autonomy of the believer participating in a community of spiritual seekers and equals.

The Emerging Church is not alone as a postmodern theology that emphasizes conversation.  In their book, Beyond Foundationalism, Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke, a book praised by many Emergents, argue that any theology that takes seriously postmodern sensitivities views itself as conversation.  This conversation is defined as an ongoing conversation we share as participants in the faith community as to the meaning of the symbols through which we express our understanding of the world we inhabit.**

Conversation, then, defines the theological and philosophical approach of any postmodern Christian movement.  Postmodernism’s fear of certainty presupposes this point.  Rather than say with certainty what is true and binding, it is best to bring one’s experiences, thoughts, and opinions to the community of equals each learning from one another.  It is theological snobbery to think that one person can fully understand and grasp complete and final truth.  Therefore, each individual must join the chorus, sharing with one another in an ongoing conversation and experience in order to discover and uncover truth.

So central is this concept that anything that might stop the conversation is avoided including confessions of faith.  In an interview with Whosoever Magazine Tony Jones explains their uncertainty regarding confessions and statements of faith:   

Jesus didn’t have a statement of faith – and neither does the Emerging Church movement.

“Emergent aims to facilitate a conversation among persons committed to living out faithfully the call to participate in the reconciling mission of the biblical God.  Whether it appears in the by-laws of a congregation or in the catalog of an education institution, a ‘statement of faith’ tends to stop conversation,” writes Tony Jones in his new book The New Christians. 

The context of this article is interesting.  Jones is quoted in an online magazine for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Christians.  A traditional confession of faith would have condemned homosexual, bisexual, and transgender persons calling for their repentance.  But by placing special emphasis on conversation, the Emerging Church opens its doors to virtually any conversation with infinite possibilities.  It therefore, is constantly willing to shift its views and its directions if the conversation so demands it.  Conversation trumps conviction.

But this conviction towards conversation, tolerance, community, and uncertainty is only half true.  A movement cannot sustain itself under such parameters.  Theological anarchism leads to atheism and the Emerging Church has allowed many wrong doors to be opened.  Like all postmodern movements, what the Emerging Church tolerates and wants to engage in conversation are discussions that reflect their already limited values like interreligious dialogue, relativism, political activism, a rejection of penal substitution, an uncertainty about Scripture, and the gospel.  To try to question these pillars of their faith is to encourage the wrath of Emergents.

Here are a few examples.  First, a few years ago Jim Wallis responded to some comments made by Dr. James Dobson about then Senator Barack Obama.  Obviously, Dobson is not a fan of Obama and Wallis is.  Wallis is always calling for persons to have a conversation, reach over the aisle and engage one another in dialogue.  Wallis exhorts Dobson to be more civil in declaring their disagreements with the Senator.  Wallis wrote:

[James] Dobson and [Tom] Minnery’s language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political campaign.  We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.

And yet prior to writing this paragraph lecturing James Dobson, Wallis wrote:

I believe that Dick Cheney is a liar; that Donald Rumsfeld is also a liar; and that George W. Bush was, and is, clueless about how to be the President of the United States.  And this isn’t about being partisan . . . I’ve heard plenty of my Republican friends and public figures call this administration an embarrassment to the best traditions of the Republican Party and an embarrassment to the democratic (small d) tradition of the United States.  They have shamed our beloved nation in the world by this war and the shameful way they have fought it.  Almost 4,000 young Americans are dead because of the lies of this administration, tens of thousands more wounded and maimed for life, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also dead, and 400 billion dollars wasted – because of their lies, incompetence, and corruption.

But I don’t favor impeachment, as some have suggested.  I would wait until after the election, when they are out of office, and then I would favor investigations of the top officials of the Bush administration on official deception, war crimes, and corruption charges.  And if they are found guilty of these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison – after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister.  Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven.

What happened to the civility?  Where did the respectible dialogue go?  The truth is, Wallis loves Obama (and so defends him) and vehemetly rejected Bush policy and so attacks openly his policies and his administration.  The language here is much worse that Dobson's words about President Obama and yet Wallis gets a pass.

Another example (and many more could be given) regards the recent comments of Glenn Beck.  The story is getting old now.  Glenn Beck called for his supporters to leave any church that undermines the pure gospel for a social gospel (which is all social and no gospel).  Many Emergents, including Wallis, reject this idea and have responded in full force against the radio and TV host.

To Wallis' credit, he has repeatedly asked Beck to have a dialogue on the issue rather than busting out his "hammer."  However, shortly after calling for a dialogue, Wallis called on Christians to stop listening and watching Glenn Beck.  So which is it?  Other Emergents have joined force.  Self-confessed liberal Emergent Peter Walker posted an article with the title, "Let's Steer Away From Glenn Beck . . . AMEN"

Once again I ask, where is the conversation?  It seems to me that whenever one challenges the beliefs of the Emergent "conversation" the conversation turns almost vitriolic.  Emergents refuse to talk to those who refuse to talk to them.  I can understand that.  But for all of their talk of civility, love, tolerance, and open mindedness, when one side shuts the conversation down, they are quick to respond by throwing out worse hate than their opponents.

Christians need not fall for this empty argument of conversation, civility, tolerance, and openness.  The gospel, by definition, is intolerant.  The gospel is exclusive meaning people will be left out.  The gospel is limited to certain doctrines and repentance excluding other religions and other beliefs.  Though Emergents do not like it, God did not ask them their opinion when He declared it to be true.  The gospel is part of God's character, not man's ever shifting values.  Do not be fooled by this wolf in sheep's clothing.  Affirm the intolerant gospel and bring more glory to God even if it means to be shut out of the conversation heretics are having.



*  Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why, 153.
**  Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, 24.