Tell me how you feel.
http://reformedvoices.blogspot.com/2007/10/todd-friel-interviews-doug-pagitt-of_24.html
Is Doug Pagitt (and therefore, the entire emergent movement) a proclaimer of heresy?
Blogged with Flock
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Who I Am
- matt gallion
- Springfield, MO, United States
3 comments:
For starters, I think it's apparent that you can't group the entire Emergent movement (those of the Emergent Village) together based on anything one members says. I understand that Emergent Village is not a convention but more of an on-going dialogue between those who claim the Emergent banner. Heck, I can't even group all of Doug Pagitt together after hearing that interview simply because his amoeba-like tendency to morph shape in the middle of dialogue. It's also helpful to remember that not all "emerging" is "Emergent." In fact, the negative associations of Emergent have given rise to those seeking to reach post-moderns as "missional" not emerging.
(You can tell I run in Baptist circles because I have to run a beginning disclaimer that may be larger than my actual thoughts themselves.)
The danger of Pagitt on the issues of this interview (granted neither he nor the host were really looking for more than soundbytes) is that in his quest to rid the West of Plato that he happened to throw out a lot of Jesus and Paul and you know, the people who wrote the Bible. Jesus talked about hell as reality, Paul preached on the coming judgment like it was about to hit the fan (ironically Pagitt claimed sanctuary in Acts 16-18 where Paul ends the ever-missiologically popular Mars Hill sermon talking about the day fixed for the just judgment of God and the need to repent), and I'm still unsure which Hebrew word karem he meant as the root of Jesus' idea of the judgment. (The one used for the conquest of Canaan that involved total destruction of all opposed to Yahweh-ism, people included?) I can understand not wanting to build walls with those who don't know Christ (like the Muslim question), but on this one, Pagitt did about as well as Joel Osteen on Larry King. "Um...I...um...Jesus is important...but...umm...maybe he's not for everyone....ummmm.....I want to smile again...talk about money." (I thought Emergents were supposed to be different from the individualistic prosperity gospel-types!) If there was ever a safe place to throw out a little exclusive claims of Christ shout-out, Way of the Master radio would be it. I doubt too many Muslims listen to it anyways. Jesus still claimed to be the only way to God. So either he's right and he is just that; or he's a terrible liar or crazy man and we should just find someone new and hipper like Gandhi to follow.
So I don't know whether he proclaimed heresy or not, because he pretty much danced around the main issues and never really gave a thought of his own, besides that Plato is bad and that he thought discussing Buddhism wasn't interesting. I've never met him, nor been to his church or heard him speak, so I can't really "label" him. But it's easy to follow Jesus if you dissect him down to the convenient parts (and both Evangelicals and Emergents are often guilty of this, they just disagree on which pieces are important.)
There was a discussion on proof-texting theology. There's no problem with systematic theology if your system is based on careful exegesis of the text of the Bible. Radio is a horrible medium for taking the deep look at scripture needed for good theology, but if you have "done your homework" I think it is perfectly acceptable to give a topical study from several different passages as long as the "topic" is actually the same in each.
I have to say that I can tell that you run in Baptist circles, seeing as how Baptists are the primary party that loves to point out the supposed differences between emerging and Emergent. In my studies and readings of both the "emerging" and the "Emergent," neither party likes to make the same distinction. I wonder if this is because Baptists somewhat appreciate the missional and authentic aspects of the emerging movements without coming anywhere near touching the crazy, left-wing Universalists the Emerging movement seem to promote as their spokesmen.
(You can tell I hang out with Methodists because I have to run a disclaimer that complains about the Baptists.)
Having read and studied Pagitt's church and his theology, I feel like I must first and foremost defend him before I critique him. I honestly do not believe for an instant that Pagitt questions or doubts the exclusive claims of Christ. I do, however, think that it's obvious from this interview that he is a fan of productive conversation as opposed to a seemingly pointed attack purposefully constructed to make him look the most heretical.
The crux of this issue is not so much an issue of heaven and hell as it is an understanding of final judgment. Friel obviously believes in a distinctive and locative heaven and hell. To him it is the core of his belief. It's both absolutely true and blazingly obvious that this is something both Jesus and Paul described (though Pagitt may have a point about possible metaphorical descriptions; i.e. is hell really a lake of fire?). What is not so obvious is what I think may be Friel's understanding of the eschaton. His view of final judgment seems to be centered on destruction. In terms of Pagitt's own understanding of the end, it seems to be focused on restoration and redemption.
All of that is to say, taking one (admittedly) implied focus of this conversation, the hermeneutical score is Pagitt: 1, Friel: 0.
Its also important to note Friel's background as a Reformed theologian that shines through brilliantly in his definition of orthodoxy. Apparently, orthodox beliefs are those that Calvin, Luther and Spurgeon. While it is true that Calvin, Luther and Spurgeon are great witnesses to our faith, I don't know if I'd go so far as to use them as the sole definitions of Christian tradition.
Having read some of Pagitt's writings, particularly those pertaining to his personal passion for Christian history and tradition, I can say (with great bias. chuckle chuckle.) that Pagitt's understanding of orthodoxy is not only based on the theologians of the Reformation, but on a fairly informed view of a greater scope of Christian tradition.
So, in my humble and incredibly unqualified opinion, the score is 2-0, Pagitt.
Enough background. As to the actual details of this conversation, I think that we are not privy to Pagitt's truest opinions because he quickly recognized an agenda and did not hope to enter an argument for arguments sake. His wishy-washy responses are more than likely a direct response to the attitude of his interviewer, as is his obviously frustrated babble about Plato and Buddhism. It is fairly easy to construct a conversation that throws the opposite party off of their game when you ask them to come for a conversation and launch a surprise attack instead of dialogue. If and when I am put into those same situations, I often allow my frustrations to get the better of me and my ability to speak.
As for the theology of Pagitt's actual heretical claims, I think its important to know that he never makes a claim. Some may call this his weakness, but perhaps it is his strength. Friel seems to think that he can take the words of Jesus and determine what God's actions will be in every situation in a hypothetical final judgment. It seems to me that Pagitt does not deny the exclusive claims of Christ by saying that all people will interact with God the same way. I may be wrong here, but I believe that Pagitt was trying to emphasize God's sovereignty (a sweet irony considering Friel's Reformed theology) by saying that all men go before God for judgment. It is because of this that God should make the call about the good Muslim and not Todd Friel, Doug Pagitt or even myself.
Secondly, by his claims, I feel that Pagitt is emphasizing God's desire for redemption and not just destruction. From my understanding of God, he doesn't want his "enemies" to burn, rot and be destroyed. He would prefer to end all of his judgment with redemption rather than wrath.
It seems more like Pagitt is offering up a humble "I don't know" that allows God to be God on his own terms over Friel's "I know what God will do" attitude.
The whole thing leaves me wondering which side of this so-called "conversation" is both more dangerous and more opposed to the gospel. Is it Pagitt's admission that God is not God and that we do not need to figure out or determine who's in and who's out, or is it Friel's lack of love and compassion and his desire to be divisive and cruel towards a man who honestly confesses faith in Jesus as the single Messiah? Are the potentially dangerous open-minds of the emerging/Emergent movement or the cold, unloving hearts of the Fundamentalists (Friel's own self-identification) more detrimental to the advancement of the gospel and the spread of the Kingdom of God? Is it worse to be unloving or wrong?
actually the only Baptists who are careful enough to note a difference between all called "emerging" and the official network called "Emergent" are those who wish to understand a diverse ecclessiological movement. The Baptists to watch out for are those who don't care if there is a difference at all.
anyways.
I'm not sure if I could really hand out Pagitt any hermeneutical points. Friel scores a goose egg also, mostly because I kept waiting for him to bring out a pre-16th century name for his list of orthodox Christian thinkers, but he failed miserably, as you pointed out. Anyways, about the only scripture Pagitt mentioned was Acts 16-18 which he did not provide any exegetical proof for his position from, but rather just stated he read it. How did that get him any points?
I honestly think neither man exhibited real love or desire to seek truth in their conversation. Rather they were both set on proving the other was either a Reformation-bred Plato-loving fuddy-duddy or a wishy-washy postmodern heretic. I thought the goal of being missional was always to find a common ground first with the other side and connect through that. Both men obviously failed here; rather than connecting with a fellow brother in Christ, they each sought to make themselves look better. Obviously Friel came out with the agenda first, but such is the nature of talk radio (more heat than light). I doubt Pagitt was so naive as to not expect those questions given the nature of the organization, at least not if he's as smart as he seems (he used big words a lot). Rather than disarming Friel's inquiries through connection, he went for the frustration approach.
mostly i just long for the day when those who are true followers of Christ from both emerging streams and evangelical will actually show Christ's love in talking through ideas with each other. Obviously evangelicals have bad habits in this area to overcome, after all we started as a protest movement as well; unfortunately the emerging reply is responding in kind for the most part, and the cycle continues...
so to answer your final questions, I think the point is to be neither unloving nor wrong. speaking the truth in love or something like that.
Post a Comment