I think there’s a breakdown between the emergent and resurgence crowds when we talk about “orthodoxy” or “essentials” or whatever other term you want to use and I think Steve Brown conveyed the concern pretty well in his interview with Tony on his radio show.

I’m not suggesting that there are certain things that are off-limits for conversations. I am saying there are certain things essential to the Christian faith for it to remain Christian.

If I’m in a marriage relationship, there are certain things essential to maintaining that relationship. You need a commitment to putting the good of your partner ahead of your own self-centered good. You need a commitment to honest, transparent communication. You need, I think, a commitment to having a monogamous relationship with the person.

Those things are essential and, in a sense, not up for debate. Does that mean we can’t talk about them at all? Certainly not. We can discuss why they’re needed and try to explore what they look like in specific situations. And of course, communication habits that work in one marriage may be different than what works for another. But communication is always necessary, even if it looks very different from marriage to marriage.

What I’m trying to say is that the essentials are a lot broader than certain people would like to think, but there are still essentials. So is an affirmation of the 20th century idea of “inerrancy” essential? I don’t think so. But is the idea of the authority and sufficiency of scripture essential? I think it is. Likewise, are the five points of Calvinism necessary to understanding how God accomplishes his work of redemption and renewal in the world? I don’t think so, though I personally find them helpful. But I do think the idea of salvation by grace is essential.

If you question those things, that’s fine, but historically speaking, you’re outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. It’d be like someone who believes in capitalism claiming they’re a socialist. The socialists who tell him, “No, you’re not a socialist,” aren’t trying to be arrogant jerks, they’re just saying, “What you believe is incompatible with the definition of socialism.”

Is that helpful? Or am I missing what ya’ll are saying?

Thanks for posting the letter Tony, it raises an important point. Also, thanks for your interview with Steve Brown, I really enjoyed it.

Man, I’m grateful you are thinking hard about this stuff. I’m encouraged by your approach to the whole “dead-tree” publishing, most of which I find so appalling.

“Academic elites bitch and moan about the Left Behind theology that is ascendant in America, but they continue to write for Oxford University Press and are thus destined to sell about a tiny fraction of the books that LaHaye/Jenkins sell.”

Nicely.

However, I question whether the right target audience is people who read Macarthur, Piper, and LaHaye.

“How will knowledge be communicated? Aesthetics. Imagery; symbolism and the power of symbols.”

If this is true, how can those who care about “emerging theology” support, embrace, and collaborate with those who speak the language of symbols powerfully? Moreover, what “knowledge” is worth fighting for and how does a persons life/theology/narrative really change. I wonder how open to change Piper’s readers are?

first, peer review. peer review does produce a kind of disciplinary conformity but its also an important locus of authority, mediated communally. Attaining credible status in academia is not about appealing at the popular level–people just love dan brown and lahaye/jenkns, after all–but about convincing your peers that you’ve mastered the conventions of the field. sounds very mechanistic but it’s also about understanding the conclusions our collective efforts have produced. unless you decide the whole enterprise is bankrupt, it seems like keeping a hold of peer review could be really valuable.

I say this because there are some scholars/authors who side-step peer review for the express purpose of publishing ideas that would never pass muster. There’s a renegade aspect there–I’m telling you the truth the academy doesn’t want you to know!–but it also creates problems, I think, for scholarly credibility. Publishing a book doesn’t earn you credibility but the demonstrated ability to convince those who are most familiar with your material that you know what you’re talking about might.

I say that because there are sometimes very good reasons some ideas wouldn’t pass muster. “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” couldn’t pass peer review because the evidence is bogus and the authors make a shoddy argument that just doesn’t convince. That’s the reason. It’s not because the academy is in the vatican’s back pocket and doesn’t want you to know Jesus married mary magdalene.

My point being, I do see the problems engendered by peer-review as the system currently stands but I also see enough benefit to suggest preserving it in some form.

Yes, I am just a tiny little bit elitist.

Second, tenure. Established scholars can easily turn to popular presses and I’ve known many who have done that but to stake your career on writing for a popular audience seems dicey. At the least, it would depend on the tenure requirements of one’s particular institution. It’s difficult enough for scholars who do interdisciplinary work to make a go of it. Institutions are happier when one’s work is easily categorized just like they’re happier with standard modes of academic publishing.

That isn’t to say writing populist theology is the wrong answer. I agree with you on that point. I just wanted to say more strongly that you’re potentially asking folks to jeopardize their careers. Sounds very exciting and renegade and transgressive and that but it’s not necessarily the best way to pay your bills. Just saying. In addition to being a tiny bit elitist, I’m also aware that playing along with is the best road to tenure.

I thought I had something else to say but apparently I don’t.

The problem I see with getting folks to publish popular books is that it’s tough to simplify honest theology. God is not simple. But, if you’re willing to dumb it down and make it all about heaven and hell, then it’s easy to simplify theology into something people from a _____ for Dummies culture want to read.

The tide does appear to be changing though. Tony and Doug are great examples.