Steve has a radio show, in which he recently invited Tony Jones to be a guest. Now, I like Tony and think he has some really interesting and important things to say, and no way would I ever demonize him, although other reformed folks seem to have made that their task. But, along the lines of Steve Brown, I do have my own set of concerns, particularly in relation to epistology. Here’s the whole radio show/podcast:

I did appreciate the friendliness that existed between the two throughout the conversation, in a way two theologians reflected a Christ-like attitude in discussion. Now, on Tony’s point about developing doctrine in context, I definitely understand that role for the emerging church. He states that Augustine developed doctrine in the context and language of his time, and that the emerging church is doing in the same in this time of pluralism, globalization, and post-modernism. I think a bit of the fallacy there is the lack of acknowledgment that young reformed folks are doing the same thing, but coming to the conclusions that the old guys might have hit on a few things that still apply today.

I had a hard time with his statement that liberalism and conservativism are only contemporary terms. I had a class with Shirley Guthrie at my first seminary, and it was a major tenet of his that liberal and conservative branches of Christianity have always existed, and tend to be like a pendulum in terms of their momentum, swinging back and forth between the two groups. Starting with Marcion, and his doubts about authority of scripture, through the Waldensians and guys like St Francis of Assissi, there have always been liberal strains of Christianity in comparison to more orthodox conservative branches. Now modern liberalism is certainly a product of the enlightenment, led by Schleiermacher, followed by folks like Bultmann and Tillich, but just because our terms for liberalism and conservativism is fairly contemporary, both waves have always existed.

Now, I once talked about Christian doctrine being like an open box, where you are surrounded on four sides by the stead and supportive wall, but to allow for doctrine to have an accessibility to it that is not closed off as completely and total absolute. Scripture is truth, our doctrinal systems are like Paul’s statement about seeing dimly through a mirror… they reflect truth, but in a incomplete way. That being said, I do have trouble with Tony’s model of comparing church to liberal democracy. Steve Brown points out that, “There are eternal verities, that if we get everbody off the street and have input and come out with a position paper, that you can call that Christian. There is a sense that there are verities that are revealed and not voted on, but are taught.” Its one thing to say that you can be wrong, and I am open to that completely. No one has a grasp on 100% truth, and I would hope most theologians would approach theological stances with the humility of possibly being wrong, but that is not to throw out the ability of discerning things that are untrue. That’s where I think Tony and Steve have their issues, because eventually you have to be able to point out something that scripture is clear on and say, “That is untrue… there’s really no debate on it.” While we can have discussions about homosexuality or feminism or a handful of other culturally significant issues that we may disagree on, there are truths in the Bible such as God’s love, Christ’s divinity, etc, that should be non-negotiables for us.

I appreciate Tony and his interest in creating churches where people are welcomed to have different opinions. It should be the safest place to ask questions and seek truth, no matter how liberal or conservative you may be. But, at the end of the day, there is some truth to be grasped, and there is a Bible to turn to for it, and if God wants us to have this book identified as breathed by Him, then he may want us to come to some conclusion about truth.

“But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.” (2 Cor 11.3; NASB)

Paul instructs us that our devotion to Christ is supposed to be aplotes, or simple. I know I often get caught up in the grandness of theology, that I can lose touch with the simplicity and purity that my devotion should have. God made the message of Christ simple. He had to because His heart was for simple people. He loves the redneck in a trailer just as much as the king of a nation. Paul warns us not to overthink God and make Him more complex, that we should “not to go beyond what is written.” (1 Cor 4.6; ESV) With the way our daily lives often are with jobs, wives, children, girlfriends, school, church responsibilities, finances, and more, we lose sight of how simple our devotion should be. Not that God has called us to be uneducated in Christ, but to remember that He came for the simple.

Part of the training at that seminary is CPE, or more commonly understood as chaplaincy, and we were taught to not actually talk about Jesus or provide concrete answers, but to let them come to their conclusions themselves. This dialogue, that was perfectly caught on the show ER, is a perfect picture of how we are taught to communicate.

When your theology ceases to have concrete definitions of who God is and wants from our lives, what power does it have at all? Several years ago a leading Bible seminary sent 12,000 letters to pastors of various denominations and asked one question: “Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God?” The results of the survey were startling: 85% of the Presbyterian USA pastors said NO; 85% of the Methodist pastors said NO; 85% of the Episcopal pastors said NO; 55% of the Baptist pastors said NO; 45% of the Catholic priests said NO. (Statistics courtesy of Warner A. Bonner)

This man needed answers, but all that Christianity reinterpreted through post-modernism gives is more questions. What effectiveness does that have in reaching the world? None. Jesus wasn’t the question… Jesus was the answer, and as long as we proclaim that as absolute truth, we have a message for the world.

He points out that groups, such as National Geographic, are the ones presenting him as simply a teacher and seeking to debunk his historicity and divinity. What I fail to understand and Mohler fails to present, is how this is at all connected with postmodernism. I am assuming that National Geographic is hardly run by evanglical Christians, and if that’s the case, they could only present Christ that way. How do you expect them to present Jesus if they don’t have the Spirit to really understand Jesus.

Secondly, maybe its the postmodern in me, but I strongly connect with the humanity of Christ. The love is Christ is exemplified not merely in his divinity, something that was simply a shadow in the Old Testament, but through his humanity, which showed the true nature of Christ’s love in the New Testament. We finally saw in one HUMAN how to live out devotion to God the Father. It is the humanity of Christ where we find connection, to understand how we in our flesh and not divine, can connect with the divine. Spurgeon does a great job laying out the majesty of the humility:

As He grows up, the very growth shows how completely human He is. He does not spring into full manhood at once, but He grows in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. When he reaches man’s estate, He gets the common stamp of manhood upon His brow. “In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread” is the common heritage of us all, and He receives no better. The carpenter’s shop must witness to the toils of a Savior, and when He becomes the preacher and the prophet, still we read such significant words as these—”Jesus, being weary sat thus on the well.” We find Him needing to betake Himself to rest in sleep. He slumbers at the stem of the vessel when it is tossed in the midst of the tempest. Brethren, if sorrow be the mark of real manhood, and “man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward,” certainly Jesus Christ has the truest evidence of being a man. If to hunger and to thirst be signs that He was no shadow, and His manhood no fiction, you have these. If to associate with His fellow-men, and eat and drink as they did, will be proof to your mind that He was none other than a man, you see Him sitting at a feast one day, at another time He graces a marriage-supper, and on another occasion He is hungry and “hath not where to lay His head” (C.H. Spurgeon)

In a recent Christianity Today article on Mark Driscoll, regarding the differences between himself and Mark, Doug says “I think much of our difference comes from the fact that in many ways we are telling different stories of Christianity.” Maybe its not even that. Maybe, at the heart of it all, there’s just two different kinds of people. Box people and non-box people.

Largely based upon cultural and experiential upbringing, there are people who love for things to fit in boxes and those that don’t. That is not to say Doug Pagitt doesn’t like concepts in boxes and Mark Driscoll doesn’t think outside the box, but a large part of their disagreements exist in these two streams.

Box people like the logical order of things. Systematic theology appeals to them as an emphasis of study. This leads to a larger emphasis also on historical practices within the church, stating that if the model has worked in the past, we can still tweak it for the current generation and keep going. They are the ones who drive their cars to 200,000, as long as it still gets them from point A to point B. They are not necessarily opposed to change, but there better be a dang good reason to do it… no point in needlessly experimenting.

Non-box people enjoy controversy. The messy world of practical theology becomes way more interesting to them. Hence why they like talking about ecclesiology way more than doctrine (even though doctrine informs ecclesiology). They care little about the ‘way its always been done’ and are interested in being the trailblazer for new forms. They are the entrepreneurial individuals, who like starting with novel and creative concepts.

The problem exists when both these people types approach the Bible. I think both camps can suffer from what Paul tries to warn Timothy about in 2 Tim 4.3. “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

In my experience, individuals that connect the most with Reformed theology are box-type people. They enjoy that the doctrine is clear and established. There is respect paid to the historical giants who have thought and written about God for thousands of years.

The Emergent/emerging folks I know are mostly non-box individuals. They are the artists of the world, cynical about just about anything, particularly established systems and status quos. They still want to know absolute truth, but are skeptical towards others telling them what it might be (even if they are correct).

Most people are not overly committed to one of these types or another, least of all, myself, but everyone still has tendencies towards one or the other. This causes the rise of uncertainty for individuals. I connect so much with my understanding of doctrine in the Reformed tradition. I admit, I like my Pipers, Spurgeons, Owens, and Edwards’.

But maybe doctrine has room to be a little more messy than what the tradition teaches. In no way am I advocating errancy in Scripture, nor am I stating that Scripture is like a trampoline, as Rob Bell suggests.

Then again, is it possible that God does give us His word so that we can form a deep, doctrinal understanding. What’s the point of giving us insight into his foreknowledge, power, grace, atonement, etc. in written form if we aren’t supposed to try are hardest to figure them out, instead of throwing up our hands saying “Only God knows, we’ll figure it out when we get to heaven.” If God wanted that reaction from us, He probably would have just left said subject matter out of the Scripture.

So, let us strive after sound doctrine. With a open top box. With a bottom to help us set a foundation, but a top that allows for the miraculous and wonder-working God and allows to be humble about our certainties.

My entertainment level was greatly diminished when Francis Chan took the stage and spoke, in a good way. Up to that point, there was a lot of ‘encouraging words’ and teaching from the speakers, but I am not one to desire that. Francis Chan came in, full of honesty and personal conviction regarding his own life and what he has learned from leading a church in Southern California. To give you a brief background, he leads a Cornerstone Community Church in Simi Valley, California. They recently were on the brink of buying a new church building, with all the bells and whistles that modern mega-churches have. But instead, they chose to spend that money for missional good and built themselves an outdoor amphitheater, saving a few million dollars. Here’s a video about the decision:

Francis won a lot of respect from me for that decision, but what he said during his talk was phenomenal and to this day I am still processing the full weight of what it would look like. Here’s an excerpt taken from the Catalyst booklet, but he repeated it on stage:

I’ve being led by the right or wrong desires of the people.

God calls us to give people what they need, based on His word, regardless of whether they stick around. Jesus led. Few followed, but He kept leading.

Last summer, I came to the shocking realization that I had to share with my wife: If Jesus had a church in Simi Valley, mine would be bigger. People would leave His church to attend mine, because I call for an easier commitment. I know better how to cater to people’s desires so they stick around. Jesus was never really good at that. He was the one who said, “He who loves father or mother… son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matt 10.37). I’m much more popular than Jesus.

This statement was all at once simple and profound to me. As a seminarian, previous worker at a church, and currently volunteering at a church through music and media, I struggle with this very concept. At what point do we seek to entertain to draw people in to hear the Good News and when do we eventually draw the line to personally confront individuals with the radical call of the Gospel?

Mark Driscoll’s sermon from this past week pointed out the uniqueness of the call. As Christians we are called to be rebels. We are the ones who are rebelling against the status quo. We are born sinners, so the conformist thing to do is to keep on sinning. Our culture tells us to get rich, live for yourself, collect the most toys, eat, drink, try to look sexy, and figure everything out yourself. The Christian life tells us the exact opposite of most of our cultural messages. So, catering culture is a dangerous world, when we are called to be rebels in face of our culture.

This is something I think both Emergent and traditionally Reformed churches struggle with. Both use culture different as part of their church, often Emergent seeking to engage culture more, but why can’t both sides stand there and simply say, let’s create culture.

I am often cynical about megachurches and I think Francis’ statement above is why. If American churches preached the full extent of Jesus’ hard call to discipleship, would we have many mega-churches? I go back to John’s writings when he says of the church in Sardis, “I know your deeds; you have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (Rev 3.1). The Gospel of Luke also offers a similar critique, saying “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets” (Luke 6.26). At the end of the day, it is not the “mega” part of the church that I am cautious about. Just with the early church, God add to the number those groups of Christians who are faithful. If evangelism is a focus of the church, then a church should grow, hopefully exponentially. But dare churches speak the full call of discipleship or simply discipleship lite?

Let’s pray for our leaders, that they not be afraid to preach how Jesus would.

Although there are some valuable traits to be gleaned from emerging ecclesiology (theology of the church), spiritual life, and evangelism, I also have hesitancies regarding their theology and orthodoxy. As stated by Phil Johnson in Pyromaniacs, the generous orthodoxy in the emergent church is neither generous nor orthodox. If my creed as a Reformed individual is, ‘reformed and still reforming,’ I think it is extremely valuable to examine the rise of the emerging church and test the theology, methodology, ecclesiology, and all the other ‘ology’s against Scripture to see if its clearly against Scripture, clearly reflected in Scripture, or an area where Scripture is silent.

In light of my traditional Reformed theological understanding of Scripture, I do think that the Emerging church has emphasized some valuable areas of individual faith and community faith. Here are the major areas I think that the Emerging movement is scriptural and a valuable voice for the contemporary church:

1.) Missional Living : Social action, community involvement, and sacrificial hospitality is primary in lifestyle living. There is once again an interest in being light and salt in a broken world. This involves primarily politics and culture. Although the emerging church sometimes lacks an emphasis on evangelism as part of missional living, there is still value in their approach to how we can be ‘in this world, and not of it.’

2.) Social Justice : There is a highlighted interest in social reform, seeking political, social, and to some extent, economic equality. Given the constant biblical instruction in caring for the poor, orphaned, widowed, disenfranchised, and the ‘least of these,’ this is certainly a biblical concept. We should be lovers of peace, and therefor seek that. But I am also not interested in equating the Kingdom of God with simple social justice, which some emergent thinkers tend to do.

3.) Authenticity : The emerging churches are often the most welcoming communities around, although sometimes erring by being TOO welcoming. Church is a place for sinners, and I highly value the welcoming and grace-filled attitude we should have as churches, but that is not to completely throw out any understanding of biblical obedience and sanctification.

4.) ‘Unstructured’ Ecclesiology : Although sometimes too unstructured, I don’t think the Bible is as detailed about defining the Church as many Reformed theologians believe. There are definitely some prescriptions given, and I agree in elder leadership, teaching/preaching the message of the apostles, prayer together, communion and baptism as marks of the church, but in actual ’style,’ the Bible is fairly quiet, so why not seek methods and styles that are at once biblically correct and culturally relevant.

The voices of the emerging church have grown loud, and it seems like those against it have lately grown louder. It doesn’t seem like individuals are always thinking as openly, seeking to engage both sides in a constructive way. That is not to say I won’t have posts about the parts of the emerging church that concern me or parts I simply don’t agree with, but I am excited to see where this goes.

I look forward to the conversations that will hopefully start up in regard to these two topics that seem to get many folks heated. Once again, I seek humility for I don’t know all the answers. That’s why I am here.