Podcast Thoughts: Doug Pagitt and Bob Dewaay Debate

Over the last several days I’ve been listening to the podcasts of Doug Pagitt’s debate/discussion with Bob Dewaay. I’ve only gotten through the second of the three, but there are definitely some patterns emerging in their discussion. I appreciate the fact that, though Doug is an important voice in the movement, he himself emphasizes that those in the emerging church dialogue do not have complete theological consensus and that he does not speak for the entire movement. I think people who are skeptical about the "emerging church" discussion need to recognize this as well, seeing it as an opportunity to evaluate the current state of Christianity (particularly in the West) and not something to feel threatened by.

Dewaay seems to be coming to the table with the presupposition that, since the canon of Scripture is closed, we can know and understand spiritual things wholly and perfectly with an almost scientific precision. As if the canon of our ability to understand Scripture is also closed. He has most definitely adopted the rationalistic confidence of the Enlightenment.

Dewaay also speaks of “boundaries” quite a bit, which really smacks of Pharisaic legalism to me. In the stories of Jesus, time and time again we see him confronting the Pharisees for using their religious boundaries to create a controlled, man-made spiritual system with which to build themselves up and to oppress others. I think Pagitt did a great job of gently confronting this issue with Dewaay in the context of Christians practicing yoga when he listed off a number of other things that could lead people into darkness like scientific logic, sexuality, food, etc. but aren’t inherently evil.

My frustration with Pagitt was that he was coming from a completely different paradigm such that, at times, he didn’t really seem to be able to even meet Dewaay from his larger point of reference. At one point he even said, “I don’t know what to do with the approach that says that all the answers have been revealed.” As soon as he said this in the conversation, I cringed and thought, “What kind of healthy conversation can we have if we can’t even attempt to understand the issues of the person with whom we’re dialoguing!”

I could almost hear Bob screaming out for Doug to talk to him on his terms. It came across just in the number of times that Bob repeated himself, as if he didn’t know how else to address Doug’s viewpoints. Funny enough, his repeated statements didn’t even really seem to be addressing the issues at times.

However, at one point Pagitt does do a great job of clarifying his view that words, though obviously important, are not always sufficient. I thought he affirmed the usefulness and importance of words when he said that the proclamation/usage of words is not the end of the story, but only the beginning.

It’ll be interesting to catch the rest of the debate. For the most part, they’re both pretty respectful and even lighthearted. I’m fascinated by Pagitt’s eschatological view, though I definitely haven’t bought in to it fully. I can also see why people accuse him and others in the emerging church dialogue of “universalism,” even though he doesn’t explicitly discuss those things. It’d be really interesting to sit down over a cup of coffee and just hear from Pagitt on tons of theological issues and what has lead him to those conclusions.

Looking forward to podcast 3.

Categories: church, culture, mission, emerging