Conversation involve questions. The asking of questions is either meant to illicit and answer or to provoke thought that provides an answer, even if the answer is a tentative “I don’t know.” I often tell my students that it is better to have an informed “I don’t know” than a forced make-ready answer.

When it comes to Christ, when it comes to following Christ, when it comes to who Christ is and what he did, there are some questions that need to be asked. The answers to these questions will and do divide. The division regards differences in beliefs, convictions, or knowledge concerning the object.

Christ asked Peter a very divisive question: “Who do you say that I am?” Others had differing opinions. Some said Elijah. Others John the Baptist. The contrastive de tells us that Christ was asking what Peter thought in contrast to what the others thought. “You are the Christ, the son of the living God,” he answered (Matt. 16:16). With this answer Peter contrasted his beliefs about Christ with all the others who gave different options. Peter believed he was right and the others wrong.

This was an early confession, a creed, a statement of faith that was in response to a question. It was not from the lips of Christ, but one of his followers. Peter was the first to put his theology into a creed. This creed not only separated him from other contemporaries, but has separated Christianity as a confession of faith from all other alternatives since. “Who do you say that I am?”

But this was not the end. As I will attempt to demonstrate, there was a progressive development of a creedal belief in the New Testament that distinguished Christianity as a distinct system of belief.

By the time Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians (56AD), there was already the workings of a defined Christian creed. Not only was Christianity defined by a belief in Christ as the son of God, but added to this was the confession of Christ’s death burial and resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

Paul says that this was of “first importance.” In other words, this was essential to the Christian faith. As well, Paul says that he “received” this. It was given over to him and he “delivered” it to others. It was already part of the Christian tradition. As Keener notes in the IVP Bible Background Commentary,

“Handed on to you … what I had received†is the language of what scholars call “traditioning.†Jewish teachers would pass on their teachings to their students, who would in turn pass them on to their own students. The students could take notes, but they delighted especially in oral memorization and became quite skilled at it; memorization was a central feature of ancient education. In the first generation, the tradition would be very accurate; this tradition may even be a verbatim citation.“

This was an established creed of the day, it was part of the tradition that was being handed down. This “tradition” is often referred to as the paradosis or the “things received or handed on.”

Paul further illustrates how this Christian creedal tradition included a belief and confession of Christ’s ontological identity with the father as well as his present Lordship in Phil 2.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:5-11)

Paul borrows language commonly used in Greek homonoia speeches (cf. Keener). This passage is believed to be a creedal hymn that was pre-Pauline in origin (probably beginning in v. 6). It was part of the kerygmatic (preaching) essence of the Gospel (Ralph Martin, Word Biblical Commentary).

This developing creedal tradition that separated Christianity as a definite system of belief is further seen in Paul’s second letter to Timothy. There were more questions that had to be answered and your answer would separate you from the alternatives.

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. 11 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; 12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; 13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. 14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. (2 Timothy 2:10-14)

This verse, like the previous, starting in v. 11 and ending in v. 13, is believed to be a well established statement of faith that was put to a rhythmic hymn. It was probably used at one’s baptism. Notice Paul introduction in verse 11, “It is a trustworthy statement . . .” The “statement” was already part of this baptismal song. Notice the rhythm and parallel structure.

For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him
If we endure, we will also reign with Him

If we deny Him, He also will deny us
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself

More importantly, notice the creedal additions. Added to the early Christian kerygma was the admonition for us to die with him. This was not a literal death, but one in which our old self dies with Christ—which often carried the implication of suffering and possible death. The Christian confession that was put to hymn was that if we die with him we will live with him. But just as important in this early Christian creed was the warning that if we deny him he will also deny us. This is a statement of divine judgment. Paul tell Timothy to “remind them of these things.” The reminder again implies that it was a teaching already well established in the early Church. As well, the reminder serves as a warning that their are distinctives in belief that the Church must uphold.

Jude speaks of these distinctive beliefs, this creed, this doctrinal distinction, this paradosis, this kerygma when he talks about contending for/fighting for the faith “once for all handed over [paradidomi] to the saints.”

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3 )

There was a definite system of belief that defined early Christian orthodoxy (”right teaching”).

What does all this mean? It means that the early church was well on their way to having a definite set of beliefs that distinguished them from outsiders. They had a definite orthodoxy. The taking of the name Christian had meaning. Yes, it had much to do with the way one lives (orthopraxy), but, as we have seen, it also had to do with what one believes (orthodoxy). The early church was creedal. One’s “membership” in the church was dependent first on what one believed—on how one answered certain questions.

I know that one of the taboos of our emerging generation is that we don’t like labels. I understand. Labels can be misunderstood, nuanced according to traditions, and controlling in a very bad way (try wearing the label “dispensationalist”!). We also don’t like to make judgment calls, especially when it comes to orthodoxy. We don’t want to say who is in and who is out. We don’t like to have “orthodoxy” at all.

While I am not in favor of over-defining our orthodoxy to such a degree where, in the end, the only one truly orthodox is your traditional circle (the “us-four-and-no-more-and-I-am-not-sure-about-you-three mentality), there are questions that must be asked. The answer to these questions will divide us from others. Wrong answers to these questions will place one outside of the Christian creedal confession.Â

Who do you say that Christ is?

What is the Gospel?

What did Christ do?

What is our need?

What are we to do?

What happens if we don’t believe?

What happens if we do believe?

What is our authority?

What defines right behavior?

If one believes right about questions like these, then he or she is orthodox because he or she has answered in distinction to the false options. But if someone gets these questions wrong, he or she is outside of Christian orthodoxy (heterodox).

It is important to note that if someone says they don’t know what the answers are, this is honest and noble, but we must recognize that an ”I don’t know” answer does not define orthodoxy, it defines indecision. If Peter would have answered Christ’s question “Who do you say that I am?” with “I don’t know” or “I can’t say for certain” or “Answering such a question would label me and I don’t like labels” or “Any answer I give is going to make someone angry, so I prefer not to answer” these would have amounted to a wrong answer—an unorthodox answer.

We don’t define the right answers any more than Peter did. God does. We discover them. There are difficulties, yes. We need to be humble in our approach to such issues. But we need to understand that there is a right answer and a wrong answer. The right answers have been a major part of what defines Christian orthodoxy from the very beginning, the wrong answer is outside of Christian orthodoxy.

I encourage all of us who empathize with postmodern skepticism, doubt, and suspicion to understand that our tendencies toward these attitudes does not define or redefine orthodoxy. Orthodoxy has been established from the very beginning. If we deny orthodoxy a place—a definite and important place—we are outside of orthodoxy.

Once orthodoxy is defined, recognized, and acknowledged the inevitable outcome will be separation. There will be those who are within the bounds of orthodoxy and those that are outside its bounds. There will be those with right answers, like Peter, and those with wrong answers, like the others. We will have to make judgment calls if we are going to “contend” for the faith.

While we must recognize that not all orthodoxy is equal and being unorthodox in some issues is worse than being so in others, this recognition cannot relativize our contending for the faith that was once for all handed on to the saint—the faith handed to you.

Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Conversation involve questions. The asking of questions is either meant to illicit and answer or to provoke thought that provides an answer, even if the answer is a tentative “I don’t know.” I often tell my students that it is better to have an informed “I don’t know” than a forced make-ready answer.

When it comes to Christ, when it comes to following Christ, when it comes to who Christ is and what he did, there are some questions that need to be asked. The answers to these questions will and do divide. The division regards differences in beliefs, convictions, or knowledge concerning the object.

Christ asked Peter a very divisive question: “Who do you say that I am?” Others had differing opinions. Some said Elijah. Others John the Baptist. The contrastive de tells us that Christ was asking what Peter thought in contrast to what the others thought. “You are the Christ, the son of the living God,” he answered (Matt. 16:16). With this answer Peter contrasted his beliefs about Christ with all the others who gave different options. Peter believed he was right and the others wrong.

This was an early confession, a creed, a statement of faith that was in response to a question. It was not from the lips of Christ, but one of his followers. Peter was the first to put his theology into a creed. This creed not only separated him from other contemporaries, but has separated Christianity as a confession of faith from all other alternatives since. “Who do you say that I am?”

But this was not the end. As I will attempt to demonstrate, there was a progressive development of a creedal belief in the New Testament that distinguished Christianity as a distinct system of belief.

By the time Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians (56AD), there was already the workings of a defined Christian creed. Not only was Christianity defined by a belief in Christ as the son of God, but added to this was the confession of Christ’s death burial and resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

Paul says that this was of “first importance.” In other words, this was essential to the Christian faith. As well, Paul says that he “received” this. It was given over to him and he “delivered” it to others. It was already part of the Christian tradition. As Keener notes in the IVP Bible Background Commentary,

“Handed on to you … what I had received†is the language of what scholars call “traditioning.†Jewish teachers would pass on their teachings to their students, who would in turn pass them on to their own students. The students could take notes, but they delighted especially in oral memorization and became quite skilled at it; memorization was a central feature of ancient education. In the first generation, the tradition would be very accurate; this tradition may even be a verbatim citation.“

This was an established creed of the day, it was part of the tradition that was being handed down. This “tradition” is often referred to as the paradosis or the “things received or handed on.”

Paul further illustrates how this Christian creedal tradition included a belief and confession of Christ’s ontological identity with the father as well as his present Lordship in Phil 2.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:5-11)

Paul borrows language commonly used in Greek homonoia speeches (cf. Keener). This passage is believed to be a creedal hymn that was pre-Pauline in origin (probably beginning in v. 6). It was part of the kerygmatic (preaching) essence of the Gospel (Ralph Martin, Word Biblical Commentary).

This developing creedal tradition that separated Christianity as a definite system of belief is further seen in Paul’s second letter to Timothy. There were more questions that had to be answered and your answer would separate you from the alternatives.

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. 11 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; 12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; 13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. 14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. (2 Timothy 2:10-14)

This verse, like the previous, starting in v. 11 and ending in v. 13, is believed to be a well established statement of faith that was put to a rhythmic hymn. It was probably used at one’s baptism. Notice Paul introduction in verse 11, “It is a trustworthy statement . . .” The “statement” was already part of this baptismal song. Notice the rhythm and parallel structure.

For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him
If we endure, we will also reign with Him

If we deny Him, He also will deny us
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself

More importantly, notice the creedal additions. Added to the early Christian kerygma was the admonition for us to die with him. This was not a literal death, but one in which our old self dies with Christ—which often carried the implication of suffering and possible death. The Christian confession that was put to hymn was that if we die with him we will live with him. But just as important in this early Christian creed was the warning that if we deny him he will also deny us. This is a statement of divine judgment. Paul tell Timothy to “remind them of these things.” The reminder again implies that it was a teaching already well established in the early Church. As well, the reminder serves as a warning that their are distinctives in belief that the Church must uphold.

Jude speaks of these distinctive beliefs, this creed, this doctrinal distinction, this paradosis, this kerygma when he talks about contending for/fighting for the faith “once for all handed over [paradidomi] to the saints.”

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3 )

There was a definite system of belief that defined early Christian orthodoxy (”right teaching”).

What does all this mean? It means that the early church was well on their way to having a definite set of beliefs that distinguished them from outsiders. They had a definite orthodoxy. The taking of the name Christian had meaning. Yes, it had much to do with the way one lives (orthopraxy), but, as we have seen, it also had to do with what one believes (orthodoxy). The early church was creedal. One’s “membership” in the church was dependent first on what one believed—on how one answered certain questions.

I know that one of the taboos of our emerging generation is that we don’t like labels. I understand. Labels can be misunderstood, nuanced according to traditions, and controlling in a very bad way (try wearing the label “dispensationalist”!). We also don’t like to make judgment calls, especially when it comes to orthodoxy. We don’t want to say who is in and who is out. We don’t like to have “orthodoxy” at all.

While I am not in favor of over-defining our orthodoxy to such a degree where, in the end, the only one truly orthodox is your traditional circle (the “us-four-and-no-more-and-I-am-not-sure-about-you-three mentality), there are questions that must be asked. The answer to these questions will divide us from others. Wrong answers to these questions will place one outside of the Christian creedal confession.Â

Who do you say that Christ is?

What is the Gospel?

What did Christ do?

What is our need?

What are we to do?

What happens if we don’t believe?

What happens if we do believe?

What is our authority?

What defines right behavior?

If one believes right about questions like these, then he or she is orthodox because he or she has answered in distinction to the false options. But if someone gets these questions wrong, he or she is outside of Christian orthodoxy (heterodox).

It is important to note that if someone says they don’t know what the answers are, this is honest and noble, but we must recognize that an ”I don’t know” answer does not define orthodoxy, it defines indecision. If Peter would have answered Christ’s question “Who do you say that I am?” with “I don’t know” or “I can’t say for certain” or “Answering such a question would label me and I don’t like labels” or “Any answer I give is going to make someone angry, so I prefer not to answer” these would have amounted to a wrong answer—an unorthodox answer.

We don’t define the right answers any more than Peter did. God does. We discover them. There are difficulties, yes. We need to be humble in our approach to such issues. But we need to understand that there is a right answer and a wrong answer. The right answers have been a major part of what defines Christian orthodoxy from the very beginning, the wrong answer is outside of Christian orthodoxy.

I encourage all of us who empathize with postmodern skepticism, doubt, and suspicion to understand that our tendencies toward these attitudes does not define or redefine orthodoxy. Orthodoxy has been established from the very beginning. If we deny orthodoxy a place—a definite and important place—we are outside of orthodoxy.

Once orthodoxy is defined, recognized, and acknowledged the inevitable outcome will be separation. There will be those who are within the bounds of orthodoxy and those that are outside its bounds. There will be those with right answers, like Peter, and those with wrong answers, like the others. We will have to make judgment calls if we are going to “contend” for the faith.

While we must recognize that not all orthodoxy is equal and being unorthodox in some issues is worse than being so in others, this recognition cannot relativize our contending for the faith that was once for all handed on to the saint—the faith handed to you.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

It has been fun, interesting, discouraging,encouraging and enlightening to see the various reactions to the posts on the Emerging Church. As you would expect, there have been both positive and negative reactions. I thought that I would take the time to post links to some of these here so that you could get a balanced view of how people are responding, positive and negative.

One of the most common problems with the reactions is that most of these reactions either only post the chart or they only link to one part of what became a six-part series. Because of this, the main thrust of my intentions were sometimes misrepresented, being taken out of context. This is why I am going to follow this with a post that combines all parts into one. Hopefully future links will go to this complete post instead.

Positive:

Christians in Context

The Separation

In Proximity

Traveling Ancient Roads

SoCal Theologica

Joy in the Journey

Micah Fries

Personal Trainer

Ron’s Bloviating

An Accidental Blog

Normal Christian Life

Negative:

Tall Skinny Kiwi

Finitum non carpax infiniti (who has a chart of his own!–nice.)

Mending Shift

Emergent Village

Brad Boydston

Neutral:

Between Two Worlds

Dan Kimball

Submersive Influence

Jesus Under Plastic

Blue Like Elvis

Jesus Creed (Whole lot of comments. I dialogue a bit there)

Faith Maps

Phoenix Preacher (lots of comments)

Stuff out Loud

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Download as PDF

How does one define the emerging church? This is not an easy question to answer. Are you emerging? Maybe you are and you just don’t know it. It is very difficult to define exactly what it means to emerge. Sometimes its characteristics sound a lot like what Evangelical used to mean. Other times it sounds just like Liberal. Often it is hard to distinguish from neo-orthodox or even Eastern Orthodox. Many would just say that emergers are Christian Democrats!

If you compare yourself to a personality to determine whether you are emerging, it is no better. To whom do you choose to compare yourself? Brian McLaren? Doug Pagitt? Dan Kimball? Mark Driscoll?

1. If you go with Brian McLaren, then you may view emerging as somewhat of a political revolution.

2. If you go with Doug Pagitt, then you may see emerging as the hope of God’s redemption through a sort of quasi-universalism.

3. If you go with Dan Kimball, then you see emerging as a mission to win the lost with the essential message of the Gospel through kindness and understanding (sounds a bit like evangelicalism).

4. If you go with Mark Driscoll, then you may find it hard to distinguish emerging from a missional minded reformed evangelicalism.

Maybe its not that simple, but my point is that most of these fellows don’t seem like bed-fellows. In other words, it is hard to find the least common denominator with regards to their emerging distinction. They all call themselves emergers, but I don’t think that Driscoll would be too fond of being identified with Pagitt or McLaren. Kimball and Driscoll maybe, Pagitt and McLaren maybe, but not all of them together. It is hard to find the connection. If all of these guys are emerging, then what does emerging mean? Would the real emerger please stand up?

Part of the reason I write this post is because I just finished John MacArthur’s Truth War. While I really appreciate much of MacArthur’s work, I did not find this book helpful with regards to the emerging issue. In fact, I found it very unbalanced and ill-informed. He simply focused on one thought of one strand of the emerging movement. He did not distinguish between those who were guilty of his charges from those who were not. In this he mischaracterized many people and the movement as a whole. He choose one strand of emerging and presumed to attack the entire ununited movement as if it were united.

I also write this because I was recently identified as an emerger (which was news to me) by some of the more antagonist anti-emergers at a Bible conference. More importantly, I was placed along side of McLaren and Pagitt as a significant influence in the emerging movement. I did not see the connection at all.

I think it is important for us to recognize that there are many types of emergers. Let me attempt to give some perspective.

First, I think that it is important to distinguish between two meta-strands of emergers. Some would separate those that are emerging and those that are Emergent. I think this works well and is becoming more and more accepted. Emergent would be the more theologically liberal minded group of emergers. These are those that MacArthur went after with gloves off.

If you were to graph this out, adding a section for fundamentalism and liberalism, it would look something like this.

Notice there is overlap in many of these areas. There is an overlap of traditional evangelicalism and emerging. There is an overlap of Emergent and liberal. There is also an overlap between fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Traditional orthodoxy might be found in a balance between the extremes.

Here is how I would chart many of the popular emergers.

Notice, I would place many emergers outside the bounds of orthodoxy at least as it has been seen from a historic Christian standpoint. The reason being is that they deny many aspects of historic Christianity. Among other things, either their doctrine of judgment, the exclusivity of Christ, the atonement, or even theistic worldview is contrary to that of the historic Christian faith. Some would even deny or call into question just about every foundational doctrine to the Christian faith.

Don’t misunderstand the chart. D.A. Carson represents the best of traditional Evangelical scholarship. But being in the middle does not necessarily mean that I believe that he is more orthodox than Dan Kimball. He is just less emerging! John MacArthur is to the far left, not because he is in danger of stepping outside of traditional Evangelicalism into a heterodox form of fundamentalism, but because he is more fundamental and less emerging than the others. McLaren is right on the line between emerging and Emergent.

Well, thus far I have simply meant to communicate the defining emerging is not a simple task. The one thing that I would immediately caution people on is this: don’t lump all those who call themselves emerging into the same category reserved for heretics. We have to be more responsible than this. It is unfair and could damage people’s reputation. If you were to do this, how is that any less an evil than the evil you may be accusing them of?

Part 2: What is Orthodoxy?

Before my next post on what it means to be emerging, I thought it necessary to reiterate some issues about orthodoxy. I mentioned some in the Emergent strand of emergers that many would place outside “orthodoxy” and this seems to have upset some people because I, in their opinion, too closely associated “orthodoxy” with “evangelical” without qualification.

Well, this then becomes the question. What is “orthodoxy”? Let me offer you my thoughts so that you know where I am coming from and then tie to together with the emerging series the best I can.

The term orthodox can be defined in a few ways:

1. Historic Christian Orthodoxy: This refers to the sine qua non (the “without which not”) of Christian belief. This belief is held, to paraphrase Augustine, “by all Christians, of all time, everywhere.” In other words, it is not limited to time or geographical region. Therefore, it would be found very early in some sort of articulated fashion, though not necessarily in formal document, in the early church. Historic orthodoxy did take a few centuries to articulate in thought and word. It is unthinkable that in the first few centuries Christians would have developed in their understanding beyond a seed form of the basics below. They were too busy trying to stay alive, legitimize themselves to hostile Jews and Romans,  and encourage the local congregations. These basics were handed down in tradition (the regula fide) and Scripture.

In this case, a historically orthodox Christian would be one that believed in these essential elements:

• Deity of Christ
• Doctrine of the Trinity
• The Sovereignty of God
• The historicity of the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ 
• Hypostatic union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
• The sinfulness of man
• The necessity of the atonement
• Salvation by grace through faith
• The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal] Church)
• The authority of the visible body of Christ
• The inspiration of Scripture
• The canon of Scripture made up of the Old and New Testaments
• The future second coming

2. Traditional Orthodoxy: This focuses upon the further articulations and nuances of an individual tradition, implied or dogmatized. As the above doctrines developed in understanding, people began to part ways in their interpretation of these doctrines. Traditional orthodoxy takes time to develop since it comes primarily as a result of controversy and challenge. There is a Catholic orthodoxy, Protestant/Evangelical orthodoxy, and Eastern Orthodoxy traditional orthodoxy. I will list all three (although I could have missed something). Notice that the further articulations are inserted in bold.

Historic Protestant/Evangelical Orthodoxy

• Deity of Christ
• Doctrine of the Trinity
• The Sovereignty of God
• The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
• Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
• The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature, imputed guilt, and personal sinfulness
• The necessity of the vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross
• Salvation through grace alone by faith alone on the basis of Christ alone
• The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal] Church)
• The authority of the visible local bod[ies] of Christ
• The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture alone with final authority on all matters of faith.
• The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books) and New (27 books) Testaments
• The future second coming

Historic Roman Catholic Orthodoxy

• Deity of Christ
• Doctrine of the Trinity
• The Sovereignty of God
• The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
• Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
• The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature, imputed guilt, and personal sinfulness
• The necessity of the vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross
• Salvation by grace alone through faith as God works these out through our cooperation with Him
• The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal] Church) which subsists only, explicitly and implicitly, in the one true Catholic Church that resides under the ultimate authority of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.
• The infallible authority of the visible body of Christ as expressed by the Magisterial authority of Rome
• The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture.
• The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books + Deuterocanonical books/Apocrypha) and New (27 books) Testaments
• The future second coming

Historic Eastern Orthodox Orthodoxy

• Deity of Christ
• Doctrine of the Trinity
• The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
• Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
• The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature and personal sinfulness
• The necessity of the recapitulation found in Christ’s atonement in his life and on the Cross
• Salvation by grace through faith as God works these out through our unification with Him
• The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal] Church)
• The infallible authority of the visible body of Christ as expressed by the first seven ecumenical creeds
• The infallible inspiration of Scripture.
• The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books + the possible inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books/Apocrypha) and New (27 books) Testaments
• The future second coming

3. Denominational Orthodoxy: Finally, there is the further division that can be broken down as Protestants continue to further define each of these areas. Of course Calvinists would further define issues of salvation, election, security, and God’s meticulous sovereignty. Arminians would do the same emphasizing God’s universal atonement and God’s providential sovereignty. Baptists would add issues such as believers baptism and congregational style of leadership within the local church. As well, Catholics have continued to further define areas as well such as the Marian dogmas.

OK, so this is the question: What is Orthodoxy? It depends on what you mean. My thoughts are that we need to define our terms here and be careful with our pronouncement of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. One can be heretical with regards to a particular traditional or denominational orthodoxy, but this does not necessarily make them a heretic in the proper sense.

My thoughts are these: To be a heretic in the proper sense means that you deny a doctrine that has been held by all Christians of all time, everywhere. To be orthodox in a proper sense means that you affirm all the essential doctrines of historic Christianity.

My argument in the last post on the emerging church is that the emerging ethos does not necessarily give way to heterodoxy as some of my more conservative friends have been led to believe. It is a broader conversation that includes those that fall outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy and those who are well within its boarders. Yes, as we shall see, there is a common thread on the type of discussion and thought represented by emergers, but there are differences on where emergers land (or if they land at all).

From a historic evangelical perspective the assessment is the same. There is a comfortable overlap between emerging thought and evangelical belief. Yet, there is also a departure from historic evangelical orthodoxy. This, in-and-of-itself, does not make it right or wrong, nor does it make the questions or conversation invalid, it just helps to give us perspective when assessing the issue.

This chart was meant to represent the issue from an evangelical perspective. This is my main audience and, therefore, it is to whom I am primarily speaking. Yes, “evangelical” is very difficult to define these days—like emerging, but I believe that historic evangelicalism, properly defined, represents the truth of Christianity most accurately, even if it does so imperfectly. So for those of you who were surprised that I have the evangelical label so closely associated with “Orthodox Christianity” I have to ask you What did you expect? I am an evangelical. If I thought there were a better representative of truth then I would not be an Evangelical. Yet this does not mean that I am willing to exclude Catholics or Orthodox from historic orthodoxy. They are just not included in the subject I have been dealing with.

So I ask you to keep these distinctions in the term “Orthodoxy” in mind as we move forward in this series on emerging thought. 

As to why the chart has the conservatives on the left and the liberals on the right, I can’t answer this. Two possibilities: 1) I am left handed, therefore everything is backward in my world. 2) I was thinking more in terms of a time line (fundamentalism—evangelicalism—emerging—emergent), but that does not explain the placement of “liberal.” Oh well . . . as Jack Baur would say, “Deal with it!”

Part 3: An Emerging Definition of Emerging

Often when I begin a series on the emerging church people approach me with two questions: 1) “Am I emerging?” 2) “Are you emerging?” In both counts this is really a loaded question. I have a hard time answering it because I don’t know what they are really asking. It takes some further explaining before I am ever comfortable with such questions.

In the last post (”Will the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?“), I discussed the difficulty in finding a one-size-fits-all category for emergers as evidenced by the variety of leaders who claim the name. There is no one emerger that we can go to that represents the entire so-called “movement.” I then attempted to encourage people to see two primary strands of emergers—those that are simply emerging and a sub-set of those who are part of a more definite group of more liberal minded emergers called Emergent (closely associated with Emergent Village).

For this blog, I would like to narrow our definition of emerging by denying the label certain characteristics and giving a brief description of what I believe it means to be emerging.

What Emerging is Not:

The emerging church is not a church. It is important to realize that to label the emerging church as a church is misleading. Most people want to “go” to an emerging church to see what it is all about. I often tell them that this is not the best way to understand what emerging is all about. While there are “emerging” churches out there, the label emerging expresses something much more than a local assembly. Therefore, even though you may see people, including myself, call it the emerging “church,” this is not the best label and can be very misleading.

The emerging movement is not a movement. A movement implies a unified and organized group intent on bringing about change based in a set ideology. The emerging movement is neither unified nor organized. In fact, those who are “emerging” would take the label of a “movement,” in this sense and at this point in time, as an insult that represents the antithesis of what is going on. Therefore, even though you may hear many, including myself, refer to the emerging “movement,” it is not really such.

The emerging “church” should not be associated with the seeker-sensitive church. This is a very common misconception that I find. The seeker-sensitive church is a label used to describe those churches who seek to tailor all their church services and activities for the unbeliever. They try to create common ground with those outside the church. This common ground is found in the way the service is conducted. It might involve the type of music, the length of the sermon, type of entertainment, corporate professionalism, the casual dress, or the times of service. All the primary events are done in order for the unbeliever to feel comfortable while the Gospel is proclaimed. Seekers-sensitive churches want the bridge that one crosses from the culture to the church to be as small as possible.

Emergers, on the other hand, don’t have this philosophy. While many of the elements may look the same (casual dress, times of service, etc.) the reasons for this are completely different. It has to do with how the emerging community views culture. Emergers do not necessarily see the culture as evil as other traditions might. They don’t give people a taste of culture to lure them in and then attempt to change them, but they are the culture. This might help:

Relation to culture (forgive the stereotyping):

1. Fundamentalists: Separate from culture.

2. Evangelicals: Change the culture.

3. Emergers: We are the culture.

Remember the song ”We are the world”? Well emergers sing “We are the culture.” In this case, biblically minded emergers would distinguish between the apostle John’s definition of “world” (i.e. “Love not the world nor the things in the world”) from “culture.” The “world” is the expressions of a sin infected culture. Emergers would see God’s work in the culture just as much (if not more these days) as in the church. Therefore, they are one more step away from the fundamentalist philosophy of radical separation. They are not seeker-sensitive, but emerger-sensitive. Who are they being sensitive to? Themselves. Culture (believers and unbelievers). The imago dei in everyone. 

What Emerging Is?

Briefly, I believe the best way to get ones arms around what it means to emerge is to define it as a widespread ethos, or way of thinking. This way of thinking is held by those who explicitly call themselves emergers and by many who don’t. It represents an articulated and unarticulated dissatisfaction with the current way that the body of Christ is perceived by the outside world and, indeed, truly is.

This ethos finds expression not in church planting, revitalizations of local church assemblies, or the creation of new denominations, but through conversation—conversations with other like-minded thinkers. People emerge on internet blogs, in chat rooms, and in coffee shops. They emerge through a shared ethos that expresses dissatisfaction and seeks change. These emerging avenues provide people with safety to ask questions—theological questions—that stimulate a conversation. These theological questions come with no assumed answer. In fact, most of the time they are not meant to be answered. Try to answer these questions too quickly with a definite and/or clich answer and you will have immediately proved yourself disqualified from the emerging conversation. Why? Because you have illegitimized the question. You have insulted the intelligence of the emerging community by acting as if the questions that are bringing about conversation can be answered so thoughtlessly.

It is important to understand that many who are and have been dissatisfied with the church are apathetic to their own disdain. Their questions have never found a place—as safe place—to be asked. Most of these people are no longer active in Church nor are they seeking to be. They may not be able to articulate this dissatisfaction, but there is an ever present nagging within them that says, “This is not the way it is supposed to be.” These may qualify as dormant emergers. They share in the emerging ethos, but have yet to emerge as emergers. It would seem that these dormant emergers, who at present probably out number the active emergers, are being awakened by a like minded call for change—sometimes radical change. They are finding affinity in their naggings and are beginning to rise to the occasion.

Another group is actively seeking to do something about it. They call for and enact change at various levels—change in practice and thinking. Among these are those who are self-identified as emergers. They have come “out of the closet,” expressing their dissatisfaction with others.

So What Does Emerging Mean?

In short, the emerging ethos represents a growing mindset which is, consciously or sub-consciously, willing to legitimize and take seriously anew the type of questions being asked, doubts being expressed, and the distrust and dissatisfaction that the a postmodern (emerging) culture has with the traditional church (and Christianity) because they identify with them. 

Those that seem to identify with the postmodern mindset too closely, believing that traditional Christianity may not have the answers, are more on the Emergent side. Emergents call for radical change in doctrine and practice. Those that identify with the postmodern mindset yet feel traditional Christianity, while imperfect, does offer the answers to the most important issues may be part of the more orthodox emerging movement. These call for a more mild change.

But it is not really that simple. There are many ways to call for change and many areas in which this change can occur. Next I will talk about how people can call for change—how people can emerge—in five different ways. (I know I already said that, but this needed to be said first!)

If this has served to obscure the issue for you, this is not such a bad thing. One of my main purposes with this series on the emerging “church” has been to show that confident categorizations of what it means to emerge can do more harm than good and really misses the point.

Part 4: Comparing Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Emergers

OK, I lied. Here is another parenthetical post in my emerging series. The five ways in which one can emerge will be coming soon. However, in my defense, I did not know I was lying at the time I made my original commitment—does that count?

Take heart, this post has a LOT more charts and all emergers love charts, right?

Here is the chart once again. Let me explain further what my thoughts are as to evangelicalism vis a vis emerging.

To be emerging does not necessarily have to do with where you land on certain issues. It has to do with your willingness to fly, seriously entertaining anew important and fundamental issues. Not only do you entertain questions (e.g. Why does God allow bad things? Is inerrancy the center of evangelical faith? Do the various traditions—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant—all have valid contributions to make?) but you have the same questions yourself. In some sense it captures the Protestant reformation principle of reformata et semper reformanda (”reformed and always reforming”) better than other traditions who have reformed and then hardened in their categories of thought and practice.

In the end, as an emerger, you may land your plane in the field of traditional Protestantism on a particular issue, but it is your willingness to take off that is key. Are you willing to discuss issues from a fresh perspective? This is a key emerging question.

For example, I am Calvinist, complementarian, and affirm inerrancy. This does not necessarily disqualify me from being ”emerging” simply because I have landed on these issues. It has more to do with the attitude I have with regard to such and how important these issues are in my doctrinal taxonomy. Am I willing to question my assumptions regarding my stance? I hope. Does this mean that I will change with regards to these issues. Not necessarily. I might even become strengthened in them. But the willingness to listen and change, understanding the questions and difficulties involved is the key, not so much where we land. We go where truth takes us, we do not bring truth to our home.

Here is where I would place myself and Dan Wallace on the chart. Again, Dan and I are both complementarian Calvinists who affirm inerrancy. (NOTE: I did not consult Dan on this one!)

Notice that I see myself as well as Dan as more emerging than Mark Driscoll. Why? It does not have to do with where we land theologically, for we line up very much with Driscoll on key issues. It has more to do with how much focus we place on certain issues. How willing are we to entertain alternative ideas and perspectives? The more willing, the more emerging.

Yet at the same time, I am not comfortable with the label as its associations, at least in my circles, are too closely tied with those who are more Emergent. Plus, I, like Roger Olson, believe that the name Evangelical can be saved. Call me idealistic, traditionalistic, or a bleeding heart, but Evangelicalism is not dead yet. (Maybe emergers can save it? )

It is important to know that there are many who are not even willing to entertain any questions. They are not willing take off, being settled and having their fortress built with walls of traditional confidence and conviction. Right or wrong is not the issue, but a willingness to legitimize the flight. This is the essence of fundamentalism (in the contemporary sense). When fundamentalism begins to emphasize non-essentials as essential, this is where they depart from traditional orthodox Christianity thereby creating their own form of Christianity. That is why there is a unorthodox form of fundamentalism—legalistic fundamentalists.

In a sense, I think that there are aspects of emerging that represent and revive the best of evangelicalism. Sadly, much of this pioneer confidence that marked 20th century evangelicalism as it rose out of the clutches of deteriorating fundamentalism has been lost. Evangelicalism is in danger of becoming the new fundamentalism and in many ways emergers look more evangelical than evangelicals! Does that make sense? 

Here, sense everyone likes charts so much, let me give you the concentric circle of importance that I teach in my Introduction to Theology course of The Theology Program. I will modify these so that they represent each group: fundamentalists, evangelicals, emergers, and emergents.

The above is the key for the charts below. Notice, the further to the center, the more important the issue or doctrine. Those that are in the center circle are those which the representative tradition believes are essential for one to believe to be saved. Next is the circle of orthodoxy. This represents those issues or doctrines that the representative tradition believes is essential for one to be orthodox, not necessarily salvation. The outer circles represent a depleting belief in importance and emphasis.

Notice the concentration toward the center. Fundamentalists (at least in the contemporary sense of the word) would place just about everything in the center. “If it is in the Bible, it is absolutely essential, and we are certain that we are right!”

Notice that the Evangelical concentric circle is much more balanced, having a definite place for all issues. The center circle would have less representation.

Notice the change. The center circle has little change, evidencing that non-Emergent emergers do have a definite center. As well, there would be fewer items in the “circle of orthodoxy.” Most issues would be pushed to the outside with the result that those toward the center have more emphasis.

Now you can probably see the resulting difference. Those in the Emergent camp seem unwilling to land their plane anywhere near the center. In fact, the most emphasized and essential point may be that one cannot land near the center!

In the end, I want people to notice the difference between emerging and Emergent. I also want to draw attention to the similarities between evangelicalism and emerging.

Of course, not everyone will agree with or like these charts—they are not Gospel—but understand their intent in giving perspective.

Next, I will give the five ways which people can be emerging.

Part 5: Are You Emerging?

Are you an emerger? Is the emerging church heretical? What should my attitude be toward this movement ? These are the questions that started this series of blog posts and I hope by the end of this post you will be better equipped to answer these questions in an informed and responsible way.

I will now (finally!) attempt to give you five ways in which I believe one can emerge or identify with, at least to some degree, the emerging movement.

Here they are:

1. Emerging Ecclesiologically
2. Emerging Sociologically
3. Emerging Theologically
4. Emerging Epistemologically
5. Emerging Politically

It is important to keep in mind that being emerging in any of these categories does not necessarily mean that one is an emerger, it simply means that one identifies, sympathizes, or finds themselves within this particular characteristic of emerging thought.

The examples provided in each group are not meant to be exhaustive or taken as a unified whole. In other words, some emergers may identify with some of the examples and not others.

Emerging Ecclesiologically

This characterizes an attempt or desire to return to some traditional elements of the Christian faith that draw upon a more experience based worship. Many times this will be evidenced by a less formal structure of gatherings or formal church time, allowing freedom of expression without the traditional restraints of more program oriented gatherings.

Examples:

• Less tendency to have a traditional (post-reformation) church program structure
• Movement toward house churches
• Disdain for mega churches
• Lord’s supper/Eucharist practiced every week
• Artwork as expressions of faith
• Candles and incense
• Traditional prayers and creeds
• Prayer walks

More radical Emergent type examples:

• Eastern meditation
• Yoga services

Emerging Epistemologically

A desire for an epistemic humility that recognizes the shortcomings modernistic enlightenment philosophy bent on striving for absolute knowledge and certainty in all things. This humility ranges from radical agnosticism (e.g. a denial of our ability to know anything for certain) to essentials-only mentality (e.g. we only focus on the essentials that are clear and have been held by the historic Christian faith).

Examples:

• Suspicious of all truth claims
• Willingness to question personal traditions at the deepest level
• Doubt and uncertainty concerning an individualistic approach to truth and knowledge—we learn in community
• More desirous to broaden perspectives outside subjective cultural norms
• Recognition that our knowledge is not objective, we all learn in a biased context
• Denial of man’s ability to have absolute certainty (this is reserved only for God)
• More skeptical of traditional sources of information and authority (science, denominational authorities, pastors, theologians, media, etc)
• More apophatic, emphasizing mystery and our inability as finite beings to definitely and conclusively define an infinite God

More radical Emergent type characteristics:

• Denial of the existence of Truth with a capital T (absolute truth)
• Denial of any claims to certainty
• Denial of the analogy of language (e.g. language is not a sufficient conduit of truth)

Emerging Theologically

Calling into question many traditional Christian doctrines. This questioning can result in agnosticism toward the particular doctrine, marginalization of the issue, or a settled humble conviction concerning the issue. This is closely tied to being emerging epistemologically.

Examples:

• Missional focus concerning the spread of the Gospel (Christians do not go to church, they are the church)
• Less tendency to recognize or give strong credence to traditional theological divisions (e.g. Catholic-Protestant; Reformed-Arminian)
• Not too keen to systematic theology since to systematize ones theology usually implies a seemingly forced system of harmonization that is seen to be inconsistent with both human ability and divine revelation
• Hesitancy about taking traditional labels such as Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Liberal, or even Emerger since the labels associate them with a systematized system of beliefs and thought
• 1) Agnostic with regards to the destiny of the unevangelized (e.g. we don’t know the eternal condition of the unevangelized)
• 2) Inclusivistic with regards to destiny of the unevangelized (e.g. Christ’s blood can save those who don’t have the chance to hear the Gospel)
• More agnostic toward the nature of hell
• Willing to see value in multiple theories of the atonement, not just the vicarious substitutionary view
• Traditional Protestant theology of imputation questioned

More radical Emergent type characteristics:

• Universalism (all people will make it to heaven as God will redeem all things)
• Pluralism (all religions are basically the same)
• Denial of hell as a place of eternal judgment
• Complete denial of the vicarious substitutionary view of the atonement

Emerging Sociologically

Engaging in and integration with culture and society in traditionally unorthodox ways. The integration has to to with a belief that culture is not necessarily evil, but can be part of God’s common grace. The engagement is purposed on sharing the Gospel in places and ways that are seen as taboo for many in the evangelical or fundamentalist communities. As well, this characteristic is bent upon the belief that loving one’s neighbor and sharing the Gospel is not limited to our words, but is more powerfully expressed through our actions – actions of kindness, mercy, and justice.

Examples:

• Having church service in a brewery
• Looking like the culture (e.g. dress, nose rings, colored hair)
• Talking like the culture (e.g. getting rid of all Christianese language, less sensitive toward vulgarity, etc.)
• Focus on bringing about justice (liberation of the oppressed, sympathy toward aids victims, women’s rights in society and the church, etc).
• Willing to traverse the Christian sub-culture taboos (drinking, smoking, rated R movies, etc.)

More radical Emergent type characteristics:

• Denial that homosexuality is sinful
• Social Gospel becomes primary (e.g. Gospel of mercy without preaching of sin, the cross, and forgiveness)

Emerging Politically
Sympathizes with many of the more traditionally liberal political concerns. This is closely connected to being socially emerging.

Examples:

• Do not identify with a political party (e.g. they should not be seen as the republican party at prayer! )
• Anti-war or more pacifistic
• Support those with environmental concerns (green peace, global warming, recycling)

More radical Emergent type characteristics:

• Approval of homosexual marriages and unions
• Support of the women’s right to choose
• Definitely identify with more liberal politics

I think that it is important to note that one can be emerging in one category and not so much in another. One might be emerging epistemologically and, to some degree, theologically, but not so politically or ecclesiastically. As well, one might be emerging socially, like Mark Driscoll, but not really too emerging in the other areas. Does this mean that they are still emerging? Yes, but only in those areas. Should they take on the name? I guess if they so choose, but one is always going to have to qualify what they mean.

As I said in previous posts, many of the non-Emergent type characteristics are shared by both traditional Evangelicals and emergers. Therefore, if you are an Evangelical and see yourself in some of these emerging characteristics, this should not surprise you. As I said before, much of the ethos of the emerging movement is simply what I believe to be a revitalization and a next step of Evangelicalism as it arose out of Fundamentalism in the 40’s and 50’s.

As well, there are those leaders in the emerging movement who I would call evangelical-emergers such as Scot McKnight, Robert Webber (deceased), Stanley Grenz (deceased), Dan Kimball, N.T. Wright, Eugene Peterson, Donald Miller, Mark Driscoll, and Dallas Willard (not all of whom would necessarily take the name emerging, but do identify closely with the emerging ethos). In this case, evangelical might be used as an adjective rather than a noun. They may be evangelical, not necessarily Evangelical.

So, are you an emerger? As you can see from this series of blogs, that is quite a question.

Will the real emerger please stand up? No, I take that back. Will the non-emergers just sit back down—that seems easier.

I hope this has been a helpful series.

Thoughts? Are you standing or sitting?

Part 6: Random Thoughts of Emergence

Having finished my series about the Emerging Church, I feel that it is important that I say a few things so that people have a better understanding about my thoughts in general concerning the conversation that is going on”the emerging conversation.

I have a deep sympathy toward the confusion that postmodernism has brought about. The global culture that has been created in the last 50 years has caused us to change our perspectives on many things. The internet, world news, and globalization of culture has made it less likely that people can stay sheltered in a naive understanding of truth, religion, and morality—even if they are right. The ever changing currents in science, exposure to world religions, fractures in the family unit, divisions in Christianity, and subjective change in personal beliefs and certainty have caused Christians to question the reliability of any source of truth. People are suspicious, disillusion, bewildered, and uncertain.

We have seen that things are not summed up in one single confession of faith, one denomination’s take on truth, or one person’s interpretation of the Scripture. The we-have-got-everything-right-while-everyone-else-is-wrong mentality is fading. While a previous generations fundementalistic hardening of the categories has brought about the postmodern ethos, the ensuing betrayal felt is producing a hardening of the same sort. Obfuscation (darkening through manipulation) of truth by well-meaning fundamentalists of all varieties has begun to create an different type of obfuscation. This darkening is no less well-meaning, but can be just as destructive. 

I sympathize with postmodern and emerging thought. No, I empathize with it. But this empathy cannot produce a static position of ever changing dynamics. We need to be wise, forward thinking, and responsible.

This generation is postmodern. Really it is soft-postmodern. Soft-postmoderns do not deny the existence of truth, they simply are less naive about the possibility that their particular take on truth sums up the whole. Hard-postmoderns deny truth all together. As Christians we need to realize that hard-postmodernism, by definition, is antithetical to Christianity. Christianity does not exist without truth.

We are asking questions that were not asked in a previous generation, but assumed. These questions are good questions. They need to be asked anew by every generation. This is the essence of semper reformanda (alway reforming). We are always reforming, never satisfied with a hardened traditions that characterize those who have made camp on the journey. Their direction may have been right, but they should never have stopped.

But asking of questions is merely the first step. We have to follow where the evidence leads, otherwise what good are the questions? Why ask questions if, in the end, we are not expecting any answers?

Were we going in the right direction?

Are we following the map correctly?

Should we have made that last turn?

Where do we go now?

These are all the questions that need to be asked. Don’t we expect some answers?

Loving Christ – this is good. Following Christ – this is Christian. Introducing people to Christ – this is our mission. But the question Who is Christ? must be asked and answered. What did he do? Why do we need him? How do we know? What is our problem? What is the future? Who is God? Answers to these questions will produce propositions. While God, Christianity, and faith cannot be boiled down to a set of propositions, it must begin with such.

We are finite, and God is infinite. This is a true proposition that most are willing to admit. If God is infinite, is it possible that finite words, language, culture, concepts, and expressions of faith can really do justice to an infinite God? This is a tricky question that one should not conclude on too quickly. While our propositions are insufficient to explain God fully, can’t they introduce him truly? If they can’i then we have created a self-defeating philosophy of religion. How? Because we have said that the infinite, all-powerful God who can do all things cannot communicate in an intelligible way. Are you sure you want to go there?

The Bible does contain a lot of information. Some information is in stories, narrative, and drama. Other information is in theological themes, propositions, and contextualized principles. Some of this information is hard to understand. Some of it is very easy to understand. Some information good Christians disagree about. Other information good Christians agree upon. Do the disagreements mean that the information should be ignored? Should we tear out the portions of Scripture that cause this disagreement? Should we no longer discuss such, relegating this information to the anathema of a postmodern bias against disagreements?

Believe me, I sympathize with people who are sick of divisions. But isn’t it the unnecessary divisions about which we speak?

Unite around the essentials, right? As Rupertus Meldenius said, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.†I love this statement. Yes, we unite around essentials. But simply because something is a non-essential does not make it non-important, does it?

I am a Calvinist. I won’t divide with an Arminian because of our view of election. I will say that I believe that he is wrong, I will give arguments for my positions, and I will say that I think my position more accurately represents God’s revelation than the opposing positions. Is my argument a power play? It could be, but it does not have to be. Could I be wrong about my position? Yes. Are there good people who disagree with me? Most certainly good people who love the Lord more than I. Does this mean that we then anathematize such conversation. Not at all. Why would we?

Vigorous conversation is what we need. Don’t anathematize people because they believe they are right.

But too many people have divided and killed in the name of  religion. What about the Crusades? What about the Salem witch trials? What about the inquisition? Yes, these are all ridiculously sore black-eyes in Christianity’s past. What is the solution? How do we keep from repeating the past? I think it starts with each individual. Don’t do such things. As Bob Newhart would say, "Stop it!" Change your perspective. Change your outlook. Change your response. But don’t change your position if it is correct. Don’t kill or disrespect other people who disagree. Make your arguments and leave it to the Lord. He is the judge.

Who decides what is essential?

What is the essence of Christianity?

What is the ultimate source of truth?

Can we know anything at all?

What is the Gospel?

Let’s have a conversation. Let’s engage in the emerging conversation. It is exciting. God is not scared of questions.

Non-emergers, don’t anathematize emergers for asking these questions. You don’t really have every figured out like you think you do. These questions must to be asked. There are reasons for the doubt, suspicion, and skepticism that may not be sinful. Think about it.

Emergers, don’t anathematize yourself or others when you begin to find your answers. As well, don’t regulate non-essentials to non-important.

This conversation is necessary it always has been. Call yourself emerging, evangelical, Christian, missional or whatever, but realize this, we must push forward.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Or “Top Twenty Signs you are moving from emerging to Emergent!”

Now maybe you will appreciate this more (I have made a few changes).

20. You only curse around fundamentalists.

19. You leave your church because the sermon was not obscure enough.

18. You refer to your local assembly as “church,” “synagogue,” or “mosque” depending on who you are talking to.

17. Your blog is a rant about how everyone else rants too much.

16. You brag that you have never been pinned down theologically on any issue.

15. The only thing you are sure of is that others cannot be sure of anything.

14. You bring your own wine to communion.

13. You are offended when someone says they are going to Preach the Gospel†or “Teach the truth†believing they should just “Tell a story.
12. Instead of a tract, you carry a can of Play-doh in your back pocket.

11. Your website links to Green Peace and the Democratic National Convention just because conservatives are against it.

10. You start a Christian blog, but leave it blank, fearing that you might offend someone.

9.You are not any good at art, yet you continue to present the Gospel by painting stick figures on recycled paper.

8. When you present the Gospel, Heaven is renamed The Matrix and you call Christ Neo.

7. Your church caters from Whole Foods.

6. Every sermon illustration begins with The other night I was drinking a beer and . . .

5. You have yet to read the book of Romans believing Paul was too modern in his thinking.

4. Your car has a bumper sticker that reads I think my boss is a Jewish carpenter but I can’t know for certain.

3. You don’t worship on Sundays because everyone else does.

2. You evaluate truth by asking how many people hold to it. If it is too popular, then it is wrong.

1. When someone calls out your name you get angry saying, “Don’t label me.”

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I now turn to what is without a doubt the most popular interpretation of John 10:30 other than the traditional Trinitarian understanding, namely, the view that Jesus was asserting only that he and the Father were one in purpose. I should state at the outset that everyone agrees that from a New Testament perspective Jesus and the Father are one in purpose. The issue is whether the unity of which John 10:30 speaks is specifically a unity of purpose rather than a unity of divine power, nature, or identity. In other words, the claim to be considered here is whether John 10:30 means nothing more than that Jesus is united in purpose with the Father.

Those who promote the œone in purpose view in order to combat Trinitarian theology can point out that some mainstream Christian scholars have also interpreted John 10:30 in this way. J. H. Bernard, in the older ICC commentary on John, explicitly takes this position: A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 5:18,19; 14:9,23 and 17:11,22), and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of OUSIA, is to introduce thoughts which were not present to the theologians of the first century (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, International Critical Commentaries [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928]). Similarly, R. V. G. Tasker, in his commentary on John, says that although the orthodox church fathers cited this verse in support of the doctrine that Christ was of one substance with the Father, the statement seems however mainly to imply that the Father and the Son are united in will and purpose (The Gospel According to St. John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960], 136). Other commentators make similar statements.

Anti-Trinitarians often quote John Calvin in support of the same point. However, Calvin really does not agree with the one in purpose view. He writes:

He intended to meet the jeers of the wicked; for they might allege that the power of God did not at all belong to him, so that he could promise to his disciples that it would assuredly protect them. He therefore testifies that his affairs are so closely united to those of the Father, that the Father’s assistance will never be withheld from himself and his sheep. The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (homoousios) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of his Father (Commentary on the Gospel According to John, trans. William Pringle [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949; orig. 1847], 416).

Calvin nuances his position here rather finely. On the one hand, he points out that in context Christ is speaking of his unity of power with the Father his claim that the power of God did truly belong to him†so that he could guarantee the eternal salvation of his people despite all manner of spiritual attacks against them. This is, then, for Calvin a oneness of power, not merely a oneness of purpose. The Son’s power to preserve his people is the power of God, not the power of a lesser, weaker creature. On the other hand, Calvin argues that the church fathers went beyond the point of the passage by trying to deduce from it the technical theological concept of homoousios that the Father and the Son are of one essence or being. His point seems to be that the words are one, in and of themselves, are not sufficient to establish that doctrine; such an implication goes beyond the demonstrable meaning of the text.

One may agree with Calvin without abandoning a Trinitarian interpretation of the passage. After all, Calvin was himself a Trinitarian, and his way of reading the passage as a whole is patently Trinitarian: the Father and the Son are distinct persons, yet the Son wields the power of God no less than the Father. Calvin goes on to comment on the reaction of the Jewish opponents of Jesus in John 10:33 as follows:

They argue therefore that Christ is a blasphemer and a sacrilegious person, because, being a mortal man, he lays claim to Divine honor. And this would be a just definition of blasphemy, if Christ were nothing more than a man. They only err in this, that they do not design to contemplate his Divinity, which was conspicuous in his miracles.

Thus, Calvin clearly supports the one in power view, although he cautiously warns against trying to prove too much from the words are one in John 10:30. This is a respectable and thoughtful position. As I explained in Part II, I think the recognition that in verse 28 Christ speaks of himself as God, using the wording of Deuteronomy 32:39, puts the words are one in verse 30 in a somewhat different light, strongly suggesting (at least) an allusion to the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4. With this additional information regarding the context of John 10:30—which Calvin does not mention or seem to have noticed we are on stronger ground in seeing Jesus’ statement as a claim to be one God with the Father. That is not an explicit or simply direct proof of homoousios, but it is a short step indeed to that implication.

The point may be made in a different way. Calvin clearly understands John 10:30 in its context in the Gospel of John in a Trinitarian way, as speaking of his oneness of divine power with the Father, but is simply being careful not to read off œone substance from the simple word one. Rather, Calvin sees the deity of the Son implicit in the statement given its context. Furthermore, Calvin places the focus or emphasis in John 10:30 on the Son’s divine activity the concrete expression of his deity in our salvation rather than on the metaphysical or ontological definition of the Son’s nature. According to Calvin, Christ was not seeking to explain his nature but to respond to the unbelieving Jews’ attacks against him. Thus, Calvin comments on John 10:36, Christ does not now argue what he is in himself, but what we ought to acknowledge him to be, from his miracles in human flesh. For we can never comprehend his eternal Divinity, unless we embrace him as a Redeemer, so far as the Father hath exhibited him to us.

Some contemporary commentators likewise caution us against reading too much explicitly into the word one or this single sentence on its own, while at the same time arguing that Jesus’ statement in the larger context of the Gospel of John does connote or imply a claim to deity. For example, Andrew Lincoln observes that the force of John 10:30 in its immediate context is that Jesus and the Father are one in securing the safety of the sheep in their care. There may be two agents but their protecting hand is one. This indication of Jesus’ full unity with the Father in his divine work of salvation has further implications for Jesus’ identity, and so later Christians who used this text in Christological debates and formulations about the metaphysical unity of the Father and the Son need not be faulted as totally misguided.†Lincoln points out that such further implications are confirmed by the rest of what the Gospel says about Christ’s relation to God, especially in the Prologue. “Father and Son are united in the work of salvation because they are united in their being (Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, Black’s New Testament Commentaries 4 [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson; New York and London: Continuum, 2005], 306).

D. A. Carson likewise argues that John 10:30 read in the broader context of what the rest of the Gospel says about John including its explicit affirmations that Christ is God (John 1:1, 18; 20:28). As for the immediate context, Carson comments that “the oneness of will and task, in this context, is so transparently a divine will, a divine task (viz. the saving and preserving of men and women for the kingdom) that although the categories are formally functional some deeper union is presupposed (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar NT Commentary [Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 394-95).

The point here is this: One can agree that the focus of John 10:30 is practical or even “functional†without ignoring or denying that the statement has ontological implications for our understanding of the person of Christ. I agree with those commentators who argue that the statement has clear implications in context of the deity of Christ even if one does not recognize John 10:30 as an explicit claim to deity. Nor is this way of reading John 10:30 dependent on or original with the orthodox church fathers embroiled in the Arian controversy. Almost a century before the Arian controversy, the biblical scholar Origen of Alexandria had this to say about John 10:30:

Our Savior and Lord in his relation to the Father and God of the universe is not one flesh or one spirit but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous person is joined to Christ is one spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh or spirit but more honorable than these God. This then is the sense in which we should understand “I and the Father are one” (Origen, Dialogue with Heraclides 3-4, quoted in Joel Elowsky, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: John 1-10 [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007], 358).

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Having finished my series about the Emerging Church, I feel that it is important that I say a few things so that people have a better understanding about my thoughts in general concerning the “conversation” that is going on—the “emerging” conversation.

I have a deep sympathy toward the confusion that postmodernism has brought about. The global culture that has been created in the last 50 years has caused us to change our perspectives on many things. The internet, world news, and globalization of culture has made it less likely that people can stay sheltered in a naive understanding of truth, religion, and morality—even if they are right. The ever changing currents in science, exposure to world religions, fractures in the family unit, divisions in Christianity, and subjective change in personal beliefs and certainty have caused Christians to question the reliability of any source of truth. People are suspicious, disillusion, bewildered, and uncertain.

We have seen that things are not summed up in one single confession of faith, one denomination’s take on truth, or one person’s interpretation of the Scripture. The “we-have-got-everything-right-while-everyone-else-is-wrong” mentality is fading. While a previous generations fundementalistic hardening of the categories has brought about the postmodern ethos, the ensuing betrayal felt is producing a hardening of the same sort. Obfuscation (darkening through manipulation) of truth by well-meaning fundamentalists of all varieties has begun to create an different type of obfuscation. This darkening is no less well-meaning, but can be just as destructive. 

I sympathize with postmodern and emerging thought. No, I empathize with it. But this empathy cannot produce a static position of ever changing dynamics. We need to be wise, forward thinking, and responsible.

This generation is postmodern. Really it is soft-postmodern. Soft-postmoderns do not deny the existence of truth, they simply are less naive about the possibility that their particular take on truth sums up the whole. Hard-postmoderns deny truth all together. As Christians we need to realize that hard-postmodernism, by definition, is antithetical to Christianity. Christianity does not exist without truth.

We are asking questions that were not asked in a previous generation, but assumed. These questions are good questions. They need to be asked anew by every generation. This is the essence of semper reformanda (alway reforming). We are always reforming, never satisfied with a hardened traditions that characterize those who have made camp on the journey. Their direction may have been right, but they should never have stopped.

But asking of questions is merely the first step. We have to follow where the evidence leads, otherwise what good are the questions? Why ask questions if, in the end, we are not expecting any answers?

Were we going in the right direction?

Are we following the map correctly?

Should we have made that last turn?

Where do we go now?

These are all the questions that need to be asked. Don’t we expect some answers?

Loving Christ—this is good. Following Christ—this is Christian. Introducing people to Christ—this is our mission. But the question Who is Christ? must be asked and answered. What did he do? Why do we need him? How do we know? What is our problem? What is the future? Who is God? Answers to these questions will produce propositions. While God, Christianity, and faith cannot be boiled down to a set of propositions, it must begin with such.

We are finite, and God is infinite. This is a true proposition that most are willing to admit. If God is infinite, is it possible that finite words, language, culture, concepts, and expressions of faith can really do justice to an infinite God? This is a tricky question that one should not conclude on too quickly. While our propositions are insufficient to explain God fully, can’t they introduce him truly? If they can’t then we have created a self-defeating philosophy of religion. How? Because we have said that the infinite, all-powerful God who can do all things cannot communicate in an intelligible way. Are you sure you want to go there?

The Bible does contain a lot of information. Some information is in stories, narrative, and drama. Other information is in theological themes, propositions, and contextualized principles. Some of this information is hard to understand. Some of it is very easy to understand. Some information good Christians disagree about. Other information good Christians agree upon. Do the disagreements mean that the information should be ignored? Should we tear out the portions of Scripture that cause this disagreement? Should we no longer discuss such, relegating this information to the anathema of a postmodern bias against disagreements?

Believe me, I sympathize with people who are sick of divisions. But isn’t it the unnecessary divisions about which we speak?

Unite around the essentials, right? As Rupertus Meldenius said, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” I love this statement. Yes, we unite around essentials. But simply because something is a non-essential does not make it non-important, does it?

I am a Calvinist. I won’t divide with an Arminian because of our view of election. I will say that I believe that he is wrong, I will give arguments for my positions, and I will say that I think my position more accurately represents God’s revelation than the opposing positions. Is my argument a power play? It could be, but it does not have to be. Could I be wrong about my position? Yes. Are there good people who disagree with me? Most certainly—good people who love the Lord more than I. Does this mean that we then anathematize such conversation. Not at all. Why would we?

Vigorous conversation is what we need. Don’t anathematize people because they believe they are right.

But too many people have divided and killed in the name of religion. What about the Crusades? What about the Salem witch trials? What about the inquisition? Yes, these are all ridiculously sore black-eyes in Christianity’s past. What is the solution? How do we keep from repeating the past? I think it starts with each individual. Don’t do such things. As Bob Newhart would say, “Stop it!” Change your perspective. Change your outlook. Change your response. But don’t change your position if it is correct. Don’t kill or disrespect other people who disagree. Make your arguments and leave it to the Lord. He is the judge.

Who decides what is essential?

What is the essence of Christianity?

What is the ultimate source of truth?

Can we know anything at all?

What is the Gospel?

Let’s have a conversation. Let’s engage in the emerging conversation. It is exciting. God is not scared of questions.

Non-emergers, don’t anathematize emergers for asking these questions. You don’t really have every figured out like you think you do. These questions must to be asked. There are reasons for the doubt, suspicion, and skepticism that may not be sinful. Think about it.

Emergers, don’t anathematize yourself or others when you begin to find your answers. As well, don’t regulate non-essentials to non-important.

This conversation is necessary—it always has been. Call yourself emerging, evangelical, Christian, missional or whatever, but realize this, we must push forward.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Are you an emerger? Is the emerging church heretical? What should my attitude be toward this “movement”? These are the questions that started this series of blog posts and I hope by the end of this post you will be better equipped to answer these questions in an informed and responsible way.

I will now (finally!) attempt to give you five ways in which I believe one can emerge or identify with, at least to some degree, the emerging movement.

Here they are:

Emerging Ecclesiologically
Emerging Sociologically
Emerging Theologically
Emerging Epistemologically
Emerging Politically

It is important to keep in mind that being “emerging” in any of these categories does not necessarily mean that one is an emerger, it simply means that one identifies, sympathizes, or finds themselves within this particular characteristic of emerging thought.

The examples provided in each group are not meant to be exhaustive or taken as a unified whole. In other words, some emergers may identify with some of the examples and not others.

Emerging Ecclesiologically

This characterizes an attempt or desire to return to some traditional elements of the Christian faith that draw upon a more experience based worship. Many times this will be evidenced by a less formal structure of gatherings or formal church time, allowing freedom of expression without the traditional restraints of more program oriented gatherings.

Examples:

Less tendency to have a traditional (post-reformation) church program structure
Movement toward house churches
Disdain for “mega” churches
Lord’s supper/Eucharist practiced every week
Artwork as expressions of faith
Candles and incense
Traditional prayers and creeds
Prayer walks
More radical Emergent type examples:

Eastern meditation
Yoga services
Emerging Epistemologically

A desire for an epistemic humility that recognizes the shortcomings modernistic enlightenment philosophy bent on striving for absolute knowledge and certainty in all things. This humility ranges from radical agnosticism (e.g. a denial of our ability to know anything for certain) to essentials-only mentality (e.g. we only focus on the essentials that are clear and have been held by the historic Christian faith).

Examples:

Suspicious of all truth claims
Willingness to question personal traditions at the deepest level
Doubt and uncertainty concerning an individualistic approach to truth and knowledge—we learn in community
More desirous to broaden perspectives outside subjective cultural norms
Recognition that our knowledge is not objective, we all learn in a biased context
Denial of man’s ability to have absolute certainty (this is reserved only for God)
More skeptical of traditional sources of information and authority (science, denominational authorities, pastors, theologians, media, etc)
More apophatic, emphasizing mystery and our inability as finite beings to definitely and conclusively define an infinite God
More radical Emergent type characteristics:

Denial of the existence of “Truth” with a capital “T” (absolute truth)
Denial of any claims to certainty
Denial of the analogy of language (e.g. language is not a sufficient conduit of truth)
Emerging Theologically

Calling into question many traditional Christian doctrines. This questioning can result in agnosticism toward the particular doctrine, marginalization of the issue, or a settled humble conviction concerning the issue. This is closely tied to being emerging epistemologically.

Examples:

Missional focus concerning the spread of the Gospel (Christians do not go to church, they are the church)
Less tendency to recognize or give strong credence to traditional theological divisions (e.g. Catholic-Protestant; Reformed-Arminian)
Not too keen to systematic theology since to “systematize” ones theology usually implies a seemingly forced system of harmonization that is seen to be inconsistent with both human ability and divine revelation
Hesitancy about taking traditional labels such as Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Liberal, or even Emerger since the labels associate them with a systematized system of beliefs and thought
1) Agnostic with regards to the destiny of the unevangelized (e.g. we don’t know the eternal condition of the unevangelized)
2) Inclusivistic with regards to destiny of the unevangelized (e.g. Christ’s blood can save those who don’t have the chance to hear the Gospel)
More agnostic toward the nature of hell
Willing to see value in multiple theories of the atonement, not just the vicarious substitutionary view
Traditional Protestant theology of imputation questioned
More radical Emergent type characteristics:

Universalism (all people will make it to heaven as God will redeem all things)
Pluralism (all religions are basically the same)
Denial of hell as a place of eternal judgment
Complete denial of the vicarious substitutionary view of the atonement
Emerging Sociologically

Engaging in and integration with culture and society in traditionally “unorthodox†ways. The integration has to to with a belief that culture is not necessarily evil, but can be part of God’s common grace. The engagement is purposed on sharing the Gospel in places and ways that are seen as taboo for many in the evangelical or fundamentalist communities. As well, this characteristic is bent upon the belief that loving one’s neighbor and sharing the Gospel is not limited to our words, but is more powerfully expressed through out actions—actions of kindness, mercy, and justice.

Examples:

Having church service in a brewery
Looking like the culture (e.g. dress, nose rings, colored hair)
Talking like the culture (e.g. getting rid of all Christianese language, less sensitive toward vulgarity, etc.)
Focus on bringing about justice (liberation of the oppressed, sympathy toward aids victims, women’s rights in society and the church, etc).
Willing to traverse the Christian sub-culture taboos (drinking, smoking, rated “R” movies, etc.)
More radical Emergent type characteristics:

Denial that homosexuality is sinful
Social Gospel becomes primary (e.g. Gospel of mercy without preaching of sin, the cross, and forgiveness)
Emerging Politically
Sympathizes with many of the more traditionally liberal political concerns. This is closely connected to being socially emerging.

Examples:

Do not identify with a political party (e.g. they should not be seen as “the republican party at prayer!”)
Anti-war or more pacifistic
Support those with environmental concerns (green peace, global warming, recycling)
More radical Emergent type characteristics:

Approval of homosexual marriages and unions
Support of the women’s right to choose
Definitely identify with more liberal politics
I think that it is important to note that one can be emerging in one category and not so much in another. One might be emerging epistemologically and, to some degree, theologically, but not so politically or ecclesiastically. As well, one might be emerging socially, like Mark Driscoll, but not really too emerging in the other areas. Does this mean that they are still emerging? Yes, but only in those areas. Should they take on the name? I guess if they so choose, but one is always going to have to qualify what they mean.

As I said in previous posts, many of the non-Emergent type characteristics are shared by both traditional Evangelicals and emergers. Therefore, if you are an Evangelical and see yourself in some of these emerging characteristics, this should not surprise you. As I said before, much of the ethos of the emerging movement is simply what I believe to be a revitalization and a “next step” of Evangelicalism as it arose out of Fundamentalism in the 40s and 50s.

As well, there are those leaders in the emerging movement who I would call evangelical-emergers such as Scot McKnight, Robert Webber (deceased), Stanley Grenz (deceased), Dan Kimball, N.T. Wright, Eugene Peterson, Donald Miller, Mark Driscoll, and Dallas Willard (not all of whom would necessarily take the name emerging, but do identify closely with the emerging ethos). In this case, “evangelical” might be used as an adjective rather than a noun. They may be evangelical, not necessarily Evangelical.

So, are you an emerger? As you can see from this series of blogs, that is quite a question.

Will the real emerger please stand up? No, I take that back. Will the non-emergers just sit back down—that seems easier.

I hope this has been a helpful series.

Thoughts? Are you standing or sitting?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

OK, I lied. Here is another parenthetical post in my emerging series. The five ways in which one can emerge will be coming soon. However, in my defense, I did not know I was lying at the time I made my original commitment—does that count?

Take heart, this post has a LOT more charts and all emergers love charts, right?

Here is the chart once again. Let me explain further what my thoughts are as to evangelicalism vis a vis emerging.

To be emerging does not necessarily have to do with where you land on certain issues. It has to do with your willingness to fly, seriously entertaining anew important and fundamental issues. Not only do you entertain questions (e.g. Why does God allow bad things? Is inerrancy the center of evangelical faith? Do the various traditions—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant—all have valid contributions to make?) but you have the same questions yourself. In some sense it captures the Protestant reformation principle of reformata et semper reformanda (”reformed and always reforming”) better than other traditions who have reformed and then hardened in their categories of thought and practice.

In the end, as an emerger, you may land your plane in the field of traditional Protestantism on a particular issue, but it is your willingness to take off that is key. Are you willing to discuss issues from a fresh perspective? This is a key emerging question.

For example, I am Calvinist, complementarian, and affirm inerrancy. This does not necessarily disqualify me from being ”emerging” simply because I have landed on these issues. It has more to do with the attitude I have with regard to such and how important these issues are in my doctrinal taxonomy. Am I willing to question my assumptions regarding my stance? I hope. Does this mean that I will change with regards to these issues. Not necessarily. I might even become strengthened in them. But the willingness to listen and change, understanding the questions and difficulties involved is the key, not so much where we land. We go where truth takes us, we do not bring truth to our home.

Here where I would place myself and Dan Wallace on the chart. Again, Dan and I are both complementarian Calvinists who affirm inerrancy. (NOTE: I did not consult Dan on this one!)

Notice that I see myself as well as Dan as more emerging than Mark Driscoll. Why? It does not have to do with where we land theologically, for we line up very much with Driscoll on key issues. It has more to do with how much focus we place on certain issues. How willing are we to entertain alternative ideas and perspectives? The more willing, the more emerging.

Yet at the same time, I am not comfortable with the label as its associations, at least in my circles, are too closely tied with those who are more Emergent. Plus, I, like Roger Olson, believe that the name Evangelical can be saved. Call me idealistic, traditionalistic, or a bleeding heart, but Evangelicalism is not dead yet. (Maybe emergers can save it? )

It is important to know that there are many who are not even willing to entertain any questions. They are not willing take off, being settled and having their fortress built with walls of traditional confidence and conviction. Right or wrong is not the issue, but a willingness to legitimize the flight. This is the essence of fundamentalism (in the contemporary sense). When fundamentalism begins to emphasize non-essentials as essential, this is where they depart from traditional orthodox Christianity thereby creating their own form of Christianity. That is why there is a unorthodox form of fundamentalism—legalistic fundamentalists.

In a sense, I think that there are aspects of emerging that represent and revive the best of evangelicalism. Sadly, much of this pioneer confidence that marked 20th century evangelicalism as it rose out of the clutches of deteriorating fundamentalism has been lost. Evangelicalism is in danger of becoming the new fundamentalism and in many ways emergers look more evangelical than evangelicals! Does that make sense?

Here, sense everyone likes charts so much, let me give you the concentric circle of importance that I teach in my Introduction to Theology course of The Theology Program. I will modify these so that they represent each group: fundamentalists, evangelicals, emergers, and emergents.

The above is the key for the charts below. Notice, the further to the center, the more important the issue or doctrine. Those that are in the center circle are those which the representative tradition believes are essential for one to believe to be saved. Next is the circle of orthodoxy. This represents those issues or doctrines that the representative tradition believes is essential for one to be orthodox, not necessarily salvation. The outer circles represent a depleting belief in importance and emphasis.

Notice the concentration toward the center. Fundamentalists (at least in the contemporary sense of the word) would place just about everything in the center. “If it is in the Bible, it is absolutely essential, and we are certain that we are right!”

Notice that the Evangelical concentric circle is much more balanced, having a definite place for all issues. The center circle would have less representation.

Notice the change. The center circle has little change, evidencing that non-Emergent emergers do have a definite center. As well, there would be fewer items in the “circle of orthodoxy.” Most issues would be pushed to the outside with the result that those toward the center have more emphasis.

Now you can probably see the resulting difference. Those in the Emergent camp seem unwilling to land their plane anywhere near the center. In fact, the most emphasized and essential point may be that one cannot land near the center!

In the end, I want people to notice the difference between emerging and Emergent. I also want to draw attention to the similarities between evangelicalism and emerging.

Of course, not everyone will agree with or like these charts—they are not Gospel—but understand their intent in giving perspective.

Next, I will give the five ways which people can be emerging.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

When Christian leaders talk about how to live a godly life, they eventually turn to the gray areas those things that are right for some but wrong for others. You know the list: drinking, smoking, watching R rated movies, playing cards, dancing, using colorful language, listening to Country-Western music (OK that last one is not a gray area; it should be taboo for everyone), etc. That’s the short list. And the way the instruction on such matters goes is all too often along these lines: First, our freedoms in Christ are articulated, clearly stated, appreciated. Next come the qualifiers: but don’t exercise your freedom in Christ if it will make someone uncomfortable, cause someone to judge you, is not entirely loving, etc. This would be bad enough if it just ended there. By the time all the qualifications are stated, the freedoms that we allegedly have are almost all stripped away. Paralysis begins to set in. But the coup de grace comes with a single verse from 1 Thessalonians, utilized as a weapon against all those who enjoy their lives in Christ: But even if what you do is loving, makes no one uncomfortable, doesn’t cause anyone to judge you, remember that you are responsible to avoid every appearance of evil. So, if in doubt, don’t do it.

That’s how the verse reads in the KJV: Avoid every appearance of evil. It’s 1 Thess 5.22 and it puts a damper on everything. But does it really mean this? Does it really mean that even if something looks like it’s evil to some, we can’t enjoy it? Hardly.

The Greek text really should be translated, abstain from every form of evil. There is a genuine correspondence between form and evil: that is, stay away from evil things. But the reason that form (or, in the KJV, appearance) was used is because Paul is speaking about false doctrine. This verse, in fact, was more often attributed to Jesus than to Paul in the early church, suggesting that Paul got this line from his Lord and that it was one of the sayings that for some reason didn’t make it into the gospels but was nevertheless an authentic saying of Jesus. It was used with literal reference to coins; to abstain from every form of evil was to avoid counterfeit teaching. Further, in the context, it seems clear that Paul is speaking about false teaching. Verses 19-22 read as follows:

Do not quench the Spirit;
Do not despise prophecies;
But examine all things: cling to the good, abstain from every form of evil.

In context, Paul is saying that false teaching should be avoided, but true teaching should be what believers follow. They shouldn’t be duped, shouldn’t become gullible, but must test prophets and see whether they are from the Lord. They need to examine all these teachings and cling to the good and throw out the bad.

If we look at the broader context of the New Testament as a whole, we see that Paul was certainly not speaking about avoiding every appearance of evil in 1 Thessalonians 5. His own mission was governed by the mantra, I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I might save some (1 Cor 9.22).

Further, consider the life of Jesus. The distinct impression one gets from the gospels is that Jesus simply did not have the same scruples about his associations that the religious leaders of the day had. They avoided the appearance of evil at all costs; Jesus seems almost to have had the opposite approach to life and ministry (see, e.g., Luke 7:39). Even his disciples had been oppressed by all the rules and traditions of men. But Jesus freed them from such nonsense. In Matt 15, the Pharisees were stunned that Jesus’ disciples did not perform the Jewish hand-washing ritual before they ate. They hammered on the disciples and on Jesus for not obeying the oral commandments. Jesus did not say, Sorry, boys. I didn’t mean to cause offense. It won’t happen again. Instead, he very boldly pointed out that these religious leaders had exchanged the laws of God for their own self-made rules. He called them hypocrites who had no heart for God. The most remarkable verse in this whole pericope is verse 12: Jesus’ disciples came to their Master and said, Did you know that the Pharisees were offended by what you just said? Didn’t they know that offending the Pharisees was part of Jesus’ job description!

To wield 1 Thess 5.22 as a weapon to restrict a believer’s personal freedom is against the general tenor of the New Testament and of the Lord’s life in particular. Ironically, to avoid every appearance of evil is far more in keeping with the Pharisees’ model of righteousness than with Jesus’! I like John Piper’s notion of Christian hedonism for it falls in line with the Westminster Confession’s statement that our prime objective is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Gee, maybe that’s what the Christian faith is all about? What a novel concept!

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Often when I begin a series on the emerging church people approach me with two questions: 1) “Am I emerging?” 2) “Are you emerging?” In both counts this is really a loaded question. I have a hard time answering it because I don’t know what they are really asking. It takes some further explaining before I am ever comfortable with such questions.

In the last post (”Will the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?“), I discussed the difficulty in finding a one-size-fits-all category for emergers as evidenced by the variety of leaders who claim the name. There is no one emerger that we can go to that represents the entire so-called “movement.” I then attempted to encourage people to see two primary strands of emergers—those that are simply emerging and a sub-set of those who are part of a more definite group of more liberal minded emergers called Emergent (closely associated with Emergent Village).

For this blog, I would like to narrow our definition of emerging by denying the label certain characteristics and giving a brief description of what I believe it means to be emerging.

What Emerging is Not:

The emerging church is not a church. It is important to realize that to label the emerging church as a church is misleading. Most people want to “go” to an emerging church to see what it is all about. I often tell them that this is not the best way to understand what emerging is all about. While there are “emerging” churches out there, the label emerging expresses something much more than a local assembly. Therefore, even though you may see people, including myself, call it the emerging “church,” this is not the best label and can be very misleading.

The emerging movement is not a movement. A movement implies a unified and organized group intent on bringing about change based in a set ideology. The emerging movement is neither unified nor organized. In fact, those who are “emerging” would take the label of a “movement,” in this sense and at this point in time, as an insult that represents the antithesis of what is going on. Therefore, even though you may hear many, including myself, refer to the emerging “movement,” it is not really such.

The emerging “church” should not be associated with the seeker-sensitive church. This is a very common misconception that I find. The seeker-sensitive church is a label used to describe those churches who seek to tailor all their church services and activities for the unbeliever. They try to create common ground with those outside the church. This common ground is found in the way the service is conducted. It might involve the type of music, the length of the sermon, type of entertainment, corporate professionalism, the casual dress, or the times of service. All the primary events are done in order for the unbeliever to feel comfortable while the Gospel is proclaimed. Seekers-sensitive churches want the bridge that one crosses from the culture to the church to be as small as possible.

Emergers, on the other hand, don’t have this philosophy. While many of the elements may look the same (casual dress, times of service, etc.) the reasons for this are completely different. It has to do with how the emerging community views culture. Emergers do not necessarily see the culture as evil as other traditions might. They don’t give people a taste of culture to lure them in and then attempt to change them, but they are the culture. This might help:

Relation to culture (forgive the stereotyping):

1. Fundamentalists: Separate from culture.

2. Evangelicals: Change the culture.

3. Emergers: We are the culture.

Remember the song We are the world”? Well emergers sing “We are the culture.” In this case, biblically minded emergers would distinguish between the apostle John’s definition of “world” (i.e. “Love not the world nor the things in the world”) from “culture.” The “world” is the expressions of a sin infected culture. Emergers would see God’s work in the culture just as much (if not more these days) as in the church. Therefore, they are one more step away from the fundamentalist philosophy of radical separation. They are not seeker-sensitive, but emerger-sensitive. Who are they being sensitive to? Themselves. Culture (believers and unbelievers). The imago dei in everyone.

What Emerging Is?

Briefly, I believe the best way to get ones arms around what it means to emerge is to define it as a widespread ethos, or way of thinking. This way of thinking is held by those who explicitly call themselves emergers and by many who don’t. It represents an articulated and unarticulated dissatisfaction with the current way that the body of Christ is perceived by the outside world and, indeed, truly is.

This ethos finds expression not in church planting, revitalizations of local church assemblies, or the creation of new denominations, but through conversation—conversations with other like-minded thinkers. People emerge on internet blogs, in chat rooms, and in coffee shops. They emerge through a shared ethos that expresses dissatisfaction and seeks change. These emerging avenues provide people with safety to ask questions—theological questions—that stimulate a conversation. These theological questions come with no assumed answer. In fact, most of the time they are not meant to be answered. Try to answer these questions too quickly with a definite and/or cliche answer and you will have immediately proved yourself disqualified from the emerging conversation. Why? Because you have illegitimized the question. You have insulted the intelligence of the emerging community by acting as if the questions that are bringing about conversation can be answered so thoughtlessly.

It is important to understand that many who are and have been dissatisfied with the church are apathetic to their own disdain. Their questions have never found a place—as safe place—to be asked. Most of these people are no longer active in Church nor are they seeking to be. They may not be able to articulate this dissatisfaction, but there is an ever present nagging within them that says, “This is not the way it is supposed to be.” These may qualify as dormant emergers. They share in the emerging ethos, but have yet to emerge as emergers. It would seem that these dormant emergers, who at present probably out number the active emergers, are being awakened by a like minded call for change—sometimes radical change. They are finding affinity in their naggings and are beginning to rise to the occasion.

Another group is actively seeking to do something about it. They call for and enact change at various levels—change in practice and thinking. Among these are those who are self-identified as emergers. They have come “out of the closet,” expressing their dissatisfaction with others.

So What Does Emerging Mean?

In short, the emerging ethos represents a growing mindset which is, consciously or sub-consciously, willing to legitimize and take seriously anew the type of questions being asked, doubts being expressed, and the distrust and dissatisfaction that the a postmodern (emerging) culture has with the traditional church (and Christianity) because they identify with them.

Those that seem to identify with the postmodern mindset too closely, believing that traditional Christianity may not have the answers, are more on the Emergent side. Emergents call for radical change in doctrine and practice. Those that identify with the postmodern mindset yet feel traditional Christianity, while imperfect, does offer the answers to the most important issues may be part of the more orthodox emerging movement. These call for a more mild change.

But it is not really that simple. There are many ways to call for change and many areas in which this change can occur. Next I will talk about how people can call for change—how people can emerge—in five different ways. (I know I already said that, but this needed to be said first!)

If this has served to obscure the issue for you, this is not such a bad thing. One of my main purposes with this series on the emerging “church” has been to show that confident categorizations of what it means to emerge can do more harm than good and really misses the point.

Part 4

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Before my next post on what it means to be emerging, I thought it necessary to reiterate some issues about orthodoxy. I mentioned some in the Emergent strand of emergers that many would place outside “orthodoxy” and this seems to have upset some people because I, in their opinion, too closely associated “orthodoxy” with “evangelical” without qualification.

Well, this then becomes the question. What is “orthodoxy”? Let me offer you my thoughts so that you know where I am coming from and then tie to together with the emerging series the best I can.

The term orthodox can be defined in a few ways:

1. Historic Christian Orthodoxy: This refers to the sine qua non (the “without which not”) of Christian belief. This belief is held, to paraphrase Augustine, “by all Christians, of all time, everywhere.” In other words, it is not limited to time or geographical region. Therefore, it would be found very early in some sort of articulated fashion, though not necessarily in formal document, in the early church. Historic orthodoxy did take a few centuries to articulate in thought and word. It is unthinkable that in the first few centuries Christians would have developed in their understanding beyond a seed form of the basics below. They were too busy trying to stay alive, legitimize themselves to hostile Jews and Romans, and encourage the local congregations. These basics were handed down in tradition (the regula fide) and Scripture.

In this case, a historically orthodox Christian would be one that believed in these essential elements:

Deity of Christ
Doctrine of the Trinity
The Sovereignty of God
The historicity of the physical death, burial, and resurrection of ChristÂ
Hypostatic union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
The sinfulness of man
The necessity of the atonement
Salvation by grace through faith
The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal]Â Church)
The authority of the visible body of Christ
The inspiration of Scripture
The canon of Scripture made up of the Old and New Testaments
The future second coming
2. Traditional Orthodoxy: This focuses upon the further articulations and nuances of an individual tradition, implied or dogmatized. As the above doctrines developed in understanding, people began to part ways in their interpretation of these doctrines. Traditional orthodoxy takes time to develop since it comes primarily as a result of controversy and challenge. There is a Catholic orthodoxy, Protestant/Evangelical orthodoxy, and Eastern Orthodoxy traditional orthodoxy. I will list all three (although I could have missed something). Notice that the further articulations are inserted in bold.

Historic Protestant/Evangelical Orthodoxy

Deity of Christ
Doctrine of the Trinity
The Sovereignty of God
The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature, imputed guilt, and personal sinfulness
The necessity of the vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross
Salvation through grace alone by faith alone on the basis of Christ alone
The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal]Â Church)
The authority of the visible local bod[ies] of Christ
The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture alone with final authority on all matters of faith.
The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books) and New (27 books) Testaments
The future second coming
Historic Roman Catholic Orthodoxy

Deity of Christ
Doctrine of the Trinity
The Sovereignty of God
The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature, imputed guilt, and personal sinfulness
The necessity of the vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross
Salvation by grace alone through faith as God works these out through our cooperation with Him
The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal]Â Church) which subsists only, explicitly and implicitly, in the one true Catholic Church that resides under the ultimate authority of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.
The infallible authority of the visible body of Christ as expressed by the Magisterial authority of Rome
The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture.
The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books + Deuterocanonical books/Apocrypha) and New (27 books) Testaments
The future second coming
Historic Eastern Orthodox Orthodoxy

Deity of Christ
Doctrine of the Trinity
The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature and personal sinfulness
The necessity of the recapitulation found in Christ’s atonement in his life and on the Cross
Salvation by grace through faith as God works these out through our unification with Him
The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal] Church)
The infallible authority of the visible body of Christ as expressed by the first seven ecumenical creeds
The infallible inspiration of Scripture.
The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books + the possible inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books/Apocrypha) and New (27 books) Testaments
The future second coming
3. Denominational Orthodoxy: Finally, there is the further division that can be broken down as Protestants continue to further define each of these areas. Of course Calvinists would further define issues of salvation, election, security, and God’s meticulous sovereignty. Arminians would do the same emphasizing God’s universal atonement and God’s providential sovereignty. Baptists would add issues such as believers baptism and congregational style of leadership within the local church. As well, Catholics have continued to further define areas as well such as the Marian dogmas.

OK, so this is the question: What is Orthodoxy? It depends on what you mean. My thoughts are that we need to define our terms here and be careful with our pronouncement of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. One can be heretical with regards to a particular traditional or denominational orthodoxy, but this does not necessarily make them a heretic in the proper sense.

My thoughts are these: To be a heretic in the proper sense means that you deny a doctrine that has been held by all Christians of all time, everywhere. To be orthodox in a proper sense means that you affirm all the essential doctrines of historic Christianity.

My argument in the last post on the emerging church is that the emerging ethos does not necessarily give way to heterodoxy as some of my more conservative friends have been led to believe. It is a broader conversation that includes those that fall outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy and those who are well within its boarders. Yes, as we shall see, there is a common thread on the type of discussion and thought represented by emergers, but there are differences on where emergers land (or if they land at all).

From a historic evangelical perspective the assessment is the same. There is a comfortable overlap between emerging thought and evangelical belief. Yet, there is also a departure from historic evangelical orthodoxy. This, in-and-of-itself, does not make it right or wrong, nor does it make the questions or conversation invalid, it just helps to give us perspective when assessing the issue.

This chart was meant to represent the issue from an evangelical perspective. This is my main audience and, therefore, it is to whom I am primarily speaking. Yes, “evangelical” is very difficult to define these days—like emerging, but I believe that historic evangelicalism, properly defined, represents the truth of Christianity most accurately, even if it does so imperfectly. So for those of you who were surprised that I have the evangelical label so closely associated with “Orthodox Christianity” I have to ask you What did you expect? I am an evangelical. If I thought there were a better representative of truth then I would not be an Evangelical. Yet this does not mean that I am willing to exclude Catholics or Orthodox from historic orthodoxy. They are just not included in the subject I have been dealing with.

So I ask you to keep these distinctions in the term “Orthodoxy” in mind as we move forward in this series on emerging thought.

As to why the chart has the conservatives on the left and the liberals on the right, I can’t answer this. Two possibilities: 1) I am left handed, therefore everything is backward in my world. 2) I was thinking more in terms of a time line (fundamentalism—evangelicalism—emerging—emergent), but that does not explain the placement of “liberal.” Oh well . . . as Jack Baur would say, “Deal with it!”

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

How does one define the emerging church? This is not an easy question to answer. Are you emerging? Maybe you are and you just don’t know it. It is very difficult to define exactly what it means to “emerge.” Sometimes its characteristics sound a lot like what “Evangelical” used to mean. Other times it sounds just like “Liberal.” Often it is hard to distinguish from neo-orthodox or even Eastern Orthodox. Many would just say that emergers are Christian Democrats!

If you compare yourself to a personality to determine whether you are emerging, it is no better. To whom do you choose to compare yourself? Brian McLaren? Doug Pagitt? Dan Kimball? Mark Driscoll?

1. If you go with Brian McLaren, then you may view “emerging” as somewhat of a political revolution.

2. If you go with Doug Pagitt, then you may see “emerging” as the hope of God’s redemption through a sort of quasi-universalism.

3. If you go with Dan Kimball, then you see “emerging” as a mission to win the lost with the essential message of the Gospel through kindness and understanding (sounds a bit like evangelicalism).

4. If you go with Mark Driscoll, then you may find it hard to distinguish “emerging” from a missional minded reformed evangelicalism.

Maybe its not that simple, but my point is that most of these fellows don’t seem like bed-fellows. In other words, it is hard to find the least common denominator with regards to their emerging distinction. They all call themselves emergers, but I don’t think that Driscoll would be too fond of being identified with Pagitt or McLaren. Kimball and Driscoll maybe, Pagitt and McLaren maybe, but not all of them together. It is hard to find the connection. If all of these guys are emerging, then what does emerging mean? Would the real emerger please stand up?

Part of the reason I write this post is because I just finished John MacArthur’s Truth War. While I really appreciate much of MacArthur’s work, I did not find this book helpful with regards to the emerging issue. In fact, I found it very unbalanced and ill-informed. He simply focused on one thought of one strand of the emerging “movement.” He did not distinguish between those who were guilty of his charges from those who were not. In this he mischaracterized many people and the movement as a whole. He choose one strand of emerging and presumed to attack the entire ununited movement as if it were united.

I also write this because I was recently identified as an emerger (which was news to me) by some of the more antagonist anti-emergers at a Bible conference. More importantly, I was placed along side of McLaren and Pagitt as a significant influence in the emerging movement. I did not see the connection at all.

I think it is important for us to recognize that there are many types of emergers. Let me attempt to give some perspective.

First, I think that it is important to distinguish between two meta-strands of emergers. Some would separate those that are emerging and those that are Emergent. I think this works well and is becoming more and more accepted. Emergent would be the more theologically liberal minded group of emergers. These are those that MacArthur went after with gloves off.

If you were to graph this out, adding a section for fundamentalism and liberalism, it would look something like this.

Notice there is overlap in many of these areas. There is an overlap of traditional evangelicalism and emerging. There is an overlap of Emergent and liberal. There is also an overlap between fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Traditional orthodoxy might be found in a balance between the extremes.

Here is how I would chart many of the popular emergers.

Notice, I would place many emergers outside the bounds of orthodoxy—at least as it has been seen from a historic Christian standpoint. The reason being is that they deny many aspects of historic Christianity. Among other things, either their doctrine of judgment, the exclusivity of Christ, the atonement, or even theistic worldview is contrary to that of the historic Christian faith. Some would even deny or call into question just about every foundational doctrine to the Christian faith.

Don’t misunderstand the chart. D.A. Carson represents the best of traditional Evangelical scholarship. But being in the middle does not necessarily mean that I believe that he is more orthodox than Dan Kimball. He is just less emerging! John MacArthur is to the far left, not because he is in danger of stepping outside of traditional Evangelicalism into a heterodox form of fundamentalism, but because he is more fundamental and less emerging than the others. McLaren is right on the line between emerging and Emergent.

Well, thus far I have simply meant to communicate the defining “emerging” is not a simple task. The one thing that I would immediately caution people on is this: don’t lump all those who call themselves “emerging” into the same category reserved for heretics. We have to be more responsible than this. It is unfair and could damage people’s reputation. If you were to do this, how is that any less an evil than the evil you may be accusing them of?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

“Doubt is a necessary evil on our journey toward belief.”

We have all felt feelings of doubt. A troubled mind that reaches down and nags at your heart asking it to reconsider. Your heart says no, but feelings of inadequacy continue to plague your thoughts. Maybe this is not every day, but it is more often than you would like or expect. I thought the Christian faith was to be one without doubt, without fear? You think to yourself. Do I really believe if I can entertain such doubt? I can’t tell anyone about this!

The fact is that our faith is not perfect. If our faith is not perfect, it is lacking in something. The bridge between a perfect faith and the faith that we possess today is called Doubt. John the Baptist stood on this bridge when he asked “Are you the expected one or do we look for someone else?” (Lk. 7:19-20). John the Baptist, the one about whom Christ said, “Among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11). Yes, he doubted. When things were not going as expected. As his mind reflected upon his situation, being held up in the prison of Herod, his heart was asked this question, “Is Christ really the one? Is He really the one?”

Have you ever asked “Is Christ really the one?” I have and sometimes still do.

My questions come more like this:

Who am I fooling? Do I really think that I have been called into ministry?

Why should anyone listen to me? I am a sinner—the worst of all.

All this—the Christian faith—is just too good to be true.

God, where are you? Are you just a bandage for my insecurity?

Why don’t you come to our aid when we need you most?

When I stand on the bridge called Doubt, I will often remain, frozen fear and silence. I know that I can run to the other side, but I am not sure that this is always the best thing. I need to experience this doubt so that I can overcome it. I will not let it master me.

The bridge gets smaller all the time. Traversing from one side to the other does not cover the distance that it once did. In fact, the more I am on this bridge, the smaller it gets. I know it is an ironic thing to say, but this bridge strengthens my faith. Facing your fears inclines those fears to turn on themselves. Doubt should not be feared. If it is, it will control you. You will never be able to move.

Those who have stood on the bridge of doubt and can admit it, are better able to help other who stand on it now.

Is doubt sin?

That is a good question. Its not an easy one to answer. The answer is yes, doubt is sin. But I think it is best to put it this way: Doubt is a result of a sin infected world. It is the residue of our antagonism toward God. This residue will plague us until we see Him face to face.

Do you really believe if you experience doubt? I think so. In fact, it may be a sign of our weakness being strengthened.

“Doubt is a necessary evil on our journey toward belief.”

“And though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.” (1 Pet. 1:8-9)

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Where do I begin with this? Not sure. I don’t want to be misunderstood in what I am trying to say—Or better, I don’t think that I am trying to say anything, just ask some questions. I will try to give you the essence of my thoughts, then I will attempt to explain what I mean. Here is the question: Is there ever a time when people are justified in threatening divorce? No, that won’t due. I need to qualify this. Is there ever a time, even when abuse or marital infidelity are not an issue, when the threat of divorce is justified?

When you get married, you say “forever,” right? I know because I said it and I have counseled dozens of people to say the say thing. During premarital counseling I would make one thing plain: Marriage is forever. If you don’t have this in mind then don’t get married. For better or worse. In sickness and health. Whether we are rich or poor. Until death do we part. In other words, I will NEVER leave you! If the future husband and wife were able to say this with understanding, then I was pretty comfortable doing the marriage. Marriage is serious business. If you are going to bail, then do it before you tie the knot.

However, I think I have changed with regards to this commitment. I think.

I remember reading a book about eight years ago called “His Needs, Her Needs.” My wife and I listened to it together. While there were some great points that were brought up, I could not overcome my feeling that the author was compromising in the most important details about marriage. Although I don’t have the book in front of me (I don’t know what happened to it—maybe I threw it out the window!), this is what I remember was the essence of a main point that formed the canvas to his arguments: Divorce needs to be seen as a real possibility in order for the marriage to work. Did you get that? Divorce, even for Christians, needs to be seen as a real possibility.”A real possibility?” I said to my wife, That will only create insecurity in the marriage. People need to have ultimate security. They need to know that no matter what happens, their spouse will never leave. Never, never, never, no matter what!”

I am not so sure any more. It depends on the day. Really, it depends on the situation. No, I am not advocating a form of marital situational relativism. I believe that God is never pleased with divorce. I have said as much in a previous blog series. Yet there are some issues with this. If you say you will never leave no matter what, and your spouse believes you, won’t that pose an opportunity (or liberty) for some to take advantage of your commitment, consciously or subconsciously, and bring about abusive, or at the very least, unhappy and unfulfilled marriages?

Let’s go a different direction than this for a moment. Some people only change when there is a threat—a real threat—of serious consequences for certain behavior. We find this in governmental laws. When my father received his third DUI in the mid-eighties, they took away his voting right. This scared him. This really scared him. The thought that he could lose many of his rights as a citizen was enough to make him quit drinking for many years. When Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go, God said that he would persuade him with calamity. These were serious consequences that caused him to rethink his decisions and ultimately let the Israelites go. As well, my mother would often threaten my father with divorce. Only when he believed the threat did he change.

I am pondering these things because there have been a few situations brought to me lately concerning difficulties in people’s marriage. In each of the situations there is one person who is following the Lord and the other who is either antagonistic to God or spiritually apathetic.

In one case, the husband is angry all the time. I would not qualify the behavior as necessarily abusive, but that which brings the wife down and has created a chasm in their relationship for quit some time. I call these situations “illegal divorces” because they have not had a formal divorce, but they live like they are not married. The wife desperately desires a good relationship, to be care for, loved, and teated with respect, but the husband does not put forth any effort. He knows that she will never leave because that would not be the “Christian” thing to do. So he is not motivated to change at all. What are her options? To ensure the husband that she will never leave him even though she is miserable? To say that being “happy” is not what is important, but obeying the Lord? Is she doomed to live a life of contentment in a non-marriage? Or should she threaten with divorce? What if the threat would cause him to change and bring about a good marriage—or at least a much better one? Has she done wrong?

Another situation comes to mind where the wife, again a committed Christian, has to watch helplessly as her husband drinks his life away. He neglects the kids and her for his love for drink and friends. Sometimes he comes home and sometimes he does not. There is no suspected adultery, only the reality of an “illegal divorce.” The wedding happened, but there has never been a marriage. She is faced with the real possibility that she will never have romance. Outside of a slim hope of an unmotivated miraculous change in her husbands character, she has not hope. She has seen too many people wait for this change and she knows that things don’t “just” happen, people don’t “just” change. They are motivated by something else. But she can’t leave, nor threaten to leave because, again, it is not the “Christian” thing to do. Sure, she can separate (Christians are much more tolerant of this), but this separation cannot have any directions to divorce on the map. Yet the husband would know this. Therefore, any threat of a “separation” would not be too serious. It might just give him a break—a vacation!

However, I have seen threats that work. I have seen Christians who live with the reality that a divorce is possible, as advocated in the book His Need, Her Needs. They know that both they and their spouses are imperfect sinners. Therefore, no matter how good you suspect yourself or your spouse to be, you live with the possibility that it might not work out. In these cases the threat of divorce—the real threat—keeps them on their toes. They are continually trying to keep each other—indeed, to win each other. They see marriage as a battle. If it is a battle, it can be lost. They know that there are casualties of this war and they could be one of them. In these cases, I have seen change. I have seen the spouse threaten divorce and scare their spouse into change. They know that there are boundaries and they do not cross them or they will suffer the real (not fake) consequences.

I have gone on quite long enough. I don’t know if I have communicated too well my ponderings, but would like to hear what you have to say. Here are my questions (they all really ask the same thing in different ways):

Is the threat of divorce ever justified outside of infidelity or abuse?

Can a fake threat be justified (in other words, you threaten divorce, but it is really an empty threat)?

Do you think that there are boundaries that justify this threat other than abuse and infidelity? How about just a miserable marriage or “illegal divorces”?

Is it sinful pragmatism to threaten divorce when you are not really willing to go through with it?

Should we counsel people to say “Until death do us part” or “Until death do us part, God help me.”

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I’m busy these days trying to crank out more than a thousand words a day on a church history text contracted by Zondervan, and I don’t have a lot of spare time. I leave it to my readers as to whether or not I should expend the money and time to buy and read The Shack. The book is getting incredible BUZZ and the vast vast majority of reviews on Amazon are 5 star. Here is what Eugene Peterson says:

When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!

I learned about the book from my friend Greg Albrecht (editor of Plain Truth Magazine); his review is equally glowing:

You will be captivated by the creativity and imagination of The Shack, and before you know it, you’ll be experiencing God as never before. William Young’s insights are not just captivating, they are biblically faithful and true. Don’t miss this transforming story of grace.

But there is also Michael Burton’s review, one of the two 1-star reviews on Amazon: He says the book is for you if, and only if . . . .

You want to recreate God in your own image;

You find Isaiah’s portrayal of a holy God seated upon His throne to be a disturbing image;

You would prefer to metaphorically cast God the Father as a loving and large black woman named “Papa,” Jesus as a laid back and friendly Middle Eastern man, and the Holy Spirit as a calm and cool Asian woman;

You want a God so small that you and she/he/she can just hang out together as best buddies;

You regard the Bible as an extremely biased, narrow-minded, and insufficient revelation of God in leather binding with “guilt edges” (page 65);

You therefore believe that God talks to people today, and that whatever she or he says to people trumphs biblical truth (page 66);

You believe that God is never to be feared (page 90). . . .

Who is this guy, William P. Young? Here is his own self-effacing bio:

The Shack was a story written for my six children, with no thought or intention to publish. It is as much a surprise to me as to anyone else that I am now an “author”. Overall, I am a very simple guy; I have one wife, six kids, two daughter-in-laws and two grandkids on the way. I work as a general manager, janitor and inside sales guy for a friend who owns a small manufacturers rep company in Milwaukie, Oregon, and I live in a small rented house in Gresham, Oregon, that Kim has made into a marvelous home. My time is spent loving the people that are a part of my life. I am not connected, or a part, or a member of, or involved inside any sort of organization or movement anywhere. The truth is that I doubt anyone would want me. From my perspective that is a very positive thing for both of us. I have lots of incredible friends, and now you are one of those.

My questions to you all are: Have you heard about the book? If so, what’s the BUZZ you’re getting? Have you read it? Should I expend my time and money on it?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

In Part I of this series, I summarized three theologically distinct interpretations of John 10:30: that Jesus and the Father are one in person (the usual Oneness Pentecostal view), that they are one in power (the usual Trinitarian view), and that they are one in purpose (a view held by many anti-Trinitarians). I then critiqued the one in person view. In this post, I will present arguments in favor of the Trinitarian view that Jesus is claiming to be one in divine power indeed, one God with the Father.

I have summarized the contextual evidence in Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Kregel, 2007), authored with Ed Komoszewski:

In context, Jesus has just claimed to do his works in the name of the Father (v. 25), to be the Shepherd of the sheep (v. 26), to give eternal life to them (v. 27), and to prevent anyone from snatching them out of his hand, just as the Father does (vv. 28-29; cf. Deut. 32:39). He then concludes that in asserting these divine prerogatives, he is claiming, I and the Father are one (John 10:30) (p. 239).

It might help if I elaborate a bit on the argument here. First of all, in the immediate context of John 10:30, Jesus appropriates to himself a divine title (Shepherd ), claims to perform a divine work (namely, giving eternal life), and asserts that he has divine ability to prevent any hostile force from turning any of his people against him. In this short passage, we see three of the five kinds of evidence for the deity of Christ that Ed and I present in our book: the attributes, names, and deeds of God that Jesus shares. (That Jesus receives honors due to God is implicit in Jesus’ description of the sheep as those who believe and follow him, though this may not be as clear as the other elements.) It is the convergence or synergy of these elements applying to Jesus Christ in the same close context that makes such a strong case for regarding this passage as speaking of him as God. For example, although the title shepherd can apply to all sorts of creatures without implying any divinity (literal shepherds, of course, but also Israelite kings and other leaders), its use in this context of attributing to Jesus divine power and divine works carries it outside these more mundane categories of connotation.

What clinches the argument is the fact that Jesus makes these claims using language that clearly takes the words of YHWH, the LORD God, in the Old Testament, and applies them to himself:

"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand" (Deut. 32:39 ESV).

"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand" (John 10:28-29 ESV).

YHWH says, "make alive"; Jesus says, "I give eternal life." YHWH says, "and there is none that can deliver out of my hand" ; Jesus says, "and no one will snatch them out of my hand . . . and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." The Hebrew word massil can be translated either "snatch" or "deliver" ; in Deuteronomy 32:39, where YHWH emphasizes that he kills as well as makes alive, the word actually has both meanings. No one can snatch out of God’s hand those whom he chooses to make alive, and no one can deliver out of God’s hand those whom he chooses to kill. In John 10:28-29, Jesus is focusing strictly on his divine power to give life, and so John quotes him using the Greek word harpazein, "to snatch." Thus, a close analysis of the two texts makes it clear that John 10:28-29 uses the wording of Deuteronomy 32:39 to express the claim that Jesus does what God does in preserving those whom he gives eternal life.

A standard strategy used by anti-Trinitarians to escape the force of passages like this one is to claim that it indicates merely that God is able to delegate responsibilities to his trusted, created agent. However, the allusion to Deuteronomy 32:39 precludes this explanation. The whole point of Deuteronomy 32:39 is that YHWH alone is able to kill and give life as he chooses; it is he alone from whose hand no one is able to snatch or deliver. "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me." This is an explicit affirmation of monotheism, a rejection of the notion that there is any divine being that can do what YHWH alone does. Indeed, this statement in Deuteronomy 32:39 is one of the most explicit and emphatic assertions of monotheism in the entire Pentateuch (see also Deut. 4:35, 39).

Now Jesus’ statement, "The Father and I are one," comes into a shocking new focus. In verses 28-29 Jesus has just taken one of the most explicitly monotheistic statements from Deuteronomy and applied it to himself, including himself with the Father in its affirmation. Now, in verse 30, Jesus asserts, "I and the Father are one." In light of what Jesus has just said, it is evident that he is here including himself with the Father in another Deuteronomic affirmation of monotheism, the famous Shema: "Hear, O Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is one"(Deut. 6:4). As I pointed out in Part I, John quotes Jesus’ statement using the neuter form hen instead of the masculine form heis (which is the form used in the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 6:4). In doing so, John wards off the possible misunderstanding that Jesus is claiming to be the same person as the Father. Yet the allusion to the Shema remains: Jesus has just claimed divine status in a deliberate allusion to one of the explicitly monotheistic statements of Deuteronomy, and in this context his assertion that he and the Father are one is clearly another claim that he is to be included in the identity of the God of Jewish monotheism.

Let me review. In John 10:25-30, Jesus claims at once a divine name or title (Shepherd), a divine prerogative or deed (to give eternal life as he chooses), and the divine attribute of the sovereign power to prevent anyone from snatching his people out of his hand. Jesus makes these claims using language taken from one of the most explicitly monotheistic texts of Deuteronomy. His claim to be one with the Father must be understood in this context as a claim to have the same divine name, perform the same divine deed, and possess the same divine power, as God himself. It is a claim that Jesus, the Son, is to be included in the identity of the one Lord God of Israel, while maintaining a personal distinction between himself and the Father.

In the remainder of this series, I will examine objections to this argument, specifically those objections that supposedly establish that Jesus is only claiming to be "one in purpose" with the Father.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Last week we looked at the Greek construction of the Great Commission (Matt 28.19-20) and concluded that the typical English translation, Go and make disciples,was pretty accurate. The participle translated Go is really dependent on the mood of the main verb (the imperative, make disciples ) for its force. However, in such constructions (known as attendant circumstance), the main idea is not shared by both verbal forms; rather, it falls on the main verb. The participle is the prerequisite needed for the fulfillment of the imperative. Thus, going is commanded rather than assumed, but the going is not the main idea, for if someone were to go without making disciples he would miss the point. But making disciples “of all the nations†cannot be accomplished apart from going. So much for the grammar.

This blog will look at the historical context. Both with reference to grammar and history, many a pastor has put the applicational horse before the interpretive cart. It is crucial that we distinguish these two, and deal with interpretation apart from application. Obviously, there is a huge intersection between the two, but we confuse them only to our peril. Too many Christians are impatient with interpretation and simply want to get to the application. Sadly, too many pastors accommodate them and the result is often eisegetical anarchy. One of the question that must be asked before one gets into application of a text is whether such a passage has direct validity, indirect validity, or merely illustrative, historical, or negative value for believers today. The Great Commission is a classic text that has been applied before it has been interpreted, or has been applied with the interpretation, making a hopeless mess of things, and the result is that both the interpretation and application often miss the point.

This blog will deal with the historical setting; next week’s blog will deal with the application of this passage to our lives today.

Now for the history lesson. The scene of the Great Commission is an unspecified mountain in Galilee (28.16). Jesus gives his command here, then the gospel concludes. No ascension to heaven is mentioned. However, by comparing the data in Luke 24 and Acts 1, we see that Jesus’ ascension took place on the Mount of Olives (where the village of Bethany was located), in Judea just across from Jerusalem. And the final instructions he gave the disciples were to stay in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came upon them. Then they would be his witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth (Acts 1.8). Why does Matthew seem to ignore the ascension right outside of Jerusalem? He is in the habit of telescoping events in his narrative (compare Matt 9.18-26 with Mark 5.21-43). And since the resurrection account has the women being instructed to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee, that’s what they do. And there they get their commission, and the gospel ends. (One of the things that is quite amazing about the resurrection appearances is how understated they are compared to later apocryphal gospels; this at least hints at being a mark of authenticity.) But it’s important for us to recognize that the place where the commission is to start is in Jerusalem, not Galilee.

The disciples then are waiting in Jerusalem until the Spirit comes upon them, which will occur some ten days after the ascension of the Lord. We may be puzzled as to why Jesus wanted the apostles’ evangelistic ministry to begin in Jerusalem rather than in Galilee. It could be that this was where Jesus was executed and where the apostles abandoned the Lord in the moment of his sacrifice. The apostles needed to stand up here, and demonstrate that they were no longer afraid of the enemies of the gospel or of the consequences to their own lives. It may be that Jesus wanted to have the apostles witness to the Jews in the heart of Judaism, so that the announcement of God’s coming kingdom would be directly relevant to these folks since the kingdom would begin here. It may be that the Lord recognized that the Day of Pentecost was strategic for the quick spread of the gospel throughout the Mediterranean world. Whatever the reason, the main point for our purposes is that the apostles begin their testimony within Israel, within Judaism, and to the Jews.

The commission then is to begin with the nation of Israel. But it is not to end there. The command to make disciples of all the nations clearly indicates that more than Jewish evangelism is in view. When that command is juxtaposed with Acts 1.8, a hint of how the commandment would be implemented might be coming into view: although the apostles were commanded to go to the nations, Acts 1.8 only says that they will do this. It is thus here predicted, not commanded.

How do the disciples obey the Great Commission? What is the catalyst that gets them to move beyond the walls of the Holy City, and into Samaria and beyond? Persecution. Specifically, the persecution carried out by one Saul of Tarsus, a zealous Pharisee, a man who hated Christians and hated Jesus because he was an accursed criminal whom God judged by hanging him on a tree. The next several chapters in Acts show, in rapid literary succession, how the gospel spread outside of Judaism. Immediately after the stoning of Stephen, Saul (also known as Paul—this was not a name given to him later, unlike Simon Peter) goes on a witch-hunt for Christians, and he ends up looking for them in Syria (Acts 9). In chapter 8, Peter goes to Samaria to check on the responses of the half-Jews to the gospel that Philip had brought to them. And in chapter 10, Peter is sent to Caesarea Maritima, a largely gentile city on the coast of Palestine in northern Samaria. He is sent to preach the gospel to gentiles. And when they have the same experience of the Spirit that the apostles had had on the Day of Pentecost, Peter is convinced that the gospel was also meant for gentiles and, further, that they did not need to observe the dietary laws of the Jews to be saved. But it was persecution that got the apostles and other disciples out of Jerusalem.

In short, it almost seems as if Paul led more people to Christ as a Pharisee than as an apostle! The Lord was able to use persecution to get the eyewitnesses of the resurrection out the door. You will be my witnesses… in Samaria was indeed a prophetic word.

Seen in the light of history, the Great Commission altered the manner and contents of evangelism by God’s people. For the most part, Old Testament evangelism focused on pagans coming to Israel to get saved (the story of Jonah is an exception that proves the rule). But they could not remain uncircumcised gentiles and get saved. They had to follow dietary laws, get circumcised, and offer the sacrifices that marked the Jews out as a special people.

Now, with the Great Commission, we see in seed-plot form an evangelism that is no longer ethnocentric (i.e., focusing on and staying within Jerusalem as the ethnic, political, and religious center of Judaism) but rather was eccentric (i.e., moving away from this center). Further, with the removal of the food laws as a barrier to getting within the community of believers, the evangelists themselves were forced into an unfamiliar world. The vision that Peter had about killing and eating unclean animals underscored this to him. Just imagine what it would be like to be an apostle who, for the first time in his life, ate a ham sandwich or had bacon and eggs for breakfast! If these men had been taught all their lives of the repulsion of such cuisine, how would that first bite go down? Frankly, my guess is that it would come up just as fast! Obedience to the gospel certainly made them squirm. It got them way outside their comfort zone.

The apostles may have been acquainted with the story of Eleazar’s refusal to eat defiled meat before Antiochus Epiphanes and his subsequent torture and death by fire (4 Maccabees 5-6), or the more famous story of the murder of seven brothers before their monther’s eyes (4 Macc 8–12). In this text, the guards had placed before them wheels and joint-dislocators, rack and hooks and catapults and caldrons, braziers and thumbscrews and iron claws and wedges and bellows†(4 Macc 8.13 [NRSV]) to help persuade these seven brothers to eat pork. The next several chapters of 4 Maccabees (8-18) describe in an NC-17 manner the tortures that these young men suffered out of reverence for the Law. Each died without so much as taking a bite. Whether or not this story is true is not the point; rather, that it would have been used in Jewish circles to teach young Jewish children to be brave and obedient to the law is.

But through the paradoxical route of redemptive history, once the gospel was unleashed from its Mosaic fetters, eating defiled food was regarded as a courageous act and refusal to eat was considered cowardly (Gal 2.11-14)! I cannot stress enough how difficult this change in perspective must have been for these apostles. But for the sake of the gospel, they became evangelists on an eccentric mission with a Christocentric focus. In short, they went and then made disciples rather than making disciples along the way.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

That’s the title of a press release that is going out this week. I’ll have to wait until the news of the location, as well as the number and significance of the manuscripts, is broken before I can say too much more. But as many of you know, these discoveries were made by a team from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (www.csntm.org). The team came back with over 18,000 high-resolution digital photographs, filling one terabyte of data. Altogether, 47 manuscripts were photographed (though many of them were previously known to western scholars). The equipment broke down, the air conditioning was shut down by the government every day, and the heat of the summer beat down on this team mercilessly. It took five weeks and two different teams (four took the first shift and three the second) to shoot all the manuscripts.

What I can tell beyond the above is that a few of the manuscripts seem to be fairly important, although only one or two can properly be called “early.†(I take it that the title in the press release is descriptive rather than restrictive; that is, early could be applied to any New Testament manuscript since all such are handwritten documents and virtually all are prior to the invention of the moveable-type printing press.)

A class of graduate students at Dallas Seminary last semester worked on collating sample chapters in these manuscripts. Collation is, in principle, a transcription of the wording (even down to the letters) of a document. But a collation is different from a straight transcription in that a base text is collated against; all the differences from that base text are noted. The variants that are thus produced are the readings that do not agree with the base text. Otherwise, agreement with the base text is assumed. This method creates an apparatus that follows what is commonly called the subtractio princeps—that is, it creates only those readings that are not found in the base text. Since the base text is the Byzantine text (which basically stands behind the King James Bible), any differences from that base raise the eyebrows and suggest that such a reading may be early and important.

After spending what must have seemed to them like an eternity collating these manuscripts, the students finally were able to assess what the teams had photographed, or discover what they had discovered. To be sure, the library in which these manuscripts are housed had a record of their contents; they knew what they were, at least in broad strokes. We are extremely grateful for the library opening its doors to us, too! But what CSNTM provided were the specific details, as well as decent digital images. And what the press release will say is that at least four of these manuscripts are significant for telling us about the wording of the original text. What it won’t say is that we didn’t get a chance to look at all the manuscripts yet. There may be, therefore, many others that are significant as well.

I can also mention that Hitler had shown an interest in one or two of these manuscripts during WWII. Fascinating story there.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!