Now, I present for your entertainment, a blog post at Emergent Village ushering in the new label: “REMERGING.”  Yes, that’s right.  Remerging.  This is not a joke.

While I admire the sentiments of the post—and I very sincerely do—there is a lot of talk, and very little substance.  And in this respect, “remerging” will be exactly like most everything else that has come before it.

PS: I now proclaim the universal term to be “rE/merging/ent.”

(HT: Church Leader Links)

I thought this was an interesting quote from Tony Jones:

It concerns me when leaders who were formerly friends of mine back away from me and from emergent because they find my theology too risky.  I think that’s sin, plain and simple.  Friendship should trump doctrinal difference, and I’m quite sure that Jesus would agree with me on that. [...]

Just like no political scientist could classify me as a political “conservative” or “liberal” because of my unique mix of views, I think we in the church should be particularly wary of classifying others.  Haven’t we learned our lesson after the era of hundreds of denominational labels that so many of us now reject?

Dude—you can’t go around saying homosexuality is okay, and denying inherited sin, and expect to not raise some red flags with Christians, of all people.

Look how “grunge” Tony has gone in his photo, too.  He used to look all smiley and happy and nerdy, when he still had his emergent friends.  It reminds me of a teenage girl who “goes goth” when things aren’t working out as expected.  He’s got this new Ben Affleck “angst” look goin’ on.  I kind of like it.  Matter of fact, my photo looks kind of nerdy as well, now that I think of it.  I need a new photo.

I have to say though, I do agree with Jones, to a degree.  We should not allow doctrinal differences impede on fellowship.  But on the other hand, we are commanded to defend the sheep from false teachers and wolves, which perhaps Tony Jones has in fact now become.

Time for me to find a photographer…

(HT: Justin Taylor)

As I was looking, I wasn’t too surprised to find that Tony Jones hosts his own blog there.  I took a quick look, and what did I find?

Headline:  “Announcing Queermergent“

Adele Sakler, whom I’ve known for a few years, has started yet another “hyphenated” group within the emergent network-of-networks.  She’s calling it “Queermergent,” and, as you might guess, it’s focused on GLBTQ issues.

For those that didn’t see a few weeks ago, I posted that Tony Jones has openly stated he now believes homosexuality and Christianity are compatible:  “I now believe that GLBTQ [gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual/queer] can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.”

I visited the Queermergent site, which introduces itself with the following:

My name is Adele and i blog at Existential Punk. i have been a part of the Emergent conversation both in the UK and the USA for the past 6 years. After years of white-knuckling and repressing my sexuality through a Religious Right conservatism, charismatic, fundamentalist Christianity that lived by literal interpretations of the Bible in dogmatic ways, Reparative Therapy and ex-gay ministries, where the mantra became, “Pray Away the Gay”, and years of depression and suicidal tendencies, i FINALLY came to terms with my sexuality and G-D. Through a very long journey with many peaks and valleys, i decided, through much counsel and prayer that reconciling my same-sex attractions and my Christian faith was a reality where i could exist.

Tony Jones sure seems to be keeping himself in good company these days.

He would also be thrilled to hear Obama’s request for a gay bishop to pray at his inauguration.

In this corner of the ring, we have reformed John “The Hedonator” Piper.  He’s facing off against N.T. “NPP” Wright.

Okay, but seriously–

There’s some seriously-scholarly-scuffling afoot.  Wright is one of the bigger proponents of the theological “New Perspective on Paul.”  (This article isn’t so much about the NPP itself, so click the link for further reading.)  Basically, it is challenging the traditional understanding of “justification by faith.”

John Piper, a committed Reformed thinker, wrote a recent book defending the traditional understanding of Paul and justification, specifically addressing the theology of N.T. Wright.  Wright is publishing another work, clarifying and defending his new perspective, due very shortly.

Round two– (DING DING!)

A handful of days ago, Scot McKnight made a post on his Jesus Creed blog about “blurbing books,” or writing endorsements on book covers.  He explained that blurbs are “a delicate art,” and proposed some guidelines. A couple days later, Justin Taylor posted a new ‘blurb’ from McKnight endorsing Wright’s newest work vs. Piper, which reads:

“Tom Wright has out-Reformed America’s newest religious zealots–the neo-Reformed–by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Wright reveals that the neo-Reformed are more committed to tradition than to the sacred text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study.”

Needless to say, it is hardly delicate!  I don’t care what kind of PR-spin you try and put on it– if someone calls anyone a religious zealot, “them’re fightin’ words!”

Taylor brings a polite correction: “Even if one grants that Carson, Seifrid, Piper, et al are exegetically wrong, I have a hard time seeing how this name-calling and accusation is fair, charitable, or appropriate.”

Round three– (DING DING!)

After Justin Taylor’s post, a storm of comments hit the blog.  This attracted the attention of New Testament professor Michael Bird, who wrote in McKnight’s defense.  (Michael wrote a recent monograph synthesizing the traditional and new perspectives on Paul.) Mike made some points of defense for McKnight, among them this:

“Dan Wallace’s endorsement of John Piper’s book included the statement that Wright’s view of justification is “hardly different from the Old Perspective of Rome”. I like Wallace, but such a comment is hardly accurate and even less charitable (unless of course you’re Catholic).”

Now, what is less charitable- being called ‘hardly different than a Catholic’, or being called a ‘religious zealot’?  Unless one has an extraordinarily low view of the Roman church, I’m inclined to say the latter- by leaps and bounds.

Regardless, these comments then drew the attention of Dan Wallace himself, also a noted New Testament scholar.  The two exchanged blows a bit, but no blood was drawn.

Round four– (DING DING!)

In this scholastic Royal Rumble, Taylor then turned and took a swipe at Bird.  Bird began, saying that Wallace’s blurb (on Piper’s book toward Wright) had “a bit of rhetorical bite,” explicitly in direct contrast to McKnight’s “religious zealots” blurb (Wow).  Bird commented further, offering McKnight’s PR-spin itself:

“Who are the ‘neo-Reformed zealots’? Well folks, I just emailed Scot McKnight. He is not pointing the finger at anyone in particular. He means an ethos of rabidly defending the Reformers without looking at the Bible in its context.”

But then Taylor offered back,

[...] I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, but follow a thought experiment with me: Carson writes a book responding to guys critiquing him on Emergent– say, McLaren, Jones, and Smith. Piper writes a blurb for Carson’s response:

“Don Carson has outdone America’s newest religious zealots–the neo-Liberals–by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Carson reveals that the neo-Liberals are more committed to culture than to the sacred text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study.”

Would anyone conclude that Piper was referring to (a) other Emergent folks but not McLaren, Jones, Smith? [or] (b) to a prevailing ethos out there?

Maybe I’m missing something obvious, but the argument against my plain reading just seems odd!

Touché.

Rob Bell has a blurb (on Wright’s same book in question) that hilariously reveals his apparent naiveté in reading substantial theology (“I find it quite stunning that a book dealing with the subject of justification could be this compelling of a read”), while McLaren has an expectedly less-than-gracious comment as well.  (Do Bell or McLaren’s insight on a Pauline theological treatise mean anything, anyway?)  But McKnight’s is particularly jarring, considering his otherwise more irenic tone elsewhere.

And where is McKnight in the midst of all of this?  I posted a comment on his blog requesting his comments, but he has been notably silent (as opposed to his regularly prolific online presence).

(Whew– now I know the exhaustion of a Hollywood gossip-columnist.)

SX News reports:  (abridged for brevity)

Determined to bring French high baroque to a Sydney stage, Pinchgut Opera selected a piece that celebrates the love of two men – a story that was adapted from the Old Testament.

“For me what’s increasingly apparent is that there’s a real sense of peace in the show that comes from the love of David and Jonathan. Because there’s a war going on – the background to the piece is the war between the Israelites and the Philistines. This is of course extremely timely for us. What I get out of it is that love transcends everything. It’s such a beautiful opera. It’s very sad of course – I don’t think there will be a dry eye in the house at the end. I’m certainly very affected by it.”

So says Erin Helyard of the Pinchgut Opera production of David and Jonathan. [...] the opera is based on the tragic biblical story of David and Jonathan, heroic figures of the Kingdom on Israel, whose intimate relationship was recorded favourably by the Old Testament books of Samuel. Not surprisingly, there is fierce debate among religious scholars as to whether their relationship was plutonic, romantic but chaste, or sexual, with some arguing that the story represents the bible’s full endorsement of same-sex couples.

“The story is so touching,” Helyard tells SX. “[...] it’s same-sex love! I mean it’s just all there! Of course they never talk about overt sexual references, but there’s so much loving going on. People ask ‘was there a hidden gay agenda’? Well it’s not hidden, it’s just right there.”

[...] First performed in 1788, and then forgotten for almost 300 years, the story is still very much contemporary. “The funny thing is that no one ever comments on the love between David and Jonathan – that’s never an issue,” Helyard muses. “What’s the issue is that they’re from opposing camps. So it’s not the same-sex issue that’s the problem. The problem is they’re on opposing sides of the war!

“That’s an extremely modern idea. Think about a Palestinian and an Israeli coming together in the bounds of love – it’s exactly the same story.”

“The story doesn’t give a shit about the fact they’re men – it’s just the love that counts. It doesn’t matter who it is – it’s just love and it’s not hurting anyone.”  [END QUOTE]

(Caution: The original article contains sexually suggestive [homosexual] content.)

This is a great example of the difference between “exegesis” and “eisegesis.”  Exegesis is the critical study and interpretation of a text, and trying to understand what it meant and how it applied in its original ancient context.  Eisegesis is mistakenly reading our own cultural context backward into the text, when it doesn’t actually appear there on its own grounds.

The narrative between David and his best friend Jonathan is definitely intimate.  It makes such statements as “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:1).  However, this intimacy– when exegeted properly– is normal for an ancient, Hebrew, heterosexual relationship.  However, because we live in a 21st century, politically correct, gay-rights cultural context, it is easy for us to read these issues backwardly into the text.

I wonder how emergent thinker Tony Jones would interpret this narrative?

David and Jonathan were no more gay than Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee.  Each relationship serves as an illustration for the deepest bonds of intimacy that can exist in a friendship between two comrades.  (And if anyone questions Frodo and Sam, Tolkien was also a Christian.)

I have another post I am putting up shortly demonstrating eisegesis on the concept of “freedom”: the modern democratic brand of freedom, in contrast to a scriptural concept of freedom (and the theological implications thereof).

I now believe that GLBTQ [gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual/queer] can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

I suppose this [discussion] will be a test of whether I have good theological and philosophical reasons for supporting the rights of GLBTQ persons to marry, or whether I’ve simply caved to the mushy inclusivity of pluralized nothingness.

Surprised?  Not really.

At least in his second paragraph he acknowledges it for what it is: caving in to mushy inclusivity of pluralized nothingness.  I couldn’t have put it better myself.

In other news, emerger Doug Pagitt has announced his interest in a run for Congress.  Since he and I apparently have similar political ambitions for supreme and ultimate power, our future theological battles will inevitably take place in the ultimate duel of our opposing presidential campaigns of 2032.  To the death, Pagitt.  To the death.

Finally, here is a fun little spoof video on these developments in the whole emerging scene.

Hat tip to the Daily Scroll, for pointing out these articles, and also for featuring many of my articles on their site, as well!

It proclaims the bold headline:

R.I.P. Emerging Church

The gist is that (A) the emerging church people are distancing themselves from the increasingly ambiguous terminology, and more interestingly, (B) that a certain unnamed publisher has decided to axe the “Emerging Church” brandline of literature for their publishing house.

What I found most interesting in the article was a sidelined note at the end:

As the emerging church rides off into the sunset, where does that leave things? Well, news has been leaking about a new network being formed by Dan Kimball, Erwin McManus, and Scot McKnight among others. I understand further meetings will be happening this week to help solidify the group. The still unnamed network has agreed to start with the inclusive but orthodox theological foundation of the Lausanne Covenant, and they intend to emphasize mission and evangelism. They appear to have learned from the emerging church’s mistake—define purpose and doctrine early so your identity doesn’t get hijacked. If they do their work carefully, perhaps the new network can avoid getting “wacked” in every sense of the word.

It will be very interesting to see how they change and develop ideas from the prior emerging church gatherings, and how they evolve it forward.  Perhaps it is not so much the death of the movement, but a reincarnation.

-ACR