Wayfaring Pilgrim

Mohler on Roman Catholicism

2007-07-14T11:33:00.001-07:00

Rather than respond to the comments on the last post on Catholicism, I'll let Al Mohler do my talking for me: (HT: Justin Taylor)

It all comes down to this -- the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.

The Reformers and their heirs put their lives on the line in order to stake this claim. In this era of confusion and theological laxity we often forget that this was one of the defining issues of the Reformation itself. Both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church staked their claim to be the true church -- and both revealed their most essential convictions in making their argument. As Martin Luther and John Calvin both made clear, the first mark of the true Church is the ministry of the Word -- the preaching of the Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true Church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.

Well said, methinks.

Keller on Idolatry in a Postmodern Culture

2007-07-06T11:20:00.000-07:00

You can read it here.

Roman Catholics vs. Evangelical Protestants

2007-07-06T11:17:00.001-07:00

Justin Taylor, quoting Biola's Robert Saucy on the difference between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants:

They’re the same as they were at the Reformation. There are three significant ones.

First is the question of final authority. Protestants hold to sola scriptura [Scripture as their final authority]. For Catholics, the final authority is Scripture as interpreted by the church, that is, the magisterium (the pope and bishops). That’s where Catholicism gets its teachings that can’t be found in Scripture, like veneration of Mary, indulgences and purgatory.

Second, Catholics view the church as an extension of Christ’s incarnation. For them, the church is divine as Christ was divine. One result of this is the Catholic proclamation: “Come to the church for salvation, for faith in the church and faith in Christ are one act of faith.”

That leads to the third difference: salvation. The Catholic catechism makes it very clear that you are born again and justified through baptism. That means faith plus a certain rite — which is administered by the church — is necessary for salvation. So, the church essentially grants salvation. Although this salvation is “by faith,” additional grace enables us “to work” to attain eternal life.

And that’s the problem with saying we speak the same gospel. One of them is clear: Christ did it; we can’t add anything to that. The other one is: Christ did it, but to actually avail yourself of what Christ did you have to do this and this.

Carson - What is the Gospel?

2007-06-26T08:10:00.000-07:00

Nice summary of D. A. Carson's What is the Gospel? talk from the recent Gospel Coalition conference. Good quote on the problems of simply assuming the gospel while concentrating on other issues (eg. marriage, theology, whatever):

People are most likely to learn what the teacher is excited about. If the gospel is merely assumed while relatively peripheral issues ignite our passion, we will teach a new generation to downplay the gospel and focus on the periphery, be those matters of evangelism, justice, confronting Islam, or what have you.“It’s easy to sound prophetic from the margins, but harder to be prophetic from the center.”

That last sentence is both timely and profound.

On Seeker Sensitive Churches

2007-05-31T18:49:00.000-07:00

This is an article well worth reading: "It's hard to be seeker-sensitive when you work for Jesus."

(HT: Daniel Nairn)

Gospel Coalition Statement of Faith

2007-05-29T22:06:00.000-07:00

Wow. Now this is a really good statement of faith, put out by the Gospel Coalition. If you only have time to read a little, jump to the end and read pps 7-12 to see how they apply their understanding of the gospel (but it really is worth reading the whole thing). Anyone know who's behind this? (Answer: Tim Keller and D. A. Carson, among others).

What I like about this is that it combines the theological (what we believe) with the contextual (how we see this applying in ministry). And I think that connection is extremely important - because the gospel is ultimately more than just our theology; it's also a function of how we use apply that theology to a given context, and incorporate that theology as part of our identity.

True theology can still be false religion if I am attempting to use it as the basis for my identity.

Addendum #1 - Reformed News has a description of what this thing is here.

Addendum #2 - notes from Tim Keller's talk at the conference.

Addendum #3 - notes from Sandy Wilson's talk

HT: Reformed News.

Romans 7

2007-03-19T08:30:00.000-07:00

An awful lot to say about this chapter - for now I'm just going to focus on 2 things:

1. vs 1-6 - the whole point of this section is that a death has taken place - we have died, because X has died, and we are somehow mysteriously connected to him - so the law is no longer binding (1), we are realeased from the law (5, 6).

It's interesting to note the structure of the argument here - this release of ours is because our husband (X) is the one who has died (3) - if we tried to set aside the law apart from him, we'd be called an adulterous, but because he has died, we too have died to the law (4), so that we might be given to another (the rez X), in order that we might bear fruit for God (4). The old life could be characterized as "life in the flesh" (5) - the new is characterized as nothing less than "new life of the Spirit" (6).

2. vs 7-20 - Lots of ink spilled over whether this section is hypothetical, past experience, etc. I think the biggest argument in favor of "present struggle for Paul" is that it's "present struggle for us" as well. What P seems to be saying (IMO), is this: given this amazing reality described in vs 1-6, how do we deal with our present experience which is largely characterized as "I want to do what is right, but find myself doing what is wrong instead".

Bottom line - we experience this "new life of the Spirit" not as X does (fullness), but as fallen-yet-redeemed children struggling to be sanctified in the already-not-yet. We are simultaneously saints and sinners. Both of those are true (and if you deny either one, you're going to end up in trouble).

The law is not bad here - it's good, because it reveals our sin for what it is (7).

It's amazing in Romans to follow P's 'by no means' comments, because he is constantly anticipating our attempts to blame shift, to pin the fault on someone else - ultimately, we alone are responsible for our sin, and X alone can save us - we cannot save ourselves (24). And that's precisely the point of this passage. X doesn't just save us from our past sins (and now we save ourselves from our present sin) - no X saves us from past, present, and future sins. We are sanctified in the same way we are justified - by faith union w/ the resurrected X.

Romans 6

2007-03-12T07:09:00.000-07:00

It's interesting that while Ch 5 talks a lot about "justification" Ch 6 seems to focus much more on our "sanctification" (vs 1, 4, 6, 12, 19, 22). The flow of thought follows naturally from 5:20 "where sin increased, grace increased all the more". And this leads to a very natural question - well if more sin leads to even more grace, then why not sin? Conversely, we often tend to think that more grace will thus 'cause' more sin - that grace is essentially license.

Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz puts it well:

I used to get really ticked about preachers who talked too much about grace, because they tempted me to not be disciplined. I figured what people needed was a kick in the butt, and if I failed at godliness it was because those around me weren't trying hard enough. I believed if word got out about grace, the whole church would turn into a brothel.

Paul of course, says, "No way!" That raises an interesting question - well why not? And the answer of course, is that grace is not some passive thing - rather its an active thing that unites us to Christ. See this clearly in vs 3-4 - our baptism unites us to Christ, and to the extent that we are united to him, we are enabled to walk in newness of life.

Union w/ X cannot help but change us, because X himself has been changed, and what's ours becomes his and what's his becomes ours. We MUST live if we are united to X because he himself MUST live - he has died and been raised imperishable - death no longer has any dominion over him (9).

What's so interesting about this is that even though this reality for him is definite and accomplished (and thus its guaranteed for us), its still not experienced as definite and complete for us - we're still in the already-not-yet. Hence the need to "consider" ourselves dead to sin (11) - we are to live in light of what X has already accomplished, which in turn is what accomplishes life in us. But this living of ours is active, not passive.

We work, because X has worked - it's his work that accomplishes change in us, but his work is always accompanied by our own working - never as a means or end in itself, but always out of gratitude at what he has done and our own emulation of his work.

vs 14 - law vs. grace - really presented here as something of two different epochs - the period of law (under the OT) vs. the newly inaugurated period of grace (under X). Actually, we know from Rom 4 that even the OT economy was one of grace individually (4:3 - "Abraham believed, and God credited it to him as righteousness"), but as a nation, Israel was charged to live up to the law, and they simply could not do it. And so now, X does this for us - we are no longer under the "law" because he was "under law" for us. This new epoch is gracious for us precisely because it was not gracious for X.

And it's this "being under X" that is so incredibly freeing - not because we no longer need to obey, but because we are in X we are now capable _of_ obeying - we are freed from sin. Important to note this - Scripture does not portray sin as "liberty" (being able to do what I want) but rather as "bondage" (not being able to not want it). This is why the latter part of this chapter (15-23) uses the metaphor of slavery - we're either slaves to sin or to righteousness, but we are never slaves to nothing. We are human, and thus we are meant to serve (even as kinds of all creation).

vs 17 - worth pointing out that real obedience is heart obedience - it's not just what you do, but why you do it (motive, goal).

asd

Romans 5

2007-03-05T08:39:00.000-07:00

vs 1 - important to remember that "justified by faith" here is synonymous w/ "justified by Christ, to whom we are united through faith" or "justified by faith-union w/ Christ" - Christ is the one who justifies us, who does all the work - our faith in him is simply the instrument that unites us to him.

There are at least 3 distinct benefits of this "justification" mentioned here...

peace w/ God (1) - what does that say about our relationship apart from Christ? That it's nothing less than war with God (which fits the 'wrath' and 'enemies' language down in vs 9-10).
access to grace (2) - very important to recognize that while there is certainly such a thing as common grace (God's goodness to all), there is also a particular kind of grace (saving grace) which is only available to those who are in Christ Jesus (because he alone is the possessor and conveyor of that grace to us)
hope of glory (2) - in Christ, we actually hope of getting back to where we were meant to be - getting forward, actually - only in Christ do we have the capacity to become fully human, to flesh out what it means to be image of God, to really reflect his glory by becoming truly glorious ourselves
joy in suffering (3-4) - we don't just receive a future hope - we receive eyes to see the purpose of our present suffering - to see that it is for our good, producing something in us - just as faith is the instrument that unites us to Christ, suffering is the instrument that conforms us to Christ - it's the current of the river that wraps us around the rock in the middle of it, plastering us to it, shaping us in his image

vs 8 - vitally important to see how clearly Scripture states that "Christ died for us, while we were still ungodly sinners" - that statement expresses premeditation (eg. cross didn't just happen - God sent X there), and to that we must ask "why?" - Scripture consistently contends that the cross was necessary, purposeful, forordained - and that it accomplishes something.

vs 9 - also worth noting that the results of this act are not described in terms of potential benefits (eg. possiblity of salvation) but in terms of realized benefits (eg. since we have been justified... much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God).

vs 10 - interesting that reconciliation seems to come through X's death, while "salvation" comes through his life - this "salvation" here is not just "now you'll go to heaven when you die" but rather "now you'll have all the life in yourself that is also present in X" - so it's a full, robust, full-fledged salvation. What's his (life) becomes ours - he gives it to us as we are united to him.

vs 12+ - this raises a really interesting question - how on earth is it fair for God to give us all these things, when we ourselves did not earn/deserve them? (of course, most of us never bother to ask THIS question - we don't really care whether its legit for him to give us something, even though we'll protest loudly at the idea that we could be declared to be sinners on the basis of another)

This other is Adam, and Paul draws a clear connection here. Couple of basic points...

the historicity of Jesus would seem to demand the historicity of Adam - if A is not historical (real), then how are the effects of his death real? and why would we expect X's effects to be equally real? That said, we're not saved by faith in A - we're saved by faith in X (so someone could believe that A didn't exist and still be a real Christian)
whatever we think of salvation/sin, we need to be able to explain this connection between Adam and X - the connection is clearly there. So what is it?
the thrust of the argument - sin entered the world through one man, yet all die? How come? especially in light of the fact that there was a time when there was no law (Adam to Moses)? the text seems to be suggesting that they were suffering the judgment of A's sin...
death reigned from A to Moses - suggests that there was a law in place for A, nothing until Moses, and then another law in place w/ him ("covt of works") - so there is at very least a works principle in place w/ the Mosaic economy - I'd see it as a covt of works for Israel as a nation, Israel as God's son, but nevertheless a covt of grace for all Israelites as individuals
so A is a type of "the one who was to come", X - at the very least, then, we have to admit that both A and X seem to occupy special positions, they are a certain special "type" of people who's actions have consequences for all their heirs

And that brings us to the differences (15) - the free gift is also DIFFERENT from the trespass

instead of bringing death it brings life (15)
result of one sin was judgment/condemnation (deserved) --> result of X's ultimate act of righteouseness meant that many trespasses led to judgment/justification (gift/grace)

Receiving grace does not just "wipe our slate clean" - it is a rennovating grace - it cannot help but transform us, so that we reign in life - grace does not just get us back to a state of innoncence (eg. pre-fall) - it takes us beyond that to our destiny (to what A was intended to aspire to if he had passed the test).

vs 18 - so when we read "justification" in vs 18, we need to read much more than just "acquittal" - it IS that, but it's really the whole of salvation - it's the righteousness of God, LIFE. Also important to note that the "all men" in this verse is either a) universalistic, or b) shorthand for "all who are in X, as his heirs, which we know only happens through faith". Option B seems to be intended.

vs 20 - purpose of the law is to increase the trespass - to make it more obvious. We are all sinners in A; God proves it again by giving the law, which demonstrates that we are all sinners in ourselves as well.

Romans 4

2007-03-02T08:01:00.000-07:00

Romans 3 ends w/ a rhetorical question - does the reality (or prominence of faith) thereby overthrow the law? "By no means!" says Paul (interesting to note that this phrase occurs some 11 times in Romans - 3:4, 3:6, 3:31, 6:2, 6:15, 7:7, 7:13, 9:14, 11:1, and 11:11 - each time as Paul anticipates potential objections).

Faith does not obviate the law - it upholds it (3:31). What's interesting is that Rom 4 doesn't follow that line of argument, eg. trying to explain or illustrate HOW faith upholds the law - instead, it simply asserts that reality (for now) and skips forward to a different question - was our great forefather Abraham justified by faith or by works? (4:1-2).

Of course the classic passage for this is Gen 15:6 (3:3) - "Abraham believed God and he credited it to him as righteousness". What's interesting here, however, is that P also connects this same faith principle to David, is Psalm 32 (3:7-8). This psalm is interesting, not only because it talks about forgiveness, but because this forgiveness comes simply through heartfelt repentance (and thus through faith) - there's no "work" to earn God's favor, not even sacrifice.

The key point for P's larger argument here (that BOTH Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith) is that this blessing to Abraham on the basis of his faith comes BEFORE he has been given the "work" of circumcision (the key mark that distringuished Jews from Gentiles) (10).

Interesting that circumcision has both a "sign" function (illustrating something), as well as a "seal" function (guaranteeing something). Won't explore either of those in detail right now. Also interesting to note that the "purpose" of sign following faith here is to make him the father of all who believe, w/ or w/out circumcision (11).

vs 14 - interesting how this verse - "if it is the adherants of the law who are to be heirs, faith is null and promise is void" - seems to juxtapose strongly w/ what we saw back in 2:6 - "he will render to each according to his works"

vs 16 - "that is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring" - there can be no guarantee (no promise) unless it can be ensured for offspring - but if it depends on their works, its really a possibility at best, not a promise - this statement wouldn't seem to be possible if Paul actually was an Arminian (or Open Theist) - and grace wouldn't really be grace

vs 17 - the whole point of Abraham receiving the promise of an heir, is that at the age when he believed it he was functionally dead - so he is incapable of "responding" or "doing his part" - he's too old. That's precisely the point of course - only God can fulfill the promise, because he is the one "who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist" - faith is simply the conviction that God will do what he has promised (21).

vs 23 - this was all written, not just for his sake, but for ours - we're supposed to look at Abraham and draw conclusions about our own situation

vs 25 - passive and active obedience of Christ - he was given up for our trespasses, he was raised for our justification - seems hard to suppose that his death was simply exemplary (let alone accidental). Paul seems to see something much more concrete and significant in both his death -AND- his rez - not only does he HAVE to die, but he also HAS to be raised. I think "justification" here is much more than just "our legal standing, entry into salvation" - it's synecdotal for everything we have in Christ (our sanctification, our worship, everything).

Romans 3

2007-02-28T11:37:00.000-07:00

Ch 3 starts by anticipating a question - "Ok, Paul, you are telling us that this gospel of yours is powerful, that it actually works salvation (1:17-18). Well what about the Jews? They received all these promises of old, these benefits, these signs, and yet you also seem to be saying that there is no real difference between them and the Gentiles - was there any tangible value to circumcision and the law, if it could not keep them from being condemned by God (just like the Gentiles, who didn't have those things?"

And P answers this by saying - "Absolutely! Of course there is value!" (3:1-2) The real problem, it would seem, is not that circumcision and the law have not worked, but rather that they have not worked as we expected them to. It's not an issue of their impotance, but rather of our expectations. The purpose of the law is not to justify, but to convict, to stop our mouths because we realize that there is no one righteous (especially not ourselves) (19-20). This is just as true for the Gentile as it is for the Jew (even though the law takes a different expression for each).

vs 21+ - If the law simply convicts then (and there are none righteous, as a result), how then can anyone be saved? The answer, of course, is that God's righteousness [not just his legal justice, although that's a part of it (cf. Col 2:14), but also his goodness, his rightness, his kingdom] is has been revealed in a new and surprising way (although its not really new, since the Law and the Prophets were pointing to it all along) (21) - this righteousness comes through faith in Christ to all who believe (22). Couple of considerations here...

classic Christian emphasis on the 'problem of sin' often gets dissed these days (and in some ways, rightly so; after all, this is an organic, wholistic, practical, concrete salvation - never simply abstract, intellectual, or theoretical) - that said, it seems pretty hard to deny, though, that personal sin is at least part of the equation - and the problem here is not merely ethical (that some people aren't acting right) - it goes much deeper than that (NO people act right, the law is meant to convict of that, and "belief" in Christ somehow addresses that)
this 'righteousness' is seen as something we a) lack, b) desperately need for salvation - we "fall short" of God's glory (23) (and the glory we were meant to have as those created in his image) - we are "justified" (24) (made right, restored) by a) grace, b) which is given to us, c) through some kind of "redemption" which is located in Christ Jesus - so it would seem that salvation consists of some kind of transfer - where something that resides in Christ (and doesn't reside in us) is somehow applied to us, by faith.
this 'by faith' part (25) is key - it demands some kind of attitude towards Christ - an allegience, an identification, an "I'm with him" way of thinking, where we see ourselves as his followers. Faith in some generic goodness of God towards all men is simply insufficient.

vs 25-26 - this "salvation" which God has provided actually serves to demonstrate God's own "righteousness" as well - on the one hand, it answers the question raised earlier in Ch 1 "why isn't God acting against ungodliness and unrighteousness" (cf. 1:18). And the answer of course, is that he is - not simply by judging against it, but also by overcoming it. And the way that he overcomes it is by bearing the punishment which that unrighteousness deserves - so God is just (punishing all sin, measuring out justice for all wrongdoing) and justifier (he actually saves sinners, just as he promised) (26). As Anselm says, "Why is the incarnation necessary? Because only man ought to pay our debt, but only God is able to pay it. Hence the need for the god-man Jesus Christ..."

It seems very difficult to me to do justice to this text without arriving at something fairly similar to a classic reformed understanding of justification (eg. Luther and Calvin). We are justified by grace, through faith, and even that is a gift of God (Eph 2:8-10).

vs 28 - it's important to point out that this "justification by faith" is not a matter of something we possess, which thereby justifies us on its own - faith is an instrument of our union with Christ - Christ is the one who justifies us, and we are united to him through faith. We are justified by our faith union with Christ. We use this same sense, then, when we talk about "sanctification by faith" and "worship by faith" - we are not talking about something that exists alone within us (eg. if I just have enough faith, I'll be sanctified), but rather, we are using biblical shorthand - just as we are justified, so too we are sanctified and our worship is perfected, all by our faith union with Christ. His righteousness becomes our righteousness. So too, his sanctification becomes our sanctification. His perfect worship perfects our own worship. All that is his becomes mine, and all that is mine becomes his.

Faith is not just the entry point to the Christian life, it IS the Christian life, start to finish, because faith alone unites us to Christ.

Romans 2

2007-02-27T09:24:00.000-07:00

vs 1 - Very interesting to note that vs 1:32 mentions "approval" (they give approval to those who practice wickedness w/ them) - this is immediately followed up in 2:1 with numerous references to "judging" (which can also be translated "condemning"). Point here is that this is actually quite a telling characteristic of this world - if you do not approve, you are condemned. Relationship is contingent on agreement (and approval). This is true for both the liberal (anything goes) and the fundamentalist (my way or the highway) - both demand approval for their position, because that is where they are putting their hope. Many are quick to reject the church on account of hypocrisy, but the whole point is that we are ALL hypocrites, believers and unbelievers alike.

SUM: We tend to read these opening references to "judgment" in Ch 2 along the lines of "discern/decide" - how does it change if we read them more along the vein of "condemn"?

vs 4 - interesting to note that God's kindness is meant to lead us to repentance (in much the same way that Christ's signs were meant to bring repentance, not confidence - cf. Mt 11-12)

vs 6-8 - these have always been a little puzzling / troubling to me, probably because it sounds like "salvation by works" - of course it becomes something of a moot point later on, when we learn that there is no one righteous, not even one... (3:10-12). One of the things that is interesting about God's judgment here (in contrast w/ men's) is that it is righteous (vs 5), and the nature of judgment hinges on obedience (8). Kind of hard not to see some kind of judgment or hell in this passage. What is most interesting though, is that the dividing line (of someone's in-ness or out-ness) is no on the basis of their ethnicity (Jew vs. Greek), but rather on the basis of obedience and righteousness (10-11).

vs 12+ - of course the rightness of such judgment (of both Jew -AND- Greek) in the first place, hinges on the fact that there seems to be a law in effect for both of them - for the Jew its written on tablets of stone; for the Greek its written on their hearts, in their consciences (15). Seems to suggest something fairly profound about "the law" - that what we find in the OT is not the fullness of the law, but rather an expression of the law - not the thing in itself, but something which points us to the reality. This might be a minor distinction, but it seems important, to keep us from improperly clinging to the OT law (and note that Rom 12 effectively recapitulates that law as well).

It seems important to keep in mind that whatever Paul seems to be saying in Ch 2 (eg. via his logical argument), the point (or thrust) of these words seems to get summarized in 3:9-10 - we are all under sin, both Jews and Greeks. So as we read Ch 2, we need to keep 3:9-10 in view as a hermeneutical key.

What really matters is obedience, and none of us measures up in that area. So any time we condemn someone else (and thus approve of ourselves) we are engaging in an act of hypocisy, for which we ourselves will be condemned. We can never look to our own "keeping of the rules" (law) for our rightness - 3:20 - "for by works of the law, no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin". The law (however we define it) constantly reminds me of my inability, my shortcomings, my own unrighteousness. It too is a means of grace, meant to drive me to repentance.

Romans 1

2007-02-22T08:28:00.000-07:00

I am currently working through Romans in the mornings, and I've decided I may try capturing my thoughts here on it. A running notepad, so to speak, where I'm primarily looking at the book in terms of the light it sheds on the gospel... (and the first couple of chapters are going to be kind of light, because I'm writing about them in retrospect).

vs 16 - interesting to note that the reason P is not ashamed of the gospel is because it is a source of power - we don't typically think about the gospel in those terms - we tend to think about it theologically, abstractly, technically - and yet P is saying that first and foremost, the gospel makes a difference - not in terms of what we should do, but in terms of our ability to do it. The gospel frees us, it provides what we lack. It's not just an entry point to salvation, it's the very substance of salvation.

vs 17 - for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith - I need to look at the Greek for this, but I wonder if the whole 'from faith to faith' part is really saying something to the effect of 'by faith, from start to finish' - ESV suggests an alternate translation which seems to fit w/ this - 'beginning and ending in faith' - if this in fact what it's saying, then it fits very well w/ the whole concept of justification by faith, sanctification by faith, and worship by faith. Everything in the Christian life is by faith - start to finish - because it is by faith that we are united to Christ (think Gaffin's union w/ Christ (UWX) here). This also fits well w/ what follows - "The righteous shall live by faith" (Hab 2:4).

vs 19-20 - for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and his divine nature have been clearly perceived since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. - interesting how several times in the last week I've had non-Christians say to me that the believe in God, that he exists, simply because of what they see in nature. I think this statement resonates w/ unbelievers. They know that something is there. Not sure what they'll think about the 'without excuse' part though...

vs 21-32 - what's interesting about this section is how well it describes the effects of our fall into sin:

folly - claiming to be wise, they became fools... (22) - the mind falls
idolatry - and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images... (23) - the gaze turns from God inwards, our worship is corrupted
desire - therefore, God gave them over to the lusts of their hearts... (24) - their desires are twisted, corrupted
wickedness - for this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions... (26), ...God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice (28-29) - their own behavior follows
strife - they are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, etc (29-32) - not only are they themselves corrupt, but this flows over into their relationships with other people

So what you see here is really a fruit-from-root relationship, where each problem flows from that which proceeds it. And at the source, is an issue of false worship, of idolatry, which flows from arrogant foolishness (which is ultimately from pride and rebellion, a refusal to submit and be revelation receivers rather than wise in our own sight) - at the end of the day, we all want to know good and evil on our own terms. We want to be God and decide what is right and what is not. And that is impossible to do, and still acknowledge him as God.

Also interesting to note how the fruits of our sin are all described in terms of "God giving them over" - God is not "punishing us" by making us sinful - he is giving us what we want, even though it will destroy us. He is like a parent who says, "Ok, go ahead and touch that stove. Only then will you learn to listen when I say, 'don't touch! It's hot!'"

vs 32 - interesting that it mentions approval - at the end of the day, that's at the heart of all false religion - both elder brother lawlessness and older brother religiousity. We want approval for what we do, or on the basis of what we do, and we reject those who will not give it to us. So our acceptance is always contingent on someone elses' agreement or conformity. It is never based on who they are. So neither of these is the gospel.

Chesterton on Tradition

2006-12-05T14:53:00.000-07:00

Justin Taylor quotes Chesterton on tradition:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.(Orthodoxy, pp. 64-65)

(NOTE: Normally I wouldn't just copy the whole post and repaste it here, but its short, and I'm having trouble viewing it in Firefox on Justin's site)

A Timely Word For Seminaries

2006-12-05T11:19:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine is currently helping out at a Peacemaking conference for seminaries in Bangladesh. He sent out an email update earlier this morning, with some reflections by Manfred Kohl on the nature (and dangers) of theological institutions.

Manfred Kohl’s opening remarks were very edifying and challenging. While directed at theological institutions, it’s not a leap to apply them to the local church. The title was Trends and Critical Issues in Theological Education.

He made three general observations and seven points of urgency. I will share them as follows:
A. Theologians (substitute noun for your context) within theological institutions like to talk and debate, often with few results. It seems that action or change is to be avoided at any cost.
B. Theologians within theological institutions like to focus on the past. To plan ahead, to think futuristically, seems to be outside their comfort zone.
C. Theologians within theological institutions seem to have difficulties with issues of management, fundraising, and outcome-oriented assessment.
Here are his seven points:
Theological education (TE) must give more attention to the schools’ constituent churches and their needs. (The need for shepherds > peacemaking > HIV help > how to reach and minister to the young. (50% of all Asians are under 18 years of age.)
TE must be more mission oriented. Mt. 28 must be practiced. Theology has no reason to exist w/o missions. Reach out to the poor and the super rich, both of whom are poverty-stricken w/o Christ.
TE must put greater effort into spiritual formation as a part of ministry skills. (Jesus not only taught but also practiced everything He taught His disciples. He was not a theorist. He taught prayer and practiced prayer, etc. etc.)
TE must focus on training outcomes, on the effectiveness of graduates in ministry. (Assessment of effectiveness: 4 questions. 1) How helpful? 2) What was most valuable? 3) What missing? 4) Least valuable?)
TE must rediscover the value of practical mentorship. (The medical training paradigm; students not only hear but they watch. Who am I mentoring? My children? My ministry?)
TE must address the needs of the laity. (Involvement in the marketplace, the job, business, professional, politicians; lay training.)
TE must start its renewal from the top. (Renewal – change – starts with me. Business world: outcome-oriented assessment. Team effort – retreats, reflection.)
His Summary: Jesus’ seminary, 12 full time students, 70 part time. What subjects did He teach and demonstrate?
a) Prayer. Very few schools have a required course on prayer.
b) How to serve. Again, very few courses on how to serve. One school issued a certificate and a towel upon completion!
c) Stewardship. Giving/sharing. He took his students and observed the offering box; he addressed the rich young ruler.
d) Unity. Imagine a course on unity!
e) Worship. (Sacraments; love of God; Christ centered, grace driven)
f) Peacemaking
g) Mission
I would add ministry of the Word as developed by Apostles.

I confess I feel a little out of place. As I was thinking, “What am I doing here?” it occurred to me to be observant and look for someone off by himself. During our first break I noticed a westerner standing by himself. (Turned out to be an American from Chicago). I approached him and had a wonderful conversation. He shared that he felt out of place, as he didn’t know anyone other than Manfred, who invited him; he was not part of any school, but was working with indigenous believers in [Asia] in the house church movement.

I shared a little about Bangladesh and he asked if we had encountered any signs and wonders. As I pondered on how to respond, it occurred to me that an indigenous led, visible church planting movement throughout a Muslim country, with public baptisms and gatherings (in other words, courageous believers living out their faith under great pressure) was surely a sign and a wonder. Anyway, it was a blessing to talk to this brother. Please pray for me to be open and sensitive to others...

Very timely words, not just for theological institutions in Asia, but also for those right here at home, especially in a place like Westminster...

The Grandest of Excuses

2006-12-05T08:37:00.000-07:00

Wow, just in case you haven't seen it, Mark T has just posted one of the best excuses EVER for a late paper. You will be awed (and tempted to use it for yourself someday down the road... ;-) Thanks for sharing Mark!

Scot McKnight at WTS

2006-10-26T19:08:00.000-07:00

Art Boulet has summarized Scot McKnights introductory lecture at WTS on the Emerging Movement. Worth reading if you're interested in this thing...

Books I Just Ordered

2006-10-16T19:03:00.000-07:00

So here's what I just ordered from the WTS bookstore today:

What Saint Paul Really Said (N.T. Wright)
By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Gaffin)
The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Waters)
The Peacemaking Pastor: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Church Conflict (Poirier - hey, I know him!!!!)
Confessions of a Reformission Rev.: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church (Driscoll)

Ah, to be able to read for FUN again! Woo hoo! I'm looking forward to it...

And here's what I WANT to order (but haven't yet):

Provocative Church (Tomlin)

WTS Gospel & Culture

2006-10-06T21:13:00.003-07:00

[Note: The Gospel and Culture Project now has it's own website - http://www.gospelandculture.org]

Now this is extremely interesting - Mark Traphagen has posted a summary of the Gospel & Culture seminars, and I find it extremely interesting. Here's a snippet to whet your appetite...

The biblical message is that God has been with and for the creation since the beginning. To be human and made in the image of God is to be a human who eats, sleeps, creates, works, gardens, talks, etc. Christ did not come with a message limited to the saving of indivdual souls. His disciples are culture formers from the very start.

American Christians have tended toward two polar opposites: either God’s kingdom is an old Israel restored in the future, or God’s kingdom is a new Israel (i.e., the United States). In fact, it is neither. It is a global kingdom, encompassing the whole world, all of creation, and every culture.

Too often we are focused on the means to bring the Kingdom rather than on its King. We are to have Christ and his Kingdom first, then the means.
...
Recent Christian youth movements have issued a call to “redeem the culture.” As well-intentioned as this is, it is not really the call of Christ. It is not us redeeming culture and then offering it up to Christ as our gift to him, but rather our recognition that we are but servants of the Christ who judges and who himself redeems, not just our culture, but every culture of the world. We serve his kingdom, wherever we do so, as humble, repentant sinners, people who live out of deep gratitude. There is no shortcut to the redemption of all things. No political party, no economic plan, can bring it about. Neither is there a shortcut to global Christian unity. We must see ourselves neither as Americans first nor as anti-American, but rather first always as Christ’s disciples, ambassadors to all the world.

The inattention to culture is just as prevalent in the Reformed world as it is elsewhere in the Church.
...

You really ought to go read the whole thing. The second part on African American culture is just as good. Thanks for sharing this Mark!

Digesting the New Perspective(s)

2006-09-08T08:25:00.000-07:00

Just have to say that I picked up a book on the New Perspective(s) last night that I would like to strongly recommend to anyone looking to get their arms around the whole New Perspective of Paul - it's called Getting the Gospel Right - Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul, by Cornelius Venema. Its very short (<100 pages), extremely well written (you can read it thoughfully in under two hours), and, most importantly, I think it's extremely fair to proponents of the NPP (if any NPP fans want to contest that, please let me know).

If you are looking for a great entry point into the salient problems of NPP (and this is not to deny that there are very many good insights), as well as a great summary of the distinctives of the Reformation perspective, I'd really encourage you to check this book out. If you only have time to read one thing on NPP, this would be it.

Jesus and the Sabbath (Lk 6:1-5)

2006-06-12T19:27:00.000-07:00

Since the question of Jesus and the Sabbath came up recently over on SLD, I thought I'd post an old paper that I wrote on Luke 6:1-5. Here's a somewhat provocative snippet:

In a nutshell, most Christians assume that both David and Jesus cannot actually be breaking the law; there must be some mitigating circumstance, which is then located in “human need” (the definition of which happens to be conveniently vague). Unfortunately, such an interpretation fails to do justice to God’s word on at least two essential counts.

First, it fails to take the OT commandments seriously enough. God explicitly stated that the bread of Presence was only for the priests, and He as Lawgiver provided no exception clauses. David really was breaking God’s direct commandment (and I would argue this is precisely Jesus’ point). God is equally concerned about Sabbath observance: it is not even permissible to build a fire on the Sabbath (Ex 35:2). We would do well to remember the events of Num 15:32-41, where a man caught gathering sticks on a Sabbath is stoned to death. He certainly seems to have as much of a claim to “human need” as David did – why then did God order his execution?

Second, this interpretation also fails to take Luke’s account seriously enough. Jesus and his disciples may have been hungry, but certainly mere hunger does not constitute ‘necessity for physical well being.’ Is it really possible they could not deny themselves for a mere 8-10 hours for the sake of honoring God’s law?1 Likewise, how do we explain the pericope that follows in 6:6-11? The Pharisees seem to have a point – the man with a withered hand (6:6) is in no impending danger; neither is the woman who has had a disabling spirit for eighteen years (13:10-17). Neither situation seems correlative with the ox fallen into the well (14:5).

Of course, if you want to see where I go from here, you're going to have to go read the whole thing.

The Missional Gospel

2006-06-12T17:56:00.000-07:00

For those of you who are interested, here are some audio links to how I understand the gospel, and how that understanding drives our sense of mission, of church planting.

Gospel Sanctification (Shane Sunn, April '06)
Who is the Jesus? (Mk 1:9-28) (moi, June '06)
Our Philosophy of Church Planting (moi, April '06)

As always, comments and feedback welcome. Enjoy!

Dever on Complementarianism

2006-06-01T08:11:00.000-07:00

Mark Dever offers some interesting comments on complementationism (and the difference between older and younger generations on the issue).

Donald Miller On Charity (Love)

2006-05-17T06:42:00.000-07:00

Steve McCoy has a great snippet from a recent interview with Donald Miller, talking about how the church tends to use love as a commodity:

We sometimes take a Darwinian approach with love—if we are against somebody's ideas, we starve them out. If we disagree with somebody's political ideas, or sexual identity, we just don't "pay" them. We refuse to "condone the behavior" by offering any love.

This approach has created a Christian culture that is completely unaware what the greater culture thinks of us. We don't interact with people who don't validate our ideas. There is nothing revolutionary here. This mindset is hardly a breath of fresh air to a world that uses the exact same kinds of techniques.

Miller is precisely right here, and his critique not only applies to evangelical Christians in general, it applies to our theologians and leaders in particular - we place a great emphasis / confidence in "getting it right," and then we place a great burden / pressure on others to agree with us about it. If they do, we reward them lavishly - they are our friends, the good guys, they are in. But if they don't, they are the enemy, the bad guys, they are out. As a result, not only do we not know what others think of us, but we don't care either.

I see a lot of these same attitudes at work in the recent responses to Presbyterians & Presbyterians Together and it concerns me deeply - it sees "charity" as a gag; it fails to remember that "love" was the way Christ reached out to us in the first place, even while we were still enemies...

If I want to convince someone who disagrees with me, I need to start by understanding him on his own terms, by seeing what I look like in his eyes, and by loving him for his own sake, whether or not he ever comes into my camp or agrees with my position. In short, I need identify with him. I need to love him the way Christ does, the way Christ loves me. And if I truly love someone well, it will change the way I disagree with him.

At the end of the day, I having this nagging suspicion that the reason so many people are against charity is that they don't really know what it means to love...

Empowering Leaders

2006-05-16T13:47:00.000-07:00

Mark Driscoll has an insightful post on how important it is to develop leaders in a church plant, and how difficult that task can actually be:

This inner circle of key leaders should be chosen by the planter for their skill, trustworthiness, and loyalty. They should not be rushed into official offices too quickly (i.e. deacons and elders) but instead tested in their work and later approved for the office if they qualify. In selecting these people you must be careful to avoid the selecting of those imposters who intentionally or unintentionally appear like fellow leaders.
Needy people disguise themselves as potential leaders by making a lot of time available to the church and volunteering for every task. However, their motives are often selfish as they serve to be noticed, appreciated, validated and recognized. They also serve so that they can be connected to other people and have their many relational needs met. If you allow needy people to lead you will spend all of your time mending their hurts and listening to their feelings and be sidetracked from developing leaders who can shepherd people like them.

Insecure people disguise themselves as potential leaders by seeking out friendships with the primary influencing leaders and hanging close to the center of power. However, if you begin to push them out of the center of influence in your church because you sense that they are too easily wounded or serving because they like having power, influence, and a title you will discover that they can quickly turn their loyalties against you. If you allow an insecure person to lead you will find that they are often emotionally unstable and continually blame their failures on you and others. They will continually speak to others about how busy they are and how much they are doing so that they can garner attention from other people.

Nice people disguise themselves as leaders by having lots of people like them and enjoy their company. Nice people rarely assert themselves and are often nominated by others for positions of influence. Nice people occasionally commit to service, but usually fail to follow through on commitments and are not dependable. However, they remain very nice and everyone loves them even though they do not do anything of note. If you allow nice people to lead you will find yourself spending lots of time having long and pleasant conversations with them that never result in anything being accomplished.

Disgruntled people disguise themselves as potential key leaders because they have lots of ideas and tremendous passion. They will tell the planter how awful their last church experience was and why he is so much more talented and wiser. However, their anger and gossip should tip you off to their immaturity and you should expect that the knife they put in the back of their last pastor will soon find its way into your flesh.

Seasoned people disguise themselves as potential leaders by talking about all of their experience and success over many years of ministry. However, this can be a serious detriment to your work because if they are not humble and teachable they think they know exactly what to do and begin to impose all of their ministry philosophy and ideology upon your new church. If you allow proud seasoned people to lead you will dislike what they create and how they train emerging leaders and likely have to deconstruct and rebuild their work that will waste a lot of time and energy for you and them.

Church kids (meaning people who were raised in a church and actually really enjoyed it) disguise themselves as potential leaders by talking about how much they love God, love church, and want to be used. They will likely tell you that they want to work in your church plant because they want to be used by God and reach lost people for Christ. However, if they have failed to do anything significant to that point in their many years of opportunity you can safely assume that they are not leaders. If you allow a church kid to lead you will likely spend a great deal of time trying to convince them that your vision is tenable and that because the high has quickly worn off they need to keep going and not return to the safe and comfortable church life that they left. After a while you grow weary and so will they, and they will either return to their safe church life or simply sit in your pew and treat your church like the one they left.

Dreamers disguise themselves as leaders by continually speculating about an idealistic church with lots of passion, big words, and convincing rhetoric. However, they tend to live in the world of dreamy ideas and rarely have the discipline and courage to do anything concrete with those ideas. If you allow a dreamer to lead you will spend lots of time meeting with them and listening to them speak to you about all the things other people should do while you grow frustrated because you realize that they will never do any of those things themselves.

Flaky people disguise themselves as leaders by continually nominating themselves for a task and then failing to do it. They will then appear repentant and sad, begging for another chance to do something. If you give them another chance this pattern will continue until you kill them, they leave, or Jesus returns. If you allow a flaky person to lead (and you may be tempted to do this because you wrongly believe that the responsibility will make them more committed and dependable) you will continually find yourself checking up on them and trying to pick up their messes at the last minute.

Wolves disguise themselves as leaders by carrying themselves with confidence and expertise. However, they will naturally create divisive alliances and cause people’s loyalties to shift to them. They may do this by being overt and having lots of leaders to their home to be won over, or they may do this covertly by dropping items of gossip and undermining the leader’s authority and respect. If you allow a wolf to lead you will split your church before it is healthy enough to survive and you may find yourself out of work.

There's a lot of wisdom in these comments - it's definitely worth your while to read the whole thing. I find myself asking some follow up questions:

What kind of people ARE qualified to lead? I think the answer has to be something like 'broken, weak people who are finding their identity in the Gospel rather than themselves.' Not sure if Mark would agree, or how to condense that into a label...
How do you tell someone 'No'? "Sorry pal, but I think you're a wolf, a flaky person, a dreamer..." Ouch. Sounds kind of harsh.
How do you help people apply the gospel to see themselves as they really are, so that they can begin to change? How do you do this in a way that they see love, rather than condemnation or exclusion?

Innerancy & the Bible

2006-05-13T16:16:00.001-07:00

Ah, Barry Hofstetter offers a rousing defense (and really good explanation) of Pete Enns' recent book, Inspiration & Incarnation. Barry explains what's up with this whole "incarnational analogy" thing, and asks us to consider how the Bible views itself in terms of "inerrancy." Very good stuff - definitely worth reading.

So I'm with Pete and Barry (and John Murray, and E.J. Young, and Herman Bavinck, and Abraham Kuyper, for that matter) on this one. The real question to be asked here is "Do I believe the Bible because it conforms to some modern definition of 'inerrant'?" -OR- "Do I believe the Bible because it's the word of God?"

[HT: Mark Traphagen]

More Thoughts on Women in Ministry

2006-05-08T09:49:00.000-07:00

I was kind of surprised at how many people were commenting on my 2 Tim 2:8-15 paper, when I realized that a fair number of them were coming from Scot McKnight's blog, where he recently kicked off a firestorm (140+ comments). There's something instructive about reading all these responses - it illustrates just how quickly the waters get muddied and just how vehement people can be about their positions. So much so that Scot backed off his plans to do a series on it - he thinks it's impossible to do this kind of discussion in a blog forum (and that's saying a lot, because Scot is the master of the blogging mini-series).

He may have a point here. At the same time, I see an awful lot of fertile ground for discussion here - not so much in terms of reaching a definitive conclusion on the matter, but more for surfacing the wide range of hermeneutical baggage - often unspoken and unexamined - which people bring with them to the text. That to me is something which might really be profitable to discuss. But not during finals week. I'll need to think about how best to approach it.

In the meantime, I may as well post another paper on women, this one called Women in Worship, from a couple of years back. I think it's probably better written and researched than my recent interaction with 1 Tim 2:8-15, but be forewarned - it's longer, and it's more specific to those of us in presbyterian circles. It basically examines the adage which is gaining popularity these days: "Whatever an unordained man can do, a woman can do also" and it seeks to evaluate this in light of Scripture, the Westminster Confessions, and the BCO. Oh yeah, there's also an interesting (IMO) little critique of the Regulative Principle.

I know. You can't wait. Well, have at it then... as for me, I need to get back to the business of studying (so that I can graduate in a couple of weeks!) :-)

ADDENDUM: David Wayne (Jollyblogger) has some interesting thoughts on Women's Roles in Church and the Gospel, where he reflects on the recent "Together for the Gospel" initiative and asks whether or not the woman's issue is really a top-tier gospel issue as well. Worth reading.

Song of Songs: the Role of Sex in Biblical Theology

2006-05-04T19:14:00.000-07:00

And for my Poetry & Wisdom class, I just finished this paper on the Song of Songs. If you've always wondered if its really as dirty as you thought it was, the good news is that... yes, it is. Sorry. This OT book simply oozes sexuality. Of course that raises even bigger questions, like: "What the heck is it doing in the Bible, then? And what am I supposed to do about it?" I take a stab at answering these questions in this paper (and yes, it has everything to do with Jesus).

That said, there's still an awful lot of room for discussion here, particularly in terms of application, and I'd love to get feedback on this too...

1 Tim 2:8-15 - Women & Teaching/Authority

2006-05-04T19:11:00.000-07:00

I just finished a paper on 1 Tim 2:8-15 for my Ethics class this semester. Feel free to take a peek if you'd like to see what I think Paul means when he says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority." Feedback would be most welcome (especially from those of you who are pro-woman's ordination)...

Brian McLaren and Boldness

2006-04-11T21:32:00.000-07:00

Tim Challies heard Brian McLaren speak the other day, and he wasn't all that impressed. Why not? Lack of boldness:

Throughout the evening, boldness was absent. The faith of the emergents, the postmodern faith, is a faith that is devoid of boldness before God. It is timid, angry, tentative, questioning. It is not a faith of assurance and boldness. It emphasizes the unknowability of God more than what God has revealed to us about Himself. The faith McLaren commends is a faith that always questions, always doubts. It seems that the only faith McLaren hates is the faith of a person who knows what he believes and is convicted by Scripture and by plain reason that what God has revealed is truth--true truth. As others have observed, the real enemy of the Emerging Church is conservative, biblical Protestantism. McLaren will commend anything or anybody, it seems, except those who have a faith built upon the truths revealed in the New Testament epistles.

The whole post is well worth reading. And it pertains to the question I asked back in December - where is the EM unashamedly bold? Probably helpful to place this in the context of Mark Driscoll's understanding of the EM stratification...

Adrian Warnock Interviews Mark Driscoll

2006-04-03T05:40:00.000-07:00

Good insight into where Mark Driscoll is coming from, and (most interestingly), how he sees stratification in the emerging church movement:

I see various teams flying under the banner of emerging:
Relevants: theologically conservative, culturally innovative church forms.
Reformed Relevants: theologically conservative and reformed, culturally innovative church forms.
Reconstructionists: theologically conservative, reinventing church forms.
Revisionists: theologically liberal, reinventing church forms.
I have no problem with the evangelical Relevants (e.g. Dan Kimball, Chris Seay, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus). I have respect for, but some concerns with, the house church Reconstructionists. I consider myself a Reformed Relevant. And, the Emergent crowd is Revisionist, which I have strong concerns about regarding such things as gender roles, original sin, substitionary atonement, homosexuality, authority of Scripture, hell, etc.

You can read the whole thing here...
(HT: JT)

Mark Driscoll Apologizes

2006-03-28T21:29:00.000-07:00

Remember the spat between Mark Driscoll and Brian McLaren? Mark has posted an apology for the tone and character of his comments. I think his concerns were accurate; I agree that his vim and vigor were a bit over the top. So I appreciate his willingness to confess and repent publically over this type of thing. We could use more examples like this in the Christian community...

The Problem of Over-Exegesis

2006-03-18T08:06:00.000-07:00

Just for reference purposes, David Wayne (aka Jollyblogger) has posted a fine little piece on the problems of over-exegesis. This would be extremely helpful for laypeople (and probably some academics as well).

The Church and Social Action

2006-03-16T06:04:00.000-07:00

As evangelists charged with planting a church, our mission and agenda by definition include a significant amount of interaction with unbelievers in secular society. The question quickly arises, however – is the church simply to be about its own welfare? Or do we also bear some responsibility to engage in social action? To what extent is the body of Christ called to be involved in social, political, and moral issues?

A rapid survey of the biblical and historical records yields mixed results. Certainly we are called to love our neighbor (Luke 10:27-37), to seek justice and mercy (Mt 23:23), to visit orphans and widows in their distress (James 1:27). The early church took such charges seriously – they were known for their sacrificial care of poor and prisoners, both believers and unbelievers alike. Such examples rightly put many of our modern, consumer-driven evangelical churches to shame.

At the same time, many have argued that Scripture is surprisingly silent in key areas like politics, women's rights, and slavery – Paul preached submission and service, rather than revolution (Eph 5:22-6:8; Rom 13:1); we are told to pray for our leaders, that we may live a peaceful, quiet life (1 Tim 2:2). This hardly seems to fit with the vision cast by liberation theologians and social activists.

The tension is not easily resolved – we simply cannot point to a single verse or convenient proof text that clearly defines the church's role in society. To find an answer, we need to look more deeply at the warp and woof of the Scripture. We need a biblical view of destiny and redemption. And here, the Old Testament prophets prove particularly helpful.

Modern evangelicals have often seen a sharp distinction between “spiritual life” and “the real world.” If we were to illustrate such a worldview, it might look something like this:
Many American Christians see the world of “spiritual things” as existing on something of a parallel plane to the here and now of daily living. Redemption is viewed primarily in terms of our personal destinies; the overarching concern of Scripture is seen to be equally individualized – people who are spiritually lost (usually defined as “not believing in Jesus”) somehow need to get themselves found (usually by believing the right things about Jesus, and living according to a certain moral code), thus ensuring an eternal future in heaven rather than hell.

In a perspective like this, the work of salvation is basically an intellectual commitment to “having Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior,” but my “real life” often continues mostly unchanged, and my “new life” doesn't really start until I “die and go to heaven.” The work of the church, then, is primarily focused on getting individuals to affirm the right facts about Jesus, that they might live happily ever after in the sweet bye-and-bye. There is very little real intersection between the two planes of existence.

The Old Testament witness, on the other hand, paints a markedly different picture of future glory. As Donald Gowan points out in Eschatology in the Old Testament, a prophetic view of the revitalized future is much more earthy, organic, and comprehensive – it envisions real life restored in the here and now, on earth (in the Promised Land, of course), rather than somewhere in the distant future. We might illustrate the prophetic vision like this:
Seen through the lens of the Old Testament prophets, “salvation” is not seen as some individual, personalized escape from this physical worldly existence to some future, other-worldly, streets-of-gold-with-harps-and-angels, spiritualized reality. No! Salvation is nothing less than a restoration of what was lost in Israel's fall.

Gowan unpacks this prophetic vision of restoration in three main categories. First, the prophets do in fact envision a personal renewal. They promise that the Israelites will receive a new heart, one of flesh not stone (Ezek 11:19); it will be circumcised and holy (Deut 30:6), filled with the very Spirit of God himself (cf. Is 44:3) so they can serve God as he deserves and requires (cf. Deut 6). Second, the prophets also envision a societal renewal. They look for the gathering of Israel from the nations to which she had been scattered, her renewal as a nation, her elevation to a position of national prominence, with Zion (Jerusalem) as the city of God, and a new and glorious temple set high on his holy hill (cf. Is 2:2+, Ezek 40+). Third, the prophets also envision ecological renewal as the curses upon the land are reversed, in a virtual return to Eden as the land once more flows with milk and honey, and the river of life itself flows from the temple mount (Ezek 47).

The point here is simply this: the prophets offer us a much more comprehensive view of salvation, extending to all facets of life, rooted in the “real world.” In this view, the messiah represents the anointed one of God who will lead Israel into this new era of prosperity and blessedness.

This restoration vision becomes immensely practical when we see the connection between Christ and Messiah, between the New Testament church and Old Testament Israel, Zion (cf. Heb 12:22, 1 Pe 2:6, Gal 6:16). The redemption wrought by Christ is not merely internal, personal, spiritual (although it certainly is that) – it reaches much further.

In fulfilling all the promises of God (2 Cor 1:20), Christ's redemptive work must carry implications for all three aspects. The promised renewal of society (nation) and ecology (land) are not merely future, nor are they figurative. The church needs to be salt and light in a fallen world, living redemptively and working for its transformation, seeking to illustrate the “already” of heavenly reality in the “not yet” of our present world. This is how the gospel will go forward. And this implies that the church's work in the world is more than mere proclamation – as Harvey Conn says, we evangelize most effectively when we minister both in word and deed. The church has a responsibility to seek justice, to work for the social renewal, and we are given great liberty in terms of how we go about that task. At its best, the church should make a difference in culture and society.

Having said all this, we now need to make a vitally important clarification, one which redemptively minded Christians often overlook. Many who embrace this broader view of redemption (personal, societal, ecological) fail to consider for the surprising way that Christ fulfills the promises of old. Restoration glory only comes through weakness, suffering, and humiliation – the Messiah comes dressed in the garb of a humble servant, rather than robed in the glory of a triumphant king. That reality represents a surprising twist on the old covenant story, one which actually affects the character of the fulfillment.

In the New Testament, suffering and humiliation is a key feature of Christ's calling – this is how he is perfected, how he gains his glory. While we get glimpses of it in the Old Testament (cf. Ps 22, Is 53), this feature is not fleshed out fully until Christ himself summarizes his ministry:

“Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. - Lk 24:26,27.

Christ comes as the long awaited, glorious Messiah, and yet his glory does not come until his exultation, after his suffering.

As with the Messiah, so too the people who are formed in his image. We are saved through faith, yet we are not immediately translated to a state of glory. Instead, we too are called to a ministry that is characterized by weakness, foolishness, and suffering (cf. 1 Cor 1:18-25, 2 Cor 4:7-18, Phil 1:29). Our sanctification is progressive. We experience the fulfillment of the promises, but with a surprising already-not-yet texture to them. In personal redemption, I really do have a new heart that is changing me now. But I will not receive the fullness of that new heart, in all its overplussed glory, until Christ returns.

The promises are indeed really fulfilled. But they are not yet fully fulfilled. The heavenly reality of ultimate redemption is breaking into the here and now – the now-redeemed me is actually a the pointer to the then-to-be-redeemed me which is yet to come. So Christ, in fulfilling the promises of old, actually alters the trajectory of those promises, and fulfills them not in a single moment, but over the course of our lives, finding its full expression only at our glorification. If this is how Christ fulfills the promise of personal redemption, may we not also expect a similar fulfillment in the societal and land dimensions as well?

Once again, a diagram may help illustrate:
What we see here is the image of Christ as cornerstone (1 Pe 2:6-8). Not only is he the foundation of redemption, but he actually changes the trajectories of redemption as well – he “turns the corner” if you will, fulfilling the promises in a surprising manner. He creates a new people, a new temple, a new kingdom. None of these are altogether different trajectories – there is a definite continuity with the old – but neither are they merely the same trajectories. There is a reason why we speak of Christ's work as a “new covenant.”

Not only does Christ alter the trajectory of God's redemptive promises – as the cornerstone, he also acts like a prism which splits each line of redemptive activity and refracts them, giving them the already-not-yet character which we have described above for our personal salvation. As with personal, so too the societal and ecological. Each line of promise experiences the same already-not-yet character of fulfillment: humiliation now, glory later.

This has deep implications for the way in which we engage in redemptive activity within cultural. Too many times, Christians recognize that Christ's redemptive work is broader than just personal salvation. This is good. Nevertheless, when it comes to societal and ecological redemption, we often look for a fulfillment that runs on the same rails as the old trajectory – through Christ (as exemplar, inspiration), yet with only a physical manifestation; there is real no heavenly dimension at all. We fail to appreciate how Christ has fundamentally changed the old trajectories. This is dangerous – it can lead to triumphalism at best, and a pure social gospel at worst.

To state the matter plainly, too often we look for social justice, or environmental renewal, or the revitalization of our cities purely in physical, earthly terms; we seek an earthly glory now, rather than the pattern of humiliation now, glory later. This makes it very easy for something like liberation theology to define its goals simply in terms of tangible, economic, “real-world” change. Such change is important. But at the end of the day when all these goals are realized, all you have done is create the very middle class which you started out critiquing. Redemption runs much deeper than simply transforming the working poor into the working middle class.

The same holds true for cities and ecology. We must never forget that Christ has already restored the land, he has created a new Zion. He has created the Kingdom of God, he has founded the one true church. These are spiritual realities, which can only be apprehended by faith. And so we as a church called to engage in real social action in the here and now, yet always pointing those we engage upward and onward to the deeper, truer, heavenly realities. The physical realities must never be seen as ends in themselves. The place where such expression happens most fully is the church (Eph 2:19-21) – this is where the work of Christ finds its climax; it is only natural that this is the place where his redemption accomplished should find its fullest expression.

In sum, then, the church has both responsibility and liberty to engage in social action. Our redemptive work in the secular sphere, however, must always be seen as secondary and derivative, and it must constantly point unbelievers back to the more ultimate realities of Christ's redemptive work in the church.

First Review of Mark Driscoll's Confessions

2006-02-22T15:37:00.000-07:00

If you've heard of Mark Driscoll (pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle), you should take a few minutes and go read Steve McCoy's review of Driscoll's forthcoming book: Confessions (due out June, 2006). Here's a snippet to whet your appetite:

Driscoll early on points out his connection to the Emerging Church Movement, but he is careful to distance himself from Emergent. He says, "I myself swim in the theologically conservative stream of the emerging church" (p 22), but also says, "the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that old liberalism accomodated modernity and the new liberalism accomodates postmodernity" (p 21).

Very, very, interesting. And Steve share's a lot more insightful stuff like this. Definitely looks like this will be a book worth reading. I'd encourage you to go read the whole review...

Robert Reymond vs. Cornelius Van Til on Paradox

2006-02-21T14:57:00.000-07:00

I've recently been reading through Van Til's "Common Grace and Witness Bearing" (from Common Grace and the Gospel) - and the material in this chapter is really, really good. If you are looking for a relatively readable gateway into VT's way of thinking, this is a great place to start.

In the context of this reading, VT make this statement:

"How can God have an attitude of favor unto those men whom He so obviously has not included in the number that could possibly be saved through the gospel of the blood of Jesus Christ. Well, the answer is that we cannot comprehend how it is possible, but the Scriptures reveal it to be true." (p134)

VT continues:

"How absurd, says the objector. How contradictory! Your witness for Christianity makes no sense to a self-respecting intelligent person. ... The objector has the same objection all the time. It is to the effect that we are insulting the dignity of human personality. We are running roughshod over his moral sensibilities and the legitimate claims to his power of reason." (p132)

VT's point is that there is a fundamental rub to the gospel - it makes claims that cannot be verified independently of God. This is not a deficiency. Rather, it continually challenges the unbeliever in his presupposition that he should be able to make sense of things on his own - it questions his assumption of rational intellectual autonomy.

God's revelation calls us to faith in his Word, rather than faith in our own reason. VT goes so far as to conclude (rightly, I think): "All teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory" (142). And if you are an unbeliever, that will probably chap your hide. Interestingly, however, that statement chaps the hides of many Christians as well.

As I read these pages, I am reminded of Robert Reymond's criticisms of Van Til in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. In that work, Reymond has a short little section where he rejects the idea of paradox - calling instead for a robust "Christian rationalism."

I first read Reymond's work back in 2000, before I even was thinking about coming to seminary or entering the pastorate. I knew very little about Reymond, and even less about Van Til, but as I read Reymond's comments in this particular area, something really rubbed me the wrong way. I found myself thinking, "I actually seem to resonate w/ a lot of what this Van Til guy is saying... I'm not sure Reymond is actually giving him a fair shake."

Since I didn't know any better, I wrote a short paper critiquing Reymond's position, and then sent it off to a college prof named Robert Yarbrough whom I had stayed in contact with over the years. I was looking for feedback on whether I was reading Reymond right (and I was more than a little nervous to be disagreeing with a major Reformed thinker, because I knew I fit in the Reformed camp in most areas). Needless to say, I was extremely surprised when he emailed me back with a couple of suggestions for improvement and a simple question - would I mind if he published my paper in the Trinity Journal? (Would I mind??? Ha!).

At any rate, then, here's a link to that critique of Reymond's Rejection of Paradox (Trinity Journal, Spring 2001). This basically challenges Reymond's suggestion that God's truth must be rationally comprehensible to the mind of man. It's interesting to see how my thinking then was already very pre-Van-Tillian back then - I think I was moving in a direction which would make VT's way of thinking very appealing to me (even though I still only understand about 30% of the VT that I read).

Alright, back to the books. If anyone has any feedback on this paper, I'd LOVE to hear it.

John Frame vs. Brian McLaren

2006-01-28T07:44:00.000-07:00

Just for my own reference purposes, here's John Frame on Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy. Here's a nice snippet:

And I have argued, like McLaren (105-114), for a missional concept of the church: the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-20 is the fundamental task of the church, so that everything the church does, including worship, ought to have an outward-facing aspect.

It has always seemed to me that the church (including its theology) tends to be healthiest when mission is in the forefront, least healthy when it is preoccupied with its own history and trying hard to prove itself right in controversies with other Christians.

To which I add a hearty, Amen! I'd encourage you to read the whole thing. Regardless of what you think about the content of his critique, Frame's tone sets a fine example for others to emulate.

Mark Driscoll vs. Brian McLaren

2006-01-27T13:47:00.000-07:00

Interesting. Mark Driscoll (who is considered 'emerging' by some) has just teed off on Brian McLaren over Brian's comments about homosexuality. This actually pertains to my earlier question about 'Where is the EM unashamedly bold?'. And I'm encouraged by Mark's response. Yes some people are in a dither about his tone. But at some point a guy has a right to say 'you guys are full of crap - stop waffling and call a spade a spade' and I think that's what Mark is doing here. And it's kind of a breath of fresh air actually...

Addendums:

Andrew Jones (aka. Tall Skinny Kiwi) offers some nice insights into both Driscoll and McLaren. You should read what he says.
There's another long discussion going on over here on Reformissionary.
Here's a link to Mark Driscoll's blog, as well as a post that sheds light on how he sees himself fitting into the Emerging Movement.
McLaren's response to Driscoll.
Driscoll's very short-yet-pointed question back to McLaren.
And then there's this summary by Tall Skinny Kiwi:
Anyway, the subject is interesting. I have chatted to both guys on email this weekend and I can tell you that they are still good friends and will continue to respect each other. But they are VERY different from each other. They both mirror disparate characteristics of emerging culture, particularly as found in video gaming culture
Mark Driscoll is the spontaneous, inituitive gamer who jumps guns blazing into a scene that he knows nothing about. But he is pressing all the buttons on his joystick at the same time and, like my son who masters video games in the same intuitive manner, very quickly finds his way around by the response he gets - either negative or positive. Hey - if you don't know how it works, just shoot everything in sight and see where the penalties come from! After a while you figure it out.
Brian McLaren displays the other positive gamer characteristic which is the capacity to suspend completion of a game and endure mind-boggling lengths of time before arriving at the end. Some gamers have been working on Myst and Riven for nearly ten years and are still enjoying the discovery of the journey. They don't want to CHEAT and arrive early in case they miss essential things on the way. Brian could easily cancel the tension by coming out with his own statements of what he believes, but he doesn't want to rob people of the rich discovery process or the need for people to wrestle with deeper issues and arrive at a place themselves. Take his books - we still don't know where he is going to end up.
To wrap this post up, there's a nice post-fight analysis by Jollyblogger that is worth reading.
And last but not least, there's Driscoll's apology.

Emerging Question #7

2006-01-14T09:23:00.000-07:00

Q7 - How many emergents have actually read Reformation classics like John Calvin's Institutes or Martin Luther's On Christian Liberty or The Westminster Confession of Faith?

(This question is just as applicable for pre-emerging evangelicals.)

My point is not that any of these are infallible, or even beyond improvement. They do however, represent high water marks of Christian traditions in the past, and if we are serious about taking our past seriously, we should at least be reading them before simply dismissing them as products of modernity.

As one who actually appreciates both Calvin and Luther, I get a sneaking suspicion at times that many of my evangelical friends who simply dismiss Reformed theology as a product of modernism, haven't even read what they are disparaging.

It's kind of like the my daughter with something new on the dinner menu - she is sure she doesn't like it even before she's tasted it...

Emerging Question #6

2006-01-12T07:59:00.000-07:00

Q6 - Can the EM point to any churches that ARE missional (in the best sense of the word), yet are clearly NOT part of the EM?

What's driving this question is just a simple observation - as I've read a lot of EM blogs, I've noticed a huge emphasis on mission. That's good. At the same time, I sometimes find myself wondering whether or not emergents allow for the possibility that someone might be very missional, and yet still not be emergent.

To put it more simply - emergents sometimes sound as if they are the only ones interested in mission, and if you are too, well then you must be emergent as well ("Wow, look at how many emergent churches there are out there!") This seems just a tad myopic (and dare I say it: 'typically evangelical') to me, and reminds me of the comment someone made (Carson, perhaps?), that the emergent movement is "fixated on itself."

Now in fairness, I doubt the EM actually thinks this way. But they certainly sound like it at times. So this question is really aimed at getting them to clearly articulate how they see themselves, the movement, and others - particularly in relation to mission.

Crossing the Tiber

2006-01-11T07:31:00.000-07:00

There's a very interesting discussion going on over on Scot McKnight's blog today, about the Wheaton prof who converted to Catholicism.

Evangelicals “cross the Tiber” for four reasons: to find certainty, to establish a connection with history, to discover unity in the Church, and to land upon a final authority. One can find in each of these themes (certainty, history, unity, and authority) an inherent weakness to the evangelical movement, which does not provide for some enough certainty, history, unity or authority.

As always, I think Scot does an excellent job of summarizing the lay of the land, and if you take the time to read the comments on his post, you'll see that these things seem to resonate for people who have left for Rome.

Several things interest me in this.

1. Why Rome? Why not the Reformation? Options seem to be: a) people might be unaware of what the Reformation was all about, b) churches which take pride in their Reformation heritage might be more modern/evangelical/fundamentalist (and less Reformational) than they realize. Or maybe it's a mixture of both.

2. It's interesting how non-emergent the conversations on Scot's blog got in response to this - it just seemed to drift quickly into a very "modern" sounding conversation. This is NOT a critique of Scot, btw.

3. Speaking of Emergents, I'd be very curious to know how the EM intersects with this whole "Crossing the Tiber" thing - is it appealing to them? Why or why not?

Just some thoughts as I sip my morning coffee...

Missional God

2006-01-05T11:25:00.000-07:00

Tall Skinny Kiwi has a nice little blurb on thinking of God missionally:

I get to kick off the weekend with this topic - the Missio Dei or mission of God. The concept is that mission is not a program of the church but rather an attribute of God. Mission comes first from the heart of God and we are caught up in it rather than initiating it. Mission is primarily the work of God and we participate with God in what He is doing.
Missio Dei sees our mission as stemming from the Triune God:
The Father sends the Son,
the Father and the Son send the Spirit
The Father and and Son and the Spirit send the church. into the world.
As the Father sent me, so I send you. (Jesus)
Our Christology influences our missiology which influences our ecclesiology.

This sounds a lot like what I've said over here:

At the heart of our confession, then, lies a central truth: God is a missional God – his work culminates in Christ, Christ’s work culminates in the church, and the church’s work culminates in worship and mission. From this basic recognition, we can make several key observations:
God, not man, builds his church – Church planting is not simply a matter of human effort or intention – this is something God is doing. It is his work (cf. Acts 13-14, where we repeatedly see God actively intervening to build his church: 13:2, 4, 9, 48, 52; 14:1, 3, 27).

God has been building it from the beginning – everything God was doing in the OT finds its fulfillment in Jesus. Christ is the crux of the entire biblical story (cf. Gen 3:15, 12:2-3; 2 Sam 7:13; Acts 13:32-33). The heart of the gospel is that Jesus fulfills all of God’s promises. Only through Christ can we be reconciled to God, not because of what we do, but because of what the resurrected Christ has done and continues to do on our behalf.

God has a passion for the lost – Jesus views his own work in terms of saving the lost and building his church. Thus Christ is a missional Messiah (cf. Luke 19:10; John 4:1-43; Mt 16:18; 1 Pe 2:6-7).

The church is at the center of God’s redemptive plan – In Eph 3:6-11, Paul tells us that the church is the climax of God’s eternal purpose, created to manifest the mystery of the gospel to the Gentiles. In other words, the church is God’s means for mission. The church exists to model the gospel – in word, deed, worship, and mission – to unbelievers, and so invite them to participate in the kingdom as well.
In light of these principles, we offer two core convictions for church planting:

First, we want to plant churches that reach the unchurched – We desire this because God has a heart for the lost, he commands us to go, and this is where the harvest is ripe. Our aim is not simply to establish a “reformed church,” or to gather people who are already Christians - neither of these are bad; but they aren't at the heart of what the church is all about, either. We must never lose sight of the fact that our calling is to bring the gospel to people who have rejected God so that the gospel may redeem both us and our culture.

Second, we want to plant churches that plant more churches – We believe that mission must be part of the fabric of the church; the goal of our church plants is not to become self-sufficient and acquire a building – it is to call people (both unbelievers and believers) to continual faith in Christ, to lead them in true worship of God, to equip them for service in the church and for life in the culture, and to send them missionally back to the unchurched. While every member of the body has different gifts and abilities, we assert that all Christians are called to serve and witness and participate in mission, just as all are called to believe and worship.
So mission exists because worship doesn’t. Conversely, true worship must include mission.

To me, this is very much in line with the EM's passion for mission, although I may go a bit further than some of them might in terms of drawing theological conclusions. I think the EMers are definitely moving in the right direction here, although I would like to see them think a little more deeply about the ecclesiological implications of "mission."

Emerging Question #5

2005-12-31T14:47:00.000-07:00

Q5 - Where is the EM unashamedly bold?

This is actually somewhat related to Q3, and it stems from a Doug Wilson quote over on Justin Taylor's site:

Here are some great quotes by Chesterton on humility, from his book Orthodoxy. (HT: Douglas Wilson, who comments: "Read a couple emergent books and then read this chapter [3], or better yet, the entire book. It will be like clapping a oxygen mask on your face after bicycling up Mt. Everest."
"…what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert—himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt—the Divine Reason."

"…the new skeptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn."

I am not (usually) much of a Wilson fan, but I am a huge Chesterton enthusiast, and I actually agree with the sentiment of both here. (The fact that Chesterton's comments are still so pertinent nearly 100 years after penned them certainly says something significant, both about him and about the "newness" of postmodernism.)

One of the things that continues to nag at me as I read EM stuff (and maybe this is just McLaren) - it's a sense of hyper-modesty and self-deprecation that sometimes comes across as being at least a little disingenuous. Emergents sometimes seem unwilling to say anything hard or absolute about anything. And that actually seems quite different from the Way of Jesus, who said LOT'S of really hard things.

So I'd just like to know - Where is the EM unashamedly bold? What does boldness look like for them?

Emerging Question #4

2005-12-31T09:45:00.000-07:00

Q4 - If Emergents embrace the Apostles Creed, do they also believe in Hell?

Can one NOT believe in Hell and still be Emergent? If Emergents do believe in Hell, who do they think will go there?

Emerging Question #3

2005-12-31T09:40:00.000-07:00

Q3 - What aspects of the EM are countercultural?

Not just contra-modernism, but contra-postmodernism - where does the EM challenge postmodern culture?

Emerging Question #2

2005-12-31T09:27:00.000-07:00

Q2 - How does one set aside theology (what one believes about God) to get to praxis (what one does in response to God)? Can one do anything that is not conditioned by beliefs?

If 'yes', then how? If 'no', then are EMers really that different from moderns? If moderns were blind to the way their worldview presuppostions colored their quest for certainty, are postmoderns equally blind to how their implicit theology colors their quest for orthopraxy?

Emerging Question #1

2005-12-31T09:05:00.000-07:00

Over the coming days I'm going to try and ask some very focused questions of the emerging movement. Please don't take these as an attack or anything - I am just trying to get my hands around the Emerging Movement and understand it as accurately as possible. There is much in the EM which I am very attracted to. But there are some things that concern me. SO... I'm trying to ask questions to better understand where the EM is coming from and where it's going. Maybe you can help enlighten me...

Q1 - Is the Emerging Movement really just a synonym for "Postmodern Christian"?

As I study the EM, I see a wide range of actual beliefs, combined with a reticence to be evaluated on the basis of those beliefs ("judge us by our praxis!"). Is the movement really so broad that the content of what one believes doesn't matter? Would it be possible for someone to be a postmodern Christian and NOT be considered emerging by EM types?

If McLaren can be in the EM camp, can someone like me (postmodern, reformed Calvinist) also be in the camp? If so, who's left outside the camp?

Exploring the EM - What I'm Reading Next

2005-12-27T07:49:00.000-07:00

As some of you have probably noticed, my starting point for accessing the Emerging Movement has really been Scot McKnight over at Jesus Creed. From there, I'm trying to branch out in 3 directions:

I'm currently working through McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy - slowly and thoughtfully, trying to figure out what I like and what bothers me. More on that soon.
Next, I've ordered Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Culture by Gibbs and Bolger.
Finally, I'd like to try and connect with some real live emergent types here in the Philly area, just to see what they are like in person, to hear how they see themselves fitting in with the broader movement, etc.

One of the things I hope to do in this process is to try and avoid getting into nitty-gritty, obsessive-compulsive critiques of the EM. Instead, I'm more interested in thinking about the questions I haven't heard the EMers answering - pivot points in praxis, intersections in ideologies. And I'm going to try and keep it very, very simple and focused. Hopefully that will be helpful both for me and for you.

So that's where I'm going, and I sure would appreciate input from those of you who see yourself in the EM camp. In particular, if you think I've missed something - whether through oversight, misunderstanding, or even misrepresentation - I really want to know about it. It means a lot to me to try and describe the EM accurately...

Exploring the EM Part 4 - Possible Lines of Critique

2005-12-26T19:26:00.000-07:00

I want to be clear at this point. There is much that is positive about the EM, and I have tried to describe the movement in way which emergents themselves will affirm. Furthermore, I believe that many of their explicit criticisms of modernity and evangelicalism are not only insightful and valid, they are also pertinent to our Reformed communities of faith. I believe we in the Reformed traditions are far more modern than we often realize; the EM can provide much needed correctives here, if we are willing to dialogue with them. That said, space and time constraints force me to focus my comments at this point to some problems that I see in the EM.⁴⁸ We have already hinted at some potential problems.

Carson offers a first line of critique by focusing on the EM's epistemology (we have touched on this above). In a nutshell, he feels the EM has not been critical enough of itself in its embrace of postmodernism. This may not be that surprising if Carson is correct in his assessment: “A good deal of the discussion of this book could be recast as a debate between the claims of truth and the claims of experience.”⁴⁹ McKnight himself seems to recognize the weight of this concern: “Is the overwhelming biblical witness to Truth something that is embraced by the Emergent Movement?”⁵⁰ If the EM wishes to be taken seriously by those who are not yet fully committed to postmodernism, it must do a better job of critiquing that postmodernism and demonstrate that it does take seriously the truth claims of Scripture; it must show us how it discerns what is “true.”

Jue opens up a second line of critique, focusing on the way the EM has periodized history. In a nutshell, he argues that they tend to see “scholasticism [as] a form of theological rationalism perverted by Aristotelian philosophy.”⁵¹ In other words, emergents view most Reformed systematic understandings of Scripture as a product of the same Enlightenment quest for certainty which postmodernism has already rejected. Scholasticism, counters Jue, describes the method, not the content, of their theology – the content of the Reformation (including its concern for truth) actually bears a deep continuity with Medieval (and even pre-Modern) thinking. There is a reason why the early church of Acts was called “The Way” (cf. Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; etc.) – they were known for their very strong truth claims about Christ, about what it meant to follow him (cf. Mk 8:34), and what it meant to reject him (cf. Acts 4:12). Furthermore, the EM often misunderstands how Reformers viewed reason: it is a servant of faith, not that which establishes or proves faith.⁵² The Reformation is not in conflict with Augustine, who says “I believe in order that I may understand.” I think both Jue and Carson are right in this regard: the EM needs to evince a more critical reading of history.

Jue goes on to suggest that the EM could simply shift the starting date of the modern age forward and narrow the intellectual roots to the early Enlightenment philosophers.⁵³ This, he asserts, would allow them to retain their basic critiques of modernism without condemning much that is good (according to us) in Reformation theology. While this may sound good at first blush, I believe it is shallow, failing to appreciate fully the weight of the emergent critique of modernity.

First, Jue seems to draw the same type of hard line that he criticizes EM types for drawing – he draws it slightly later, to be sure, but it is still a hard line nonetheless. If the Reformers share a deep continuity with those who preceded them, might we not also expect lines of continuity with those who followed after them? For example, many of the Enlightenment thinkers who embraced rationalism (who Jue willingly labels “modernists”) were themselves raised on the Reformed faith that Jue seeks to retain; while some of them did reject the faith outright, many would have seen themselves in continuity with those who came before, as those seeking to preserve the orthodoxy by contextualizing it afresh. It seems to me that if the EM is guilty of oversimplification in their periodization, we do not really solve that problem simply by adjusting the starting dates of modernity to neatly exclude our pet period. If we find in the Reformation a continuity with what came earlier, we should also acknowledge the continuities with what came after where they exist. We cannot neatly periodize in either direction.

Second, Jue's proposal assumes that EM types would actually like to retain Reformed theological expressions which our tradition holds dear. I suspect most within the EM have little taste for this, because many in our Reformed heritage actually do seem to overemphasize the certainty to be had through reason. The same Turretin who cautioned us to properly value reason, is also quite certain that the existence of God can be “irrefutably demonstrated against the atheists”⁵⁴ (in nine pages, no less!), and that the world was created in Autumn, rather than in the Spring.⁵⁵ This are precisely the type of conclusions that make the EM uncomfortable with systematic theology. We see too little appreciation for human limitations in regard to the “good and necessary consequences” which are used to construct the system – while Turretin may not be a “modernist” according to Jue's definition, he nevertheless seems just as confident of his “logical inferences” as he is sure of a substitutionary atonement. There is no sense of proportionality, and this strikes postmodern thinkers as both arrogant and wrongheaded. Similarly, we also need to recognize that many in the Reformed traditions have been just as guilty as dispensational evangelicals of placing great confidence in our “systems” while our personal experience of practical piety has been weak or nonexistent. The EM is firmly against both of these (intellectual arrogance, and faith without deeds), and we in the Reformed circles need to acknowledge the weight of their critiques. Too often we have been overconfident in our conclusions, under-interested in matters of social justice and personal spirituality. We have “taught as doctrines the laws of men” (Mt 15:9).

As a third line of critique, I believe the EM needs to think critically about its hermeneutic, about how it reads Scripture. Yes, emergents exhibit a greater interest in narrative and story, but they actually approach the text in a manner that reveals deep continuity with their dispensational roots. It seems to me they still deal with “the story” at the level of individual pericopes or historical books. For all their claims of “soft” postmodernism, there is still not much “meta” in their narratives.

Practically speaking, this means they have merely shifted their focus from more doctrinal passages (Paul) to more micro-narrative passages (Gospels, Acts). But they seem to demonstrate little awareness of a biblical theological / redemptive-historical approach which finds its meta-narrative coherence in all of Scripture. They do not seem to have discovered the Grand Story into which all the individual pieces of Scripture fit. They love “the Way of Jesus” but do not seem to understand how it represents a rich culmination and fulfillment of what comes before (all the way back to the Garden); they desire to live out “the Kingdom of God” but do not seem to appreciate how Paul, the Epistles, and Revelation explicate that kingdom, fleshing out what it looks like in the life of the church. Furthermore, they demonstrate a remarkable insensitivity for the Reformation principle of “Scripture interpreting Scripture.” As an example of this, consider how McKnight (in good emergent fashion) ponders the reality of boundaries in the church:

There never has been a time, to my knowledge, when the Church has been really good at being genuinely boundaryless and borderless and unprejudiced. The mandate of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:28 — that in Christ there should be neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, and neither male nor female — has never really become customary for the Church. ...

...it is a fact that in most parts of the world and throughout most of Church history, the Church has operated with segregation at each of these levels that the Apostle Paul raised as critical: ethnic, socio-economic, and sexual. Suburban churches and urban churches rarely achieve demographic sameness when it comes to comparing society and local community of faith.

The emerging movement is no exception...⁵⁶

McKnight then turns to the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-36 (“as you did/did not do it to the least of these, so you did/did not do it to me”) and asks this: “The question for the Emerging Movement is this, and it is the question the Lord will someday ask it and each of us: How did you respond to the least of these?”⁵⁷

McKnight's analysis strikes me as typical of emergent thinkers: he takes seriously the teachings of Jesus; he looks carefully at the practices of the church; he observes that churches often create boundaries and barriers; and he even finds a passage which suggests the church should in fact be boundaryless. This is commendable. But what McKnight has failed to do (at least in this particular instance) is to consider the teachings of Scripture as a whole. He has taken Galatians 3:28 as his hermeneutical control; he does not seem to consider that elsewhere Paul specifically tells us to enact boundaries – he draws distinctions between men and women, between teachers and non-teachers; he charges us to guard doctrine; he actually calls for people to be put out of fellowship in places.

The point here is not about quibble over McKnight's conclusion – rather, I believe this example illustrates how the EM's emphasis on praxis over systematics inevitably leads them to draw conclusions without first asking the heremeneutical questions about how all the passages fit together, about how we make sense of the whole. In fairness, McKnight believes I overstate my case here, pointing out that he has sufficiently defined his own hermeneutic elsewhere. He acknowledges, however, that the EM is often fuzzy in this regard: “I can’t say I know the EM hermeneutic – but I would hazard to say that the Bible is processed through Jesus and the way of Jesus.”⁵⁸

My point is simply that the EM has not shown how it is possible to draw any conclusions at all (in regard to praxis) without first engaging in some form of systematic thinking (either implicitly or explicitly). Everyone who draws conclusions from the biblical story necessarily has a hermeneutic (a method for determining how the parts fit together in the whole). Unfortunately, emergents seem quite content to leave their hermeneutic unexpressed and thus unexamined. The EM needs to be more critical of itself in this area.

This leads to a fourth line of critique which is similar. The EM tends to frown on systematic or propositional expressions of truth. In many ways, the EM reminds me of evangelicals who embraced the phrase “no creed but Christ.” This is one of those phrases that sounds meaty at first blush, but ultimately fails to carry water. The problem, of course, is that everyone has a creed – everyone has a core content which they believe to be true (and essential). The only real question is whether they will express those credal commitments explicitly or not, and how they will deal with the inevitable disagreements that arise when their core beliefs finally surface. Often, the only option for the dissenter is “Agree or leave.” This was the case in evangelical churches; I see no reason why it will not also be the case in EM churches.

Fifth and finally (and this is more of a question than a critique), I wonder if the EM has fully considered the implications of locating their identity in a philosophy of relationship rather than in a particular content. It seems to me that there are other examples of groups whose identity is cultural rather than creedal – Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, and Jews come to mind. In many cases, these groups have struggled to maintain the kind of personal, experiential spirituality which the EM seems to desire. How will the EM keep itself from drifting into secular liberalism? How will the EM avoid accomodationism?

In conclusion, then, we have seen much of what the EM is for, what they are against, and what forces they are reacting to. I wish to conclude by reaffirming that there is much in this movement which I find very appealing; I think we in the Reformed movement need to listen to and appreciate their critiques. At the same time, I think emergent types need to do a better job of critiquing their own movement. At its best, the EM is refreshingly honest; at its worst, they sometimes sound a little too postmodern, a little too uncertain of anything. At times, emergents sound like they believe more than they are willing to say, and when that happens the result is very inauthentic. At some point (if it keeps growing), the EM is going to have to get more specific about how to determine who is in and who is out, and I hope this process will force them to think more critically about their epistemological and hermeneutical commitments. In the meantime, we in the Reformed community need to be more willing to get involved in the conversation. I believe we have much to contribute, and we just may learn something while we are at it.

(note: if you want to see the footnotes, please refer to the full .pdf version)

Exploring the EM Part 3 - What are they reacting to?

2005-12-26T19:21:00.000-07:00

At this point, we need to look deeper, seeking to understand the deeper structures, attitudes, and “-isms” to which the EM is reacting. Only by understanding the EM at this level will we be able to identify some of the reefs that lurks beneath these attractive waters. These categories are somewhat subjective (and certainly not exhaustive), but they should be representative. At the highest level, I see the EM reacting against two major movements: the first cultural/philosophical (modernism), the second religious (evangelicalism).

These two categories are closely connected. In many cases, the reason the EM has rejected the evangelical expression of the church is because they feel that evangelicalism has imbibed too heavily in modernity; if you reject the modern worldview, then it only makes sense (if you desire to be both authentic and consistent) that you will also reject the religious systems which are built upon it.²⁶ The EM is one attempt to salvage the Christian faith for postmoderns who still want to believe in Jesus.

Interestingly, the EM is almost exclusively an evangelical movement.²⁷ Carson notes that “Many of them come from conservative, traditional, evangelical churches, sometimes with a fundamentalist streak.”²⁸ This makes sense, when we consider that the hallmarks of twentieth century evangelicalism rest in its commitment to a rigid understanding of inerrancy, and its insistence on a simple gospel that demands an immediate response.²⁹

The rise of American postmodernity in the last part of the twentieth century has clearly undermined the first commitment, as archaeological discoveries and text critical developments have revealed that the history of the biblical texts is much more complicated than we might have first believed; if premoderns focused on the divine hand in Scripture, moderns found there the human element there as well, and postmoderns have recognized that the author's own perspective inevitably colors and shapes his message. Inerrancy as formulated and required by evangelicalism (and fundamentalism before that) seems out of step with the character of Scripture itself; attempting to locate inerrancy in the original autographs seems like something of an intellectual dodge – after all, we don't have the originals, and the closer we get to the originals the more evidence we discover for a complex textual history.³⁰ Worse, many who take such a position often seem to equate their interpretation of those texts to be equally inerrant. An evangelical understanding of rigid inerrancy is a hard sell these days.

Evangelicalism's second commitment – to a simple gospel – has likewise been undermined, not so much by the culture, but rather by the church being influenced by the culture. Far too often, those who profess belief in this “simple gospel” fail to live any differently than those who do not believe. American evangelicals are notorious for their compartmentalism (where one's religious commitments and one's daily life run on parallel tracks, and “ne'er the twain shall meet”). This dichotomy is clearly revealed by demographic research concerning sexuality, divorce, spending, etc. – in terms of behavior, evangelicals are virtually indistinguishable from their unbelieving neighbors.

Emergent pastor Spencer Burke puts it like this: “I've come to realize that my discontent was never with Mariners as a church, but contemporary Christianity as an institution.”³¹ Burke goes on to describe his discontent with evangelicalism using three basic categories. First, he rejects the atmosphere of “spiritual McCarthyism,”³² where any disagreement with those in the church power structure is met with forceful opposition and intolerance: the only options are to submit or leave. Those who stay often find their identity in the fact that they agree with the leaders, and in the affirmation that often accompanies that. Burke tells us clearly how he sees this: “Spiritual McCarthyism is about idolatry – about finding righteousness in something other than Christ. Every time I put on a mask for the sake of my reputation or career, I'm guilty of a sin far more serious than not believing whatever I'm supposed to believe.”³³ Second, Burke reacts against an increasing “spiritual isolationism”³⁴ in the church – abandoning the messiness of the cities to move to the upper-middle class sterility of the suburbs: clean, neat, tidy on the outside, but behind the facade there is spiritual and relational deadness. Third, he finds he can no longer stomach “spiritual Darwinism,”³⁵ the trend in which the church adopts a corporate mentality: bigger is better, grow or die, success is measured by having more in your flock than your fellow pastors do.

Jeffrey Jue looks at Burke's protest as a reaction against the fundamentalism and dispensationalism inherent within evangelicalism.³⁶ EM types might be more apt to see themselves as rejecting incipient 'legalism' to embrace a more tolerant inclusivism. We can probably think of other less technical descriptions: emergents are often unhappy with unchecked authoritarianism, rampant individualism and consumerism, the unabashed corporatization and secularization of the church. Most people acknowledge that these characteristics are becoming increasingly common common in the evangelical church, especially in churches that have embraced the “church growth” model of ministry. Wickipedia picks up on this theme, suggesting that “the Emerging Church may be seen both as a reaction to and a continuation of the Saddleback/Willow Creek movement which achieved great success in the 1990s using a 'seeker-friendly' approach.”³⁷ Many emergents have experienced the disconnects firsthand, and are finally getting to the point where they no longer feel honest in a typical evangelical setting. It is worth noting that many of these criticisms correspond remarkably well to how non-Christians view the church; Carson points out that whether we agree with the EM or not, at the very least we should acknowledge that they read the culture well.³⁸

Of course, the EM is also reacting against modernism. The nature of this reaction, however, is slightly different. The heart of postmodernism lies in the rejection of enlightenment certainty. For McKnight, “this means the Emerging Movement's embrace of a 'proper confidence' or a 'chastened epistemology' is the embrace of our human condition, of our need for humility in what we say ... only by trusting in God, and living in the way of Jesus, and by living out as a community of faith, do we strike home in truth.”³⁹ This sounds commendable; the EM (along with many postmoderns) seems to be rejecting the modern intellectual arrogance that has often permeated both the academy and the church.

Some in the EM go further, however, rejecting any claims that we can know absolute truth: the quest for certainty is viewed as a fruit of the Enlightenment; absolutism is blamed for nearly every evil in the past 300 years.⁴⁰ Carson notes, however, that while postmodernism originated as a scholarly movement in the European intellectual circles,⁴¹ many of those embracing postmodernism here in America (particularly in the EM), display a rather shallow intellectual understanding of the movement: “The one 'ism' about which some appear to find it almost impossible to say anything positive, especially in the publications of emerging leaders, is modernism (as they understand it).”⁴² Similarly, “Of all the Christian writers who explore postmodernism, none is quite so modernist – so absolutist – as the emerging church leaders in their defense of postmodern approaches.”⁴³ In the words of one observer: “The Emerging Church is obsessed with itself.”⁴⁴

Carson's point is that many emergents seem to be postmodern more from convenience than from intellectual conviction – he grounds this charge squarely in their fundamentalist roots, which have often been decidedly anti-intellectual. I believe he may have a point here. For all its flaws, modernity is intellectually rigorous – it requires a tremendous amount of work to understand western philosophy and theology; once we become convinced that truth is unattainable, how many of us are truly willing to “pay our dues” to understand and evaluate the products of modern thinking? Perhaps this is why postmoderns in general seem intellectually sloppy at times – not only with their handling of epistemology⁴⁵ and history,⁴⁶ but also with their understanding of scripture and theology.⁴⁷ At times the EM (and American postmodernism, for that matter) feels like just another savvy ad campaign, counter-cultural pop theology for desensitized moderns who are looking for the next big thing.

(note: if you want to see the footnotes, please refer to the full .pdf version)

Exploring the EM Part 2 - What is the EM Against?

2005-12-26T19:08:00.000-07:00

We have seen some of the things the EM is for. But movements never arise in a vacuum – they always position themselves in response to other systems, beliefs, and practices. Consequently, we need to look closer: what is the EM against? Carson sees the movement developing along three fundamental lines of protest: 1) protest against traditional evangelicalism, 2) protest against modernism, and (in some quarters) 3) protest against the seeker friendly churches of the 90s.²²

Once again, McKnight fleshes this out with a more detailed summary. The EM:

protests too much tom-fakery in traditional churches
denounces the divisions in the Church
sees cock-sure certainty as a cancer
refuses to separate action from articulation
wants individualism absorbed into incorporation
[its] mindset is against marketing the gospel
despises the idea that the Church is what takes place on Sunday Morning
rejects the hierarchy and pyramid structure of many churches
[says] the social gospel cannot be separated from the spiritual gospel
wants to be Worldly ... in the Kingdom sense²³

This list should be fairly intelligible: the EM is tired of pious religiosity and elder-brother righteousness. It wants to ask tough questions and speak openly about spiritual failings. It despises denominationalism. It emphasizes the frailty of the human condition, the limitations of our knowledge, in contrast to past expressions which seem overconfident in having arrived at truth. It feels that our theological formulations have too often been disconnected from the way we actually live. It “wants to form communities of faith, not [just] individual Christians.”²⁴ It is against the idea of a simplistic gospel that can be nicely summarized as “Four Spiritual Laws.” It has seen too many “believers” whose lives are indistinguishable from unbelievers once they leave the church premises on Sundays. It is tired of authority structures and power plays within the church. It is appalled by versions of the Christian faith which see social activism as optional (or even evil). It rejects the fortress mentality and calls on Christians to boldly move back into the public square, not as visitors, but to settle down and live as lights in the midst of darkness.

Gibbs and Bolger summarize what the EM is all about by saying this:

“Emerging Churches are those
who take the life of Jesus as a model way to live, and
who transform the secular realm,
as they live in highly communal lives.
Because of these three activities, emerging churches
welcome those who are outside,
share generously,
participate,
create,
lead without control, and
function together in spiritual activities.

Boiling it down to once sentence: Emerging Churches are communities who practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures.”²⁵

Seen in this light, there is much that is attractive about the EM – I am for many of the things they are for, I am against many of the things they are against. Even more, I appreciate and seek to embrace their commitment to authentic dialogue. There is indeed much here that resonates deeply.

(note: if you want to see the footnotes, please refer to the full .pdf version)

Exploring the EM Part 1 - What is the EM For?

2005-12-26T18:54:00.000-07:00

In trying to describe what the EM is actually for, it is tempting to begin with Emergent Village's “four common values and the practices that flow from them:”⁹

Commitment to God in the Way of Jesus
Commitment to the Church in all its Forms
Commitment to God's World
Commitment to One Another

Unfortunately, lists like this tend to be reductionistic; who would actually be against these things? McKnight's own summaries begin here, but he fleshes out specific implications much more helpfully.

First and foremost, the EM is for a living faith in Christ:

“The EM is deeply concerned with the 'character' of the Church for there are far too many of those who call themselves Christian and who go to church weekly (or more often) who are not following God in the way of Jesus and who see 'doing church' as 'going to a service on Sunday morning.' The Emerging Movement is a summons or an invitation for the Church to live like followers of Jesus in everything they say, do, and think. The Emerging Movement seeks to model that in its emphasis on relationships as the core of the work of God in the world today.”¹⁰

In other words, faith should lead to action – “it is a movement concerned with praxis and not simply theology. If the older fashion was to define others by their theology, the Emerging Movement wants to be defined by its behavior.”¹¹ Put simply, we are called to “be” as well as to “say.”¹² At its best, the EM calls for the revitalization of the church through the spiritual renewal in the lives of believers.

Naturally, Christ plays an important role in this process: not only does Jesus exemplify the moral goodness and spiritual discipline which we should strive to emulate; he also models how we should relate to God (we exist for his glory) and to others (we are called to graciously welcome them into our midst, to pursue justice on their behalf). With such an Christocentric emphasis, the life and teachings of Jesus – particularly concerning the Kingdom of God – form the hermeneutical skeleton key by which we unlock all of Scripture: “The rest of the New Testament and Bible are read through the lens of the Kingdom vision of Jesus.”¹³ The “way of Christ” drives our personal ethics.

Second, the EM is for postmoderns. While there is much debate over the particulars, most emergents agree: postmodernism is not something to fear or reject (or to critique, if Carson's assessment of the EM is correct¹⁴); rather, postmodernism represents an inevitable culture shift, one which creates opportunity for the Gospel. Thus it is something to be embraced, because God is the one who is behind this climate change. The EM desires to be a destination resort for postmoderns seeking faith, a place where they can pull up a chair and feel at home. McKnight offers an important clarification at this point: the EM is not about radical or “hard” postmodernism – it does not deny the reality of “truth” or “metanarrative.” Rather, it merely recognizes our inability to “prove meta-narratives on rational, independent, objective grounds. In other words, it contends that the only way meta-narratives can finally be persuasive is if one believes in the meta-narrative itself. Faith is required for the meta-narrative to be truthful.”¹⁵

Not surprisingly, emergents often share the postmodern preference for narrative and story (creative, artistic), over and against modernity's taste for proposition and systematic (descriptive, dogmatic). In the EM, we also find a renewed appreciation for beauty, aesthetics, sensory experience, combined with a chastened confidence in one's own intellect. Many would be reluctant to claim full knowledge of truth; they would rather hear what others think, than see themselves as having all the “right” answers.

Third, the EM is for the world and one another. Emergents recognize that Jesus' gospel message was not merely intended to transform the spiritual dimension of our lives; real faith should change the world in which we live. If this is God's kingdom, should it not reflect the things that God values – his justice, beauty, and goodness? Consequently, the EM strives to live redemptively in our culture; the gospel must be both holistic and activistic: “it is for the whole person (heart, soul, mind, and strength), and for the whole society (politics, economy, culture, environment), and for the whole world.”¹⁶

For emergents, Christianity is meant to be communal – not cloistered from the world, but living as an open community right in the midst of this world. As Christians, we are called not only to love one another well (eg. those who are also “in the camp”), but we should also love those who are still outsiders (eg. unbelievers around us). This has practical implications for the way communities of faith relate to those around them – unbelievers should be able to “belong before they believe.”¹⁷ In other words, rather than requiring people to come to faith before they can participate in the Christian community, EM churches seek to be inclusive, to invite unbelievers into their midst, as they are. This plays out in a number of ways: public meetings in secular settings, large numbers of unbelievers participating in worship (and sometimes even partaking of the sacraments¹⁸). The Christian community is real and distinct, but “the walls between the 'church' community and the 'local' community are permeable.”¹⁹

Fourth, the EM is for church and mission. This is closely tied to the previous point. Emergents recognize that the church plays a key role in the biblical story – when Jesus talks about Kingdom of God, the church is the destination which he has in view; the creation and formation of this new community is what the book of Acts is all about. Consequently, emergents maintain a high view of the church – both local and universal. Christians need to be meaningfully involved in their local churches; they should also be ecumenically charitable, exhibiting a deep respect for churches in other traditions. This valuing of church is inextricably linked to mission – churches are not meant to social clubs or fitness centers, which exist simply to meet the needs and desires of their members; on the contrary, the church is a place where the drama of the gospel is to be “performed as well as proclaimed.”²⁰ The church is a witness to the world of what God is doing redemptively in the world.

Fifth and finally, the EM is for unity through authentic dialogue. A number of features lie embedded in this final statement. Emergents prize authenticity; they value being able to say what they think, to express their doubts and struggles without being condemned.²¹ Furthermore, they deeply desire to encourage others, and believe they can actually learn from them (even unbelievers!). Consequently, they generally exhibit a deep desire to listen respectfully, to respond carefully and graciously. In many cases, the EM values dialogue and relationship more than they value “being right” on a given subject.

This is extremely important, because it means that the EM finds its unity not in the content of their beliefs (particular doctrines), but rather in their commitment to Jesus (as the source of their praxis) and to one another (in dialogue and encouragement). In short, unity is based on a conversation about common interests, rather than any agreement on the particulars. This to me is one of the most distinctive features of the EM; it aims to establish unity through courteous conversation, to head off division by refusing to get bogged down in dogmatic details. Of course, it remains to be seen whether this approach can actually hold the movement together as it picks up momentum.

(note: if you want to see the footnotes, please refer to the full .pdf version)

Exploring the EM - Intro

2005-12-26T18:49:00.000-07:00

The purpose of this paper is to briefly explore the contours of the Emerging Movement (EM), highlighting the historical features that have shaped its development, then assessing its strengths and critiquing its weaknesses. This will be a difficult task, because the movement is broad, nebulous, and hard to define – there are no “emergent” denominations; no creeds or confessions; there is not even a consensus (yet) among EM thinkers as to exactly what it means to be emergent. Instead, there is a great deal of dialogue and discussion, and while the movement may still be in very early stages, its prominence is increasing rapidly. It may be best to view it as an ongoing “conversation”¹ between like minded Christians, about how the Christian church needs to change as it enters the 21st century. The coherence of the movement revolves around a commonality of methods or values (a “philosophy of dialogue”) more than a commonality of content.

All this to say, the EM is extremely difficult to describe, let alone critique. The complexity of the subject matter creates an obvious disadvantage for a short paper like this – because of time and space constraints, I will be forced to paint with broad brush strokes. This will make it easy for unsympathetic readers to disagree with any criticisms.² To offset this, I merely acknowledge my limitations and attempt to be explicit as possible about the assumptions I am making. This is meant to be a friendly critique – I find much in the EM that resonates deeply; but there are some things that concern me gravely. This paper merely describes my own perspectives on the EM, as someone from the outside looking in.³ As such, I hope that even those who disagree with my conclusions will nevertheless find my comments useful to better understand how their vision is being heard. To me, one of the most appealing features of the EM is their openness to dialogue.

Surveying the EM landscape, Brian McLaren readily emerges as one of the major voices.⁴ Other key figures include Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Andrew Jones, and Dan Kimball.⁵ D.A. Carson has mounted one of the most extensive critiques of the EM, focusing largely on epistemological problems which EM seems to inherit from postmodernism.⁶ Jeffrey Jue has also weighed in, pointing out problems with the way the EM periodizes history, improperly lumping the theological fruit of the Reformation into the basket of Enlightenment modernity.⁷ The conversation, it would seem, is quickly expanding. Consequently, I intend to focus most of my comments on the dialogue between McKnight, Carson, and Jue.⁸ I have chosen McKnight because he summarizes the EM well (sympathetically, yet not uncritically). Furthermore, he has interacted extensively with Carson's critique (as both friend and former colleague). In many ways he represents the most recent stages of the debate (he is current).

So what about the EM? What are emergents for? What are they against? What are they reacting to? And how do we assess the progress they have made thus far? These are the questions we wish to answer.

(note: if you want to see the footnotes, please refer to the full .pdf version)

Exploring the Emerging Movement (.pdf)

2005-12-26T18:10:00.000-07:00

This past semester I wrote a paper entitled Exploring the Emerging Movement (.pdf), focusing on the intersection between D. A. Carson, Scot McKnight, and Jeff Jue. In this paper, I am attempting to provide a fair and accurate introduction to the emerging movement, with a gentle critique of McKnight, Jue, and the the EM in general.

I would be very, very interested in getting feedback from you EM types on this - Scot McKnight has reviewed it; I'd love to hear from others as well.

Addendum: per Scot's suggestion, I have gone ahead and posted the paper directly in chunks:

Please note that I haven't figured out a good way to include footnotes, so if you want to see those (and some of them are fairly important, fleshing out the argument that I'm making in a given spot) then you'll still need to refer to the .pdf...

Scot McKnight on a Generous Orthodoxy

2005-12-26T18:07:00.000-07:00

Once again, another summary of links (this one mine) for research purposes, this time as Scot McKnight talks about a Generous Orthodoxy (interacting loosely w/ Brian McLaren here).

Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Preamble - "the generous orthodoxy that is being called for is an evangelical generosity and orthodoxy. It is a generous evangelical orthodoxy."
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Kingdom - "The place to begin in mapping a generous orthodoxy is the Kingdom of God as the vision Jesus gave to us for God’s redemptive work on this earth."
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Jesus - "Is there a possibility for a Fourth Way for the Emerging Church? A way that lives in the story of the entire Church, including the Eastern Orthodox tradition and the Western Roman Catholic tradition, as well as the Protestant tradition, one that both lets this be our story and yet that gives us freedom to take that story into a new story for a new day? I think so."
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Community - " The community focus of generous orthodoxy begins with a vibrant non-Puritanism. ... Any community that roots itself in Jesus’ Kingdom missional focus will find the Puritan way unacceptable."
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Credal - "That Church has expressed itself always, everywhere, and by all (antiquity, ubiquity, consensus) in creedal shapes. ... the singular most arrogant posture a Christian can take is to pretend (and that is what it is) that he or she can “start all over again” and do so by ignoring the creeds and the voice of the Spirit in the Church."
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: catholic - "we all ought to be catholic Christians in that we accept everyone who is a Christian. I like the idea of a C.S. Lewis sense of the holy catholic Church."
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Eschaton and Back -"This post will be the most radical I will present on generous (evangelical) orthodoxy. ... What I am suggesting is that a genuine fourth way in the emerging movement must shift its focus from the means, which is the seemingly constant focus of most presentations of both Christian life and Church life, to the eschaton, and think back. Everything has to be re-shaped in light of that End."
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Cultural - "Orthodoxy has tended to see itself as timeless, transcultural, and always relevant. Postmodernity has chased that idea down and suggested otherwise."
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Conversational - " A genuine generous orthodoxy is conversational in style and in relationships. Conversation transcends everything we are and do. If we define “conversation” properly, it moves beyond “chatting” to become central to who we are and what we are about."
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Trust the Spirit - "a fourth way will truly get underway when Christians can genuinely trust the Spirit in others as much as they trust the Spirit in themselves"

Then this on Brian McLaren's concept of Purple Theology:

Emerging Theology is Purple Theology - "The recent interview of Brian McLaren in Sojourners made a slight plea for purple politics — neither red nor blue but purple"
Purple Theology: Ecclesiology - "If we are to move beyond the ageless denominational bickering so typical of the Church, we will have to move from independence to interdependence."
Purple Theology: Scripture & Its Unity - "What constitutes the unity of Scripture? Let me provide, in this post, a brief taxonomy of the options"

Scot McKnight Responds to D.A. Carson

2005-12-26T18:06:00.000-07:00

Just a word upfront - I am researching the Emerging Church movement, and in the process I stumbled across a great summary of links over here at Vanguard Church where Scot McKnight responds in detail to D.A. Carson's new book.

The problem is, these links are dead because Scot has moved his blog to JesusCreed.org, so I've taken the liberty of replicating that page here and updating all the links. Hope nobody minds.

Scot McKnight's Detailed Analysis of DA Carson's New Book
It's been a busy week for Scot McKnight at his blog, Jesus Creed. He has aleady finished his analysis of DA Carson's new book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church.

Here's Scot's chapter-by-chapter analysis, in which he gives detailed summaries of Carson's case. For each chapter, Scot ends by offering questions that reveal where to go next based on both what Carson has to offer as good criticism and on what Carson seems to have missed about the Emerging Church:

DA Carson and the Emergent Movement - "...I’m not sure DA Carson, or even some of the Emergent folk, are all pointing at the same 'thing' when they speak of 'emerging'..."

DA Carson and the Emergent Movement Part 2 - "...Has DA Carson given the Emergent leaders the nuance they deserve on how they read the times?..."

DA Carson and the Emergent Movement Part 3 - "...Is DA Carson too attached to Brian McLaren’s voice in the Emergent crowd and missing other voices?..."

DA Carson and the Emergent Movement Part 4 - "...What sort of postmodernism is at work among the various leaders of the Emergent movement? Are they all the same? Do they differ? And, if so, what differences does it make?..."

DA Carson and the Emergent Movement Part 5 - "...It appears to me that DA Carson has responded to only one (of maybe four or five) aspects of the Emergent Church, and the one he tackles is the philosophical/theological side. Why not address the whole Emergent Church in all its varieties?...Are the Emergent folks 'strong' or 'soft' postmodernists?..."

DA Carson and the Emergent Movement Part 6 - "...Is DA Carson fair to McLaren’s “Generous Orthodoxy”?...If the Emergent movement finds McLaren’s theology its heart and soul, we are entitled to ask this one simple question: is this theology orthodoxy? is it biblical? is it evangelical?..."

DA Carson and the Emergent Movement Part 7 - "...in chapter 7 he trots out the Bible’s statements about “truth.” The reason he does this is because DA Carson has reduced the debate about the Emergent movement to an issue of epistemology, he thinks it is wobbling on the issue of truth, and so he sets out what the Bible means by truth..."

DA Carson and the Emergent Movement Part 8 - "...The final chapter of DA Carson’s book is a biblical meditation on Truth and Experience...But DA Carson knows there is plenty of appeal to experience in the Bible – though for some odd reason he fails here to bring in Jonathan Edwards nearly unsurpassable brilliant book, Religious Affections..."

After the chapter-by-chapter analysis, Scot offered his response (broken down into many posts):

Preface - "...If we are to live as those who love God and love others, then we must at all costs seek to listen to the Other. And when we do we find that our lives are opened to the Truth more than if we shut ourselves off. So, we need to listen to DA Carson, just as he needs to listen to the Emergent folks..."

Appreciation - to "...Andrew Jones, the Tall Skinny Kiwi who opened the envelope for me..."

Emergence Divergence - "...There are other Emergents to deal with: Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, Andrew Jones and Dan Kimball. They deserved to be dealt with more adequately if one is to be “conversant” with the emerging church. I think DA Carson’s book is really 'becoming conversant with the emergent epistemology of Brian McLaren...'"

Issue #1: Emergence is more than epistemology - "...This book falls short of DA Carson’s better books, mostly because it is not researched thoroughly enough...The debate cannot be reduced to epistemology..."

Issue #1A: Emergence is passionate in various directions: Why? - "...why are they so upset to fashion an entirely new way of “doing church” (which expression I don’t really like). Why?..."

Issue #2: The missional and holism issues - "...Fundamentally, the Emergent movement is a “missional” movement and it is holistic in its mission, and until it is addressed from that point, it won’t be addressed centrally..."

Issue #3: What is Truth and how do we put it together? - "...DA Carson’s book fails to deal with what “truth” means. It regularly tells us that we can know truth, that we find it everywhere in the Bible, but he doesn’t really define it and expound it at length..."

Issue #4: The Subject’s grasp of the Object leads to chastened truth-claims - "...I don’t think DA Carson deals with the inevitable entailment of truth-claiming, namely, that even if we think the Scripture is Truth and Jesus Christ is Truth, we are still in need of dealing with our 'articulation' of that Truth, and that is the place PM enters and that is the struggle we find in the Emergent Truth..."

Issue #5: Over-reactions in the Emergent movement - "...especially about (a) modernism and postmodernism and (b) what modernist Christianity really believes..."

Issue #6: Self-analysis or even self-deconstruction - "...Is the Emergent movement largely white? largely post-Evangelical?..."

Issue #7: A strength with a weakness: permeable walls abounding - "I find the 'permeable walls' (they are not strong, solid, or thick) of the Emergent movement a breath of fresh air....are there too many permeable walls? Do we need some firmer walls and some permeable walls?"

Issue #8: Particular Realities - Where Scot applauds Emerging churches in different cultural and geographical contexts doing ministry differently, with one caveat.

Issue #9: Great Traditions - "I like the Emergent focus on the Great Traditions, but robbing and stealing from them without taking into consideration contexts is no more than ornament."

Issue #10: Cultural Usurpation - "...What role culture? Are we in danger of being usurped by postmodern culture?..."

Issue #11: What are we really preaching? - "...What we preach is Jesus Christ, crucified, raised and the one who sent the Spirit. We don’t preach the spirit of the age; we preach to the spirit of the age from within and from without..."

Issue #12: Brian, what do you mean by this? - Where Scot asks Brian McLaren some questions.

Thanks, Scot, for the time and effort to do this.
It is a great contribution to the Emergent Church.

Welcome

2005-12-26T13:50:00.000-07:00

For those of you who know me, the first question out of your mouth when you see this blog will probably be something to the effect of, "For Pete's sake, Christian, YET ANOTHER BLOG??? WHY???" Good question. Here's your answer.

The biggest reason I've started yet another blog is that I wanted someplace where I could speak theologically and not feel guilty about it. After all, Granitepeaks is for family stuff; the Granitepeaks Photoblog is for (you guessed it) "photos of family stuff"; See Life Differently was a possibility, but that's more focused on practical theology or cultural apologetics (eg. we try hard there to speak in a way that ordinary folks and non-Christians can understand); the only other option was the Missoula Project (but that's really aimed at people interested in the church plant we'll be leading in the Fall of 2006).

So, you can see that I really did need another blog. Honest. Really. Of course, once you decide you need a blog, then you have to decide what to name it. Which, as every blogger knows, is really hard now that blogging is the rage. The reason, of course, is that all the really cool blog names are already taken. So one is left with options like http://icantthinkofablogname.blogspot.com (hmm... guess not - that's one's already taken too!). You see what I mean.

So after lots of thought and innumerable dead ends, I came up with Wayfaring Pilgrim.

Why that name, you ask? Well, the easy answer is that it was available. I also find it fitting, though - in many ways, my life seems like its been filled with lots of wayfaring. Long roads, full of heartache and lessons learned the hard way.

Having moved some 12 or 13 times in the last 15 years, I can relate with the pilgrim part too. Not just physically, but spiritually - I feel like I'm in the constant process of discovering that I'm not quite where I need to be in terms of faith and practice. At the same time, I've become increasingly convinced that I'm actually on a journey to somewhere - God is the one in control, relentlessly leading, refining, shaping.

So that explains the blog name. Of course, many these days would question the whole desire to speak theologically in the first place. After all, doesn't theology just muddy the waters? Wouldn't we all be better off if we just focused on living like Jesus?

Sure. The only problem with that suggestion is that in order to live like Jesus, you have to have beliefs about Jesus, about what how he intends for us to follow him. And that, my friends, is theology. "No creed but Christ" is rubbish - everybody has a creed. It's just that some choose to leave their beliefs implicit and unexpressed, lurking in the background behind every practice. And sooner or later, the people you share your life with will run into the implications of those beliefs. Often with painful results.

I decided long ago that I'd rather just be upfront about what I believe. To try and figure out what I think, to try and say why I think it. More times than not, I'm usually wrong. But there is something very helpful about trying to state it plainly - it forces you to examine yourself, your convictions, your practices. And that can be a very good thing. Plus it helps those around you know why you act so wacky. At least they know what they're in for...

The purpose of this site, then, is to give me a chance to capture my theological wackiness in print. To give others a chance to see how confused I am, so that they can better understand why I act the way I do, and maybe even offer some suggestions on how to improve my thinking.

I'll say up front that this site is not for everyone. In fact, most sane people will probably be bored out of their gourds by most of the stuff that gets published here. Those who disagree with me, however, will probably love it - it's sure to offer plenty of ammunition. And that's ok. Because all I'm really trying to do here is say what I think about things that interest me, the beliefs that drive my praxis.

If you have comments or suggestions, I'd love to hear them. If you're having trouble locating a particular piece of incriminating evidence, just ask - if I haven't already written something on it, I'd probably be willing to put something into print. And who knews, perhaps some of what I say might actually resonate with a few hardy souls on pigrimages similar to mine.

This site is for folks like them, for folks like me. Enjoy!