I recently came across the following commentary from Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the pastor of New Park Street Chapel (the Metropolitan Tabernacle) in London for 38 years. Five years before he passed away, he ignited a controversy among the Baptists from an article he wrote about what he termed the “Downgrade Controversy.” Because of issues surrounding this, his church became disaffiliated with the Baptist Union. This wikipedia article describes:

Contextually the Downgrade Controversy was British Baptists’ equivalent of hermeneutic tensions which were starting to sunder Protestant fellowships in general. The Controversy took its name from Spurgeon’s use of the term “Downgrade” to describe certain other Baptists’ outlook toward the Bible (i.e., they had “downgraded” the Bible and the principle of sola scriptura). Spurgeon alleged that an incremental creeping of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and other concepts was weakening the Baptist Union and reciprocally explaining the success of his own evangelistic efforts.

I found the following commentary by Spurgeon on James 5:19-20 to be applicable to the discussion around fundamentals of the Christian faith in the context of the discussions often occuring in Emergent/ing circles. I am interested in hearing your feedback on Spurgeon’s comments and the scripture from James that he is commenting on. If you don’t agree with him, how would you understand James’ intended meaning?

It was not merely that he fell into a mistake upon some lesser matter which might be compared to the fringe of the gospel, but he erred in some vital doctrine&emdash;he departed from the faith in its fundamentals. There are some truths which must be believed, they are essential to salvation, and if not heartily accepted the soul will be ruined. This man had been professedly orthodox, but he turned aside from the truth on an essential point.

Now, in those days the saints did not say:  We must be largely charitable, and leave this brother to his own opinion; he sees truth from a different standpoint, and has a rather different way of putting it, but his opinions are as good as our own, and we must not say that he is in error.

That is at present the fashionable way of trifling with divine truth, and making things pleasant all round. Thus the gospel is debased and another gospel propagated.

I should like to ask modern broad churchmen whether there is any doctrine of any sort for which it would be worth a man’s while to burn or to lie in prison. I do not believe they could give me an answer, for if their latitudinarianism be correct, the martyrs were fools of the first magnitude.

From what I see of their writings and their teachings, it appears to me that the modern thinkers treat the whole compass of revealed truth with entire indifference; and, though perhaps they may feel sorry that wilder spirits should go too far in free-thinking, and though they had rather they would be more moderate, yet, upon the whole, so large is their liberality, that they are not sure enough of anything to be able to condemn the reverse of it as a deadly error.

To them black and white are terms which may be applied to the same colour, as you view it from different standpoints. Yes and no are equally true in their esteem. Their theology shifts like the Goodwin Sands, and they regard all firmness as so much bigotry. Errors and truths are equally comprehensible within the circle of their charity.

It was not in this way that the apostles regarded error. They did not prescribe large-hearted charity towards falsehood, or hold up the errorist as a man of deep thought, whose views were refreshingly original; far less did they utter some wicked nonsense about the probability of their having more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds.

They did not believe in justification by doubting, as our Neologians do; they set about the conversion of the erring brother; they treated him as a person who needed conversion: and viewed him as a man who, if he were not converted, would suffer the death of his soul, and be covered with a multitude of sins.

They were not such easy-going people as our cultured friends of the school of [post-]modern thought,  who have learned at last that the deity of Christ may be denied, the work of the Holy Spirit ignored, the inspiration of scripture rejected, the atonement disbelieved, and regeneration dispensed with, and yet the man who does all this may be as good a Christian as the most devout believer!

O God, deliver us from this deceitful infidelity, which while it does damage to the erring man, and often prevents his being reclaimed, does yet more mischief to our own hearts by teaching us that truth is unimportant, and falsehood a trifle, and so destroys our allegiance to the God of truth, and makes us traitors instead of loyal subjects to the King of kings.

(C.H. Spurgeon, Restoring Those Who Have Erred, Words of Counsel for Christian Workers, pp. 139-142).

Believing in God is important, but what about God believing in us? Believing that we can actually be the kind of people we were meant to be. People of love, compassion, peace, forgiveness, and hope. People who try to do the right thing all of the time. Who act on the endless opportunities around us every day for good, beauty, and truth. It’s easy for us to sometimes get down on ourselves. To feel “not good enough” or feel like we don’t have what it takes. But maybe if we had more insight into the culture that Jesus grew up in and some of the radical things he did, we’d understand the faith that God has in all of us.

Rob Bell refers to the time when Peter walks on water, but then starts to sink. Rob believes that it is not because Peter lacks faith in Christ’s sustaining power, but because Peter lacks faith in himself. Friends, it is important that we get this straight because this is foundational to the gospel message. Is it really that we are to have faith in ourselves, that we can be the kind of people God wants us to be and do the things that Jesus did? Is it simply belief that because Jesus did it we can do it also? Does God have faith in us that we can do these things too?

Does the scripture teach anywhere that the object of our faith is in ourselves?  That God has faith in us?  Instead what we read is the following:

“Now while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people believed in his name because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing.  But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people. He did not need anyone to testify about man, for he knew what was in man” (John 2:23-25, NET).

The word translated “entrust” is pisteuo (from the word pistis, meaning faith).  Pisteuo is most frequently translated as “believe.”  So what this passage is saying is that while these people claimed to believe in Jesus’ name, He did not believe in them.  These same people who today were praising him will very soon be shouting “crucify him!”

In the following video, Cameron Beuttel shows us a clip from Rob’s video and helps us to compare it with the scriptures to see if what Rob is teaching is true.

Friends, what we believe has implications in how we live, what we do and whether or not we are pleasing in God’s sight. What do you think the implications will be for those who follow Rob Bell’s reasoning and take the focus of their faith from Christ and place it onto themselves as though the capability to do what God requires is innately within each and every one of us?

“Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good” (Rom 12:9, NASB)

Part 1: What is the Future of Faith? [download]

Part 2: Is There Only One Correct Religion? [download]

Part 3: How do we Know the Facts That Fuel our Faith? [download]

Part 4: How Do You Define Faith? [download]

Part 5: What Is Truth? [download]

While pointing out how important it is for Christians to pray for others, Laubach makes a bold and intriguing proposal for another way of praying. He suggests that in addition to praying for someone in need of God, that we should consider praying to that person as well. He tells us that God may want to work through the praying Christian as a channel to reach into the heart and soul of the person who is in need of saving grace. Laubach proposes that a person who is resisting God might be open to the spiritual impact of a Christian concentrating God’s power on him or her. It is as though, according to Laubach, a praying Christian might be a lens through whom God focuses saving power into another person’s life.

Call it a kind of mental telepathy, but what Laubach is suggesting is that the Holy Spirit flowing into a Christian, as a result of prayer, can stir up spiritual energy in that Christian that can then be directed toward a person who needs Christ’s salvation.”

It seems to me that this is precisely the kind of thing that results from elevating experience over God’s word. If such a practice were recommended, surely God who has existed from eternity past would have known about it and made it known to us in His word. But rather, it seems that the apostle Paul implies that people need to hear the gospel, and to hear they need someone to preach (Romans 10:14-15). When an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip to position him near the Ethiopian eunuch, Philip heard him reading Isaiah and asked him if he understood. The eunuch responded, “how could I, unless someone guides me?” What does the scripture say?…”Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him” (Acts 8:26-35). Paul even appeals to the Ephesians to “pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel” (Eph 6:19).

Strongest of all are the words of Jesus when He encourages His disciples to not fear men who can only kill the body (presumably because they don’t like what we say to them); He says “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven” (Matt 10:32). ‘Telepathic evangelism’ is not confessing Christ before people. If Jesus commands us to confess Him before people and to not be afraid of what people will do to us, would He then have given us another way out that involves no confession?

Furthermore, John says the following: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God…” (1 John 4:1-3a). King David says, “I will teach transgressors Your ways, and sinners will be converted to You” (Psalms 51:13). If we want people to be converted, the means by which scripture (God’s final and authoritative word) says this is done is by confessing Christ boldly to people in love. Our marching orders are to “make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” It seems to me that, however well intentioned, Frank Laubach and Tony Campolo are badly mistaken. Sure, they may want someone to be saved, but the means by which they are saved is not through “spiritual energy…that can then be [silently] directed toward a person who needs Christ’s salvation.”

In the introduction to “Letters by a Modern Mystic, Frank Laubach (1884-1970)” we read the following:

In 1915 Frank Laubach went with his wife to the Philippine Islands as a missionary. In 1930 he returned to Mindanao to work with the Mohammedan Moros who regarded the Christian Filipinos as their enemies. Laubach, however, went with a heart filled with the presence of God and sought only to live among them, not trying to coerce them into Christianity, but living each moment with a sense of God’s presence.”

Did God send us into the world to be silent? God forbid it! How is it that Laubach was able to live “each moment with a sense of God’s presence“ while many around him perished without the saviour is hard to understand.

“Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods through which those who were so occupied were not benefited” (Heb 13:7-9).

God bless you and I as we desire and seek to obey our Lord and saviour.

Truth, Knowledge and the Emerging Church — Gregory Koukl

Perhaps the most salient challenge facing Christian ambassadors today is communicating the gospel intelligibly to an emerging culture steeped in postmodernism. In addressing this challenge, many within the church have adopted the philosophical underpinnings of the culture, namely postmodern conceptions of truth and knowledge, and in doing so have compromised the central Christian message.

Listen as Greg explains why the saving message of Christ hinges upon a proper understanding of truth–truth as it has been understood throughout human history–and teaches you how to winsomely engage the emerging culture on these issues in a relevant and meaningful way.

Click here for this audio resource.

Truth Is a Strange Sort of Fiction: Understanding the Emerging Church — Greg Koukl

Francis Schaeffer held that three things are required for orthodox evangelicalism to become “a thing of strength and beauty” to others: doctrine, truth, and relevance. Yet as the Emergent Church attempts to become a relevant attraction to a postmodern culture, it has struggled to maintain a firm-enough grip on two of these three equally critical qualities.

So how can the church promote an attractive, winsome Christianity that is culturally relevant while still faithful to orthodoxy?

Listen as Greg teaches you to speak intelligibly to a postmodern culture – in their language and to their issues – while still boldly offering the only solution to the dismal condition of every person: Jesus Christ.

Click here for this audio resource.

The comments were made at the “joint annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and the American Academy of Religion (AAR),” in which Tickle and McLaren were speakers. It was a panel discussion: here is part 1 and part 2.

Here are some of the points Tickle made, according to emerging church blogger (and note taker), Adam Cleavland:

Every 500 years the church has a big rummage sale.
1517, 1054, 500 (popes, etc.)
Could this be the next?
Each time, what was left has become a viable expression of Xnity, none of them ceased to visit.
We are now in one of those 500 yrs.

Faraday & Darwin brought about the beginning of this reformation, our current time of upheaval. In these times, one simple question exists: where is the authority? Sola scriptura won’t hold water now…so where do we find authority now?

I don’t know about you, but this kind of questioning doesn’t sound like it’s going in the right direction. Are we reforming the faith to please unbelievers like Darwin and his followers?

“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.” (2 Tim 4:1-8 NASB)

A very unconstructive and therefore unloving thing that is often done is to squash the doubter by merely restating the articles of faith upon them and threatening them with condemnation if they don’t believe them. The doubter should not be treated like a wolf, but graciously like a wandering lamb, gently coaxing him or her back into the safety of the master Shepherd’s watch, not casting a rope around his neck and yanking on it as hard as possible. I confess that I am growing in this area too. Despite his very strong stand, Jude admonishes us that we should “have mercy on some, who are doubting” (Jude 1:22). But not everyone is a doubter; we cannot forget that some actively oppose the truth, refusing to acknowledge it. Peter speaks of false teachers who will be among us and “will secretly introduce destructive heresies…” (2 Pet 2:1). In the following verse he also warns that “many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the truth will be maligned.” It is them of whom the scripture says are “of depraved mind [and] rejected in regard to the faith.” (2 Tim 3:8).

On the other hand, one of the things I see as a poison in the Emerging church movement is the seeming unwillingness to separate from false doctrine and to make a clearly articulated and firm stand for truth while still being loving. Unfortunately, along with the more gracious treatment of doubters has come the post-modern toleration of false ideas, which is ever so gently coaxing many who persist in their unbelief to feel assured of right standing with God. Their unbelief is being accepted and swept under the carpet instead of being addressed biblically. There is an encouragement towards outward expression in general good deeds, but not in the inward righteousness that comes from repentance, belief and faith and results in standing for and proclaiming the fullness of the gospel even if it results in persecution.

As a result of this general willingness to tolerate false ideas, there is also a blurring of the boundaries that God has set for the Christian to walk in. Goodwill acts take the podium at the expense of declaring clearly the more weighty matters such as the disease of sin, the righteous requirements and holiness of God, the judgment to come, repentance and the active trust which constitutes biblical faith. The apostle Paul clearly indicates that we are to “judge those within the church…remov[ing] the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Cor 5:12-13). We are not to associate with or even eat with someone who calls himself a believer but refuses to repent from sin (1 Cor 5:11). In 2 Thess 3:14-15, Paul says, “If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special not of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” John says “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting, for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:10-11).

Clearly, there has to be a balance here, not neglecting love and grace and neither neglecting a clear and firm stand for truth to guard the faith and the flock. If we really and truly love our brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus, we will not withhold the truth from them, and discipline if necessary, because the matter of their right standing with God is of first importance. May God give you and I the grace to obey Him with a heart full of love.

If the emerging church does not begin to police itself, to stand up and rebuke false doctrine, there will be confusion in the minds of young men and women trying to understand the issues of the atonement and the soteriology that is so well described in God’s Word.

Emergent Soteriology: The Dark Side,
by Dr. Trevor Craigen (Feb 2 2006, Master’s Seminary)

A lot of arguments happen about religious and non-religious people about the question of who is going to Hell and who is going to Heaven.  A lot of times Christians get into this argument by saying, ‘We have the only way to heaven.’  People often ask me what do I think is the way to heaven.  I have a problem when they ask me this question because it assumes that the primary purpose of Jesus coming and the primary message was a message about how to get to heaven.  Now, I think this is an important question.  Obviously, mortality rates are still pretty high, so what happens to us after we die is still very, very important to all of us.  And I think that the answer the Christian faith gives to the question how does a person get to heaven, is that a person gets to heaven not by being good enough, not by being smart enough, rich enough, not by your opinions or anything like that… that our only way to be accepted by God is by God’s love, by God’s grace and that’s something that we can’t earn or achieve; we just receive it and believe.  But I actually don’t think that Jesus’ primary message is focused on how to get to heaven.

–Brian McLaren

On the contrary, if we let Jesus speak for Himself, He says, “I have come to seek and save the lost.”  His testimony was that His primary purpose was not to come in order to give people a better earthly life (as most people see it), to fix global issues like poverty, to obliterate slavery, etc.  As an example, note that the 11 apostles died an unnatural death, most at a relatively young age, most having experienced many persecutions in this life as a direct result of their vocal stand for the truth.  If Jesus’ message was about heaven on earth in the here and now, we should see it in the lives of the apostles and even in the elimination of the oppressive governmental systems of His day.  Both His words and the historical evidence speak against this notion being put forward by Brian McLaren and others. 

Please don’t get me wrong… this doesn’t mean that He didn’t help people… of course He did, and so did His true disciples.  But the primary message was concerning the message of salvation from sin and its eternal effects to be reconciled with God, to know Him here and now and forevermore, evidenced by a transformed life which follows in His footsteps of complete submission to Him and His Word despite the cost to our own lives.

“The man who loves his life will lose it,
while the man who hates his life in this world
will keep it for eternal life.”
– Jesus, Matt 10:25, NIV.

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.  In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you.  I am going there to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.  You know the way to the place where I am going.”  Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.”
– Jesus, John 14:1-6, NIV.

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
– Psalms 2:12, NIV.

Kim Lawton interviews Brian McLaren in July 2005 for a PBS Special about the Emergent Church (here).

Bob DeWaay did an excellent lecture in reference to this PBS special to address the issue from an evangelical perspective (MP3, Powerpoint).

Blog commentary on the special: http://www.wesleyblog.com/emerging_church/index.html

Brian McLaren put it well when he admitted it isn’t just the way the message is presented that emerging church proponents want to change … it’s the message itself they are changing.  [In a section of his book "Church on the Other Side" entitled 'Strategy Five: Resurrect Theology as Art and Science' he states the following]:

It has been fashionable among the innovative [emerging] pastors I know to say, “We’re not changing the message; we’re only changing the medium.” This claim is probably less than honest … in the new church we must realize how medium and message are intertwined. When we change the medium, the message that’s received is changed, however subtly, as well. We might as well get beyond our naivete or denial about this.  [Brian McLaren, Church on the Other Side, op. cit., p. 68]

While reaching today’s generation for the cause of Christ is something we as Christians should all desire, we must remember Jesus Christ challenged us to follow Him and be obedient to His Word. Scripture commands us to “be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). But the emergents are leading followers in the opposite direction, teaching that the Word of God needs to be conformed to people and cultures instead of allowing it to conform lives through Jesus Christ…. reimagining Christianity allows a dangerous kind of freedom; like cutting the suspension ropes on a hot air balloon, the free fall may be exhilarating but the results catastrophic.

To read more of this clip from Roger Oakland, click here.

Here is a quote from the article:

George Barna, who directed the study, said that the results indicate that the biggest obstacle to the growth of the house church movement is not theological but cultural. … “Those who attend a conventional church are generally content to show up and accept whatever their church has on the agenda; they place the responsibility for their spiritual growth on the shoulders of the church,” according to Barna. “We found that most conventional church goers have no desire to help improve their congregation’s ministry, nor do they feel a need to increase their personal spiritual responsibility. “On the other hand,” he continued, “the intimacy and shared responsibility found in most house churches requires each participant to be more serious about their faith development. Clearly, the house church experience is not for everyone.”

Interesting study. I have heard of some only attending home groups and not a “traditional” church, but had honestly thought that most were attending both a Sunday morning service and a weekly bible study / home group. I’m not sure that this Barna study separated between the two. In my experience, even in small churches of 50-100, most are centered on singing and a message from the preacher, so participatory fellowship one to another and each one to all is minimal in traditional churches and found almost exclusively in home groups or smaller group settings.

However, the statement that “the house church experience is not for everyone” implying that not everyone wants to take responsibility for contributing to fellowship and mutual edification and ministry is disturbing. Should one who places their entire life in the hands of Christ by faith be of the variety who sits back content to hear and walk away?

I am far more interested in jumping than I am in arguing about whose trampoline is better. You rarely defend the things you love. You enjoy them and tell others about them and invite others to enjoy them with you.

Jensen documents what one might call a new kind of Christian: the Secular Christian. It sounds like a reference to Brian McLaren’s book with a little push to perhaps its inevitable evolutionary conclusion, and perhaps it is. If anything highlights how post-Christian the church seems to be becoming, it is this article. And its really not that unbelievable because a neighbour of mine was the pastor of a local church while being openly atheist. And he told me that he knows a number of other pastors that believe the same as he does, but stay in the pastorate keeping their doubts to themselves because they just can’t leave; its the familiar community of their childhood, and they just like helping people.

Following are some interesting excerpts from the article:

I don’t believe in God.

I don’t believe Jesus Christ was the son of a God that I don’t believe in, nor do I believe Jesus rose from the dead to ascend to a heaven that I don’t believe exists.

Given these positions, this year I did the only thing that seemed sensible: I formally joined a Christian church.

Standing before the congregation of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, I affirmed that I (1) endorsed the core principles in Christ’s teaching; (2) intended to work to deepen my understanding and practice of the universal love at the heart of those principles; and (3) pledged to be a responsible member of the church and the larger community.

So, I’m a Christian, sort of. A secular Christian. A Christian atheist, perhaps. But, in a deep sense, I would argue, a real Christian.

…The pastor and most of the congregation at St. Andrew’s understand my reasons for joining, realizing that I didn’t convert in a theological sense but joined a moral and political community. There’s nothing special about me in this regard — many St. Andrew’s members I’ve talked to are seeking community and a place for spiritual, moral and political engagement. The church is expansive in defining faith; the degree to which members of the congregation believe in God and Christ in traditional terms varies widely. Many do, some don’t, and a whole lot of folks seem to be searching. St. Andrew’s offers a safe space and an exciting atmosphere for that search, in collaboration with others.

Think about this for a minute: how can this blatantly exist in today’s church? More importantly, is this God’s way of having church? Should people who do not believe in God, in His Son or in the resurrection feel comfortable under the preaching of the gospel which calls people to repentance and belief on Jesus or remain under God’s condemnation and wrath?  In the first church, documented in the book of Acts, we are told that “…none of the rest dared associate with them” (Acts 5:13). But here we have a total unbeliever becoming a member because it is a ‘moral and political community.’ Do you think that the church was intended to be a community of Bible-believing and unbelieving securalist participants around the unifying flag of moral and political action? I hope you see that this is not biblical.  Yet I know that this is precisely the intention behind Rick Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. plan being promoted all around the world today.

Sure, I agree that we need to welcome seekers and be sensitive to them by not using ‘Christian-ese’ (at least without defining our terms).  We also need to gently instruct those who doubt with care and understanding.  Yet, I think that the above is a far cry from a ‘visitors welcome’ attitude and Biblical discipleship, and is instead an indication of some sort of fundamental shift going on. Perhaps its a crack in the foundation.  I happen to think this is the result of the decline in biblical preaching and practice. I also think that it is due to the lack of consistency within the church and the confusion caused, in particular, by the lack of God-ordained borders in the emerging church movement.  Maybe you think this is too harsh, but I honestly think that today’s church culture is quickly becoming, not just post-modern, but post-Christian right under our noses.

What is your reaction?

Unfortunately, some have decided to simply reach out with good works while leaving any offensive gospel preaching in the dust. The trend is to offer inclusive acceptance rather than be forthright. By doing so, we risk losing converts by seeking the friendship and approval of the ‘post-modern minded.’ We tuck truth under the table for fear we’ll scare them off, but in the end we do them more harm than good. We might have them in our church, but does God have them in His Kingdom?

One of our greatest examples of Christian charity is the salvation army. But listen to the words of William Booth, “Put your ear down to the Bible, and hear Him bid you ‘go and pull sinners out of the fire of sin.’ Put your ear down to the burdened, agonized heart of humanity, and listen to its pitiful wail for help. Go stand by the gates of hell, and hear the damned entreat you to go to their father’s house and bid their brothers and sisters and servants and masters not to come there.”  Obviously, he was not referring to just feeding the poor.  How would such utterances be received by the church today?  No doubt, William Booth faced a society much like ours.  He did not bow to the threatenings of a callous and base-minded society by changing the method of reaching them.  If we are going to reach this post-modern world, we must do it the same way Jesus instructed us to do it 2000 years ago… preach the gospel!  It was Jesus who said, “unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”  By today’s standards, Jesus would be considered a radical for saying such things.  So while we follow His example of charity, let us follow His admonition to preach the gospel in its entirety.  To deviate from the blue-print is to build a crooked house on sinking sand.

Please feel free to comment.

I found Greg’s review to be well thought out and courteous, yet with just as deep concern as I have about some of Bell’s teachings.  I am also slowly working through “Velvet Elvis” and intend to do a much more thorough review, chapter by chapter.  However, I wanted to post Greg’s review here to get the issues out front now since it presents a good summary of Bell’s main points and similar concerns as I have with them.

Greg makes the following point in his review:

Bell affirms his belief in both the Trinity and the Virgin Birth, but he also says he wants to carve out some room to “question” those doctrines.

But what does he mean by that? Is he saying that one can study them, ask questions of them, learn from them? I wish he was. Yet why does Bell even pose the question? Why does he ask, “Could a person keep jumping?” and then not answer it?  I can only conclude that Bell is saying that it wouldn’t matter very much if someone stopped affirming them. “Yes, of course you can keep jumping, even if you stop believing in the Trinity or the Virgin Birth.”

These are important questions to ask.  So let’s discuss them, if you will.  Please post your comment(s).

I spent some time listening to several of Erwin’s messages from his service to get an idea of what he teaches. When I listened to Erwin’s Oct 1 video podcast message entitled “Is Jesus the Only Way?” (you can subscribe to his podcasts here), I was taken aback by how loving, understanding and real Erwin was and yet he told the truth without holding back the hard doctrines. I learned something from this excellent message from Erwin: how to show people that you care immensely about their eternal destiny without compromising the truth.

We need to take care to keep from making a quick surface evaluation of someone and their teaching on the evidence of a few brief quotes that could be taken with an incorrect sense and a brief look at his website for anything that the culture might use in a pagan way.  While we need to keep on the alert for false teaching and worldliness, we shouldn’t set out on a fault finding mission to accuse, malign and unnecessarily warn against.  It is possible that there is reason to be suspicious, but given the evidence presented by this author, I remain unconvinced that Erwin is promoting mysticism and worldliness.  Perhaps he is, but this author should not write as he did, and the warnings are unsubstantiated without better evidence.  I may be wrong, but Erwin may be one of the few doing it right, attempting to hold to the truth in love.

I also listened to Erwin’s Sep 24 video podcast message entitled “What About Sex?” where he answers some incredibly tough questions from those in his fellowship, and with such care and loving concern! What I noted was that he thinks about why God’s laws are what they are in order to help people understand that God has their best at heart. He ably corrects people’s faulty thinking and lovingly shares the truth without compromise on truth. I have yet to see a better presentation on this topic!

I also listened to Erwin’s Dec 3 message “New Under the Sun” where he posits that (from our perspective as believers) King Solomon was wrong to say that there is nothing new under the sun. Erwin ably shows how if Christians think this way it limits how they perceive God can work today. The kind of thinking that says “I’ve never seen God do that kind of miracle, so I don’t believe He will do it” is faulty logic. However, we do need to make sure we keep such thinking in perspective because God only acts in character: He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

I also listened to Erwin’s Dec 10 message “Truly Human” where he made very deep and powerful statements. I want to quote a portion here before I address the author’s mischaracterization of Erwin’s statements.

You can be in the right truth, but not living a truthful life. You can actually be in the right faith but not be living a life of faith. And God is saying to Israel, ‘Look, you’ve got it all wrong… if this religion doesn’t change you, it doesn’t change anything. Shout it out loud, do not hold back, raise your voice like a trumpet, declare to my people their rebellion.’ And God is saying, ‘Don’t you get it? Your heart is disconnected from Me. Day after day they seek Me out, and they seem eager to know my ways as if they were a nation that does what is right, and has not forsaken the commands of God.’ What God is saying is that the most dangerous place for you and me to be is in a place where we are passionately religious but empty and hollow in our spirituality.

While we could jump and impose an interpretation on what might have been meant by “our spirituality,” for example, we must not jump to conclusions without clear and explicit evidence taken in context of what the speaker means by such statements. In other words, if there is a correct way to interpret what is being stated, you should assume that this is his understanding unless proven otherwise with clear statements and examples which show that he means otherwise.  At the same time, I am passionate about stating ideas as clearly as possible so that they are not likely to be misinterpreted.  I might have said it this way: ”…in a place where we are very outwardly religious, professing love with our lips, but our innermost (heart) desires are far from Him.”

The very first statement that the author makes is the following:

I am sad to say that the Southern Baptist Convention is on its way back to liberal land.

He starts off with a very heavy hand. “Liberal land”? Is Erwin McManus a liberal? Well, let’s see what evidence the author has to give us.

Erwin is promoting Emerging Church philosophies by promoting the merging of Christianity with mysticism. In his book, The Barbarian Way Erwin R. McManus writes (emphasis mine):

“Somehow Christianity has become a non-mystical religion. It’s about the reasonable faith. If we believe the right things then we are orthodox. To know God in the Scripture always went beyond information to intimacy. We may find ourselves uncomfortable with this reality; but the faith of the Scriptures is a mystical faith. It leads us beyond the material into an invisible reality.” (p. 60-61)

“We are mystic warriors who use weapons not of this world.” (p. 109)

We could interpret this to mean that we live by faith and not by sight, that our sights are set in the heavenlies and our weapons are not carnal in nature, but spiritual or mystical. Don’t immediately jump to conclusions on what he means by “mystical” until he defines his terms or otherwise makes his usage clear.

For example, the dictionary contains the following definitions for mystical:

1. Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses.
2. Of, relating to, or stemming from direct communion with ultimate reality or God: a mystical religion.

If Erwin means either of these, then I think that his use of this word is okay. True, he may be using a misleading word here as it can can blur the lines between true and false teaching, but he does not necessarily mean what this author is imposing.

The author then goes on to say:

Webster’s dictionary defines mysticism as “vague speculation, a belief without sound basis.” Biblical Christianity requires intelligent thought and reasoning. In fact, Jesus said, “seek and ye shall find.” I don’t find Biblical Christianity to be based on vague speculation without sound basis, do you? Biblical Christianity is not mystical, and I am not a mystic warrior, are you?

Again, perhaps Erwin could be more careful in how he uses the word “mystic.”  I confess, I do not like the word myself. However, this author is trying to insist that Erwin is referring to unbiblical mystical practices to draw near to God, or that Erwin is trying to direct his hearers to vague speculations without sound basis. But if he would have listened to his Dec 10 message entitled “Truly Human,” Erwin refutes this notion: “What I love about God is God is unimpressed with our religion. He just isn’t moved by it at all. He’s not moved by how many times we pray, by how many religious rituals we go through, by all of our icons, by how many Bibles we own, by how many times we go to church each year… He’s not moved by any of that.” Not only this, but in each message I listened to, Erwin reasons from the scriptures to lovingly persuade his hearers to take them seriously and to obey them.

This author then moves on to attack Erwin’s use of symbols in his Origin’s Project as follows:

Erwin has symbols used by various other religions to describe the beliefs of their church. These symbols include Earth, Wind, Fire, Water, and Wood. The symbol for water is the same symbol of the Yin and Yang which is a Chinese symbol associated with Tai Chi, a form of martial arts.

But if you take a look at the website, Erwin is using these terms and defining them his own way to summarize the project mission. The author quickly supposes that the symbol used for water is the same as the Yin and Yang, but this seems only accidental: the symbol is a water droplet in a circle which ends up looking similar to the Yin and Yang. The author is quick to suspect fault and hastily jumps to conclusions (although, unfortunately I cannot say I am totally innocent of this — certainly it is something I think we all need to watch out for).

He then talks about the background music used on a preview clip to a sermon series (I wasn’t able to verify this):

I was further shocked when I visited Erwin’s church website and played a short video clip on his sermon series. The background music was a song by the vulgar rapper Eminem entitled “Lose Yourself.” The song plays for about 36 seconds and it is a good thing. When I looked up the words to the song and read them, I found that Eminem takes God’s name in vain and it is connected to a swear word, and he uses a four letter word that starts with an F. Why would a church and pastor use a song by Eminem as the soundtrack to promote his upcoming sermon series? Does Pastor Erwin not see anything wrong with the music or worldview of Eminem?

Now, although I was unable to verify this accusation, I highly doubt that Erwin included Eminem swearing.  If the Apostle Paul quoted from the Athenian poets in Acts 17:28, does this require that they be believers?  I think that he is grabbing at sticks to create a case against Erwin, to suspect him of being worldly minded.  But the Gentiles would have said that Paul was following Jewish customs as he even had Timothy circumcised.  So was Paul contradicting his own strict teaching concerning circumcision or Jewish customs?  I think this author needs to give Erwin a bit more freedom to draw on things that this culture connects with so that he can communicate the truth in love.  I heard four sermons thus far and they were very, very good and I have no qualms about recommending them to anyone.

Given the evidence brought forward, it seems that the author of this article on Christian Worldview Network didn’t take the time to listen carefully and therefore makes potentially false conclusions about Erwin’s teaching and ministry.  At minimum, they are certainly unsubstantiated.  He tries to infer that Erwin is a liberal for exercising Christian liberty, then lumps the whole Emerging Church movement with his generalizations and tries to warn people about it.  Now, while I am not saying I agree with everything that Erwin teaches, from the four messages I listened to, I think he spoke the truth in love better than many others that I have heard.  He seems to be faithfully reaching out to the culture without compromising the message, though we cannot jump to conclusions on this either.

I think this article conveys an unloving attitude.  The author is quick to suspect evil and jump to conclusions, seems poorly researched and caricaturizes Erwin so that he can ostracize him.  What he has done is un-Christlike and I think deserves an apology.  That being said, I acknowledge that it is hard to bring correction in a loving way.  Nevertheless we must strive to do so because we are indebted to love the brethren.  Our desire should be to help maintain the unity of the Spirit while correcting error and not bringing unnecessary division. “Love does not rejoice in evil.”

We need to always remember that the battle we fight is not against flesh and blood, but against pricipalities and powers, primarily in the realm of ideas and myths which become fortresses preventing people from knowing God has He truly is and exercising faith in Him.

“I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.“  Time, March 18, 1985

The following is from ”Peace of Mind Through Possibility Thinking,” pp. 131-132:

“The most effective mantras employ the “M” sound. You can get the feel of it by repeating the words, “I am, I am,” many times over…. Transendental Meditation or TM… is not a religion nor is it necessarily anti-Christian.“

The following are from Robert Schuller’s book entltled “Self-Esteem,” pp. 22, 117-119:

“The classical interpretation of this teaching of Christ on ‘bearing our cross’ desperately needs reformation….”

“The cross Christ calls us to bear will be offered as a dream… an inspiring idea that would incarnate itself in a form of ministry that helps the self-esteem-impoverished persons to discover their self-worth through salvation and subsequent social service in our Savior’s name…”

“So the proclamation of possibility thinking is the positive proclamation of the cross!…”

“Christ was the world’s greatest possibility thinker.  Do we dare follow him?“

The following is after the September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers in New York.  It is from an article in the Chicago Tribute, Nov 2, 2001:

For decades, Schuller said, he was a proponent of the kind of proselytizing that pushed Muslims to become Christians. Then he realized that asking people to change their faith was ”utterly ridiculous.”
[...]

Schuller’s first interaction with a Muslim group came four years ago, when Mohammed invited him to give the opening sermon at the Muslim American Society’s New Jersey convention. And in 1999, he was asked by the grand mufti of Syria to preach in Damascus.

”When I met the grand mufti … I sensed the presence of God,” he wrote in his autobiography.

The two men, he said, focused on similarities, not differences.

”We didn’t discuss theological details that might distract us … from hearing the voice of a crying child,” he said.

Nor did they talk about whether non-Christians were going to hell.

”In a world with crying children we have no time,” he said.

”The purpose of religion is not to say, ‘I have all the answers, and my job is to convert you.’ That road leads to the Twin Towers. That attitude is an invitation to extremists,” he said.

After Sept. 11, he said, the emphasis should move from proselytizing ”to just trying to help everybody who had hurts and hopes.”

Do you agree or disagree with any or all of the above quotes?  If you agree, could you explain in what way you agree?  Let the conversation begin…

Understanding the other [person's view] calls for imagination, because we have to provisionally assume the other may be correct – or at least partially correct – if we are to truly listen. We may have to hold our convictions in abeyance as we hypothetically consider the position of the other.

“And if some of you are partisans for one view or the other, you may get upset when I present … the other person’s viewpoint – and I hope you realize that what I’m trying to do is to do what any person should do in discussing an issue. He should present all of the viewpoints in as positive a way as possible, in a way in which proponents would present it.” — Dr. Lewis Johnson.

Yes, our goal is to present views faithfully, and not develop strawmen or caricatures to make our views look better or more right.

Coming to agreement requires confidence, because our self-worth cannot rest on our being merely right.

Finding Christ’s mind demands humility, because we don’t like changing our minds and acknowledging that the other has a good point. Our certainty is such a warm comforting blanket that we hesitate to toss aside.

What’s needed most of all is love – love for the other, love for God, and love for the truth – the three in balance.

But it’s hard. In fact, these kinds of conversations are so difficult that often the only way that we can even begin is by crying out to God that His Spirit would empower us to proceed.

I wholeheartedly agree with Shields.  Doing your best to faithfully represent the views of another person whom you may disagree with in Love and yet standing up for truth you believe to be important is something that only the Holy Spirit can accomplish in our lives.  Sometimes I feel like I’m pouring out my life.  It is very time consuming and draining, but I have hope that this sort of conversation actually communicates to people…  people of opposing viewpoints and not just to those who agree with you.

God help us.

You can find the interview by John Buckeridge here.

I found this interview with Rob Bell very informative, particularly since I am evaluating some of his works.  It is clear that Rob is just plain a nice, honest, straightforward kind of guy.  He seems to just want to be himself, honestly trying to be more effective as a Christian and improve the view the world has of the church.  He seems very humble in how he sees the astonishing growth of his church, Mars Hill, came about, as well as his Nooma video series.  All around, I think Rob Bell is a young, hip, real, personable and committed person.  I want to point out a number of things that I noticed he said in this video:

1. He made the statement that he doesn’t label his church as “emergent” or “emerging” because (and rightly so) labels tend to segregate people into “are you in?” and “are you out?” groups which seems to work against the spirit of unity.  No tags, stripes and labels.  His comment was that if emergent is into conversing about what we believe and deeply looking into these things, not going off the deep end theologically, then he is all for it.  I would agree.  Well said.
2. He stated that people are desparate and searching for a community where they can wrestle and struggle with issues of faith, God and why we are here.  As to why his church grew so quickly, he responded with ‘well maybe we’re just more desparate than others.’  People are desparate to be a part of something that is bigger than themselves.
3. The first sermon series he taught was a verse-by-verse study through the book of Leviticus, and the next was the Song of Solomon.  I’m very pleased that he seems to be getting back to expositional preaching — good for him!  Obviously, he was able to make these very difficult, often irrelevant and distant scriptures relevant to his audience, since this is the period in which Mars Hill church grew from 1,000 to 10,000 people.
4. He said that the church is not just a 1 hour gathering on Sundays but how they consistently live what they believe throughout the week.  Obviously, very good.
5. The church service is apparently in a warehouse bordering a shopping centre, it is minimalistic, they sing for maybe 25 minutes with about 45 minutes of preaching, announcements and no collection buckets passed around.  He also is very aware and cognizant of people entering the church who have never opened a bible, but he doesn’t go seeker sensitive by cutting out expository-style teaching.  Most of his effort is in attempt to make the Bible culturally relevant.

I will summarize by saying that Rob Bell seems to be doing the right things, and they are certainly attracting a large following.  Despite all this, my concern is that perhaps, in reacting to the general malaise of the North American church at large, he over-reacts in various ways.  Is he questioning too much?  How does he view truth?  Has he reduced some of the hard doctrines into something more palatable for people to digest but which lack the hard truth that was really intended?  Has he made Christianity into a human pursuit instead of a work of God which draws sinners to repentance?  Does he reinvent or redefine key biblical doctrines?  Is there a diversion from the biblical gospel of repentance and belief to a social gospel of helping the poor without challenging the beliefs of those being reached?  Lots of questions…

I will be addressing these issues in my look through his book and video series.  I have also been listening to some of his sermons, so I will take time to reflect on what I see there as well.  Given that Rob says he really wants to question deeply the things of theology, faith, doctrine and practice, I assume that he doesn’t mind if I engage in the very same thing by looking deeply at the message he proclaims.

However, I believe there are two general motivations behind the asking of these deep questions, one that is healthy and the other that is not:

1. Based on the general failure of the church today to be true to its roots in the first church of the book of Acts, there is this general questioning “do we have it correct?  Is there something we are missing about Jesus’ message which has taken us far off the mark?”  The general line of questioning here is that of did we understand correctly?  Have we looked carefully at the historical context of Jesus’ (and the Apostles’) hearers, or have we misapplied their words thinking only of our North American context?
2. The other angle is from those who are disgusted with the general malaise of the church, believing that it has to do with believing in the inerrancy of God’s Word and holding to its fundamental truths too tightly… these suppose that perhaps there is another answer.  For these, spiritual experience and helping the poor seems to be the focus, and all doctrine comes under suspicion.  Maybe there is no eternal hell except the temporal hell all around us and bringing heaven to earth is solving the problem of poverty and sickness (ie. not both-and, but either-or).  Maybe Jesus didn’t really mean that He was the only means of salvation, etc.

It seems to me that the former can be healthy, but the latter is traversing the descent into apostasy.  Perhaps it is the visible church’s failure to live out the commands of Christ which has become a stumbling block to the second person, tripping them into unbelief. Let’s take a moment to look at the response given by a sympathizer to Brian McLaren’s Generous Othodoxy.  I want to see if there is anything we can learn about the nature of the questioning we should be doing:

Look. I’m not a dangerous heretic. But I am questioning traditional christianity. Am I too scary for you? Is there no room for me in Christianity? Is there only room for traditional protestants? then no, I’m not that kind of christian.

This debate reminds me of Jonah – not willing to take God’s message outside his familiar borders to Nineveh – and when he does, and God shows mercy instead of hellfire and brimstone – the traditional element sits down and cries and raves at the unfairness. Why shouldn’t God’s message OF JESUS be for everyone? Why do we love to say “today is the only day of salvation” (AGAIN THROUGH JESUS)and why do we love to exclude others? Why do we love our man made theologies, history, traditions and mindsets so much that there is no room for the size of God? Why can’t I change? and if I ask these questions, why is the response so defensive and not contemplative? I spend all my time contemplating both sides, while the traditional side LEAPs in and stomps anything new flat. It is wrecking far more lives that I ever will. you have no idea.

The very first thing that comes to mind here is the following from Jude 1:22-23: “And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.“  We should not be hostile to those who doubt, but merciful with the earnest desire that they would know the truth that would set them free.

I have a lot of questions that I want to ask this person.  For instance, what exactly is this person questioning?  Is it the doctrines that she is questioning, or how or what is being done by the protestant church despite the doctrine?  Is this person simply reacting against Christians who don’t want to listen to her concerns?  Is it the unwillingness of many in the church to genuinely reach out to unbelievers?  Is it how the church gathers in mostly closed circles and then is unwilling to reach out in love to the unbelieving in the community?

Perhaps the reason why the emergent movement is becoming so popular with churches like Mars Hill is because of a willingness of pastors like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and others to open up all doctrine to conversation.  This is of course very good.  Let people tell you their concerns and/or doubts and be willing to listen and show and instruct them so that they will understand.  It seems, however, that some are going too far in reaction to the unwillingness of some to engage in conversation.  That is, they then say that they do not have very many answers.  They have backed up so much, re-evaluating everything that there seems to be very little that is stood for anymore.  It is this unwillingness to stand for truth that I believe is throwing many into confusion.

vin·tage adj. of high quality, especially from a past time period n. the date or time period when something was originally produced or existed

faith n. reliance and trust in a person or thing

Vintage Faith is simply looking at what was vintage Christianity. Going back to the beginning and looking at the teachings of Jesus with fresh eyes and hearts and minds. Carefully discerning what it is in our contemporary churches and ministry that perhaps has been shaped through modernity and evangelical subculture, rather than the actual teachings of Jesus and the Scriptures.

This definition certainly sounds promising. There are definitely problems with the church at large today, one of them being that most are straying from scripture in both what is being taught and how believers practice their faith. Secondly, most are not willing to converse about the situation because it means they have to evaluate their comfortable position, possibly concluding they were wrong… possibly meaning something will have to change.

Going back to the first church and the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles with the aim to lay aside any cultural influences that may have been intermixed sounds like a very worthy goal that I am in full support of. However, Dan Kimball curiously goes on to say the following:

There isn’t one model of church or ministry, but there are hundreds and thousands of models and emerging churches – all unique to their local context. That is a very refreshing thing.

But this sounds like the opposite of what was just stated (unless I’m misunderstanding something here). It seems to me that if we want to go back to the first church and the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, shedding corrupting cultural influences, the church should become more unified and look the same despite the culture in which it resides… right? In other words, each church should be doing the same things in similar ways despite the cultural setting in which they exist.

This doesn’t mean that we cease to be unique as individuals. Neither does this mean that we each don’t have different cultural contexts within which powerful analogies can be mined to convey truth to people. But it does mean that we are distinct from the world and not just another community gathering of friendly social activists. Our basis of unity is in the gospel and testifying to it and supporting one another in the persecutions that will inevitably follow.

In order to understand what the vintage faith was, I think we need to revisit and understand the meaning of the word translated “church” in the New Testament.

What is the Church?

From my WordStudy I read that the Greek word often translated “church” is ekkleÌ„sía which simply means “called out.” It is applied to the congregation of the people of Israel in Acts 7:38.

On the other hand, of the two terms used in the Old Testament, sunagoÌ„geÌ„ seems to have been used to designate the people of Israel in distinction from all other nations (Acts 13:43, Matt 4:3, Matt 6:2, James 2:2, Rev 2:9, Rev 3:9). However, in Heb 10:25 when the gathering of Christians is referred to, it is called not sunagoÌ„gé, but episunagoÌ„gé, with the preposition epí, or upon, translated ‘the assembling…together.’ The Christian community was designated for the first time as the ekkleÌ„sía to differentiate it from the Jewish community, sunagoÌ„gé (Acts 2:47).

So not only was the church separate from all other nations, but also from the very Jewish subculture from which it sprang. Under the first covenant in the Old Testament, one had to become a Jew (through circumcision and covenantal observance of the Jewish laws) in order to become part of the assembly which could draw near to God. Now, however, in the new covenant a people from all nations have been called out to become one people in Jesus Christ.  This is a very important point.  Those who were once far away because they were not physically circumcised now become one with believing Israel through the same faith in the work and ministry of Jesus Christ as our high priest and through circumcision of the heart.  All other ways of approaching God even including the ceremonial laws (including circumcision) of the Mosaic covenant must be cast aside to be part of this new assembly of believers… the called out ones.

Uniqueness of the First Church

The first church was very unique. But would we call it emergent in comparison to the Judaic subculture? Let me attempt to peel a layer or two on the ‘emergent’ onion. The adjective emergent by definition seems to imply a casual coming into existence. A community of people that are unique in that they accept people with all sorts of theological interpretations, embracing various views and practices that seem to connect with each distinct gathering, and generally leaving most everything open to discussion. [Am I way off here?] But was the first church as described in the book of Acts characterized as a casual, fortuitous, toleration of differing views of truth? Was it a movement that was arising without specific direction or focus or intention? Did its theology come from random musings in a process much like mutative evolution? The picture arising from the fortuitous conversant style of the Emergent Church movement seems to me, if it is at all accuration, to be antithetical to the following quote from Jesus:

“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and forceful people lay hold of it” (Matt 11:12, NET).

Forceful entrance seems to me to be the opposite of casual emergence.  I think the comparison is a reasonable one, because the first church came out of the Judaic subculture in which it was birthed much like the Emergents are saying that this new movement is coming out of the Evangelical subculture.  In contradistinction, it seems very intentional, well-defined, focused, motivated and urgent.  No doubt we are to be respectful of all people and their right to believe whatever they want.  But this is generally concerning those who are outside the church who are unbelievers and unregenerate.  Those inside the church are to be treated differently, and if their views are bringing them to a place of spiritual harm, then those who shepherd the flock and other wise people need to come alongside and lovingly correct them.  There is the concept of leaving the 99 to correct the wandering of the 1, not corralling the 99 and ostracizing the 1.

In matters of morality and sin, there is clearly no option to agree to disagree.  Obviously, there is a mechanism to address sin by following Matthew 18 which keeps the matter private unless hard heartedness becomes evident or persists.  But we don’t correct the world as though we expect them to live like a regenerate, repentant person.

Clearly, in order to discuss matters of doctrine, we have to be conversing and thinking about what we really believe.  And this means that we listen to people, speak to where they are at, and not just pound them over the head; truth must be carried by love to be effective. This idea found in many Emergent Church circles is something that I warmly welcome.

So what are some of the characteristics of that first ‘vintage’ church which we are seeking to emulate? You might find the following startling in what it contains (though this list is not complete):

1. It was a Holy assembly.
1. “Eagerly pursue peace and holiness with all [ie. peace with God and being completely 'set aside' for His use], without which no one will see the Lord, watching diligently that not any lack from [ie. fall short of] the grace of God, that ‘no root of bitterness [ie. hard hartedness towards God's Word] growing up’ may crowd ‘in on you’, and through this many be defiled; that not any fornicator, or profane one, as Esau, who for one meal gave up his birthright; for you know that afterwards desiring to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place of repentance, although seeking it out with tears” (Heb 12:14-17, LITV).  Esau’s gaze was on the temporal and the seen; our gaze needs to be on obedience in the temporal with our hope arising from our eye towards the future fulfillment of the promised inheritance (though we have but a down-payment today).
2. They were Jesus disciples, and were completely dedicated to doing the will of Jesus and the Father even if it meant that their friends, and family distanced themselves from them, or they were persecuted even to the loss of their own lives (Luke 14:26-35, 2 Tim 3:12). They carried their own crosses and bore the shame of Christ throught testifying of Him and His gospel (Luke 14:27, 1 John 4:15-17, Heb 13:11-16). They were living sacrifices, acceptable and pleasing to God (Rom 12:1, 1 Pet 2:5).
3. They followed the commandments of Christ, not those of men (Acts 5:29, Matt 5:3, Matt 15:7-9).
4. While there was a tolerance of sinful, worldly people outside the church community, there was no tolerance of practicing sin within the community (1 Cor 5:9-13). While they worshipped God together in sincerity and truth (Josh 24:14, 1 Cor 5:8, John 4:24), there was no tolerance of those who “came out of the closet” so to speak to live in open violation of God’s moral commands without repentance (Matt 18:15-18).
5. There was a knee-knocking fear of God in the assembly of those who called themselves by God’s name. And despite this, multitudes were constantly added to their number (Acts 5:11-14 -> this passage is worth reading).
6. They didn’t tell the world about having a ‘friendship relationship with God’, or offer ‘personal life enhancement’. (See “Preaching God’s Love in Acts?” by Gregory Koukl for a thorough treatment of the subject.)
7. God was the builder of the church through the faithful testimony of people who did not hold back the full counsel of God (1 Cor 3:9, 2 Tim 2:2, Tit 1:9, Acts 20:26-31).
8. Despite their relentless purging of sin amongst themselves, they loved one another deeply from the heart (1 John 4:7-13, 1 John 4:20, 1 John 3:17, 1 Pet 1:22, Heb 13:16).

Something to think about, isn’t it? That was vintage Christianity in its most raw, its most purest form. Do we really want to get back to that form of Christianity? Its the burning desire of my heart, and so I hope that many in the Emergent movement also feel the same. At the same time, what I fear is that we are instead primarily desiring to do our own thing, in our own way. There is almost a sense of rebellion against clear preaching on sin, God’s righteous requirements, how we enter into right relationship with Him, of eternal Hell and judgement for the wicked.  On the other hand, the weight is much heavier towards the preaching of a social gospel to make this world a better place at the expense of gospel preaching.  Whatever seems right to us.  Whatever looks like is working and is more popular.

However, let us be strongly reminded that “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov 14:12).  We must take care to be separate from the world (teachings of people), because “friendship with the world [its ways] is hostility towards God” (James 4:4).  “For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29)… and He is the same God who abounds in love towards those who submit to Him.

“That’s why the hell fire and brimstone stuff is so dangerous.  When you tell me that I should follow Jesus so that I don’t burn forever, it sounds like a threat.  As if you scare people enough they’ll all of a sudden magically decide to love God and follow Jesus.  Do you think it’s possible to scare people into loving God?” (Nooma, “009 Bullhorn” PDF, p17-18).

I’ll go over “Bullhorn” in more detail in another post, but I wanted to address this statement here.  I can see Rob’s concern, but it seems to me that he is mischaracterizing what proper gospel preaching should be like.  Telling someone that they are going to burn in Hell if they don’t repent when they think they have done nothing wrong (certainly nothing uncommon to all people) is brow beating and offensive.  But if you love people, you will first show them (like a good doctor) the signs of the mortal disease they have so that they will become convinced in themselves.  If they are convinced, you won’t need to push hell hard on them, they will understand.  Just set it out plainly and then offer them the good news in context to the bad.  After all, how can you truly understand salvation if you don’t even know what you are being saved from?  To be saved requires that the object of salvation knows their plight and that there is one who can save.  The whole context is utterly important when sharing the gospel.

Thinking more about the whole idea of God’s using threats of punishment as motivation to obey Him, I was reminded of the passage in Exodus 19:12-20:21.  The people prepared themselves to draw near to Mt. Sinai to hear from God.  God told Moses the following:

“You must set boundaries for the people all around, saying, ‘Take heed to yourselves not to go up on the mountain nor touch its edge.  Whoever touches the mountain will surely be put to death!”

 

But not only did God solemnly warn them with threat of judgment, He decended upon the mountain with “thunder and lightning and a dense cloud on the mountain, and the sound of a very loud horn; all the people who were in the camp trembled” (Exod 19:16).

In fact, it didn’t stop thundering– it continued to do so while God spoke the 10 commandments to the people (this is before He wrote them on tablets of stone when Moses went up the mountain alone).  Then we are told in Exod 20:18-20:

All the people were seeing the thundering and the lightening, and heard the sound of the horn, and saw the mountain smoking — and when the people saw it they trembled with fear and kept their distance.  They said to Moses, “You speak to us and we will listen, but do not let God speak with us, lest we die.”  Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you so that you do not sin.” (Exod 20:18-20

Did you catch that?  God has come to put fear in them!  But we are told explicitly why– to keep them from sin.  Wow…  So God uses fear for our good, for our benefit… out of love for us.  He does so to burn in our memories that this is serious business and we should not treat the commands of God lightly.

The Apostle Paul confirms this in his letter to the Romans when he tells why people continue in sin: “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom 3:18, NET).

The warning for us who profess to believe, who are “in the camp” is clear and repeated numerous times in the New Testament.  Probably the most clear is in Hebrews where we are reminded of what happened under the Old Covenant:

“Therefore we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.  For if the message spoken through angels proved to be so firm that every violation or disobedience received its just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (Heb 2:1-3a, NET).

Reading through Hebrews 2-3 we see what happened to the Israelites who neglected their salvation.  They longed to be back in Egypt and constantly complained about their living conditions.  What do we read?

“For which ones heard and rebelled?  Was it not all who came out of Egypt under Moses’ leadership?  And against whom was God provoked for forty years?  Was it not those who sinned, whose dead bodies fell in the wilderness?  And to whom did he swear they would never enter into his rest, except those who were disobedient?  So we see that they could not enter because of unbelief.  Therefore we must be wary that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it.  For we had good news proclaimed to us just as they did.  But the message they heard did them no good, since they did not join in with those who heard it in faith” (Heb 3:16-4:2, NET).

So what’s the moral of the story?  “See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has an evil, unbelieving heart that forsakes the living God.  But exhort one another each day, as long as it is called ‘Today,’ that none of you may become hardened by sin’s deception.  For we have become partakers with Christ, if in fact we hold our initial confidence firm until the end” (Heb 3:12-14, NET).

Rob Bell’s denial of the importance of telling people about hell is misinformed and leading people away from God’s means of bringing people to obedience.  Sobering truth, but this is so terribly important to understand.  By God’s grace, let’s be people that desire to do what God commands and follow in His ways even if it means that we are ill-treated because of Christ and His message.

Sometimes people feel that God doesn’t answer their prayers.  Often times, it’s not because God doesn’t want to answer, He simply can’t get a word in edgewise.  “God help me.  God, change my spouse.  God, fix my boss. God, I need that promotion.  God, I need wisdom.  God, show me what to do.  God, why don’t You ever talk to me?”  Does any of that sound familiar?  God most often speaks to us in a still, small voice.  If we want to hear His voice, we have to get quiet before Him.  Learn to let go of the busyness of life, to relax and allow the peace of God to restore and reenergize us.

However, is this true?  Are we not getting answers to prayer simply because we are not being quiet in our spirit to listen to the “still, small voice”? Let’s look at what scripture has to say in James 4:1-7 (NIV):

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?  You want something but don’t get it.  You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God.  When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.  You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God?  Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.  Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?  But he gives us more grace.  That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”  Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.  Come near to God and he will come near to you.  Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.  Grieve, mourn and wail.  Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom.  Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

Does James in any way infer that what we need to do is quiet our spirit in contemplative meditation to hear a still, small voice in order to receive what we ask for?  Not so.  Instead, he addresses our heart motivation.  And for those who have wrong motivation, does he tell them to quiet their spirit in “centering prayer” like the Roman Catholic mystics propose?  Again, not so.  He tells them to submit to God and resist the devil, to repent from their sin in grief and mourning, and to wash and purify themselves.

If we are not careful to search out the scriptures, we may be deceived into following practices that are pagan and spiritually harmful even though they may give us a good experience.

We are commanded to be separate from the world, yet not removed from it. In but not of.

Therefore, in order to be able to engage in the marketplace, we have to be able to do so without first requiring that the marketplace itself adhere to the principles we hold to in the scriptures. However, how is the assembly of believers for fellowship to be ordained? Are we to tolerate immorality, pagan practices and heretical teachings in the assembly of the believing?

Bob DeWaay aired a recent Critical Issues Commentary entitled “The Gospel to Mars Hill” which you can download here. In this commentary, Bob shows how in one instance the Apostle Paul circumcises Timothy in order to preach the gospel to the Jews in the synagogues (the marketplace), but in another instance utterly refuses to circumcise another Gentile disciple when certain Judiazers tried to force Christians to follow Jewish customs. Was Paul being double-minded here? How are we to understand this seeming contradiction?

Let me know what you think of the message.

1. Does the existence of heaven and hell require a Christian to be motivated by reward and/or fear?
2. Is it true that a Christian with saving faith is motivated to serve God out of fear, reward or simply out of love for God?

Fear of Hell?

I think it would be quite unusual if the thought of Hell, especially as described in the Bible, does not stir at least a little fear in people. Jesus said a lot about hell, but a few of His strongest statements were:

But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! (Luke 12:5, ESV).

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43, ESV).

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death (Revelation 21:8, ESV).

Assuming these words are true, if these verses do not instill fear in you, then I’m not sure what would. Should you not think that these words affect you, consider that it only takes one lie to become a liar (websters defines a liar as one who has lied).

The appropriate question then is whether or not it is legitimate to be motivated by fear. It can be shown that not all fear is undesirable or unhealthy. In fact, fear is a common part of everyday life and often prevents us from doing something that could put our lives in jeopardy. Similarly, the right amount of stress can motivate you to perform well at work, to prepare for a speech or to run a race. For an example of how fear helps you, consider a sign posted near a steep and unstable area near a ski boundary stating the following:

DANGER! AVALANCHE AREA! KEEP OUT!

As you inch a little closer to the boundary and look over the nearly vertical cliff edge, a brisk wind suddenly picks up behind you pushing strongly on your back. Immediately, a hot flash of fear streaks through your body and you immediately kneel down and move away from the edge. When you catch your breath, the thought of staying far away from the edge sticks firmly in your mind. Fear keeps you from endangering yourself further.

Another example would be walking across a street as you are talking to someone (and not paying attention) and suddenly, you look up and see the red hand illuminated and to your side to see a large bus barelling towards you. The fear you experience convinces you without a second thought to get out of the way of danger to the safety of the sidewalk on the other side of the street. It even “supercharges” you by invoking an adrenaline response.

Or how about when you are hiking and see two bear cubs in front of you. Your understanding of the mindless defense mechanisms that a nearby mother might make should you continue towards them causes a fear in you that prevents you from putting your life in needless peril.

Clearly then, fear is a normal part of life and in healthy measure protects those in harms’ way from danger, encouraging them to adhere to the way which will keep them safe. Of course, there are those who smile in the face of fear (and even death) and live off the exhilaration from the adrenaline rush they get from putting themselves into near death experiences. And there are also those who allow fear to paralyze them from doing just about anything for even very remote chances of embarrassment, pain or death. But clearly, we make decisions on whether or not to do something based upon knowledge of the effects of our action or an assessment of the risk to our health or very life. Who would drink arsenic for fun?

I propose that to be partly motivated by fear of Hell in order to repent and obey God’s commands is both reasonable and good. Clearly, by not doing so we put our eternal destiny in jeopardy. Besides, should you choose to disobey God’s requirements for salvation, you have everything to lose if hell is true, and by comparison nothing but a brief life filled with sinful pleasure to lose if it is not true. I plan to address whether or not hell is itself reasonable in another post.

The Wise King Solomon finishes the Book of Ecclesiastes with the following:

The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden; whether it is good or evil (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, NASB).

Lastly, those who are living in obedience to God’s command to repent and believe on Christ do not have to fear. The fear has already done its work to drive them to the cross of Jesus Christ in repentance and now God’s love covers and protects them provided they continue to abide in Him. This by no means is a guarantee of bliss in this life on earth — even Jesus (God Himself in the flesh) had much trouble in this life (think about that one for a moment!). But this life is but a single breath compared to eternity. There really is no comparison.

Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also we are in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears [punishment] has not been perfected in love (1 John 4:15-18, ESV).

Doing Good for Rewards?

The next question is whether or not the Christian is (or even should be) motivated to serve God out of desire for reward or simply for altruistic purposes (ie. for love of God alone with no regard for self). Certainly, serving God with no regard for oneself sounds like the pinnacle of goodness. While it is logical to turn to God and follow His requirements to avoid punishment (discussed above), does it also follow that we should lay aside all our own will and follow God’s will as spelled out in the Bible with no consideration for the rewards? First of all, heaven is a gift prepared beforehand for those who have been justified by God’s grace apart from works, and is not a reward for doing good things:

Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law (Romans 3:27-28, NASB).

But the truth is that it is difficult if not absolutely impossible to not be motivated to do good for rewards. Often, the first thing that comes to mind is material rewards. However, even if we obey God out of love, we are doing so to please God and seek His approval which is a reward in and of itself.

And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him (Hebrews 11:6, NASB).

It is neither unreasonable nor wrong that God would bless those who love Him. Yet our love is but a natural response to His exceeding love for us. The God of the universe, for our sake and while we were dead in our sins, humbly took on human form and lived a lowly life as a servant. Although sinless and uncondemned by the law, He willingly offered His body as a sacrifice to provide payment for our sin by taking it upon Himself. Therefore, not offering ourselves completely to Him in His service as a token thank offering is unconscionable.

I beseech you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy [ie. set apart], pleasing to God, which is your reasonable service (Romans 12:1, MKJV).

It is only reasonable to give everything to God because of what He has done for you and I. And He is faithful, keeping His promises to us and showing His love to us — not because of our faithfulness, but because of His faithfulness. Although, by ignoring His requirements, we are choosing to reject Him after He has done everything to reach out to us.

And I said,”O Lord God of heaven, the great and awesome God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments…” (Nehemiah 1:5, ESV).

I hope this article caused you to think and helped to address this important concern. Please post your feedback/comments!

Theological Art
Is Meaning in the Eye of the Beholder?

Rob utilizes the idea of a painting masterpiece and how continued attempts to paint the same subject doesn’t cease once a masterpiece is created. He then applies this to propose that this is how we should look at understanding the truth of scripture:

“…I embrace the need to keep painting, to keep reforming. By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained”

(Velvet Elvis, p12. Emphasis mine).

How is Rob intending the reader to interpret this statement?

• Could he mean that the old way was to view the one God as three persons but due to our desire to be ecumenical and not offend Muslims or JWs or oneness Pentecostals we repaint God or allow others to repaint Him however they see fit?
• Could he mean that although Jesus says that He must be 100% the Lord of our lives (we hold nothing back from Him and must view all else as refuse compared to apprehending Christ) or we cannot be His disciples (Luke 14), but we can repaint Jesus’ statement to mean that we can do what we want and desire what we want as long as we spend the first part of our day in prayer and help those in need?
• Does he mean that how the apostles envisioned the faith to be believed and lived out is different for us today?

What Rob has essentially done is made truth something of a matter of preference; rather than having an objective meaning determined by the Holy Spirit which doesn’t change, it becomes subjective and changes with the tides of culture. And if it is a preference or at least can be repainted to mean something entirely different, then how can someone hold me accountable to what the scripture clearly says? In fact, can we even know what it says with any assurance? How could we give our life for something that we though could be repainted in a different light tomorrow? Somehow I think that Rob Bell is viewing scripture in a different light than the Apostles, and I think that he has started this book on a very steep and dangerous precipice.

For many Christians, the current paintings are enough. The churches, the books, the language, the methods, the beliefs — there is nothing wrong with it. It works for them and meets their needs, and they gladly invite others to join them in it. I thank God for that. I celebrate those who have had their lives transformed in these settings. But this book is for those who need a fresh take on Jesus and what it means to live the kind of life he teaches us to live. … Welcome to my Velvet Elvis

(Ibid, p14. Emphasis mine).

This is clearly a post-modern way of viewing things. Post-moderns believe that ultimately truth cannot be known; one truth cannot apply for all people for all times. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. You have your truth and preferences, I have mine and both are equally valid. Yet each could be concluding something totally different from one another. But the Bible is black and white on morality, God’s character, what He requires and how we are to come to Him. If we dare to fool around with God’s Word as revealed to us, we put ourselves in the position of being in willful rebellion to God’s Word.

Rather, what we ought to be doing is seeking to understand what the author (the Holy Spirit) intended in His inspired scriptures. God has not written down His requirements, will and ways intending that each of us is to repaint the underlying meaning of the text in whatever way suits the culture of the day. For example, if the culture says that there is no truth, we do not capitulate and say that there are different ways to come to God and that no one way is any better or more right than another.

1. One, because I know that Brian is a key leader in the Emergent Church movement which seems to view truth in a post-modern way, and
2. Two, because it seems to be implying that there is something about Jesus’ message that we got wrong or didn’t understand.

Could it be that Jesus’ way really was not that narrow?  Is it possible that the belief that that our focus should not be on building a better place to live in the here and now but by sharing the gospel, its conditions and details, doing good and standing for truth even if it means that we will be ostracized, mistreated and even killed… Is this view misguided?The following is the summary off the flap:

Brian McLaren, the man that TIME magazine said “could find a way for … Christians to march into the future despite their theological differences,” has penned his most unsettling and revolutionary book to date.

In The Secret Message of Jesus, McLaren clears away the dust of two thousand years of the Christian religion to get to the most important questions facing Christendom: Could it be that the church has misunderstood or, in some cases, intentionally distorted Jesus’ core message?  What if Jesus was right–but right in different ways than we ever realized? What if many of us have carried on a religion that somewhere along the way missed rich and radical treasures hidden in the essential message of Jesus of Nazareth?

McLaren calls us to look hard, think deeply, and search long with him… even if the answers overturn our conventional ideas, priorities, and practices.

“Through the years, I have frequently had an uncomfortable feeling,” writes McLaren, “that the portrait of Jesus I found in the New Testament didn’t fit with the images of Jesus in the church.” Out of that nagging discomfort arose this ground-breaking book. He writes, “I’d like to share my search with you, and invite you to be a part of it. I don’t want to spoil the ending, but I’ll let you in on this: the farther I go on this search, the more inspired, moved, challenged, shocked, and motivated I become about the secret message of Jesus.”

I hope you are willing to come with me and do just what Brian has said–”look hard, think deeply, and search.”  With my Bible at my side, we will see if Jesus’ core message has been distorted by true Christianity or if McLaren is distorting it.  If Brian has the truth, then the Bible will affirm it; if, on the other hand, he does not, then I am compelled to expose his error in love for Jesus Christ and the truth.  As you read, please remain just as open-minded as you have been with Brian’s book.  I hope my comments will be both informative and helpful and liberating, since it is only the truth that will set you free.