More thoughts on a great missed opportunity…
Carson states quite clearly in the book that ‘the Emerging Church is hard to put boundaries on’, and therefore many of his criticisms and affirmations ‘will simply not apply to everyone involved in the scene’. He also is keen to state that ‘much of the good going on in Emerging Churches is also going on in ‘normal’ churches.’
But he is also very careful to argue, for example, that the Emerging Church’s critique of modernism is shallow as not everything in modernism was wrong and bad. (For example pages 71 – 73)
This line of argument makes no sense. He wants to critique the Emerging Church, but has to admit that his criticisms will not apply universally. Then he want to base one of his criticisms on the idea that it is wrong to dispatch with modernism as the Emerging Church’s critiques of it do not apply universally.
This is absurd. You can’t have it both ways. Either critique the church as a whole – within which much more than the ’emerging’ part of is theologically shallow, unclear about its cultural critiques etc. – or make your criticisms stick with particular references to particular churches. Unfortunately, one of the only places he has tried to do this is with reference to Steve Chalke – ‘Leader of the Emerging Church in the UK’.
This is simply very poor research. Steve himself would in no way want that label, I’ve never heard anyone else give it. So even while his critiques may remain valid, they are critiquing a part of the church that doesn’t see itself as ’emergent’, sending the book off the ’emerging’ radar and into something else.
To be honest, I’m not sure Carson got the balls to write a tightly focused work on particular manifestations of the Emerging Church, because this would require his actual physical involvement relating to real people face to face, not separated from the real danger of relationships by pages from academic texts. This separation has led to inaccuracies and an inevitably ‘cold’ analysis of a movement that is big on relationships.
I would have far preferred to see a work encouraging and nurturing. The more I read, the more I wonder if he is modeling himself on some image of his beloved Paul – who also can come across rather harsh. The difference? Paul was writing to friends. People he actually worked with and had relationship with. ‘Becoming Conversant…’ reads like a demand that conversation stop. And is all the more ugly for it.
Contrast this with the excellent The Meaning of Jesus – written jointly by Marcus Borg and Tom Wright. One a liberal scholar, the other a conservative, they profoundly disagree over major issues. But they are good friends, and outlined the book while spending time ministering and speaking together. It is a wonderfully affirming read – rigorous, but with a sense deep mutual respect – and overarching unity that at the end of the day they are both faithfully trying to follow Christ. Precisely the sort of book I wish Carson had written.
But let’s be clear here. We need to have this same attitude, even if others don’t have it towards us. To be known for our love. So who’s going to love up Don and ask him to spend some time with them? Or go spend time with him? Go on Si – the book suggests you seemed to enjoy your last meeting at the airport!
Comments
8 responses to “Thoughts on Carson’s ‘Becoming Conversant…’ 2”
hi kester
doug pagitt of solomons porch has invited Don Carson to go up and hang out with their church. I hope he will take up the offer.
see you at greenbelt
Thanks Kester for your thoughts in the last two posts on the book 🙂 I wish I had a copy of your book in my hand .. I did check out some articles you wrote and a kind of email conversation you did. very helpful
Thanks for the info Andrew. Good on Doug. I really hope he takes up the offer.
And thanks for the encouragement Sivin; I’ll link ya!
I wonder if “Becoming Conversant…” was the only kind of book Carson could write given his own theologic and academic tradition. From the Reformation until the last 50 years it was physically very difficult to meet face to face, so a published written work would be all one could critique most of the time. Combine this physical difficulty with the rise of the scientific method, and the idea of peer review of published work overlapping into non-scientific academics. Then add in the continued influence from the Fundamentalist/Modernist disputes in America, which was pretty much fueled by written critiques of the others’ written viewpoints and the need to be “correct”, Biblically or otherwise, because of what was seen to be riding on the outcome- Carson would have been taught by professors for whom this was the burning issue. In other words, in his context it hasn’t been seen as important or relevant to notice anything but the written-on-paper communication.
Just a few contextualizing thoughts I’ve had the last few days.
Thanks for the blog, Kester. God bless you.
Dana Ames
California
So I been talkin around about old/new skool church (big brother/little brother?) and I reckon that on top of what Dana has to say about written word, there also just seems to be a basic non-understanding of what “lil bro” is up to. I’m finding that the trend is Big Bro at best vaguely get my drift, at worst see me as a back-slider (which is odd because I’ve never had so much discipleship!!) where as “non-Christians” basically shrug and say, “of course” – after all they don’t attend church meetings and so on, but many understand the need for prayer/meditation and community – because their basic assumption or knowledge of God does not start from Chruch meetings, where as a Christians – even mine – inevitably must. I totally agree with Dana and can’t help thinking that Big Bro Church is threatened by Lil bro – essentially because it’s different – where as “non-Christian’s” (and this is a sweeping generalisation) don’t feel threatened because, for now, Lil Bro is familiar with what they live. Erm,helpful?
Kester writes, “But let’s be clear here. We need to have this same attitude, even if others don’t have it towards us. To be known for our love. So who’s going to love up Don and ask him to spend some time with them?”
I am glad that you recognize this. However, I am not sure you are ready to live it when you make comments like,
“To be honest, I’m not sure Carson got the balls to write a tightly focused work on particular manifestations of the Emerging Church, because this would require his actual physical involvement relating to real people face to face, not separated from the real danger of relationships by pages from academic texts.”
Tough love, perhaps, but the comment appears to have been justified, as my later post explains.
With regards your other comment, you are right to point out that it is in some ways “besides the point” whether Carson is right or not. However, your comment that “teachers will be judged more strictly” appears to confirm that you believe that is it actually vital to ascertain what is right or not.
My concern is that writing a book in the way that Carson has does not help us all towards that truth, but rather hardens boundaries and enforces stereotypes, thus decreasing the likelihood of proper dialogue which will help us all to understand better.
Connectedly, this is why I am so keen on seeing a ‘complex’ model of church evolve – so that the teaching is not down to one mighty individual who can (and I’ve seen it many times) lead many people astray. If we work on a bottom-up, distributed leadership model this is far less likely to happen.
Thanks for posting.
Hmmmm. I could be wrong, but it seems that you are holding a kind of double standard. When Carson is tough on the emerging church (according to his understanding) he is hardening boundaries and enforcing stereotypes. Yet when you blast Carson (according to your understanding) you are simply exercising tough love (as opposed to hardening boundaries and enforcing stereotypes). How convenient!!! Carson could just as easily respond by saying that he is just exercising tough love as well.
Perhaps you would respond by saying that he holds to a more established position, and thus he is fair game, whereas the emerging church is too young to take that kind of criticism. I think that point would be debatable. There are times when parents need to exercise tough love on their children. There are also times when parents perceive (granted it is only Carson’s perception) that their children are in grave danger, which calls for tough discipline (for their own good), more so than some lesser problem that simply calls for gently steering your children in the right direction.
I think we should spend less time worrying about the way in which Carson responded to the emerging church, and spend more time on his actual criticisms. If not, then we need to avoid doing the same thing Carson does when we repond to him.
Lest I become a nuisance on this blog, I will drop the point and give you the last word.