Calvinism/Predestination

Right, wrong or indifferent, I admit my philosophy towards scripture up front: first, I must begin and end with the character of God as He has revealed Himself in scripture, and second, I must consider the full consequences of accepting a certain interpretation of scripture; and these two are intimately intertwined and they are the lenses by which my reading of Gods Message is colored. Now lest one accuse me of placing philosophy first in order of priority and authority over above “God’s Word”, an example is necessary: Say there were a verse in the bible that seemed to attribute darkness to God who is clearly and explicitly revealed as Light, I would feel compelled to wrestle with the “darkness of God” verse until I came to some sort of understand that proved to be non-contradictory to the explicit motif of His “Lightness”. My goal therefore is to be faithful to the scriptures, but (and making an appeal beyond the written word) I also and more importantly (lest I fall into a sort of “bibliolatry”) desired to be faithful to the God of the scriptures.

It is with this biblical hermeneutical philosophy as a back drop that I am prepared to explain why I reject Calvinism and Determinism (or Predestination; though Determinism is not exclusively a Calvinistic term, i.e. Arminians believe in a ‘foreknown’ determined future, none-the-less, in the context that I am entreating it, Calvinism and Determinism [predestination] will hence forth be interchangeable). Please note: what follows is not a polemic against Calvinism; that is, I’m not going to pull together a string of verses that may ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ Calvinism. My goal here is that while there certainly is a strong case for (and against) Calvinism in the bible by way of a proof-text approach, I wish to explain why I reject Calvinism forthright and not attack or build an exhaustive case against it.

Why I Am Not a Calvinist

There are many possible reasons why I reject Calvinism. For example, I was raised in a Pentecostal/Wesleyan free-will tradition that may have made me predisposed to rejecting divine omni-determinism, yet there have been many raised in the free-will tradition who after many years in church and after faithfully studying God’s word (and certain writers) has exchanged their free-will tradition for an omni-determined one. So appeal to my tradition alone is not enough to conclude why I reject Calvinism today. Some might suggest that because I find it heartless to suggest that God wills and ‘renders certain’ for many (most?) people to go to hell for all time just to glorify Himself, that I have placed my emotions in charge of my brain, and that is why I reject Calvinism. There may be some truth here as well, but I must add with force that if this were the case I doubt I would have spent serious time in the past investigating Calvinism from the writings of Calvinists’ in order to see if they can be reconciled with the God revealed in scripture. In other words, I believe I have given Calvinism a fair intellectual hearing and so to conclude that my emotions have gotten in the way would – I believe – be an unfair, emotional and anti-intellectual response from my critics.

Another factor, it may be said, is that I have chosen to embrace certain ‘proof-texts’ over above other ‘proof-texts’, that is, I wholly embrace some texts such as John 3:16 while quietly passing over others such as Romans 9:13. This may be the case also, but if it is, can the Calvinist escape the same charge? How, I would like to know, does the Calvinists handle Hebrews 6 and 10 for example? Of all I have read of Calvinism, these make up two of the most contrary passages for them to explain and indeed most which I have read simply (quietly) pass over such passages. I would like to know, oh Calvinist, how it can be said of someone who is Totally Depraved (T in T.U.L.I.P) that such a one has been “Enlightened… tasted the heavenly gift, and… shared in the Holy Spirit and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come”? And if such a one is God’s elect, how can it be said that if they “have fallen away” that it is impossible to “restore them again to repentance” (cf. Hebrews 6:4-6)? None-the-less, I would rebuttal the charge as unfair since I wholly embrace Romans 9-11 yet radically interpret that text differently in a way that reflects the primary motif of Romans in its entirety – i.e. the question of God’s covenantal righteousness – just as a few Calvinists have found a way to explain – albeit in an unsatisfactory way in my opinion – Hebrews 6 and 10.

There are many more reasons why it can be said that I reject Calvinism (or Augustinian or any other type of omni divine determinism for that matter) but of them all there is one reason which stands head and shoulders above the rest.

The ONE, the Achilles Heel!

Omni-determinism is analogous to a knitted sweater with a loose or frayed end; when that loose end is pulled on, that beautiful sweater, which was crafted with patterns by some of the greatest minds in Church history, slowly then quickly unravels until there is nothing resembling a sweater left and the yarn itself looses all usefulness. In that analogy the yarn is the Bible, the design of the sweater and patters in it are the theory of Calvinism and the loose or frayed end is the Achilles Heel of Calvinism which no body wants to talks about.

That Achilles Heel, that loose end of Calvinism is the question; if God has omni-control and nothing ever (EVER!) happens outside of His will, His plan, and His purpose how does sin escape the hands of God? Calvinists have created a doctrine called Compatibilism as a means to justify their position, but not even Compatibilism gets them off the hook, and the real honest Calvinists are at least willing to admit this much, for such a one there is a fall back position which is found in the word “mystery” (see “Q&A” below)!

What is Compatibilism? Compatibilism is the belief that humans (and angels?) are responsible for their sin because they sin out of the desires of their hearts, but God is the one who gives them their desires! (Hence human free choices are compatible with God’s omni-control.) So because humans (and angels?) do what we want (our desires) we are accountable for our actions and will be judge accordingly, even though we could not have done otherwise because God is the one who gave us our desires! Perhaps an illustration will help. Say a pedophile abducts a little girl, rapes her repeatedly and then dumps her body in a ditch, according to Compatibilism, he did this because God willed it, planned it, purposed it and rendered it certain (for some mysterious so-called greater good) that this would happen, as a matter of fact God is the one who gave the pedophile his desires to do what he did so that the pedophile could not have chosen to do otherwise. Who is responsible for the actions of the pedophile, him or the one who ‘rendered his actions certain’ (i.e. God)? The Calvinist would say the pedophile is responsible since he is the one who desired to abuse the little girl and acted out those desires. But I do not see how God cannot also be held accountable for the very same actions since God willed it, planned it, purposed it, “was in control” of the whole ordeal and made it certain that the event could not have happened any other way. To down size our illustration; say a mother pushers her toddler down the stairs, who is responsible for the preschoolers’ injuries? Obviously the mother is. But what if the father pushes the mother intentionally into the child for the purpose of causing the child to fall down the stairs, who now is responsible, the mother who’s body pressed against the child thus being the direct cause of the child’s fall, or the father who pushed the mother into the child in order to render the child’s injuries certain? I think we would all agree that the responsibility falls on the father given what we know of the scenario! How can we escape this conclusion with God?

The Sweater Unravels! The Dark Side Revealed!

Luther of the reformation was a brave man. Not only was he willing to put his life on the line in his zeal to reform the Church, he was also willing to follow the logical conclusions of his own theology wherever they would lead him; something most Calvinist’ lack the guts to do. What I mean is this, I have a quote somewhere of Luther (who like Calvin, was an omni divine determinist in the Augustinian tradition) in which he admits that there must be a ‘dark side to God’! Let me add unequivocally: if Calvin is right, then so is Luther. If Calvinism is true then so is Luther’s conclusion, there is no way to escape it!

The first human sin, the first angelic sin, every sin since then, every evil act, every desire and inclination of mans hearts, every natural evil, all of it, everything from Adam to Auschwitz, from Sodom to Satan, they all and every act and inclination thereof find their origins in God – if Calvinism is true. If Calvinism is true then darkness is not simply the absence of light, and sin is not simply the absence of holiness, for both find their origins in God.

Pull on this loose string long enough and the yarn of scripture as the Calvinist understands them unravels the whole sweater. Is God perfectly good? He is also perfectly evil. Is God light as the scriptures teach? He is also darkness. Is Satan the father of lies, well no, God is since all lies originate in the intention of God! If we cannot trust what the scriptures teach of Gods goodness, holiness, justice, lightness, that He is ‘the Truth’, and that He is ‘the Light’, and that He is ‘the Way’ to the Father but rather that He is also the Lie, the Darkness and the Way to hell etc. the bottom line is that the scriptures become wholly untrustworthy and we might as well toss them in the garbage because the bible itself has lied about who God is and, as Roger Olson is known for saying, in Calvinism it is difficult to distinguish between God and the Devil!

Calvinism may begin on the scriptures, but it is also their undoing. They may appeal to certain ‘proof-text’ as evidence for their belief, but in the end their interpretation of these ‘proof-texts’ leads to the annulment of the whole of scripture, including the very ‘proof-texts’ they originally appealed to!

The End

I hope I have not been too unfair, or unfairly presented the Calvinist model; but my purpose here was to share quite simply my opinion of Calvinism as the question was presented in the previous blog. There are many writers I respect who hold to the Calvinistic model and I don’t wish to demonize any of them for their views, many brilliant men throughout the ages have embraced omni divine determinism and I am nothing before these giants; but until one of them can explain to little ol’ me how Calvinism can avoid the conclusion above I am bound to the God revealed in scripture to take the position I have.

Sincerely His,
Derek.

Q & A

Q: Most Calvinist will readily say that the bible teaches both that God is in complete control and that he holds humans responsible for their own ‘free’ actions and that we should not push the issue, but rather we should simply believe the scriptures and accept the apparent contradiction or paradox as a mystery. What is wrong with an appeal to ‘mystery’ here?

A: I see a grave mistake in appealing to ‘mystery’ in the light of the logical conclusions of Calvinism.

The great Church philosopher of the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, has become famous for acknowledging that even God has at least one limitation, that is, God cannot do that which is logically impossible to do. For example, God cannot ‘not be God’ and ‘be God’ at the same time (When Jesus came to earth he did not cease to be God, for the scriptures testify that in Him the fullness of the Deity dwelt! Col. 2:9); another example is that God cannot hear ‘nothing’ for the simple reason that ‘nothing’ is the absence of noise and so there is simply nothing to hear, if God could hear ‘nothing’ then ‘nothing’ would then become a ‘sound’, it would be ‘something’ and not ‘nothing’. In other words, God cannot hear ‘nothing’ because that would constitute a logical contradiction, it is logically impossible to hear the un-hearable! (Hold that thought.)

There is a BIG difference between a paradox which we can acknowledge as a ‘mystery’; and that of a clear contradiction which we should either seek to reconcile or if it cannot be done, we should readily abandon. Take for example the Trinity; it took the early church several centuries to develop and carefully articulate the dogma of the divine Godhead, in the end they concluded that we are to understand the Trinity as ‘One Being eternally existing in three distinct Persons’. The Trinity is a ‘paradox’ which humans are incapable of understanding, and so we can refer to it as a great mystery – and it is! But it is not a contradiction. It would be a contradiction if the Church said that ‘God is One Person and also three Persons’, for God cannot be both ‘one person’ and ‘three persons’ at the same time, since that would constitute a logical contradiction (see previous paragraph). But if the Trinity were a clear contradiction, the Church would never have settled comfortably with it as a dogma declaring it a mystery; no way! They would have wrestled with it (as they did) until they could understand it (philosophically) in terms that were faithful to the texts of scripture but also without contradiction!

Finally, (in light of the two previous paragraphs) you will have noticed that I have shown – convincingly I believe though it is doubtful any Calvinist would agree – that the logical conclusions of Calvinism ultimately negates the scriptures, and through Calvinism Gods’ character is irrevocably tarnished to the extent that God’s Word, including the very texts that Calvinism relies on, have become wholly untrustworthy. Calvinism leads to a clear contradiction of the character and nature of God as He has chosen to reveal Himself in and through His Word and so to appeal to ‘mystery’ – I believe – is wrong for any reflective Christian to invoke in this context!

Pagan the Missionary!

Let me introduce you'll to a friend I had back in Bible College, Kris Pagan, and to be sure, don't let his last name fool you, for Kris is anything but! As a matter of fact, from our time together I'd say Kris is one of the boldest Christians I have ever known!

I remember on one particular occasion while we were walking through West Edmonton Mall together we saw a - no joke - elderly woman with leather like skin and layers of makeup on her face sitting in a fortunetellers booth surrounded by every type of witchcraft relic and rosaries and crucifixes of all kinds! Kris turned and said to me, "Hey Derek, do you wanna go witness to this lady?" "Yeah sure" I said, half hoping he was joking, and half praying he was joking. And so off we went.

Kris began with Christ, continued with Christ and ended with Christ the only way a missionary could, as Paul said, "we preach Christ crucified" and again, "For I resolved to know nothing... except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2). Kris fired away the questions, why did she have Jesus on a cross next to those witchcraft relics? Doesn't she know that Jesus rose from the dead, why have him on a cross anyways, he's not there anymore, he's risen (cf. 1 Cor. 15:17)? Doesn't she know what God says about witchcraft, that it is an abomination in His sight (Deut. 18:9-12)? Doesn't she know that her 'powers' come from the demons behind her idols and images (1 Cor. 10:20)? But that Christ died and rose again to set her from from the bondage of the Devil, sin and death (1 John 3:8-10)? (Taken from memory and retooled.)

It was an amazing sight to see Kris in action; is it any wonder that Kris has been active in the mission field ever since (last I heard).

Praise God for Kris and his work.

We have recently reconnect via facebook and the other week he send me this question:

"Hey man, I read your latest 2 blogs, nice work, your a good writer...keep it up. What are your thoughts on Calvinism and predestination?" (Used with permission)

My next blog will be a response to that question.

Thanks Kris for your interest and encouragement.

Be blessed,
Derek

Theology for the Soul

For the First Time… Again

Though I have designed these blog to be theological in nature, every once in a while something touches my heart so that I feel compelled to share it with you. Having said that, in keeping with the spirit of theological reflection, what follows is a refection of how some deeper theological insights bring with them deeper spiritual significance that penetrates my soul.

This past week I visited a small church in town (in which as a side note, the pastors’ sermon was superb!) and one of the songs for worship was the hymn In Christ Alone. I have known the song for many years and have sung it countless times, but this was the first time I’ve sung it (all its’ verse) since I have dug deeper into theological matters of the Atonement. The result were flowing tears as the full significance of what Christ came to accomplish was realized again – for the first time. (It’s always an experience worth noting whenever “the first time” repeats itself).

Theological Background

You may recall when I first began to blog, the subject was the Atonement of Christ, and namely, what theory should be held prominent above the others. At the time I was introduced to the theory of the Atonement known now as Christus Victor, that the primary purpose for Christ’ life, death and resurrection was to overcome the forces of evil, sin and the devil so that Christ did not simply take our punishment, but he also (and more importantly perhaps) gave us victory over the chains that bound us. This view seemed to have been pitted against the popular Reformed view Penal Substitution which teaches that the Atonement was the single act of God pouring out His wrath on Christ on the cross; some authors would go so far as to except the “Substitution” part of this system but reject the “Penal” element; not wanting to portray God as a wrathful tyrant (Greg Boyd champions this view). As I tried to work out my own system I allowed that last part to linger, accepted Christus Victor and moved on to another subject.

Later I read Scot McKnights’ book, A Community Called Atonement, in which he attempts to show how all the theories of the Atonement are equally acceptable and work in conjunction with one another (though I got the sneaking suspicion that McKnight was raising the Penal Substitution view above Christus Victor).

Today I agree with McKnight; God is Holy, no sin can stand in his presence and his dikaiosyne – his justice or righteousness – compels him to judge sin and grant the sinner their wish – separation from his eternal and holy presence. But it is the introduction to the theory of Christus Victor that has truly gripped my heart and I wish it were taught more in churches today; that while Christ did take our punishment on the cross, he also destroyed in one fell swoop the power of the devil and any hold he had on me, breaking the chains of darkness, evil and sin and granting us authority which is found in Him – through his victory which was revealed in the resurrection – and through this God did not simply cover my sins – Jesus did not simply take my deserved punishment – but more fully, He re-created me into a new person in the image of His Son Jesus Christ by means of Christus Victor.

How This Caused Tears To Flow

Sunday morning, with Christ' Atoning work floating around in the back of my mind, we began to sing “In Christ Alone”, and as we did the words of what I was saying suddenly carried with it more meaning then ever before!

When we sang...

In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied; [Penal Substitution]
For ev'ry sin on Him was laid—
Here in the death of Christ I live.

I stared at those words while singing with such a glorious realization! But then, when the next set of lyrics appeared I became choked up with tears and could sing no more, I grabbed my chest and closed my eyes tightly in meditation as the communion of singing saints worshipped:

There in the ground His body lay,
Light of the world by darkness slain;
Then bursting forth in glorious day,
Up from the grave He rose again!
And as He stands in victory,
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me; [Christus Victor!]
For I am His and He is mine—
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.

Hallelujah and Amen!

Reflective Christianity – theological Christianity – if I fails to result in practical application that drives us closer to the heart of God revealed in Christ, it is good for nothing.

Praise God and Amen!

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

The Gay Bible

What follows is so absurd that it is almost not worth the time required to write a blog about. Yet it is also true (in the sense that it will be published) and although it may be a joke to the makers, it is no laughing matter to those who hold the sacred scriptures in such high esteem. The bible is what it is and says what it says, that cannot be changed, but I find it ironic that the homosexual community view this as something which Christians should not get up set at, while they feel it perfectly okay to rough up a little old Christian lady (article, video) and to destroy and vandalize and scandalize in full fledged mockery of churches showing their intolerance towards Christians (article, video).

In spring 2009 a new bible will be published by an American film producer (that's the first clue of absurdity - the advent of the so-called church of Scientology comes to mind!) called The Princess Diana Bible; named the such supposedly because of Diana's "many good works". But don't be fooled, this bible has nothing to do with the late princess of wales!

"The Gay Bible" - that is what it will come to be known as (already is). It is overtly gay and driven by a strong gay agenda with the ambition to mock Christianity and the Christian bible; God says in it that it is better to be gay than straight. Here is a snit-bit of Genesis, already available for preview; instead of God creating Adam and Eve, he creates Aida and Eve:

"And apes came forth and walked on the earth. And when the apes saw the light they had feelings. They sought comfort. To comfort themselves they created a god. And when they created god in their minds, they were human. And they began to speak to their idea and called it God. And their own creation began to rule them and they bowed down to it." [Gen. 1:26-28]

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Aida, and she slept: and he took one of her ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from woman, made he another woman, and brought her unto the first. And Aida said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of me. Therefore shall a woman leave her mother, and shall cleave unto her wife: and they shall be one flesh.' And they were both naked, the woman and her wife, and were not ashamed." [2:21-25].

"And Noah went in, and his sons, and his husband, and his sons' husbands with him and his daughters and their wives, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood." [7:7]

This is nothing short of an "intolerant" attack, a mockery of the Christian faith as it is portrayed and lived through the pages of God's Word. I find it ironic how often the homosexual community employs the word "intolerance" to define Christians, when yet another example is quite the opposite.

The author of this so-called bible says: "There are 116 versions of the Bible, why is any of them better than ours?" It's as my wife said, that statement is so absurd it doesn't deserve an answer.

Be informed.

Derek

For the actual and more professional reporting of this bible, click here.

Returning to Emergent/Emerging

So I have arrived at a somewhat tentative conclusion regarding the Emergent/Emerging Church (see a previous blog), and in like Emerging fashion, I wish to share where I’m at on my journey.

[From here forward my greatest fallacy is that I will generalize all who fall under the umbrella of “Emergent”. Because the movement is so difficult to define, such generalizations are impossible to avoid, and so to avoid endless qualifications I make only this one: that not everyone who considers themselves to be emergent will agree with the generalizations below, my generalizations are based on the most popular, the most influential, and the most perceived expressions of the movement.]

You may recall my frustration over the seemingly hair-nose pulling task of defining this movement or “conversation”, especially in light of lumping solid respectable orthodox scholars such as N.T. Wright in the same pool as guys like Doug Pagitt. The true difficulty here is somewhat resolved by coming to an understanding and/or making a distinction between the words “Emergent” and “Emerging”.

Most writers I have come across are aware of a distinction, but almost none (at least that I have read) believe that the distinction is worth pulling out. And so I frequently read authors say things like “… emergent and emerging...” near the start of their book with a footnote below which will say; “some distinguish between ‘emergent’ and ‘emerging’, but for the purpose of my book, the two will be interchangeable”. For example; in Phyllis Tickles’ recent book on the Great Emergence she says that her overview uses the phrase “‘emergent and emerging’ Christians to indicate that the two are not quite the same thing” [p.163].

Perhaps – at least in so far as ‘in print’ goes – Scot McKnight is the only author I have come across who feels compelled as I do to make such a distinction, he says: “I maintain a crucial distinction between two related streams: emergent and the broader emerging movement. Emergent is crystallized in Emergent Village and its leaders Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt. Emerging is a mix of orthodox, missional, evangelical, church-centered, and social justice leaders and lay folks. When I think of this broader emerging movement, I think of Dan Kimball… Alan Hirsch… and Donald Miller” [Christianity Today, 11/08 edition, p.60].

I wholly agree with McKnight that there is a crucial distinction to be made, and I admire his attempt to crystallize that distinction by drawing a clear line between the “Emergent Village” and those emergents who are not part of the Village; but I would probably take the substance of that distinction a step further. For me, the difference between “Emergent” and “Emerging” is the difference between “Liberalism” and “Post-Conservativism”. While post-conservatives seek to sincerely continue in their reform and understanding of things, they – in so far as I understand them – firmly stand within the tradition of solo scriptura as the final authority of all matters pertaining to the faith. On the contrary, those who by-in-large are, or align themselves with, the Emergent Church have sought – either consciously or unconsciously – to displace that authority with something else (see below). And when that happens, when the “authority of God exercised through his Word”, is replaced by an emerging church – which is what it is in order to keep pace and “relevance” with the emerging secular culture at large – Liberalism is inevitable. It’s the old Liberal/Conservative battle of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century all over again; albeit under a new guise and entering in stealth like fashion to infiltrate the Church from the back door.

This assessment may be unfair – I don’t mean it to be and often try and describe a movement in terms which those in the movement themselves would use – but it is how I have perceived the sum-total of Emergent voices.

When Doug Pagitt declares a rejection of the idea of original sin, even after listing several scripture passages which support the age old doctrine, then claims that the doctrine was created by Augustine and is a misreading of these bible passages [p.127 ff.] – without, I might add, attempting to offer a so-called ‘correct’ reading to the passages in question – and that he is not going to let anyone tell his friends and family members that they are “evil to the core” [p.130]; the authority of God as it is exercised through his Word becomes annulled! Is this not Liberal theology? What authority does Doug now have outside of himself?

Phyllis Tickle has suggested that if Doug (and most other Emergents’) were asked what authority they hold to, they would answer “in scripture and the community” [p.151]. This is not to be confused with the Catholic concept of the Authority of Church Tradition and the Scriptures (Church and Bible); for the heart of the Emergent movement is that it is (and always will be?) changing with the emerging culture, and consequently, its’ beliefs must therefore continue to change in order to adapt (and be an effective ministry to?) the culture at large; this is evident in the rejection of ‘original sin’ and the embrace of ‘homosexual relations’ by many within the movement. So unlike the Catholic idea of Tradition and Scripture, which seeks to (1) avoid conflict between the Church beliefs and the Scriptures, and (2) to maintain continuity with each previous generation, the Emergent Church is willing to (1) ignore as irrelevant or explain away frivolously any bible passage that may conflict with the emergent ‘feel’ of the moment (such as Pagitt’s use of the scriptures motif of original sin above) and (2) embrace discontinuity with each previous generation as society changes and evolves.

So authority in the Emergent mind can be expressed in what is called “Network Theory” [p.152]. The Church, capital C, “is not really a ‘thing’ or entity so much as it is a network in exactly the same way that the Internet or the World Wide Web… are not ‘things’ or entities” [ibid]. This concept is called “Crowd Sourcing”: “The end result of this understanding of dynamic structure is the realization that no one of the member parts or connecting networks has the whole or entire ‘truth’ of anything, either as such and/or when independent of the others. Each is only a single working piece of what is evolving and is sustainable so long as the interconnectivity of the whole remains intact” [ibid].

What I gather from all of this is that the Emergent Church plans to remain ‘in process’ in an undefined, perhaps disorganized and organic way. As such, they will evolve naturally and as a community together so long as they remain connected to the whole (must there be a center?), and as they evolve their use of the scriptures will also evolve and their interpretation of it will change in light of each evolutionary leap (if the current social/ecclesial evolutionary leap is the acceptance of homosexual relations, will the next one be an embrace of polygamy?).

But then the question arises; if they must be connected to a whole in order for this concept of authority to work, what then – if anything – is the center or glue that binds them all together? Being that the Emergent Church still (at least currently) call themselves “a Church” and refer to themselves as “Christians”, it seems to me as I read both about the Emergent Church and from their own writings, that the name ‘Jesus’ is tossed around like happy hour at the bar. This is one theme that can’t be missed in the writings of Emergent Christians; from Dagitt (his recent book: A Christianity Worth Believing In; yet he rejects fundamental Christian doctrines), Tony Campolo (with his uncanny allegiance to the red letters in the bible), Brian McLaren (when one reads Brian’s material one can sense the tension between his desire to hold on to many orthodox things and his inclination to move beyond them) and Tony Jones. The latter is surveyed by D.A. Carson in his book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. In it Carson shows how Jones writes to the audience of the seeker-sensitive churches against their anthropocentric way of doing church, and he exhorts them to move toward a more christocentric style of worship [p.36 ff.]; it’s not about ‘feeling’ good, it’s about WWJD, it’s about feeding the poor, making the planet green and things like that.

But now we have to ask ourselves, what exactly did Jesus say and do? In a recent radio interview with WMUZ personality Bob Dutko [I believe it was aired sometime between Nov. 27th and Dec. 2nd, 2008], Doug Pagitt opposed Bob every time he (Bob) re-worded what Jesus said. For example; (this is not an actual example from the program, but a fictitious example of the dialogue that took place), if Bob said, “Jesus said that he is the only way to the Father”, Doug would argue, ‘no Jesus did not say that’; and Bob would be forced to look up the passage and quote it verbatim before Doug would be satisfied. In other words, unless you use the exact words right down to syllabification and accents without ever saying it any other way, it is not what Jesus said. Yet this brings into question all translations of the bible which, according by Pagitt’s standard, is not really what Jesus said either since Jesus didn’t speak English. This in turn calls into question the Greek Manuscripts which we have and by which we translate from, since most scholars believe that Jesus probably spoke predominately in Aramaic, even though the Gospels, some twenty years later, were written in Greek. This in turn concludes that we do not have the “verbatim words of Jesus” and cannot be sure what he said and did.

And so now we have a movement that is built around ‘a Jesus’, an idea of Jesus, an image or icon that can be lifted up like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. Someone who gave his life as a sacrificial example to be followed; let us copy this example so that the human race may prevail. And so the Jesus of classical Christianity, the Son of God who died (and rose again!) to take away the sins of the world and to make things right has been reduced to a relativistic post-modern idea or icon to be followed as a good example.

So I feel compelled at this point to ask the most terrifying question of all; are Emergents even Christian? What I mean is whether or not they call themselves that, should they be recognized as a part of the Body of Christ, or have they traveled outside the bounds of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ in the fullest and most articulate sense of the phrase? I believe the question itself is a fair one, but it may be impossible at this point to give an accurate answer without over generalizing in terms of salvation; something I am not prepared to do.

Surely there are many and maybe even most within the Emergent movement who are Christians, but I am equally sure that there are some within the movement who hold fast to the name Jesus, yet they have abandoned the tenants of the faith. Wayne Grudem writes; “To say ‘false teaching harms the church’ is perhaps just to state the obvious, but in a day marked by much pluralism and subjectivism it bears repeating. The very existence of the epistles in the New Testament testifies to the importance that the apostles placed on sound doctrine! In the epistles, sound doctrine is taught again and again, and error is implicitly or explicitly corrected. This is the case in every New Testament epistle” [Beyond the Bounds, p.134]. Yet many in the Emergent Church today are singing a different tune, one that exchanges “dogma” and “doctrine” and “correct thinking” for right action, helping people, going good things, and turning the earth green. Yet I ask; can we not have both, did not Jesus teach both orthodoxy and orthopraxy, believe right and feed the poor? But the Emergent alliance with subjectivism, relativism, and political correctness negates such a possibility. We cannot have a “Jesus is the only way” and a “Buddha may be the way also” at the same time.

In one respect I wonder what kind of future the Emergent Church has. Will it fizz out over the text twenty years into a bunch of forgotten rebels from the dawn of the century much the way the Jesus People movement of the 60’s and 70’s no longer exists? Will they retain a lasting effect but ultimately be absorbed into the wider Christian world as the seeker-sensitive churches of the 70’s and 80’s (I owe these thoughts to Carson, p.53)? Or will they snowball ahead into the next Protestant reformation that will change the landscape of Christianity forever (as Phyllis Tickles has suggested)?

I cannot answer these questions, what I can say – from one who was on the brink of joining the ranks of the Emergent and House Church movements, and is climbing back, while maintaining a post-conservative approach to the faith – is that we within the Traditional framework of the faith have a lot to make up for. The sooner we realize this, the better. As a young guy who was raised in the same generation of the Emergents, I was drawn like a moth to the flame as to what they wrote. I was tired and bored of the traditions that seemed to have lost their authenticity; it seemed everything about “church” had lost it’s authenticity from power hungry pastors with serious control issues to “clicks” and “cool clubs” that leave the not-so-cool guy and the not-so-talented guy on the outs. From standard “how-to” evangelism classes which sound more like a sales pitch then sincere missional work, to internal schisms that destroy lives and cause many to abandon the faith. The Emergent Church – frankly – sounds good. But without orthodoxy, without right thinking about what Jesus said, the absolutes he claimed and the teachings of those he commissioned, there can be no true Way, but only a form of the Way (by doing good things) but without its substance (denying its power – which is the true and absolute Gospel – cf. 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 3:5; Romans 1:16). If orthopraxy does not meet orthodoxy there can be no Christianity. If good works does not meet right belief there can be no following of Jesus, what he did and taught!

Yet in this criticism of the Emergent movement, there is a crucial point for us to learn: “Movements [such as the Emergent Church] are diverse, complex and frequently (for better and for worse) called into being because the traditional churches are failing, or perceived to be failing, in some way” [Carson, p.54]. The very existence of the Emergent Church is a call for the rest of us to examine ourselves, not just individually, but corporately!

Pray for the Emergent Church, and pray for the rest of us also, as Jesus taught; “Our Father in heaven / Holy is your name / Your Kingdom come / Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.

Derek