I'm currently reading through Harry Lee Poe's Christianity in the Academy. Poe, a prof at Union University, tends to make claims about Christian academia that are over-generalized and under-documented, but here and there he makes some very wise observations. Here's one:
Christians build institutions. Usually the result of a movement that emerges from a period of spiritual vitality or awakening, institutions are well intended as a means of carrying on the work or contribution of the genius of that period. It did not work with the monks of Cluny in the early Middle Ages, and it did not work with the YMCA. Spirituality cannot be institutionalized. This observation is central to the problem of maintaining a Christian college or university. If an organization with such a clearly defined purpose as the YMCA can go from being the leading organization for evangelizing young people in America to the largest franchised health club, then one should not expect that a college with such diverse interests can remain Christian for long. Institutions assume the character and agenda of the financial interests that support them.
My friend Charles Juma, a recent Southern grad, does missions in his native Kenya every summer. While Christianity is retreating in the West, it's growing in Africa and other nations due to the work of faithful missionaries like Charles. See his blog for the details on what he's doing this year and how you can support his ministry.
For more on how Christianity is growing in the rest of the world, see here. Numerous studies and books have recently come out detailing how Christianity is growing globally. The latest is God is Back, written by a Catholic and an atheist. The guys at Cadre Comments review and recommend it here.
Rodney Dunning of Very Important Stuff has been on an anti-Southern Baptist crusade recently, and I've been reading what he's had to say with an interested but cynical eye. One of his recent posts demands more than a mere reading, however. Unfortunately, exaggerations, misrepresentations, and slanderous caricatures of one's theological opponents are nothing new to the "debate" between theological liberals and conservatives, but this attack on Southern Seminary, an institution with which I have been affiliated for the last seven years, surpasses the normal liberal-conservative sniping that goes on in the theological blogosphere. It borders on, for lack of a better term, institutional defamation.
Dunning links to an article in Ethics Daily, a theologically liberal cultural journal that generally speaks of conservative Southern Baptists as if they were the hand-picked agents of Satan on earth. The article, by one Pastor Keith Herron, throws some remarkable and strongly-worded accusations at Southern Seminary. The interesting thing is that Herron offers virtually no evidence in support of these accusations and, as someone intimately associated with the institution, its faculty, and its students, I can safely say that Herron's accusations are nakedly false. They are not only false and unfounded, but Herron (and Dunning, by proxy) turns them into weapons designed to damage the seminary's reputation among Christians, and that I cannot tolerate. The seminary and its officials have publicly taken positions in the past with which I have strongly disagreed, but I love Southern for its gospel-centeredness, its theological convictions, its unyielding pursuit of academic integrity, and for the ridiculously high quality of people that work and attend there.
Here is a profile of Mark Driscoll at Christianity Today. The article quotes what life is like at Mars Hill, the church Driscoll planted in Seattle:
Last fall, a man wielding a knife stormed the stage. Security sacked him before he could reach Driscoll. On occasion, Driscoll has preached in a bulletproof vest following death threats. As Driscoll would say, that's life in a city where nude bicyclists ride past a statue of Lenin.
If you are not satisfied with the stale waters of (1) old-style evangelical churches that are clueless to what is going on in the wider culture and that often mistake the preferences of their own tradition for orthodox theology and (2) the emergent churches that have so accomodated their theology to the culture that they are blind to the fact that they stand on the precipice of heresy, then I offer you a refreshing draught of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill. If you need somewhere to start, I suggest listening to the following sermons in his "Christ on the Cross" series:
"What Lessons Can Progressives Learn from Evangelicals?" is an intriguing article at the far (far) left news outlet Alternet about the influence the emergent church movement is having - or could potentially have - on the American religious and political landscape. The author is a political liberal who sees emergent churches as the model for progressive communities and organizations. The article focuses on Rob Bell and Mars Hill church in Grand Rapids (although I prefer that other Mars Hill), and continually points out that churches like Bell's are meeting community needs like no other organization can:
If you compare the Mars Hill complex to progressive community centers or union halls, it has no rival ... In this way, churches have left progressives in the dust in terms of serving and engaging people directly. The union hall is the left's nearest equivalent, but not only is it dying, it rarely attempts to serve anywhere near as many of the needs -- spiritual and practical -- as churches do.
I think the author is right here, but of course it is more than emerging churches that do that. Even the most Bible-thumping fundamentalist church can serve the exact same communal function. But the article sees Bell and other emerging leaders as sort of revolutionaries, changing the way the church embodies the kingdom of God from the inside out.
I'm not sure I agree that the emerging church is so revolutionary; the type of Christianity described seems like sort of an orthodox-lite social gospel movement. I have some of the same suspicions and reservations about the oft-unholy alliance between evangelicals and the Republican political agenda as some of the folks mentioned in the article, but I have an equal level of suspicion about a movement that would co-opt certain far left political stances in the name of Christ.
For example, many people in the movement take a hard pacifist stance, and the article praises one Shane Claiborne, a Christian who "is currently living in Iraq to 'stand in the way of war.'" Now, I know virtually nothing of Shane Claiborne. His Wikipedia page gives little information other than that he is radically committed to helping the poor. For all I know, he may be an orthodox saint of the highest pedigree, the type of Christian that I won't even be able to see in heaven because he is so near to the throne of God while I am craning my neck on the back row. However, I have a hard time swallowing any claim that this sort of hard pacifism is a Christian stance, or what Jesus would do in our situation, or whatever.
Why? It's simple: Jesus never commented on the wars of the Romans. Period. I'm no expert on the history of Roman military campaigns, but by all accounts the Roman emperor when Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem was Tiberius, who was very aggressive (and successful) in expanding the northern borders of the Roman Empire by making war on the Germanic tribes and their allies. And let's not forget that Roman campaigns like Tiberius' were textbook examples of what an Empire is all about: merciless, brutal, expansion of land and resources through military conquests solely for the purpose of expanding Rome's power. Jesus was no doubt aware of all this, and yet he paid no attention to it. Or at least, if he did, it didn't turn up in the gospels. Hence I have a hard time imagining that, were he in our position, he would be in Baghdad sloganeering against U. S. troops. This accusation of gerrymandering Christianity so that it will fit with a certain modern political stance cuts both ways: the politically liberal Christian can be just as guilty as the politically conservative Christian of doing it.
Consider also this quote by someone involved in the movement:
Zydek characterizes the movement this way: "We want to get back to the roots of Christianity, to the essence of Christianity, which is about service to those in need, sacrifice, denial of self for others -- it's about [Jesus saying] 'pick up your cross and follow me.' But for too long we've spread a gospel of suburbanism, of self-centeredness, of capitalism, of political conservatism -- but not the gospel: the gospel that came from Christ."
Again, Jesus spoke nary a word about capitalism. He spoke often about the dangers of loving money, and he certainly had no love for the temple being used for commercial purposes, but he just doesn't comment on which economic system is his Father's favorite. Further, this rejection of capitalism seems historically naive. Capitalism has its drawbacks, but the truth is that people living under western capitalism have a higher quality of life than just about any other group in human history. And besides, what will you put in its place? Socialism? Marxism? Please. I refer anyone who still defends these ideological stupidities to the Siberian gulags or the workers' paradise of Kim Jong Il. And what, exactly, is "suburbanism"? Does it refer to the fact that many modern people live a "suburban" lifestyle? I live in a little house in the suburbs of Louisville. I have a dog, and a yard, and a fence, and an SUV, and a retirement account. I spent six hours today working in my yard trying to make it look good and thus keep my propery value up. What, exactly, is wrong with that? How is that unChristian?
The quote above is also hopelessly misguided. It gives two options for the "essence" of Christianity: (1) service to others and (2) suburban, capitalistic, self-centered political conservatism. Well. I had always thought the "essence" of Christianity was the redeeming work of Christ on the cross, the historical event that breaks down the dividing wall between man and God, the bloody atonement for human sin that reunites us with our Maker. Let's not forget that. Service to others is certainly a neglected aspect of kingdom living for many Christians, but if we elevate it to the "essence" of Christianity we strip the cross of its glory and its power.
This post has gone on too long, and has unfortunately contained an inordinate amount of rambling. I intended it to be a sort of sic et non statement that recognized the aims of the emergent church and praised it for its cultural successes while raising concerns over some of its theological and political emphases. I think I focused too much on the latter, but it's 11:00 p.m. now and I'm ready to go to bed. Perhaps I'll save the praises for another day.
There is no getting around the following fact: for many people the gospel of Jesus Christ is deeply, grossly, and sometimes obscenely offensive. But this is necessarily so. Any religion or worldview that includes a robust concept of salvation is likely to be offensive to a large number, perhaps a majority, of people. The apostle Paul famously spoke of the gospel as being an "offense" (Gal. 5:10-11), and as a "stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Cor. 1:23). Moreover, the mind of man in his natural state is inclined against the things of God (Rom. 8:6-8), and thus when he is offended by the gospel he is simply acting according to his nature.
What should we as Christians think about this? Surely on the face of things we all want to get along with our neighbor, to refrain from personally offending him if at all possible and, more importantly, to refrain from assigning any greater level of defect to him than he actually deserves. But the gospel not only forces us to believe and proclaim things that are certain to offend him (and thus raise his ire in our general direction), but it requires us to see in him the supreme defect, the defect of being out of favor with God and thus out of harmony with the ultimate purpose of human existence.
In some sense this is unfortunate. It is also necessary. If we throw out the offense of the gospel then we also throw out its benefits, and of course the supreme benefit of the cross is salvation. It seems that any notion of salvation in the robust religious sense will never be immune from the charge of offensiveness. When I attain salvation, I realize that I have attained it from something, and on the Christian view that something is primarily the punitive judgment of Almighty God, but secondarily it is my own limitations as a finite being. When I say to my neighbor, "Salvation is available for you," to me it seems as if I am offering him the cup of living water, as if I am simply pointing him to a doorway that he may walk through and receive eternal life. To him, however, he hears in that simple statement a condemnation of his very nature. I say, "Salvation is available for you." He hears only, "There is something wrong with you."
This scenario creates tension between the church and the world, and hence there is a temptation that offers itself to us as Christians to abandon the offense of the gospel. And while it is true that there are some in our ranks who seem to unnecessarily increase the offense, it will do no good to the kingdom if we attempt to decrease it. This should be the lesson learned from liberal theology. There are numerous positive aspects of liberal theology that we classical Christians should learn from: its emphasis on social justice and showing compassion to the poor, for example. But the liberal theologians also want to make the gospel palatable to all people by diluting or doing away with unpopular notions such as sin and judgment, and in doing so they have inadvertently diluted or done away with salvation itself. Authentic Christian faith has no option but to embrace the offense of the cross of Jesus Christ, torture, nails, blood and all.
When I started this blog, I never wanted it to be a place where I took part in the discussion of tawdry scandals. But I do want to make one point about this business with Ted Haggard, who has apparently now made a partial confession. I don't remember which network it was on and I couldn't find the transcript online, but I remember seeing a report on evangelicals a year or so ago on TV. One of the churches they highlighted was Haggard's church in Colorado Springs. They focused on how Haggard's message was a far cry from the traditional view of preaching: he did not focus on hell and wrath and very rarely talked about sin. Instead he focused on encouraging people.
I remember the interviewer asking Haggard, "Why don't you ever preach about sin?" Haggard smiled and said something to the effect of, "We don't worry about that because Jesus already took care of that for us!"
I remember thinking what a tragedy that was. Here was a pastor of a megachurch, with a flock of thousands under his care, who barely understood salvation. Haggard apparently thinks that salvation equals justification, and that's it. No need to worry about sanctification, mortification of the self, or any of that nasty Puritan business.
But this is not an accurate picture of Christian salvation. Salvation does not simply mean being justified as righteous based on Christ's atoning work. Justification is certainly the initial (and arguably the most important) aspect of salvation, but there are also sanctification and glorification. Being justified means we are declared righteous in the sight of God. So even when we sin post-conversion, Christ's blood covers that sin for us. Sanctification means that we actually start becoming more righteous through the power of the Word and the Spirit. Glorification is that moment when we are ultimately freed from the power of sin and receive a new nature that is not tainted with sin.
But it does no good for a pastor to act like justification is all there is to being saved. By ignoring the sometimes difficult process of sanctification, he may be overlooking people in his congregation who are struggling with serious sin issues. We all have to fight the inner demons now and then, and it looks like Pastor Haggard was fighting one of the biggest one of them all.
I rarely read Christianity Today, but here is the magazine's list of the "top 50 books that have shaped evangelicals." I think they meant to shock with this one, especially by putting a book that few people have heard of as number one. I'm not surprised that there are a few examples of kitsch mixed in with some profound and important books.
Also at CT is their article on the resurgence of Calvinism. "Young, Restless, and Reformed" says that the new Reformed movement is "shaking up the church." The only time in my life that I actually bought a print issue of CT was a few weeks ago when the original issue that contained this article was released. The article is a balanced look at the movement, I think, although speaking as someone who is a part of this movement (somewhat) I don't think the whole thing is as controversial and "church-shaking" as some people seem to think. Classical five-point Calvinism - especially in the SBC - is still a minority position.
Yet wherever they began their individual walk with Christ, and however they choose to outwardly identify themselves within the subculture, members of this movement all talk about a meaningless and bankrupt society; a world that offers no anodyne culture outside their faith. Their lives are in fact a criticism of our own. This youth movement isn't one that merely defines itself against its parents' generation; it exists in opposition to all culture and history that excludes evangelicalism.
To young evangelicals, our secular world is devoid of the type of love they seek, not parental love or fraternal love or even erotic love, but an even bigger love -- a love called agape. When Christians describe God's love for his children this is the word they invoke, a love so powerful one is moved to proclaim it on car bumpers and coffee mugs. Hand in hand with certainty, agape is what this generation longs for today -- a love that will soothe the pain of breakups and breakouts, heal the wounds from shattered families, make bearable the awareness that we are each a solitary speck in an illimitable world. It's the emotion that secularism, enraptured by its logic and empiricism, refuses to engage.
This weekend my wife and I attended our ten year high school reunion, and I had a long conversation with an old friend that ran the gamut from politics to philosophy to theology and back again. During our discussion we touched on the topic of theological liberalism, and I told my friend I could never embrace a full-blooded liberal theology, not simply because I disagree with its methods and conclusions, but for the stronger reason that at some point liberal theology ceases to be Christian, as it throws out core Christian doctrines even though it wants to retain the "Christian" label. My friend asked me, "OK, what are the core Christian doctrines that are non-negotiable?" I threw out a few of them, but it got me thinking: what are the non-negotiable Christian doctrines without which any belief system can't properly be labeled Christian?
I'll venture a few, although there are plenty more:
God exists in reality as an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Spirit, and as one divine Being and three divine Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully divine.
Human sin is both real and ultimately significant, and because of sin humans are separated from God and under His judgment.
The only hope for reconciliation between God and man is the atoning work of Jesus Christ: his death, burial, and resurrection.
Even within these parameters there is a wide area for disagreement. For example, does the Atonement mean that all people will be saved? Or only the elect? Is salvation appropriated through faith alone, or faith plus works? I'm moderately Reformed in my theology, so you can probably figure out where I fall on these issues.
Now it seems common sense to say that any denial of these fundamental Christian doctrines would obviously entail a denial of Christianity, just as, say, spying for the Chinese government would disquality one from being justly labeled as an American patriot. But this is an important point, because there are individuals and groups who want to merit the term "Christian" and yet deny even these foundational doctrines. John Shelby Spong, for example, has advocated a "non-theistic" version of Christianity, and by this I understand him to mean a "Christianity" that does not posit that there is such a person as God. In related news, I am going to call myself a vegan right before I go have a nice filet mignon and a glass of milk.
The idea that I am stating here is certainly not a new one. The monumental statement of the difference between classical Christianity and liberal theologies is J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism, originally published in 1923. But it's an idea that's worth restating, as postmodern sympathies are pressing more and more people to be flexible in defining Christianity. But you can't take a pig and name it a lion just because the present zeitgeist is disposed unfavorably toward actual lions. Christianity is what it is, and that's historical orthodoxy, and that's that.
A disclaimer before I make the claim I am about to make: I love the art of preaching. I believe preaching is the primary method God has ordained for spreading His kingdom on earth. The task of the preacher is more important than the task of any doctor, any teacher, any civil servant, any soldier, or any leader. A preacher who speaks with both the power of God and a fine-tuned orthodoxy is a hero in my book. My father was one of these men until his death in 2000, and my spiritual life has been shaped by many other great preachers like him.
And yet in the last few years I have become bored with much preaching. Whether this is a fault in preachers or in me I will let the reader decide. I say I have become "bored," but by that I do not mean that I want a preacher to entertain me. I mean that my mind and my spirit are not engaged by the delivery. Much preaching is too shallow, or too practical, or too intellectual, or too emotional, or too spiritually dry, or too theologically impotent, or simply too dull. As my seminary preaching professor said, "It is a sin to make the Bible boring." On that account I think most preachers are sinning.
But my love of preaching has recently received an unexpected shot of theological adrenaline by listening to the sermons of Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. I had been aware of Driscoll's presence in the blogosphere before but never paid much attention to him. After a friend recommended his sermons to me, I downloaded a few messages to listen as I drove down to Florida. Since then I've been hooked. I don't enjoy gushing over the work of other Christians who are just doing their spiritual duty, but in this case I feel I must, because God has used Driscoll greatly in my own spiritual development.
But why is this so? I'll explain briefly why I think Driscoll's messages have had such an effect on me. First, Driscoll is a crystal clear communicator of sometimes deep theological truths, and he does it in a way that makes it actually interesting to his congregation, many of whom are formerly pagan and unchurched.
Second, Driscoll is hip without sacrificing doctrinal fidelity. In fact, he may be the most thoroughly Reformed preacher I've ever heard. By that I don't mean he is the most Calvinist - he holds to a 4.5 point version of "modified Calvinism" - but that he deeply undersands and preaches a full-blooded Reformed orthodoxy. For example, he doesn't just a preach a sermon on the Atonement, he preaches twelve of them, covering every possible aspect of Christ's work on the cross: propitiation, Christus Victor, substitution, etc. Before that he took a year to preach through the book of Genesis. This makes his hipness all the more unique. The more touchy-feely Emergent types who stand on a wobbly theological foundation only wish they were as cool as Mark Driscoll. He marches out on stage dressed like a frumpy frat kid and, instead of issuing some watered down theological pablum, preaches for an hour on why God's terrible wrath against sin must be appeased. And Driscoll is somewhat irreverent. He often uses words like "sucks," "bitching," and "jacked up." In one sermon he referred to sinners going against the will of God and "doing whatever the hell" they wanted to do. It can be a jarring experience to hear a reference to Calvin's Institutes shortly after hearing the preacher say that he thinks all Christians must have the spiritual gift of bitching, since in his experience that is the gift they exercise most frequently.
Finally, Driscoll has that essential quality in his preaching that many preachers lack: the power of God. This is hard to define or quantify, but as a Christian I know it when I hear it. It is an experience of the Holy Spirit fueling and "backing up" the words of the preacher, convincing the heart of their truth. In other words, he preaches as one having authority. Many preachers today are orthodox in their theology but impotent - and thus heterodox - in their lack of spiritual power. Whether this is due to bad theology, or personal sin, or lack of faith, or simply the sovereign will of God I do not know. But God's power flows through Driscoll, and I am grateful that I have discovered his ministry. If you want to see if I'm lying or not, check out the Mars Hill Church sermon audio page.
The annual meeting of my denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, took place this week in Greensboro. I don't follow denominational politics that much, but I do like to keep up with the major developments. Here's a few things of note from the week:
Messengers passed a controversial resolution opposing all alcohol use. I'm a teetotaler myself, so this resolution would never affect me directly. But some bloggers are raising legitimate questions about the value of such a resolution. Timmy Brister goes on a rant about it, and (non-Southern Baptist) Justin Taylor isn't a big fan either.
Apparently the "non-insider", dark horse candidate (whatever that means) won the SBC presidency, and some news outlets are giving some credit to the SBC's blogosphere, including Time magazine.
Throughout the past year there has been some growing animosity between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. At the convention this year, all this controversy led to a big ... sigh, as Al Mohler and Paige Patterson engaged in a gentle debate on the merits of Calvinism.
But why read my paltry list of SBC links when you can check out Timmy Brister's massive, exhaustive, gargantuan list of news and blog posts about the 2006 meeting?
Dan Edelen over at Cerulean Sanctum has a much-needed post addressing the objectionable tactics that characterizes some of the overzealous doctrinal watchdogs of the evangelical blogosphere. Here's a bit:
Over time, the tone on some of these blogs and sites has turned particularly gleeful in routing perceived enemies. But just as God takes no delight in the downfall of the wicked, rather hoping that they would repent, no Christian blogger should do a "Ha! Ha!" a la The Simpsons' Nelson Muntz when they see a perceived enemy stumble. Nor should we joke about error or make fun of our enemies. And while it is fine for the Apostle Paul to "wish they'd go emasculate themselves," none of us is Paul, or even a pale copy of him.
I've been wanting to post something like this for a long time, but I think Dan makes a very good case for what I was wanting to say. As Christians we have a biblical responsibility to root out and eliminate false doctrine from the church. But of course there are right ways and wrong ways to do this. Taking Dan's tactic of not mentioning names, I’ve caught the main writer on one of the premiere heresy-hunting sites spouting severe disinformation about her theological opponents. I suspect this stems more from ideology-fueled ignorance than deliberate deception, but it’s a good example of what Dan is talking about. I've added Cerulean Sanctum to the blogroll on the left.
On Monday I posted on why I thought 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 provided a biblical basis for ministry methodologies that sought to be relevant to the culture for the sake of the Gospel. This post was picked up by various blogs, among them was Monday Morning Insight, where Todd Rhoades posted the full text of what I had written. The MMI post was in turn picked up Jim at Slice of Laodicea, who had this to say:
A popular Church Growth Movement website ran an article yesterday, that attempted to justify the "whatever works" methods of relevance that are often used to draw crowds to seeker-driven churches. As you might have guessed, their view centers around the misuse of what is probably that movement's flagship bible verse, in which Paul says that he is willing to "become all things to all men".
The misuse of this verse, has lead to a thorough lack of regard for the bible's instructions to be not conformed to the world. And as Iain Murray once said "The most insidious opposition to the Gospel has come from within worldly churches".
Jim then went on to quote extensively from a sermon by Clay Miller that elaborates on the context of the passage in question. Jim posted a comment here yesterday and clarified that his "whatever works" comment was referring to MMI and not to me. He also pointed out that he feels my interpretation of 1 Cor. 9 is at variance with Miller's interpretation, so I have to assume that he means my post was an example of a "misuse" of that text. He then asked me to interact with Miller's comments, and I told him I would gladly comply.
It looks like my post on relevance has hit a few nerves. Todd Rhoades posted the full text over at Monday Morning Insight. This was picked up by the doctrinal watchdogs over at Slice of Laodicea, who claim I am promoting a "whatever works" approach to church growth. Looking back over the post and reviewing my thought processes at the time, I fail to see how that could be the case. Anyone who knows me would say that my views don't come anywhere close to the sort of theological pragmatism Slice of Laodicea accuses me of. I'll be working on a sermon today, so I don't have time to respond. I'll post a rejoinder in the next day or two.
Let me get something out of the way first: I am not emergent, or at least I don't think I am. The fact is that I think the emerging church has a lot of good things to say to evangelicals about doing ministry, but there are also aspects of the movement that I think are way off base, if not downright silly. As an example of the latter, think of Brian McLaren's call for a five-year moratorium within the church to discuss what the Bible really says about homosexuality.
With that out of the way, I want to address the idea that the church should be relevant to the culture, a foundational principle of the emerging church and a touchstone of criticism for the movement's critics. But I'm with the emergents on this one. I think there is definitely a biblical basis - if not a biblical mandate - for Christians to be relevant to the culture so that they may be more effective in evangelism. Consider the following passage:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.
1 Corinthians 9:19-22 (NASB)
Now what exactly is Paul saying here? If we take Paul's attitude toward evangelism in these verses as a paradigm for all Christians, as I think we should, then we can sum up this paradigm in a proposition R:
R = As a means to effectively evangelize the lost, Christians should adapt themselves to the culture and lifestyles of the unsaved, as long as the means of adaptation fall within a biblical and doctrinally faithful framework.
This seems to me to provide solid biblical grounds for a constant reinvention of how we as Christians present ourselves as agents of the kingdom, as long as we do so within a biblical framework and while holding to orthodox doctrine. I think that most emergents would claim that this is all they are doing. However, I think a legitimate criticism is that some of them are trying to do it without holding to doctrinal fidelity, a la McLaren. And although this claim is sometimes made by emergent critics, I seem to see a lot more wholesale condemnation of the emergents' desire to be "relevant" than with exactly how they are trying to be relevant. Consider the following bit of cuteness that has been making the rounds of the blogosphere recently:
Emerging Armor
Finally, be passionate in the Lord, and in the transparency of His authenticity. Put on the authentic accoutrement of God, that you may be able to appear relevant within the spirit of the age. For our struggle for relevance is not against flesh and blood, but against steeples, against propriety, against the dry doctrines of denominations, against the spirit of inauthenticity within our stodgy churches. Therefore, take up the accoutrement of God, that you may be able to be passionate at the coffee shop, and having done everything, to appear relevant. Be relevant therefore, having pierced your eyebrow with the mark of latent rebellion, and having recently ordered a double-shot vanilla latte, and having put on your lower leg the preparation of a tattoo; in addition to all, taking up your copy of The Emerging Church, with which you will be able to extinguish all the inauthentic non-missional impulses of submergent critics. And take the BlackBerry of connectedness and the iPod of background noise which is “the word up, Dog.”
Ephesians 6:10-17 (sort of)
Now I know this isn't an argument per se, but I do think it represents an attack on the idea of relevance itself, rather than on the misapplication of relevance. But the fact of the matter is that many evangelicals are stodgy, white collar, Republican squares whose lives are so different from contemporary young people as to have almost no point of contact with them. And I'm not saying that if you are one of those stodgy stiff-shirts - I am something of one myself - that you should change, I'm only saying that for the church to be effective, some Christians need to break out of traditional molds into new ways of doing ministry. That is relevance, and I think that was a goal of the apostle Paul in his evangelistic endeavors. Where the emergents go wrong is when they sacrifice doctrinal fidelity to seem relevant. But for those who do it right, they should not be criticized but commended.
What I am saying is this: many critics claim that emergents only want to be relevant because they are ashamed of the gospel and want to force it to fit in to the mold of a rebellious world. But this is not how the emergents view themselves. They focus on relevance for one reason: to be more effective evangelists and ambassadors of the kingdom of God. When they do it according to Paul's idea of "becoming all things to all men," they are right. When they sacrifice good theology for it, they fail. In my view, maintaining relevance is an essential part of proclaiming the gospel, at least when it is done correctly.
The Christian world is changing significantly, according to this article at the Philadelphia Inquirer:
In 1960, there were an estimated 50 million evangelical Christians in the West, and 25 million in the rest of the world; today, there are an estimated 75 million in the West, and 325 million in the rest of the world (representing about 20 percent of the two billion Christians worldwide), according to Robert Kilgore, chairman of the board of the missionary organization Christar.
The point of the article is that even though Christianity flowered and spread in Europe and North America, it is now fading in the West and taking root in Asia, Africa, and South America. A few years back I recall reading about an American who was touring some of Europe's more famous cathedrals. During one of these tours, the guide rather proudly pointed out that Europe's cathedrals and churches are empty now because Europeans are abandoning Christianity for paganism. Just as the rise of the Christian church squeezed out paganism a millennium ago, explained the guide, the pagans are now exacting their terrible revenge.
Although I'm not very surprised by this development - history tells us we should expect sweeping changes of this sort as the centuries pass - it is rather shocking to see it happening before our very eyes. Some people lament the fact that the West is not the cultural center of Christianity anymore, but I don't see why the kingdom of God is better off with a Western flavor than with an African or an Asian one. It seems that if we look at the West with the image this article paints in our mind, we would have to say that the Enlightenment has been (thus far) a success, as western civilization has increasingly abandoned traditional religions for secularism and, in some cases, the new paganism of New Age beliefs.
The article also paints a picture of a future clash of civilizations as growing Christian and Islamic populations may come into conflict. There is a lot of hubbub today about the clash of radical Islam with democratic secular societies, but it is very possible that one of the most pressing international issues of the next few centuries will be this clash of religions, with the Islam-democracy battle fading into the background as secular societies diminish.
As far as the spread of the kingdom of God is concerned, consider this from the article:
The new evangelicals are more exuberant in their worship services; put more faith in spiritual healing, prophecy and visions; and read the Bible more literally than many of their Western cousins.
Why is this? I think we have to admit that the most successful missionaries over the past decades have been our charismatic and pentecostal brothers and sisters, and the third world in some sense is following the Third Wave. But why are they more successful, exactly? There are probably multiple reasons, but I think the main reason is also the simplest: they stress the powerful working of the Holy Spirit more than, say, Southern Baptists. Since it's something they focus on, God seems to work in greater power in their ministries. Evangelicals in the Reformed tradition are quick to point out the deficiencies in some Charismatic theology (particularly the "health and wealth" gospel, which has many adherents in Africa, for example). Many of these complaints are legitimate. However, I think most evangelicals would be surprised at how traditionally orthodox many of these Christians in the rest of the world are. They believe in the Trinity, and in the virgin birth, and in justification by faith, and in the infallibility of Scripture, and all of that. But they add to this an emphasis on healing and the power of the Spirit.
One final point: there are commentators on the far left who see Christianity - especially any brand of the church that seeks to proselytize others - as a sort of western imperialism that evangelizes other nations and cultures only as a way of gaining power over them. The work of missionaries is seen as primarily a political or a racist enterprise. I have heard Christianity referred to as the "white man's religion." Well, not any more. Western "whites" have largely forsaken the gospel that was once such an important feature of their cultural life. They have abandoned the riches of God for the man-centered refuse of this present world. Is it any wonder that God would then choose to glorify Himself in other parts of the world? When all is said and done, there will probably be only a small sliver of whiteness in the vast sea of faces that stands before the throne of God, and that's a good thing too.
[UPDATE - 2/9/06: Joe Carter has a post that backs up my skeptical hunch about the doomsday scenarios. But I'll say the verdict is still out.]
"Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative" is a story in the New York Times about a group of prominent Christian leaders who are calling for more robust action about climate change. Here's a quote:
Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors."
Among signers of the statement, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, are the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller "The Purpose-Driven Life."
"For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority," the statement said. "Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough."
The statement calls for federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through "cost-effective, market-based mechanisms" — a phrase lifted from a Senate resolution last year and one that could appeal to evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business. The statement, to be announced in Washington, is only the first stage of an "Evangelical Climate Initiative" including television and radio spots in states with influential legislators, informational campaigns in churches, and educational events at Christian colleges.
I am not a scientist, and I have better things to read than scientific data about the effect of human industry on the climate. So I suspend judgment on the issue of global warming and climate change. I know that there are many people who believe it is real and that fixing the problem is vital to the future well-being of humanity. This may be true. I tend to look unfavorably on such gloom and doom environmental scenarios as being due to the overactive imaginations of environmental activists, but I have to admit that I haven't looked into the scientific evidence either way.
So I don't know if this evangelical group is right or wrong. But I want to make the point that, at the very least, this sort of thing can be good for evangelicals in that it shows the world that we are not tied to every single point of the Republican agenda. Many Americans rightly fault a certain block of evangelicalism for falling lock-step in line with Republican talking points. The criticism that we equate conservative political ideals with the ideals of the kingdom of God is probably not legitimate, but when referring to some evangelicals it's not far off the mark.
Is it any surprise then, that the evangelical opposition group cited in the above story consists of some of the most politically active evangelicals? One of the individuals mentioned was my Biblical Ethics teacher at seminary and one of the smartest guys I've ever known, but I don't think he's ever met a piece of Republican legislation he didn't like.
I vote Republican and support conservative ideals because I believe that by and large they are the best for humanity. However, I am wary of making some sort of strict one-to-one correspondence between the goals of the GOP and the goals of GOD. Evangelicals should certainly play a part in the political process, but we should also maintain our own identity so that evangelical does not automatically equal Republican. Evangelicals should serve a prophetic function not just to Democrats but to Republicans as well. That is, we should be just as quick to point out to Republican leaders where they are not promoting a Christian sense of justice as we are to Democratic leaders. This prophetic criticism may pertain to environmental issues, social justice issues, or whatever. But the point is that our political goals should come a very distant second to our advancement of the spiritual kingdom of God through the proclamation of the Gospel, and we should guard ourselves against being associated so much with one political tribe that we overlook where that tribe is hostile to the aims of authentic Christian faith.
One of the great faults of the marriage between evangelicals and Republicans is that the former camp is often blinded to issues it should rightly claim for its own. For example, the Republican party has a very different approach to the environment than Democrats, so stewardship over the earth - a biblical duty - has been put on the back burner. That's why it's good for this group of evangelicals to press this sort of initiative, assuming that global warming is as big a problem as the environmentalists tell us it is.
The evangelical blogosphere provides a venue for unhealthy Christian debate. This desire for pinpoint accuracy in all things theology-related draws the more reactionary and critical elements within evangelicalism to the blogosphere, people that strain at a gnat to prove that their highly debatable conclusions are the only biblical alternative. There are certain targets that are too big for these sort of folks to ignore. Megachurches are one of these targets. One witnesses all sorts of hand-wringing in the blogosphere over the "dangerous" trend of megachurches. Because as everyone knows, there is an absolute correspondence between church growth and theology: the bigger your church is, the worse its theology must be. One recent blog blasted Rick Warren's church-building strategies as having "no biblical basis whatsoever." My problem with a lot of this type of blogging is the extent of the claim. All Christians and churches have some tweaking of their theology to do, some more than others. But some evangelical bloggers feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to make sweeping generalizations about megachurches, or about Rick Warren, or about charismatics, or whatever. All of these bloggers mean well, but I fear their theological grasp extends a true biblical reach, and the result is that they make unjustified attacks against their Christian brothers and sisters.
Today I found a good example of what I was talking about. You can read it here. I know this is satirical, but let me boil down a few things that this blogger is claiming about megachurches and those who attend them:
Their worship services consist of "stage shows."
They are "overgrown" and "resource-hungry."
They are attended by "annoying yuppies" who complain about the temperature of the coffee shop in the church.
They are attended by people who drive SUVs, oblivious to the obvious detriment to the environment.
The worship services are for "slickers."
Somehow I don't think any of my brothers and sisters who attend Saddleback are laughing.
Now I'm not saying that it isn't Christian to criticize or correct certain individuals and movements. We have a responsibility to do that, and much of what is aimed at megachurches may be legitimate criticism. I am rather concerned with how it is done: the attitude, the intent, the method, etc. I don't see any conceivable way, at any conceivable time, with any conceivable intent, that the above post can do anything but harm the body. The whole "Megachurch" PC game smacks me as nothing but mean-spiritedness and, dare I say it, jealousy. It doesn't seem to fit the following New Testament admonishments:
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. - Ephesians 1:2-6
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. - Ephesians 4:2
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. - Philippians 2:3
Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." - 1 Peter 5:5
Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. - 1 Peter 3:8
And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. - 2 Timothy 2:24-26
Sorry guys, I just don't get it. Even assuming such criticisms of megachurches are correct, this isn't the way to make them.
Southern Baptist leaders have, until recently, given a broad and generous nod to movements in the convention that encouraged a strong emphasis on the contemporary power, work, gifts and movement of the Holy Spirit. Leaders as diverse as Billy Graham and Paige Patterson have written affirmingly of the gifts of the Holy Spirit operating through churches and in believers. Leaders such as Avery Willis and Henry Blackaby have been deeply influenced by a charismatic-style approach to the work of the Holy Spirit. Blackaby particularly appears to be very sympathetic to a kind of personal revelatory and empowering work of the Holy Spirit that sounds much more charismatic than the average Baptist church.
The impetus for Spencer's post is the recent decision by the trustees of the International Mission Board to forbid missionary candidates from practicing a private prayer language (i. e. speaking in tongues) even though Jerry Rankin, president of the IMB, speaks in tongues himself. Rankin had nothing to do with the decision, however, and this decision and others have already started some controversy.
I myself do not speak in tongues, but I know Southern Baptists who do. I do, however, have an affinity for the charismatic mindset and its emphasis on the power of God. I grew up in a Southern Baptist tradition that focused strongly on both the Word of God and the power of God, and I was actually converted at a pentecostal/charismatic revival. Those early encounters with God in that revival have been the foundational points for my understanding of my own salvation experience; I believe the Bible because I have encountered the God that appears on its pages.
And although recent shifts in the convention via the IMB policies and others do not encourage me, I remain a Southern Baptist because I think we get closest to the mark of authentic Christianity. I'll try to explain what I mean. On this issue of tongues, the power of God, etc., I see two camps that represent opposite errors. The error stems from not really paying attention to Jesus' words in John 4:23:
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
On one side there is the truth-heavy camp that emphasizes the propositional truths of Scripture over the working of the Holy Spirit. I put someone like John MacArthur and most other cessationists in this camp. They believe that the only (or at least the primary) miracle available to mankind today is the Word of God. They do not emphasize the powerful working of the Holy Spirit through miracles and wonders, and thus I don't think they understand that "the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power." (1 Cor. 4:20)
On the other side are the off-balance charismatics who emphasize the Spirit over the truth. This is the Spirit-heavy camp. On this end of the spectrum all that matters to Christian living is having experiences of God and His power, with scriptures that deal with these "power issues" taking precedence over more abstract theological issues. This de-emphasis on biblical truth has led to excesses and errors in the prosperity and word-faith movements.
The truth is that most evangelical, SBC, and pentecostal/charismatic churches fall somewhere in the broad middle of this spectrum. I feel blessed to be a child of both the charismatic power emphasis and the SBC Reformed theology emphasis. And although I long for God to renew his miraculous works in our day for His own glory, I just get too weirded out when I go into many charismatic worship services. The SBC tradition of emphasizing both the truth of the Word and the power of the Spirit (without saying too much about tongues, for right or wrong) seems just about right to me. I wish that we could shift a bit more to the "Spirit' end of the spectrum, but if I am going to err I want it to be toward the "truth" end. That's because I believe John MacArthur does have the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure some of the off-balance charismatics are very close to the truth.
I was pleasantly surprised the other night while watching the Discovery Channel to see an ad for End of the Spear, a film about the life and death of missionary Jim Eliot. Whether the film will be good or not I have no idea, but it represents a step in the right direction.
I have long banged the drum of Christian penetration of popular culture. 20th century fundamentalism sounded the horn for a retreat from culture, and thus Christians largely ignored the "evils" of cinema. But in doing so, especially in the latter half of the century, they abandoned the medium to Marxists, humanists, and progressive liberals who had no qualms about advancing their ideals through the medium of film.
But through the influence of books like Chuck Colson's How Now Shall We Live?, classical Christians are getting the message. Our bands are played more often on secular radio, and the commercial success of films like The Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia has shown the world that there most certainly is a market for popular media that comes from a Christian perspective.
The key, for Christians, is exactly how that's done. For every Passion of the Christ, there could be ten Omega Codes. I came across an article today with some Christian Hollywood insiders that explains how it ought to be done a little better than I could. Here's a quote:
Often, Christian filmmakers ignore this reality, and the storytelling and production aspects are subordinated to the message. "The films are merely bait to lure viewers to a homily or altar call, and this only ensures their failure," notes Parham.
"Show, don't tell, is the rule of the cinema," he explains, and it is important not to confuse art with propaganda. This is well understood by non-Christian producers, who instead of an overt message often rely on symbol and metaphor. In this, explained Parham, they are following the example of Jesus, who often taught in parables instead of responding directly to questions.
Christians would also do well to remember the dimension of mystery inherent in the Christian message, and leave space for the imagination of their audience. Another failure of Christian producers is to ignore life's complexities, instead of seeing the world the way it is, with its contradictions and failures.
This is sage advice. Evangelicals are often under the impression that every single chance they get to deliver a message, it must include the four spiritual laws. This is not the case. Some of my favorite films of all time are not Christian films, and they weren't made by Christian filmmakers. But they press home some point - a moral or spiritual truth, we'll say, often in the form of a symbol - that has greatly edified me and, dare I say, enriched my relationship with the triune God.
I'll give a quick illustration and then I'm done. It is one thing, for example, to believe in the Christian moral ideal as quoted by Jesus in John 15: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." But it is quite another to experience an extended illustration of that one truth in Saving Private Ryan.
To be fair, the evangelical movie industry is still in its infancy. We should expect a steady stream of lame ducks for a while, while the professionals make the Passions and the Narnias. I hope, however, that as the years pass evangelicals will hone their craft, making works of art that both glorify God and attract folks from all walks of life to the theaters.
My friend Charles Juma, a recent Southern grad, does missions in his native Kenya every summer. While Christianity is retreating in the West, it's growing in Africa and other nations due to the work of faithful missionaries like Charles. See his blog for the details on what he's doing this year and how you can support his ministry.
Rodney Dunning of Very Important Stuff has been on an anti-Southern Baptist crusade recently, and I've been reading what he's had to say with an interested but cynical eye. One of his recent posts demands more than a mere reading, however. Unfortunately, exaggerations, misrepresentations, and slanderous caricatures of one's theological opponents are nothing new to the "debate" between theological liberals and conservatives, but this attack on Southern Seminary, an institution with which I have been affiliated for the last seven years, surpasses the normal liberal-conservative sniping that goes on in the theological blogosphere. It borders on, for lack of a better term, institutional defamation. 
Here is a profile of Mark Driscoll at Christianity Today. The article quotes what life is like at Mars Hill, the church Driscoll planted in Seattle:
When I started this blog, I never wanted it to be a place where I took part in the discussion of tawdry scandals. But I do want to make one point about this business with Ted Haggard, who has apparently now made a partial confession. I don't remember which network it was on and I couldn't find the transcript online, but I remember seeing a report on evangelicals a year or so ago on TV. One of the churches they highlighted was Haggard's church in Colorado Springs. They focused on how Haggard's message was a far cry from the traditional view of preaching: he did not focus on hell and wrath and very rarely talked about sin. Instead he focused on encouraging people.
The Christian world is changing significantly, according to this article at the Philadelphia Inquirer:
I was pleasantly surprised the other night while watching the Discovery Channel to see an ad for End of the Spear, a film about the life and death of missionary Jim Eliot. Whether the film will be good or not I have no idea, but it represents a step in the right direction. 
