Responding as Christians

Date July 19, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

There are people who hate Christians out there. 

 

I heard a recent (and typical) conversation on Air America's “The Randi Rhodes Show” where Rhodes was discussing Christians with callers.  After a caller explained to Rhodes that “the reason we're seeing so many abuses in the [military] prisons is because so many Christians are involved with the war,” they continued the discussion with the following (please keep in mind that this was said seriously and with concern, and not as a joke; nobody was screaming and yelling or flippantly trying to get a laugh–they were speaking gravely):

 

CALLER:  Do they [Christians] still want to continue with a democracy? 

 

RHODES:  No.  They want a theocracy where they control everything people do.

 

CALLER:  I know how normal or sane people pick a leader, but how would evangelicals pick a leader under a theocracy? 

 

RHODES:  You're assuming it would still look like a democracy.  Once it's a theocracy, it will no longer resemble a democracy…It has to be someone who hates women.

 

CALLER:  Yes, they think women are evil because they're tainted with original sin from Eve…[then, with worry] I'm scared.

 

How should we respond to words like these as Christians?  I have to admit I often fall short of the ideal, and I was greatly challenged (not to mention, convicted) when I read the following passage from 1 Corinthians 4:11-13:

 

To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now.

 

Somehow, I have to do the above in conjunction with this from 2 Corinthians 10:3-5:

 

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh,for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ….

           

It's right for me to defend the truth and tear down false ideas, but where is my heart?  What does it mean to bless those who revile me?  Two things I know for sure:  first, I should not be surprised when people think I'm the scum of the world; and second, I need to have the attitude of Jesus “who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame.”

 

Os Guinness summed this up perfectly in a talk he gave earlier tonight (more about that later).  He simply said, “Expect prejudice, but bear it as a real follower of Christ and not as a whiner.”

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Theology Comments 6 Comments »

Modern Reformation #3: Settlers, Pilgrims, and Wanderers by Michael Horton

Date July 19, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

This article by Michael Horton has got to be one of the best
articles on the emergent church I’ve ever read. To be honest, as much as I’m a
huge fan of Dr. Horton, I was really disappointed with his contribution to the
book The Church in Emerging Culture. I think most everything he said was
right on, but I don’t think anyone who isn’t an academic would understand a
word of what he said. In contrast, this article by Dr. Horton addresses many of
the important issues regarding emergent and does so in a clear, precise,
charitable, and comprehensible manner. This article is worth the price of the
magazine.

Dr. Horton begins by describing some general characteristics
of the Emergent Church. “First and foremost, Emergent identifies with postmodernism,
although its celebration of postmodernism is often as sweeping as its critique
of modernity.” (19) “At the same time, they display an eclectic approach that
one might expect from “surfing the Net,” often revealing a naïve acceptance of
completely contradictory views and practices. The mystical usually wins out
over anything that smacks of systematic theology or doctrine.” (20)

He then goes on to show these characteristics through
dissecting Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy. Here are a few of the
highlights… “The Protestant Reformation separated two brothers: Scripture and
tradition” (227). But this is pure caricature, not to mention, a somewhat off
criticism to hear from a movement made up largely of independent congregations
that do not subscribe to any particular tradition.” (22)

“To fit with McLaren’s definition of a generous orthodoxy, a
Calvinist, for example, would have to reject Calvinism and accept McLaren’s
redefined version. Agreement is reached only when we agree with the new
definition—that is, with McLaren’s own theology. Is this not his own form of
dogmatism?” (22)

“While Emergent leaders like McLaren encourage us to
investigate the wisdom of the past, their versions of orthodoxy and their
generosity are as selective as any other tradition. One might even gain the
impression that the author is still working with the categories of heresy and
truth firmly in place, but correlated to “modern” and “postmodern,”
respectively. Whatever he doesn’t like is dismissed as modern, while his own
version bears the postmodern imprimatur.” (23)

Dr. Horton goes on to discuss the differences of settlers,
wanderers, and pilgrims, suggesting that Christians should be pilgrims. We’re
not settlers because we haven’t arrived yet. But there’s also a danger in being
a wanderer, which suggests endless journeying with no direction. This
instability is often reflected in emergent notions of certainty and conviction.
“While in the past, humility was the opposite of pride, in modernity it
has become the opposite of conviction, and postmodernism can be
exploited to give a new lease to such doctrinal indifferentism. Today, being
sure of something is considered a character flaw.” (23)

He offers this corrective for all of us: “It is a great
opportunity for the church to be the church again. However, it is time that we
all stop reinventing the church and join it again. This means submitting to the
discipline of Christian speech in concrete, embodied, living spaces. It gives
us a language that we did not invent or paste together from the pooled
ignorance of chat rooms… The real division is not between generations created
by niche marketing or even between being “modern” or “postmodern,” but is, as
Jesus said, between “the children of this age” and “the children of the age to
come” (Luke 20:34).” (24)

My reflections: The Biblical view of the world is not of
dispensations as man evolves from different philosophies throughout history.
There is one age post-resurrection and pre-judgment. It is an age where the
world of man seeks to elevate himself above the revealed truths of God. At the
root of the secular periods- premodern, modern, and postmodern- is always the
sinful desire to worship some aspect of creation over the Creator. In this age
we have but one mission regardless of the cultural/philosophical context we
discern- to embody the true Gospel of Jesus Christ through our thoughts,
passions, and actions. Our motivation in doing so is not found in hopeless
wondering, but with a keen eye of hope in the age to come.

Category Posted in Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

True Compassion

Date July 18, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

Over the past couple of years I've had to learn the hard way that my strong feelings of compassion and empathy coupled with my desire to help people and make them happy can sometimes obscure the path of true compassion.  I watched with horror as the actions of my emotion-driven “compassion” led only to greater harm to the friends I was trying to help.  What was wrong?  I was giving them what they said they needed.  I couldn't stand to see them suffer!  I was confused and conflicted–I loved these people and wanted to help, but my short-term help was causing them long-term harm.  When I finally accepted the fact that the truly compassionate thing to do was to withhold what these people were asking for, I had to do the most difficult thing I've ever done–I stopped giving it to them.  I fought my feelings and forced myself to stand firm.  I endured accusations of cruelty and lack of Christian charity.  I withstood slander and gossip.  I was rejected and berated.  Believe me, it would have been much easier to give them what they wanted, and I certainly would have been happier about myself, but I desired to be truly compassionate to these people I loved–and that meant doing what was best for them, regardless of my feelings.

 

True compassion is not directed by a feeling.  In fact, it may entail actions that cause our feelings of compassion to scream with protest.  But, as I've said before, our emotions must submit to our minds.  The impulse to be compassionate is good, but if we let our emotions determine the way we carry out that compassion, we will often be deceived.  A careful examination of the long-term results of our actions is necessary to determine whether or not those actions are truly compassionate. 

 

Consider the following interview (HT: Micah Watson) with Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati:

 

SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa…

Shikwati: … for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid….

 

Unfortunately, the Europeans' devastating urge to do good can no longer be countered with reason….

 

Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livelihoods. They're in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria's textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide.

 

If what this man is saying is true (and see here and here for more arguments that it is), our feelings of compassion are causing us to do harm.

 

This is something we should at least consider.

 

To be truly compassionate to countries in desperate poverty, we may need to submit our compassion to reason and truth and think carefully about other ways to help–for example, by promoting policies of economic freedom.  No doubt we'll be called selfish and uncaring, and our own feelings may even condemn us.  I know how difficult this is.  All we can do is continue to remind ourselves that helping people in a real and lasting way is more important than satisfying and protecting our own feelings.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics Comments 20 Comments »

Modern Reformation #2: An Interview with Stanley Grenz

Date July 18, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

The folks at Modern Reformation (MR) had the opportunity to
chat with theologian Stanley Grenz back in February, a few weeks before he died
of a brain aneurysm. This brief interview is the second feature of the latest
issue of MR and is also available on their website. So again, I will skip a
summary and reflect on a few quotes.

In response to a question about the nature of the Emergent
Church: “I think if one were to ask what’s the scarlet thread, I would say
these are folks who are taking seriously the context in which they find
themselves, which many of them would consider postmodern. They’re trying to
take seriously the transitions and changes that they see going on in North
American culture, and they want to embody the gospel in a manner in which
people in this changing climate can see it, understand it, and respond to it.”

I like the description of wanting to “embody the gospel.”
The presentation of the Gospel is not merely statements of facts; it is living
it out in thought, passion, and action. In regards to his overall description
of Emergent- this is for the most part what we should be doing as Christians,
regardless of the cultural context we are in. When I go to Thailand I learn
Thai, or at least enough to get by. Telling them the Gospel in English won’t
mean much, but living it in Thai will. As long as the Gospel message itself
remains the same, we need to translate it into the language and culture that
people will understand.

“What I find especially gratifying as a theologian is that
so many of the people in Emergent are interested in theology, whereas my
generation tended toward the attitude that, once we’ve been to seminary and had
our theology course and so forth, we no longer have to bother with theology
anymore…But what I find with the Emergent folks is that so many of them are
keenly interested in theological questions and bringing theological questions
back on the table, which is healthy, I believe.”

I’ve always said that emergent asks great questions. The
questions of, “What does it mean to be the church? What is God’s program? What
is our message?” that Dr. Grenz offered as examples are questions that need to
be asked. The concern over emergent isn’t that they ask questions, which should
be encouraged; it’s the answers that are sometimes given to the questions.

In response to a question about if emergent is a marketing
movement: “Wherever something is happening that is interesting and new and
fresh, the marketers will come along and try to market it. I’m not sure if that
is so much a critique of Emergent itself as much as it is a critique of the
consumerist evangelical establishment that would really like to market it.”

What he said about Evangelicalism is true; however, I think
the marketing/consumerist mentality is as much a part of emergent as it is of
Evangelicalism. This is appropriate to some degree, since we’re trying to reach
and convince people of something. But there’s a liability involved in the
mentality that can lead to thinking of the Gospel as merely a product being
pushed. Both movements often fall prey to this danger.

I haven’t had the chance yet to read any of Dr.
Grenz’s books. I can at least say, though, that he appeared to be a warm,
thoughtful, and careful thinker.

Category Posted in Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 1 Comment »

Debating Emergent Apologetics

Date July 17, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Christopher MacDonald contacted me in response to my post
on Tony Myles’ Emergent Apologetics article. I’ve decided to post it below,
along with my responses. My original post is in bold, his responses are
italicized, and my responses are blue. This is quite long and will require
hitting the “read more” link to read the entire exchange.

“ Apparently I simply have to accept
the fact that debating is a lost cause; I’m not even allowed to think
otherwise. Mr. Myles assumes his conclusion to make his point. Strike one.”

No, it’s a double or a strike out depending on who the audience is. Half
the audience out there no longer views debate as tenable,  the older half, still does. There is no need
to give up traditional apologetics. In fact I often use some very basic pieces
myself, like the authenticity of the scripture (it has not been changed as is
often asserted). Having been a modernist apologist I understand how threatening
a postmodern context can be. It’s okay. There is room for both. 

As far as logic goes, his conclusion may be correct, but
the manner in which he proposes it is logically invalid. As I said, he assumes
his conclusion to make his point. As far as whether or not debate is a lost
cause (and perhaps we need to define debate), I’m not at all convinced it is.
People debate about things they care about. We’re debating emergent apologetics
because we care about it. Not all people care about Christ, and so those people
aren't interested in debating Him. The problem isn’t debate, it’s that people
don’t care.

“ He may be able to point to one or
two “modern apologists” who are belittling (like Robert Morey), but for the
most part we aren’t. In fact, most are warm and charitable people of God (has
he met Josh McDowell, Nancy Pearcey, Greg Koukl”

This is a very good point. The best modernist apologists are very
compassionate, good-humored and even humble. But there are abusers who simply
LOVE the arguing and burying an “opponent” who they really need to love. They
often resort to “shaming” rather than giving a respectful answer.

Agreed, but my experience is that those “abusers” are few and far
between. Most apologists aren’t like that.

Mr. Myles says there’s a new “paradigm of apologetics on the horizon”
that respects people and this involves redefining apologetics. For the
postmodern emerging church, he sees this worked out in at least four ways:

He’s right. It’s coming whether you like it or not because the culture
at large has changed from 25 years ago and they do not care to listen to
rationalistic apologetics, or engage in debate. New times demand new ways of
approach.

To the degree that “modern apologetics” (which no one’s yet defined) is
purely rational, I agree. But that’s not because the culture’s changing, but
because apologetics was never meant to be purely rational. Not all “modern
apologetics” has been purely rational though, so I think this could go either
way.

“I have no idea what this has to do with apologetics; this is really a
point about homiletics. However, when did the Bible become un-interesting? Yes,
people remember stories, but if you give them the Bible they’ll remember that
too.”

Preaching (homiletics) is clearly a standard part of the Church.
Apologetics is an extrapolation from basically one text in Peter that we have
made a cottage industry (I know, I was Co-founder and Director of the Apologetics Resource Center for many
years. I did everything you usually do, debating Profs, writing research
papers, confronting guys who claimed to be God etc.).

 In Paul’s list of offices does
he list Apologists?

No, it is a need that arises from time to time (one thinks of
Athanasius, Irenaeus in the old world), and then under the Modernist/Rational
world view we needed folk like Walter Martin, Josh McDowell and even today need
folk like you and Hank H., and the others…but only for those still caught in
the web of Enlightenment Rationalism. You speak to THEM…but not the audience
this young man is talking about.

Sorry. It is what it is.

I’ve done, and do both. So I can speak to both sides. I respect what you
do. It’s important. But as you point out, the Gospel is trans-historical and
trans-cultural yet still Itself. So Mr. Myles is just gearing up for what is
next historically and culturally. Do not assume he does not care about biblical
truth. That’s unfair. He is not your opponent, he is your brother and he cares.
I sure he finds the Bible quite interesting.

No, Apologist isn’t a church office; it’s one function of every
Christian. Paul said that we are all Christ’s ambassadors representing God to
the world (2 Cor. 5:20). In representing him we fulfill a number of functions,
one of which is defense (the cottage industry text- 1 Peter 3:15-16). This talk
about myself and other “modern apologists” not speaking to people today I find
rather insulting. As if we don’t live and interact in the same postmodern
culture, or we’re too ignorant to see the differences. Yes, the culture is
mostly postmodern, but the people I have conversations with are both rational
and relational. They want spirituality, but they also want answers to the
questions and doubts. I don’t see very many people who are one or the other.

“The (re)emergence of originality. No longer can the same sermon be preached without care to
the specific people in our context.” Once again a point
about homiletics, maybe he’ll get to apologetics later. When was this ever not
true? But the more important question is, why is it true? It’s true because
sermons today contain personal stories of experiences that may or may not be
relevant to other groups of people. The Bible, however, is relevant to every
group of people regardless of culture, nationality, or personality. If sermons
were comprised of Biblical teaching, this would not be an issue. But since
preachers insist on adding personal narrative to the Bible, they must be
mindful of the context in which they’re preaching. The better solution would be
to simply teach the Bible. Strike four.

This is a huge point and I could not agree more. We have largely LOST
the Bible in favor of just what you described. But his suggestion to get back
to the narratives is important. Remember, contextually, when Paul wrote Timothy
about the inspiration and profitable nature of scripture he was referring to
the canon that existed at that time…the Old Testament, which is primarily
narrative. Yahweh is a God of history and story unlike Gnosticism or the empty
philosophies that Paul and others railed against.

The God of “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and on and on it goes.

I do not have a problem personally with roping in the New Testament
documents that were unanimously accepted three centuries later as scripture
under the same banner. But we both know that when Paul penned that, he was
looking at the essential narrative and prophetic nature of the Old Testament
books. Right?

So on this point you two are not at all far off. You would like to
reduce the preachers personal narrative and have more Bible. So does this guy!
Good for you both. You both believe that if you back to the naked texts and let
them speak it will be efficacious.

I
don’t think Paul had in mind narrative so much as he had in mind divine
authority. He never said, “Remember those really good stories God left for us.”
Scripture is more than a story, or more than a composite of stories. The way
some people speak about narratives Scripture becomes a nice bedtime story, or
something to think about, but the divine authority of it is lost. Mr. Myles
does appear to assume personal narrative in preaching, which is the point I am
concerned about. I’m sure he cares about the Bible, but I’m concerned about the
precise role the Bible plays in this article.

“The (re)emergence of practical
hope… we must help them to see the
“real side” of life through the biblical lens of Jesus. This requires
us to extend ourselves in fresh ways through our preaching so that we move past
the “same old, same old” and truly bear witness to the hope of Christ.” He’s still talking homiletics.

What is wrong with that? Just because we make an artificial distinction between Homiletics and
Apologetics (which Paul, Peter, and John do not do… they do both at once) does
not mean it is not worthwhile. In a Modernist context, debate can be very
helpful in education and also dismantling weird ideas that are obstacles to
faith. That sense it is very “face to face”. 
In a Postmodern context the issues become more experiential, and it is
more a “coming alongside”.  

The
title of the article is Emergent Apologetics,
and Mr. Myles’ introduction is entirely about apologetics in what appears to be
personal conversation. I think apologetics should be favored more in preaching,
but I was merely pointing out that the apparent intent of the article was
conversational apologetics and that is hardly addressed at all.

 I’m not sure what this even
means. What is the “same old, same old” we’re suppose to move beyond? Wouldn’t
it be helpful to tell me if you want me to move beyond it?

By “same old, same old” I think he means the old arguments, and then the
cultural accommodations of modern Christendom (which happens in every age). He wants
to get back to simple hope in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) 

You may be
right (which I’m still not sure how that relates to preaching), but I think
that’s a question Mr. Myles’ should answer- otherwise we’re just guessing what
he meant by it.

Hasn’t the Gospel always been the best practical hope? So wouldn’t
preaching it be the best solution? (Mark Oestreicher said questions are better
than answers, so how do you like all my questions?) I can’t even give Mr. Myles
a strike here since he didn’t really say anything substantive.

They are good questions, though I think you are being sarcastic and
taking a bit of a cheap shot. It’s hard for modernist apologists not to. Know
why? Cuz you guys are use to playing a different game which is pretty rough.
Your opponents in a modernist debate are usually pretty savage and often
extremely unfair. Rough stuff. Believe me, I know.

The reference to Oestreicher was sarcastic, none of the other questions
were.

What Mr. Myles is dealing with is a very different paradigm. It’s not
rough that way at all. It is not adversarial.

You both know the Gospel is the practical hope. If you will excuse a
metaphor (it will not be perfect). You are use to football. It’s rough and
takes split-second timing and intense training. Mark is in a totally different
sport though he brings the same concern. His audience (and mine now) do not
wanna put on pads and bang into each other until one “gives” or “wins”.

Once again, I think this is a false dichotomy. I really don’t think
we’re playing two different games.

Does not mean that your game is not valid. It just isn’t the only one in
town anymore. Maybe we are playing baseball (go Sox by the way).

Thanks,
hopefully I’ll have this posted before they play the Yankees so I won’t be
distracted from the game. :)

We are dealing mostly with people who are in touch with a loss of
spiritual center and a desire for God. They could not care less about debating.
They want to be loved. They want to be listened to and have us come alongside.
They all find faith sooner or later.

“The (re)emergence of
biblically-based teaching… more and more people (especially
students) seem to be giving greater respect to Scripture, theology, and the
life of Jesus. Perhaps this admiration is why they are less interested in pop
psychology and more concerned about finding an anchor of truth. The more our
teaching can contain such a foundation, the more value others will ascribe to
it.” Wow. This is the first time, that I can recall,
reading someone in the emerging church movement admit that people are concerned
about truth, Scripture, and theology. I think this is true, and so obviously
true that I don’t consider it profound; but it is profound within emergent.
People are actually more interested in truth than whimsical stories. I hope Mr.
Myles takes this point into consideration when thinking about the others. He
gets a base hit for this one.

I agree. And I applaud your taking note of it. Contrary to popular
opinion, most in the “Emergent” movement care a great deal about Truth. We are
not tired of Truth, we are tired of consumerism, the loss of Jesus as Center,
the rise of Mega-Church Christendom (in the Kierkegaardian sense) and the
profound narcissism and lack of love that the Church-at-large presents to the
world. 

“The opportunities to be the listening learner are earning us
credibility we lost during our modern debates. Then again, is there really
anything new under the sun? Perhaps we heard this once before in the ancient
letters of a former debater…[quote of 1 Peter 3:15-16]” I didn’t know Peter
was a “former debater.” Maybe I’m missing that page in the Bible. I don’t
recall any one of the apostles praised for being a great “listener learner.”

He is rightly reading the whole passage and it’s tone. “Apologia” does
mean to “give a defense” but look at the qualifiers! “yet with gentleness and
reverence”.

Well how does that bode for our modern attack-oriented apologetics? A defense or an offense? With
gentleness and reverence? Reverence for who? How does that play out?

Here I think we have another false dichotomy- “modern apologetics” is
cold, irreverent, and un-loving, while emergent apologetics is gentle and
friendly. I’ve meant emergent people who were cold, irreverent, and un-loving,
and I’ve met “modern apologists” who are gentle and friendly. Apologists who
don’t practice gentleness and respect are not good apologists, modern or
postmodern.

I once did an “Ask Mac” thing with Campus Crusade and Inter-Varsity at
Sac-State where a large crowd fired questions at me about Christianity for
three hours three days in a row.

One young Muslim was quite angry given his interactions with Christians.
He had some very good and pointed criticisms. To his surprise I listened to him
and agreed with much of what he said (not theologically, but historically).

The crowd was shocked but everyone seemed to open up after that and we
had a lot of fun and everyone left with Gospel on their mind…like “maybe it’s
not what I thought it was”.

The young man came up to me afterward. He had been so angry before. But
now he was gentle. He took my hand in his and said. “Thank you for listening to
me. We may not agree, but I will think about what you have said.”

“And I will think about what you have said,” I said, and I did.

Remember the premium that Paul places on humility, and then remember
Philippians 2 as our example…Kenosis. 

I agree about the importance of humility and respect, and I do think
those virtues (especially humility) are often lost in “modern apologists.” As I
told Dan Kimball a few days ago, I don’t think “modern apologetics” has been
perfect. This is one of the areas it often, but not always, falls short.

Acts is our model for evangelism; where are the “listener learners?” I
wonder, if we’re doing all of this listening and learning, when are we
proclaiming the simple, practical, and necessary Truths of the Gospel?

Just off hand Philip in the desert comes to mind (not even cracking my
Bible) with the Ethiopian Eunuch who has come all the way from Africa on
spiritual pilgrimage and is still lost. Philip climbs up into his carriage,
listens and when asked begins to explain to the man the Good News.

The passage, Acts 8:26-40, actually works against the “listener
learner” model. The only thing Philip listened to was the Ethiopian’s reading
of Isaiah. Then he began to answer he questions by telling him about “the good
news about Jesus.”

The Ethiopian Eunuch is the modern day Postmodern (er, with some
restrictions) because he is a seeker. All the way from Ethiopia trying to find
God…but still confused on his way home.

Other examples upon request from Acts dear brother. Acts is a gold mine
for Postmodern exploration. I mean no disrespect, but read it again with new
eyes. Peter on the rooftop…Paul at Mars Hill where he uses their own icon to
“the unknown God” as a starting point and elsewhere quotes their
poets…geez.    

I think we may
be talking past each other here. Out of humility and respect for others I
listen to them, but the “listener learner” model I here about, and what I’m
critiquing, is much more than simply listening. I learn about Mormonism, for
instance, because I want to understand Mormons in order to reach them, like
Paul quoting the Greeks. But I don’t learn from Mormonism. The postmodern
“listening learner” model seeks to learn in order to make personal application.
That goes far beyond anything in Acts, which is a gold mine for exploration for
every person regardless of culture.

One last point to this long post- Mr. Myles’ proposals are all
pragmatically motivated. Apparently grounding our apologetics or homiletics in
the Bible is not the way to go- we need to work out the “postmodern
sensibilities” to make sure we’re not coming off as mean or belittling. Instead
of modeling ourselves after the fallen culture, my prayer is that we model our
evangelism and apologetics after the inspired Word of God. “For we never came
with words of flattery, as you know, nor with pretext or greed—God is witness.
Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we
could have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you,
like a nursing mother taking care of her children. So, being affectionately
desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but
also our own selves, because you had become dear to us.” (Paul in 1
Thessalonians 2:5-8 ESV)

You make Mr. Myles point for him. And again, I do not
wish to embarrass you and if you are a man of courage (and I think you are) you
will just publish this and let people have at it.

Mr. Myles is not coming with flattery, but empathy. The Incarnation is
the ultimate empathy, no?

I see no pretext, or greed, nor want of glory (neither do I see any of
that in you by the way). 

What does it mean to be “gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking
care of her children?”

That is not adversarial. It’s loving and intimate. It is incarnational
which is miles away from modeling ourselves after the “fallen culture”. 

I
really have no idea how I made Mr. Myles’ point for him. I’m not saying that
Mr. Myles’ is seeking glory or what not. However, Paul’s describing giving
himself to the people of Thessalonica because of the Gospel, not because of
what the people’s interests or desires.

One of the great things about Postmodernism is that they know the world
is fallen. That is new. When I were younger we use to have to argue if sin and
falleness even existed. No one debates this now.

They just want faith, hope and love. In short, they just want Jesus.

The
problem, according to the Bible, is that they don’t want Jesus. They know that
world’s fallen, but they don’t think they are. We are by nature sinful, and we
love our sin. We don’t want Jesus to come save us from out sinfulness. If they
already want Jesus, then out job of evangelism’s done. But since they don’t, we
must proclaim it ever more boldly- with gentleness and respect.

Category Posted in Apologetics, Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 15 Comments »

Modern Reformation #1- The Emerging Church by D.A. Carson

Date July 17, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Today I finally received the latest issue of Modern
Reformation in the mail. Every issue is written to address a specific topic and
it just so happens that this issue is focused on “The Emergent Church.” There
are six features on the subject and over the next week or so I’ll be reflecting
on each of them. The first is an article adapted from D.A. Carson’s book, Becoming
Conversant with the Emerging Church. Conveniently, this article is
available online at Modern Reformation’s website. Since it is available online
I’ll skip summarizing and simply reflect on a few quotes.

“What Are We Talking About?
At the heart of the Emergent Church movement—or as some of its leaders prefer
to call it, the “conversation”—lies the conviction that changes in the culture
signal that a new church is “emerging.” Christian leaders must therefore adapt
to this emerging church. Those who fail to do so are blind to the cultural
accretions that hide the gospel behind forms of thought and modes of expression
that no longer communicate with the new generation, the emerging generation.”

 

Tonight while watching the best show currently on television
(Monk) a commercial caught my attention. “Moms have changed, shouldn’t the
mini-van?” Companies test their products in the market and make changes based
on the likes or dislikes of the consumers. Their argument is that mini-vans
should be adapted to fit the desires of the contemporary mom (something a
Feminist would deplore). Often, in much the same way, people within the
emerging church movement look at church, or perhaps even the Gospel, as a
product that needs to be adapted to the changing culture. Churches that don’t
adapt won’t survive. This analogy will likely offend those in emergent, since
they typically try to distance themselves from consumerism, but it appears to
be entirely accurate. If church and/or the Gospel are merely products, then
we’ve trivialized the necessity and truth of Christianity.

“So while [Brian McLaren] dismisses absolute religious
relativism (it cannot be said that he critiques it; rather, he recognizes that
as a Christian he cannot finally go down that avenue), I have not yet seen from
McLaren, or anyone else in the Emergent Church movement, a critique of any substantive
element of postmodern thought.”

Neither have I. Has anyone else (honestly)? What I usually
see are claims of modernism being entirely bad, and though they don’t say
postmodernism is entirely good, they imply so by failing to critique and sometimes
embracing it.

“I find that I am more critical of the movement because my
“take” on contemporary culture is a bit removed from theirs, partly because the
solutions I think are required are somewhat different from theirs, partly
because I worry about (unwitting) drift from Scripture, and partly because this
movement feels like an exercise in pendulum swinging, where the law of
unintended consequences can do a lot of damage before the pendulum comes to
rest.”

If we disagree on the problem, we will disagree about
the solution. I’ve seen emergent folk surprised that people are skeptical of
what they’re doing. They shouldn’t be. They shouldn’t expect us to agree about
what to do when we’re in disagreement about why we’re doing it. The uncritical
embrace of postmodernism within emergent, to various degrees, is in stark
contrast to those of us who are more cautious about jumping in. In reality,
every culture has some good qualities and some bad qualities.  I’m skeptical of any person who talks about
changing the church or the Gospel in light of the culture without even asking
if the culture is an appropriate stimulus for such a change. I don’t see many
emergent folk taking this question very seriously. Rather, they tend to assume
culture’s an appropriate motivation and that leaves folks like Dr. Carson and
myself very concerned.

Category Posted in Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 4 Comments »

Book Review: Head, Heart & Hands by Dennis P. Hollinger

Date July 16, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

One of the many problems within Christianity today is the
unhealthy division between the head, the heart and the hands- or thought,
passion, and action. Different groups tend to emphasis one area of Christian
life over the others. In doing so, they not only neglect what they
de-emphasize, but what they do emphasize suffers from imbalance. To give
examples, I would say the Reformed tradition tends to over-emphasize the mind,
Charismatics the heart, and the emerging church the hands. Dennis Hollinger
seeks to bring these elements together in his book Head, Heart & Hands.

“What we need today, in a fragmented world, is a whole faith
of the head, heart and hands, with each dimension feeding and sustaining the
others.” (16) Dr. Hollinger begins by painting a picture of what we experience
too often- fragmented people living fragmented lives. This sets the stage for
looking at each area of Christian life individually.

There are two chapters on each the head, the heart and the
hands. The first explains the Biblical foundation for the element and its
implications for our lives. The second examines how the element is often
distorted, either by neglect or by over-emphasis. Dr. Hollinger then presents
the three elements integrated in three chapters. The first examines a number of
Old and New Testament passages that make a case for the necessity of all three
elements working together. The next chapter draws from non-Biblical examples of
this model found in education, social psychology, and philosophy. The final
chapter examines the implications of integration for our lives, and the
challenges we must overcome.

At the very least, Dr. Hollinger is incredibly thorough. Had
I written this book (which I did have in mind before this came along), I would
not have been able to cover each element to the great detail that Dr. Hollinger
does. The reason is that I tend to favor the mind, and therefore couldn’t cover
the heart and hands well. What makes this book good is that the presentation of each
element is balanced.

What makes this book great, though, is how well Dr.
Hollinger explains the relationships between these elements in the Christian
life. “Our minds cannot be brought into harmony with God’s designs and truth
without hearts that are near to God and actions that reflect God’s ways. Our
hearts cannot experience the presence and power of the Holy Spirit without
knowledge of God to guide us and without actions that reflect the fruit of the
Holy Spirit. And our actions of both proclamation and presence will wither
without a theology to guide them and a heart to drive and sustain them. Head,
heart and hands together. That is the paradigm from God’s Word.” (158)

Head, Heart & Hands is indispensable reading for those who wish to live a
complete life completely surrendered to Christ. It should be required for every
disciple of Christ who seeks to live to His glory.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

Attack of the Links

Date July 15, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Timbo has finally posted his incredibly long review of A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren.

Our friend Victor over at The Renewal Blog wonders about God calling us sheep- 450 jumped to their death in Turkey.



Douglas Groothuis
has finally joined the blogsphere. Today he offered some convictions
regarding apologetics and yesterday explained the great use of the
TV-B-Gone.




Os Guinness will be speaking at Hollywood Presbyterian Church next Monday night on Hollywood's Superheroes and the Real Mission to Save the West. If you're within 200 miles of the church you should be there- it's just too great to pass up.




Congratulations to our friend Nancy Pearcey on winning a 2005 Gold Medallion Award for her book Total Truth. Lee Strobel also received one for Case for the Creator.




Our friend Rob Sivulka has posted his June newsletter
where he reports on what happened this summer at the Mormon Miracle
Pageant and you can listen to a free lecture of his on Mormonism! For
those wondering, the bilboard advertising MormonInfo.org will be posting on the highway through Salt Lake City next month.




Check out the new blog Intellectuelle– Sarah's post on the impossibility of neutrality and Marla's post on modesty are both noteworthy.




Simon over at Thinking Deeply posted a thoughtful post last week on the eternally destination of infants that's generated some interesting conversation.




Ever heard of Sudoku? I hadn't until today. But Face has been taken in by the number game and I'm afraid I may be as well if I try it.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous Comments No Comments »

Emergent Apologetics?

Date July 14, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Youth Specialties’ journal for youth workers, creatively
titled Youthworker, recently published an article by Tony Myles called
“Emergent Apologetics.” Since apologetics is my specialty, I thought it might
be helpful for me to provide some commentary on this piece.

 “Debating is a
lost cause. Don't believe me? Let's debate about it.” This is a disaster of
a statement, let alone an opening line. Apparently I simply have to accept the
fact that debating is a lost cause; I’m not even allowed to think otherwise.
Mr. Myles assumes his conclusion to make his point. Strike one.

“I have intentionally stayed away from modern apologetics
for quite some time…Funny—who knew that people didn't like being belittled?”
I find this comment rather belittling to those of us who think “modern
apologetics” is effective and Biblical. He may be able to point to one or two
“modern apologists” who are belittling (like Robert Morey), but for the most
part we aren’t. In fact, most are warm and charitable people of God (has he met
Josh McDowell, Nancy Pearcey, Greg Koukl…?). But Mr. Myles doesn’t even offer
an example aside from his own abuse of apologetics. With this point he brushes
away “modern apologetics” as mean and useless, without ever showing how or why it
is; let alone that he never defines “modern apologetics” either. Strike two.

Mr. Myles says there’s a new “paradigm of apologetics on the
horizon” that respects people and this involves redefining apologetics. For the
postmodern emerging church, he sees this worked out in at least four ways:

“The (re)emergence of the story/narrative approach…Most
of the time, I present this through personal stories, illustrative narratives,
and biblical examples. In the end I find that it's the stories I use to
“flesh out” the points that most people remember. We still need a
biblical “skeleton,” but without the skin it's not nearly as
interesting.” I have no idea what this has to do with apologetics; this is
really a point about homiletics. However, when did the Bible become
un-interesting? Yes, people remember stories, but if you give them the Bible
they’ll remember that too. Paul didn’t tell Timothy that Scripture and
narrative are profitable; he said that Scripture is divinely inspired and
profitable (2 Tim 3:26-17). Rome added tradition. Modernism added rationality.
Postmodernism, and especially the emerging church, adds narrative. Apparently
we’ve forgotten what the reformers tried to remind us of- Scripture (not us) changes
hearts and minds towards God. Strike three. (Postmodernism doesn’t hold to
modernistic assumptions of rules, so he can have all the strikes he wants.)

“The (re)emergence of originality. No
longer can the same sermon be preached without care to the specific people in
our context.” Once again a point about homiletics, maybe he’ll get to
apologetics later. When was this ever not true? But the more important question
is, why is it true? It’s true because sermons today contain personal stories of
experiences that may or may not be relevant to other groups of people. The
Bible, however, is relevant to every group of people regardless of culture,
nationality, or personality. If sermons were comprised of Biblical teaching,
this would not be an issue. But since preachers insist on adding personal
narrative to the Bible, they must be mindful of the context in which they’re
preaching. The better solution would be to simply teach the Bible. Strike four.

“The (re)emergence of practical hope… we
must help them to see the “real side” of life through the biblical
lens of Jesus. This requires us to extend ourselves in fresh ways through our
preaching so that we move past the “same old, same old” and truly
bear witness to the hope of Christ.” He’s still talking homiletics. I’m not
sure what this even means. What is the “same old, same old” we’re suppose to
move beyond? Wouldn’t it be helpful to tell me if you want me to move beyond
it? Hasn’t the Gospel always been the best practical hope? So wouldn’t
preaching it be the best solution? (Mark Oestreicher said questions are better
than answers, so how do you like all my questions?) I can’t even give Mr. Myles
a strike here since he didn’t really say anything substantive.

“The (re)emergence of biblically-based teaching… more
and more people (especially students) seem to be giving greater respect to
Scripture, theology, and the life of Jesus. Perhaps this admiration is why they
are less interested in pop psychology and more concerned about finding an
anchor of truth. The more our teaching can contain such a foundation, the more
value others will ascribe to it.” Wow. This is the first time, that I can
recall, reading someone in the emerging church movement admit that people are
concerned about truth, Scripture, and theology. I think this is true, and so
obviously true that I don’t consider it profound; but it is profound within
emergent. People are actually more interested in truth than whimsical stories.
I hope Mr. Myles takes this point into consideration when thinking about the
others. He gets a base hit for this one.

“The opportunities to be the listening learner are
earning us credibility we lost during our modern debates. Then again, is there
really anything new under the sun? Perhaps we heard this once before in the
ancient letters of a former debater…[quote of 1 Peter 3:15-16]” I didn’t know
Peter was a “former debater.” Maybe I’m missing that page in the Bible. I don’t
recall any one of the apostles praised for being a great “listener learner.”
Acts is our model for evangelism; where are the “listener learners?” I wonder,
if we’re doing all of this listening and learning, when are we proclaiming the
simple, practical, and necessary Truths of the Gospel?

One last point to this long post- Mr. Myles’ proposals
are all pragmatically motivated. Apparently grounding our apologetics or
homiletics in the Bible is not the way to go- we need to work out the
“postmodern sensibilities” to make sure we’re not coming off as mean or
belittling. Instead of modeling ourselves after the fallen culture, my prayer
is that we model our evangelism and apologetics after the inspired Word of God.
“For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with pretext or
greed—God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or
from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we
were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her children. So,
being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only
the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become dear to us.”
(Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:5-8 ESV)

Category Posted in Apologetics, Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 26 Comments »

Book Review: What is Reformed Theology? By R.C. Sproul

Date July 12, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton


Growing up in a Baptist church, I knew very little about
Reformed theology. When I started attending a “Reformed” church my only concern
was how dogmatically they might teach Calvinism- which in my mind had something
to do with TULIP and God forcing people to believe in Him. I have no doubt that
many others have seen Reformed theology in a similar light. In What is
Reformed Theology? Dr. R.C. Sproul attempts to distill the doctrines of the
reformers into a simple and accessible format, and correct many of the
misunderstandings many of us have had of it.

Dr. Sproul begins in the introduction affirming that what is
being discussed is not a Reformed religion, but more appropriately Reformed
theology. It is “not merely a religion without theology. It is driven first and
foremost by its understanding of the character of God.” (20)

The book is divided into two parts. The first consists of
five chapters on the foundations of Reformed theology- 1) Centered on God 2)
Based on God’s Word Alone 3) Committed to Faith Alone 4) Devoted to Prophet,
Priest, and King 5) Nicknamed Covenant Theology.

Part two is Dr. Sproul’s explanation of what is commonly
known as TULIP- 6) Humanity’s Radical Corruption 7) God’s Sovereign Choice 8)
Christ’s Purposeful Atonement 9) The Spirit’s Effective Call 10) God’s
Preservation of the Saints.

Throughout the book Dr. Sproul draws Reformed theology up
against Roman Catholicism and Pelagius, periodically against Dispensationalism,
and at a couple of points against Lutheranism. This is often helpful in order
to more fully understand the Reformed position, but I suspect at some points
the opposing views are short changed and dismissed without a fair hearing.

This is not a book defending Reformed theology. Anyone who
reads this hoping that it is will be rather disappointed. It is more accurately
a description of Reformed theology. The Westminster Confession and Reformed
thinkers are cited almost as much, if not as much, as the Bible. Many points of
Reformed theology that are described are not argued for, though he does take up
arguments for and/or against a few doctrines.

As a descriptive work it’s fairly well done. However, I’m
afraid there is a limited audience who will appreciate this book. Those
educated and trained in theology will likely find the book simplistic. Those
who aren’t may find it hard to follow. Dr. Sproul goes into some great
explanations of terms like justification, but in the process he uses other
terms that he doesn’t even bother to define. There is a glossary, however it
only contains foreign (Latin and Greek) words that he uses. A more substantive
glossary would have been very helpful for this book.

For me, and I suspect others from similar backgrounds,
What is Reformed Theology? is helpful in bringing to bear the big
picture of Reformed theology, as well as the history of the doctrines. R.C.
Sproul is enjoyable and informative, as he usually is. I recommend this book to
anyone seeking to understand Reformed theology, though, they will likely need
to look elsewhere to be persuaded of it if they’re not already.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 3 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »