Customer Reviews

The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

In my opinion The New Christians is a needed and welcomed contribution at this stage in the emerging church conversation. This is the book to read to understand the history of this thing called emergent and the passions of those of us drawn to it. To list a few of the reasons why -

First, to be completely narcissistic, I enjoyed reading Tony's story of his journey into Emergent because it echoed so much of my own experience. I know that he has received criticism for not being inclusive enough of various forms of emerging thought in this book, but he makes it clear in the book that he is telling the story of his own experiences, the groups he has encountered, and the friends he has made. He gives snapshots of where he has encountered the conversation and summarizes the trends he is witnessing. Some people may not see themselves reflected in this book, but for those of us who have trod similar paths as Tony, it is affirming to have part of our story told. This book represents our reality - from the questions, to the conferences, to the online emphasis, to the conversations.

I also like that Tony isn't afraid to tell the truth about the messy parts of Christianity and emergent. The messy parts exist and many in this conversation have experienced pain because of them. So I appreciate Tony's willingness to say that yes Emergent has critics, yes there have been falling outs, and yes some people have refused to play ball with us. It's reality and hiding from it won't help resolve differences. And it's high time, imho, the truth was told that its not just emergents causing the problems.

I appreciated the way Tony dealt with the issues of homosexuality and women in ministry. Instead of dealing with each as "issues," he just told the stories of real people. He was inclusive and affirming in practice while not alienating in dogma. Of course this could just mean he pisses off everyone on both sides of these issues, but I thought he was fair in how he approached such controversial topics.

I enjoyed his affirmation of how popular culture shapes our reality. There are streams in the emerging church that refuse to condescend to popular culture. One often feels like one needs to apologize for watching TV or for listening to mainstream music around other emergents. I liked how Tony used popular culture as metaphors and as keys to understand the forces shaping the conversation. I prefer this thoughtful engagement to the snobbishly turning up of the noses I often expect in emergent circles.

There were of course other stories and ideas throughout the book that I enjoyed, just as there were a few things I questioned and a couple of things that I found annoying (the layout). But this is a good book, well worth the read. If you want to know more about emergent, understand where it came from, or just hear the stories of real people who are a part of it - read this book.

This has been a fun, challenging, insightful read for me. As one who's been reading and thinking and messing people up with "emergent" dialog, Tony Jones' The New Christians (copyright 2008, Jossey-Bass Publishers) gets into the nitty gritty history and thoughts behind the movement in a way that's accessible and personal.

I found "the emergent church" folks about ten years ago, reading some of their forebears and thinking new thoughts that scared me, to be frank. I attended a couple of seminars, traveled to Maryland for one of the Off The Map conferences, and read through alot of books. I put this new work right up there with the most meaningful of my library - good for anyone looking for someone "on the same page as me", and detrimental for anyone wanting to just keep the status quo religiously.

It's into this mess of paradox, oxymorons and mystery that Jones and others have sought to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling".

What I like about Jones' prose is that he doesn't water anything down. There are problems on both sides, there are misunderstandings all over, and there's a need for forgiveness and mercy and grace from each corner. He does this with the historical potions of the story, and then does much the same with the theological discussion of truth, the Bible, interpretation, missiology. There's a flow that's working for me, like a primer on what I've been reading from my own vantage point that's developed over the same passage of years.

This is a well written, and passionately written, book designed to foster excitement for the Christian movement in which the author participates. I give it three stars for this, but no more because I don't find it terribly convincing. However, if you're interested in the Emergent movement, or the current state of Christianity at all, it's worth a read, there is certainly some good information and ideas in the book.

That said, reading this I rather get the impression that Mr. Jones is somewhat out of touch with reality, and takes movement he participates in much too seriously. He constantly compares himself and his fellow Emergents to adventurous pioneers battling on the fringes of philosophy and spirituality. But if you broaden your horizons a bit I think you'll find that pioneering - in a general sense - is being carried on by a great many people of all persuations. Why are the emergents the pioneers but not the Buddhists or secularists? We're all trying to figure this out, this thing we call reality. Really, what the emergent church seems to be (if there really is such a thing, since the author never does give a working definition of it) is a bunch of disillusioned people trying to reconcile their Christian faith with human experience. As such they aren't much different than the Christians who have had seriously questioned their faith throughout history. The only difference is that now they're trying to figure out how to be one in a postmodern world. Jones was not conclusive on how this can be done or if its even possible.

In fact, and unfortunately, he was not conclusive about anything at all. He writes and writes but avoids conclusions, he makes no points, or when he does, he quickly retracts them or qualifies them to the point that they are not falsifiable. He revels in ambiguity and fluff.

An example of fluff is how he claims to find value in all the Christian traditions, and restrains from saying one is right and one is wrong, or even where they are right or wrong. But what does this actually mean? It's ok to say without going into detail (which he almost admits), but its clear that there are huge discrepancies between say, Catholicism and the Baptists. And why only the mainstay traditions? Why is not Christadelphianism considered? And if these traditions are so highly valued, why has he gone off dismissed them to start a new, postmodern tradition? Jones doesn't even try to answer this. It's ok to paint in broad strokes about what you think Christianity is until it comes time to actually explain what your basis for that picture is.

His most interesting chapter to me was 5, "After Objectivity," in which he describes the role of paradox in the Christian faith. Yet in the end I am left unconvinced that these paradoxes are true. If the trinity doesn't make sense, perhaps it really is because people conjured it up. Why look for paradoxes where other explanations suit just fine? Whenever and wherever Jones finds an obvious contradiction he assumes there's a deep hidden truth in it. But sometimes a rose is just a rose. What reason do we have to believe these paradoxes are true, that we are not just reading profundity in them? Any absurd thing can be made profound, that's both the beauty and folly of human imagination. There are certainly paradoxes in other religious and metaphysical theories, some of them may be deep, but many may just be nonsense. Jones assumes that the paradoxes he favors are the former.

Not only this, but he repeatedly contorts the bible to allow for dubious postmodern, existentialist interpretations. In my experience this is certainly impossible (and downright dishonest!) without compromising the original intent of the authors. And if one does that, then what is the point?

Jones seems to want to make the Christian faith somehow existential. For instance he says "the Christian faith is a journey -a Way- not a destination." Personally I think he may have barrowed that idea from Basho or some other poet or philosopher. You certainly don't find it in the Christian scriptures. You find that Jesus is the "Way" but the destination is always the main focus in the New Testament.

So when one does this, when one reads things into the text and pretends that one is teaching bible, or when one takes out-of-date, nonsensical dogmas and says "I believe it because it is irrational" - one is merely playing a game, with oneself and with one's peers.

In fact when one has done this one has effectively ended conversation and dialogue, what Jones espouses most in his book. When one assumes a priori that one's faith is true, then one has effectively closed off communication. On some level Jones has already done this. He's not very interested, it seems, in seriously considering that his faith is dead wrong. But if he was, would it really be possible live a life of such contradiction? After all, you cannot be totally open to discussion and revision AND assume you're beliefs are correct at the same time. It's an impossible stance, a fence-sitting act that can take place only in a static world. Therefore, there's something unreal about the way emergent Christians describe themselves.

Jones complains that critics of the Emergents fail to see the movement as a whole, or are too quick to generalize. Yet he is also reluctant to give us anything TO criticize. In some places he seems to enjoy this state of ambiguity, and even practically admits that criticizing the movement is like "nailing Jell-O to a wall" (sorry I can't remember the page reference).

In the appendices there is a response to certain criticism made by D.A. Carson in his book "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church." I expected a rebuttal of some sort. Now I have not read Carson's entire book, only selections of it at the store, but from what I saw he was spot-on and his arguments valid, or at least apparently valid, enough to warrant a worthy rebuttal. McLaren, Jones, et al, response addressed nothing. Jones complained they were caricatured and misrepresented (without explaining how), the response consisted of merely affirmed that they really do believe in Christianity (without explaining how), and an offer of friendship to their critics.

Perhaps the new generations of Christians, those conversing with the postmodern world, have felt the need to retreat to ambiguity and contradiction. I understand why this might provide relief - there is a feeling of freedom in that, in not being pinned down. And this attitude itself is great. But I am not convinced that it belongs logically in the Christian faith. I do not see how one can claim to be Christian and also claim to live with this attitude of openness to the possibility of being wrong. Belief in God seems an all or nothing thing. At least that's the way the bible portrays it. Somewhere in McLaren and Jones, et al, something doesn't mesh. Either they, deep down, don't truly believe in God, or they, deep down, are closed on this level to commutation. They can't be both, can't they?

Yet, even with all the problems I have with this movement, which I may or may not have articulated well, it's hard not to feel that this emergent movement, or this emergent sensibility, can only be a good thing for Christians as human beings, because it allows them to breathe rather than feel trapped by static dogma. Who knows what kind of faith will eventually emerge out the emergent church.

Christianity has been in a state of evolution, change, flux, and internal conflict every since the very first Christians emerged out of the synagogues of Jerusalem two thousand years ago. A doctoral fellow in practical theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary, author, speaker, and seasoned observer of the American religious landscape Tony Jones has written a seminal work exploring the emergent frontier of Christianity in the opening decade of the 21st Century in "The New Christians: Dispatches From The Emergent Frontier". Providing an informed, informative, and exceptionally well written survey of the more adventurous Christian communities around the world, "The New Christians" reveals a religious movement that is not based on the usual Left-Right political, economic, social, and cultural divides that have marked previous fractions of the Christian church. Simply stated, this is a new form of Christian community that difference in both substance and ideology from such previous ecclesiastical movements that gave rise to Protestantism from Catholicism, or even earlier than that, the Catholic Churches of the West from the Orthodox Churches of the East. "The New Christians" is enthusiastically recommended reading (especially for non-specialist general readers with an interest in religion, spirituality, church history, and current trends with in today's diverse Christian communities) and a seminal contribution for academic and community library Christian Studies and Religious History reference collections.

In church not long ago a friend asked me if I had heard of the movement called Emergent. Tony Jones's new book makes answering his question easier than ever. There's been a steadily growing literature by and about Emergent churches the last ten years, both friendly and critical, but his book now takes pride of place as the best on-ramp to enter the discussion. As one of Emergent's founders, its national coordinator (see www.emergentvillage.org and www.tonyj.net), the author of numerous previous books, and its leading spokesperson, Jones is at the vortex of all things Emergent.

His book is part history of the movement, part theological explanation of its core commitments, part storytelling, and part response to critics. One especially helpful feature is the book's twenty "dispatches" scattered throughout the text that crystallize Emergent thought and practice. For example, "Dispatch 12: Emergents embrace the whole Bible, the glory and the pathos." That is, they don't ignore or candy coat the hard parts of the story. Or "Dispatch 13: Emergents believe that truth, like God, cannot be definitively articulated by finite human beings." They reject dichotomies between the sacred and the secular (Dispatch 6) or the clergy and laity (Dispatch 19). They favor a church that functions "more like an open-source network and less like a hierarchy" (Dispatch 16).

Another helpful feature is the four case studies of Emergent churches in Kansas City (Missouri), Dallas, Seattle, and Minneapolis (Jones's own church). Three appendices round out the dialogue: one on "Emergent Village Values and Practices," one called "A Response to Our Critics," and one on why Emergent has resisted calls to publish a doctrinal statement to clarify just what they do and don't believe.

Although academic scholars have engaged the discussion, one of the most encouraging characteristics of Emergent is that in its origins, methods, and intentions, it's a vibrant conversation taking place in the church, by the church, and for the church. Emergent's main players are mainly pastors asking pointed and poignant questions about what it means to be and do church. However right or wrong they might be, these are gospel practitioners doing the heavy-lifting in God's kingdom. If you want to understand Emergent, it's been said, visit one of their churches rather than just read a book.

Disillusionment with and deconstruction of all things churchly is Emergent's starting point. They're finished with business as usual. They pose many hard questions. Why did overwhelming percentages of white evangelicals kowtow to George Bush? Why does membership in liberal mainline denominations continue to hemorrhage? Why do people quit church, and why are people who stay so bored? Can churches avoid ecclesial bureaucratism and institutionalization? Is there any way beyond the rancorous debates about gays, ordination of women, politics, the environment, and dogmatic minutiae that have embittered believers everywhere? What would some clean sheet re-engineering of church look like if granted the freedom of innovative theology, structure, and practices? Emergents seek nothing less than "a new way of practicing Christianity" that finds "a way out of this mess."

Emergent alternatives, which are many and varied, "defy simple explanation and categorization" (40). Emergents offer no cookie-cutter proposals but rather "an ethos, a vibe, a sensibility" (39). They value inclusive and vigorous discussion, epistemological humility, theological modesty, and incarnational friendships. Emergents honor Gospel mysteries rather than explain them away. They embrace paradox rather than expunge it. They aim for gentle persuasion with personal story rather than imposition of right answers by "gotcha" rhetoric. They are "obsessed with dialogue" because in their view Jesus was a revolutionary who was and is "predictably unpredictable."

The Emergent movement is now roughly ten years old, and a mark of its maturity is Jones's frank acknowledgment of its many critics. He knows that Emergents can sound "supremely arrogant," "puerile," or like "adolescents in rebellion." It's a movement mainly among younger, white adults with evangelical backgrounds; Emergent churches tend to have relatively few children or older believers. Isn't it faddish or contrived, even naive, to think that replacing sanctuary pews with sofas will solve the genuine problems they identify? Inclusive dialogue is better than bitter recriminations, but isn't it coy and disingenuous not to affirm what you believe about, say, gay ordination or the reality of hell? While it's easy to identify mistakes by our Christian forbears, isn't it off-putting for Emergents to insinuate that they alone, finally and at long last, have the magic? Or maybe they'll just reinvent the wheel? Others have charged that Emergent is more smoke than fire, that they're merely angry evangelicals carving out space on the "New Christian Left" (a view that gains some credence since Brian McLaren became the board chair of Jim Wallis's rather mainstream Sojourners/Call to Renewal organization in 2006; see 51).

Jones raises and engages all these criticisms (and others). He acknowledges that "the jury is out" (71) on the Emergent effort to chart a middle course between conservatives and liberals. He admits that some of their creative but tenuous church experiments might not survive. But he goes to the heart of the matter, I think, when he notes what Max Weber called the "routinization of the charisma" and then writes that "the question for emergent Christianity is whether the temptation of routinization can be avoided or whether it's inevitable" (187). A footnote at the end of this sentence adds the perceptive admission that "your purchase of this book [or his writing of it?!] may be a sign of the very routinization that emergents would like to avoid" (250). Can Emergents "avoid being co-opted by the political and marketing forces of institutional American Christianity?" (204).

Someone once observed that "nothing happens without people, nothing lasts without institutions." Right now Emergent has lots of the former but little of the latter. To take one minor example, it's an easy pot shot for Emergents to criticize pastors who obsess about their retirement pensions (7, 9, 11, 136). But as Jones admits, institutionalization is not only inevitable, and not in itself bad (180), it's also necessary. Unless Emergents are independently wealthy, or take vows of poverty (an eminently Christian choice), as they grow older they too will fret about paying for teenage orthodontics, college tuition, and, yes, retirement.

The problem is even more acute because I think Jones is right when he says that the fermenting wine of the gospel expands and explodes its wineskins. The gospel can and ought to destabilize the very institutions that are inevitable, necessary, and even good (9, 35). In his book Heaven Below; Early Pentecostals and American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), the historian Grant Wacker argued that early American pentecostals succeeded because they "bottled the lightning" without "stilling the fire or cracking the vessel." Can Emergents do something similar? In any case, in the next-to-the-last-sentence of his book Jones predicts that all "attempts to redomesticate [Emergents] will fail" (220). Only time will tell whether that turns out to be true, and if it does, whether that constitutes Emergent's defining strength or glaring weakness.

TNC is a really good book, and a huge contribution to the conversation about the new ways of doing church and the new ways of being Christian that are all around us, as well as an insightful look at the impending collapse of liberal vs. conservative polarities in politics, religion, and society in general. Part sociological study, part theological exploration, part peripatetic travelogue, part exegetical exploration, part personal observation, and part fresh hermeneutical method, it is one of the best books I've read in years. In particular, it provides a wonderfully helpful history of the group of thinking practitioners now known as 'emergent village', and will no doubt give great confidence to those who are beginning to explore fresh methods, philosophies, and theologies of living in the way of Jesus.

Among many other highlights, Tony brings to light Sheryl Fullerton's brilliant insight that such expressions of Christianity are 'feral', as those freed from the strictures of conventionality explore new ways of being followers of Jesus in our ever-changing world. And, to prove the point, Tony offers several insightful looks at individuals and groups who are embodying these ideas.

One of my favorite features of the book is one that I'm afraid might be detrimental to its reception: it is wonderfully blustery. Tony writes with a friendly swagger that is not unlike another favorite author of mine, Tony Bourdain. Interestingly, it is an opinionatedness that is-- quite paradoxically-- borne out of a profound sense of humility. When one is sure that one cannot be too certain, that one is too limited in wisdom and intelligence to be right about everything, one finds a new freedom to pursue understanding of a few things, and a willingness to be appended and corrected. Tony does this, and does it well, but I'm afraid some of those who are unfavorably disposed toward this project won't see the nuance.

Too, I wish it included a little gem that I found buried in a random podcast recently: in the early days of this generative friendship now called emergent village, Tony was a lonely voice for renewal of the larger church. Where most of these upstart entrepreneurs were pronouncing the death of the mainstream church and advocating pioneering efforts of church planting, Tony was arguing for patience and reinvestment in the larger structures-- he thought the giant ocean liner could be steered in a different direction. All of which sheds a world of light onto Tony's current impatience with conventional expressions of church, and which fact would endear him to many mainliners who find resonance with this idea of renewal, and who seem to be generally frustrated with Tony's cynicism.

If you're at all interested in or curious about the emergent movement you need to read this book. It not only lays out many of its philosophies, it also gives a history of the movement

If you're uncomfortable with or opposed to the emergent movement you still should read this book. It will give you a better understanding of what it is that makes you uncomfortable.

For me, both were true. There were parts of this book that spoke very deeply to me while other parts helped clear up my disagreements with their beliefs.

While Jones can tend to over romanticize the emergent movement he is a fantastic writer/speaker and has created an engaging piece of work. As I wrote in my title, I have not stopped thinking about and wrestling with the ideas he puts forth in The New Christians since I began reading it.

If you are even interested in reading this book I guess you may be one of three people. One, you could be an "emergent" and you are just wanted to learn a little about the movement you are involved in. Two, you have heard about "Emergent's" and the "Emerging Church" and you wanted to learn more about what it was all about. Or third, you have heard about these heretic emergent devil worshippers and you were looking for a book that could reveal all the heresies and non-orthodox practices. Well I am glad to report that this book will satisfy the needs of all three people.

A little about Tony Jones, Tony has been at the forefront of the emergence for most of its existence and until recently was the national coordinator for the emergent village. He went to seminary at Fuller Seminary and is getting his Ph.D. from Princeton, he writes like a down to earth academic. Speaking to the normal everyday Christians who have never had a class in theology class, but every now and then he likes to drop his knowledge and you will have to break out your dictionary to look up a word or you have to scribble down the name of some obscure theologian so you can look them up later. Basically I am trying to say that Tony comes across as an everyman's theologian. A guy you could go have a beer and talk baseball just as easily as you could discuss the early church father's views on the doctrine of atonement.

As I mentioned above I see this book as being the best primer on the book shelf to the emergent movement. In fact if you want the full treatment, get Phyllis Tickle's book "The Great Emergence" to tell you why the emergent movement is here and then get this book to fill in the details of what the movement is.

In the book Tony starts off by giving some background on his own personal story and where he is coming from and how he got where he is now. Then Tony gives his take of the story of how the emergent movement evolved and began from a few young pastors and theologians. Then we get a description of the kind of people that are drawn to the movement and why they are attracted to this new form of Christianity. Next Tony really shines as he lays out much of the theology of the emergence, and while it is no way a doctrinal statement or comprehensive description of what the movement believes, it is more like what they don't believe and what they are open to. He also spends a good amount of time addressing the idea of truth and dispelling the idea that this is just relativism dressed up in trendy clothing and cool haircuts. Finally we get an inside view of several church's that Jones feels fall inside this movement, a nice cross section of what is going on in various emergent churches across the country.

All in all I really enjoyed this book. I came in as a person who has had the thoughts of an emergent for the past few years I just didn't know it. This book helped me see the others who feel/think about Christianity the way I do and understand how others got to this place. So if you are interested in this movement, (Although I don't think "Movement" is a good word for it) or are just looking for something new in Christianity then I think you may like this book.

I was looking forward to reading this book, but ended up terribly disappointed! This book was a painful read. Not because it challenged my thinking, but because of the tortured reasoning, incoherent conclusions, and an utterly ridiculous portrayal of the modern church that left me wondering if Jones' real intent was to parody Emerging Church (EC) beliefs. For example:
1) Because the roots of the Southern Baptist denomination is the American Pilgrims and "Jolly Old England" therefore, at least genealogically, Albert Mohler (President of the SBC Southern Seminary) is in fact a Bishop of Southern Baptists (pg. 6).
2) Evangelical churches determine their theological and missiological priorities under pressure from conservative radio show hosts (pg. 18).
3) The claim of biblical authority as the Word of God is demonstrably untrue, and portrays those that think otherwise as irrational and unsophisticated.

Another example is Jones' effort to demonstrate the irrationality of believing in Biblical authority, To accomplish this Jones presents a rhetorical conversation between someone with the more sophisticated view of Scripture and an Evangelical:
-"I believe because the Bible says so."
-"How do you know the Bible is true and accurate?"
-"Because the Apostles died for it, and people don't die for a lie."
-"What about the 911 terrorists?"
-"They were deceived; they didn't know that what they died for was a lie. The Apostles had seen Jesus and lived with him so they knew he wasn't a lie."
-"What about the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh?"
-"Well the Bible is really true because of the original manuscripts."
-"Do we have the original manuscripts?"
-"No, but we some old ones that are close to the originals."
-"How do we know they weren't changed?"
-"Because we have faith in the historical process by which early manuscripts were copied and distributed."
-"So your faith is in history..." (pg. 19)

The presentation continues on, but anyone that knows anything about the issue understands that Jones completely misrepresented the evangelical position. Either Jones is intellectually dishonest or he doesn't understand the issues. His inability to accurately portray the beliefs and practices of conservative evangelicals raises the question of whether or not emergent objections to modern Christian doctrine and practice have any real substance? If so, then why not accurately portray that which they seek to criticize? If EC theology is correct, then why is it necessary to misrepesent their opponents to substantiate their conclusions? Whether it is misunderstanding or misrepresentation, the result is same: Jones is disqualified as a legitimate critic of the modern church; for the reader cannot hope to gain any worthwhile insights from the critique of a belief system that either doesn't exist, or that the critic simply doesn't understand.

I have been researching the EC full time for more than two years. A primary practice of the Emerging church is deconstructing (critiquing) the doctrines and practices of the modern church. Let me assure you that if your desire is to learn about the Emerging Church's construct and theology, there are other books written by other authors who can explain the EC and who - even though their theology is fraught with error - possess the intellectual capacity to offer a critique of modern Christianity that will, at least, challenge your thinking. This, however, is not that book, and Jones is not that author. Save your money!

The picture that Tony Jones paints in the first half of his book of the church today is pretty solid. The church lacks unity. The church lacks theological depth. The church spends too much time developing dogma and doctrine. The church picks and chooses scriptures to live and die by. The church is too religious. The church is too caught up in denominationalism. And as a solution... We need to talk more. We need to learn to respect each others traditions. We ought NOT to get so caught up in trying to cement a definition of TRUTH. We ought NOT to try to define that which is undefinable...God. I think much of this is right on. I was very disappointed to see some of the responses to the emergent conversation by Christian leaders today. In their quickness to respond they (many men who I have deep respect for) come off sounding like Pharisees. What we need is conversation, not condemnation. And for that reason I applaud Jones for placing some very valid concerns out in the public sphere.