The Best Move Ever

I must admit that the majority of my wrestling experience throughout my life involves viewing matches between the likes of Hulk Hogan, Macho Man and Brett "the Hit Man"Hart.  The typical script for one of the matches involving these or other characters was that the hero usually found himself in the position of being beaten soundly by his opponent.  He may have found himself lying flat on his back or meeting harshly with a corner post.  The drama of the impending doom of the hero usually brought the crowd to their feet, shouting their support that the hero recover and fight back.  In what was certainly an effective marketing play, the hero usually recovered, pulled out some kind of amazing reversal, and quickly pinned his opponent to the map.  The crowd responded accordingly, and the day was saved.

      I am certainly no wrestling technician, but I do remember seeing some pretty swift and amazing reversals.  None of them, however, even compare with the picture of reversal that we see in our Bibles.
One of these stories of reversal takes place in the Book of Esther.  Esther and her people, the Jews, were literally about to be murdered by a powerful ruler named Haman. In a swift and sudden reversal, Haman finds himself at a a party with a king one night, and being impaled on a 75 foot pole the next day.  Meanwhile, Esther and her people assume a role of leadership in her country and actually are able to defeat all of their enemies and ensure their survival.  While I am not, and am guessing that you are not a wrestler, and neither of us are in immediate danger of being wiped out by a powerful ruler, a major reversal may be needed in your or my life. This reversal is provided on your behalf by the the man who performed the greatest reversal ever. Jesus held all of the power in Heaven and Earth, but reversed that and came to earth as a humble man. Jesus was a man without sin, but reversed that to become a man who bore the weight of all sin.  Jesus was a man who was was without blame, but bore a shameful reversal, bearing the blame for all of our sins.  Jesus was the one man deserving life, but in a sacrificial reversal, chose death.  After choosing death, Jesus shows us perhaps the greatest reversal by defeating the grave and coming back to life.

     I can remember occasions where I and my brother, or groups of friends would attempt to perform some of the acts that these wrestlers were engaging in, and despite our efforts, could never seem to perform them with the same grace and fluidity that the professionals were exhibiting.  This is where I can share with you what I know to be the greatest reversal of all.  I was once that wrestler.  I was being flung mercilessly against the rope, being spun in the air and slammed to the mat.  My back was arching and I was squirming right and left, but I was about to be pinned. Death had mastered me, and its crowd of demons was jeering triumphantly.  The only reversal that was available to me involved crying out to the one and only man who had the key to defeating Death.  I cried out, and in what is the greatest reversal ever, Death was flung far from me, and a new life was offered.  The best part of this reversal is that it is available to all, not just me.  You may be suffering under the weight of sin and death.  You may actually have reached a point of passive acceptance that God exists, but are only one or two life events from having that concept thrown into the ring with doubt and fear.  You may be one of those who cheers more loudly for the villain than the hero, because one of the "good guys" has hurt you or betrayed you in the past.  No matter what reason you may need it, I can guarantee you that you do need a reversal.  We all need this reversal.  Take the time to see just how close you are to lying flat on your back, grasping and struggling for breath.  Take the time to think about Jesus, the one man who gives us the power to fight our way off of the mat and emerge standing on the ropes, arms raised in victory. Take the time to grasp ahold of the greatest reversal ever. Take the time to ask Jesus to deliver you from what is a sure and impending defeat. A reversal is available to you today.  Take advantage while you can.

   

Righteousness vs. Rightness: The Dichotomous Nature of American Christianity

These past few weeks I have begun a more intentional prayer regimen where I keep a prayer journal and pray on it every four hours throughout the day. One of the impacts of this journal is that I seem to be adding to it throughout the day, not so much because of the requests of others, but in large part because my own needs are being revealed. One of the issues that made it onto my prayer list has to do with the issue of Rightness. I felt a dogged and persistent desire to make it know that I was right, and that another viewpoint was wrong. As you can imagine, this has made my marriage very entertaining at times. It has also caused me to be very judgmental toward certain sins. (homosexuality being one of them) As I surrender this area to the Holy Spirit, as is typical for me, I begin to make broader applications of this principle and my mind is immediately drawn to the image of the modern church. We as believers should all agree that we are called to Righteousness. According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, this takes place through the process of sanctification where the believer grows in the likeness of Christ. Only through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit can this process take place. Initially it takes place before and during salvation, but as Paul made very clear, it continues until our expiration date on earth. It is an amazing thing for a believer to strive toward righteousness, and it is something that is completely attainable through the Holy Spirit. The dichotomy exists, however, when we cease looking inward toward our own righteousness and focus instead on debating the rightness of the world around us. Sadly enough, the latter often seems the path most travelled. We are given numerous Biblical references as to who is the ruler of this current world. It is not a surprise, and our Almighty has even developed a plan for how to win the world back. Interestingly enough, it does not have much to do with projecting our values on the world, as much as it has to do with projecting the life of Jesus on the world. We as believers should be cautious about speedily sending out the emissaries of judgement, morality, and rightness to a lost world, while the lame and limping messenger of love arrives a day later, finding the doors to hearts and minds shut fast against him. This in no way abdicates the idea of an absolute truth, but what is does do is strip away the arrogance that tells me I can change the world without God. Yes, there are absolute truths that we hold. Yes, the world often holds the opposite of these truths. Yes, it can be frustrating at times. Yes, you were once in that same position, and no amount of projected rightness brought you closer to righteousness. Only the power of God and the work of the Holy Spirit brought you to the point where you began to pursue a different righteousness. How can we expect anything other than that in a lost world? So, before you go on a tirade about homosexuality,adultery,sexual impurity, greed, perversion, or any other deficits of righteousness that are rampant in America, look inward to your own righteousness. Pray with all your heart that those who are lost could be so blessed that the God of Heaven would reach down into their hearts and do for them what he did for you. Live in a way that shows the love and thankfulness that this salvation gives you. Send out emissaries of love and peace, keep the messengers of rightness, morality and judgment in the reserves. Allow the Holy Spirit to do His work. He will bring right with God. He will convict. He will change. He will bring His righteousness. May we all pray to this end.

Christians Aren't Perfect--They Just Act Like It

If you were to take a poll of American people who reject Christianity, I am fairly certain that one of the top 2 or 3 answers would be the following. "Christians are Hypocrites". It caused me to question who exactly is in charge of PR for believers and why are they doing such a poor job of it. Then I reflect on many of the church environments I have been involved in and the picture begins to clear up a little. We can be pretty snobby people. What prompted this blog was actually a bumper sticker. I am sure we have all seen it. It says "Christians aren't perfect, the are just forgiven." While this is a theologically sound proposition, I am not sure that it should be the exact impression we should bring to a lost world. I am not one to shy away from Biblical truth, nor do I want to weaken the impact of the gospel, but neither would I post a bumper sticker touting the idea that "If you are not a Christian, then you are Hell bound." It is my right to proclaim Biblical truth, but it might not be wise to do it that way. Maybe if the world saw less of the US vs. THEM mentality that seems to pervade many churches, then they would not be so quick to label Christians as hypocrites. There can be nothing more disheartening than for a lost and seeking soul to enter a church where everyone acts as if they are ready for a halo. The most powerful stories come from those who have lived in the same faults and weaknesses as that lost soul, and if we will not be emotionally available and honest about our faults, how can we show the difference Jesus has made in our lives. Even if we are mature Christians (not me yet) we must never lose sight of not only what we are saved to, but also what we are saved from. This is where our vulnerability is a must. It is in sharing our weaknesses, struggles and shortcomings that we can begin to tear down the "paper Christian" that the world is viewing, and can build up the picture of a Jesus who saved us from our misery, and who is continuing the work in us. By all means, strive for excellence, but be real about it, be honest about it when you fall short. It is through our weakness that He makes us strong.

Is it Good for You?

I have often wondered what the world thinks of the fact that Christians remember with fondness the day that Jesus was killed. It certainly goes against the grain of most major world religions to look at such a seminal point with fondness. Most leaders that become martyred are mourned by their followers, but we as believers have the audacity to call this day "Good Friday" . If we look at it honestly, however, our minds are drawn to the misery and abuse that was heaped upon Jesus. If we truly realize that some of those blows were struck in our name,and that the final spear thrust was an exclamatory ending to a sentence filled with our pride and arrogance, we cannot help but be humbled. Why then is this day considered "Good"? Maybe the genesis of the goodness of this day is a direct result of the dying act of Christ on the cross. One historical figure who can surely call this a good day, certainly even his best day, is the thief on the cross. I do not know what the life of a thief was like during the lifetime of Jesus, but I can only assume it was a "profession" that one had to be desperate to engage in, given that the penalty for thievery was a disgraceful death on the cross. We do not know who this man was, what he had stolen,or how he was caught, but we do get a very clear picture of how he was set free. It is when I look at the story of this man, that I truly begin to understand the nature of Good Friday. "Remember me when you enter your kingdom". Nothing magical or mystical in this request, and the only thing profound in it is the faith that propelled this lost man to utter these words. My guess is that he was having a very bad day at the end of a very bad life, but with these few words, his string of bad days ended and what has become a day that millions have celebrated as a "good" day began. If you have uttered these words to the one who died for you, then remember that. Remember what that sacrifice means. If you have never uttered those words, or any words that place your trust and faith in the man who responded to the thief, "today you will be with me in Paradise", turn to Jesus in the midst of your string of bad days and reach for his goodness. Reach out for the man who, in the midst of being brutalized and tortured, while gasping for precious air, looked at the 'worthless" man dying next to him and saw the spiritual value in him. He sees value in you too. Will you ask for his help and make this day god for you as well?

The Fantastic Four

I know there was a guy who shoots fire, there is a guy who is big like a rock, there is a stretchy guy......and.....ummm...... sorry, if you thought this was a blog about the super characters or the not so super movie that shares a title with this blog, I am sorry to disappoint. Maybe you should hang around while I show you the original Fantastic Four. These four young men were taken from their home country to a foreign land, were given new names, were held captive and forced to serve a foreign king, but they managed to be a part of what is a fantastic turn of events. The names, Belteshazzar, Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego were names that were forced on them by their captors, but Daniel and his friends could not be forced to compromise what they believed in. In case you were wondering, Belteshazzar is the Babylonian name for Daniel. We see these Fantastic Four several times in the Old Testament, and as a result of their faithfulness to God, and as a result of His faithfulness to them, they were all four spared from death in situations where death was 100% assured. Or was it? If you remember, Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego were tossed into a fiery furnace and were saved by an angel, and no harm came to them. This is a remarkable story in and of itself, but I want to focus on the famous story of Daniel and the Lion's den. After King Darius the Mede was tricked into sentencing Daniel to death in the lion's den, the King was greatly vexed and didn't even sleep the night before Daniel was placed in the den. We must remember that Daniel was in a foreign land with foreign gods, and it is in the final words of Darius that we see how great an example the life of Daniel was. As Daniel was being placed in the lion's den, the king spoke, "may your God, whom you serve continually, rescue you." This is an idol worshiping king who spoke these words to Daniel. Do you think that Daniel's faith was real? Do you think it was evidenced on a daily basis? Do you think it had an impact on those around him? This foreign king held on to the thought that the God of Daniel could actually save him. Do you believe this much? Do those around you know that you believe this much? Look at how the story ends. Daniel is saved from lions, and Darius is so amazed that he issues a decree that all people "tremble in fear before the God of Daniel". In fact, Darius' words can only find their poetic equal in the Psalms. "For He is the Living God, and he endures forever; His kingdom will never be destroyed, and His dominion has no end. He rescues and delivers; he performs signs and wonders in the heavens and on the earth, for he has rescued Daniel from the power of the lions." (Daniel 6 :26,27) Is our God any less powerful today?

What has been will be again.
What has been done will be done again.
There is nothing new under the sun.- Eccl 1:9

From the 2nd century heresies of Marcion, to the liberal theology of the social gospel nearly 1800 years later, we find that theological events have proven out the writers’ words over and over again. Our current world is no exception to this statement. Although the Emergent church may not be as doctrinally abrasive as Marcion, this may be only because the Emergent church is far more timid in espousing any theological positions, not that the Emergent church is any more theologically sound. In 2 Peter 2: 1 we are not warned of heretical doctrines that are so far a field that it does not require much discernment to figure out their fallacy, we are warned instead, of the “secret bringing of destructive heresies”. This seems to be the bent of the Emergent Church. They have taken the seed of deconstruction, covered it in the language of Jesus, and sprinkled it with cultural relativism to create a hybrid creature that has no seeming theological direction, either forward or backward. It is exactly the nebulous and nefarious nature of the Emergent church that prompts our need for clarity. It is this authors’ hope that this clarity will be found in this brief essay as we expose how the deconstructionist mindset of the Emergent church undermines the concepts of Biblical inerrancy, the existence of absolute Biblical truth, and the nature of Salvation.
As with most theological studies, we must first find our terminological bearings. The term emergent may be something a new term, and it is certainly one that has been thrown around with dozens of different meanings attached to it. The fact that the Emergent church and its leaders seem reluctant at best or evasive at worst when asked about their theological foundations does not make the job of definition any easier, but a contrast between the terms emergent and Emergent church should give us enough clarity to make sense of this paper. The distinction between the emergent movement and the Emergent church is best summed up by Mark Devine, as he splits the emergent camps into 2 categories. “There is the doctrinally friendly (emergent) camp, and there is the doctrinally averse (Emergent Church) camp.” We do not have any theological issues with the emergent camp as it keeps orthodox theology intact while seeking to reach the world for Christ where the world is at. The emergent movement in general does not feel the need to discard centuries of Biblically based orthodoxy. The Emergent church, however, presents us with enough theological deficiencies that a thorough study of its beliefs, particularly in relation to Biblical inerrancy and authority is not only important, but is an absolute necessity. This study and defining of the Emergent church is not an easy task, however. The Emergent church has tried its very best to shy away from any centralized power when it comes to organizational structure, which in and of itself seems incongruous as their are obviously individuals such as Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, Phyllis Tickle, and Brian Maclaren who have made careers of promoting literature, websites, conferences and educational institutions that espouse their deconstructionist mindset. To the untrained eye, this seems more of a way to maintain theological mobility rather than a lack of a corporately shared ideology. These individuals certainly agree on many points and appear at the same conferences and speak the same terminology, so one could rightfully question why they fight so much against being centrally organized. That being said, there is a diversity of opinions about a variety of issues amongst these individuals, but the uniquely binding factor between these leaders and the Emergent church movement is that Biblical relevance and inerrancy is sacrificed at the altar of cultural relativism.
The first step that many of these leaders take in the journey toward discounting Biblical authority is the same one that Marcion proposed nearly 2000 years ago, that the Old Testament offers us nothing that is usable as far as teaching, rebuking, correcting or training in righteousness. (1 Tim 3:16) In fact, the primary focus of Emergent church leaders is the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, with the exception that the culminating death of Jesus has no bearing on Salvation. Even this focus on the gospel has been molded to fit the beliefs of Emergent church leaders such as Brian Maclaren who warns that Jesus did not mean in John 14:6 that “I am in the way of people seeking truth and life”. Maclaren goes on to say that “ this path is not about competing with other faith traditions. It’s about living a way of grace, love, forgiveness and peace.” This sounds like a perfectly acceptable description of the life of Jesus and the lessons that we are to take from that life, but what it does not seem to explain effectively is the purpose for that life. If we needed someone to give us an example of grace, love, forgiveness and peace, then it did not necessarily need to be one who was perfect or even one who was God, for that matter. The orthodox Christian cannot help but be concerned about the door holding Universalism at bay being blown wide open, and left hanging on weakened hinges. This is a recurring practice throughout much of the Emergent literature. In their attempt to pursue cultural relativism and in their efforts to be inclusive, the Emergent church takes a hard stand against taking a hard stand, which in and of itself seems incongruent, but it is their widely held practice, nonetheless. When asked about finding a theological center, Emergent church leader Tony Jones responded, “statements of faith are about drawing borders, which means you have to load you weapons and place soldiers at those borders. It becomes an obsession-guarding the borders. Statements of faith don’t invite people into the kingdom. They are a modernistic endeavor that I am not the least bit interested in.” This is a continuing theme, and it proposes that no absolutes be adhered to, rather it proposes that each experience dictates truth. This is contrary to the word of God where the concept of truth is not ambiguous and is embodied in Jesus.
It seems that Jones, Maclaren, Bell, and many of the other Emergent church “thinkers” engage in the cognitive distortion of All or Nothing thinking as a foundational principle for nearly all of their decisions regarding the Emergent church. It begins with the very formation of the Emergent church and continues all the way to the treatments of Eschatology, Soteriology and Christology. The Emergent church seems adamant that there is no middle ground between a church that is reaching out to culture and one that is orthodox in their beliefs. In fact Brian Maclaren brings a charge that “the failing of modern Christianity is that it has specialized in dealing with “spiritual needs” to the exclusion of physical and social needs.” If there were a point where one were to begin to consider terms such as heretical, it would be very close at hand. It is also a faulty conclusion to state that the modern church is not interested in community outreach, and a shaky foundation for discarding what are some of the most vital tenants of the Christian faith. Even if we were to admit that there are not orthodox evangelical churches out there, reaching out to their communities, what would be the explanation for the doctrine friendly emergent church? As we can see in the evidence of the doctrine friendly emergent church, it is indeed possible to maintain a sound theological base while engaging the world and community around you. Why then does the Emergent church feel that this task is impossible? Does taking a stand on doctrine preclude you from reaching out to the community, or is it just distasteful to take a stand? This is one of the most glaring issues that can be found in a study of the Emergent church. The only area where absolute truth seems to exist is in the fact that the modern evangelical church has failed, and that a massive deconstruction needs to take place. It seems as if even the leaders of the Emergent church do not know where this might lead, and this is often a point of pride for those who are in leadership within the movement. This lack of doctrinal direction has been eschewed for a “conversation” about theology. This “conversation” is a large part of the Emergent church and in the arena of theology seems to take preeminence over any theological fact. In fact, it seems to be a point of pride as is evidenced by Brian Maclaren in A Generous Orthodoxy.
A warning: as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity.

Maclaren continues to propose that “our understanding of the gospel may be faulty, imbalanced, poorly nuanced, or downright warped and twisted...and we must continually rediscover the gospel.” In what seems to be a sharp departure from any professed spiritual thinker, Maclaren suggests that nothing can be known, but that everything must be talked about. What exactly this “conversation” that is proposed by the Emergent church is supposed to accomplish is still unknown, as the Emergent Village movement is over 10 years old, and amongst all of that conversing, the leaders of the movement have still not reached solid footing regarding any spiritual issue but the unknowability of spiritual absolutes. “The danger that this viewpoint poses for the role of Christianity is an imminent one, and it poses an even larger risk to the survival of the Emergent church, as it has already proven that when these “conversations” reach different conclusions, then it has splintered into smaller groups and without some theological unity, this movement faces extinction.” This might not be a lamentable outcome for Christian orthodoxy, but one must wonder how many souls will accompany this movement into oblivion if this were to happen.
The unknowable nature of Christian doctrine according to the Emergent church calls into question the clarity of Scripture, and as Scripture is an extension of the power of God, it call into questions God’s omnipotence and questions God’s nature. “The person and work of God are everywhere interrelated in Scripture, so much that whatever is true about the character of God is true about the nature of God’s Word. Thus, to deny the clarity of Scripture is to call into question God’s ability to communicate clearly.” This leads to a whole myriad of Biblical issues that the Emergent church refuses to take a stand on, and continues to subject Biblical authority to human “conversation” in order to determine truth and relevance. We will see in the next section some specific areas of Biblical truth where the Emergent church seems to act outside the realm of Biblical truth. One of these areas where the Emergent church has taken its leave from orthodox Christianity is in the area of Biblical interpretation regarding homosexuality. Tony Jones, one of the founding members of the Emergent church movement explains what conclusions he reached regarding this issue. Jones “now believes that gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and queers can live lives in accordance with Biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can) and that their monogamy can and should be blessed by the church and state.” Jones is not alone in his acceptance that the GLBTQ lifestyle should be blessed by the church, and this seems to be a recurrent theme and a major attractant for the Emergent church. Once again, the Emergent church rightfully points out what has been a traditional failing of the orthodox evangelical church, but proposes that the means by which to remedy this shortcoming is to do away with any moral absolutes. If you were to enter a church and take a poll of individuals who had been in a congregation where homosexuality was not only preached against, but those who engaged in it were reviled, it would not be long before you found some who had seen this or been a part of this. That does not mean, however that all churches handle the issue of homosexuality insensitively, or that the evangelical church is not learning to adjust its outreach to those who have been traditionally maligned by the church. Most would agree that the Emergent church’s “conversation” about the issue of homosexuality does have a valid starting point. That, however, is the only valid part of their theological discussion of homosexuality. While engaging in these “conversations” the Emergent church seems perfectly fine with rejecting Biblical authority if they feel that the current culture we live in views the issue differently than Scripture. Brian Maclaren points out his personal view on the issue of homosexuality and in it falls short of any opinion at all as he will “keep his ears tuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll spend another five years for ongoing reflection.” If there is any one statement that gives a definitive picture of the Emergent church view on Biblical authority, this could be it. Nowhere do we see Maclaren quote Scripture, refer to Scripture, or suggest that maybe the answer can be found in Scripture, instead he needs to lean on the authority of sciences, such as genetics and sociology rather than on the Bible. This departure from even entering Biblical authority into this conversation show just how far afield the Emergent church is from Biblical orthodoxy. Absolute Biblical truth is seemingly unattainable for the Emergent church in this area.
We have seen how the Emergent church view on Biblical authority impacts the view of the moral issue of homosexuality, and have found that the Emergent church view is lacking. What happens when we bring forth the issue of Biblical authority as it pertains to Soteriology? As with most discussions of doctrine and the Emergent church, we must concede at the outset that there are many different views throughout the Emergent church, but is hard to find one that seems to match up with Biblical truth. One opinion can be found in the words of N.T. Wright, an emergent church author. “ At the outset of the gospel narrative, the good news was not that Jesus was to die on the cross to forgive sins but that God had returned and all were invited to participate with him in this new way of life, in this redemption of the world”. In what seems like an over simplification and a clear sign that an understanding of Scripture is lacking, Tony Jones states:
A generation or two ago, defenses of Christianity that focused on human sinfulness were potent; a common metaphor showed God on one side of a diagram and a stick figure on the other; the chasm between us was labeled “sin”, and the only bridge across was in the shape of Jesus’ cross. But emergents ask, “What kind of God can’t reach across a chasm? Chasms can’t stop God.”

Another Emergent church leader Doug Pagitt question the total depravity of man in his denial that “human beings are inherently depraved and broken and that’s why our prefect God cannot be in a relationship until we are all fixed up.” Not only are, Wright, Jones and Pagitt completely ignorant of Biblical authority regarding the issue of Salvation, they have a very feeble understanding of the nature of God. One begins to see a pattern when looking closely at these issues in the Emergent church, and it is not one that engenders any hope that solid theological footing will be found in the Emergent “conversation.” In an extension of this view, Spencer Burke, proposes that grace is “not conditional on recognizing or renouncing sin but it comes to us whether or not we ask for it. We do not have to do anything to receive it. It simply comes.” Interestingly enough the rationale behind this pervious statement is that “grace just doesn’t resonate in our culture anymore”. Once again we see culture at the wheel of the Emerging church belief system, with Biblical authority taking a backseat or an absent role. As a continuation of the discussion about Salvation, it is important that we point out that a large portion of the Emergent church does not believe that the death of Christ was a substitution for our sin. In fact, the thought of Jesus dying on the cross presents a bitter picture for many emergents, as it paints for them a picture of a vengeful, bloodthirsty and judgmental God. In a continued departure from Biblical orthodoxy, the emergent church takes on a Universalist posture when it comes to individual salvation. Emergent church thinkers such as Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor assert that salvation is some kind of program that we have to “opt” out of it if we don’t want to be a part of it. It is present in all of us and we have to do nothing, say nothing or decide nothing in order to access it. This is clearly contrary to Biblical teaching, and leads us into the next area where the Emergent “conversation” seems to ignore orthodoxy when it comes to defining the kingdom of God.
The Emergent church, as has been repeated consistently throughout this paper, seems more focused on tearing down than building, and this is no different in their attack on the orthodox view of the kingdom of God. According to the Emergent church,” the kingdom of God is not atonement for sin, salvation, church, future, Heaven after death, or even Christianity itself.” In what is a relief for this author, we can finally see a small bit of clarity as to where the passion of the Emergent church lies. It is in proposing the concept of Heaven on earth. In its definition of the kingdom of God, we see that Emergent church leaders typically agree that the kingdom of God is already present here on earth. Leaders such as Brian Maclaren claim that modern evangelicals propose that the kingdom of Heaven is only a future proposition. The Emergent church, in a departure from form, actually use biblical text, (although it is misused) in quoting that the biblical statement that the kingdom of God is “at hand” means that the kingdom of God is present on the earth at this time. Emergent leader, Rob Bell, takes this concept even further in stating that “poverty, injustice, suffering-they are all hells one earth, and as Christians we oppose them with all our energies”. These are all laudable actions, but for the Emergent church, these actions comprise a kind of collective salvation and negate the discussion or even necessity of the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus. This gives us great insight into what seems to be the primary passion and focus of the Emergent church, which is the idea that the means and road to salvation is to change the world around us. In what may be the biggest misunderstanding, or maybe intentional ignorance on the part of the Emergent church, is the belief that emulating the life of Jesus is implementing the kingdom of God on earth. This statement, once again, seems inarguable, as you would find a majority of orthodox Christians that would say that our responsibility is to emulate Christ on earth. In reality, however, it is in dealing with the life and work of Christ that the Emergent church finds its misguided focus, and through which it has the capacity for the greatest harm.
Brian Maclaren claims that the Jesus that orthodox evangelicals have in mind brings us to a grim resignation: “the world will get worse and worse, and finally the jihadist Jesus will return to use force, domination, violence and even torture-the ultimate imperial tools-to vanquish evil and bring peace.” Instead of this Apocalyptic Jesus, Maclaren posits that we emulate the Jesus that was a social reformer, healer, and who reached out to the lowest in society. These are things that you may hear in any given evangelical church across America, but they might differ from Maclaren in his belief that in doing so we can usher in the kingdom of Heaven. This earning of the kingdom of Heaven not only misunderstands what the kingdom of Heaven actually is; it places God in the position of needing our help to accomplish this task. The Bible makes it very clear in John 4: 16 that Jesus is the Way the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through me. This runs contrary to the Emergent church idea that the way to the kingdom of God is far more concerned with effecting social change than it is with individual belief in the regenerative power of Jesus. It is precisely in this area that the Emergent church makes the inroads into modern culture and as we will see in the next section, this is the biggest draw that the church holds for the modern seeker. In a day and age where cultural relativism seems to permeate even many evangelical congregations, we see a dominant role for it in the Emergent church. This is evidenced in the primary focus on community and social change that has been an effective marketing tool for the Emergent church.
With chapter titles such as The American Empire, The Force of War, The Suicidal Logic of the War Business, and Capitalism as God, one might become confused that the Maclaren Book, Everything Must Change is more of a sociological treatise than it is a book promoting a system of religious beliefs. This is not uncommon for the Emergent church, as the majority of their “kingdom building” exercises seem to coincide completely with what would be considered the agenda of the American political left. This is one of the weaknesses as pointed out by Kevin De Young in the book Why We Are Not Emergent. “Without the personal glory of Jesus Christ and his redeeming work front and center in the gospel, the kingdom of God often ends up sounding largely political”. It is undeniable that left wing politics is a common thread running throughout the emergent literature. While the belief and following of any particular political agenda is not a component of Christianity, one would wonder why the Emergent church constantly lands on the liberal side of moral questions such as homosexual rights, abortion, anti-Americanism, environmental spirituality and any other political causes that are in vogue. Granted, each and every person has the right to follow their heart, but one begins to wonder when these battles for liberalism are credited as working toward the kingdom of God, and if the Bible even plays a role in these decisions for the Emergent church. If it plays any role at all, we can be sure that it is only a minor contributor to these “conversations”, that the Emergent church engages in and that the prognosis for finding Biblical truth in Emergent church doctrine may be as likely as finding it in a myriad of other world religions.
It is the hope of the author that this essay has given some insight regarding the vast divide between Christian orthodoxy and the Emergent church, especially in the areas of Biblical inerrancy, absolute truth and the nature of Salvation. It was the authors’ intention to go through a step-by-step, topic-by-topic comparison of doctrinal elements of the Emergent church and orthodox Christianity, but after some studying of Emergent church texts, it became very difficult to grasp on to any concrete beliefs that could be refuted. In fact, this study took on a different form than anticipated in that it became more of an investigation into a cult ideology than the study of a slightly misled branch of orthodoxy. The process actually became upsetting at some point as a result of the blatant rejection or misuse of Biblical texts to meet a cultural standard of being “in tune”. In some ways, it would have been better to engage in an Apologetics study of Islam or Taoism, as they at least ascribe to their own version of truth, and if they prescribe to the idea of “conversations” as the Emergent church does, at least they both have had thousands of years to figure it out. One gets the impression that with the Emergent church, even a thousand years would not be long enough to draw their “conversation” back to Biblical truth.



Beware of counterfeiting the love of God by following your own natural human emotions, sympathies, or understandings. That will only serve to revile and abuse the true love of God. - Oswald Chambers



















BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barbour, Travis I., and Nicholas E. Toews. 2010. “The Emergent Church: a Methodological Critique.” Direction 39, no. 1: 32-40.

Carson, D.A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan), 2005.

Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan:Grand Rapids) 1996.

Conder, Tim. The Journey of Existing Churches into the Emerging Culture (Zondervan:Grand Rapids) 2006.

Driscoll, M.” A pastoral perspective on the Emergent Church.” Criswell Theological Review [serial online]. March 1, 2006; (2): 87-93.

Driscoll, M. “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway.” Christian Research Journal, volume 31, 4; 2008.

Emergent Village. “Values and Practices.” emergentvillage.org/?page_id=77 [accessed Feb 11, 2012.

MacArthur, John. “Perspicuity of Scripture: The Emergent Approach”. The Masters Seminary Journal 17/2 ,141-158. (Fall 2006).


Maclaren, Brian D. Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises and a Revolution of Hope. (Nashville :Thomas Nelson), 2007.

Maclaren, Brian D. Interviewed by unknown. www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000154.html [accessed Feb 11, 2012]

Mclaughlin, Brian. “The Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church Movement”. Reformed Review: A Theological Journal of Western Theological Seminary. Vol. 61, No. 3 pp 101-118 (Fall 2008).

Pagitt, Doug & Jones, Tony The Emergent Manifesto of Hope. (Baker Books: Grand Rapids) 2007.

Pettegrew, Larry D. “Evangelism, Paradigms, and the Emerging Church”. The Masters Seminary Journal. 17/2: 159-175. (Fall 2006)


“Seeds of doubt.” Christian Century 126, no. 11: 20-22.
Smith, R. Scott. Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church (Crossway Books: Wheaton, IL) 2005.
Tickle, Phyllis. The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why (Baker Books: Grand Rapids) 2008.

Wittmer, Michael. “ Don’t Stop Believing: A Theological Critique of the Emergent Church”. Reformed Review: A Theological Journal of Western Theological Seminary. Vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 119-131.

March On!!!

As i thumbed through the Children's Bible that we try to read to our boys at night, one of the stories that I saw prompted a song that many of us who were raised in the church may well know. The song is "Joshua won the battle of Jericho". As is typical in my brain, I immediately question the verity of this song. Did Joshua really win the battle? I know it may seem silly to question the absolute Biblical accuracy of a Sunday School song, and for those supporters of that song, my argument is not with you or with the song. What strikes me from that story is that tens of thousands of Israelites believed enough in their God that after spending 40 years wandering the desert, they still chose to walk around a city that was about one mile around thirteen times. Imagine the mockery they received from the citizens of Jericho. I imagine a little dragging of the feet and grumbling as the people of Israel entered day seven and realized that they had to not only walk around the city 7 times, but they had to scream and shout like fools at the end of their 7 mile journey. Talk about faith. At times in my life, I confess that my faith pales in comparison to the children of Israel. Maybe I am skipping all of the marching and trying to go straight to the trumpet blowing, hoping that God will move miraculously and cause the walls of sin, unemployment, anger, resentment, selfishness, and depression to crumble around me, giving me victory. There is no doubt that God can and does work in this way, but for me, something is missing from this equation. Where is my role being played out. Am I seeking truth? Am I searching for the right path? Am I immersing myself in what is God's? Am I marching around the walls, doing my best to remain within the will of God? I am much better at dragging my feet in the dusty desert, wondering when things will change. Maybe it is time for me to get my March on! Maybe it is time to make a tangible move toward the things of God. Take a positive lesson lesson from the children of Israel and march on, good soldier, march on!

4 Views on Hell- A Book Review

Four Views On Hell is a uniquely challenging book that deals with one of the more difficult theological themes in Christianity throughout the ages. The four men who contributed to this work are held in high esteem in many theological circles, and have been staff and leaders at such places of theological learning as Dallas Theological Seminary and McMaster Divinity College. They hold 4 widely differing views on this difficult issue, and they bring their own preconceived ideas and beliefs to the table while doing so. In this text, four different views on Hell are presented and after each initial presentation the other 3 writers present a rebuttal. The result of this format is that the readers find themselves in the position of filtering through all of the information to reach a palatable conclusion. Uniquely, there are no final summaries in which the author or publisher choose one option as being preeminent. As a result, this responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the reader. As these four views are examined in this critique, it will become apparent that the view that is most palatable is the view that Hell is an eternal place of fire and torment, which is the argument made by John F. Walvoord.
Summary
Walvoord proposes that the Literal view of Hell as a place of eternal torment by fire is the correct theological position to hold. Crockett would agree with Walvoord as far as the eternal nature of hell, but differs in that he contributes the “black fire” of hell to be the product of the active imaginations of Jewish authors. Pinnock, in his response to Walvoord cannot reconcile the concept of a loving God with the concept of eternal torments and as a result adopts the theology that although the punishment of hell exists, it will not be eternal as the wicked will be completely consumed and destroyed by fire.
William Crockett is charged with defending the metaphorical view of hell. He proposes that hell is indeed a place of terrible judgment, but that the exact nature of that punishment is unknown and unknowable. Crockett proposes that the harsh nature of hell has in part been formulated by those wishing to “scare” unbelievers into repentance. Although Crockett finds an ally in Pinnock as far as the non-literal nature of hell, Pinnock points out a major flaw in Crockett’s theology in the fact that this leaves us with no picture of hell at all. What if hell is worse than what we pictured? Wouldn’t that make God even crueler? Pinnock seems to be uncomfortable with this theological gap, and seeks a more definitive answer to the question of the nature of hell.
Zachary Hayes is charged with the thankless task of presenting the purgatorial view of hell. Hayes begins by distinguishing between the interim state in Christian theology and the purgatorial state. The difference between these two concepts is that the purgatorial state is one where the process of redemption continues on, and in the interim state, the soul or spirit merely waits for judgment. Crockett points out in his response to Hayes’ purgatorial view that the concept of purgatory undermines the concept of the grace of God. God’s grace does not need an extension, so to speak, and the work of the cross is sufficient to save us from eternal damnation.
Clark Pinnock is given the task of defending the Conditional view of hell. This view which is also known by its less appealing moniker of annihilationism proposes that the impenitent soul will eventually be consumed and simply cease to be. Walvoord in his rebuttal to this point of view brings the charge that Pinnock’s conclusions are far too reliant on human opinion and humanity’s misplaced sense of fairness.


Critical Interaction- John F. Walvoord
Walvoord makes the most compelling argument amongst the four natures of hell that are portrayed in this text. Although Hayes, Pinnock and Crockett make some tantalizing points, Walvoord expertise in the argument can be summed up in the following statement: If one accepts the authority of Scripture as being inerrant and accurate, it is clear that Christ taught the doctrine of everlasting punishment. Walvoord makes his case stronger through the use of unedited, uninterpreted Scripture which at times is a glaring weakness of the other 3 authors in this book. Walvoord continues this trend when refuting the metaphorical view of hell that is proposed by Crockett. His basis for this is that Crockett and the other authors rely too heavily on extra Biblical sources or traditions. “I soon determined that the issues could not be settled by citing authorities outside the Bible. Walvoord continues his strong and successful attack on the liberal use of extra Biblical resources when combating the purgatorial view of hell held by Hayes. In his final response to the annihilationist view of hell, Walvoord poses a question that is of vital importance in this discussion. Does human opinion change a situation? As will be seen in our study of the views of Hayes, Pinnock and Crockett, human opinion often plays a much larger role than is appropriate.
William Crockett
The metaphorical view is one that is held and defended by William Crockett. Crockett may set out with the best of intentions, but his arguments eventually betray his intentions. His arguments are inherently weak and in effect erase any conclusions about the nature of hell. At what is perhaps his weakest point, he quotes Billy Graham and his view on hell as evidence and proof of the metaphorical view. This heavy reliance on the opinions and beliefs of other human beings and the lack of interest in Biblical fact betrays the fact that Crockett is really not comfortable with the idea of an eternal, fiery hell on a personal level and this affects his view of the truth. As a result, Crockett fails to make a coherent argument for the metaphorical view of hell. This preference for human rationale over Biblical truth continues in Crockett’s rebuttal of the concept of a literal hell. This choice is most clearly exhibited in Crockett’s statement, “ the Biblical writers do not intend their words to be taken literally”. In what seems like a complete underestimation of the power of God, Crockett argues that the incongruent nature of fire and darkness mean that the concept of hell as eternal fire and darkness is mere hyperbole, and not fact.
Zachary Hayes
It seems that Zachary Hayes has drawn the shortest theological straw, as his task is to defend the purgatorial view of hell. The weaknesses of his argument are very apparent and at times troubling. The most troubling element of this argument is summed up in his statement, “the text of Scripture is not in any sense a verbal message from God”. Here, Hayes mixes a partial truth with an immense deception. Yes, the Holy Spirit helps to reveal and give understanding regarding Scripture, but the intermediary of the Catholic Church is not a necessary part of that transaction. It is also disingenuous to discount what is presented as solid Biblical fact while pretending to wait for some kind of spirit filled revelation. This viewpoint has the secondary effect of undermining the efficacy of the grace of God, as it proposes that the regenerated person may not be quite good enough when they die and that the grace of God does not cover all of their sins. This is contrary to an indisputable Biblical teaching that needs no extra Biblical interpretation. This reliance on human opinion has a metamorphic impact on Scripture and interpretation is a recurrent theme in Hayes’ response to the literal view of hell that Walvoord proposes.
Clark Pinnock
The conditional view of hell proposed by Clark Pinnock argues that hell is indeed a place of punishment, but that it is not eternal and that at some point in time, those in hell will be completely destroyed. Pinnock seems to reach his conclusions regarding hell from a humanistic point of view rather than a Biblical one. “It (hell) has been used as an effective weapon in the hands of skeptics for use against the faith.” Pinnock, in this startling statement seems more intent on making the concept of hell palatable for skeptics, than adhering to Biblical truth. Several weaknesses exist in this approach, the first of which is that skeptics are not who we should look to for theological direction, and the second being, what makes Pinnock believe that a concept of hell that is only temporary but followed by destruction is any more tasteful to those same skeptics. Given the finite inability of the human mind to grasp the concept of eternity, does a hell with lengthy period of fire followed by destruction have that much more appeal than an eternal, fiery hell? One recurring theme of his view on hell, as well as his rebuttal to the views of the other authors is that Pinnock seems to have very little grasp on the concept of God and evil. The two cannot coexist, and Pinnocks’ claims that an eternal, fiery hell are more indicative of a sadistic God who seems to be on the same moral level as Hitler. Although these are only impressions that Pinnock has drawn from the concepts of a Literal hell, they are damning to his objectivity regarding this topic.
Conclusion
This book was an excellently prepared and stripped down version of a very difficult topic. Hell is not a subject that many evangelicals want to talk about, and this may be in part because it is uncomfortable to tell people that they may face eternal damnation, or it may be that we just don’t know what we believe. Either way, this book does much to dispel the ignorance that we may have toward this difficult topic. The book really requires the reader to engage the topic and to interact with the different views on hell. One of the unique aspects of this book is that there is not much in the way of interaction with the author. We are presented with four views on hell, but we are not really given any conclusion or even preface from the author. This lacks the typical format that readers have come to expect, but also creates a comfortable lack of preachiness that may turn off some readers. The author did an excellent job of achieving his purpose, and the reader cannot help but feel greatly encouraged to investigate this difficult concept further.

Sin and Its Insulting Nature

"Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap. We as Christians have heard many important sermons, lectures, discussions, arguments and excuses about the nature of sin. We argue over whether our obedience should spring forth from a sense of gratitude or out of a compulsion to fulfill the letter of the law. What we often times do not take into account is the offensive nature of our sin. We are very good at discussing the wages of sin, the outcome of sin, the pitfalls of sin and the coming judgment of sin, but maybe we should look at how sin impacts the one who cannot coexist with unrighteousness, God. Why do you think the verse makes it clear that God is not mocked. What relevance does this have to our sin? Would we really be so brazen as to willingly enter into sin, and then make a mockery of God by sowing seeds of immorality, drunkeness, deceit, selfishness, discord and rebellion and expecting to reap a reward for these deeds? Do we expect that God is some Heavenly schoolmaster who is emotionally detached from those he leads? Are we not to establish, maintain and build a realtionship with God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit? If you had a friendship where someone broke into your house and defiled all that you held dear and then laughed in your face by acting as if nothing ever happened, what would you think of that relationship? How then do you think our Heavenly Father feels when we willfully disregard his laws, and in our human ignorance add insult to injury by acting as if no relationship breach has occurred. We continue on our way, living out our lives in the ignorant in between. Avoid this in between. So, no matter what your reason for obedience to God is, be certain that your continued disobedience has the possibility of wrapping your prayers and pleas to God in an envelope of mockery. If you want to reap a relationship with God, understand that your continued sin hurts you, those around you, and even your future generations, but most importantly it mocks the gift of life that God has graciously given to you.

There is Nothing Special About Me.

The Bible is full of warnings about Satan and his destructive ways. He is even called a roaring lion on the prowl for a tasty Christian-sized snack. I don't know about you, but I somehow have managed to discount this threat because it seems that a lion would attack in such a frontal, in your face assault that you could not help but know it is there. This may seem stupid when applied to one who seeks to destroy, but no one ever said humans were never stupid. What seems less threatening to me and to many other Christians is the more subtle, subversive method that Satan has mastered throughout the ages. I liken it to placing a lobster in a boiling pot vs. placing a lobster in a pot of cold water and heating it. The lobster dies either way, but a whole lot less warning bells go off when that death is gradual. One way that the Father of Lies has done this in my life is to make me feel that I am special. He has mastered the art of making us feel as if our trials are only our own and that no one else in the world has ever felt that way. Why else would on take their own life unless this myopic view of their own misery was primary in their thought process. For many years I felt that no one could understand my trouble and that this was a valid excuse for my isolation. It turns out that the lion had me anyway, he was just toying with me awhile. Never is the devil more successful than when he has us in isolation. It is no coincidence that Jesus was not tempted while he was feeding the 5000, or on the Sea of Galilee with his disciples. He was alone in the desert when temptation came. I am so blessed that today I have come through to the other side, and although there are still daily thoughts that I am unique in my trials and temptations, I know for a fact that there is nothing special about me, and I am happy to rest in that fact.

I Corinthian 10:13The temptations in your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure.















The temptations in your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure. I Corinthians 10:13

Are You Palatable?

As I waded into the turqouise-blue water of the Pacific Ocean, I found myself in a quandary. As I approached the pounding surf, I had to decided if I would commit fully to fighting through the crashing waves. I could remain where I was, knee deep in water and play it safe, or I could shed my reservations and dive headfirst through the oncoming waves in order to reach the relative safety of the calm waters beyond the break line. I chose neither of these options and instead found myself in the break zone where a crashing wave reminded me that my indecision had serious consequences. As I brushed the sand off of me and gathered up the loose ends of my pride,I was struck with a spiritual comparison. In" Revelation 3:16, we read of a brutal indictment of those who are in the "lukewarm" zone spiritually. Those who are not hot or cold will be vomited out of the mouth of God. Those are not my words, they are Biblical words. In fact, I think that these may be some of the strongest visual words used to describe the results of wishy-washy Christianity. If you find yourself in the breakwater where sin and apathy swirl around you, know that you are not where God wants you. You risk being spit up on shore like Jonah from the whale. You risk being cast away from the face of God. Take the spiritual, lunge. Break the bonds of sin and your longing for the dry ground where you came from. Do not wallow in the spiritual lukewarm, but press on, leaving fear behind. Immerse yourself in the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit, and be assured that you are a treasure that He holds dear, not something that he wishes to spew out of His mouth.

you