Emergent Church

I don’t mind naysaying; in fact, on occasion, I engage in it. There is certainly plenty of it going on and in this series of three posts I want to (1) examine how it works, (2) make some observations about  the “anti-book”, and then (3) offer some principles or rules of engagement for dealing with books and authors that fall into banned or naysay status.

Part 1 : How It Works

Naysaying is not inherently bad, but second-hand naysaying is. This unique breed of herd mentality causes those who engage in it to buy into the following line of reasoning when asked about certain books: “Someone I trust has read this and they say it’s bad so I don’t need to waste my time reading it. I can say it’s bad with confidence. I can even quote the bad parts of it in order to deter others from reading it.”

An entire culture has grown around this mentality with it’s own industry of blogs and books and speakers.

Here’s how it works:

1. Send a Scout

One or more trusted scouts read the source material. These are sometimes seen as heroically risking their sanity and spiritual well-being in the process. They return as heralds to report their findings. If as expected in the view of the scouts, the book contains some error, then everyone else is warned not to read it – which may indeed, it must be said, be very good advice.

This has some authority when the scout is a rank-and-file blogger or Pastor, but near absolute authority when he is one of the mini-popes of today’s evangelical culture.

Caveat: Scouts are important. You can’t read every book that’s published and sometimes must rely on reviews to shorten your stack of “must read” books. (Caveat 2: Some of today’s mini-popes achieve that status despite their efforts against it.)

2. Inform the Shepherds

These mini-popes are usually more than willing to take up the task, claiming to be “protecting the flock” or doing the hard work of discernment. They may in fact be doing this, but too often it is an effort to create a system of reliance in which they acquire more power and influence from Pastors and other church leaders who are increasingly willing to forsake their own study and thinking; they make disciples, but whether these disciples are their own or belong to Jesus is sometimes in dispute.

Caveat: Informing other shepherds is necessary. Being a Pastor can be a solitary experience, but surely in some way we are in this together and should assist each other in avoiding error whenever possible.

3. Inform the Flock

Usually the scout will publish his findings on a blog and that writing is passed around among the second-hand naysayers as damning proof against an author they themselves have never read.  It is also passed around as a sort of gospel tract, ensuring the recipient that reading the scout’s report will correct their misguided theology. A chorus of condemnation soon follows comprised mostly of people who haven’t read the book but want to appear as if they have.

Caveat: Informing the flock is also necessary, but I do question how much influence a remote shepherd should have over a local flock. Rather than co-opting the criticisms as your own, at least point people toward the review of the trusted scout, if not to the source material itself.

4. Publish a Book

In the next step of naysaying evolution a book  appears (like this one for example) – a scrapbook of sorts – that claims to be authoritative on all matters relating to the one(s) who have been issued “nay” status. I call this the “anti” book. This book is seen as “the One Book to rule them all” and is used to surgically dissect current candidates for heresy.

The problem is, the book contains only the most inflammatory quotes from the other books and arranges them in such a way that all context is lost.

Caveat: Keep the book to yourself. It’s a cheap way of profiting off the work of others and is, in too many cases, outright deception.

Implications

I’m not buying into this practice. If you’re going to tell me about the content of a book and then tell me not to read it, two things will happen: (1) I will ask you if you have read the work itself. If you haven’t, come back and talk to me once you have. If you have read it, and you’ve given trustworthy advice in the past, I might just not bother reading the book.  However, even if that is the case, (2) I will not affirm or pass along your observations until/unless I have read the book for myself. I may point others to your review but I will not co-opt your objections.

Fair enough?

Granted, this is difficult to do. It is also hazardous if you are determined to continue as a member in good standing of a second-hand naysayers club. The moment you begin to read source materials instead relying solely on the scout’s report your friends begin to murmur, wondering why the word of the trusted scout is good enough for them but not for you.

You may hear whispers in the foyer at church: “Does he doubt his faith? Why is he playing with fire? Is he still a Christian?”

This is uncomfortable enough, but when you return from the source material reading excursion and draw attention to numerous good points in the source material that the scout neglected to mention… well, it’s enough to get a man’s soul prayed for quite earnestly.

Tomorrow: (click here to read)—> Dealing With the “Anti-Book”

In yesterday’s post I focused on the common practice of second-hand naysaying. I also mentioned something that serves as a the naysayer’s source book: the “anti-book”. This book (an example here) is a scrapbook of sorts that claims to be authoritative on all matters relating to the one(s) who have been issued “nay” status. It is seen as “the One Book to rule them all” and is used to surgically dissect current candidates for heresy.

Part 2 : Dealing with the “Anti-Book”

Here’s a rule of thumb when encountering such a book: if you haven’t heard of or read anything by half of the authors you’re reading about, STOP READING, PUT DOWN THE BOOK, and most certainly do not distribute the book to others with an encouragement to read it.

Reading this type of book can lead to the type of heresy hunting that causes us to reject biblical ideas because those we accuse of being heretics have adopted them. For an (unfortunately real-life) example: Rick Warren uses the word “reconciliation”, therefore reconciliation is part of the heretic agenda, and therefore we shouldn’t speak of it.

Some folks are so naively over-protective of their doctrine that they occasionally reject what they actually believe because it is taught by one they consider a heretic. This is usually evidence that the person is spending more time reading anti-books than the Good Book they claim to be protecting.

You Can’t Quote That…

Another attack mode is source assassination. In this practice, the truthfulness of a quote is judged not on its own merit, but on its source. This is done in an effort to expose the sin of association. Regardless of the length or content of the quote – it could be the most biblical statement this side of scripture – if the messenger is on the naysay list, the quote is rejected outright and you get closer to making the naysay list yourself.

The general idea here is to make you mindful of whom you quote, regardless of the content of the quote. You may get away with the quote if you leave it unattributed, but attributed to a certain name, it will be rejected simply on the basis of its source.

I once sent a very conservative friend a great quote about the mission of the church, which he wholeheartedly endorsed and agreed with. He was not pleased to learn shortly thereafter that the words were actually uttered by the newly minted Pope Benedict XVI.

As I remember it, he accused me of trickery, and I confess that he was half right.

Tomorrow: (click here to read)—>Rules of Engagement – what should you do with naysayed materials?