Review: The New Christians

Tony Jones, national coordinator of Emergent, has given the fullest expression of what being Emergent means in The New Christians. It is tamer than other books one could read (or expect), making this book both enjoyable, but somewhat disappointing.

Throughout the book, Jones paints different pictures of the American Evangelical church that are disappointing: People not acting like Christians and people not thinking like Christians. These are unfortunate. Emergent is meant to redress not only these shortcomings, but the systems that make them more prevalent. The overarching theme in these redressings is to make things more complicated than we've often allowed. Theology is complex; life is complex; community is complex. Let's not make them simple or easy. The beauty of taking theology and life and community this way is that one finds a God willing to meet with us in the complexity. We should live no other way than entering/meeting with others in the complexity of their lives. This means that friendship is the overarching value of emerging Christianity.

I quite enjoyed the book and Jones' style. It's readable; it's informative; it's often gracious. I like its heartbeat. I have only one criticism: Not all churches are like the ones he critiqued. As I read his helpful chapter on emerging churches, I thought, "That's not really that radical." There are some systems in place that facilitate living out some of the complexity they desire, but for the most part, their churches are culturally and communally sensitive, finding a niche and ministering/serving people in that niche. That's not radical in all traditions, although perhaps it is for Jones and his United Methodist background. I don't know. I know that I am privileged in the church (and denomination) I pastor not to face some of the struggles Jones did, although there are, of course, struggles.

I do, however, struggle with Emergent's emphasis on beautiful truth. Jones shares the story of a boy speaking with Phyllis Tickle who told her he believed Mary was a virgin because the story's too beautiful not to be true (160). (Would this appeal to the resurrection?) Here's my criticism: I cannot enter that mindset. Scripture leads me to believe that Mary was really a virgin in her pregnancy. Perhaps it does this for a theological point while she actually was impregnated by a man. (I don't think this is the case, but I am using it for a point.) But even if this is the case, and the story re-told is beautiful, it still doesn't change that, in history, she was not a virgin. The beauty of a story does not make it historically true. If Scripture appeals to history, then to history it must go. (Thanks George Caird and N.T. Wright.)

There are two ironies in this beauty/truth thing. First, emerging Christians are big on eschatology (and well they should be!). Could the story of the risen Messiah's return be so beautiful as to be true without historical, recordable appearance and transformation of the world? Second, emerging Christians are big on relationship. What of those, like me, who reject the truth/beauty equation as a fallacy? What if Keats was wrong? Do emergents have more to offer skeptics interested in history? Would my theological beliefs be limited to their approach? Of course not. But for that to be the case, history would have to enter the theological equation.

God bless the emerging church. They are doing good work. God bless the evangelical church. They are preaching good news. God rescue the mainline / liberal church. They have good people.