Is the Emergent Church a Threat to the Gospel? or Why Im Concerned

April 1, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

A recent Baptist Press article caused quite an uproar in the blogsphere claiming that the “Emergent Church Movement” is a threat to the gospel. (See a previous post on a problem I have with the article.)

So is it a threat? Possibly. In as much as emerging churches are seeking to worship God, preach the Bible, and communicate in new ways, it is generally not a threat. When culture has changed to the point where it can no longer understand the Gospel, Christians should make an effort to translate it to the emerging culture. This is not only good, but it is Biblical. Imagine someone’s insistence on teaching a Thai person English in order to read an English Bible instead of translating their English Bible into Thai so a bunch of Thais can read it. (I’ve never figured out how KJV only people get around this problem.)

The danger comes if the message is changed. If Jesus was not God, was not the substitute for our sins, and did not rise from the dead, then our faith is worthless. We are of all people most to be pitied for our great false hope. Most of those involved in the emerging church have not gone down this road, at least not yet. But if Emergent continues in the manner it has been traveling I can’t see why many would not go this direction.

The primary problem with the emerging church, as I see it, is that there are no boundaries. It is so open to questions and ideas as to allow just about any kind of heresy without any recourse. Some have traveled into universalism and relativism, and all that those in emergent can say is, “they may be right.” This is theological liberty run amuck, and we risk the distortion of what God has clearly revealed in His Word. (Let me make it clear that only a minority of Emergent has gone this far, however, I don’t see anything keeping the majority from following.)

An aspect of this problem is the emerging church’s rejection of all things “modern” and embrace of all things “postmodern.” I’ve yet to see someone in emergent comment on the good things we got from modernism or warning of the bad things in postmodernism (perhaps someone will in response to this). Every culture is fallen, and an unwillingness to recognize the bad qualities of a culture will invariably lead to disaster.

One commenter on Andrew Jones’ blog responded to my concerns, “Yeah, okay Roger… that is what you think is wrong with Emergent. But why does that worry you?“ I think it’s sad that I should have to spell this out. Jude 3-4 reads, “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”

Every person whom God has saved has a responsibility to contend for the ancient faith; we are to guard and fight for it. We must be vigilant against any movement (or conversation) that distorts, hinders, or negates the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Whether that means ridding the church of certain aspects of modernism or postmodernism, it is our God given responsibility and we dare not shrink from it. The emerging church often raises good questions about how things have been done, but some tread dangerous waters in the answers they give. This is why it concerns me, as it should every person who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

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

Newsflash: Christian "Taliban" Destroying Foundations of Science!

April 1, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

Details here. A couple of quotes and comments on the article:

“The open intrusion of religious dogma into the highest levels of government is stunning. Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court speaks of 'the fact that government derives its authority from God'….”

Apparently, Mr. Krauss is not familiar with a little document I like to call The Declaration of Independence.

Let me refresh your memory:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

So exactly who is introducing new dogma into the “highest levels of government?”

Here's another quote from Krauss's article:

“The fundamentalist attack is on the basic premise that physical phenomena have physical causes that can be revealed by use of the scientific method.”

Christians are not arguing against science, they are arguing against naturalism (the physical world is all that exists). I've already discussed this somewhat in earlier posts. Nobody is trying to stop scientists from using the scientific method to discover physical causes of physical phenomena! But please hear this: sometimes physical phenomena have non-physical causes (in fact, ultimately, all must). Imagine you're sitting at your desk. You decide to stand up, and you do. What physical cause caused you to stand? Not the muscles in your legs–they were only a result of the cause. It was your thought, “I think I will stand” and the force of your will that began the chain of causes. What is your thought? Your will? Are they physical? Can you open up your brain and look at them? Do they have mass and weight? No, no, and no. Physical causes in any series can only go back so far. At some point, an agent must begin the series by an act of will, introducing a new course of action. Even if you follow the physical chain of natural causes back to the beginning of time, you cannot continue to endlessly attribute a natural cause to a previous natural cause. The universe is not eternal. At some point there is no nature. Only an agent can begin something when there is nothing. Why is this idea not scientific?

Theists, don't be intimidated by articles like these. Do not allow naturalists to redefine “science” to mean “naturalism.” Learn to think through these issues.

(Hat tip, Laurie Hall)

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Science 9 Comments »

Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two

March 31, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

Consider this quote from one of the astronomers mentioned in my last post:

Religion and science are not the same, nor are they equivalent. One answers questions about the universe: a profound capability. The other has all the answers and inspires little–if any–questioning abut its underpinnings. It is a salve; a comforter. At times in our lives such a tool is useful for addressing our emotional makeup. But this doesn't mean it is a representative perspective of the actual workings of the universe in which we are inspired to survive and function.

Is “science and religion” an issue of “evidence vs. emotion” (as he later states), or is it possible that a religion could have evidence–that there is a religion that accurately reflects reality? He says that science and religion are “two realms of thinking”–meaning that science is about fact, and religion is about emotional make-believe. His hidden, unstated assumption here is naturalism. Since naturalism is by definition true, religion is nothing but “a comforter”–a nice story to make us feel better and help us emotionally. Religion, therefore, has its place in our private lives, but it certainly should never be referred to as having anything to do with the real world. We should leave reality to the naturalists.

Unfortunately, our culture has bought this idea of “two realms” hook, line, and sinker. (See Nancy Pearcey's book, Total Truth, for a discussion of this split.) We have embraced the idea that religion can never be about fact. It is, instead, a matter of preference. Whatever makes you happy is true for you in the “second realm of thinking” sense, but certainly not in any factual sense. All religions are equally valid because all are equally false. Saying someone's religion is wrong is like telling him his favorite color is wrong. (Greg Koukl has a great lecture on this subject here.)

But why should we buy this? If a spiritual reality exists (and I could offer plenty of evidence for that), wouldn't it follow that a certain spiritual reality exists and not many different conflicting ones all at once? Think about the physical aspect of reality. It exists whether we believe in it or not, and we must adjust our views of it to match the truth (e.g., not stepping into the street when a truck is approaching) or suffer the consequences. In the same way, we must adjust our thinking about the spiritual aspect of reality to its true nature or suffer the spiritual consequences.

Let's start by discussing with the scientists whether or not a spiritual reality exists. If they are truly for science (attempting to discover the truth about reality) and not just for naturalism, they should be open to at least hearing the evidence.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Science, Theology Comments 1 Comment »

An Eye on Entertainment

March 30, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Since this is really a blog about everything that matters, I feel the need to comment on a few recent developments.

Thomas Hayden Church has been casted to play the next Spider-man villain, the Sandman. I loved Church as Lowell Mather in Wings. The only other person who could have possibly filled his shoes was Woody Harrelson, but he was kind of busy with Cheers (one of the best shows of all time). I’ll have to rent Sideways since Wings was the last time I’ve seen Church act. It’s a big leap from Lowell to Sandman, particularly since I don’t remember Sandman being a comedian. It will either work very well, or not at all. If not at all, I will have my first major Spider-man disappointment.
Hasbro is once again making me wish I did not own stock in them (I lost my certificate and the stock’s too worthless to pay for a new one). This week they will release their line of 56 Star Wars Episode III actions figures. They did a relatively good job until shortly after Episode I. Then we started seeing things like this. I had around 150 figures in my collection (had a nice trade in value). Anyway, the figures coming out this Friday at midnight have got to be some of the worst. Look at Yoda in the first line. His head is smaller and uglier than a lima bean. What’s with Mace Windu’s arms? As if the atrocities were not already enough, the ad line reads “The most incredible collection of Star Wars actions figures the galaxy as ever seen.” No, I will not be in the lines at midnight this year.
Anyone in the San Pedro area can sign up to be an extra in the film Running With Scissors, that is, if you agree to wear completely black clothing with no logos. A bunch of people wearing black, sounds exciting.
TenNapel is always a necessary read. All he needed to do was call Jessie Jackson retarded this morning to get me rolling, but as usual, there’s good substance to go along with his banter.
Did you know evangelicals were boycotting Disney? Gee, that went over well! Most of my friends have passes to Disneyland. Apparently they will no longer be estranged, since the upcoming Narnia flick is suppose to mark the end of the boycott. Good thing for Disney- I bet they were worried.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 1 Comment »

Confusion About Science and Religion – Part One

March 30, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

My sister sent me a conversation today from a discussion list for people who run planetariums. The concerned participants were trying to figure out how to deal with the wacko Christians who view their planetarium shows and then argue that God created the universe. When dealing with young children, they suggest you ought not tell them they are wrong–just as you would not tell them that Santa Claus doesn’t exist–because this might harm them. And since the adult Christians can’t be reasoned with, the astronomers suggest different clever ways of shutting them up. My favorite is their suggested response of staring down the Christian and saying firmly, “Are you saying that your God is too small to [insert whatever they’re arguing against]?!” Apparently, this loaded question shuts them up pretty well.

It’s not difficult to understand why these astronomers feel this way. As you read through their posts, it becomes very clear they have fundamental misunderstandings of 1) what science is and 2) what religion is, and these misunderstandings are at the root of all the incorrect reasoning that follows.

What is science? Science is the study of observable phenomena in order to come to conclusions about reality (i.e., truth). It is a process, a method. Unfortunately, many scientists mistakenly link science with a philosophy–a philosophy which cannot be proven by science. The two separate ideas (one scientific, the other philosophical) have become interchangeable in their minds–science=naturalism. (This is a fairly recent development and untrue of many past great theist scientists.) So as a result, if anyone disagrees with their philosophy of naturalism (the idea that nothing exists outside of the natural, physical world), that person is accused of being against science. It’s a sleight of hand that has been very effective in labeling the ID (Intelligent Design) movement “unscientific” (though they use only evidence obtained through science) and, therefore, unworthy of consideration.

Berkeley professor Phillip Johnson suggests a simple question to reveal a naturalist’s unscientific, philosophical bias: “If the evidence of the natural world pointed to the existence of a creator, would you follow the evidence where it led?” This forces the scientist to separate science and naturalism, picking one choice over the other. This question may seem fairly absurd to him at first since he does not believe the two can be separated, but if you can get him to commit to this–even hypothetically–you have at least opened the way for him to separate the two, see past his naturalist assumptions, and consider the possibility of a different conclusion.

You can see how an assumption of naturalism leads to the inevitable belief that no religion reflects reality. But if this is the very thing in question–if the question is, “Does any religion reflect reality? Did God create the universe?”–you cannot automatically rule out the answer “yes” merely because of your belief in naturalism. You must follow the evidence where it leads–it simply isn’t scientific to limit the conclusions of science to answers that fit your pet philosophy (see my previous post on this).

Every scientist is driven by his or her philosophy; I’m not saying we can avoid this. I am saying, let’s keep all the hypotheses on the table instead of declaring naturalism the only option for anyone who cares about science and reason.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Science, Theology Comments 1 Comment »

Discussing Emergent: A Plea for Realism and Charity

March 28, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Over the past few days I’ve been accused of being judgmental, ignorant, ridiculous and likened to someone who betrayed Jesus with a kiss (here and here). I don’t think I’m guilty, at least in the context of the discussions. Rather, I think these are emotive responses to criticism. While I understand some of those within Emergent don’t like criticism from the outside, it does not help the conversation to belittle those raising objections.

The over generalization and lack of charity goes both directions. In the Introduction to his book, A Generous Orthodoxy (p15-18), Brian McLaren lists six categories of people who may be reading his book. The only room for disagreement he leaves is for the reader who “may be looking for dirt so you can write a hostile review.” He leaves no room for someone to be a nice person who has legitimate concerns about his non-traditional positions.

On the other hand, non-Emergent theologians typically over generalize what’s going on within Emergent. A recent Baptist Press article, “Leaders call 'Emerging Church Movement' a threat to Gospel,” seems to assume that Brian McLaren is the leader or spokesperson for Emergent (see discussion of this article on Andrew Jones' blog, as well as McCoy's here and here). It is likely the case that there isn’t someone in Emergent who hasn’t heard and read some of McLaren. However, McLaren is only one voice in the movement and most people in Emergent don’t agree with everything he says. Some have also assumed that everyone in Emergent has bought into postmodern philosophy (a coherence theory of truth, relativism). While some have, many have not.

I think it would be helpful if we could lay out some guidelines for discussion. Stephen Shields (a friend of McLaren) has some good ideas here. We should all strive to be like Christ, and I think this creed is a good summation of what that looks like. Here are my ideas pertaining to discussing Emergent…

1) Can we give each other the benefit of the doubt that a) both sides are doing their best to understand one another b) both sides have legitimate concerns that should be discussed instead of mocked?

2) Can we refrain from taking criticisms of ideas personally and emotionally overreacting?

3) Can we attack ideas without attacking the people who hold them?

4) Can we be specific and clear about what our concerns are, either in criticisms or against criticisms? (Without assuming too much and over generalizing.)

5) Can we remember that in the end what matters most is not how we feel about something but that God is glorified in our thoughts, comments, and deeds?

If we can follow these principles, I think the discussion will be far more fruitful and perhaps less painful for some. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll start to come to some understandings of one another.

Category Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 2 Comments »

An Easter Sermon

March 27, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

The following is a sermon penned by Melito of Sardis, a bishop who died around 180 A.D. So, this was written within 150 years of Christ's resurrection. Its words are simple yet its thoughts deep.

“And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was attached indicating who was being killed. Who was it? It is a grievous thing to tell, but a most fearful thing to refrain from telling. But listen, as you tremble before him on who account the earth trembled!

    He who hung the earth in place is hanged.

    He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place.

    He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree.

    The Sovereign is insulted.

    God is murdered.

    The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.

    This is the One who made the heavens and the earth, and formed mankind in the beginning,

    The One proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets,

    The One enfleshed in a virgin,

    The One hanged on a tree,

    The One buried in the earth,

    The One raised from the dead and who went up into the heights of heaven,

    The One sitting at the right hand of the Father,

    The One having all authority to judge and save,

    Through Whom the Father made the things which exist from the beginning of time.

    This One is “the Alpha and the Omega,”

    This One is “the beginning and the end,”

    …the beginning indescribable and the end incomprehensible.

    This One is the Christ.

    This One is the King.

    This One is Jesus.

    This One is the Leader.

    This One is the Lord.

    This One is the One who rose from the dead.

    This One is the One sitting on the right hand of the Father.

    He bears the Father and is borne by the Father.

    “To him be the glory and power forever. Amen.”

[translated by James R. White, in The Forgotten Trinity p184-195.]

Category Posted in Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc., Roger's Posts No Comments »

What is the Emergent Church?

March 26, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Brett Kunkle of Stand to Reason recently blogged on the claims of certain people within the Emergent Church that Emergent is not a movement but a conversation…

“It seems that Emergent has moved way beyond the conversation stage. They have their own books, their own websites, their own conferences, and their own churches. They no longer offer mere sentiments, observations, or opinions. Emergent is working toward a particular objective: to reform the Church. Now, there is nothing wrong with this objective in and of itself. We would certainly want to think carefully about the reforms being proposed by Emergent, but that is a topic for another day. My inquiry here has to do with Emergent’s insistence on being called a conversation rather than a movement.”

What exactly is a movement? Brett quotes from Webster that “a movement as “a series of organized activities working toward an objective” or as “an organized effort to promote or attain an end.”

Steve McCoy apparently doesn’t like this definition. “Just because there's a loose knit web of people who have a lot in common because they are talking about some specific reformational ideas to help us reach emerging generations doesn't mean there is a movement. “ He also states, “We may have a movement if we see a fleet of churches who are organized and working together to reach objectives and goals. Uh, where are they? Where's the denominational headquarters? Where's the emergent pope or recognized president? Where's the website that all emergents go to for directions because we all belong to a movement?”

If the Emergent Church needs a headquarters, pope, or president to be considered a movement, then there are many movements throughout history that we can no longer call movements. I.E.- The “Civil Rights” movement didn’t have any of these things, so it was really no more than a conversation. A movement, by the most common usage of the word doesn’t need any of those. Rather, as the Webster definition states it is “an organized effort to promote or attain an end.” By this definition the Emergent Church is most certainly a movement.

The question then is to what end is the Emergent Church moving? While there is a great wealth of diversity within the movement are there common threads that tie it together? Most simply, it is a movement to deconstruct the way church has been done. The underlying motivation for this deconstruction is that the church of the twentieth century is no longer relevant to meet the needs or address the issues facing the world today.

Steve Harbinger laments, “But this is a negative definition. It specifies a need for change, but gives no positive content to what sorts of changes are needed. The result is that I, along with many others, find ourselves frustrated at our inability to see any coherent shape in the motley crew who all share some sense of dissatisfaction, but seemingly have nothing else in common.” He goes on to liken Emergent to a large group of family members who are related to one another, though, each have their own characteristics. “My bet is that if we get the emergent family together in one room, we'll find that the majority of them, but by no means all, have the same nose: they come from a conservative evangelical background.”

Actually, reading the biographies of Emergent leaders such as McLaren and Burke points to a fundamentalist background (which many apply to the whole Protestant church). Conservative Evangelicalism was a reaction against fundamentalism, but is universally considered a movement (not a conversation). The Emergent Church is a reaction against both, basically depending upon the background of the person you talk to. I think there have been some positive ideas put forward (i.e.- how things should be done instead of just how they shouldn’t), but that’s for another post.

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

Of First Importance…

March 25, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. . . But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 14-19

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc. No Comments »

The Perfect Sacrifice

March 25, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Billy club and whip in hand,

We throw our anger on this Man.

We’re enraged, striping and beating,

Continue to punish with out retreating.

Pride and Hatred, our best friends now,

Standing on either side of his crimson brow.

Truest love we did forsake,

Selling our lives to a snake.

Take now that sword and pierce His side,

To our own law will you abide.

Slavery never made things right,

Corruption never a pretty sight.

Taunting, cursing, we spit in His face,

Take for granted who made this place.

Crucify Him is what we say,

No reverence at all given today.

We hang Him up upon a tree.

However one day all will see,

That this man did nothing to you or me,

Nothing but love us and show us mercy.

Sinless and perfect, He paid our price.

Taking on all our burdens as a sacrifice.

Greg Koukl has some excellent reflections on what transpired on the cross.

Category Posted in Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc., Roger's Posts No Comments »

Is the Emergent Church a Threat to the Gospel? or Why Im Concerned

April 1, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton