The Supremacy of Christ in the Postmodern World
October 4, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
I still haven’t had a chance to unpack from the conference, but I’m eager to share some thoughts with you. This year’s Desiring God National Conference was awesome. It was the first time I’d heard any of the speakers live, and each one of them was outstanding. I came away encouraged and hopeful about where God is taking His church.
It was a pleasure, as always, to spend some time with Justin Taylor. Amy and I also got to meet Tim Challies pf Challies (finally), Pastor Paul Martin of Keruz Noemata, and Marc Heinrich of Purgatorio.
Here are Challies’ reflections on the conference. I pretty much agree with him, especially in that it was a success by any standard. I’ll offer some criticisms, however, to balance out all the good things we’re saying:
With an audience of over 3,100, I understand it’s somewhat difficult to allow audience interaction. However, it would have been great if they provided some opportunity for us to meet the speakers. It consistently felt like there was a huge gulf between us “lay people” and the guys on stage- especially when they were rushed out after the sessions.
I’m not sure what it would look like, but it’d be great if they facilitated a better atmosphere for fellowship. I didn’t really meet or talk with anyone I hadn’t planned on meeting. Even better, a Desiring God Singles Network would be awesome. Seems like that’d be a great place to meet someone! 
Below I’ve linked to the audio and blog summaries of the session. These are followed by some brief reflections on each:
David Wells: The Supremacy of Christ in the Postmodern World
Audio
Summaries: Challies, Paul Martin, Josh Harris, New Attitude
Thoughts: His foundational lecture succeeded in setting the stage for the rest of the lectures. The bottom line is that God wishes for His Son to be acknowledged for who He is. But regardless of if He is acknowledged in this world, Christ is supreme overall. He is incomparable and in His own category. He is the same Christ to Abraham, Pilate, Augustine, Calvin, Descartes, and Derrida. We have no other Christ to worship, follow, and represent to the postmodern world.
John Piper, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, Justin Taylor: A Conversation with Pastors
Audio
Summaries: Paul Martin
Thoughts: Most striking about this session was the comments about Emergent. John Piper recently met with Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt. Piper noted that there are deep epistemological issues dividing them and therefore no common ground for conversation. In essence, the message of Emergent Village is a different gospel. Keller believes Emergent is a fad because it has no institutions.
Voddie Bauchum: The Supremacy of Christ in the Postmodern World
Audio
Summaries: Challies, Paul Martin, New Attitude
Thoughts: Bauchum dealt primarily with Secular Humanism. He contrasted its empty view of humanity with the value found in the Christian worldview. The philosophies of man will not satisfy, only Christ will.
Tim Keller: The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in the Postmodern World
Audio
Summaries: Challies, Paul Martin, New Attitude
Thoughts: Based on a sermon by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Keller spoke of the demon being too deep. The demon is secularism, and we now live in an ex-Christian culture. He offered six points for evangelism and noted that our expectations are typically too low when we preach of the Gospel.
Mark Driscoll: The Supremacy of Christ and the Church in the Postmodern World
Audio
Summaries: Challies, Paul Martin, New Attitude
Thoughts: There is no reason for his talk to have been controversial; it should be noted well by all. Among other things, Driscoll called for Christians to stop worshiping a girly Jesus (why worship a guy you can beat up?). Driscoll also noted the drifting away of Emergent from orthodoxy. They are creating new kinds of Christians: non-Christians. The question is, will we be able to tell the difference?
Voddie Bauchum, John Piper, D.A. Carson, David Wells, Justin Taylor: Speaker Panel
Audio
Summaries: Paul Martin, Josh Harris
Thoughts: One of the funniest moments was in the session: In response to Justin’s question about being contextual and missional, Wells said “I want to be hip, man!” Also, one of the most touching moments: Justin asked about small churches and small populations. In response, Dr. Carson with tears told of the church building work his father had done in Canada.
D.A. Carson: The Supremacy of Christ and Love in the Postmodern World
Audio
Summaries: Challies, Paul Martin, New Attitude
Thoughts: After being there and looking back over the summaries, I’m still not sure his talk had much to do with postmodernism specifically. Still, Dr. Carson did a powerful exposition of John 17 relating to the intra-trinitarian love that we witness in Jesus Christ.
John Piper: The Supremacy of Joy in a Postmodern World
Audio and Text
Summaries: Challies, Paul Martin, New Attitude
Thoughts: Piper’s sermon was an eloquent defense of Christian orthodoxy and critique of postmodern theology. The great joy Christ has in His Father’s glory is shared with us through objective and understandable propositions. To abandon them or question their merit is to bring down the Gospel itself.
I was planning to write another post tonight reflecting on a couple of points from Piper’s message, but something else has come up. So look forward to Thursday when I’ll be posting that.
Related posts:
- Desiring the Supremacy of Christ
- Book Review: Sex and the Supremacy of Christ ed by. John Piper and Justin Taylor
- Valuing Apologetics in a Postmodern World
- Another Response to Phillip Johnson
- Pray for Piper
- What Is Mark Driscoll's View of Atonement?
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts
content rss
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:47 pm
If you start that singles network up, I'll join.
As long as you throw the personality profile/calvinism assessment test in for free (a $50 value!).
SEZ
October 4th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Roger and Amy,
It was a real delight to meet you both!
Hopefully the Lord will cross our paths again in the near future.
Paul Martin
October 4th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
I know you are making summaries, but I get the sense you agree with the presentations by your reflections. I don't know if this is correct or not, or even if it is important.
It seems clear from your interpretation of the comments and messages given that the “emergent” folks are indeed heretics. You can't call, as you put it, the emergent gospel “a different gospel” and you can't say they are making “non-Christians” and come to a different conclusion. There's a part of me that doesn't have problem with that; if you (and others) believe they are preaching another gospel than that which Christ gave us “let them be anathema”.
My problem, then, is be consistent. Don't call emergent folks “brothers”; let's go about the work of evangelizing them for the sake of their souls. The inconsistency drives me nuts. They are either brothers and sisters or they're not. I'm waiting for someone to be consistent; they are either brothers or they are “outside the fold”. They're not both.
I'm not saying this to you in particular, but I'm just so tired of the double-talk concerning the emergent church. Hopefully, we can at least be consistent. But if we really don't know, if we really are suspending judgment about their status as heretics, let's not say they are; or let's not say they're preaching another gospel unless we know are convinced.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Brian,
I feel the frustration behind your comment myself much of the time. However, the trouble is that frustration can lead us to make judgements we are not free to make. I'm not sure what basis we would have at this point to say that anyone associated with anything associated with Emergent/emerging is unsaved. Whereas we may be safe to make that assumption with someone claiming allegience to Mormonism or Ba'hai, I think it would be a bit of a stretch to apply that same formula for operation with the group in question.
I like the approach taken by Piper et al at this conference. Warn where some of this thinking is headed, remind everyone of the truths of scripture, call everyone to the biblical Christ. I so appreciated Piper's opening comment where he described many in the EC stream to be “children that where not where he wanted them to be.” While I don't personally have a fatherly concern for anyone (save my two-year old nephew, who is Reformed), I agree with Piper's sentiment there; that the paradigm we should be operating with here is not unbeliever therefore evangelize but errant thinking therefore debunk that thinking.
Feel free to disagree with that, just my reaction to what you said.
SEZ
October 5th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Thanks for your thoughts Brian,
There may have been some things that I disagreed with at the conference, but nothing's coming to mind at the moment. I think Scott's reply to you did a great job of capturing the intention of comments made at the conference.
I don't believe I've made any hesitation on this blog to call a spade a spade. Simply put: Spencer Burke and Brian McLaren do not teach the Gospel that Jesus taught. I may consider them brothers in that they are fellow bearers of God's image (which means for me that I must treat them with a certain level of respect), but I do not consider them brothers in Christ. I don't say this joyfully, but with tears (literally) because I long for them to be faithful to God's Word and because they are leading others into unfaithfulness.
When it comes to others in Emergent, such as Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, I still consider them brothers in Christ. Though I have serious disagreements with both of these men, and I believe some of their teachings to be dangerous, I've yet to hear something from them that denies any of the essentials of the faith.
We (meaning evangelicals) can be either too critical or not critical enough. There are some who on one extreme broadbrush everyone who is emerging/emergent as heretics and are bold in saying so. There are others who, as you point out Brian, point to quesitonable teachings but are timid in denouncing the teachers. I hope we've succeeded in at least some balance at this blog. I hope we've weighed carefully the tension between questionable teaching and heretical teaching that constitutes another Gospel. I hope we've been fair to those we disagree with, loving to all, but unafraid to stand up for truth even it it's not popular. And I hope we can in some way encourage others to do likewise.
October 5th, 2006 at 7:00 am
For the most part, I think you folks are quite fair. While not always agreeing, you're intentions are never seen as hostile.
I hear what you (and Scott) are saying. As always, it's difficult to paint with a broad brush. Part of my point is this: if we consider someone a brother, then we are to afford them the grace of it. How tragic it is for someone to be a part of the same family I'm a part of, God's family, and then use language to say they are not. So if we're simply nervous about Tony Jones' theology, but can't say he believes “another gospel”, let's not use language that implies that he does.
Scott, this is what I was getting at. You said, “However, the trouble is that frustration can lead us to make judgements we are not free to make.” Isn't this precisely what Piper and Driscoll are doing by there comments (if Roger's summary accurately describes what was said)? Clearly the more traditional evangelicals are frustrated with emergent. For the most part (and let's be honest here) they haven't read many of them except Brian McLaren. Yet, they are quite comfortable giving strong warnings and rebukes about them while not to them. Again, this is why I've appreciated some of Justin Taylor's work in this area. You can tell that the man has gone out of his way to listen, understand, listen some more before he's brought critique. I think it is great that Piper met with Jones and Pagitt. But if they're brothers, will you not sit down with them again? Does perceived epistemological differences stop brothers from dialoguing? I do believe we have work to do in this area.
October 5th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Brian,
Those are good questions you are asking and I feel like I am asking the same ones. My only point is that I find enough biblical imperatives to seek unity, behold the goodness of brotherhood, be at peace with all men, take the plank out of our own eye, be “one as We are one,” that our default vernacular and language (as you say) should be out of a “we” thinking and not an “us/them” thinking. I'm not saying we should resist making the “us/them” distinction when it is called for (like Roger mentioned re:Mclaren). There are also biblical imperatives to defend sound doctrine and contend for the faith which should never be pushed to the side in favor of group hugs. Yet I think we should be slow to condemn and quick to encourage (which in this case encouragement looks a lot like strong pleas to rethink some points of philosophy and doctrine). In the name of love hoping all things, I guess what I'm trying to say is something along the lines of “innocent until proven guilty.”
SEZ
October 5th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
You too! Thanks for stopping by the blog, Paul.
October 6th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Thanks for the summaries and links. I don't know if people are looking for still more reviews, but I'm also blogging through my favorite talks: reviews of David Wells and Tim Keller are up, with Driscoll and Piper on the way.