Posts
Certain emergents have suggested certain rules for debate/conversation.
For example: According to Roger Saner in a comment on a previous post: Tony Jones, the co-ordinator of Emergent Village in the US, has said that he won't respond to any of his critics unless they've read, "How (not) to speak of God."
http://themillers.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/how-not-to-speak-of-god-by-peter-rollins/
It is rather a bit like McLaren who said:
Brian McLaren's view on how we can “solve” the homosexuality issue within Christianity: No one is allowed to talk about it unless they have enough points:
"10 if you have considered and studied the relevant biblical passages
10 if you have actually read the six passages about homosexuality in the bible
20 if you have read other passages that might affect the way you read those six passages
5 if you have read one or more books that reinforce the position you already hold
25 if you have read one or more books arguing the opposite position
10 if you have spent three hours reading websites showing a variety of views
50 for every friend you have who’s been through an ex-gay ministry
50 for every friend who’s been through an ex-gay ministry that didn’t work
50 for every friend who’s gay and in a long-term committed relationship
50 for every friend who’s gay and not in a committed relationship
50 for every parent you’ve listened to whose child is gay
When you have 3,000 points, you can speak on the issue."
--Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy Conference: The Gay Forum, 2005
http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
There is another errant preacher out there (on the issue of 'The New Perspective on Paul') who tries to silence his opponents by saying that unless they have read all the Targum's on in the original Aramaic then they don't understand the subject and can't argue with him.
One of them came to me saying that I should not criticise his previously expressed viewpoint online without first following Matthew 18 procedure.
He also argued we should engage in 'conversation' rather than 'debate'.
WHAT DO WE SAY TO ALL OF THIS?
My answer to all of the above is that it is an attempt to set unreasonable conditions which then allow errant teachers to spread their error, without opposition - by making it hard and difficult to follow all their conditions for engaging in debate. Basically it is a circular argument: You need to buy into a certain amount of postmodernism in order to be allowed to debate with postmoderns. No you don't.
No, one does not need to read a complete chosen book on postmodernism to be able to express disagreement with its ideas. That should be fairly simple to anyone with a basic knowledge of scripture.
McLaren's idea of counting 'experience points' before expressing views against homosexuality is ridiculous. It is plain in scripture and authority comes from scripture not your own experience. Postmodernism promotes the idea of personal experience rather than objective truth as an authority.
No you don't need to follow Matthew 18 procedure before arguing online. Once a person has gone public with their views, you can argue back publicly. Online unless in a closed forum, is public. Paul did this against Peter as an example. GAL 2:14 "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
As for the non-emergent guy who wants us to read all the Targums in the original Aramaic before arguing with him, well, great strategy to silence everyone else, but our authority should be the Bible and not the Targums, which are a very loose but sometimes helpful Aramaic paraphrase.
Now as to the idea of engaging in conversation rather than debate. Sorry, but this presupposes a postmodern paradigm, which I do not share. That paradigm evades propositional statements and Yes/No, right/wrong choices. Yes, I will converse in many circumstances to better understand people, but in other instances I debate and here I debate.
I have also met this type of argument in other contexts. For example, some feminists say you can't argue on the abortion issue unless you are a woman - otherwise that proves you must be a male chauvanist.
Yes I do try listen to the other side but I believe the above rules are unreasonable.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX?
AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX?
Some 'emerging church' followers reading this blog are probably going to protest at some point and say 'you are misrepresenting me' and 'I don't believe that'. Or 'my pastor is a good Bible believing Christian and he is involved in this' - are you saying he is a heretic?
Types of emerging church leaders and participants
No. Firstly, there are many different streams in the emerging/ emergent church/ 'missional' movement. Secondly, the post-modern belief system itself encourages diversity of belief. Thirdly, different people joining the movement have mixed it in different proportions with Biblical Christianity. Some are mostly Biblical and a little post-modern. Others are mostly post-modern and a little biblical. Some fall within the boundaries of Orthodox Christianity, some do not. Fourthly, post-modern beliefs have logical implications, which will lead progressively to a straying away from belief in the Bible. New 'emerging church' followers have not realised where their new 'uncertain' Biblical interpretation method will lead them. For now most of them remain mostly biblical, but in a decade or two they will have strayed further. Future generations of 'emerging church' followers will probably slide all the way to apostasy and rejection of Christian ethics, as many modernists have done.
One must draw a very big distinction between Christians who are trying to reach ‘post-modern’ youth by adopting cultural elements of post-modernism in their style of preaching and service format on the one hand and Christians who are re-interpreting the Bible through a post-modern lens. Some of the former category, call themselves ‘emerging church’, while others do not. My big problem is with the latter category – and I would prefer if the former category disassociated with the latter type and called themselves something different.
There are some areas where Christianity does not clash with post-modernism and on these areas we can adapt without compromising on essentials to try to win over youth influenced by post-modernism. For example, post-modernists tend to prefer stories illustrating a point to abstract theory. Jesus also taught that way in his parables. The Bible is full of stories and so is your personal testimony. Secondly, one can cater for their desire for meaningful relationships. Thirdly, we can also affirm the unity of true orthodox Christians across sectarian boundaries. Fourthly, the emerging church often encourages experimenting with changing the format of the worship service, often re-including elements practised centuries ago or borrowing ideas from contemporary youth culture. While this should be done with caution, truth is sacred, but service format is not.
The issue is very similar to evangelising any culture. For example, there is good and bad in traditional African culture. For example the emphasis on the extended family is more biblical than Western culture. Nevertheless, as Christians, we can’t compromise with ancestor worship. Missionaries to post-moderns need to filter the good from the bad.
Answering the evangelistic argument
Now some orthodox, Bible believing Christians have aligned themselves with the ‘emerging movement’. For example Mark Driscoll writes “In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.” http://www.theresurgence.com/welcome
Such people often see the ‘Emerging Church’ movement as a means to reach a generation of culturally post-modern youth. A question must be asked as to why they choose to align themselves in the same group and under the same name, with a movement whose principal leaders are not doctrinally orthodox Bible believers? By doing so, do they not risk lending credibility and leading others astray to follow the heretical leaders who share the same banner? Why do they not call themselves by another name and clearly disassociate themselves from the heretical leaders and beliefs? For example, they could use the name ‘Mission to Post-moderns’. By failing to demarcate a clear boundary between evangelical Christianity and the Post-modern adaptation of the gospel, they leave the door open for false teachers who use the same label and banner. The question is which direction is the influence mostly going? Are these Christians mostly influencing Post-moderns to become Orthodox Christians or are they leaving the door open for Orthodox Christians to be seduced into Postmodernism?
To respond to the evangelism argument, I would give two responses. Firstly, the main reason why Post-moderns fail to convert is not because the gospel is not formatted in a trendy culturally appealing ‘Post-modern way’. Actually, Post-moderns are generally more open to listen to the gospel than their Modernist predecessors, but they tend to just filter the gospel through their Post-modern lens, which treats it as just another opinion – and thus evade the challenge to repent of sin. They don’t see themselves as sinners because they don’t understand the concept of sin and thus don’t see any need to repent. Thus to really reach Post-moderns with the gospel, one needs to spend double the effort emphasising the differences with Biblical Christianity – the basic themes of absolute truth, God’s absolute moral standards, sin and repentance. Similarly a new generation of weak post-modern Christians has grown up who see their feelings as more important than their holiness and right belief. To really help such Christians, one needs to bring them back to orthodox Christian basics. I argue we need a more challenging gospel presentation emphasising the differences rather than the similarities with postmodernism.
Secondly, the emergent church tends to blur the focus in evangelism from calling the ‘lost to repentance’ to ‘dialogue’ with other religions. While this may result in less people being offended by Christianity, I believe it will likely lead to a diversion of effort from evangelism to ‘dialogue’, false conversions of those who have not really repented of their sins and ultimately less people being converted to the true faith.
Some 'emerging church' followers reading this blog are probably going to protest at some point and say 'you are misrepresenting me' and 'I don't believe that'. Or 'my pastor is a good Bible believing Christian and he is involved in this' - are you saying he is a heretic?
Types of emerging church leaders and participants
No. Firstly, there are many different streams in the emerging/ emergent church/ 'missional' movement. Secondly, the post-modern belief system itself encourages diversity of belief. Thirdly, different people joining the movement have mixed it in different proportions with Biblical Christianity. Some are mostly Biblical and a little post-modern. Others are mostly post-modern and a little biblical. Some fall within the boundaries of Orthodox Christianity, some do not. Fourthly, post-modern beliefs have logical implications, which will lead progressively to a straying away from belief in the Bible. New 'emerging church' followers have not realised where their new 'uncertain' Biblical interpretation method will lead them. For now most of them remain mostly biblical, but in a decade or two they will have strayed further. Future generations of 'emerging church' followers will probably slide all the way to apostasy and rejection of Christian ethics, as many modernists have done.
One must draw a very big distinction between Christians who are trying to reach ‘post-modern’ youth by adopting cultural elements of post-modernism in their style of preaching and service format on the one hand and Christians who are re-interpreting the Bible through a post-modern lens. Some of the former category, call themselves ‘emerging church’, while others do not. My big problem is with the latter category – and I would prefer if the former category disassociated with the latter type and called themselves something different.
There are some areas where Christianity does not clash with post-modernism and on these areas we can adapt without compromising on essentials to try to win over youth influenced by post-modernism. For example, post-modernists tend to prefer stories illustrating a point to abstract theory. Jesus also taught that way in his parables. The Bible is full of stories and so is your personal testimony. Secondly, one can cater for their desire for meaningful relationships. Thirdly, we can also affirm the unity of true orthodox Christians across sectarian boundaries. Fourthly, the emerging church often encourages experimenting with changing the format of the worship service, often re-including elements practised centuries ago or borrowing ideas from contemporary youth culture. While this should be done with caution, truth is sacred, but service format is not.
The issue is very similar to evangelising any culture. For example, there is good and bad in traditional African culture. For example the emphasis on the extended family is more biblical than Western culture. Nevertheless, as Christians, we can’t compromise with ancestor worship. Missionaries to post-moderns need to filter the good from the bad.
Answering the evangelistic argument
Now some orthodox, Bible believing Christians have aligned themselves with the ‘emerging movement’. For example Mark Driscoll writes “In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.” http://www.theresurgence.com/welcome
Such people often see the ‘Emerging Church’ movement as a means to reach a generation of culturally post-modern youth. A question must be asked as to why they choose to align themselves in the same group and under the same name, with a movement whose principal leaders are not doctrinally orthodox Bible believers? By doing so, do they not risk lending credibility and leading others astray to follow the heretical leaders who share the same banner? Why do they not call themselves by another name and clearly disassociate themselves from the heretical leaders and beliefs? For example, they could use the name ‘Mission to Post-moderns’. By failing to demarcate a clear boundary between evangelical Christianity and the Post-modern adaptation of the gospel, they leave the door open for false teachers who use the same label and banner. The question is which direction is the influence mostly going? Are these Christians mostly influencing Post-moderns to become Orthodox Christians or are they leaving the door open for Orthodox Christians to be seduced into Postmodernism?
To respond to the evangelism argument, I would give two responses. Firstly, the main reason why Post-moderns fail to convert is not because the gospel is not formatted in a trendy culturally appealing ‘Post-modern way’. Actually, Post-moderns are generally more open to listen to the gospel than their Modernist predecessors, but they tend to just filter the gospel through their Post-modern lens, which treats it as just another opinion – and thus evade the challenge to repent of sin. They don’t see themselves as sinners because they don’t understand the concept of sin and thus don’t see any need to repent. Thus to really reach Post-moderns with the gospel, one needs to spend double the effort emphasising the differences with Biblical Christianity – the basic themes of absolute truth, God’s absolute moral standards, sin and repentance. Similarly a new generation of weak post-modern Christians has grown up who see their feelings as more important than their holiness and right belief. To really help such Christians, one needs to bring them back to orthodox Christian basics. I argue we need a more challenging gospel presentation emphasising the differences rather than the similarities with postmodernism.
Secondly, the emergent church tends to blur the focus in evangelism from calling the ‘lost to repentance’ to ‘dialogue’ with other religions. While this may result in less people being offended by Christianity, I believe it will likely lead to a diversion of effort from evangelism to ‘dialogue’, false conversions of those who have not really repented of their sins and ultimately less people being converted to the true faith.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Is there a difference? Emerging vs Emergent
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? EMERGING VS EMERGENT
Some have argued that I am being unfair in criticising the 'Emerging Church'. They draw a distinction, saying that the 'Emergent' church is different from the 'Emerging' church - with the 'Emergent' church being the more radical liberal wing of the movement and the 'Emerging' church being more mainstream.
Now to respond to this question firstly, I understand that there are different types of people within the movement, whatever you want to call it. Some are orthodox Christians and some are outright heretics, with a continuum of everything in between. One could compare it with the movement of socialism: There is a major difference between the socialism of the British labour party and that of the old Communist Soviet Union, but both use the same name 'socialist'.
The most substantial radical distinction between those in the movement is the difference between those who are 'Missionaries of historic orthodox trying to reach postmodern society' and those who are 'Missionaries of postmodernism to the church, trying to integrate it with Christianity'. Confusingly, both types of people sometimes call themselves 'Emerging'. Now I myself am also trying to reach postmodern society with the gospel and try to be culturally sensitive where this is possible without compromising, but do not wish to associate myself with the movement - but others do. And that creates confusion.
Some claim that 'Emerging' means the 'orthodox' wing and 'Emergent' means the unorthodox liberal wing of the movement. For example, read:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1645/Jason_Carlson
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/september/38.59.html
Now the question is whether there is any widely accepted consensus on the difference of meaning of the terms 'Emerging' and 'Emergent'? A brief internet search comes with the answer: 'No". Many leaders such as Don Carson (anti-) and Brian McLaren (pro-) use the two terms interchangably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church#.22Emerging.22_versus_.22Emergent.22
Tony Jones (pro-) argues no distinction and opposes all 'line drawing'.
http://tonyj.net/2008/04/15/emerging-vs-emergent/
Doug Paggit defines 'Emergence' as what is happening in society; 'Emerging' as what is happening in the church as a result of the social changes; and 'Emergent Village' as the core network of leaders within the movement.
http://centraloregonemerge.com/2008/09/25/doug-pagitt-emergent-vs-emergin/
Those leaders associated with 'Emergent Village' have tended to 'emerge' with the most eccentric, liberal and extreme theological errors, which is probably why many have extended the use of the term 'Emergent' to mean the 'liberal' wing of the movement. But I would argue that these leaders are just those radicals who are most enthusiastic in reinterpreting Christianity through a post-modern lens - and their much larger constituency of orthodox evangelical followers are the laggards slowly following in the wrong direction behind them. The longer these people immerse themselves in postmodern thinking, the further they tend to stray down the road of error. In other words it is often a distinction between the 'wolves in sheeps clothing' and the 'sheep' following the wrong way with them.
Some have claimed all successfully trying to reach postmoderns e.g. Tim Keller, a conservative evangelical, as part of the 'Emerging Church',
http://www.theologyprof.com/mcknight-on-emergent-in-ct/
but Keller himself rejects the label.
http://gospelcenteredmusings.com/2007/06/20/tim-keller-on-if-his-redeemer-church-is-emergent/
Mark Driscoll is exceptional in that as part of the movement, he has distanced himself from some other emerging church leaders "In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Driscoll
I think such distancing from theological liberals is commendable and I would encourage others who identify themselves with the Emerging Church movement to do the same. Driscoll sees four categories of 'Emerging Church' of which he strongly rejects the liberal category.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080227/mars-hill-pastor-ditches-emerging-label-for-jesus.htm
Others have labelled him as 'a theological misfit and no longer emergent'
http://adrianwarnock.com/2006/03/mark-driscoll-theological-misfit-and.htm
I personally use the two terms 'Emerging' and 'Emergent' interchangably because that is what I see most others doing, but understand that others use them to mean different things. I personally wish that they did mean different things, because it would help me to draw a distinction between the orthodox evangelicals and the extremist unorthodox liberals. But reality is that there is no consensus on a distinction between these terms.
But if you happen to be one of those people who self-identifies with the Emerging Church, and is trying to reach postmoderns with historic orthodox Christianity without using postmodernism as a lens to re-interpret the Bible - then please understand that I am not attacking you. I personally believe it is unhelpful to share the same label as those who are spreading theological error in the church, but if you are not spreading error then I don't reject you as a Christian brother simply because of the label. But if you do wish to use this label, I would urge you to publicly distance yourself from the errant teachings being promoted by others who use the 'emerging' or 'emergent' label.
I would argue that those conservative evangelicals who want to reach postmoderns in a culturally relevant way, rather than trying to split hairs over the distinction between 'emerging' and 'emergent' should invent a completely new an different label for themselves to distance themselves from the emerging 'wolves in sheeps clothing' who are trying to reinterpret Christianity through the lens of postmodernism.
But my really big issue is actually not with those who self-identify as 'emerging' or 'emergent' - these are mostly just just the vanguard of the confusion. My issue is a concern about the millions of young Christians who without consciously realising it, have adopted the worldview of postmodernism and placed Christianity as just a minor sub-set or 'religious department' of this worldview - rather than seeing Jesus as Lord of all of life and the Bible, the word of God as authoratative for all of life. This is the 'Lost generation' of Christians who need to be brought back to authentic biblical Christianity and to use this real Christianity, relevant to all of life to reach and convert the unsaved from postmodernism to Christ.
Some have argued that I am being unfair in criticising the 'Emerging Church'. They draw a distinction, saying that the 'Emergent' church is different from the 'Emerging' church - with the 'Emergent' church being the more radical liberal wing of the movement and the 'Emerging' church being more mainstream.
Now to respond to this question firstly, I understand that there are different types of people within the movement, whatever you want to call it. Some are orthodox Christians and some are outright heretics, with a continuum of everything in between. One could compare it with the movement of socialism: There is a major difference between the socialism of the British labour party and that of the old Communist Soviet Union, but both use the same name 'socialist'.
The most substantial radical distinction between those in the movement is the difference between those who are 'Missionaries of historic orthodox trying to reach postmodern society' and those who are 'Missionaries of postmodernism to the church, trying to integrate it with Christianity'. Confusingly, both types of people sometimes call themselves 'Emerging'. Now I myself am also trying to reach postmodern society with the gospel and try to be culturally sensitive where this is possible without compromising, but do not wish to associate myself with the movement - but others do. And that creates confusion.
Some claim that 'Emerging' means the 'orthodox' wing and 'Emergent' means the unorthodox liberal wing of the movement. For example, read:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1645/Jason_Carlson
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/september/38.59.html
Now the question is whether there is any widely accepted consensus on the difference of meaning of the terms 'Emerging' and 'Emergent'? A brief internet search comes with the answer: 'No". Many leaders such as Don Carson (anti-) and Brian McLaren (pro-) use the two terms interchangably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church#.22Emerging.22_versus_.22Emergent.22
Tony Jones (pro-) argues no distinction and opposes all 'line drawing'.
http://tonyj.net/2008/04/15/emerging-vs-emergent/
Doug Paggit defines 'Emergence' as what is happening in society; 'Emerging' as what is happening in the church as a result of the social changes; and 'Emergent Village' as the core network of leaders within the movement.
http://centraloregonemerge.com/2008/09/25/doug-pagitt-emergent-vs-emergin/
Those leaders associated with 'Emergent Village' have tended to 'emerge' with the most eccentric, liberal and extreme theological errors, which is probably why many have extended the use of the term 'Emergent' to mean the 'liberal' wing of the movement. But I would argue that these leaders are just those radicals who are most enthusiastic in reinterpreting Christianity through a post-modern lens - and their much larger constituency of orthodox evangelical followers are the laggards slowly following in the wrong direction behind them. The longer these people immerse themselves in postmodern thinking, the further they tend to stray down the road of error. In other words it is often a distinction between the 'wolves in sheeps clothing' and the 'sheep' following the wrong way with them.
Some have claimed all successfully trying to reach postmoderns e.g. Tim Keller, a conservative evangelical, as part of the 'Emerging Church',
http://www.theologyprof.com/mcknight-on-emergent-in-ct/
but Keller himself rejects the label.
http://gospelcenteredmusings.com/2007/06/20/tim-keller-on-if-his-redeemer-church-is-emergent/
Mark Driscoll is exceptional in that as part of the movement, he has distanced himself from some other emerging church leaders "In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Driscoll
I think such distancing from theological liberals is commendable and I would encourage others who identify themselves with the Emerging Church movement to do the same. Driscoll sees four categories of 'Emerging Church' of which he strongly rejects the liberal category.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080227/mars-hill-pastor-ditches-emerging-label-for-jesus.htm
Others have labelled him as 'a theological misfit and no longer emergent'
http://adrianwarnock.com/2006/03/mark-driscoll-theological-misfit-and.htm
I personally use the two terms 'Emerging' and 'Emergent' interchangably because that is what I see most others doing, but understand that others use them to mean different things. I personally wish that they did mean different things, because it would help me to draw a distinction between the orthodox evangelicals and the extremist unorthodox liberals. But reality is that there is no consensus on a distinction between these terms.
But if you happen to be one of those people who self-identifies with the Emerging Church, and is trying to reach postmoderns with historic orthodox Christianity without using postmodernism as a lens to re-interpret the Bible - then please understand that I am not attacking you. I personally believe it is unhelpful to share the same label as those who are spreading theological error in the church, but if you are not spreading error then I don't reject you as a Christian brother simply because of the label. But if you do wish to use this label, I would urge you to publicly distance yourself from the errant teachings being promoted by others who use the 'emerging' or 'emergent' label.
I would argue that those conservative evangelicals who want to reach postmoderns in a culturally relevant way, rather than trying to split hairs over the distinction between 'emerging' and 'emergent' should invent a completely new an different label for themselves to distance themselves from the emerging 'wolves in sheeps clothing' who are trying to reinterpret Christianity through the lens of postmodernism.
But my really big issue is actually not with those who self-identify as 'emerging' or 'emergent' - these are mostly just just the vanguard of the confusion. My issue is a concern about the millions of young Christians who without consciously realising it, have adopted the worldview of postmodernism and placed Christianity as just a minor sub-set or 'religious department' of this worldview - rather than seeing Jesus as Lord of all of life and the Bible, the word of God as authoratative for all of life. This is the 'Lost generation' of Christians who need to be brought back to authentic biblical Christianity and to use this real Christianity, relevant to all of life to reach and convert the unsaved from postmodernism to Christ.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Is the Bible out of date because it condones slavery?
One of the Emergents in a comment on a previous post wrote: "This leads into hermeneutics: would it have been possible for the authors of the Bible to refer to G-d in *any other way* other than male? I don't think this possibility entered their consciousness, just like the abolition of slavery was not something which entered their minds."
Now the use of the slavery issue is a common reason used by both modernist and post-modernist liberals to advance the 'progressivist' idea that Christianity is changing and moving forward in its belief rather than being a fixed for all time set of beliefs. Others have used the argument to justify a change in doctrine on homosexuality. The real issue is not our view of slavery, but our method of interpreting scripture and the unchanging binding authority which conservative envangelicals (but not modernists or postmodernists) believe it holds.
The argument is that we believe slavery is wrong, but don't derive this view from the Bible so we more 'modern' or 'postmodern' people can derive our ethics from places other than the Bible also.
I respond to this argument as follows:
The Biblical position on slavery is more complex than on most other issues. It is important to address, because some argue that because firstly, the Old Testament law allows slavery, and we do not. Secondly, the New Testament says slaves should submit to their masters, while we don't have it in our society. Therefore, they argue that ethics are progressing from Biblical times. This argument is then used to undermine the authority of the Bible for today, because it is seen as being culturally determined - a culture which is now outdated by our 'modern' or 'postmodern' culture. Therefore, new ethical and doctrinal ideas not in the Bible can be entertained and old ethical and doctrinal ideas that are in the Bible, but which don't suit our modern context can be dismissed.
We must look at it in the context that it was practiced as a form of labour management in various forms by almost all societies throughout the world until very recently. It is still practiced in some Islamic countries such as Sudan and Mauritania. The impetus to outlaw slavery was largely driven by Christians such as William Wilberforce, who were motivated by the scriptures. It is completely illegitimate therefore, for those who do not respect the scriptures to claim his historic reason to discount the authority of scripture. Rather, they need to study more carefully what the scripture says on the subject. The scriptural response to the issue is not as simple and absolute as on some other issues such as abortion, homosexuality and adultery.
Old covenant teaching on slavery
The Old Testament law allowed the slavery of Gentiles and 'indentured service' to a maximum of six years for Jews. In the seventh year, the slaves were to be released with substantial gifts to from their master to help them start a new life (Deuteronomy 15:12; Exodus 21:2). One of the reasons for God's judgement on Israel was their failure to observe this law of 7th year release. Now, while this 6-year indentured service is referred to in the Bible as "slavery", it is not the same thing as for example slavery as practiced in the American south prior to the Civil War. It is rather more similar to the few years of indentured service that the ancestors of most Indian South Africans had to give in exchange for payment of the cost of their voyage from India to South Africa. Many poor Europeans also immigrated to America after signing an 'indentured service contract' with the ship captain, who then sold the contract on their arrival in America to farmers who were looking for a few years of labour. Many university students sign contracts to work a certain number of years for a company after graduation in exchange for that company paying their university fees. If they break contract to work for another firm, then they must 'buy their freedom' and pay back their full study loan with interest - just as Hebrew slaves had to under Old Testament law. 'Indentured service' is not called slavery in our society and we should be careful against reading the Bible this way.
Firstly, the slave trade against which Wilberforce fought would not have been tolerated under Old Testament law, because kidnapping was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7). "DT 24:7 If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." Applying this law to the 'Trans-Atlantic slave trade' of the 19th century, most of those involved would have to have been executed as kidnappers.
Secondly, the Israelite law did not respect the slave-owner rights of neighbouring peoples, thus providing the opportunity for slaves of other countries to run away to Israel. DT 23:15-16 "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him." This would substantially undermine legalized slavery in the region.
Thirdly, with regard to 'indentured-service' because of debt. This could be effected when a man was sold to pay debts as a result of business errors or it could be a result of an inability to pay a fine or make the law requiring multiple restitution for theft (Exodus 22:2). We must remember that under this system the man's time of servitude was limited to six years. It helped to ensure that victims of crime were properly compensated. It also meant that in the instance of bankruptcy, the creditors would at least get something back. Also, if the 'indentured-servant' was a hard worker and could earn some extra money on the side, he may be able to redeem himself from his master earlier than this 6-year period. Furthermore, the system benefited the 'indentured servant' because unlike our modern system of sending people to prison, the servant could still keep his family with him. Thus the family was not split up by the fathers' crime. This problem in our modern society has led to a terrible cycle of crime, poverty and family break-up amongst certain communities - where children grow up fatherless. The master would in this instance help teach good work skills and good work habits to the servant, thus making him more employable afterwards. By contrast, under our modern prisons system, thieves simply mix with more hardened criminals and come out of prison knowing more about crime and having even worse work habits. In addition, the taxpayer did not have the wasted expense of having to pay to keep a thief in prison. This form of 'indentured-servitude' was thus much better for the criminal, the victim and the taxpayer than the modern criminal justice system. The main difficulty in applying it today is our economic labour surplus. Criminals would effectively be advantaged in getting 'indentured-employment' over the other unemployed poor - potentially taking jobs away from them.
When the Israelites rebelled against Gods law, they failed to release their Hebrew slaves in the 7th year, which was one of the many sins against which the prophet Jeremiah spoke against and for which God later punished the Jews (Jeremiah 34:8-20).
Fourthly, the Old Testament law provided various protections of the rights of slaves not customary in the surrounding peoples. For example, they had to be allowed to rest on the Sabbath (Deuteronomy 5:14). There was a penalty for sexually taking advantage of a slave girl (Leviticus 19:20). The 'indentured-servant' retained the right of redemption anytime after he was sold based on the number of years left to the Sabbath year. He could redeem himself by extra work or one of his relatives could do so (Leviticus 25:47-52). If the servant was injured by his master, he had to be set free (Exodus 21:26-27). Likewise, if a man married a slave-girl, she had to be set free (Exodus 21:9). The law did not allow 'indentured-servants' to be abused and expected them to be treated similarly to other employees LEV 25:53 "He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly."
Apart from the 7-year limit, many of the practices of 19th century slavery such as 'slave-breeding' and the use of slaves as prostitutes would have been illegal under Old Testament law.
Thus when the Old Testament speaks of slavery of Jews, it is talking about 'indentured service', not permanent slavery.
The New Testament context
Now when we look at the issue in the New Testament context, there is a significant change. The brotherhood of Christians included both Jew and Gentile (Romans 10:12; Colossians 3:11), while the Old Testament law assumed a brotherhood only between Jews. Thus, if one applies an Old Testament law to Gentile Christians, one has to give them similar privileges to those previously reserved only for Jews. Thus the prohibition on keeping Hebrew slaves for more than seven years would now also apply to Gentiles also.
The Old Testament teaching helping slaves was repeated:
• While the New Testament does not forbid Christians to own slaves, it does instruct masters to treat them well (Colossians 4:1) and to treat Christian slaves as brothers (Philemon 1:16).
• Christian slaves were encouraged to try to earn their freedom (1 Corinthians 7:21).
• As in the Old Testament, slave trading (kidnapping) was forbidden (1 Timothy 1:10).
Then there is the question of how a Christian master would apply Jesus command 'love your neighbour' and 'do to others as you would have them do to you' to his slaves. Logically, in most cases, he would free them. This was in fact what happened in many instances. Usually not immediately, but gradually slaves were freed voluntarily by Christian masters in many slave-owning societies.
New Testament teaching carefully balances teaching on respect for all forms of human authority including slave masters (1 Peter 2:18) with responsibility of authorities including masters (Colossians 4:1) to act in accordance with Christian principles. It would not have helped slaves to gain their freedom had Paul encouraged them to rebel against their masters. It would just have resulted in a lot of conflict and in the event of a slave revolt - a bloodbath.
Looking at the issue in broader context, about a third of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves. If the early Christians had started at the outset to campaign for the abolition of slavery, it would have resulted in massive social upheaval that would not have been successful. The empire was under constant threat of slave-revolts that usually resulted in massive loss of life for slaves and other citizens. It is one thing to condemn slavery, but completely another to organise a peaceful transition from a slave-owning society to a free society. There are questions to look at like: Who will find employment from unemployed freed-slaves? Who will care for aged slaves who are no longer economically productive? There are issues here beyond the scope of this article.
The historical effect of Christian teaching
The Biblical teaching of respect for authority, whilst also reforming those authorities thus allowed Christianity to operate peacefully in a society where slavery was legal, without producing social chaos, while planting the seeds of the ultimate destruction of slavery as an institution. That destruction came first through voluntary freeing of slaves; secondly through the end of enslavement/kidnapping/slave trading; thirdly through improving the rights and treatment of slaves and fourthly through making slavery itself illegal by extension of the Old Testament law against permanent slavery from Jews also to Gentiles.
Historically, the campaign against slavery by William Wilberforce in the British Empire was fuelled by the revival under John Wesley and the campaign against slavery in America by Abraham Lincoln was fuelled by the revival under Charles Finney. Both evangelists spoke out strongly against the practice and encouraged their politically minded followers to fight for abolition. It is questionable whether the political motivation for abolition would have existed without these revivals. Other Christians such as David Livingstone helped expose the evils of the trade - all of them staunch and unquestioning Bible believers - with strong respect and understanding of the scriptures.
The Christian teaching on slavery has been attacked by Islamists, Marxists and Liberals. Nevertheless, we must remember that it was Islamists who were responsible for devastating the African continent with slave raiding; laws only were passed against it a few decades ago in many modern Islamic countries and some still clandestinely practice it. Marxists and other socialists showed little or no interest in fighting for the rights of black Africans until they wanted their political support in the late 20th century. Furthermore, Marxists practiced a form of state slavery in their forced labour camps. Secular liberals, while condemning slavery today didn't do much against it when slavery was socially acceptable. It was evangelical Bible-believing Christians mainly who fought to destroy the institution.
With the rise of Christianity bringing these reforms, slavery faded away first from Europe, then the British Empire; then America and the rest of the world. Therefore, it is completely consistent for the Christian to support the apostle Paul in his context in encouraging slaves to submit to their masters and to support William Wilberforce in his context of the fight to outlaw slavery. Both of these positions can be supported by scripture and it is not necessary to diminish respect for the authority of scripture by supporting both. Therefore, those who try to use the shift in policy on the issue of slavery as justification to dismiss Biblical teaching on other issues are ill informed.
Now the use of the slavery issue is a common reason used by both modernist and post-modernist liberals to advance the 'progressivist' idea that Christianity is changing and moving forward in its belief rather than being a fixed for all time set of beliefs. Others have used the argument to justify a change in doctrine on homosexuality. The real issue is not our view of slavery, but our method of interpreting scripture and the unchanging binding authority which conservative envangelicals (but not modernists or postmodernists) believe it holds.
The argument is that we believe slavery is wrong, but don't derive this view from the Bible so we more 'modern' or 'postmodern' people can derive our ethics from places other than the Bible also.
I respond to this argument as follows:
The Biblical position on slavery is more complex than on most other issues. It is important to address, because some argue that because firstly, the Old Testament law allows slavery, and we do not. Secondly, the New Testament says slaves should submit to their masters, while we don't have it in our society. Therefore, they argue that ethics are progressing from Biblical times. This argument is then used to undermine the authority of the Bible for today, because it is seen as being culturally determined - a culture which is now outdated by our 'modern' or 'postmodern' culture. Therefore, new ethical and doctrinal ideas not in the Bible can be entertained and old ethical and doctrinal ideas that are in the Bible, but which don't suit our modern context can be dismissed.
We must look at it in the context that it was practiced as a form of labour management in various forms by almost all societies throughout the world until very recently. It is still practiced in some Islamic countries such as Sudan and Mauritania. The impetus to outlaw slavery was largely driven by Christians such as William Wilberforce, who were motivated by the scriptures. It is completely illegitimate therefore, for those who do not respect the scriptures to claim his historic reason to discount the authority of scripture. Rather, they need to study more carefully what the scripture says on the subject. The scriptural response to the issue is not as simple and absolute as on some other issues such as abortion, homosexuality and adultery.
Old covenant teaching on slavery
The Old Testament law allowed the slavery of Gentiles and 'indentured service' to a maximum of six years for Jews. In the seventh year, the slaves were to be released with substantial gifts to from their master to help them start a new life (Deuteronomy 15:12; Exodus 21:2). One of the reasons for God's judgement on Israel was their failure to observe this law of 7th year release. Now, while this 6-year indentured service is referred to in the Bible as "slavery", it is not the same thing as for example slavery as practiced in the American south prior to the Civil War. It is rather more similar to the few years of indentured service that the ancestors of most Indian South Africans had to give in exchange for payment of the cost of their voyage from India to South Africa. Many poor Europeans also immigrated to America after signing an 'indentured service contract' with the ship captain, who then sold the contract on their arrival in America to farmers who were looking for a few years of labour. Many university students sign contracts to work a certain number of years for a company after graduation in exchange for that company paying their university fees. If they break contract to work for another firm, then they must 'buy their freedom' and pay back their full study loan with interest - just as Hebrew slaves had to under Old Testament law. 'Indentured service' is not called slavery in our society and we should be careful against reading the Bible this way.
Firstly, the slave trade against which Wilberforce fought would not have been tolerated under Old Testament law, because kidnapping was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7). "DT 24:7 If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." Applying this law to the 'Trans-Atlantic slave trade' of the 19th century, most of those involved would have to have been executed as kidnappers.
Secondly, the Israelite law did not respect the slave-owner rights of neighbouring peoples, thus providing the opportunity for slaves of other countries to run away to Israel. DT 23:15-16 "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him." This would substantially undermine legalized slavery in the region.
Thirdly, with regard to 'indentured-service' because of debt. This could be effected when a man was sold to pay debts as a result of business errors or it could be a result of an inability to pay a fine or make the law requiring multiple restitution for theft (Exodus 22:2). We must remember that under this system the man's time of servitude was limited to six years. It helped to ensure that victims of crime were properly compensated. It also meant that in the instance of bankruptcy, the creditors would at least get something back. Also, if the 'indentured-servant' was a hard worker and could earn some extra money on the side, he may be able to redeem himself from his master earlier than this 6-year period. Furthermore, the system benefited the 'indentured servant' because unlike our modern system of sending people to prison, the servant could still keep his family with him. Thus the family was not split up by the fathers' crime. This problem in our modern society has led to a terrible cycle of crime, poverty and family break-up amongst certain communities - where children grow up fatherless. The master would in this instance help teach good work skills and good work habits to the servant, thus making him more employable afterwards. By contrast, under our modern prisons system, thieves simply mix with more hardened criminals and come out of prison knowing more about crime and having even worse work habits. In addition, the taxpayer did not have the wasted expense of having to pay to keep a thief in prison. This form of 'indentured-servitude' was thus much better for the criminal, the victim and the taxpayer than the modern criminal justice system. The main difficulty in applying it today is our economic labour surplus. Criminals would effectively be advantaged in getting 'indentured-employment' over the other unemployed poor - potentially taking jobs away from them.
When the Israelites rebelled against Gods law, they failed to release their Hebrew slaves in the 7th year, which was one of the many sins against which the prophet Jeremiah spoke against and for which God later punished the Jews (Jeremiah 34:8-20).
Fourthly, the Old Testament law provided various protections of the rights of slaves not customary in the surrounding peoples. For example, they had to be allowed to rest on the Sabbath (Deuteronomy 5:14). There was a penalty for sexually taking advantage of a slave girl (Leviticus 19:20). The 'indentured-servant' retained the right of redemption anytime after he was sold based on the number of years left to the Sabbath year. He could redeem himself by extra work or one of his relatives could do so (Leviticus 25:47-52). If the servant was injured by his master, he had to be set free (Exodus 21:26-27). Likewise, if a man married a slave-girl, she had to be set free (Exodus 21:9). The law did not allow 'indentured-servants' to be abused and expected them to be treated similarly to other employees LEV 25:53 "He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly."
Apart from the 7-year limit, many of the practices of 19th century slavery such as 'slave-breeding' and the use of slaves as prostitutes would have been illegal under Old Testament law.
Thus when the Old Testament speaks of slavery of Jews, it is talking about 'indentured service', not permanent slavery.
The New Testament context
Now when we look at the issue in the New Testament context, there is a significant change. The brotherhood of Christians included both Jew and Gentile (Romans 10:12; Colossians 3:11), while the Old Testament law assumed a brotherhood only between Jews. Thus, if one applies an Old Testament law to Gentile Christians, one has to give them similar privileges to those previously reserved only for Jews. Thus the prohibition on keeping Hebrew slaves for more than seven years would now also apply to Gentiles also.
The Old Testament teaching helping slaves was repeated:
• While the New Testament does not forbid Christians to own slaves, it does instruct masters to treat them well (Colossians 4:1) and to treat Christian slaves as brothers (Philemon 1:16).
• Christian slaves were encouraged to try to earn their freedom (1 Corinthians 7:21).
• As in the Old Testament, slave trading (kidnapping) was forbidden (1 Timothy 1:10).
Then there is the question of how a Christian master would apply Jesus command 'love your neighbour' and 'do to others as you would have them do to you' to his slaves. Logically, in most cases, he would free them. This was in fact what happened in many instances. Usually not immediately, but gradually slaves were freed voluntarily by Christian masters in many slave-owning societies.
New Testament teaching carefully balances teaching on respect for all forms of human authority including slave masters (1 Peter 2:18) with responsibility of authorities including masters (Colossians 4:1) to act in accordance with Christian principles. It would not have helped slaves to gain their freedom had Paul encouraged them to rebel against their masters. It would just have resulted in a lot of conflict and in the event of a slave revolt - a bloodbath.
Looking at the issue in broader context, about a third of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves. If the early Christians had started at the outset to campaign for the abolition of slavery, it would have resulted in massive social upheaval that would not have been successful. The empire was under constant threat of slave-revolts that usually resulted in massive loss of life for slaves and other citizens. It is one thing to condemn slavery, but completely another to organise a peaceful transition from a slave-owning society to a free society. There are questions to look at like: Who will find employment from unemployed freed-slaves? Who will care for aged slaves who are no longer economically productive? There are issues here beyond the scope of this article.
The historical effect of Christian teaching
The Biblical teaching of respect for authority, whilst also reforming those authorities thus allowed Christianity to operate peacefully in a society where slavery was legal, without producing social chaos, while planting the seeds of the ultimate destruction of slavery as an institution. That destruction came first through voluntary freeing of slaves; secondly through the end of enslavement/kidnapping/slave trading; thirdly through improving the rights and treatment of slaves and fourthly through making slavery itself illegal by extension of the Old Testament law against permanent slavery from Jews also to Gentiles.
Historically, the campaign against slavery by William Wilberforce in the British Empire was fuelled by the revival under John Wesley and the campaign against slavery in America by Abraham Lincoln was fuelled by the revival under Charles Finney. Both evangelists spoke out strongly against the practice and encouraged their politically minded followers to fight for abolition. It is questionable whether the political motivation for abolition would have existed without these revivals. Other Christians such as David Livingstone helped expose the evils of the trade - all of them staunch and unquestioning Bible believers - with strong respect and understanding of the scriptures.
The Christian teaching on slavery has been attacked by Islamists, Marxists and Liberals. Nevertheless, we must remember that it was Islamists who were responsible for devastating the African continent with slave raiding; laws only were passed against it a few decades ago in many modern Islamic countries and some still clandestinely practice it. Marxists and other socialists showed little or no interest in fighting for the rights of black Africans until they wanted their political support in the late 20th century. Furthermore, Marxists practiced a form of state slavery in their forced labour camps. Secular liberals, while condemning slavery today didn't do much against it when slavery was socially acceptable. It was evangelical Bible-believing Christians mainly who fought to destroy the institution.
With the rise of Christianity bringing these reforms, slavery faded away first from Europe, then the British Empire; then America and the rest of the world. Therefore, it is completely consistent for the Christian to support the apostle Paul in his context in encouraging slaves to submit to their masters and to support William Wilberforce in his context of the fight to outlaw slavery. Both of these positions can be supported by scripture and it is not necessary to diminish respect for the authority of scripture by supporting both. Therefore, those who try to use the shift in policy on the issue of slavery as justification to dismiss Biblical teaching on other issues are ill informed.
Can God be referred to in the feminine?
Can God be referred to in the feminine?
The post-modern/emergent method of interpreting scripture makes a number of incorrect postmodern assumptions and therefore leads people astray into all kinds of error. The latest example of this I found in the 'South African Emerging Church conversation' is referring to God in the feminine. Not that all emergents do this, but it is another example of how the movement leads people into error and tolerance of it.
Postmodernism and the Emerging Church assume amongst other things:
* The scripture is unclear on all sorts of issues where it is in fact clear. This leaves us free to doubt, question and speculate endlessly about even the fundamentals of theology.
* Belief is a personal and subjective opinion (rather certain truths being absolute) and we should respect eachothers opinions.
* We should refrain from saying that anyone else's opinion is wrong - meaning that errrant beliefs are not corrected.
http://timvictor.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/de-gendering-god-en-gendering-godde/
Tim writes: "I've adopted "Godde" as it is comfortably spoken as "God" - fitting easier into language - and a suitable amalgamation of God and Goddess and being much less clumsy in writing than "God/Goddess" or "God/-ess". I retain "S/He" where it fits and also make use of both "He" and "She" in other places, according to context."
http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=5905
Now to respond briefly to the various arguments raised on the blog links above:
* God has revealed himself as Father (not mother) and Jesus revealed himself in human form as a man (not a woman).
* Yes, I accept the argument that the image of God is shown in both male and female as a unity (as in Genesis 1-2) and not man alone. Nevertheless, I don't believe this permits us to refer to God equally as masculine and feminine. Had this been God's intention one would have found interchangable male and female references in the Bible (which one does not).
* Yes, I accept that prior to the incarnation of Christ taking on human form, God did not have a human physical body and in that sense cannot be male. Nevertheless, this is not an excuse to refer to him in the feminine. Rather the earthly concept of gender revealed in creation is a reflection of the mysterious relationship between men (human beings male and female) and God - in which God always takes the masculine (leadership role) and we take the following feminine role (or sometimes the childl following the father role). That is the pattern of the images of God and Israel and the images of the Church (Ephesians 5).
* The feminists would probably protest that assumption of human gender roles, but that is probably why they attack the gender references to God. Nevertheless, I understand the above quoted writer says he does not base his argument on feminism.
* To respond to the argument that gender ceases in heaven because there is no marriage in heaven: Yes, true, there is no marriage between people in heaven, but there is the macro scale marriage between the people of God (the bride of Christ - female) and Christ (male). Earthly marriages are just a shadow of this great mysterious cosmic marriage. So from this perspective, the gender references to God and Christ continue to be relevant.
* To respond to the argument that Christ ceases to be male, but becomes somehow both genders after his resurrection. I don't know where you get this idea from the Bible? Jesus physical body was the same physical body he had before his resurrection. It could still eat food, talk and be touched. There was no physical body left behind in the grave. It was the same body, but now glorified. Jesus in Revelation is referred to as a king - not a queen. This idea should be dismissed.
* To respond to the argument about references to feminine characterists of God in scripture. These are all in the poetic form of a simile i.e. 'God is like'. They do not say 'God is'. As a generalisation, women are better nurturers than men and tend to be more caring etc. Nevertheless, if a man happens to have such characteristics it does not then make him female.
* All God's names in the Bible are masculine.
Nevertheless, this is only one example of an errant Emerging Church belief. There are thousands of others. But if one starts with the wrong assumptions, then one will end up with a variety of wrong conclusions. Therefore I argue that postmodernism is dangerous when used as a lens to interpret scriptural doctrine and ethics.
The post-modern/emergent method of interpreting scripture makes a number of incorrect postmodern assumptions and therefore leads people astray into all kinds of error. The latest example of this I found in the 'South African Emerging Church conversation' is referring to God in the feminine. Not that all emergents do this, but it is another example of how the movement leads people into error and tolerance of it.
Postmodernism and the Emerging Church assume amongst other things:
* The scripture is unclear on all sorts of issues where it is in fact clear. This leaves us free to doubt, question and speculate endlessly about even the fundamentals of theology.
* Belief is a personal and subjective opinion (rather certain truths being absolute) and we should respect eachothers opinions.
* We should refrain from saying that anyone else's opinion is wrong - meaning that errrant beliefs are not corrected.
http://timvictor.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/de-gendering-god-en-gendering-godde/
Tim writes: "I've adopted "Godde" as it is comfortably spoken as "God" - fitting easier into language - and a suitable amalgamation of God and Goddess and being much less clumsy in writing than "God/Goddess" or "God/-ess". I retain "S/He" where it fits and also make use of both "He" and "She" in other places, according to context."
http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=5905
Now to respond briefly to the various arguments raised on the blog links above:
* God has revealed himself as Father (not mother) and Jesus revealed himself in human form as a man (not a woman).
* Yes, I accept the argument that the image of God is shown in both male and female as a unity (as in Genesis 1-2) and not man alone. Nevertheless, I don't believe this permits us to refer to God equally as masculine and feminine. Had this been God's intention one would have found interchangable male and female references in the Bible (which one does not).
* Yes, I accept that prior to the incarnation of Christ taking on human form, God did not have a human physical body and in that sense cannot be male. Nevertheless, this is not an excuse to refer to him in the feminine. Rather the earthly concept of gender revealed in creation is a reflection of the mysterious relationship between men (human beings male and female) and God - in which God always takes the masculine (leadership role) and we take the following feminine role (or sometimes the childl following the father role). That is the pattern of the images of God and Israel and the images of the Church (Ephesians 5).
* The feminists would probably protest that assumption of human gender roles, but that is probably why they attack the gender references to God. Nevertheless, I understand the above quoted writer says he does not base his argument on feminism.
* To respond to the argument that gender ceases in heaven because there is no marriage in heaven: Yes, true, there is no marriage between people in heaven, but there is the macro scale marriage between the people of God (the bride of Christ - female) and Christ (male). Earthly marriages are just a shadow of this great mysterious cosmic marriage. So from this perspective, the gender references to God and Christ continue to be relevant.
* To respond to the argument that Christ ceases to be male, but becomes somehow both genders after his resurrection. I don't know where you get this idea from the Bible? Jesus physical body was the same physical body he had before his resurrection. It could still eat food, talk and be touched. There was no physical body left behind in the grave. It was the same body, but now glorified. Jesus in Revelation is referred to as a king - not a queen. This idea should be dismissed.
* To respond to the argument about references to feminine characterists of God in scripture. These are all in the poetic form of a simile i.e. 'God is like'. They do not say 'God is'. As a generalisation, women are better nurturers than men and tend to be more caring etc. Nevertheless, if a man happens to have such characteristics it does not then make him female.
* All God's names in the Bible are masculine.
Nevertheless, this is only one example of an errant Emerging Church belief. There are thousands of others. But if one starts with the wrong assumptions, then one will end up with a variety of wrong conclusions. Therefore I argue that postmodernism is dangerous when used as a lens to interpret scriptural doctrine and ethics.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Quotes from the 'Emerging Church Conversation' in South Africa
SOME QUOTES FROM THE 'EMERGING CHURCH CONVERSATION' IN SOUTH AFRICA
To give an idea of the ideas being entertained often by leaders in the so called 'Emerging Church conversation' in South Africa, read the following quotes and follow the links. Many older pastors simply don't know the unorthodox ideas and viewpoints being discussed within the South African 'Emerging Church' movement - and thus fail to take action to speak up against and correct false teachings being spread by the movement. Should you have any other unorthodox quotes you wish to contribute to this blog, please post them as a comment below, with internet links please to authenticate. The quotes below should help everyone to see the dangerous consequences of using the ideology of postmodernism to interpret scripture.
Now some may say that most of the quotes below are not clearly taking a position, but just discussing ideas. That is one of the problems with debating postmodernists - they tend to evade making propositional statements of belief - meaning that they are very slippery to try debate against. For them truth is seen as subjective and personal rather than absolute and objective. Doubt of truth is a virtue or sign of sophistication and 'tolerance' rather than a sin. Therefore they tend to put most of their effort into undermining/erroding others absolute concepts of truth rather than proposing or defending any clear set of believes of their own. For this reason, one cannot defeat'postmodernism' simply by arguing against their defined positions - because they have few if any to argue against. Neither can one defeat them by simply 'engaging in conversation' because then one simply becomes another subjective voice in a conversation which is promoting doubt of truth. One cannot defeat postmodernism by using logic, because they do not believe in a unitary system of logic. One can only argue logically with someone who values logic and believes in objective truth. What one has to do is to show those who have not gone too far down the road of postmodernism, where their presuppositions lead by exposing their spreading of doubt in the clarity of scripture.
I have put names of those who have taken a high profile and can be deemed public figures and just initials of those who have not, although with their permission I would be happy to add their names. If anyone is offended by me quoting them here, please delete your statement referenced elsewhere and I will delete it here.
UNIVERSALISM AND HELL
"I think that even if a Christian didn't believe in universalism, they should want to! In other words, they'd want everyone to know and love God, because that's best for, well, everyone.
Is universalism, in itself threatening? I don't think so. What it *does* threaten is hermeneutics, theology and eschatology. And it can't be divorced from those, so that any discussion of the one necessarily leads to, and is influenced by, the others. Some of these are sacred cows, some are good theology. This is why it's fascinating to think about it :)" [Roger Saner]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142
"That's a good summary of the various positions and they can all be argued. I would think that a loving God/-ess who does distinguish the "sheep from the goats" actually annihilates opposition rather than tortures them eternal." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=3142&post=27425&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3066
"I personally believe that one can only come to God through Christ though I also believe that devout Jews will also go to Heaven if they live good lives. I know that that's a little bit dodge but that's what my heart feels." [SVO]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142
ON THE GENDER OF GOD
"The NT notion is one of a herald or envoy who announces the reign of God/-ess/Christ and brings it into effect." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142
"That's a good summary of the various positions and they can all be argued. I would think that a loving God/-ess who does distinguish the "sheep from the goats" actually annihilates opposition rather than tortures them eternal." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=3142&post=27425&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3066
"As historical person Jesus was male, as risen LORD Jesus is transformed and remains embodied but just as S/He transcends the limitations of our bodies so too does S/He transcend the male gender S/He had prior to the resurrection. Jesus’ humanhood continues but Jesus’ manhood does not...
It is inappropriate to continue using masculine references for Godde if by doing so we are relegating feminine references to an inferior or worse, e.g. ungodly, place. It is especially in light of this that we ought to take up the contribution from our culture, the contribution of gender-inclusive language, as a vehicle for communicating Godde clearer."
http://timvictor.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/de-gendering-god-en-gendering-godde/
I respond in more detail to some of Tim's arguments at
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=5905&post=27662&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=5905
HOMOSEXUALITY
"Every single text dealing with homosexual activity in the Bible also refers aggravating circumstances such as inhospitality, idolatory, shrine prostitution, adultery, promiscuity, lust, violence and rape. Not one of these verses has a monogamous relationship in mind. Not one! Condemning someone to eternal damnation on such tenuous evidence would therefore seem a very dangerous thing to do..." [Graeme Codrington]
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality
"In my own discussion I put forward that if we represent a God who loves(agape) unconditionally...then shouldn't we be inclusive and affirming in our approach to homosexual relationships." [A.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=2891
"Therefore, I have to ask you again, to explain how homosexuality hurts people who are not homosexual. Because only by affirming that there are real victims can you rely on most of the arguments you've put forward here." [DB]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=2891
To give an idea of the ideas being entertained often by leaders in the so called 'Emerging Church conversation' in South Africa, read the following quotes and follow the links. Many older pastors simply don't know the unorthodox ideas and viewpoints being discussed within the South African 'Emerging Church' movement - and thus fail to take action to speak up against and correct false teachings being spread by the movement. Should you have any other unorthodox quotes you wish to contribute to this blog, please post them as a comment below, with internet links please to authenticate. The quotes below should help everyone to see the dangerous consequences of using the ideology of postmodernism to interpret scripture.
Now some may say that most of the quotes below are not clearly taking a position, but just discussing ideas. That is one of the problems with debating postmodernists - they tend to evade making propositional statements of belief - meaning that they are very slippery to try debate against. For them truth is seen as subjective and personal rather than absolute and objective. Doubt of truth is a virtue or sign of sophistication and 'tolerance' rather than a sin. Therefore they tend to put most of their effort into undermining/erroding others absolute concepts of truth rather than proposing or defending any clear set of believes of their own. For this reason, one cannot defeat'postmodernism' simply by arguing against their defined positions - because they have few if any to argue against. Neither can one defeat them by simply 'engaging in conversation' because then one simply becomes another subjective voice in a conversation which is promoting doubt of truth. One cannot defeat postmodernism by using logic, because they do not believe in a unitary system of logic. One can only argue logically with someone who values logic and believes in objective truth. What one has to do is to show those who have not gone too far down the road of postmodernism, where their presuppositions lead by exposing their spreading of doubt in the clarity of scripture.
I have put names of those who have taken a high profile and can be deemed public figures and just initials of those who have not, although with their permission I would be happy to add their names. If anyone is offended by me quoting them here, please delete your statement referenced elsewhere and I will delete it here.
UNIVERSALISM AND HELL
"I think that even if a Christian didn't believe in universalism, they should want to! In other words, they'd want everyone to know and love God, because that's best for, well, everyone.
Is universalism, in itself threatening? I don't think so. What it *does* threaten is hermeneutics, theology and eschatology. And it can't be divorced from those, so that any discussion of the one necessarily leads to, and is influenced by, the others. Some of these are sacred cows, some are good theology. This is why it's fascinating to think about it :)" [Roger Saner]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142
"That's a good summary of the various positions and they can all be argued. I would think that a loving God/-ess who does distinguish the "sheep from the goats" actually annihilates opposition rather than tortures them eternal." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=3142&post=27425&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3066
"I personally believe that one can only come to God through Christ though I also believe that devout Jews will also go to Heaven if they live good lives. I know that that's a little bit dodge but that's what my heart feels." [SVO]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142
ON THE GENDER OF GOD
"The NT notion is one of a herald or envoy who announces the reign of God/-ess/Christ and brings it into effect." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142
"That's a good summary of the various positions and they can all be argued. I would think that a loving God/-ess who does distinguish the "sheep from the goats" actually annihilates opposition rather than tortures them eternal." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=3142&post=27425&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3066
"As historical person Jesus was male, as risen LORD Jesus is transformed and remains embodied but just as S/He transcends the limitations of our bodies so too does S/He transcend the male gender S/He had prior to the resurrection. Jesus’ humanhood continues but Jesus’ manhood does not...
It is inappropriate to continue using masculine references for Godde if by doing so we are relegating feminine references to an inferior or worse, e.g. ungodly, place. It is especially in light of this that we ought to take up the contribution from our culture, the contribution of gender-inclusive language, as a vehicle for communicating Godde clearer."
http://timvictor.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/de-gendering-god-en-gendering-godde/
I respond in more detail to some of Tim's arguments at
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=5905&post=27662&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=5905
HOMOSEXUALITY
"Every single text dealing with homosexual activity in the Bible also refers aggravating circumstances such as inhospitality, idolatory, shrine prostitution, adultery, promiscuity, lust, violence and rape. Not one of these verses has a monogamous relationship in mind. Not one! Condemning someone to eternal damnation on such tenuous evidence would therefore seem a very dangerous thing to do..." [Graeme Codrington]
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality
"In my own discussion I put forward that if we represent a God who loves(agape) unconditionally...then shouldn't we be inclusive and affirming in our approach to homosexual relationships." [A.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=2891
"Therefore, I have to ask you again, to explain how homosexuality hurts people who are not homosexual. Because only by affirming that there are real victims can you rely on most of the arguments you've put forward here." [DB]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=2891
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Why Postmodernism and the Emerging Church threaten Missions and World Evangelism
Why Postmodernism and the Emerging Church threaten Missions and World Evangelism
Many Christians view Postmodernism and the Emerging Church movement as a somewhat intellectual issue or otherwise the domain of young high-tech bloggers and not really relevant to the issues facing the core objectives of the church. In this article I argue why acceptance of postmodernism in the church threatens to undermine the task of world evangelism in the areas of: the meaning of the gospel; our right to proclaim the gospel; our response to persecution for evangelism; postmodernists misunderstanding of the gospel; and our approach for presenting the gospel.
Postmodernism is not a faraway threat. It has already deeply infiltrated the Evangelical Church, influenced the way we do church especially amongst the youth and especially the American church – but since the American church is often a centre of influence for the rest of the world, through publishing and, high profile speakers – many in South Africa are following the trend. The ‘Emerging Church’ is the formal expression of these beliefs. But informally, millions of Christians who don’t identify themselves as ‘emerging church’ already believe the same things.
How is Postmodernism influencing missions and evangelism? Ask the average Christian to stop a stranger in the street and explain the gospel, and firstly he will probably struggle to present it clearly. Secondly, he will probably question whether he has a right to stop a stranger in the street to explain the gospel. Both of these responses are influenced by postmodernism.
Firstly, it has changed the way most Christian youth view the meaning and purpose of the gospel – our core message. The traditional biblical gospel is that we have all sinned against God and are thus under his wrath and so deserve to burn in hell for eternity. But the good news is that Jesus has died and suffered in our place and if we believe this, repent of our sins and confess him as Lord, then he will save us and give us eternal life. But now we have a variety of alternative gospels based on postmodernism. An example of a new gospel is this: We all have problems which upset us and make us unhappy. Christianity offers a better alternative lifestyle and to do so, we should believe in Jesus and follow his example. If we do we will have a much more successful, happy and fulfilling life. There are many other variations on this example postmodern gospel. Basically, the gospel becomes user-friendly and here to help us. What is missing? The cross, hell, sin, repentance, eternal life. Sin, if mentioned at all is seen in terms of the harm it does to us, rather than the offence against God. The differences between the traditional biblical gospel and the new postmodern gospels are massive. Needless to say, if Christians are missing out the ‘politically incorrect’ parts in their presentation of the gospel, they are not presenting the true gospel and this is unlikely to result in many true conversions.
Secondly, Postmodernism has shifted the approach to evangelism and missions. The traditional approach to evangelism, used to be a confrontation with absolute truth and a demand to repent of sin against God (see the example of Acts 2). Now before Postmodernism arrived, the seeker-sensitive church movement began looking for ways of attracting people to come to church without offending them. This is a legitimate approach to evangelism and has resulted in some salvations. Nevertheless, there are problems. Firstly, if this is used as the only approach to evangelism, then a lot of people who are not interested in church are never going to hear the gospel. Secondly, if the gospel message itself is softened to avoid offending non-Christians then the problems mentioned in the previous paragraph arise. But now Postmodernism and the Emerging Church have taken another step away from traditional evangelism. They advocate instead the ‘conversational’ approach of dialogue. In other words, just talk to people to try to find common points of agreement and try to both understand eachother and maybe some might convert – if they don’t then you will have maybe done some other good such as promoting world peace. Christianity is then presented as an alternative lifestyle of the individual rather than absolute truth. It becomes another ‘choice’. Thus the presentation of the gospel is progressively weakened by the approach used. Traditional Christianity presented the Jesus as ‘The Way’, ‘The Truth’, ‘The life’. Postmodernism presents Jesus as ‘A Way’, ‘A Truth, ‘A Life’. The difference is massive. No more demand for repentance from the sin of rebellion against God. Just a conversation about personal religious beliefs. This is happening on a global scale as Emergent church leaders seek dialogue with other religious leaders – and sometimes some of their seeker-sensitive friends have joined them. It also happens on the local scale where Christians just ‘converse’ about religion instead of trying to convert their unsaved neighbours. Now there is nothing wrong with conversation as a prelude to evangelism, but often ‘dialogue’ substitutes for genuine ‘evangelism’. A risk is that Christians can be giving missions money to charitable works and ‘missions’ led by postmodernists, who are not using the money to present the gospel at all, but simply to do good works and engage in fruitless ‘dialogue’.
Thirdly, Postmodernists don’t see an automatic right and duty to preach the gospel to all creation (Matthew 28). Rather, they believe one has to ‘earn’ the right to present the gospel to someone without offending them by first doing good works and building relationships to present a good image of Christianity and avoid offending them. Now there is nothing wrong with doing good works and building relationships to help win people, but if we have to first ‘earn’ our credibility in these ways, then will we ever have done enough to earn the right to speak? The result is that Christians are timid and afraid to present the gospel, because like trying to earn God’s approval, we are always insecure. No. We tell people the gospel for their good because the Lord commanded us to. He has given us authority to do so – we do not need to earn it or get anyone else’s permission to do so.
Fourthly, Postmodernism is affecting Christians attitudes towards other Christians being persecuted for preaching the gospel. Since they are themselves unwilling to suffer for their faith or even present the gospel to their close friends, they find it hard to understand why Christians in other countries are willing to endure jail and torture in Islamic and Communist countries for breaking the law to preach the gospel. Therefore they fail to lobby governments such as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia to stop such persecution. Persecuting government officials can happily visit and trade with free countries in the west without being confronted with their human rights abuse by Christians in the free countries. This new postmodern attitude to persecution means that the gospel can be restricted by ideologically opposed governments with impunity.
Fifthly, Postmodernism has changed the way that unconverted people interpret the gospel in Postmodern countries, such as North America, Europe and the educated class in South Africa. When Modernism was popular, people generally derided the gospel as ‘unscientific’ or ‘backward’ and did not want to hear it. Now with Postmodernism, they are quite happy to listen, but re-interpret the gospel through a postmodern lens. They view the presentation of the gospel as just an account of someone’s personal preference and experiences – not a challenge to repent of sin against a Holy God. Therefore we have to emphasise and repeat those aspects of the gospel which are politically incorrect until they hopefully get the idea that this is THE TRUTH, THE ONLY WAY no ‘a truth’, or ‘a way’. We have to emphasise that the gospel is absolute and the only truth. Sadly, I believe that much media presentation of the gospel is wrongly interpreted by the listeners and thus they miss it.
Modernism/Liberalism gutted the missions efforts of the mainline Protestant Churches in the 1920’s and 30’s. Postmodernism and the Emerging Church threaten to do the same to modern missions. Therefore as part of the task of world evangelism and missions, the ideology of postmodernism and the Emerging church must be fought and defeated at home.
Many Christians view Postmodernism and the Emerging Church movement as a somewhat intellectual issue or otherwise the domain of young high-tech bloggers and not really relevant to the issues facing the core objectives of the church. In this article I argue why acceptance of postmodernism in the church threatens to undermine the task of world evangelism in the areas of: the meaning of the gospel; our right to proclaim the gospel; our response to persecution for evangelism; postmodernists misunderstanding of the gospel; and our approach for presenting the gospel.
Postmodernism is not a faraway threat. It has already deeply infiltrated the Evangelical Church, influenced the way we do church especially amongst the youth and especially the American church – but since the American church is often a centre of influence for the rest of the world, through publishing and, high profile speakers – many in South Africa are following the trend. The ‘Emerging Church’ is the formal expression of these beliefs. But informally, millions of Christians who don’t identify themselves as ‘emerging church’ already believe the same things.
How is Postmodernism influencing missions and evangelism? Ask the average Christian to stop a stranger in the street and explain the gospel, and firstly he will probably struggle to present it clearly. Secondly, he will probably question whether he has a right to stop a stranger in the street to explain the gospel. Both of these responses are influenced by postmodernism.
Firstly, it has changed the way most Christian youth view the meaning and purpose of the gospel – our core message. The traditional biblical gospel is that we have all sinned against God and are thus under his wrath and so deserve to burn in hell for eternity. But the good news is that Jesus has died and suffered in our place and if we believe this, repent of our sins and confess him as Lord, then he will save us and give us eternal life. But now we have a variety of alternative gospels based on postmodernism. An example of a new gospel is this: We all have problems which upset us and make us unhappy. Christianity offers a better alternative lifestyle and to do so, we should believe in Jesus and follow his example. If we do we will have a much more successful, happy and fulfilling life. There are many other variations on this example postmodern gospel. Basically, the gospel becomes user-friendly and here to help us. What is missing? The cross, hell, sin, repentance, eternal life. Sin, if mentioned at all is seen in terms of the harm it does to us, rather than the offence against God. The differences between the traditional biblical gospel and the new postmodern gospels are massive. Needless to say, if Christians are missing out the ‘politically incorrect’ parts in their presentation of the gospel, they are not presenting the true gospel and this is unlikely to result in many true conversions.
Secondly, Postmodernism has shifted the approach to evangelism and missions. The traditional approach to evangelism, used to be a confrontation with absolute truth and a demand to repent of sin against God (see the example of Acts 2). Now before Postmodernism arrived, the seeker-sensitive church movement began looking for ways of attracting people to come to church without offending them. This is a legitimate approach to evangelism and has resulted in some salvations. Nevertheless, there are problems. Firstly, if this is used as the only approach to evangelism, then a lot of people who are not interested in church are never going to hear the gospel. Secondly, if the gospel message itself is softened to avoid offending non-Christians then the problems mentioned in the previous paragraph arise. But now Postmodernism and the Emerging Church have taken another step away from traditional evangelism. They advocate instead the ‘conversational’ approach of dialogue. In other words, just talk to people to try to find common points of agreement and try to both understand eachother and maybe some might convert – if they don’t then you will have maybe done some other good such as promoting world peace. Christianity is then presented as an alternative lifestyle of the individual rather than absolute truth. It becomes another ‘choice’. Thus the presentation of the gospel is progressively weakened by the approach used. Traditional Christianity presented the Jesus as ‘The Way’, ‘The Truth’, ‘The life’. Postmodernism presents Jesus as ‘A Way’, ‘A Truth, ‘A Life’. The difference is massive. No more demand for repentance from the sin of rebellion against God. Just a conversation about personal religious beliefs. This is happening on a global scale as Emergent church leaders seek dialogue with other religious leaders – and sometimes some of their seeker-sensitive friends have joined them. It also happens on the local scale where Christians just ‘converse’ about religion instead of trying to convert their unsaved neighbours. Now there is nothing wrong with conversation as a prelude to evangelism, but often ‘dialogue’ substitutes for genuine ‘evangelism’. A risk is that Christians can be giving missions money to charitable works and ‘missions’ led by postmodernists, who are not using the money to present the gospel at all, but simply to do good works and engage in fruitless ‘dialogue’.
Thirdly, Postmodernists don’t see an automatic right and duty to preach the gospel to all creation (Matthew 28). Rather, they believe one has to ‘earn’ the right to present the gospel to someone without offending them by first doing good works and building relationships to present a good image of Christianity and avoid offending them. Now there is nothing wrong with doing good works and building relationships to help win people, but if we have to first ‘earn’ our credibility in these ways, then will we ever have done enough to earn the right to speak? The result is that Christians are timid and afraid to present the gospel, because like trying to earn God’s approval, we are always insecure. No. We tell people the gospel for their good because the Lord commanded us to. He has given us authority to do so – we do not need to earn it or get anyone else’s permission to do so.
Fourthly, Postmodernism is affecting Christians attitudes towards other Christians being persecuted for preaching the gospel. Since they are themselves unwilling to suffer for their faith or even present the gospel to their close friends, they find it hard to understand why Christians in other countries are willing to endure jail and torture in Islamic and Communist countries for breaking the law to preach the gospel. Therefore they fail to lobby governments such as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia to stop such persecution. Persecuting government officials can happily visit and trade with free countries in the west without being confronted with their human rights abuse by Christians in the free countries. This new postmodern attitude to persecution means that the gospel can be restricted by ideologically opposed governments with impunity.
Fifthly, Postmodernism has changed the way that unconverted people interpret the gospel in Postmodern countries, such as North America, Europe and the educated class in South Africa. When Modernism was popular, people generally derided the gospel as ‘unscientific’ or ‘backward’ and did not want to hear it. Now with Postmodernism, they are quite happy to listen, but re-interpret the gospel through a postmodern lens. They view the presentation of the gospel as just an account of someone’s personal preference and experiences – not a challenge to repent of sin against a Holy God. Therefore we have to emphasise and repeat those aspects of the gospel which are politically incorrect until they hopefully get the idea that this is THE TRUTH, THE ONLY WAY no ‘a truth’, or ‘a way’. We have to emphasise that the gospel is absolute and the only truth. Sadly, I believe that much media presentation of the gospel is wrongly interpreted by the listeners and thus they miss it.
Modernism/Liberalism gutted the missions efforts of the mainline Protestant Churches in the 1920’s and 30’s. Postmodernism and the Emerging Church threaten to do the same to modern missions. Therefore as part of the task of world evangelism and missions, the ideology of postmodernism and the Emerging church must be fought and defeated at home.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Are aspects of the Emerging Church compatable with Christian faith?
I changed the heading of this post following some detailed and interesting comments below, to better describe the topic of the comments received. Please read comments below.
Baptist Union responds to Codrington's homosexual article
The Baptist Union of South Africa (BUSA) has recently responded to the publication of Graeme Codrington's article in their magazine by reaffirming their position against same-sex partnerships and saying that it was a serious error of judgment to publish a “perspective” that is neither evangelical nor representative of the Baptist Union.
Their statement passed by unanimous resolution with no abstentions at the recent 2008 General Assembly meeting stated:
SCRIPTURE AND “LOVING GAY PARTNERSHIPS
The BUSA reaffirms its conviction, based on the authority of Scripture, that God ordained marriage as a unique heterosexual union between a man and a woman. The Bible does not recognise the legitimacy of “same sex marriage”. On the contrary, the physical expression of same gender sexuality is condemned as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.
We confess that the church has often failed to display the love of Christ in ministering to gay people. However, our conviction about homosexual practice isn’t motivated by a loveless legalism or homophobia but rather by our obedience to the clear teaching of Scripture. We believe that the re-interpretation of the Biblical texts, so as to allow for a “loving gay partnership”, is a distortion of what the Bible consistently teaches.
Their statement passed by unanimous resolution with no abstentions at the recent 2008 General Assembly meeting stated:
SCRIPTURE AND “LOVING GAY PARTNERSHIPS
The BUSA reaffirms its conviction, based on the authority of Scripture, that God ordained marriage as a unique heterosexual union between a man and a woman. The Bible does not recognise the legitimacy of “same sex marriage”. On the contrary, the physical expression of same gender sexuality is condemned as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.
We confess that the church has often failed to display the love of Christ in ministering to gay people. However, our conviction about homosexual practice isn’t motivated by a loveless legalism or homophobia but rather by our obedience to the clear teaching of Scripture. We believe that the re-interpretation of the Biblical texts, so as to allow for a “loving gay partnership”, is a distortion of what the Bible consistently teaches.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Response to re-interpretation of Scriptures on homosexuality
Response to re-interpretation of Scriptures on homosexuality
[Introductory note by blog editor Philip Rosenthal: The following article is a response to an article 'Perspectives on homosexuality' by Graeme Codrington published in Issue 3, 2008 of Baptists Today. Codrington's article concludes "Every single text dealing with homosexual activity in the Bible also refers aggravating circumstances such as inhospitality, idolatory, shrine prostitution, adultery, promiscuity, lust, violence and rape. Not one of these verses has a monogamous relationship in mind. Not one! Condemning someone to eternal damnation on such tenuous evidence would therefore seem a very dangerous thing to do..." Codrington is a leading proponent of the Emerging Church in South Africa www.futurechurch.co.za and it is understood that his views are influenced by a postmodern/emergent interpretation of scripture.]
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality
--------------------------------------------------
Following article by Rev Mark Christopher, Living Hope Bible Church, Wynberg
It is often true that the debate surrounding the issue of homosexuality and the church has produced more heat than light. Certainly as custodians of God’s word, the church has a tremendous responsibility to address current issues, like homosexuality, in a biblically responsible way. We constantly need to remind ourselves that we must hold truth in one hand while clutching compassion in the other hand. The danger here is imbalance in either direction.
The popular maxim “What would Jesus do?” certainly applies to the issue of homosexuality. The problem today is that there are contrasting views and dissonant voices regarding just exactly what Jesus would do in response to homosexuals.
So why is there now confusion on an issue that has been fairly cut-and-dried for over 2000 years? What has changed? The answer is fairly simple and can be found in the advent of a new method of interpretation. Over the last 40 years there has been a subtle paradigm shift in the way some professing evangelicals interpret the Bible. As western society has become more postmodern, segments of the church, like the emerging church, have followed suite. In the process a New Hermeneutic has emerged to replace the literal and plain sense approach to God’s word.
One of the predominate characteristics of this new approach is that it does not simply refine the traditional method, but it completely revises it by starting with the interpreter’s context instead of the original author’s. This produces a high degree of subjectivity and suspicion, which is then injected into the text as the interpreter seeks a revised understanding of what has been plainly understood for centuries.
The postmodern interpretation gave rise to the pro-gay interpretation (PGI)
of the Bible. The PGI is heavily reliant on current culture and various philosophical streams of existential thought. This leads to the exchange of word meanings while critical aspects of a verses’ context are ignored. Sodom in Genesis 19:5 illustrates this well : PGI advocates erroneously claim the phrase “that we might know them” (yada) refers to hospitality. Yet, 19:8 uses yada in an obvious context of sexuality. The PGI conveniently avoid 19:8.
As it relates to homosexuality, the PGI begins with two cardinal presuppositions which clouds their interpretation and application of related verses : The first assumption PGI practitioners begin with is that homosexuality is a result of genetic orientation. This has never been satisfactorily proven. The science used to promote this idea is dubious at best. While it might be that some are inclined toward homosexuality that is not the same as saying one is consigned to that lifestyle. If one is only inclined, then change is possible for a new creature in Christ! Science, whether good or bad, should never serve as the launching pad for our interpretation.
The second assumption of the PGI approach supposes since homosexuality is a result of orientation, then surely there must be some allowance in scripture for those of same-sex persuasion to be true to themselves. The caveat here specifies a “loving and monogamous relationship”. Never mind that the term monogamous refers to marriage (gamos) not a stable live-in situation.
This whole idea runs directly counter to the many studies done regarding “monogamous” homosexual relationships. In the study The Male Couple 156 male couples were studied and only 7 couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship. Interestingly, all 7 couples had been together less than 5 years. The research suggests that monogamy is quite rare in homosexual couples and is the exception rather than the rule. It is therefore unrealistic to entertain the notion of relational fidelity among same-sex couples in the church.
Rather than relying on the two fallow assumptions above, we want to take our queue from one bedrock passage, Genesis 1-3. For in Genesis God established His unchanging boundaries for human sexuality within the context of a heterosexual marriage. This, combined with an understanding of the role of the Old Testament (OT) law in the New Testament (NT), should form the basis for rightly evaluating pro-gay arguments in the rest of scripture.
Genesis 1-3 is often overlooked by PGI advocates. Yet, we ignore this essential passage and its foundational forming truths to our own detriment. Though these three chapters do not speak directly of homosexuality, the foundation for understanding God’s parameters for human sexuality and gender distinction are well established here. Let us consider six contextual observations from creation that directly impact the rest of scripture. These should serve to frame the homosexual debate:
· Creation order : The first two chapters of Genesis quickly establish a pattern of creation order (1:1-2:24). The ancient Hebrew acquired his view of order based on the creative and sustaining power of Yahweh. The “goodness” in creation lies in its ordered state. An example of this principle is found in the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus 18: 1-30, which were given to restore and preserve God’s “good” order. Leviticus 18 details how social order in Israel was only “good” when the social network of familial relationships is properly ordered. Therefore, incest violates the order of kinship (18:6-18); homosexuality violates the order of gender distinction (18:22); and bestiality violates the order of species (18:23). These sexual boundaries were established at creation. Any violation here introduces chaos and confusion into human relationships, as our own age amply testifies.
· Gender distinction : Genesis 1:26-28 uses specific terminology to establish the distinction between the sexes—male (ish) and female (issha). The general term used for “man” in the OT is adam (1:26), which speaks of humankind as a species. Genesis 1:27 uniquely differentiates adam into specific genders of male and female. Both unique biology and chromosomal distinction bear witness to this. This vital distinction is maintained throughout the whole of scripture.
· God’s image : As a subsequent corollary, Genesis 1:26-28 declares that man is distinct from the rest of creation because humanity is created in the image of God. Both genders reflect that image in very different, yet, complementary ways. A man and a woman together in a marital relationship mirror the image of God in ways the rest of creation can not. Any attempt to change this image through the androgynizing effects (merging of the sexes) of homosexuality, transexuality, or transvestism results in marring God’s image.
· Procreation : In Genesis 1:28 the man and the woman are blessed with the task of being the progenitors of the human race. In this, procreation is portrayed in a positive and normative light. This heterosexual union is the standard relationship for achieving this according to Genesis 2:24. Though procreation is not the only reason for sexuality, it is a very good reason which is often neglected and scoffed at in our pansexual age.
· Marriage : The first marriage is recorded in Genesis 2:18-25. The only aspect of God’s pre-fall creation that was “not good” was Adam being alone. So God blessed Adam with a complement (help meet) who made up that which was lacking in Adam! Though Eve was very different from Adam, she was still much like him. She was the perfect corresponding opposite for Adam. It is this relationship that ultimately serves to mirror and illustrate the relationship that Christ has with His bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). To reinforce his argument, Paul reaffirms the creation ideal as he makes this comparison (Gen.2:24; Matt.19:5; Mark 10:7ff)! Clearly, same-sex relationships can never adequately reflect the relationship Christ has with His Bride.
John Piper summarizes the original purpose for marriage well, “Eve was like Adam yet very unlike him … this provides a unique opportunity for profound unity, and intimacy to exist. In this we see that God created heterosexuality not homosexuality. God’s first institution was marriage not fraternity.”
· Reaffirmed : One might rightly ask if the creation account is maintained throughout scripture? Did God ever amend His plan? Significantly, when Christ was being grilled by the Pharisees on the issue of divorce, how did He respond? In Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:5-9, Jesus reasserted the creation mandate from Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:24! Even in light of the fall, God’s original blueprint remains unaltered. The fall and the resulting curse just make it more difficult to maintain. This highlights the need for redemption.
Those who maintain that Jesus never condemned homosexuality rely on unconvincing arguments from silence. Christ never condemned other forms of sexual deviancy either--like bestiality, peadophilia, incest, necrophilia, or fornication. But when He underscored the Genesis account for marriage He said all that ever needed to be said on the issue. By reaffirming the creation ideal of heterosexual monogamy, Jesus covered all the potential bases in one succinct and definitive statement!
Another biblical context that is often summarily dismissed in the PGI scheme is the place of OT law in the NT. PGI logic assumes that passages like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are just as irrelevant as dietary laws and the mixing of fabrics. Yet, Romans 10:4 declares that “Christ is the end of the law.” This means Christ was the crescendo of the law. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In view of His finished work on the cross, Christ is now superimposed over the Mosaic law and has transformed it into the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2).
So the law remains an authoritative part of scripture. But now law must be read through the lens of the cross. For example, we do not need animal sacrifice to stand in the presence of God, but we do need sacrifice—the sacrifice of Christ. Likewise, the husband who loves his wife, as Christ does the Church, will duly consider his menstruating wife’s (Leviticus 20:18) needs and condition above and beyond his own.
The law of Christ insures moral unity exists between the OT and NT. It has always been wrong to murder, rape, steal, to have sexual relations with an animal, to commit adultery, and to commit homosexual acts. God’s standard of righteousness has never been altered, but these righteous demands were met by Christ.
In light of His affirmation of the creation account, plus His perspective on the law, how would Christ respond to homosexuality today (WWJD)? The literal method of interpretation can confidently assert that Jesus would unashamedly preach the gospel, as He did to the woman at the well in John 4 and the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11. Upon repentance, He would utter these glorious words of liberty, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.”! How can His church do any less?
(Note: Due the space limitations it was not possible to deal with many arguments often marshaled by the pro-gay advocates. Those wanting a summary paper answering many of arguments can download this summary at www.lhbc.co.za . Just follow the link Papers and Booklets.)
[Introductory note by blog editor Philip Rosenthal: The following article is a response to an article 'Perspectives on homosexuality' by Graeme Codrington published in Issue 3, 2008 of Baptists Today. Codrington's article concludes "Every single text dealing with homosexual activity in the Bible also refers aggravating circumstances such as inhospitality, idolatory, shrine prostitution, adultery, promiscuity, lust, violence and rape. Not one of these verses has a monogamous relationship in mind. Not one! Condemning someone to eternal damnation on such tenuous evidence would therefore seem a very dangerous thing to do..." Codrington is a leading proponent of the Emerging Church in South Africa www.futurechurch.co.za and it is understood that his views are influenced by a postmodern/emergent interpretation of scripture.]
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality
--------------------------------------------------
Following article by Rev Mark Christopher, Living Hope Bible Church, Wynberg
It is often true that the debate surrounding the issue of homosexuality and the church has produced more heat than light. Certainly as custodians of God’s word, the church has a tremendous responsibility to address current issues, like homosexuality, in a biblically responsible way. We constantly need to remind ourselves that we must hold truth in one hand while clutching compassion in the other hand. The danger here is imbalance in either direction.
The popular maxim “What would Jesus do?” certainly applies to the issue of homosexuality. The problem today is that there are contrasting views and dissonant voices regarding just exactly what Jesus would do in response to homosexuals.
So why is there now confusion on an issue that has been fairly cut-and-dried for over 2000 years? What has changed? The answer is fairly simple and can be found in the advent of a new method of interpretation. Over the last 40 years there has been a subtle paradigm shift in the way some professing evangelicals interpret the Bible. As western society has become more postmodern, segments of the church, like the emerging church, have followed suite. In the process a New Hermeneutic has emerged to replace the literal and plain sense approach to God’s word.
One of the predominate characteristics of this new approach is that it does not simply refine the traditional method, but it completely revises it by starting with the interpreter’s context instead of the original author’s. This produces a high degree of subjectivity and suspicion, which is then injected into the text as the interpreter seeks a revised understanding of what has been plainly understood for centuries.
The postmodern interpretation gave rise to the pro-gay interpretation (PGI)
of the Bible. The PGI is heavily reliant on current culture and various philosophical streams of existential thought. This leads to the exchange of word meanings while critical aspects of a verses’ context are ignored. Sodom in Genesis 19:5 illustrates this well : PGI advocates erroneously claim the phrase “that we might know them” (yada) refers to hospitality. Yet, 19:8 uses yada in an obvious context of sexuality. The PGI conveniently avoid 19:8.
As it relates to homosexuality, the PGI begins with two cardinal presuppositions which clouds their interpretation and application of related verses : The first assumption PGI practitioners begin with is that homosexuality is a result of genetic orientation. This has never been satisfactorily proven. The science used to promote this idea is dubious at best. While it might be that some are inclined toward homosexuality that is not the same as saying one is consigned to that lifestyle. If one is only inclined, then change is possible for a new creature in Christ! Science, whether good or bad, should never serve as the launching pad for our interpretation.
The second assumption of the PGI approach supposes since homosexuality is a result of orientation, then surely there must be some allowance in scripture for those of same-sex persuasion to be true to themselves. The caveat here specifies a “loving and monogamous relationship”. Never mind that the term monogamous refers to marriage (gamos) not a stable live-in situation.
This whole idea runs directly counter to the many studies done regarding “monogamous” homosexual relationships. In the study The Male Couple 156 male couples were studied and only 7 couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship. Interestingly, all 7 couples had been together less than 5 years. The research suggests that monogamy is quite rare in homosexual couples and is the exception rather than the rule. It is therefore unrealistic to entertain the notion of relational fidelity among same-sex couples in the church.
Rather than relying on the two fallow assumptions above, we want to take our queue from one bedrock passage, Genesis 1-3. For in Genesis God established His unchanging boundaries for human sexuality within the context of a heterosexual marriage. This, combined with an understanding of the role of the Old Testament (OT) law in the New Testament (NT), should form the basis for rightly evaluating pro-gay arguments in the rest of scripture.
Genesis 1-3 is often overlooked by PGI advocates. Yet, we ignore this essential passage and its foundational forming truths to our own detriment. Though these three chapters do not speak directly of homosexuality, the foundation for understanding God’s parameters for human sexuality and gender distinction are well established here. Let us consider six contextual observations from creation that directly impact the rest of scripture. These should serve to frame the homosexual debate:
· Creation order : The first two chapters of Genesis quickly establish a pattern of creation order (1:1-2:24). The ancient Hebrew acquired his view of order based on the creative and sustaining power of Yahweh. The “goodness” in creation lies in its ordered state. An example of this principle is found in the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus 18: 1-30, which were given to restore and preserve God’s “good” order. Leviticus 18 details how social order in Israel was only “good” when the social network of familial relationships is properly ordered. Therefore, incest violates the order of kinship (18:6-18); homosexuality violates the order of gender distinction (18:22); and bestiality violates the order of species (18:23). These sexual boundaries were established at creation. Any violation here introduces chaos and confusion into human relationships, as our own age amply testifies.
· Gender distinction : Genesis 1:26-28 uses specific terminology to establish the distinction between the sexes—male (ish) and female (issha). The general term used for “man” in the OT is adam (1:26), which speaks of humankind as a species. Genesis 1:27 uniquely differentiates adam into specific genders of male and female. Both unique biology and chromosomal distinction bear witness to this. This vital distinction is maintained throughout the whole of scripture.
· God’s image : As a subsequent corollary, Genesis 1:26-28 declares that man is distinct from the rest of creation because humanity is created in the image of God. Both genders reflect that image in very different, yet, complementary ways. A man and a woman together in a marital relationship mirror the image of God in ways the rest of creation can not. Any attempt to change this image through the androgynizing effects (merging of the sexes) of homosexuality, transexuality, or transvestism results in marring God’s image.
· Procreation : In Genesis 1:28 the man and the woman are blessed with the task of being the progenitors of the human race. In this, procreation is portrayed in a positive and normative light. This heterosexual union is the standard relationship for achieving this according to Genesis 2:24. Though procreation is not the only reason for sexuality, it is a very good reason which is often neglected and scoffed at in our pansexual age.
· Marriage : The first marriage is recorded in Genesis 2:18-25. The only aspect of God’s pre-fall creation that was “not good” was Adam being alone. So God blessed Adam with a complement (help meet) who made up that which was lacking in Adam! Though Eve was very different from Adam, she was still much like him. She was the perfect corresponding opposite for Adam. It is this relationship that ultimately serves to mirror and illustrate the relationship that Christ has with His bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). To reinforce his argument, Paul reaffirms the creation ideal as he makes this comparison (Gen.2:24; Matt.19:5; Mark 10:7ff)! Clearly, same-sex relationships can never adequately reflect the relationship Christ has with His Bride.
John Piper summarizes the original purpose for marriage well, “Eve was like Adam yet very unlike him … this provides a unique opportunity for profound unity, and intimacy to exist. In this we see that God created heterosexuality not homosexuality. God’s first institution was marriage not fraternity.”
· Reaffirmed : One might rightly ask if the creation account is maintained throughout scripture? Did God ever amend His plan? Significantly, when Christ was being grilled by the Pharisees on the issue of divorce, how did He respond? In Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:5-9, Jesus reasserted the creation mandate from Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:24! Even in light of the fall, God’s original blueprint remains unaltered. The fall and the resulting curse just make it more difficult to maintain. This highlights the need for redemption.
Those who maintain that Jesus never condemned homosexuality rely on unconvincing arguments from silence. Christ never condemned other forms of sexual deviancy either--like bestiality, peadophilia, incest, necrophilia, or fornication. But when He underscored the Genesis account for marriage He said all that ever needed to be said on the issue. By reaffirming the creation ideal of heterosexual monogamy, Jesus covered all the potential bases in one succinct and definitive statement!
Another biblical context that is often summarily dismissed in the PGI scheme is the place of OT law in the NT. PGI logic assumes that passages like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are just as irrelevant as dietary laws and the mixing of fabrics. Yet, Romans 10:4 declares that “Christ is the end of the law.” This means Christ was the crescendo of the law. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In view of His finished work on the cross, Christ is now superimposed over the Mosaic law and has transformed it into the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2).
So the law remains an authoritative part of scripture. But now law must be read through the lens of the cross. For example, we do not need animal sacrifice to stand in the presence of God, but we do need sacrifice—the sacrifice of Christ. Likewise, the husband who loves his wife, as Christ does the Church, will duly consider his menstruating wife’s (Leviticus 20:18) needs and condition above and beyond his own.
The law of Christ insures moral unity exists between the OT and NT. It has always been wrong to murder, rape, steal, to have sexual relations with an animal, to commit adultery, and to commit homosexual acts. God’s standard of righteousness has never been altered, but these righteous demands were met by Christ.
In light of His affirmation of the creation account, plus His perspective on the law, how would Christ respond to homosexuality today (WWJD)? The literal method of interpretation can confidently assert that Jesus would unashamedly preach the gospel, as He did to the woman at the well in John 4 and the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11. Upon repentance, He would utter these glorious words of liberty, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.”! How can His church do any less?
(Note: Due the space limitations it was not possible to deal with many arguments often marshaled by the pro-gay advocates. Those wanting a summary paper answering many of arguments can download this summary at www.lhbc.co.za . Just follow the link Papers and Booklets.)
Friday, August 15, 2008
Why so much interest in Emerging Church in South Africa?
Please click the link below to see some really interesting data on Google searches on the term 'emerging church'. South Africa ranks second after the United States, which is amazing considering our small population with broadband access. I was told by a Scottish minister that the Emerging church is not making much of an impact in the United Kingdom compared with America. Also interesting the number of Emerging Church leaders who have recently been in South Africa or are currently here: Brian McLaren, Scott McKnight, Shane Claireborne. I can't say what the reason is, but wonder if factors could include a post-apartheid and post-marxism ideological vacuum, which it is trying to fill. Also note the publicity it has had in the past 12 months with articles in Today Magazine, Joy Magazine and Baptists Today. So not all these searches are people necessarily in favour of it, but maybe just curious as to what it is about.
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=emerging%20church&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=emerging%20church&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Emergents respond to Joy magazine article on Emerging Church
Certain Emerging Church supporters have responded to the July 2008 article on the Emerging Church.
http://www.emergingafrica.info/blog/2008/08/06/joy-magazine-ec
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/lies-about-truth
I also posted some dialogue responding on the first blog.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Useful Web links on the Emerging Church Movement
Useful Web links on the Emerging Church Movement
* The main group promoting the emerging church in South Africa is http://www.futurechurch.co.za/
* Examples of unbiblical quotations from principal Emerging Church leaders:
- Brian McClaren http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
- Rob Bell http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2007/03/rob-bells-unbiblical-views.html
http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/freswick_casey_feb06_v56_n02.htm
- Steve Chalke http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Message-Jesus-Steve-Chalke/dp/customer-reviews/0310248825
* A chart comparing post-modernism to other worldviews:
http://www.summit.org/resources/worldview_chart/#wv-chart-expl
* Overview of movement (mostly in favour but including some balancing criticism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* A list of some key leaders opposing the emerging church movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* Helpful web sites against the Emerging Church are:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Emerging-Church/
http://www.honeyridge.co.za/node/148
http://postbiblical.info/
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
http://www.9marks.org/
* The main group promoting the emerging church in South Africa is http://www.futurechurch.co.za/
* Examples of unbiblical quotations from principal Emerging Church leaders:
- Brian McClaren http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
- Rob Bell http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2007/03/rob-bells-unbiblical-views.html
http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/freswick_casey_feb06_v56_n02.htm
- Steve Chalke http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Message-Jesus-Steve-Chalke/dp/customer-reviews/0310248825
* A chart comparing post-modernism to other worldviews:
http://www.summit.org/resources/worldview_chart/#wv-chart-expl
* Overview of movement (mostly in favour but including some balancing criticism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* A list of some key leaders opposing the emerging church movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* Helpful web sites against the Emerging Church are:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Emerging-Church/
http://www.honeyridge.co.za/node/148
http://postbiblical.info/
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
http://www.9marks.org/
100 words to explain the Emerging Church
100 words to explain the Emerging Church (by Philip Rosenthal)
Previously published in Joy Magazine 2008
The 'Emerging Church' is an attempt to respond to the philosophy of Postmodernism by accommodating it in the church to varying degrees, both in doctrine and in practice. Postmodernism values experiences, stories, relationships and feelings, but devalues absolute truth and questions our ability to know it certainly. It also encourages mixing of different ideas and methods without trying to logically fit them together. Aspects, of the Emerging Church, such as experimenting with new service formats, are not always harmful. But when these assumptions are used to interpret Biblical doctrine or ethics, it can result in serious error, doubt, weakness, confusion and moral relativism. We must defend the gospel against this undermining of our confidence in truth.
Previously published in Joy Magazine 2008
The 'Emerging Church' is an attempt to respond to the philosophy of Postmodernism by accommodating it in the church to varying degrees, both in doctrine and in practice. Postmodernism values experiences, stories, relationships and feelings, but devalues absolute truth and questions our ability to know it certainly. It also encourages mixing of different ideas and methods without trying to logically fit them together. Aspects, of the Emerging Church, such as experimenting with new service formats, are not always harmful. But when these assumptions are used to interpret Biblical doctrine or ethics, it can result in serious error, doubt, weakness, confusion and moral relativism. We must defend the gospel against this undermining of our confidence in truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)