The New Emergen-ese

The cry is often heard that the world does not understand the body when we speak Christian-ese. We are told to beware alienating the ‘un-churched’ with language that is foreign and confusing to them. The call of Scripture to be in the world but not of the world is the essence of the plea. Don’t be so heavenly minded that you’re no earthly good. Let your speech be seasoned as with salt. Let the cross be the offense, let the gospel be the stumbling block – don’t trip up the seeker with your strange tongue and weird, antiquated bible-speak. With this cry I am mostly in agreement. The smooth tongued and unctuous preacher who begins each sentence with ‘dearly beloved’ and makes God a three syllable word is as nauseating to me as the next guy. We need to always be defining the terms. No question.

Yet, we need to remember that the regenerate community is a group of ‘strangers and aliens’. We cannot escape the reality that we will behave and speak and believe in a fundamentally different way than the world. There is a fine line between wisdom and propaganda in these matters. It is one thing to be careful to identify the biblical categories and contexts behind language and concepts that are confusing, strange, and rejected by a disbelieving and lost world. This is called good stewardship, intentionality, love, and grace. To abandon biblical concepts and categories – and the words that come with them- because it hurts (or at least fails to tickle ) the sensibilities of the hard heart is manipulation and capitulation. I’ll spare us all the debate over hermeneutical spirals, the possibility of textual meaning, and the other postmodern problems of the day. You get the point.

It amazes me how churches have lurched headlong into this pit of meaninglessness in their striving after relevance. We have replaced christianese with what I call emegernese. People don’t understand, or don’t have categories for, say- membership class? Emerge! Let’s call it something else. Make it cool, hip, and edgy- and just a wee bit inscrutable. How about connection sessions? The guy with the soul patch and square glasses playing capture the flag with your high schooler is no longer the ‘youth pastor’. He is now the lead strategist for student oriented ministry involvement. The Senior Pastor becomes the Catalytic leader via strategic communication. Children’s ministry keeps its name but just puts a ‘z’ in crucial places: Childrenz Ministry. The fellowship hall is now the 2-4-6 room (after Acts 2:46; or because of Ezekiel 24:6 or maybe Deut. 2:4-6; or maybe it is open 24 hours each day except Monday). The sanctuary is now the ‘gathering zone’ and the narthex is still the, uh, narthex. I had a conversation with a younger pastor recently who was decidedly much more rad than I who kept asking me about our ‘church DNA’. I told him that I was not an ecclesiastical biochemist, so I really don’t know.

The problem with this emergent project– this ‘repainting’ of the Christian faith as Rob Bell calls it - is that the timeless truth of the gospel can quickly become the handmaiden of the fickle demands of cultural relevance. The call of the Reformers to be ‘always reforming’ was a call to constant vigilance around the principle of ‘sola scriptura’ – scripture alone. The motto of the pomo reformation is the same, only it is a call to constant vigilance around the principle of ‘sola cultura’ – culture alone. The other day I heard a college student laugh at the song list on a friend’s walkman – sorry – ipod, “those guys (referring to some band) are so five minutes ago!” Cultural relevance is a cruel mistress. If you’ll allow me to keep throwing metaphors at you- reaching for relevance is like catching a tiger by the tail: you got him one minute; you are tiger lunch the next. We are all victims and instigators in this chase, to be sure (we are called ‘Four Oaks Church’ and hardly anyone knows why; we have a 2-6-8 room and only Paul Gilbert knows why). It is not wrong to be creative, it is not wrong to be ‘timely’. But watch out that your timeliness does not take the place of what Os Guinness calls ‘prophetic untimeliness’- our ability to speak into the needs of the world because we have refused to give way to its every demand. We must at some point square off with the root of much of this thirst for timeliness- our idolatry, our pride, and our longing for acceptance from the world- often at the cost of losing the message of reconciliation that we bring to the world.

The truth of the matter is that there are essential truths in the Scriptures that are fundamentally un-cool and unacceptable in all cultures and in every context (we might call it the ‘otherworldliness’ of the Christian faith). The death to self, the reality of innate sin, the need for atonement, the denial of works righteousness, the call to obedience, the core call to surrender and submission- all of these things are not just unknown to the world- but are also, for the most part, rejected and hated. Jesus told us plainly that the bearers of this message would be hated by the world as he was hated. The beautiful thing is- this message saved my life, and will save the lives of all those who have ears to hear.
Do this: speak honestly, transparently, biblically, and sometimes with creative and provocative precision. Let our yes be yes and your no be no. Let the power of the gospel be the power of the gospel and not replace it with our own relatively impotent constructs- however cute or cool we might consider them. Let’s repent often for our lust for acceptance. Let’s never apologize for our willingness to carry our cross daily and lose our lives for the gospel.

I’ll sign off now, I need to get over to Hebdomadal Litany and Intercession, sorry - Wednesday night prayer meeting.

Semper reformanda.

More Bell-Ringing

Must I harp on this poor servant? Several have voiced concern that I am being unfair in my criticism of Rob Bell.

First, let me give you the full quotation from Bell's first book where he challenges the necessity of the virgin birth of Christ, the possibility of doctrinal certainty, and the importance of orthodox convictions (as well as the sufficiency of Scripture, the trustworthy testimony of the Gospel writers and Apostles, and the development of the canon...):

“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?”

I could say so many things about this disturbing quote. First, Bell, and all who have read his book, need to read some J. Gresham Machen. As well, you need to read Al Mohler's answer to the last couple questions posed above, "Could you still be a Christian? Or does the whole thing fall apart?"

Secondly, remember that this is uttered by the pastor of one of the fastest growing, largest, and influential churches in America. Second, he is touted as a leading voice in evangelicalism (the Chicago Sun Times offered him to us as the next Billy Graham). Third, he is a best selling Christian author. Fourth, he tours the country (world?) promoting his books, packing out churches, nightclubs, and other venues spreading his gospel. Fifth, he has great appeal to the pomo twenty/thirty something generation- a generation that I have the privilege of ministering amongst in a college town. For all these reasons, I challenge believers to watch out for his teachings, which are not in accordance with sound doctrine and the truth of the gospel.

Mind you, Bell does insist that he believes in the literal virgin birth of Christ. His point is 'hypothetical'- he is trying to demonstrate that doctrinal truths are like the springs on a trampoline, and we can remove them willy nilly and keep on jumping. He claims that modernity has set up doctrinal biblical truth like a brick wall, and when a brick is removed- the entire edifice comes crashing. The problem with this is that Bell has set up a false dichotomy (and a straw man- his caricature of modern evangelicalism as a doctrinal brick wall is unhelpful, though I don't necessarily disagree). Either doctrinal truth is like a trampoline or a brick wall. Must we see biblical truth as either/or in the way Bell has set up the discussion?

As I have often said, doctrinal truth, actually all truth, is a web of multiple reciprocities (a term I got from my trusted OT prof, Richard Pratt). The affirmation of the truth of the virgin birth has direct and crucial implications to the affirmation of Christ as truly God. The affirmation of the absolute truth and inerrancy of Scripture has direct bearing upon our affirmation of the virgin birth of Christ. We could go on and on. This is exactly why Paul labored to present to the Ephesians 'the whole counsel of God's Word' when he was with. This is why we are so strongly exhorted toward the preservation of sound doctrine. The denial of plain biblical teaching (which is certainly the case regarding the virgin birth) brings destruction to our churches and our souls.

Let me say as well that I could really care less that Bell personally believes in the virgin birth. This is not the important thing here. What is important is that we proclaim that such a thing is TRUE and why it is true. Bell places belief and truth in the realm of personal preference. I want to know what is true, not just for Bell, not just for me in Tallahassee- but for all men everywhere, for all time. It would be helpful if at this point in his book he explained for us why he believes in the virgin birth? On what basis? To what end? In reality, why should I believe that Bell affirm's historic Christian orthodoxy as he claims? His claim to such an affirmation is contradicted by his rejection of sola scriptura, his embrace of narrative theology, and the web of fallacious and foolish statements offered in the quote above. Bell is very McLaren-esque here- "I love the Bible- even when it's wrong!"

Let's look real quick at Bell's statement about the virgin birth:

1. What if someone digs up definitive proof (beyond a shadow of a doubt) about the real, earthly, biological father of Jesus? Oh, how dreadfully modern of Pastor Bell! Is his trust in DNA evidence? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? But Bell has built a church and a popular ministry around the idea that there is no such thing as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Ooops. These sort of horribly modern commitments always seem to creep in somewhere- for many emergents it often happens when the discussion turns to the truth of global warming and economics. I don't get it. I thought Bell had emerged from such enlightenment shackles.

2. Let's consider implication #1- Mary was indeed an adulteress and a liar. Joseph was a liar. And both of them built a whole life around this lie. And in this lie they fabricated angelic visitations. Elizabeth somewhere was dupped, or entered into the conspiracy.

3. Implication #2 - The gospel writers are liars.(in fact, Bell plainly asserts this as entirely plausible and not a problem whatever) Bell says that if such a thing were true (that Jesus had a dad named Larry) then maybe the testimony of Scripture is just a myth to appeal to some rank pagans. But, remember what Luke tells us, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

4. Implication #3 - Jesus was a liar. Matthew 16:16; 26:63-64...and many others.

5. Implication #4 - Jesus was not the Son of God. "And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)

6. Implication #5 - Jesus was not the Messiah, sent as the Son of God to redeem a people for himself. Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." (Matt. 1:20-21)

7. Implication #6 - Jesus was merely a man. A teacher (who lied about his claim to deity, and so was a megalomaniacal tyrant who demanded total loyalty from his followers). He simply came to show us 'the best way to live'. We are left with human righteousness as our only hope.

I went through that little walk from one reciprocity to the next- to show you exactly where Bell's point leads us in this whole hypothetical discussion. He says, "Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live?" We are left with a pragmatic, works oriented, and redemption-less gospel that is no gospel at all. No, this would not be the best way to live. Paul tells us that this would be the very worst way to live. We would still be in our sins. We would be enemies of God. We would be trusting a lie. We would be lost in a sea of mindless platitudes with no power for holiness, no way to truth, and no hope beyond the grave.

Add this to Bell's rejection of sola scriptura and his heterodox (and mainly sentimentalist gospel-ish) views presented in the NOOMA videos, his social gospel agenda, his Arminian and man centered view of the atonement, his failure to preach the gospel... behold, we have good old fashioned liberalism with hipster glasses and a 'bible church' guise.

Like I said last Sunday, if you must read Miller, Bell, McLaren, et. al. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go read some Puritans, some Calvin, some Luther, some Spurgeon, some Hodge, some Warfield, some M. Lloyd -Jones, some Packer, some Piper, some Sproul...

Of Elvis and Jazz...some further thoughts

Last Sunday I spoke of Rob Bell and Donald Miller in my sermon. Dangerous stuff that. Maligning the pomo pop-evangeliheroes in a college town. Oddly, I had several college students thank me for these words of warning, them having been intoxicated with postmodern foolishness and needing a word of caution. It was several of our 'older folk' (read: forty/fifty sumthin) that voiced their affections for these younger evangelicals, especially herr Miller.

Now, I think that Miller seeks to stay within the pale of evangelical faith- at least, that's what I hear. But to try and pin an emergent down one point of doctrinal commitment or another can be a frustrating gig. We are commended in Scripture as leaders to 'watch our life and doctrine closely, in so doing we will save ourselves and others'. As teachers we will 'be judged more strictly'. This is serious business, and doctrinal clarity, at least clarity even in what we do not believe- is important for those who have the influence that many of the new emergent school do.
In my less than humble assesment, Blue Like Jazz is more silliness and triviality than outright wrong- mostly. Any book that seeks to make serious statements about spirituality (it is a book of non-religious thoughts about spirituality- it says so on the cover) yet commits several pages to inscrutable and mostly useless cartoons featuring the author as a bunny...well, this speaks for itself. I'm not amazed that people like the book, but I am amazed that believers see it as an important and worthwhile book in terms of edification and wisdom. Miller is just plain wrong in some places. I know that his quiet and easy style really touches many a reader; and his experiences resonate with many of us. But, this shouldn't call us to swallow the postmodern, emerging ethos hook, line, and sinker (as so many seem to have).

My main concern for Miller is that much of his work is just a collection of musings, some with a certain degree of biblical warrant, the others not so much. There are a lot of interesting anecdotes from his life that may be more or less true depending on the context. But there is little examination of God's Word on all of these matters of 'dialogue' in Blue Like Jazz, precious little. This is ultimately not helpful, even harmful, when one is speaking critically of the church, and influencing thousands with their assesment.

I'm also concerned with the fact that many emerging guys- but mainly Rob Bell and Brian McLaren (A New Kind of Christian, A Generous Orthodoxy) as the most popular and influential voices in the movement (there are other more dangerous emergents who don't seek to speak so directly in the evangelical circle), refuse to accept responsibility for what they are actually doing. They sell hundreds of thousands of books, making hundreds of thousands of dollars, influencing multitudes. They have very hard words (yes, even the gentle Miller) for their former pastors and all those modernity shackled evangelicals of decades past; they ask us to listen to their critique of the church and Bell explicitly seeks to 'repaint' the faith. If they are to have such a prophetic voice and have such influence- they must be accountable. This means they must be held to a doctrinal, biblical standard. At this point, though- a grin comes over their faces along with a shrug of the shoulders and little jab to the shoulder. C'mon, don't be so linear! We're just having a 'conversation'- this is just a dialogue! LOL! (insert Smiley face emoticon here) But, in reality- this is more than just a friendly conversation. This is a major movement- and much of it is a movement in a dangerous, unhealthy and spiritually destructive direction.

What direction is this? Why all the fuss?

My main concern, as usual, is that many of these influential emergent voices have a low view of Scripture. Miller tacitly so with his failure to substantiate much of his work biblically as well as a host of nods to a post-foundational understanding of truth and meaning (especially in Miller's chapter 'Belief' in Blue Like Jazz). From what I gather, Miller is a committed believer in a healthy and biblically grounded church (with a high view of Scripture). I wish that there was more evidence of the genuine commitment to theological conviction evidenced in his work. I can't do a better job of laying out the problems with Miller's approach than Doug Groothuis does in this review of Blue Like Jazz.

Bell is a different story. I can find no overt commitment to the infallibility of Scripture on his church's website (his church's doctrinal commitment- or lack thereof, is found here). Bell's church affirms 'inspiration' and does admit that the Scriptures are authoritative- yet, this has come to mean a lot of things in the new postmodern project. It is interesting and duly noted that neither infallibility nor inerrancy are affirmed. This is not helpful when one places terms like inspiration and authoritative in a document extolling narrative theology. This places a community squarely outside the commitments of evangelical orthodoxy in my view. I can think of no reason for anyone to continue to listen seriously to such a pastor or teacher ruminate about repainting the faith when there is not a wholehearted affirmation of the reformed principle of Sola Scriptura (Bell rejects sola scriptura- Velvet Elvis, pp. 67). We can assume that with such a vague commitment to 'narrative' theology and (post) liberalism, whatever that might be, our emerging faith 'artists' will re-paint faith and 'truth' in their own image.

The emergent view of doctrinal conviction, knowledge, and truth is on the whole unhelpful, and in many places plainly unbiblical. The Scriptures are full of exhortations to embrace, know, and obey the truth of God's Word. We truly know things revealed, even if such knowledge is not comprehensive. Without a distinctly biblical epistemology, we are lost in a sea of skepticism and, well, uncertainty and doctrinal ignorance. D.A. Carson goes through scores of biblical passages exhorting us to doctrinal certainty in his excellent analysis of the emerging church, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (pages 193-199). He notes well that this is merely a sampling of the full weight and force of the whole counsel of God's Word calling us to know, trust, and obey the truth of God's Word with whole hearted conviction.

In Velvet Elvis, Bell's lays out the 'foundation' of all else he seeks to establish in his work: "The Christian faith is mysterious to the core. It is about things and beings that ultimately can't be put into words. Language fails. And if we do definitively put God into words, we have at that very moment made God something God is not. . . the mystery is the truth" (Velvet Elvis, pp. 32-33).

This is a sentiment and assertion that is outside the testimony of Scripture- Rev. 19:9, 21:5, 22:6; 2 Cor. 1:18-20; Titus 1:9; Eph. 3:8-10 (the mystery is said by Paul to be revealed and it is to be made known to the world- with words, with preaching, with a pattern of sound teaching- see also 1 Cor. 2:7-13), and outside the witness of the church for the past four hundred years.

Bell denigrates the glorious and essential truth of the virgin birth and so the deity of Christ, and the trustworthy message of the gospel writers- supplanting it with a pragmatic doctrine of works righteousness (Velvet Elvis, pp. 26-27). Bell moves toward universalism with his utilitarian theology as well, "Jesus was not making claims about one religion being better than all other religions. That completely misses the point, the depth, and the truth. Rather, he was telling those who were following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality...Perhaps a better question than who's right, is who's living rightly?" (VE, pp. 21).

He continues further down this road in his musings on hell. Of course, Bell puts everything as a question. He is just asking, poking, prodding. But I think this sort of tact is dangerous when one recognizes that Bell is poking and prodding at the core truths of God's Word, even at the underlying epistemological foundation of the Christian faith- that truth may be known with a real certainty and conviction.

Bell says, "When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an even, a situation absent of how God desires things to be...As a Christian, I want to do what I can to resist hell coming to earth. Poverty, injustice, suffering -they are all hells on earth, and as Christians we oppose them with all our energies. Jesus told us to." (VE, pg. 148) This approach puts orthodoxy at a disadvantage for it is a false dichotomy. A belief in hell as a literal place of judgment and eternal punishment need not lead us away from compassion and alleviation of suffering in the here and now. Yes, Jesus told us to love and care for others- but he also spoke (more than any other voice in Scripture) of the reality of God's judgment upon sin in a literal hell after this life. (Check out a great piece by Keller on preaching hell in a pomo culture. Also, here's a helpful work on the reality of hell from the truth of God's Word.)

Ah, well. Enough on that for now. I thought it important to provide a bit more background to my words of warning from Sunday. It is my job to guard sound doctrine, warn against false and destructive teachings and influences, and promote biblical teaching and thinking. Hopefully, many will read these emerging voices with more discernment and a greater zeal for God's Word and the truth of the gospel.

Here are a couple of helpful resources and further reads on the Emerging Church:

Why We're Not Emergent by DeYoung and Kluck (easy read, winsome and enjoyable- very even handed).

Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church by D.A. Carson (Carson can tend to be a bit boring and pedantic- but he provides a much needed analysis and assesment of the movement).

Above All Earthly Powers by David Wells (much heavier than the first two- but a great look at the present condition of evangelicalism).

Desiring God looked at many of these trends, issues, and the whole movement in their annual conference a couple years back. The video and audio can be found here.

Here is a helpful pamphlet in PDF form that looks in greater detail at Bell's Velvet Elvis.

The Doctrinal Journey

In the family of God there is to be a wonderful, adventurous, and wholehearted pursuit of the Word of the Father. It seems strange that I must push such a point. Sadly, though, there is an emerging ethos in the church calling believers away from truth and doctrine in the pursuit of some more vague and mystical postmodern journey. Such postmodern sirens usually employ a false dichotomy between truth and experience to woo folks into the postmodern abyss. But we need not, indeed must not, divorce truth from experience. Nor may we allow our experiences and 'journey' be uninformed and unguided by the truth of God revealed in his Word.

Doctrine, sound teaching, theological truth is often characterized as joyless, dry, devoid of any practical use in daily life. This may very well characterize some church, or some postmodern twenty something's experience. But, that is all it is- an experience and a caricature. The Word of God itself describes the pursuit of the truth of God's Word and the teaching and applying of sound doctrine as essential to the believer's experience and the body life of the church.

This pursuit of truth and revealed doctrine from the Word of God is not only a wonderful conversation, to use the overused pomo word, but a glorious adventure. By conversation I mean listening to the Father and talking with brothers and sisters as to how we might best heed and obey Him. By adventure I do not mean that the journey is about the journey and not about the destination and all that nonsense (all great adventures and journey's have a destination). There is a great adventure in searching the Scriptures, in applying their truth and power to my life and the life of the body that I serve. There is a great adventure in seeing the truth and power of God at work in the hearts of new believers, the discovery of God's truth in new ways in the hearts of 'old' believers, the thrilling (and sometimes terrible) experience of the Spirit's sword (Ephesians 6: 17) doing its work in our hearts, lives, churches, and families.

Just today, Josh (F'Oaks worship pastor) and I were talking about the Apostle Paul's exhortation in Colossians 3:16, "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." We talked about what Paul meant by using these three different terms. How is a hymn different than a spiritual song? Did Paul even intend for us to draw distinctions from this verse, or was he using generally synonymous terms for impact and illustrative power in pressing home his main point? We looked into the meaning of the original terms in the Greek. We looked at the whole counsel of God and how this passage might be understood in relationship to the rest of Scripture. What can we learn from the first century context from which and into which Paul spoke? We asked about what this exhortation means in the context of our particular body- where can we grow, mature, and apply such a passage in a more meaningful helpful way?

We were enjoying the 'doctrinal journey' of being challenged and transformed by the Word of God and looking forward to its transformational work in our church body as we submit to it. I praise God that I am part of a body that loves the Word and loves the journey. Each week we look to the unchanging, propositional, historic truths of the faith revealed in God's Word. We experience it. We respond to it. We obey it. We wrestle with it. We submit to it. We argue about it. We repent where we have neglected it. But, make no mistake, along this journey we never forget that IT is there. God has spoken. His Word is true. His teachings are clear and understandable. His voice is real and to be heeded. What a great doctrinal journey our church family is on. We look forward to the destination when we we see him face to face, when we know fully even as we are fully known.

Emergence and Dogma

Two of the books we received free at our conference last week were, Why We're Not Emergent by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck; and The Courage to Be Protestant by David Wells. I also picked up A Theology for the Church which I am poking through in preparation for our summer sermon series in which I'll be unpacking 12 different categories of systematic theology each week (one week on the person of Christ, one week on the doctrine of the church, etc.).

The first book I mention is a very helpful examination (pomos read: conversation, dialogue) of the increasingly popular pop-postmodern emerging church ethos that has captivated the church. Wells' book is an examination of the current landscape, looking at the megachurch movement, and the more conservative camps in a consumerist culture along with the rising emergent church.

Chapter five of Why We're not Emergent is devoted to the emerging consensus(?) regarding doctrine:

"It is not hard to find emergent leaders questioning the importance of doctrine. Doctrine is derided as logical, sterile, and exclusive. Instead of saying, "Here is truth; take it or leave it," the emergent crowd calls Christians to declare, "Come and experience the story of God in the life of this community."

It must be admitted that by and large, this movement away from doctrine is an experiential sentiment (rooted in some ugly battle in a church where mean, doctrinaire Christians hurt you) or a philosophical tenet (rooted in postmodern epistemology) that is foreign to the pages of Scripture. A call for uncertainty and ambiguity simply does not appear in the New Testament. Yes, there are commands against being contentious and quarrelsome, but they are always offered in the same breath with exhortations to teach and patiently refute those in error. The call to be uncontentious speaks to the need for godly and gracious champions for truth, not weak kneed ambiguity and uncertainty in the great truths of the Christian faith (here is a great little article by Piper on Humility for the cause of Christ and His truth).

J. Ligon Duncan reminded us that "the Apostles were ready to expel people from the church over language". Language is important. Words are important (ask any propagandist). God revealed himself through his Word, and through the living Word, Jesus Christ.

DeYoung and Kluck point out in their chapter on dogma what is evident throughout the N.T. but is mostly ignored in the emerging church culture (p.112):

People go to hell for believing the wrong things. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal. 1:8)

People within the church should be corrected when they believe the wrong things. "[An elder] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (Titus 1:9)

People are sometimes to be kept out of your house for believing the wrong things. "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ deos not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him." (2 John 9-10)

Exhortations to contend for the faith, pursue sound doctrine, refute those in error, grow in God's Word, etc. are constant throughout the Scriptures. We do well to heed God's Word and embrace doctrinal truth with conviction and refuse the therapeutic, experiential, and ultimately empty and groundless substitute of an emerging culture.

Rob Bell

Last week someone emailed me a question regarding the books and teaching ministry of Rob Bell. Christianity Today recently gave Bell the rather grandiose distinction of being the next Billy Graham. Problem is, I think for that placard to sit on your desk you need to be one who actually preaches the gospel. I cannot say this is true of Pastor Bell. There is a lot of questioning the gospel, a lot of talk about the gospel, a lot of conversations about the church, a lot of dialogue about the nature of truth- yes, a lot of all that. But preaching the gospel? Not so much.

Thankfully Greg Gilbert over at 9 Marks has done his homework on Rev. Bell, so I can get on with my oh-so-important life. Here is a very even handed review of Bell's Velvet Elvis. And here is the first of three installments on the ever popular Nooma series put out by Zondervan and Bell.

Here is a great summary paragraph by Gilbert on the gist of Bell's work:

. . . it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Bell actually ends up throwing the entire Christian gospel up for grabs. God is made so mysterious, doctrine is deemed so questionable, and biblical interpretations are so relativized that in the end, Bell leaves us wondering if anything can be known for sure, or if any understanding of the Christian faith and gospel is any better than any other.

You Might be Emerging...

Take the test. I especially like the 'this is your leg' portion of the quiz. Good stuff. Lighten up.

Ownership vs. Membership

Leadership magazine had a little piece on the emerging trend in churches changing the language associated with traditional notions of 'church membership'. I tried to find the link online, but couldn't- so you'll have to take my word for it. Or you could read this blog post and get a taste for this sort of thing.

Here's the deal. Change is good. Challenging tradition is good. Examining the way and the why of what we say is good. Trying to keep from being a crusty crumudgeon is good. All these things are yea and amen in the Lord. I'm with it. But...

It is important to be biblically faithful. This idea just keeps getting lost in all the scrambling to be relevant to our culture. And, ironically, it is very relevant to be faithful. Hmmm. Yeah, think about it. Think, think about it.

The big deal, the real revolutionary idea seems to be that some are changing the paradigm (and all associated language) of church 'membership' to church 'ownership'. There is a sense in which this is good. Especially as it challenges the notion that membership in the local church is akin to membership in a tennis club, country club, or over at the Elks lodge. But the good brought by such a change of language needs to be weighed in light of the dangers of abandoning the biblical language associated with such notions in the first place.

In the above link (with the unfortunate blog title) it is said that church membership 'isn't actually in the bible'. Ok, Christians- take out your bibles. Now turn in your bibles to Romans 12:4 and Romans 12:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:12 and 1 Corinthians 12 :18 and 12:20 and 12:22 and 12:23 and 12:24 and 12:25 and 12:26 and 12:27 (sigh) and also check out Ephesians 3:6 and Ephesians 4:25 and Ephesians 5:30. Get the picture? Someone needs to put in a call to the emerging church headquarters and let them in on the crazy new thing we have called a 'concordance'. Ok...I know I'm being sarcastic and facetious and all that. But seriously!

Yes, if the practice is bad- change it. If the ethos that is at work in our churches is unhealthy, then change it. But, let's not say that this new language we tag along with our challenge is biblical. In fact, there really is a very UN-biblical aspect to this idea of 'ownership' over 'membership'. One, there really is NO explicit reference to people 'owning' the church in the New Testament. And there are copious references to people being 'members' of Christ, and his body, the Church. I really think that many believers have a very lax and unbiblical view of their place and role in the local church. But, it is dangerous to combat this, often very worldly, laziness with a very worldly sense of entitlement and 'ownership'.

It all gets back to what is lasting in the church as we establish these paradigms for service and community. And what is lasting is what God has designed and communicated in his word. So, we at Four Oaks have 'members'and not 'owners'- because we are members of Christ's body, members of one another, each serving the other, each valuable to the other, none "owning" the other (this 'ownership' is reserved for the Soveriegn head of the church, Jesus Christ), and each deferring to the other, loving each other, and sharing in fellowship with one another.

Sometimes being cool, provocative, and cutting edge is good. But, when it is not faithful to the Scriptures (which are themselves always cool, provocative, and cutting edge) - it is just wrong.

Tim Challies Reviews McLaren's Latest

For a great examination of McLaren's latest foray into all things heterodox, 'revolutionary', and emerging go over to Challies' review of Everything Must Change. This may serve as a great introduction to the problems of the so called postmodern paradigm and emerging church consciousness.

Emerging Friendships Along the Road to Hell

I encourage you to go over to B2W and check out Justin's post on the emergent distaste for doctrinal statements.

John Piper's response will help you understand why he is one of my (non-dead) heroes.

Emerging Posters

Phil Johnson has some great motivational posters for the emerging church over at spurgeon.org.

Here are a couple of my favorites.

A Model for Missional Faithfulness

Missional is the new church buzzword these days. You've heard it batted around at Four Oaks as we go through our study of Acts in our fellowship groups. What does it mean? The primary definition of a missional church would be to see the whole identity of the church as a 'mission' to a postmodern, post-Christian world. The 'missional church' would seek to saturate the entire life of the church with the mission- no longer isolating our gospel outreach to a 'missions' segment of our budgets and programs. It is a struggle to preserve the church and its fundamental purpose and identity not as an institutional relic of modernity but as a gospel mission to a lost world- and this lost world is all around us, not merely confined to the third world.

This 'missional' identity can take different forms in different contexts: in more liberal and emerging quarters it is a decidedly 'social' oriented gospel message. Being missional in such a context means a greater emphasis in our churches toward meeting felt needs in the community, ministering and serving, laboring to reach the poor and needy. As I've observed in my limited experience there is often an under emphasis on truth and doctrinal integrity in these sort of 'missional' communities. It can often sound like the old 'social gospel' of the first decades of the last century. Sometimes it is just plain ole liberalism. Although of course there are many who might lean away from what is perceived as a more rigid doctrinal framework (which is, they would say, a byproduct of a failed and passe modernity) yet still seek to maintain a high degree of biblical faithfulness. It is naive to understand these movements in broad, monolithic categories.

On the other hand, through the labors of Tim Keller and other church planting movements, this 'missional' identity has been co-opted by a more conservative evangelical contingent. In this context, there is a strong emphasis on recognizing the need for a faithful proclamation of the gospel in the cultural context that God has placed us. There is a call in these communities to maintain biblical and doctrinal integrity while adapting our programs, structures, and subcultural ethos to the realities of a postmodern world that needs not merely a social gospel, but a redemptive, cross centered gospel. There is an emphasis on cultural relevance as well as doctrinal, biblical faithfulness. Some missional leaders would eschew their efforts to preserve doctrinal essentials such as the inerrancy of Scripture, or the substitutionary atonement as an outdated and irrelevant modernity. On the other hand, more conservative missional leaders would eschew their more liberal and emerging counterparts' efforts as a wrongful, and ultimately destructive embrace of unbiblical postmodern worldview (if one can be said to have a 'postmodern worldview').

I recently preached a sermon taken from the famous sermon of the Apostle Paul in Athens before the council of the Areopagus (Acts 17). Here we find a model of a distinctively 'missional' message within the first century Athenian framework, while maintaining a sort of 'prophetic untimeliness' (to use Os Guiness' term) in engaging and challenging the philosophies of the day with the eternal truths of Scripture and the always relevant good news of Jesus Christ. I pulled out 10 principles from Acts 17 for maintaining a 'missional' focus while remaining biblically faithful.


1. Paul was ‘local church’ focused: sent, accountable, committed, submitted, and functioning in the context of a biblical church community- Acts 13:1-3; 14:23; 15:1ff. (this contra the emerging 'revolution' of leaders and folks who have turned their backs upon the local church as an essential part of every believers existence- like George Barna, Spencer Burke and others).

2. Paul was ‘discerning’: 17:16- ‘his eyes were open’. Paul was not a pew sitting dinosaur, he was aware of the idols of his countrymen, he was engaging the culture around him with a discerning heart. Paul sought to be relevant and faithful. How often do we parade our idols about insisting that it is relevance, when it is really worldliness, plain and simple.

3. Paul was ‘provoked’- distressed, stirred in his spirit: 17:16b. Paul was passionately fueled in his mission to confront the destructive idolatry and ideology that war against people’s souls. He was no fundamentalist slapping the hands of naughty Athenians, he was a fiercely committed gospel preacher who wanted to break the idol strongholds of the sinful heart.

4. Paul ‘reasoned’…17:17 His message was logical, reasonable, personal, thoughtful, winsome. There is a rise in 'postfoundationalism' and 'post critical' thinking that assigns all logic and reason as western cultural constructs of the enlightenment. These philosophical movements are ultimately self defeating, and undercut the plain and straightforward biblical assertions of inspiration, inerrancy, and authority.

5. Paul ‘preached'. There was an authoritative ‘proclamation’ in the character of his reasoning. This authoritative ‘gospel preaching’ was rooted in the truth of Jesus’ person and work (v.18). We find in many of the missional movements a capitulation the 'tolerance' ethos of our postmodern context- a disdain for any sort of bold, and authoritative 'proclamation'. Paul was not just one who 'reasoned' and he wasn't merely 'having a conversation'. He was boldly announcing, declaring, proclaiming the gospel.

6. Paul was strategic and used natural venues, relationships, and invitations to set forth the Gospel- 17:17-19:
-the synagogue
-the marketplace
-the Areopagus (the Academy)
The gospel was not a package that is presented within the walls of a church, it is not primarily for open air or door to door ministry. Paul sought the venues that God had availed to him as a Pharisee and Jewish leader, a tentmaker, and a scholar to present the gospel. He creatively strategized to use all of his life as entry points for relating to the lost with the truth of the gospel.

7. Paul was culturally literate and culturally engaged and utilized this for the faithful proclamation of the gospel to the glory of God. Paul was not immersed in a 'Christian subculture' that removed him from the reality of life in a first century pagan world.

8. Paul was culturally flexible- in his language, style, temperament, presentation of ideas. Paul’s ‘sermon’ here is decidedly different than other sermons in different cultural contexts. He is conversant in the philosophies of the Athenians, he is able to engage them where they live and with their own presuppositions. His language is not laden with Hebraisms, his message is not riddled with passages of Scripture that would be foreign to his hearers.

9. Paul was culturally confrontive. A biblically faithful gospel must confront idolatry; vain religion; ignorance; empty philosophical speculation. This gospel holds forth the truth of God, the need for repentance, and hope only in the work of Christ. Being faithful to the truth of the gospel here is to trust God at His Word- that the gospel is the power of God- not our marketing, manipulating, or maneuvering to present it in some culturally sanitized form.

10. Paul entrusted his message and mission to the sovereign work of God: the outcome, the response of the world either in acceptance or rejection, his own safety and life, the response of the ‘church’, etc. was entirely God’s prerogative and design. His call was to be faithful to the mission- love people, love God, live and preach the good news.

One Punk's Twisted Version of Christian Love

Our beloved webmastergeekdude sent me a link at cnn.com with the commentary of Jay Bakker (son of the infamous and irrepressible glam evangelists of yore, Jim and Tammy Faye) and some other guy with emo hair. Go read it: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/13/bakker.brown.commentary/index.html

A blessed distraction from my ever pressing spiritual duties and a little exercise in discernment for all of us.

Let's consider a few things:

1. Both these guys look like they haven't been up before noon since high school. I know, I know, God looks on the inside...but still, seriously, are those mugshots?

2. Why do these dudes have a voice on CNN? Because Jay is a cultural novelty. We must remember that Jay is a self established, self proclaimed, accountable to no one sort of pastor who has a national voice as a reality show personality (though, I hear the Sundance channel's show tracking Jay's life "One Punk Under God" is quite engrossing). I dare say we mustn't take these guys' cultural and ecclesiological analysis all that serously.

3. As my webmastergeekdude said, 'I guess yelling about sin is a greater transgession than sin.'

4. Jay and Marc close their rant by quoting Paul in 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7, "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude..." So, is this exhortation from the Word to be applied only to the 'religious right' or is it to be applied to a couple of 'punks' who open their invective with curses as well?

5. Have they read the gospels? Their summary of the life and teachings of Jesus is facile and twisted, to say the least. Their assesment of the interpretation and content of the parables is out of line with Jesus' clear teaching on his use of parables (check it out, Matthew 13:10-17). Also, go buy a copy of John Piper's newest book, What Jesus Demands from the World.

6. Jesus, Paul, John, James, and Peter all clearly stood against immorality and murder- in our day, gay marriage and abortion are two pressing issues of legalized immorality and murder (amongst other things, but certainly the collapse of marriage and the death of 1.3 million innocents on our doorstep is a critical issue that we should, uh, yell about. Wouldn't you yell if a doctor came at your 2 year old with a scalpel and a vacuum? I would. Hell yeah I would). It is, in my estimation, biblical and apostolic to stand against these two things. And it is biblical and apostolic to stand against them with a loud voice. It is also biblical to stand against them with grace and love in our fellowships, which is what I see more than anything in evangelical Christianity. I think these guys' evaluation of the compassion of the evangelical church is unfair and unsubstantiated.

7. It is a statistical reality that for the most part conservatives and Christians give money, help the poor, and love people sacrificially far more than the left and non Christians. So, their point is...?

8. Jay and Marc said they witnessed the 'dark side of religion'. I assume, at least for Jay, this is a reference to the wickedness of his parents and their awful tele-evangelist-empire. What does this have to do with abortion and gay marriage? The dark side of religion they saw was not Christians standing for truth and righteousness, but a couple of freaks bilking old ladies out of their social security checks. Let's get our 'dark sides' straight. The Christian community should have stood firmly against the Bakker's then and held them accountable, and Christians today should stand firmly against this new, revised, and punkified Bakker today and hold him accountable.

9. And what, exactly, is the point of the article? Are Christians really not to speak to moral issues in a free republic? Are pastors not to call their people to be engaged civically? Or, are we for speaking truth and love and grace when it comes to the poor, or the environment, but not when it comes to killing babies? How so? What is the logic there?

Ok, ok. I told you in the beginning not to take these guys seriously, and here I am with 9 points. Alright here's #10 to make it even:

10. I'll directly quote Jay and Marc here, "...look at what Jesus and his followers stood for in his time and what Christianity stands for today. Then come to your own conclusion." Don't take those punk's word for it, or this punk's word for it. Just go to the Word.

Back to Psalm 134 for me.

Blah Like Postfoundationalism

In first service sermon time yesterday I 'bashed' Donald Miller. I say 'bashed' because someone said to me that I shouldn't 'bash' people. I agree. When I was in 10th grade I got into a nasty tustle with a kid named Bobby and he 'bashed' me in the face. It really hurt and I bled all over my Members Only jacket. It was a heart -and nose- breaking experience.

I didn't 'bash' Donald Miller. Yes, I know, I know, sticks and stones, right? Yet, I didn't call him any bad names or make fun of him (though there is some room for that, isn't there? I mean, you know, in good fun, of course. Maybe a little of this at the end of this post, where most people have stopped reading). I simply said that he is a best selling 'evangelical' author who represents the new 'emerging' pop evangelical culture that is rife with unbiblical thinking. My main point was that Miller has popularized the underlying philosophical tenets of the emergent community set forth by guys like Franke and Grenz. The philosophical tenets- mainly postfoundationalism and postcritical thought- are in my humble estimation, unbiblical and irrational (but then, I am a foundationalist- so of course I would think emergent philosophy and theology irrational and illogical! Oh, why can I not just embrace the mystery!). Miller is a good writer (though hardly the genius that most of the FSU sophomores claim him to be) and a winsome and likeable guy. I enjoyed reading 'Blue Like Jazz' when I wasn't throwing it at the wall. But, he is popularizing a view of Christian faith (or 'nonreligious thoughts on spirituality' or 'nonspiritual emotions on religiousity' or whatever the subtitle is) that is dangerous.

I'll let Leonard Sweet (another emerging, post-everything 'evangelical') define 'foundationalism' for us (to give you an idea of how the emerging logic runs):

In the foundationalist world, people assumed that through careful reason, logic, and research a complete structure of knowledge could be erected and mysteries could be gradually be replaced with knowledge. This knowledge would accumulate like bricks cemented on a foundation, and assuming the foundation is secure and certain, humans could have rock solid certainty from the bottom up. Modern scientists tended to rely only on sensory data for their "bricks", while modern Christians mined their bricks from the Bible, which was assumed to be intended by God as a source from which propositions could be extracted. In either case, it was assumed that knowledge was like a wall or building engineered upon an undoubtable, unshakable foundation. (Sweet, McLaren, Haselmayer; A is for Abductive, pp. 128-129)

Sweet (or McLaren or whoever) has made a pretty flimsy straw man here. This definition is filled with false dichotomies (we can have careful reason and logic without having hopes of a complete structure of knowledge; we can have true knowledge that isn't complete in the sense that I think Sweet intends to communicate here)- but I gave it to you so you get the idea. And, I suppose, this does define a sliver of the more entrenched rationalistic, Cartesian sort of modern thought that I rarely have encountered in evangelical circles. But the question must be asked, "Can we know anything?" Or, "Are there true propositions to be 'extracted' from the Bible?" Or, "Do Christians have any certainty?" Or, "Is all a 'mystery'?" And, again, let me say that my own epistemology has always been more of a reformed presuppositional sort (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/reformedepistemology.html; and http://www.carm.org/apologetics/presuppositional.htm) that isn't reducible to a merely foundationalist or post-foundationalist label.

You can read more about the foundationalism/postfoundationalism debate in a great book, Reclaiming the Center by Erickson, Helseth, Taylor, eds. (especially part two: Truth, Foundationalism, and Language, specifically chapter four, "The Premature Report of Foundationalism's Demise" by J.P. Moreland and Garrett DeWeese). There is a good review of the themes of this book here over at http://www.reformation21.org/.

Ok, ok, back on topic. What does all this have to do with Donald Miller? Hmmm. Here is the first paragraph of his chapter in Blue Like Jazz titled, "Belief":

My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don't really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly I don't care. I don't believe I will ever walk away from God for intellectual reasons. Who knows anything anyway? If I walk away from Him, and please pray that I never do, I will walk away for social reasons, identity reasons, deep emotional reasons, the same reasons that any of us do anything.

Go over to Doug Groothuis' blog for a detailed critique and review of Miller's best-seller http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2006/02/blue-like-jazz-deliver-us-from.html.

What can we deduce from Miller's statement? Here's five things:

1. Intellect (reason, logic, sound thinking, and the like) is unimportant and basically useless. Thankfully, Miller didn't build my house.
2. There are people that are convinced that God doesn't exist, and the same number who believe he does. So, we just throw our hands up and pick a side for arbitrary reasons.
3. Christian apologists are just trying to show how smart they are. Its not that they love Jesus and want people to trust him and avoid the flames of hell.
4. Nobody knows anything. Except for maybe the meaning of words and basic syntax, allowing us to read the sentences that Miller crafted and his basic propositions, like
5. The only reasons anyone does anything are sociological and deeply emotional.

I'll leave it to just those five things for now. Let me ask you, dear reader, if there is anything biblically wrong (apart from the fact that Miller doesn't make much sense, like so many who don't believe in making sense, but are all about being 'deeply emotional') with these statements? Should we as believers not challenge such assertions about the nature of God, his revelation, our knowledge of Him, and our duty before Him to set forth this knowledge to an unbelieving and lost world?

Do You Get the Joke?

Doug Wilson has a great post on the use of humor in the culture war and more importantly in the spiritual war. Check it out: http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1870

I'll pull a few of his comments at length here, with a few comments of my own thrown in for good measure:

But we live in a day when Christian men have too readily (and in a wholesale fashion) accepted what the world says about discussion, debate, discourse, and the clash of faiths. And as a result, many Christians would rather be "nice" than right. But by "right," I do not mean correct opinions coupled with a nasty attitude. I mean holding to the truth in a truthful way, advancing the claims of beauty in a lovely way, and holding up the good in a way that is genuinely good.

Femininity is creational glory. But effeminacy in men is a grotesque parody of this. Equally troubling is the attempt on the part of women to be masculine. A few days ago I put up a post that revealed my view that Scripture prohibits training women for combat (for those interested, I have a detailed discussion on this in Federal Husband). Apparently, from what I have heard, a local listserve went nuts for a time over this Calloused Insensitivity on my part and, once again, I was a Bad Person. This is because I am a Christian who believes that Scripture teaches that women were not created by God to be warriors. If I were a Muslim who believed something comparable and I made my wife wear a burka out to the mall, then I would be praised by these same people for contributing to the rich diversity of our small little town. And if I were a Christian again who pointed out this discrepancy, then I would once again be a Bad Person. Since I can't win for losing, then I will content myself with a chuckle.

...One of the most marked features of compromised Christian men in our age is an effeminate failure of masculinity, seen notably in a failure to engage in spiritual warfare like Christian men. There are many symptoms of this, but one marked feature of it is humorlessness. But it is not humorlessness arising from a lack of native wit; rather it is humorlessness coming from fear of having to go out and actually fight with the giants or dragons. A close corollary is the fear of having somebody on your side behave in such a manner as to provoke the giant. But David did not just fight with Goliath, he spoke to him first and his manner of speech was not in keeping with contemporary academic standards.

John Frame, in his recent review of McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy, insightfully hits this failure of McLaren to recognize the reality of the spiritual warfare we are in, and the responsibility of Christians to be actively engaged in that warfare.

So my contention is this. Our sense of cultural maturity and masculinity is so far gone that there is no way to recover it without controversy. In other words, any person doing exactly the right thing, the one thing needful, will be thought by many to be troubler of Israel.


I have discovered this sort of humorlessness in the pew over and over again. And it comes, for the most part, from a misplaced evangelical 'sensitivity'. And, dare I say, it comes from women (with cowering husbands in tow). Churches are filled with Christians that are very concerned for the feelings of the 'hurting'. They are very concerned with those who would take offense, misunderstand, or be thrust further into the hurting abyss. Yet, ironically, and this has been my experience, it is primarily the fearful and 'seeker' sensitive Christians who are filled with offense by their active imaginations of the concerns of the hurting or the 'offended'.

Don't get me wrong- I know there are people with 'hurts' out there (it would serve us well to ask exactly what we mean by this- ah, another day, another post). I understand fully that there are many that take offense. But Jesus told us this would be so. And Paul. And Isaiah and all the prophets, for that matter (Jeremiah was such an insensitive oaf as he shouted at the worshippers in the temple courts, all spiffed up in their sabbath go to meetin best). And we should care for the bruised reeds, we should bind up the broken hearted. Amen. But never at the expense of a prophetic voice. I heard a preacher say, "Hard words make soft hearts. Soft words make hard hearts."

Folks, the world is crumbling around us and people are bound for hell while Joel Osteen smiles unctiously and gives us all a psuedo-spiritual pep talk. Preachers everywhere take note and follow suit. Hey, it gets the butts in the seats and the coins in the coffers. We all know what Jeremiah's, Jesus', and Paul's preaching got them.

I'll wrap this up, for the two of you still reading, with an example of this humorless evangelical concern for peace and unity at all costs. This past Sunday I preached on Acts 4:32-37. As I briefly mentioned some of the evangelical arguments against tithing (which are for the most part silly dispensational myths- like angels folding our clothes at the rapture- and if the image of an angel folding my undies whilst I am caught up to meet Him doesn't tickle your funny bone...well, then I don't know what to do for you). I made the joke that whenever someone asks me whether or not they need to tithe from their net or their gross, I no longer respond like the average gracious Ned Flanders-esque shepherd I know I should be ('Lest ye offer thy gifts with a cheerful disposition, tis best to not give at all'- or something like that). Rather, I look them straight in the eye and say with a straight face and prophetic tone, "Gross plus 2%".

Praise God, most people in my flock laughed. Yet, after the service a visitor, a long time Christian, came up to me and offered his concern over my flippancy. Some people might misunderstand. Some people might take offense. And then he began to offer an argument in favor of tithing only on one's net.

I reminded him of God's promise to His people who insist on robbing Him that he would rub poop on their faces and then throw them out with the trash (Mal.2:3).

Now, that's offensive!

Emerging Paradigms and Consumer Spirituality

“It appears to be correct that evangelicalism is stagnant. Seeker-sensitive churches are picking up on only one aspect of this: the fact that conversions are not increasing, and even here the assumption seems to be that more conversions can be engineered by the right approach, which is really quite doubtful. It is, after all, in the hands of God to impart new life and not in our hands at all. Beyond this, however, the motivating factors appear quite improper. This is undoubtedly a seeker culture, but seekers in this culture cannot come to Christ on their own terms and cannot have the gospel preached to them as if they could. It is true that the Church is in the marketplace of ideas, products, and experiences but to play by the rules of this marketplace is to invite disaster. It is true that society has reorganized itself into regions but why should this be the determining factor as to whether we move from neighborhood churches to megachurches? Should that not be decided by how best to meet the Scriptural objectives for the local church? And the fear about becoming obsolete is a fear that only those truly enculturated ever suffer and it is a telling indication of how deep and pervasive evangelical belief has become.” [David Wells, Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World, pp. 292-293]

Some Postmodern Gobbledy-Gook

"Christian theology is an ongoing, second-order, contextual discipline that engages in critical and constructive reflection on the faith, life, and practices of the Christian community. Its task is the articulation of biblically normed, historically informed, and culturally relevant models of the Christian belief-mosaic for the purpose of assisting the community of Christ's followers in their vocation to live as the people of God in the particular social-historical context in which they are situated." (from Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, pg. 16)

Can you hear me groaning?

More on Burke and Consumerism in the Church

Alright, shall we continue to beat this dead horse?

Sadly, the horse is far from dead and is, in fact, running amok through the fields of the church.

Let me say a few things about Burke's comments on the glories of a possible TiVo church:

“Imagine if people were encouraged to do their spiritual banking in ways that fit their lifestyle. They could watch some of the world’s best speakers on TiVo, DVDs, or download resources for their iPod, then gather in smaller groups to discuss and apply what they’ve heard. A church wouldn’t necessarily need its own teaching pastor on the payroll anymore, and people wouldn’t need to leave their community in search of better teaching.”

What is really behind a statement like this? Does this in ANY way reflect the word of God ANYWHERE: 'Imagine if people were encouraged to do their spiritual banking in ways that fit their lifestyle.' Let's all accept the 'indigenous' principle of ministry- the 'all things to all men' principle that Paul sets forth in 1 Cor. 9:22. But this is in order to 'save some'. This describes the missionary efforts of Paul. And, yes, there is a very real sense in which we aren't to too strongly divide who we are in mission from who we are as a worshipping community. But there IS a division! What Burke seems to be talking about is conforming our ecclesiology according to 'our lifestyle'. So, in this paradigm, there will be no room for Romans 12:1-2, "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is-- his good, pleasing and perfect will." Is the church as a redeemed community of worshippers and disciples able to preserve its corporate identity with such cries for community that fits 'my lifestyle'?

There is also that typical lust for 'the best speakers' brazenly paraded about. Are we to laud this 'cult of personality' that drives our culture? Are we to ape this in our church communities? Go read 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Read it again. And again. Point out to me where it says, 'Go find the best teachers.' Yes, there is that qualification of the elders that they are 'able to teach' (1 Tim 3:2). But this qualification is given in the context of a slew of character qualifications that can only be discerned in intimate community with continued accountability. And yes, there are to be elders "whose work is preaching and teaching"- and these are not the world's 'best teachers' but those in your community who are qualified in character, piety, and gifting to do this labor as shepherds in our midst. The idea that this intimacy of local church fellowship and discipleship would be eagerly cast aside for the talking heads of postmodern evangelicalism is really biblically untenable.

I love to hear great teachers. I am thankful for the blessings they bring to so many in teaching the Word through a far reaching format. But, that we would forsake the calling and ordaining of pastor teachers and godly leadership in our local churches (look again, Burke applauds the idea of getting these guys off our payrolls!) for the next sexy and hip communicator we find on channel 99 (God forbid!) is harlotry. Really, 'harlotry'? That is a hard word, Erik.

Burke says, 'then people wouldn't have to leave their community in search of better teaching.' The church is the body and bride of Christ. Your commitment to the daily relationships and ministries of the LOCAL church is a kind of barometer for your faithfulness to Christ. Leaving the bride that God and Christ have called you to labor for and with, with all its warts and flaws, is spiritual 'marital' fidelity. To leave these relationships in search of some sexier, funnier, more sensitive, more courageous, more 'effective', more relational, more passionate (insert your own word) is called over and over again in the Scriptures as idolatry and harlotry.

"If Christ loved the church enough to die for her; we can love the church enough to be patient with her." [Isn't that the quote, Paul? I can't remember it exactly]

Burke on Consumerism in the Church

Well, I’m pretty sure that I’ve cancelled my Leadership Journal subscription but it just keeps on coming. The latest issue has a very interesting article by emerging/emergent ‘leader’ Spencer Burke on consumerism and the church. Burke is bemoaning the fact that the church bemoans the fact that there is such a consumerist mentality in our church culture (as in the culture at large).

This is one of many articles that I have read by Burke, and in every piece I read by or about Burke (who now calls himself a ‘spiritual guide of an online community’ called theOOZE {theOOZE.com}) I hear his inspiring story of how we left a prominent southern California megachurch in order to bravely break forth into new terrains of ministry. It strikes me that perhaps, like so many emerging pastors and leaders, Mr.(Rev.? Pastor? Father? Brother? Guru? Maharaja?) Burke is simply reacting to and critiquing a sub-biblical (the Hybels/Warren/Stanley megachurch foolishness) model for ministry rather than seeking to pursue and develop an essentially biblical model for ministry. While I heartily agree with Senor Burke regarding the failings and weaknesses of the modern megachurch mentality (and this includes all the ‘little’ churches that would love to be ‘mega’), I cannot abide with his solutions. Why? Well, like so much in the emerging movement, it just doesn’t wash biblically. And no wonder, considering the fact that so many in these emerging ranks have essentially abandoned the inspiration and authority of the bible for a sort of squishy post-foundationalist alternative (ah, but that is for another blog).

Let’s look at Burke’s assessment of the current climate of consumerism in the church, and his proposal for dealing with it.

“When I was leaving Mariners (Mariners Church of Newport Beach, CA), the buzzword was relevant. It’s what every church was striving to be, by changing their music, their marketing, even their ministry philosophy. Church leaders are still pursuing relevancy in order to reach more people. When those efforts don’t pan out as expected, leaders are quick to blame ‘consumerism’. The problem? People. They want too much, and they’re never satisfied.”

I concur. The pursuit of ‘relevance’ is like grabbing the tiger by his tail. If you hang on you’re in for a terrible ride, but if you let go that sucker will eat you alive. And in actuality, most of these churches that strive and fight for some sort of market driven relevance just wind up looking lame. If there is one thing we can learn from the market, and it’s a lesson from our flesh, people will NEVER be satisfied. That is why it should never be fundamentally about music, marketing, nor should our ministry philosophy ever be developed along anything but biblical lines. We do well to take heed to God’s prophet:

"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare. Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David. See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples. Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor." Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. (Isaiah 55:1-6)

Burke continues:

“But is that really it? Is the problem that people in the pews keep upping the ante on their demands, or is it that the church leaders don’t comprehend the real source of their discontent? Is it that people want too much, or that they just don’t want what the church is currently selling?”

Amen again. The church is selling a lame MTV version of the gospel and the MTV generation continues to move on to something else. All the while the church fails to see the plain fact that if our people wanted MTV, then they would watch MTV and skip church. And so our churches become cultural dinosaurs as fast as the market moves on to the next American Idol. Further, in all this striving for relevance we fail to heed the biblical imperative to engage the culture and not merely give way to it. In a real sense we are not to scratch the itching ears, and so heal the wound of this people lightly. We are not to package and re-package the gospel in our own market driven image.

Now, it is the OOZE-man’s solutions to this crisis of relevance that should bring dismay. I am immediately struck by the reality (as in so much of the content in this ‘journal’) that the article is totally bereft of any reference to or discussion of the bible. There is a rather naïve reference to the Reformation, and a few nods to ‘rely[ing] on the Holy Spirit’ and ‘being willing to follow Jesus’. But other than that, we just have the assessment of some guy. And here is what Burke has to say:

“The situation reminds me of the banking industry. At one time, if you wanted to deposit or withdraw money, you had to go to the bank and stand in line. You had to fill out a slip and wait for someone to serve you. Today, there are independent ATMs capable of instantly dispensing cash everywhere—from grocery stores and restaurants, to sports stadiums and bars. I can’t remember the last time I actually “went to the bank.” It’s not that I’ve stopped needing money; it’s just that I choose to get it in other ways.”

This analogy breaks down at so many points. And before I make a few criticisms let me say that I don’t fundamentally disagree with this analogy. I do believe, to a degree, in ‘decentralizing’ church in terms of geography and locale. Not to diminish the importance ‘body-wide’ corporate worship and teaching on the Lord’s Day (such questions like, ‘what impact does all this have on our local church communities in terms of the fourth commandment?’ sadly, are not even on the emergent screen). But to emphasize the ongoing, daily, intimate nature of biblical fellowship and accountability.

We must remember, though, the church is totally unlike anything else in the world. Hence the New Testament name, ‘ekklesia’, or ‘called out ones’. It follows revealed patterns of government, it is ordered, and assessed in spiritual terms according to God’s own Word. So it is just fundamentally wrong to say that the ‘forms’ of the church (Burke calls them ‘programs’) are essentially human and outside biblical authority. Or that somehow the bible just gives general principles that we apply in a variety of programmatic ways and contexts. Of course this is true to an extent. To an extent…Nonetheless, Churches are not banks. Churches are not grocery stores. Churches are not like the muliplex. We must admit that there is a strong biblical priority for the church to be distinctly UNLIKE all of these man made, transitory, and earthly artifices. It is a community of the redeemed. Shame on the megachurch, seeker model to capitulate to these consumerist demands in the past 30-40 years. Shame on the church for becoming spiritual shopping malls and Super WalMarts. But shame on US if we simply react to these former models and create our own bastardized version of community. We are to react to all of these models by searching earnestly through God’s Word and finding the pattern, purpose, and nature of the church there.

Burke continues:

“But the church seems largely oblivious to this trend toward flexible, on-demand service in our culture. We still expect people to come to us, at our buildings, to do transactions with God or make deposits in their spiritual account.”

Now we are getting to the real problem I have with both the seeker and emergent models of ministry and ecclesiology. The church as I said above is the community of the redeemed. We are to be submitted to one another, we are to not think of ourselves more highly than we ought, we are to gather with one another at appointed times for the sake of worship (which is serving and glorifying God, not simply getting pagan butts in the seats, though I am all for pagan butts- wait, that came out wrong). Yes, I expect people- and by people I mean my brothers and sisters in Christ- to come to us, at our buildings, to do transactions with God (whatever Burke means by that). But we have turned the church- the called out ones- into a group of people that meet for the sake of unbelievers. And this being so, we MUST become marketeers or we will not fulfill this purpose. But if we meet as a body for the sake of worship, and live for the sake of unbelievers, that they might worship, then we will be back on a more healthy and biblical track.

It gets worse, I’m afraid:

“Imagine if people were encouraged to do their spiritual banking in ways that fit their lifestyle. They could watch some of the world’s best speakers on TiVo, DVDs, or download resources for their iPod, then gather in smaller groups to discuss and apply what they’ve heard. A church wouldn’t necessarily need its own teaching pastor on the payroll anymore, and people wouldn’t need to leave their community in search of better teaching.”

Oh boy… well, let me hear your thoughts on this last quote before I chime in later.

David Wells on 'Emergent Spirituality'

I encourage you to download the Page Lectures delivered by David Wells (Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary) at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary last November.

Here it is: http://www.sebts.edu/chapel/chapelMessages.cfm?filter_sortdirection=DESC&filter_semesterid=0&Page=6

These lectures are a wonderful condensed analysis of the landscape of American 'spirituality' and its relationship to the new 'emerging/emergent' models of ministry within evangelicalism.