Can I Get a Witness? Part I

Date June 11, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Yesterday I put out an APB on Rob Sivulka’s great opportunity to get a billboard in Salt Lake City advertising his website, www.mormoninfo.org.
Many of you probably don’t know anything about his ministry. So, I’d
like to share with you my experience from witnessing beside him last
summer at the Manti Miracle Pageant (a Mormon historical drama that
runs for 8 nights every June drawing around 90,000 Mormons).

 

(From my newsletter
June, 2004) “What defines Rob, aside from knowing just about everything
and being a cool surfer-dude, is that he often carries around signs in
front of the Temple and at the Pageant advertising his site and
Josephlied.com. Needless to say, this usually doesn't generate a lot of
love and support. When I first saw him doing his thing I was hesitant.
I didn't think it was the best way of going about witnessing, but then
he does do this for a living. After seeing many of the dirty looks and
anger that the signs stirred up I decided I didn't want to have
anything to do with it. Rob was a great guy, as long as he stood a good
way away from where I was witnessing.

Something changed in me
though through all of our training on Mormonism and through watching
the Pageant. I saw Mormonism for what it is and became more determined
than ever and willing to do anything to get people out of it. We had
been passing out tracts defining the differences between Mormonism and
Christianity. That hadn't been working for me, it wasn't enough to let
people know that Mormonism just doesn't cut it. Our last night at Manti
Rob needed help. About 40 minutes before the Pageant begins he starts
marching around and yelling at the top of his lungs why people need to
leave Mormonism. He needed another person to follow him with a sign,
and I did it. The first major thing that God did in me from the trip
was boldness. Unfortunately I haven't been bold in my faith in
non-Christian situations. That final night I stepped up to the plate to
stand beside a man exploiting the flaws of Mormonism. We were cursed
at, hassled, mocked, laughed at, etc., but I know that some of the
things Rob said put a stone in people's shoes that won't go away. Next
time I hope to go with signs of my own.

The second major
work God did in me was realized in the midst of that boldness. I began
to see people the way I believe God sees them. Overwhelmed with grief
at their idolatry and sinfulness. They were blind to their flawed
religion, and my heart broke for them. After we had finished marching
and we were leaving I couldn't help but weep for them. I wanted so much
for them to know the one true God, I would have done anything. That
perspective is one that I pray I will never lose. It will sharpen my
boldness when I need it most, and I believe I've been shaped into a
better ambassador for Christ through that.”

This
sort of witnessing approach is usually referred to as “Confrontational
Evangelism” and is contrasted with “Relational Evangelism.” For more on
this see Rob Sivulka’s “Evangelical Seminary's Outreach to Mormons Does Not Bridge the Gap.” Also see his responses to questions about his approach here.

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

Help Get the Word Out

Date June 10, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Last summer I had the great opportunity to work with Rob Sivulka, a full-time missionary in Salt Lake City, Utah. Rob runs MormonInfo.org, and can usually be seen holding a sign out in front of the temple and speaking with anyone who will listen. In his latest newsletter, Rob spoke about a new opportunity:

“We have a special opportunity to advertise MormonInfo.org for at least a couple weeks on a billboard off the 15 freeway in Salt Lake City. This is supposed to advertise to around 112,000 people per day! But the cost, including production, for those two weeks is $2,700. Would you be willing to contribute financially to this project, so that about 1.6 million people would be confronted with the errors of Mormonism and the truth of the Christian gospel?”

Imagine driving down the freeway in the city Mormons built and seeing a billboard advertising a website that preaches the true Gospel! The impact this can have is impossible to measure. Please help Rob get this billboard up by donating- Paypal or check.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 2 Comments »

The Scholar's Prayer: an A-Team exclusive!

Date June 9, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

School's out for summer—which means that I'm finally going through the
massive pile of stuff on my desk, most of which probably should've been
taken care of months ago. One of the gems I (re-)discovered was handed
out by David Horner in last semester's Ethics class. So even though
this is an A-Team exclusive (i.e., it didn’t show up in the first page
of my Google search), the credit ultimately goes to Horner. Or rather, the
ultimate credit goes to C.G. Moule, Anglican Bishop of Durham, 1901—but
Horner's responsible for sharing. At any rate:

Lord and Savior, true and kind,
be the master of my mind;
bless and guide and strengthen still
all my powers of thought and will.

While I ply the scholar's task,
Jesus Christ be near I ask;
help the memory, clear the brain,
knowledge still to seek and gain.

Here I train for life's swift race;
let me do it in thy grace;
here I arm me for life's fight;
let me do it in thy might.

Thou hast made me mind and soul;
I for thee would use the whole.
Thou hast died that I might live;
all my powers to thee I give.

Striving, thinking, learning still,
let me follow thus thy will;
till my whole glad nature be,
trained for duty and for thee.

Despite Moule's curious affinity for the word “still,” I think he
captures a valuable sentiment. During the semester, of course (before
it got buried in the pile, along with some insurance paperwork), it
became one of those “Okay, Lord: it's 1:00am and I’m just starting a paper
that’s due at 9:00; please bless my writing.” (I exaggerate, but only
slightly, unfortunately). Now that things have slowed down a bit, I
hope to be able to pray it with a bit of a broader focus.  

Category Posted in Ethics, Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc., Religion (General) Comments No Comments »

Why I like Howard Dean…

Date June 9, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

January 2005:

“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for. ”

 

February 2005 in Kansas:

“I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant. This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good…”

“The issue is not abortion; the issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do.”

UPDATE: A few weeks ago on Meet the Press:

“Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

 

Last week at a convention in D.C.:

“You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives… our vision for America is much better than the dark, difficult and dishonest vision of the Republican party offers America… There's some things you can't possibly agree with me on, such as Civil Rights for all Americans and a woman's right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she has.

 

This past Monday:

“The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. They pretty much — they all behave the same and they all look the same and they all — you know, it's pretty much a white Christian party.” [Go here to listen to Monday’s]

 

 

Call me optimistic, but I think most Americans are intelligent enough to see these comments for what they are- lies generated on irrational hate. Since I think most people see this, I’m pleased Howard Dean is the chair of the DNC, and I hope he’s there for a good while. He adds a little more humor to my life.

 

Tonight on Hannity & Colmes Newt Gingrich said he was afraid Dean’s comments would make Republicans lazy- we may depend on Dean to get all of our votes for us. I think we can still make our cases persuasively while the left-wing self-destructs.

Category Posted in Main Page, Politics, Roger's Posts Comments 11 Comments »

Valuing Apologetics in a Postmodern World

Date June 8, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

I've returned from my incredible trip to Ireland!  In the interest of stepping back immediately into the fray, I'm posting here a comment (with some adjustments and additions) I originally posted a few months ago on Bill Ekhardt's blog.  I was reminded of this by some ideas that Dan Kimball brought up in his comment here on Friday about apologetics.  He made some excellent points about the use and value of apologetics that I'd like to fill out a bit.  There seems to be a general misunderstanding among those who are following the Emergent conversation that apologetics ought to be avoided.  Recently, I was talking to a woman at a McLaren lecture who said, “Well, I came to Christ through apologetics, but now I realize [because of the teaching of McLaren] that it's really not effective.”  Not effective?!  She has so come to believe the teaching (whether or not this is a misunderstanding on her part) that apologetics is useless that she completely disregards even her own experience.  I appreciate Dan's love of apologetics, and I hope here to further make a case for apologetics as a richly satisfying and fruitful way of serving God. 

 

Apologetics is inextricably tied to a love for the lost and a desire to bring them into relationship with God.  God, Himself, was the first apologist.  He understood that we can't fully place our trust in something we don't believe is true.  This is why He consistently did things “so that we would know He is God.”  He acted in history (e.g., the Exodus) and then constantly pointed back to what the Israelites had seen with their own eyes whenever He called on them to trust Him.  He created a world so that we could understand “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature” from what we see in that world.  Throughout the Bible, the pattern is that God gives evidence which leads to knowledge of Him (how many times does he say, “I'm doing this so you may know…”) which leads to faith and trust.  You can't truly love and trust God if you don't believe He is actually real.  Faith (trust) always entails a belief that something is true (see Hebrews 11:6).   If God thinks these things are important, shouldn't we?  Dwelling on the evidences for the truthfulness of God and His actions in history (something that He often commands people to do in the Bible–the yearly reminder of the Passover Seder is a perfect example of this) is extremely faith promoting.  This is because intellectual assent is the starting point of faith–and I would even say that our faith can only be as strong as our intellectual assent.

 

Apologetics is a tool; and like any tool, one can use it skillfully or clumsily.  It doesn't have to be an intellectual battle of wits (although that has its place in the academic world).  Using apologetics involves the art of reading people, of engaging in conversation–drawing out their objections and then addressing them in a way they can clearly understand.  It requires good diplomacy, kindness, and clear thinking–not to mention an understanding of the answers to their objections (this definitely takes work). 

 

I have to say that the use of apologetics is not a turnoff to people.  I had Mormon missionaries visit my apartment weekly for a year and a half.  I spoke the truth plainly, and I did challenge them.  I was clear that I thought what they believed was wrong, but they actually liked coming, saying that it was great to be able to discuss these things openly (even though they were sometimes shaken).  They even remarked on the love they saw I had for God and for them.  At work, I've had a couple of people ask to meet with me so they could ask more questions.  Another woman is now doing a Bible study with me every week.  She has objections to the Bible, and she wants to know if there are answers.  I've had deep conversations with many others at work about everything from the existence of a moral law to scientific reasons to believe in the existence of God.  In fact, I call the chair in my office “the philosophy chair” because when people come in and sit down, the conversation inevitably turns to a discussion of these things with me.  I've even had a telemarketer end up talking to me for half an hour about Christianity, at the end of which he said he never understood what Jesus was about before, but now it made sense to him.  God consistently puts to use everything I learn.  Who would ever think philosophy of math would be useful, but believe it or not, it has come up in conversation!  I say none of this to bring glory to myself, but only to show how God will use the apologetic knowledge we are faithful to learn for His glory.

 

The challenge has been made that relativist postmoderns (the average people in our culture) do not respond to–and are even offended by–truth claims, and we should not approach them with evidence for a spiritual reality.  But all people–even the “postmodern generation”–know deep down that reality exists.  They understand that if you step into the street in front of a truck, you're going to bump into reality and be hurt.  Once you explain to them that just as we have to adjust the everyday things we do (like crossing the street) to the physical reality of the world around us or suffer the consequences, so we must adjust our thinking about the spiritual aspects of this world to reality or suffer the consequences, then they start asking questions about the true spiritual reality.  This takes less work than you might think.  And from my experience, we're more afraid of offending people than we need to be.  As long as we don't get agitated, neither do they–even if we say we think they're wrong.  This doesn't mean that nobody will ever get mad at us; but since people hated Jesus (even though he did everything right), this has more to do with their hearts than with our actions.

 

He who comes to God must believe that He is.  Apologetics is the spiritual warfare of 2 Corinthians 10:5–“We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”  People can't just ignore their intellectual objections to God.  These obstacles have to be removed so that people can fully trust Him.  This is what apologetics is about.  Usually it takes place at the beginning of a person's journey toward accepting the truth about Christ, but the stones must be removed from the field before anything can have a chance to grow.  This task is as valuable now as it has been in any other time in history.

 

For any of you wishing to look into apologetics for both a clear knowledge and a diplomatic approach for reaching out to others, I suggest beginning with Stand to Reason–an organization I fully support.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page Comments 6 Comments »

Book Review: Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey

Date June 8, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

In the 2004 elections, why was the country so closely divided? Why is our culture in the state it’s in? What impact does philosophy have on our lives? If you’re looking for answers to these questions, and many more, Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey is the book for you

The book feels more like three books in one. Throughout it, the central principle is that Christianity is not just true for Sundays, it’s not just a private religious practice, but it is total truth- it applies to every area of life and culture

In the first part Nancy Pearcey lays out the basics of worldview thinking. Every worldview will in some way account for three things: creation, fall, and redemption. This worldview scheme is applied to several popular contemporary worldviews, like Marxism and Buddhism. Part one also deals extensively with the history of the Fact/Value split- that we separate our values from our facts such that facts are objective and knowable and values are subjective and variable

Part two of Total Truth dives into the naturalistic worldview and how it’s shaped certain parts of our culture. Mrs. Pearcey offers several defeaters for the common “examples” of Darwinian evolution, such as the “peppered moths.” She also discusses the Intelligent Design movement and offers three distinct arguments for a designer. The importance of knowing about naturalism is driven home by an example from the Berestain Bears, which teaches our children that “Nature… is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!” (157)

The third part is an evaluation of Evangelicalism. Mrs. Pearcey examines two strands of Evangelicalism- the populist which focused on revivalism and individual conversion, and the scholastic which emphasized theology and rationalism. She shows how these ideologies ended up leaving us with a public/private split. In her chapter “How Women Started the Culture War,” she shows how Feminism has further distorted the total truth of Christianity.

Part four consists of one chapter about how important true spirituality is to the total truth of Christianity. “Ultimately, this experience is the goal of developing a Christian worldview—not just studying and debating ideas, but dying and rising again in union with Christ.” (354)

Total Truth is one of the longest books I’ve read in some time. That said, if it takes you two years to read it, the time would be well spent. Nancy Pearcey is an engaging writer who could probably make anything sound interesting and important. I’m not much into science myself, but even the four chapters of the book strictly on science I found to be enriching. This book should be in the hands of everyone who wants to live a life completely surrendered to Christ. Many people said this was the book to read of 2004. I must agree, and I cannot recommend it more. It is also great for group studies, which will be aided by a study guide edition coming out 9/2005.

Category Posted in Apologetics, Book Reviews, Culture, Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

Post-Official Emergent Response & The Return of D.A. Carson

Date June 6, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Aside from my response, there are some helpful thoughts from John Umland at The UmBlog. Or you can join in with our friend Doug TenNapel who’s started an emergent drinking game. (At least go buy his new book, Earthboy Jacobus)

 

Last week (pre-response) I created an Amazon “So You’d Like to… Guide” on the Emergent Church. I tried to be as objective as possible. Please let me know what you think!

 

Interestingly, D.A. Carson was on the radio the same night the “official response” was posted. It was a great interview, and he answers the question of why he hasn’t been responding to most of his own critics.

 

Towards the end Carson suggests that there will be a split in the emergent movement. He cites Mark Driscoll pulling away from the movement because of some of the heretical doctrines floating around (Carson’s characterization). Last Fall at an Emergent/YS conference I attended a panel with Dan Kimball and Spencer Burke. At one point I got the impression that Kimball wanted to disagree with Burke on something but Burke wouldn’t let him.

 

I certainly perceive a difference in doctrinal stances within emergent. For instance, McLaren seems to be pretty far out there on a number of issues, whereas Kimball has remained fairly orthodox. But is there enough tension to cause a split? Are we going to see a division in a movement that stresses unity, especially after an official response from these men of diverse perspectives?

 

UPDATE: I screwed up the link to John Umland's blog. Here it is: The UmBlog.

Category Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 7 Comments »

Book Review: A Different Jesus? By Robert Millet

Date June 6, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

During
a meeting with some representatives of the Southern Baptist Convention
Robert Millet and his LDS colleagues were asked, “’Why don’t you people
just admit it: You worship a different Jesus!’ My LDS colleagues and I
spent the next half hour or so trying to convince them of our
acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth, as set forth in the New Testament.”
(xi-xii) This is the goal Dr. Millet has set forth for A Different
Jesus?

Robert
Millet begins by presenting the beginnings of Mormonism as an
introduction to their beliefs. On this foundation he then proceeds to
discuss LDS theologies revolving around Jesus Christ in relation to
(mostly Protestant) historical Christianity.

Chapter
1 tells briefly about Christ’s pre-existence and the plan of the
eternal gospel coming to bear. The second chapter looks at Jesus in
light of secular scholarship, namely the Jesus Seminar. In chapter 3
Dr. Millet discusses a list of differences among Christians, the LDS
claim to be the “one true church,” and what doctrines Mormonism holds
in addition to historical Christianity. In subsequent chapters he goes
on to explain the LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ and salvation, and at
the end has a chapter answering 21 of the most common questions he’s
been asked by non-Mormons.

In
his concluding chapter, Robert Millet tells a story about a question
asked of him by a theologian: “You are standing before the judgment bar
of the Almighty, and God turns to you and asks: ‘Robert Millet, what
right do you have to enter heaven? Why should I let you in?’… I would
say to God: ‘I claim the right to enter heaven because of my complete
trust and reliance upon the merits and mercy and grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ.’” (175-177) The question that first came to my mind is,
“Which Jesus?”

Well,
the LDS Jesus that Robert Millet presents does bear some similarity to
the Jesus that historical Christians believe in, but also has a number
of important differences. “Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of God
the Father and thus the recipient of the birthright of the royal
family. As such, and in that premortal realm, he was the Elder Brother
of all the spirit sons and daughters of the Father.” (20) We are those
spirit sons and daughters, literally. “We do not believe that God and
man are of a different species.” (117) They do believe in the Trinity,
“But they believe they are three distinct personages, three Beings,
three separate Gods.” (141)

These
important beliefs are at the foundation of the differences between the
Jesus of the LDS Church and the Jesus of historic Christianity.
Further, such doctrines about Jesus of Nazareth are, we Christians
believe, contradictory to the revelation of the Old and New Testaments.
Thus, despite Dr. Millet’s insistence otherwise, the LDS do believe in
a different Jesus.

On
one hand, I found some things to appreciate about this book. Robert
Millet emphasizes Jesus Christ more than he does Joseph Smith, which is
a move in the right direction. Dr. Millet has interacted with a wide
range of popular Protestant authors, which helps him paint a mostly
accurate picture of historic Christianity. However, on the other hand,
he manages to quote from every prominent open theist and just about all
of C.S. Lewis’ most controversial beliefs. He poses some great
questions throughout the book, but then occasionally fails to really
answer them. For example, after quoting from Matthew 16:16-18 he asks,
“Did the Lord not clearly state in this passage that Satan would not
prevail over the Christian church?” (52) Unfortunately no clear answer
is even offered.

While
Robert Millet affirms many things I would agree with, on the most
fundamental doctrines of who Jesus Christ is, I cannot. Unfortunately I
cannot agree with my Christian brother Richard Mouw, who states in his
afterword, “I think that an open-minded Christian reader of this book
will sense that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the
Bible for his salvation.” (183) It appears that Dr. Millet is still
trusting in a different Jesus; a different God, than the ONE of the
Bible.

The
book is well written, which is a testimony to Dr. Millet’s prolific
writing career. While it would be easily understood by most lay people,
I’m afraid I can’t recommend it except to those who have a firm
understanding of the teachings of the Bible and a general understanding
of the LDS General Authorities who are interested in learning about
Mormon teachings. I am disappointed that a Christian publisher would
print this book, thereby making it accessible to unsuspecting readers
in Christian bookstores, as it is an outright defense of a Jesus
contrary to the Bible.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Mormonism, Religion (General), Roger's Posts Comments 6 Comments »

Book Review: The Feminist Mistake by Mary Kassian

Date June 4, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

What comes to mind when you think of Feminism? Is it simply the idea that all men and women are of equal worth, or is it more than that? Over the past 50 years it has been much, much more. The bulk of The Feminist Mistake by Mary Kassian is an historical overview of the feminist movement, in both its secular and religious forms. 

Mrs. Kassian investigates feminism from its postmodern roots to its present day. She begins with the writings of Simone De Beauvoir and Betty Friedan. The initial result of the movement they sparked was an ideology of women naming themselves. “They claimed this role had been determined by men and was oppressive to women.” (80) Naming themselves meant “the freedom of all women to do what ever they wish to do sexually” (57- quote of Shulamith Firestone) and otherwise.

Stage one of Feminism was to re-shape women’s self-image. Stage two was to re-shape the world we live in according to Feminist thought. “Through woman-centered analysis, every area of human existence was examined and redefined. Woman-centered analysis was both a systematic analysis of the past and an attack on the values that shaped the past.”(105)

Even though much of these first two stages were founded on naturalistic assumptions (in their secular forms), the third stage was a religious one- naming God. “Feminists encouraged women to use their imagination in creating new visions of God and new forms of worship and ritual.” (181) What followed was self-worship, the Feminists redefined God as themselves. Many began integrating New Age and Wiccan practices into their ideology.

Religious Feminism followed a similar path. They began by re-envisioning themselves and in order to do so they needed to be liberated. “Feminist theologians believed that the liberation of women would reduce the end of poverty, racial discrimination, ecological destruction, and war. They argued that it would end all dualisms, usher in a new world order of peace, and witness the birth of a new humanity.” (64)

They then began to name more than just themselves; they created woman-centered theology. “According to Ruether, only the biblical texts that spoke to women’s contemporary quest for liberation were valid.”(108) This had a profound impact in all areas of theology: “God’s purpose as to assist humans to realize their liberation… Rather than God incarnate, Jesus represented to them a deicitic humanity—a ‘foretaste of freedom’—promised to all.” (114) “Jesus as not to be viewed as the one who saves, but rather as the primary example of God’s salvation, which is liberation.” Sin was redefined as “a situation in which there is no community, no room to live as a human being.” (115- quote of Letty Russell)

When it came to where both the secular and religious veins of Feminism were heading, Mrs. Kassian argues that they ended up at the same place. “Secular feminists had named themselves outright as gods, and, although it took somewhat longer and was couched in traditional Christian terms, religious feminists began to do the same.” (226)

In response to some criticisms I made of Feminism, a friend of mine told me I didn’t understand it. She was right; it’s far worse then I had figured. Consider a 1993 conference in Minneapolis called “Re-imagining God” which was participated in by PCUSA, ELCA, and several other major denominations. Attendees were led in prayer to “Mother God,” were told that Asian goddesses could represent a new kind of trinity, and were told that “we don’t need a theory of atonement at all… we [don’t] need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff. We do not need atonement; we just need to listen to the god within.” (237-239- quote of Delores Williams of Union Theological Seminary)

In analysis, Mary Kassian shows how even the most simple of Feminist assumptions, that there should be no restrictions as to what women should do, inevitably leads down a path to a dark place completely contrary to the Christian worldview. “Instead of promoting a healthy self-identity for women or contribution to a greater harmony between the sexes, it has resulted in increased gender confusion, increased conflict, and a profound destruction of morality and family.” (299)

This is not an easy book. Mary Kassian offers an excruciatingly detailed analysis to show how Feminism has progressed. The result is that it would be hard for someone to dispute her case. Anyone who can get through it will be better for it. My main complaint is that it does not really get into the Biblical view of manhood and womanhood, but there are other books on that and if she added that here the size of the volume would have been too daunting for anyone to read. This book should be read by every church leader as it shows the devastating impact Feminism can have in our churches and in some cases has already had.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Culture, Main Page, Religion (General), Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

My Response to the Official Emergent Response

Date June 3, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Of all the odd things I had in mind to blog on tonight, this was least expected. The Emergent-Us blog has posted an official “Response to Recent Criticisms By Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, Chris Seay.” (HT: Andrew Jones)

Now, why would I call this odd? Because over and over I keep hearing how emergent is a conversation, not a movement- it’s not organized. There is no official Emergent entity, and yet, somehow there’s now an official response to critics of the emergent church. They’re free to do what they want; I just find it odd. For what it’s worth, I have a few responses of my own to critics of the emerging critics…

“We have also attempted to make personal contact with our critics for Christian dialogue. Even though most of these invitations have not been accepted, we hope that the friendly gesture is appreciated.” Specifics would be nice. Most of us have heard that D.A. Carson has not accepted invitations… but most? Who else? Seriously, I’ve seen most critics dialoguing. This characterization strikes me as false and utterly uncharitable. If it’s true, please support this claim.

“Third, we regretfully acknowledge that in our thought, writing, and speech, we have at times been less charitable or wise than we wish we would have been.” I will grant the same for many of us critics, and hope we can both work to improve.

“Fourth, we respect the desire and responsibility of our critics to warn those under their care about ideas that they consider wrong or dangerous, and to keep clear boundaries to declare who is “in” and “out” of their circles.” This last bit seems uncharitable, but is perhaps an accurate reflection of how emergent folk view non-emergent folk. If we were all about keeping “boundaries to declare who is ‘in’ and ‘out’” of our circles, we would be petty at best. Boundaries are enforced (theologically) to direct us towards worshipping God in spirit and in truth, not to label people “in” or “out.”

“We believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism” I’d like to know what you think “arrogant absolutism” is, and what you see as the difference between “radical relativism” and non-radical relativism.

“Eighth, we are aware that there is some debate about whether we should be considered evangelical.” Heck, I don’t even like to call myself Evangelical, I’m not sure why some are so eager to hold on to the label.  And at least some of the “strict Calvinists” I know don’t like to be called Evangelical either.

“Instead of engaging in fruitless quarrels with our critics, we urge those who find our work helpful to pursue spiritual formation in the way of Christ…” This could easily be taken as saying that the emergent folk view dialogue with critics as fruitless. Since you say you appreciate dialogue elsewhere, I’m going to assume that’s not what you meant here- but couldn’t you have worded that differently?

“With millions suffering from hunger, disease, and injustice around the world, we hope that all of us – including our critics – can renew our commitment to “remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10) rather than invest excessive energy in “controversies about words.”” This too strikes me as uncharitable. I don’t know a single person who would say we shouldn’t be committed to the poor. This statement pits the “critics” as uncaring while emergent is. Let’s not forget that emerging people reacting against status quo Christianity started this “controversy about words”.  That’s not to say you shouldn’t react, but it is pretentious to characterize your critics in this manner when it was you who were first critical of us.

We’re all critical of one another. We all think we’re at least right enough in our views to say something about them publicly. But I think most of are willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we’re trying to faithfully serve Christ. Can we please continue the discussion without such indecorous characterizations?

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that I think point 6 is the most important. It is in some sense a creed of what these gentlemen believe and reflects much of orthodox Christianity. I personally appreciated “we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors” the most. Hopefully we can use point 6 as a foundation for common ground for further discussion.

Category Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 21 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »