The Great Propoganda- A Review of Phyllis Tickle’s New Book “The Great Emergence”

October 1, 2008

“Since established churches . . . could not accommodate such an ill-defined and amorphous presentation of the faith [as the emerging church], the new faithful began to meet among themselves and hold worship services among and with those of like spirit.” -Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence, p.134

“And these emergents, whose numbers increasingly included the white-haired as well as the young, could now use the term inherited church to name the goods being placed on the rummage sale table. Inherited church was that from which they had come and to which they, literally, now had no means of returning, let alone any desire at all to do so.” -p.136

“The cub has grown into the young lion; and now is the hour of his roaring.” -p.163

The premise is interesting enough: “Every five hundred years, the church cleans out its attic and has a giant rummage sale.” And the sample, though small, can pull you in (Gregory the Great/The Council of Chalcedon, the Great Schism, the Great Reformation). But in the end, I think a discerning reader must come away from Phyllis Tickle’s book The Great Emergence feeling slighted at a lack of real evidence for this cataclysmic change that she purports.

In fact, what I think most people who are not already dyed in the wool of the whole Emergent Village/post-modern subculture will find is that this book is more an apologetic for the emerging church than it is good sociological research. The authors allegiance to this movement is unquestionable when she says things like “In the hands of emergents, Christianity has grown exponentially, not only in geographic base and numbers, but also in passion and in effecting belief in the Christian call to the brotherhood of all peoples” (p.121) or “It is not unreasonable to assume that by the time the Great Emergence has reached maturity, about 60 percent of practicing American Christians will be emergent or some clear variant thereof” (p.139). There certainly has been a re-energizing of “Christianity” focused around the EV, but to say it is “exponential growth” is a bit of hyperbole. The resurgence of Calvinism in recent decades has rivaled this emergence all the way and any look into the increased growth of Christianity in America can not deny that obvious fact.

But the real problem I see with Tickle’s argument is two-fold: one, the lack of a genuine opponent which the Great Emergence must arise as a response to; and second, the mere dismissal of sola scriptura as being sufficient for Christianity.

In every case which Tickle presents to advance her semi-millennial argument we see a clear dichotomy of two choices. Yet when we get to the so-called Great Emergence there does not seem to exist this major conflict. Tickle even asserts this herself by saying “There is simply no grand framing story or even unanimity of opinion yet about when precisely it was that this new thing- this new, emerging way of being Christian in an emerging new world- became so clearly distinct from what had been as to be worthy of a name of its own” (p.124). In effect, this movement just arose as a response to nothing-in-particular, an almost adolescent expression of angst and rebellion. Tickle tries her hardest to equate this movement with the Reformation, but simply put that idea falls flat. The Reformation was driven as a response to widespread religious oppression of the people, a desire to educate the masses, promoting literacy as well as a return to a biblical instead of extra-biblical practice of the faith. The environment surrounding the Reformation was ripe with church corruption and a manipulation of the people. Where is this today?

Of course, Tickle “perceives” much oppression in the church and uses $10 words like ‘hegemony’ to conjure up feelings of fear and distrust (surprisingly, I do not recall reading the word ‘hubris’ in here though). Some examples of this oppression, and the emergent solution, are her unsubstantiated charges of colonial injustice, sexism, and status quo theology on the church:

But the more or less colonialized Church that Reformation Protestantism and Catholicism managed to plant was, obviously, more or less colonialized, with all the demeaning psychological, political, cultural, and social overtones and resentments which that term brings with it. One does not have to be particularly gifted as a seer these days, however, to perceive the Great Emergence already swirling like balm across that wound, bandaging it with genuinely egalitarian conversation and with an undergirding assumption of shared brotherhood and sisterhood in a world being redeemed. (p.29)

In a relatively short time, women got the vote, and men got their suppers hot and on time again. It was hardly a religious solution, but nonetheless it was a very welcome one. (p.99)

When the country preacher of the mid-twentieth-century America decried divorce as a threat “right at the heart of America,” he was neither in error nor benighted. He may not have been arguing from religious conviction so much as from his own private unease about what a Pandora’s box there was for the status quo at the end of that road; but he was still right. (p.112-113)

This type of fear-mongering does not get very far when you are trying to argue for a position, and in fact, when you misrepresent or over generalize things it could be termed as misleading or even lying. It suffices to say that the lack of a propelling force (outside of personal malaise) combined with the inaccurate portrayals of Protestantism (which I take to be the intended Satan here) is argument enough that “the Great Emergence” is not so inevitable as we are being led to believe.

The second issue I have with Tickle’s argument is her haphazardness with the authority of Scripture. As she says on pages 150 to 151,

The new Christianity of the Great Emergence must discover some authority base or delivery system and/or governing agency of its own. It must formulate- and soon- something other than Luther’s sola scriptura which, although used so well by the Great Reformation originally, is now seen as hopelessly outmoded or insufficient, even after it is, as here, spruced up and re-couched in more current sensibilities.

The authority of Scripture is “outmoded or insufficient”!?! Why is this the case? Oh, well, as we see, it is because of the mood of “current sensibilities.” So, the Word which is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work,” which is “breathed out by God,” who “do[es] not change,” is usurped by the authority of humanistic philosophy (2 Timothy 3.16-17, Malachi 3.6)! But Tickle does not stop there:

Now, some five hundred years later, even many of the most die-hard Protestants among us have grown suspicious of “Scripture and Scripture only.” We question what the words mean- literally? Metaphorically? Actually? We even question which words do and do not belong in Scripture and the purity of the editorial line of descent of those that do. (p.46)

When it is all resolved- and it most surely will be- the Reformation’s understanding of Scripture as it had been taught for almost five centuries will be dead. . . . While the erosion of sola scriptura is clearly an erosion of the base of traditional denominational Protestantism’s authority, we must remember that it is a corporeal, not a spiritual or moral, issue. (p.101)

So, not only is the authority of Scripture outdated, but that’s not such a big deal! And it’s not a spiritual or moral issue if we are questioning the Word of God as revealed to us, it’s just a corporeal matter (which is a fancy way of saying a matter of taste)!

This truly is incredible. Tickle’s advancement of the whole monster is that Scripture is no longer sufficient for us because we have changed (or as she would argue, grown and become more aware). Yet, it’s funny what God’s broken Word has to say about such dependence on intellect:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1.18-23)

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1.20)

Clearly those are the uninspired parts though (having been written by that misogynist Paul).

In the end, I find Tickle’s book to be nothing much more than propaganda in an effort to prop up a movement which is all-too-quickly being played out. Her friendliness with the emergent “conversation,” at times referring to them as “the new faithful” and with other pious platitudes, undermines any credibility she would have as a disengaged informer of the masses. Rather, in the way that traditionalists have been accused of covering up the warts in order to push their agenda, Tickle shows that the emergent crowd is not above this dishonest self-aggrandizement either.

Is the church changing? Sure. The expression of the church is constantly changing. Is there anything inside this emerging movement which is good? Certainly, I believe that the move to a more authentic worship and a destruction of the white-washed tombs which have adorned many a sanctuary for the past hundred years is a welcome change. But is it necessary for us to adopt the radical authority denying theology of “the Great Emergence”? Most assuredly not. Some pieces of church corporeality may need to change, but the casting off of sola scriptura as just another oppressive arm of Protestantism, a step which Tickle giddily takes in this book, is a step too far.

1 Comment | Book Reviews, Emerging Church | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

Pry the Baton Out of Their (C)old, Dead Hands- An Opinion on Age Trends in the SBC

September 1, 2008

“Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” -1 Timothy 4.12

I am a Southern Baptist. I am also a young adult (23 to be exact). These two things alone put me in a declining population segment in American Christianity. Following this past years Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis the cat was officially out of the bag: the SBC is getting older (for discussion of this click here). Simply put, more and more young people are leaving Southern Baptist churches (as well as most other denominations in America) and the end result is that our congregations are getting overloaded with the grey-haired guys in three piece suits who sit in the front row and still use a King James Version of the Bible. Needless to say this is not a good trend.

Just today there is a book coming out by Lifeway Research director Thom Rainer entitled Essential Church? which focuses on dealing with the question, Why do so many young adults (18 to 22) leave the church, and what will it take to bring them back? I have a copy already sitting in front of me, though as yet I have not begun to read it. I do, however, have my own opinion on something that can be done to alleviate this problem.

Now, being 23 and not 53 I am not going to sit here and tell the middle-aged bulk of the congregation in our SBC churches what to do (though I think I may have insight, I don’t feel it appropriate to just throw them under the bus). Instead, the people I want to address are the target age group (18-22 year olds) as well as my population of young adults (23-35 years, roughly).

What is the cry that we hear coming up from the 18-35 year old “emerging” generations? Paint it any number of ways, what it basically boils down to is “I don’t like the way my church does things.” So, what are we doing about it? We’re dropping out of those churches and either roaming around on our own vague spiritual journey or starting new “avant-garde” churches which stick a thumb in the eye of our more traditional, orthodox roots.

Yet, why did we leave our original church in the first place? Did they teach a theology we disagreed with? Was the music boring? Did their modernist ecclesiology offend our superior post-modern sensibilities? The first question I think we need to ask is, What is a sufficient reason for leaving a fellowship? From where I stand there seems to be a lot of juvenile arrogance which comes into play when we assert our psuedo-justified reasons for dropping out of the congregation we grew up in.

But what is it that makes this arrogant? It is because we are in effect saying “I know a better way to do it.” That’s the rub. We are unhappy with our churches because they are unappealing to us and because we think we could do it better. This then leads to a youth exodus from traditional churches and a massive influx of new emerging congregations. Yet what do these look like? The emerging churches are composed of young (typically white, but that’s another post) believers who are experimenting with doing church their own way. And the traditional churches they left? They continue doing business as usual only without as many youth and young adult members as they had before.

So, we are left with this general picture: an emerging church with all youth and no experienced senior leadership and a traditional church with no vibrant, idea-filled young underbelly. The end result from this is that our traditional churches get stuck in their ways, moving further and further into legalism and ritual instead of authentic worship, and the emerging churches spin-off with all types of liberal theologies which are more of reactions to felt injustices and less of seasoned observations from a lifelong pursuit of the Truth in God’s Word. This is not good on either end.

Then what is the solution I propose? Simply this. Young adults, if you don’t like the way your church is being run and you have a biblical conviction to this extent, do something about it in your church! (This goes particularly for SBC members who have a congregational polity). What does this something look like? It looks like going to church meetings, working to rise up in leadership and making your voice heard.

But, you object, the old people won’t listen to me? Well of course they won’t. Look at Timothy in Ephesus. He was put in leadership by Paul as a young man and all of the older church members looked down on him, saying he was too young and disavowing the things he said because they thought he was rash and immature. But what does Paul tell him? He says, strap it up, live the way you know to live from Scripture, and go out there and show them what it really looks like to serve Christ (1 Timothy 4.12). Now of course, this doesn’t mean to disrespect people (1 Timothy 5.1-2), but what it does mean is to show them that when it comes to making a difference in the kingdom of God, there is no age requirement, only a passion and righteousness of life lived.

If as young adults we are dissatisfied with our church we have to step up and step into leadership in the congregation. And if the old guys on the deacon board refuse to pass the baton of leadership to you, you have to wrestle it from their hands. It is up to those generations to fix any flaws they may have in their service of the Lord in the local church, but what we need to do is not sit back and blast their failings, but instead aggressively pursue change. The church is meant to contain a spectrum of ages. Older men and women have as much to give to the younger people as the younger ones have to give to them. If either population is missing in a church then it will not be able to function completely as God intended it to.

I know this is hard. I understand that it is easier to just go off and start your own church instead of going through the frustrations of struggling for a leadership voice. But at the end of the day, God desires for us to take that torch from the older generations, using it to light the church for many more years to come, and not just letting it die out with them. To steal from a couple of youths who are vocal about this cause as well, we must buckle down and realize that God will be most glorified when we “do hard things.”

2 Comments | Emerging Church, Observations | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

Looking Back, Turning Back- An Apology for Previous Words on Dan Kimball

August 26, 2008

“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” -James 1.19-20

A while back (January 4, 2008) I posted this which was a critique of some issues I had with a statement written by Dan Kimball in his book They Like Jesus but Not the Church. The excerpt in question dealt with Kimball’s personal feelings towards homosexuality and my post covered a few exceptions I took to the things he said. I attempted to do this with as much fairness as possible while still expressing my particular misgivings for what was in the quote.

However, several months removed from this, I have taken time to reevaluate what Kimball said and more importantly the larger body of what he was saying and would like to offer an apology for my quick judgment. Though I do believe that the critiques I had are valid issues with some people inside Christian circles, I no longer feel that they apply to Kimball and would like to admit this for future reference on my blog.

In all actuality, though I still have some uneasiness at the title of a few of his works, I am finding Kimball to be a welcome voice of reason inside the ranks of emerging Christianity. His boldness and devotion to teaching the Word of God over the philosophies of man are wonderful traits which God has graciously blessed him with and has led him to use in reaching Christians in the postmodern context. Unlike certain peers such as Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, I find Kimball to be committed to finding the truth in the Scriptures and sober-minded enough not to be swayed by the all powerful arm of culture and stardom which has gripped so many of these teachers.

I pray that this apology can be accepted by any who I have displaced by my comments and I thank God for leading me back into seeing the work that Kimball has done for the Church and how God is using him in our culture today. I would also like to recommend his book They Like Jesus but Not the Church to you guys because, even though I find the title to be less than desirable, the contents reveal a very necessary insight into emerging culture which all leaders of the church in America can benefit from reading.

3 Comments | Book Reviews, Emerging Church, Observations | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

Wandering in Wonderland, part 3- A Scriptural Defense for Focusing on the Destination

August 12, 2008

Over the course of the last two posts I have attacked the emergent position that we should be focused on the journey and not the destination in the Christian life. I have argued that this leads to meaningless statements about “the right thing” and “a better way,” particularly when combined with the emergent attack on identity. I have also discussed that I feel that it is that living-in-the-now approach which has caused for emergents to avoid standing on biblical truth when it comes to issues which are divisive and not popular among a majority of people.

However, the one thing I need to do is offer a defense from the Bible of why we should focus on the destination. Now, take note, I do not intend to argue that we shouldn’t focus on the journey, as I have already conceded the importance of doing so in the first post (and besides, only free grace theologians would argue for this position), but instead I wish to show that this is a “both-and” issue.

First, let’s look at Hebrews 11.13-16:

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

Now, in this passage, which is referring to the faith of the patriarchs, what does the author of Hebrews say? He says that the patriarchs made it “clear that they are seeking a homeland.” So, their focus was on the destination, on the homeland, the “things promised.” And what was the reaction to this? We’re they rebuked for having an improper focus? Far from it. Instead, we are told that “God is not ashamed to be called their God” and that per their expectation “he has prepared for them a city.” Then it seems as if God is actually rewarding their faith in him, their focus on the destination, with a “heavenly” country. Not bad, huh?

But then you may argue, “Well, that was the Jews and the promised land, not us.” To that I would say look two chapters later at Hebrews 13.13-14:

Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.

This time it is certainly being directed at believers in Christ, as this comes just two verses after a commentary on what Christ did for us. Also, this passage parallels the image given in chapter 11 of the city that has been prepared. Thus, it seems pretty clear that it is a good thing for our focus to be on the destination, the completion of God’s promises.

Where else can we turn for support of this? How about Romans 8.18-25:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Where is our hope? What do we seek? It is the redemption that is to come. For this we wait, with patience yes, but wait for it nonetheless. Or take 1Corinthians 9.24-27:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

We run to obtain the prize. We train to receive the imperishable wreath. This is an excellent illustration for what we need do. Yes, it is important that we “discipline [our bodies],” but we do not do so aimlessly. We are to focus on the journey because we are striving for the destination. We also see this echoed in Philippians 3.13-14.

Therefore, I think we have adequately shown by the word of God that as much as we are to focus on executing the journey in a manner which is honoring to God, our reason to do so is because we are “eagerly [awaiting] adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.” I don’t think it could be any clearer. If we lose the goal, then the journey, however good it might make us feel, is completely worthless.

No Comments » | Emerging Church, Observations, Verses | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

Wandering in Wonderland, part 2- A Quote by Dan Kimball Adressing Emergent Motivations

August 10, 2008

In discussing the topic of emergent motivations and whether or not we should be concerned with “the destination,” I think it would be nice to post a quote by someone who is so closely linked to the debate that he even has a book out entitled The Emerging Church, that being Dan Kimball (for the distinctions/relation between “emerging” and “emergent,” at least in my own use, check out the “Emerging vs. Emergent” tab above).

Now, I know I have not always agreed with everything Dan Kimball says, but in this ever growing divide between orthodoxy and “generous orthodoxy” I think it is important to know who you can trust to maintain the integrity of the truth, and I believe Kimball is one of those people.

The following quote comes from a message Kimball delivered at the recent Shift youth ministry conference at Willow Creek Community Church. What makes this even more impressive a statement is the context in which it was delivered: Kimball’s remarks came two days after Brian McLaren got up and spoke about the fact that “Many of us [theologians] have been increasingly critical in recent years of popular American eschatology in general, and conventional views of hell in particular. Simply put, if we believe that God will ultimately enforce his will by forceful domination, and will eternally torture all who resist that domination, then torture and domination become not only permissible but in some way godly.” So, what did Kimball have to say in response to this?:

“This is what I’m just concerned about a little bit with some of the things that are going on today. The church is waking up to the fact that we have to be involved in global social justice issues. And that is fantastic. We should be repenting (and saying), ‘I can’t believe we did not think of this. This is the command of Jesus and what we should be about.’ And we need to be so involved in all of this because the kingdom is about life on this planet here and not just about when we die.

“But my subtle fear is that we don’t then swing the pendulum so much that we forget that there is life after we die and that we do have to still remember that there is an eternity with God and an eternity apart from God.”

These are surely pertinent words, and awfully brave things to say in front of a room which has been digesting the social gospel/universalist biases of people like McLaren and Shane Claiborne. I am thankful for people like Kimball who, though I may disagree with them on some issues, they understand the importance of submitting to God’s revealed word in the Bible and being disciples with a big enough a pair to live out Titus 1.9: “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.“

No Comments » | Emerging Church, Observations, Quotes | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

Wandering in Wonderland- A Commentary on Emergent Motivations

August 9, 2008

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”

“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.

“I don’t much care where-” said Alice.

“Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat.

“- so long as I get somewhere,” Alice added as an explanation.

(Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland)

Continuing on the idea which I have been developing about the emergent attack upon identity, I would also like to point out that in fighting against identity the post-modern ideologies of emergent also seem to be fighting against ultimate ends as well.

In as much as emergent weakens identity by erasing lines of distinction and fuzzing out moral clarity, they also destroy purpose by viewing as their ends some sort of vague spirituality. In fact, all one needs do is listen to Rob Bell in his stage production Everything is Spiritual and you will hear the emergent drumbeat that the gospel is Jesus coming to tell us that we are living in an “integrated, holistic spirituality” and that we don’t need to seek anything or anywhere else.

What?

Or, maybe we can see how Rob Bell handles the question “How do you learn to redeem yourself from a mistake? How do you learn to overcome that on the inside and continue being a compassionate person?”:

“I think that many people pick up along the way that life is about destination, so they are taught it is about arriving, it’s about having all the answers, it’s about creating a nice box that you can sit in and defend. But my fundamental understanding is that life is a journey and journey is a fundamentally different way to understand life than destination. And on a journey all I am responsible for is the next step, and that’s all I’m ever asked for is the next step. I don’t have to have it all figured out. I don’t have to defend it all. I don’t have to have it all nailed down. And if you can shift from destination understanding to journey it frees you to take life as it comes, let it be what it is, and then do the next right thing.”

So, to the poster boy of emergent, the “next Billy Graham”, we see that an “integrated, holistic spirituality” is not about the destination, but instead it is about the journey and about being “free” to “do the next right thing.” Those words are so devoid of any meaning that it is almost laughable. But what should you expect? These words, though completely useless towards anything, particularly for a Christian, are also so dainty that they are sure not to offend anyone or polarize any conversation that they occur in. Which, of course, is the point.

Now, I’m as big a fan of Jack Kerouac and On the Road as anybody else, and I agree that Christ teaches us to be concerned with the journey and what we do in this life (Matthew 25.34-36, 28.18-20), but the thing we must recognize is what Lewis Carroll says in the opening quote, which he summarizes more succinctly like this: “When you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.” To me, this is the error of emergent. They have become so focused on “the journey,” so focused on “compassion” and social justice, that they are open to taking any road to accomplish this, including roads which deny Christ.

In order to maintain peace those within the emergent circles have bent on the sin nature of homosexuality (either openly like Campolo or passively like McLaren). They have bent on the necessity of the substitutionary atonement (embracing the “cosmic child abuse” view of Chalke). They have bent on the existence of hell (through universalism like McLaren or by arguing that Hell is a state of living on earth like Bell). At any fork in the road where emergent would be forced to choose one way or the other, inevitably alienating some, they always try to take both. They do this because in the end, emergent is truly not concerned about the destination, they are not concerned with where you’re going. The only thing they ultimately care about is how you intolerant you are and how many trees you kill along the way.

7 Comments | Emerging Church, Observations, Quotes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

The Emergent Invitation to War- What Post-Modernism Does to Christianity

August 7, 2008

“Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” -1 Peter 3.13-16

I first became a fan of Natan Sharansky after reading his widely acclaimed book The Case for Democracy in early 2005. The unashamed way in which he spoke right to the heart of the matter of fear and freedom in our societies greatly influenced my outlook on the practices of governments around the world. Thus, when he released his most recent book, Defending Identity, I knew that I would eventually want to read it, regardless of the subject matter. However, when I began reading the reviews I saw that this was a book I would be interested in even if Mr. Sharansky had not been the author.

Why is that? Because, in this book which focuses mostly on the need for strong identities to coincide with strong democracies, I saw a deeper message pertaining to the struggle between strong identities and strong Christianity going on within the Church in our present emerging culture. Go onto any emergent blog, read any emergent book (say the upcoming Jesus Wants to Save Christians by Rob Bell for example), or engage any emergent thinkers in your congregation, and you will see this idea of a strong Christian identity being the cause of great travesties throughout the world and a drive to neutralize that identity and try to appeal on a broader range of issues which seem more agreeable to more people and thus promoting more “peace”. This all comes from the “perfectly compelling” syllogism of post-modernism, namely: identity causes conflict; conflict is evil; therefore, identity is evil. It is this false argument which I believe leads emergent Christianity down many a dangerous path in its theology and application, and it is that which Sharansky’s book, when read with a properly discerning eye, argues wholly against.

Below are a couple of quotes which I found particularly striking. In reading them, try and cast the ideas of war and totalitarian forces into the mold of religious conflict and Satan, and see for yourself if you can find the parallels which I was drawn to:

“Post-identity (post-modernism) weakens identity to decrease tensions between people, but doing so leads to vulnerability, threats, blackmail, and ultimately to an inability to defend against aggression. That is why post-identity is an invitation to war.” (Natan Sharansky, Discovering Identity, p.205

“People are willing to make sacrifices when the choice is clear, when they know what is right and what is wrong. yet, if nothing is right, if no value judgments can be made, then nothing is wrong. Post-identity has created a world in which there is no right. But if there is no right, why fight?” (ibid., pp.100-101)

“It should be obvious that wagging a struggle against totalitarian forces first requires moral clarity. Unless you recognize evil, you cannot begin to fight it. But this is where the champions of post-identity have done the greatest damage.” (ibid., p.221)

7 Comments | Book Reviews, Emerging Church, Observations, Quotes | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

Every Generation’s Battle- John Piper on the Correct View of Scripture

August 2, 2008

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” -2 Timothy 3.16

“But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” -John 20.31

“The Battle for the Bible” often times is used in Southern Baptist circles to refer back to the period of debate in the 1970’s when the claim of Scriptural inerrancy was questioned strongly and evangelicals had to make a decision which way to go. Should we deny inerrancy and move more towards the liberal theology of many mainline denominations or should we uphold inerrancy and cement ourselves as the true conservative position in the church?

Today, more widely, the Battle for the Bible has come to mean the struggle over inerrancy along with debates over appropriate hermeneutics to use, how much authority does Scripture have over our lives, and is the Bible the only spiritual text which reveals God to us. It is in light of this type of continuing debate that leaders such as Albert Mohler comment that every generation must decide if they are going to stand on the authority of Scripture or not, every generation must fight the Battle for the Bible.

For our generation, I think the time is now. Look at the landscape: teachers like Rob Bell invoke trajectory hermeneutics to liberalize Scripture into accepting current moralities which are specifically opposed in the Bible; in their book The Lost Message of Jesus, Steve Chalke and Alan Mann refer to God’s crushing Christ for our iniquities (Isaiah 53.5) as a form of “cosmic child abuse”; Brian McLaren (the liaison to evangelicals for Barack Obama) runs around the country questioning the existence of hell and a literal second coming, at times even proposing a sort of universalism; multiple denominations are facing splits due to some ramifications of a refusal to stand on the clear Scriptural teaching that homosexuality is a sin. In all, our post-modern, post-Christian, emerging landscape is covered with major rifts which all center around the denying the inerrancy or supreme unique authority of Scripture.

To this effect, and to start our battle smartly, I want to give you guys a link to a wonderfully thorough handling of this material conducted earlier this year by John Piper. Over the course of 5 messages Dr. Piper argues what the Scriptures are, what we mean by their inerrancy and authority, why we should believe their message, and how this should inform our behavior. These messages are well researched and I believe will prove very beneficial to you as you begin to pick sides in this current Battle for the Bible.

This is important, please realize that. If we lose the Bible we lose God’s revelation of himself and any way of resting our church on the true authority of His Word over the broken philosophy of man. Put on the full armor, take up arms, and fight!

John Piper- Why We Believe the Bible

No Comments » | Emerging Church, John Piper, Observations | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

Christ’s Purpose in Coming and Coming Again- A Look at Hebrews 9.28

July 22, 2008

“So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9.28 )

Why did Jesus come to Earth? Where is he now? Is he coming back? These are some of the biggest questions which people through all ranges of Christianity ask. They want to understand, need to understand, who Jesus is and what he’s done and plans to do. Of course, it would be arrogant (and dangerous) to say that any one verse explains all of this to us, but in my readings I have come across a passage which I think says a lot to us on this issue, especially in light of some of the current popular Christologies in our culture.

The whole of Hebrews 9 is an amazing chapter and is a very keen place which I would direct people to who want to understand better what the Old Testament sacrificial system was about and how it pertains to Christ’s workings on the Cross. However, the very last verse of that chapter is what I want to key on, verse 28. I believe that in this verse God is revealing to us through his inspired word a clear (though by no means comprehensive) picture of what Christ did and what he still intends to do.

“Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many.” Who “offered” him? He offered himself (vv.14,25-26)! And how does Christ’s offering of himself correspond with Isaiah 53.10 (”Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.“)? So, it was Christ offering himself and the Father executing the sacrifice!

Then did God send Christ specifically to die? Many people today will say that Christ came as our example to show us how to live and that that was his sole purpose in being brought to earth; that the Cross was an example of submission but was unnecessary for God to use in the forgiveness of sins. Yet what does it say: “will appear a second time, not to deal with sin . . . “ So if in the second appearance it is emphasized that he won’t be coming to deal with sin, it would seem logical to deduce that the emphasis of his first coming, the incarnation, was in order to deal with sin. And where do we see sin being dealt with? On the Cross (Isaiah 53.5, Romans 4.25, Colossians 2.13-14, 1 Peter 3.18)!

But what about the second coming: “[Christ] will appear a second time . . . to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” Thus when Christ returns it will be in glory to claim what is his and to save them from this dying world and to make them glorified with him forever in the New Jerusalem where God’s presence will forever dwell (Revelation 19-22).

This is great news! Christ came to deal with sin and will be coming again to gather those that belong to him for eternal fellowship with the one true God at the end of time! Amazing! Thank you!

1 Comment | Emerging Church, Observations, Verses | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

How Are We to Respond to the Glory We Have Seen?- Messages from 2008 NYC Dwell Conference

July 13, 2008

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” -John 1.14

I have to admit, I am addicted to listening to sermons and conference messages through my iTunes. However, with so many great resources available (and certainly a number of not so great ones as well) it would be a shame if Christians in the 21st century did not take advantage of this wonderful blessing.

That said, the most recent conference I listened to was the 2008 NYC Dwell Conference which was put on this past April by the Acts 29 church planting network featuring the likes of Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, D.A. Carson, and others. In my opinion, each one of the messages presented was a home run. Because of this I wanted to share with you guys the link to where you may download the lectures yourselves, so that hopefully you can be as blessed by it as I was.

Two messages in particular which I would recommend are the one by Eric Mason of Epiphany Fellowship in Philadelphia, PA, entitled “Dwelling Incarnationally,” and the one by Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian in New York City, entitled “Dwelling in the Gospel.” Both of these presentations cover very important and pertinent topics, especially with keeping in mind the popular movements making their way through emerging church culture right now. These two guys give solid, biblical arguments for their positions and offer intelligent criticism and commentary on ways that we are dealing with these topics incorrectly in the church right now.

Please, if you can make the time I would strongly suggest listening to what was said at this conference and has been recorded for our further edification.

2008 NYC Dwell Conference Multimedia

No Comments » | Calvinism, Emerging Church, Mark Driscoll, Sermons | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

« Previous Entries