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.
