Rubbing It In

My wife, who is always a genius shopper, goes down to the market almost every Saturday, usually just as the vendors are closing down for the day. As a result she often gets large boxes of fruits and vegetables for next to nothing. Over the last few years, she has gotten to know some people who have been very kind to us and kept us in fruits and vegetables. One man, in particular, is a man from Brazil who gives us, among other things, mushrooms.

So my wife called him last Saturday to find out if he was there. He told her to come down, but only if she brought our son. (He's great, by the way.)

So when she gets there, Leo says to her, "You remember the guy who got head-butted in the World Cup Final." She replies, "Yes." He says, "This is his uncle." Sure enough, the Italian player's uncle is there in the market, friends with this Brazilian man.

Of course, you can imagine the kind of trashtalking that an Italian was giving to an Brazilian after this recent World Cup. My wife said this Italian man was really enjoying his country's superiority, especially in the presence of a Brazilian.

Which reminds me that winning is always better than losing, but winning does not feel as good as losing feels bad. But at least you get to talk about it.

Tony Jones on Emergent

Tony Jones is the National Coordinator of Emergent, a group comprised of those with interest in the emergent church. In a recent interview with Relevant Magazine, Jones gives some interesting information on his (their) perspective. It would be worth a quick read if you want to understand more about the Emergent's view of themselves without getting it from people who don't always properly represent them, or even tell the truth about what they believe for that matter.

Let me comment on just two things. First, Jones says,

Just this morning, we came out with an anti-statement of faith that explains why we don’t have a statement of faith. I’d say that one of the core principles or convictions is that the very nature of theology is one of conversation and dialogue, not one of setting boundaries and safeguards from elusive historic orthodoxy. The way that we live into historic orthodoxy is by being in conversation with it as it rolls into the future and confronts new cultural dilemmas. There’s no clear-cut orthodox position on stem cell research, for instance. But we as a culture and as a church are going to figure it out by being in a very robust yet respectful dialogue about it. This is how orthodoxy actually works, when we’re in conversation among believers, Scripture and the history of the Church.

I believe Jones is referring to this anti-statement of faith, which I addressed here.

In this brief interview with Relevant, I think Jones confirms that the Emergent doctrinal position is a sign of great theological immaturity. Their non-doctrinal doctrinal statement is a telling sign of the great problems in emergent theology. For all their progress in conversation, they have regressed in doctrine.

To equate a "clear-cut position on stem cell research" with the historic orthodoxy of the deity of Christ or the exclusivity of salvation in Christ by faith alone is staggering. By what possible road can we conclude that these topics are even remotely similar?

I am firmly opposed to embryonic stem cell research. But I realize that bio-medical ethics in an ever-increasing technological world is not as clear cut as other issues. Would Tony really have us believe that a position on stem cell research is somehow similar to a position on the deity of Christ? I would think not, but that seems to be the only conclusion we can draw, absent his clarification. Certainly, I would think that one could be saved while endorsing stem cell research. One cannot be saved while rejecting the deity of Christ.

To reject historic Christian doctrine because technological advances are sometimes confusing is the height of arrogance, it seems to me, especially when you are rejecting things that are clearly revealed because of things that are not clearly revealed. What kind of elevation of man's mind over God's revelation leads to that conclusion?

Secondly, Jones says,

I’m even more concerned that people have statements of faith. Statements of faith are about drawing boards, which means you have to load your weapons and place soldiers at those borders. You have to check people’s passports when they pass those borders. It becomes an obsession—guarding the borders. That is simply not the ministry of Jesus. It wasn’t the ministry of Paul or Peter. It started to become the ministry of the early Church, and it abated somewhat in the Middle Ages and blew back to life in the time of modernity. For the short duration of time that I have on this planet to do my best to partner with God and build His kingdom, I don’t want to spend it guarding borders. I’d like to spend it inviting people into the kingdom. Statements of faith don’t do they. They’re a modernistic endeavor that I’m not the least bit interested in.

This is more of the same kind of thinking that is illustrated above.

The ministry of Jesus was very much about guarding the borders. John 5:39-40 drew a border about the OT revelation about salvation in Christ. Jesus's conversations with religious people was "You're wrong; I'm right" (Matt 23:13ff.). Other similar passages could be cited.

Jesus drove people off with his strong teaching (cf. John 6:66). He took his ministry from great multitudes at the beginning who were impressed by his great teaching and miracles, to no one at the end, since even his closest had fled from him disillusioned by his death. In all of this, Jesus was drawing a border, a border that would ultimately be marked by his death, and who is "in Christ" and who is not.

He calls statements of faith a "modernistic endeavor." It seems to me that statements of faith date back at least to 1445 BC when the Great Shema was given to Israel: "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut 6:4). It is hard to imagine that such a statement is not a statement of faith that draws a border. It is even harder to imagine that Jones conceives of modernity stretching back 3500 years.

Paul was a great border guard, as revealed in his epistles. Remember in Ephesus was he delivered Hymanaeus and Alexander to Satan because they were not teaching "the faith." How did Paul know they were not teaching the faith? There was some kind of "doctrinal statement" by which he could evaluate their teaching.

In viewing the NT teaching on doctrine and the borders drawn by it, we can clearly see that borders serve to remind us who is on what team. Do you think that I would be welcome in Jones' "non-doctrinal statement"? I imagine he would draw a border around me, and those who believe like I do.

What is also interesting for its confusion is Jones statement that he wants to invite people into the kingdom. Without borders, how do you know who is not already in the kingdom? Part of being "in the kingdom" is about what you affirm and what you deny, as well as how you live. If there are no borders, then there is no kingdom.

To read something like this recalls to my mind times when a seminary professor I sat under talked about those who want to be more Christian to Christ.

Jones has distorted to position of the historical church on doctrine and borders. And that is what makes this wing of the emergent church dangerous.

Dear God, In Case You Didn't Know ...

"Christianity in America won't survive another decade."

I just got the memo today, and I didn't know if You had received it yet. The National Assocation of Evangelicals was kind enough to clue me in through the mail today, and they promise me a "wake up call" if I will pay them $39 and travel to one of almost thirty locations this fall.

I must confess that all this time, I have been thinking You were in control of American Christianity since Your Son promised He would build His church. I always assumed that the promise included His building His church in America too. Perhaps my mistake was in thinking that Jesus meant "the Church" when he in fact had in mind some other organizations to do what the church would be unable to do. Fortunately for us, Ted Haggard, Pat Roberston, Josh McDowell, John Maxwell, Joyce Meyer, Jack Hayford, Jerry Falwell and some of their friends educating us on how to "do [our] part in saving this generation."

Perhaps You can send us a fresh message with some fresh "how to" information since the one You already gave us apparently is not working well enough to save American Christianity.

After all, what would the world do without American Christianity. Today, we have become much more Christlike and loving than the previous generations of the unenlightened. We have seen the error of drawing lines around things like Jesus and salvation, truth and revelation. We have realized that age old debates about imputed righteousness and infused righteousness were really agreements about how we get to God. We have progessed in our wisdom to the stage where we can see that the old ways of rigid separation from the intellect of apostasy and the arrogance of disobedience were fort building exercises by people determined to hunker down in their bunkers and hold out for Jesus to come. If only Jesus had been so enlightened, he would have worked with the Pharisees to draw a bigger crowd and pad the missions budget. He could have used their buildings instead of preaching out of boats.

To be quite frank, I am not sure what we do if American Christianity didn't survive another decade.

On second thought, maybe the death of American Christianity would bring a return to New Testament Christianity, You know, the kind you envisioned when Peter, Paul, James and John, along with countless others laid it all on the line. And when I say all, I don't mean they gave up their gas guzzling SUVs for hybrids. And I don't mean they gave up their Saturday nights to start a service for those who had other things to do on Sunday mornings. I mean that they gave up their lives and freedoms, their jobs and families for the sake of the call of Jesus.

Back then, it seems like Christianity tended to preach the gospel more and politics less. (By the way, can You send Pat Robertson a message and tell him that rather than assassinating foreign leaders, we should just assassinate the weak, anemic, consumer driven American Christianity.) It seemed they were more concerned with people than programs. It took doctrine seriously, and had the audacity to tell some people that they "weren't one of us." It somehow couldn't comprehend that Jesus didn't morph into a different person to find every man's mind; He was who He was, and we needed to change our minds to fit Him, not change Him to fit our minds. When it spoke of commitment, it did not include funding the the GOP (God's Own Party???). Nor did it include preaching that some people were not being taxed enough. It was so limited in its creativity, it tended to limit its messages to what you said. God, would you spare from us from more creativity?

Maybe death is what we need. Would You do us a favor and kill American Christianity? And please don't wait a decade to do it. There is too much at stake.

The Crassness of Greed

[Updated] A story out of Madison, WI reports that a 25 year old daughter is suing her parents for $75,000 because she slipped and fell on some ice breaking her ankle.

Maybe the parents should sue themselves for bad parenting for raising such an ingrateful and unthinking daughter who could commit the nice act of surprising her mother for her birthday and then the unthinkable act of suing them for $75,000. How did this girl turn out so self-centered and greedy that she would sue her own parents?

Maybe, on second thought, the parents should countersue their daughter for the eighteen or so years of backrent, food, clothing, emotional distress incurred by raising a teenager, and countless other things that encountered and endured along the road.

Maybe I am too old school, but I cannot imagine suing my parents for anything.
Of course, this may be an attempt to get insurance to pay legitimate medical bills which are covered by insurance. It is certainly not unthinkable that an insurance company would balk at doing what they are paid to do, since they are trying to keep all the money they can. If there was proper coverage, then the insurance company should pony up and save the taxpayers the time tying up the courts with this nonsense. If this is merely an insurance issue, that is a totally different picture.

However, my attorney friend did remind me of story where a daughter sued her mother for wrongful birth. I remember the story now, but cannot remember the details. (I suppose I could google it.) Several years ago, some children sued parents for "divorce." That was a bit strange. But it does prove that that children do sue parents.

Does my attorney friend have a view on this? [He did, and I edited my comments somewhat, since he leans towards this perhaps being an insurance issue.]

Chasing the Culture

An interesting post on Steve Camp's blog tries to elucidate some of the issues of the emerging church. I always find these kinds of posts interesting. Of course, I find the informed ones more interesting than the others. The problem is that informed posts are sometimes hard to find. This article by Gilley has some good and some bad, but what led me to post was two things.

First, he mentions as a key feature of the emerging church their view of truth. At this point, it is necessary to underline these comments with a point that Gilley should have made clear, but did not. The emerging church is not in agreement about the nature of truth. There are some in the emerging church conversation that hold a very low view of truth. McLaren is guilty of this to a great degree, despite his claims to the contrary. There are also some in the emerging church that hold a very high view of truth. Mark Driscoll would be an example of this. This highlights the shapeless nature of the emerging church. The temptation for many is to broadbrush emerging churches into the same category. We must resist that temptation (and repent of it if you have done it).

But on to the point about the nature of truth. I believe a strength of the conservative side of the emerging church is their ability and willingness to communicate absolute truth to people who do not buy the idea of absolute truth. In other words, they are willing to engage in a dialogical presentation of the truth that engages its opponents while arguing strongly and correctly for its own view. Too many are willing to engage only in a demagogical presentation of the truth that ultimately turns away hearers. At this point, the problem is not the commitment to absolute truth. It is the presentation of it that turns people off.

This is highlighted by a comment I heard recently from Ed Stetzer. It caught my attention because it was the same point that I have written an article about that I have never posted. Perhaps I should post it. The point is simply this: We must use the gospel to answer the questions that people are actually asking, rather than the questions that we think they should be asking. We must be willing to show that Jesus is the answer to the real questions of life, and all other questions should be framed in a different way. (Tim Keller has also done some great stuff on this idea.)

Dialoging with unbelievers and answering their questions is not the same as holding a fluid view of truth. We need to do better on learning to talk to people who do not already share our worldview. Fundamentalists are notoriously bad at that. We are great at preaching to the choir; not so good at interacting with the world.

Gilley says,

The emerging church is concerned about presenting genuine Christianity in a way the postmodern culture understands. Since the very heart of postmodernity is rejection of absolute authoritative truth, yet Christianity claims to be the proclamation of absolute authoritative truth, a head-on collision is almost unavoidable.

He is correct about both assertions. However, I am not convinced that he draws the proper conclusion from them. To insist that the emerging church "must" compromise in order to reach postmoderns is incorrect. His statement that "There is no absolute truth or ultimate reality in the emergent agenda" is an overstatement of the reality. There will no doubt be a collision. Let us not shrink from it. Let us simply brace ourselves for it and be prepared to deal with the realities of living in an emerging culture.

The second point that jumps out at me from Gilley's comments is when he says, "the emergent church is a movement chasing a culture." I think he is right. And I do not think that is necessarily bad. We live in a culture, and we have to "chase it" with the gospel. That is what Christ commanded when he said to go into all the world and preach the gospel. He did not command the culture to come to us. As one person says, separating ourselves from culture is like separating ourselves from air. You cannot do it. There is good air and bad air, just as there is good culture and bad culture. In every culture there is some good because of common grace . In every culture there is some bad because of sin (more on this later).

Regardless of our view of the culture in which we live, it is the culture in which we live. We can curse it, and run from it. Or we can engage it with the truth of Jesus presented in a way that they can comprehend. We can look for points of commonality, where the questions of unbelievers are answered by the truth claims of Christ, and then answer those questions. We can point unbelievers to the fact that their question in reality are undergirded by a false belief system and therefore their question is the wrong question. That is what we must do.

Obviously, chasing the culture can take a wrong turn, if that chase involves compromising on doctrine. But even at this, we need to make sure that we drive our stakes in the ground on essentials, rather than on non-essentials. The emerging church has certainly failed to drive their stakes in the right place. But that should not keep us from driving them in the right place while we take the gospel to the culture in which we live.