Interview with Tim Stoner 1: Emerging's False Dichotomies
By Trevin Wax on Dec 30, 2008 in Emerging Church, Interviews | 
Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
Yesterday, I reviewed a new book by Timothy Stoner entitled The God Who Smokes: Scandalous Meditation on Faith. Today and tomorrow, I am following up that review with a 2-part interview with Tim.
Tim was raised in Chile, South America where his parents served as missionaries. He spent his teen years in Spain. Tim has been married to Patty Grace Stoner for 27 years. They have five children, the youngest of which was adopted from Mozambique, Africa. They all live in Grand Rapids. The God Who Smokes is his first non-fiction work.
Trevin Wax: What’s with the title? Why “The God Who Smokes”?
Timothy Stoner: “A God who Smokes” speaks to me of both aspects of the character of God the Consuming Fire: His holy, passionate love and His anger.
As the Psalmist says: Righteousness and justice are the foundations of your throne; love and mercy go before you.
The column of smoke was grace in the wilderness—shade and direction. The smoke on Mt. Sinai was a mercy that protected the Israelites from the blinding brilliance of God’s glory.
We are told that when God is angry, fire comes from His mouth and smoke rises from His nostrils (Ps. 18:8) while Isaiah tells us that “The Name of the Lord comes from afar with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke.” Smoke in the book thus represents God’s goodness and severity.
Trevin Wax: You write about being “Emergent” before it was cool, but now that Emergent is cool, you no longer consider yourself “Emergent.” What aspects of the Emerging Church do you appreciate?
Timothy Stoner: I appreciate Emergent’s critique of a tendency within certain streams of fundamentalism and evangelicalism toward a divisive, narrow intolerance of those it considers enemies, and a mean-spirited, fear-based rejection of culture which it considers synonymous with “the world”.
I affirm its emphasis on wholistic and integral mission and its priority for justice and mercy.
I also believe its call to affirm the goodness of the creation, the value of listening to and respecting those who hold divergent opinions to be a very healthy and helpful corrective.
Trevin Wax: So why would you distance yourself from the movement today?
Timothy Stoner: I disagree with its equating authority with oppression, eliminating the element of wrath from God’s character, deconstructing the gospel so that it centers around politics (Jesus died to subvert a cruel, violent oppressive system) and ethics (the purpose of the cross was to give us an example to follow) rather than being essentially about man’s sin, God’s mercy, justice and glory in paying for man’s redemption and appeasing His wrath that rebels might be forgiven and restored. I also find no biblical warrant for its denial of an eternal hell for unrepentant sinners who persistently reject God’s love in Christ.
Most troubling is its universalist trajectory which denies the exclusivity of faith in Jesus and provides a back door to salvation for the sincere who do good. This is, of course, an utter denial of the necessity of the Cross.
Since my book is intended to provoke a dialogue about this theological movement, let me add the following critique which I think is quite ironic. Whereas Emergent promotes the virtues of tolerance and a generous inclusivity as its highest virtues, it seems to me to be surprisingly reactionary and polarizing. It majors in creating false antinomies: forcing choices between supposedly mutual exclusives. In other words, it is as divisive as the tradition it is most repelled by.
Trevin Wax: Can you give us some examples of these false choices?
Timothy Stoner: First off, there are the Emerging Church’s false antinomies (driving a wedge between concepts that only appear to be opposites):
- The Gospel is about a person, not a message.
- The Gospel is an event to be proclaimed, not a doctrine to be professed.
- The message and its interpretation is fluid, not static and solid.
- The Gospel is about behavior, not belief.
- The Gospel is primal/elemental (ancient), not European/sacramental (antiquated).
- The Bible is a human book, not an utterly unique, divinely inspired revelation from God.
- The church is for the lost, not the found.
- Life is about searching (pioneer), not finding (settler).
- Evangelism is about saving the world, not individual souls.
- The Bible is about stories (indicatives that describe), not prescriptions (imperatives that prescribe).
- God cares about the boardroom, not the bedroom.
- Jesus came to set an example, not appease the wrath of God.
- God is a God of love, not judgment (because He loves He does not hate).
- Those who teach or believe other “stories” need to be respected, not converted.
- We are to love the “world”, not hate it.
- Our posture toward culture is to affirm it, not critique it.
But then, as if to counter its imbalance, it careens off track by over-compensating, for it brings together things that are not the same.
Its false synonyms (equating concepts that only appear to be similar):
- Anger with abuse.
- Authority with authoritarian.
- Confidence with smug.
- Fundamentals with fundamentalism.
- Judgment with judgmentalism.
- Correction with criticism
- Power with oppression.
- Fervor with fanaticism.
- Militancy with militarism.
- Uncertainty (ambiguity, doubt) with humility.
Tomorrow, I will post the second part of this interview with Timothy Stoner.
© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
I think the two lists he gives here are pretty insightful.
Brent Hobbs | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
Stoner is quite insightful… I am excited about reading his book..
Trevin, are you having a Stoner giveaway?
Matt Svoboda | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
This is a wonderful interview. Thank you for making this information available.
Stoner’s insights are refreshingly helpful and constructive. His two lists–false antinomies and false synonyms–are brilliantly expressed. He captures well one of the featured characteristics that plagues so many today, namely, the deficiency to make necessary distinctions and to do so with proper proportionality.
A. B. Caneday | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
If Tim wants to ship a book to someone, I’m willing to have a brief (paragraph only) essay contest about something.
If I had read this book a little sooner, I am confident it would have made my Top Ten Reads of the year.
Trevin Wax | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
Trevin,
I am a new reader of your blog (via Michael Spencer). Thank you for your thoughful reviews and for bringing to our attention resources like the book by Tim Stoner. This definitely looks like a book I will need to read.
Thanks again for your “blog” work. It is edifying and encouraging.
Blessings!
Scott Eaton
Scott Eaton | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
Trevin,
Thanks for posting this. I would be very anxious to read this book. Like the series by David Wells, books written by Os Guiness and most recently Michael Wittmer’s book…this book by Stoner appears to be a good one.
Thanks!!
Greg | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
Best summary about what is missing in the emergent church movement! I am glad I ran across this interview. I’m adding that book on my must-haves for this year, 2009.
ndefalco | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
Hummm, I haven’t read the book, so don’t really know, but from the shape of these descriptions of the proposed dichotomies I’m inclined to wonder if there could be more than one “emergent” person out there that actually believes any particular one of these things. Is there perhaps a tendency here toward creating false dichotomies more in the eye of the beholder? The more strawmen we create the better we feel about the developed form of traditional christian beliefs before which we genuflect, regardless of how unwholistically they represent the witness of God’s Word in its original context. This reminds me of the “Why We’re Not Emergent” boys as they jumped on the anti-emergent band-wagons fervently circled against the Emergent Indians in preparation for a battle to preserve “what we’ve always believed.” I almost wish I were a fundamentalist so I could feel better about myself in light of this list. I don’t blame ya’ll for my cynicism or feeble attempts at irony here, and can’t expect your forgiveness in light of my self-awareness on this slant, but do pray this blog goes more in the direction of positive affirmation of what is good and clarification toward what is better rather than indulging in affirmation of this kind of antagonistic (dichotomizing!) polemic.
All the best in Christ our Lord,
Richard
Richard W. Wilson | Dec 31, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for your great service to the Church with your blog. I know that this is way beyond the scope of your interview, but where could one find the documentation for the two lists? The implication of Richard W. Wilson’s post is that these lists do not represent the beliefs of folks in the emergent/emerging camp.
Glenn Lashway | Dec 31, 2008 | Reply
This book is WONDERFUL!! It changed my life!
bryan | Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
I should have included this on my first post, but I wanted to say thank you for posting this interview. It was a considerable help with my own questions about where Stoner stands on the issue of the emergent church.
bryan | Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Richard-
The problem with your criticism of this author creating dichotomies is that in saying so, you’ve created a dichotomy. Here’s the dichotomy:
Blogs that “go more in the direction of positive affirmation of what is good and clarification toward what is better”
vs.
Blogs that “indulge in affirmation of this kind of antagonistic (dichotomizing!) polemic”
In short, your argument is self-defeating. You can’t avoid compare and contrast. It’s part of the laws of logic.
Furthermore, if you read the original post thoroughly, one of the main points the author makes is that the Emergent Church guys are the ones creating dichotomies that don’t exist.The two examples he gave were, things that appear synonymous but really aren’t AND things that appear in opposition to one another but really aren’t. The author seems to be seeking synergy not dichotomy (at least with the content, maybe not with the Emergent Church Movement itself).
ndefalco | Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Sir: My BIBLE is the WORD of GOD not just a human book. Why don’t people read and ask God to teach them how to live? The instructions are not hard to follow if you have the help of the HOLY SPIRIT. Reading your contraversaries never lead a person to a relationship with JESUS. The BIBLE is written so a poor man can understand it so why all the garbage talk about junk that they don’t care about and don’t understand? Too much time is being wasted on junk that don’t bring about people being added to His Kingdom. Jesus is coming for His Bride not a bunch of Intallectual Confusionist Know it all’s When a person makes a false statement about the Bible he is deceived and I don’t want that kind of false statement’s taking room in my life. I don’t have time to read JUNK! ! ! Don Maggard
Missionary Don Maggard | Jan 4, 2009 | Reply
I find the lists insightful. In fact they seem to show that what’s “emerged” isn’t Christianity at all!
Good work uncovering this.
Chuck | Jan 4, 2009 | Reply
Two interesting lists in this post, and they show, where we have to be watchful and careful when studying the movement. Although I’m wondering too where this lists result from, as I haven’t found most of this antinomes so far.
Beside that, if Emergent is a camp, there are many different tents, and in fact it is a conversation which tries to debate about exactly such perceptions.
So it seems to me very rude, unkind and self-righteous to read comments like Nr. 15 . Is that what your Jesus had taught you? To adjudge and abdicate others their christianity?
MentalRover | Jan 7, 2009 | Reply
@ndefalco, Nr. 13
I think you misunderstood Richard’s comment.
> The problem with your criticism of this author creating dichotomies is that
> in saying so, you’ve created a dichotomy.
The point is not in dichotomies per se, but if they are true dichotomies, false dichotomies, or (true or false) statements of dichotomies created by other people.
So it feels problematic to me when Stoner says first:
“I also believe its call to affirm [...]the value of listening to and respecting those who hold divergent opinions to be a very healthy and helpful corrective.”
Then listing as false dichotomy:
“Those who teach or believe other “stories” need to be respected, not converted.”
(A dichotomy I haven’t seen in this extreme so far in emergent literature)
So what exactly is he speaking against?
Another thing:
Antinome 16 “Our posture toward culture is to affirm it, not critique it.” seems to be related to synonyme 6 “Correction with criticism” or even 5 “Judgment with judgmentalism.” .
So the synonyms give a hint for how to understand the word “critique” and to see where the dichotomy might be.
That is: As I do not think that the list can be applied to all people who are considered being “emergent”, the ones wo keep these antinomes and synonyms should be asked about what bad experience of christianity led to such a perspective.
So “affirming culture” has a broad aspect which is indeed to be discussed as this concept involves creating or leading that culture as christians instead of simply counteracting against it.
Much more this is true if we really meet one who keeps the false synonyms Nr 2 and 7 (“Authority with authoritarian”, “Power with oppression”). If I encounter such people I cannot help but ask me, what bad experiences may be behind this attitude.
But regarding Emergent Church: There are no such synonyms in my experience. But power is watched sceptically (with good reasons), and authority is something granted and which must be earned by one being trustworthy and faithfully.
MentalRover | Jan 7, 2009 | Reply
Okay, I know this is really inappropriate, and I should be agreeing with Richard to some extent instead of making light of a serious (and interesting) blog post but…this is nothing new, there are many Stoners in the world who believe that God smokes. I just could not help myself…sorry.
Biff | Jan 8, 2009 | Reply
mental-
I reread both my post and Richard’s and I don’t think I misunderstood him. I would like to emphasize that it is the author’s contention that it is the Emergent Church guys creating these dichotomies. Maybe there are those within the ECM itself that wouldn’t agree with each other that those dichotomies exist, but at least one or more significant “mover and shaker” in the ECM have stated those dichotomies before.
You said:
“Then listing as false dichotomy:
‘Those who teach or believe other “stories” need to be respected, not converted.’
(A dichotomy I haven’t seen in this extreme so far in emergent literature)
So what exactly is he speaking against?”
Seriously?
I mean, are you telling me you’ve never read a ECM proponent that does not beleive in inclusivism in respect to salvation? You need to go back and read McKnight’s stuff on the atonement. Or some of the things that McLaren said about Buddhism and Eastern religion.
The problem with the ECM crowd is that nailing down what any of the leaders within that movement really believe. It’s like trying to stab a grape with a fork. We can’t get anyone to admit anything. Like Morbius said to Neo, “There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.” The ECM will always emphasize the journey of knowledge more than its destination.
Here’s a pretty funny website dedicated to de-motivator posters for the ECM:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm
It sums up the dichotomies nicely.
ndefalco | Jan 27, 2009 | Reply