The latest Christianity Today column written by Chuck Colson and Anne Morse is already kicking up some dust by those in the emerging church movement (ECM).
UPDATE: Here is the link to the CT article.
Tony Jones takes Colson to task in his Out of Ur post.
"Yesterday I received my latest copy of Christianity Today. I look forward with some ambivalence to the even-numbered months' editions because they contain both the columns of my friend, Andy Crouch, and of despiser-of-all-things-emergent, Chuck Colson (and his amaneuensis and, it seems, proxy church observer, Anne Morse). Colson has had a burr under his saddle about the emerging church for some time—for instance, in his last column he equated the emerging church with namby-pamby praise music (as he was bemoaning how many Christian radio stations are dropping his daily commentaries)."
Ouch. Tell us how you really feel, Mr. Jones.
My friend David weighs in with "I really do like alot of what Colson has said and done in the past, but the anti-Emergent posturing is getting tiresome. "
Another blogger sympathetic to the EC writes,
"Chuck Colson has done some amazing things for the kingdom, and I acknowledge and appreciate that. I just think on the issue of the Emerging Church, he's way out in left field, and I sense that he hasn't really taken the time to read or interact with the EC. Chuck: Are you afraid of letting the next generation of leaders take the helm?"
Is Colson's article an attack piece against the EC?
Here is the bottom line (from the article)
"For evangelicalism (let alone emerging churches) to buy that would undermine the very foundation of our faith. "
Buy what?
The postmodern argument ... not against truth, but against knowledge. Colson and Morse reference Stanley Fish's argument.
"Fish claimed that postmodernists don’t really deny the existence of Truth--simply that there is no “independent standard of objectivity.” So truth can’t be proved to others; therefore it can’t be known"
Accept truth but deny knowledge of it ... the end result is the same ... no foundation.
This epistemological trap is what concerns Colson and Morse ... their question is, are the emerging church leaders conceding too much in their effort to be missional to those who buy Fish's argument? After reading Jones' glowing comment about "postmodernist extraordinaire" Stanley Fish's book, I can see why there might be room for concern and yes, a burr up the old saddle.
I think that is a legitimate concern. We didn't see John Williams adopt idol worship in order to reach the natives on Rarotonga did we?
Instead, we saw John Williams learn the language and the culture and present the gospel in a powerful way that the natives quickly realized. Williams confronted the idol worshippers with the reality that their idols were powerless. Worshipping the one true God, however, was life changing. No more cannabalism. No more child sacrifices. Peaceful co-existence with their neighbors.
Another valuable lesson from Williams. Train leaders. Equip other missionaries -- especially those who are already in the culture.
In my opinion, if the emerging church movement follows the examples of other missionaries who have gone before, like John Williams, then this movement could have a significant impact on the culture.
That said, I remain very optimistic about the renewed emphasis on being missional and kingdom minded. Many in the ECM are carrying that banner forward and I enthusiastially applaud them. Along those lines, I can't wait to see the podcasts from Reform & Resurge 2006 (recently held in Seattle.)
One nit pick about the article.. Comments like "truth is truth" are easy targets for ridicule. Colson and Morse followed "truth is truth" with a much better definition : truth is "ultimate reality" (i.e. the correspondence view of truth). It is the correspondence view of truth that has dropped out of our cultural conversation. I think the article would be stronger if it did not have "fight song" phrases like "truth is truth" (or things we read elsewhere like capital T truth or true truth). Those are read as fighting words by the audience that Colson is speaking to. Yes, I am guilty of using the fight song phrases.
My suggestion (which I posted on the Centurions message board) is that I would like to see Colson write a column praising the core values of the broader emerging church movement: missional living, living with no sacred / secular divide, being generous and hospitable people, and eschewing a "Jesus and me" gospel for a more robust and biblical kingdom of God gospel.
I think it will show that Colson is not truly the despiser-of-all-things-emergent. He's really not. I have personally heard him affirm many aspects of the EC. I know many find that hard to believe. But, it is true. Not because I say so, but because my statement corresponds with reality. ;)
Jeff - this is excellent. I think you model something very important for all of us here. We all know of your love for Chuck Colson and what he has meant in your life yet you show here that you are not a sycophant for him. I agree with your statement about affirming the core values of emergent - if they can stick to those things they will have a great impact. I just think they go overboard in many ways.
BTW - I met Mr. Colson very briefly yesterday and dropped your name to him. He spoke very highly of you. He was speaking at an FRC function in Washington I was at and I happened to arrive at the hotel the same time he did and introduced myself.
Posted by: David Wayne | May 27, 2006 at 16:39
I also saw Mr. Colson last month here at New Life Church in Colorado. I talked with him and Mark for a few minutes. I did not namedrop, I was more in awe then anything.
I think Mr. Colson is on the right track, but I would agree some refinement would be good. I consider myself emergent in a lot of ways, but have had reservations going all out. I feel that the church has lost some of it's ability to converse with culture, but I also can not abide by re interpreting "what is truth". The truth is the gospel...period..
Posted by: Carl Holmes | May 29, 2006 at 09:14
David,
Thanks for the kind words and I am glad you got to meet Mr. Colson. He is a mentor (more indirect than direct). I hope to emulate his passion for Christ and for finishing well when I am 74. What many do not know about him is how many personal tragedies he has experienced this past year (2005). He has handled them with grace, peace and joy. That speaks volumes about a person's walk with Christ.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 29, 2006 at 11:30
Carl:
"I think Mr. Colson is on the right track, but I would agree some refinement would be good. I consider myself emergent in a lot of ways, but have had reservations going all out. I feel that the church has lost some of it's ability to converse with culture, but I also can not abide by re interpreting "what is truth". The truth is the gospel...period.."
Amen. Christ is the gospel. And Christ is truth. And what Christ has done on our behalf in time and history is true.
Colson is right. You can't build on any other foundation but truth that can be known.
That truth is both relationship and propositional. He is right to speak prophetically if the church begins to drift away from that.
I think he would speak with more authority on the EC, however, if he affirmed some of the things they do right. People are writing him off because they think he doesn't know jack about the EC. He actually knows quite a bit. He agrees with and speaks positively about it too. You wouldn't know it, however, because his CT columns focus on his concerns about epistemology.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 29, 2006 at 11:35
Great article Jeff. The EC has some great focuses as you say, and I support and encourage those aspects. I have a friend who is a baptist pastor church planting an EC like church and I think it is fantastic.
I also agree about the need for a proper foundation. This is my BIG concern about the EC movement. They avoid any statement of belief because they don't want to exclude anyone. Truth is exclusive...it has to be to be truth.
That being said, the EC is not a big organisation, but a nebulous movement of different people and groups deciding to move away from the current structures (in large part due to the many deficiencies of those structures). As such, I can find little confidence in recommending an EC to anyone as I can have no faith in the soundness of their foundation or theology.
When you get people in the EC like Tony Jones reacting so vehemently to criticism of the EC, it hardly seems like they are open to correction. Of course, this is once again a postmodern issue, as the idea that someone can be 'wrong' is alien to them.
Posted by: Alan Grey | May 29, 2006 at 19:26