For those of you who want to criticize the tone of this post, please make sure you read my previous posts on the emerging church. One is listed at the bottom. Take this post in the spirit is was intended and lighten up.

Today, at 12:33pm, while most of you were having lunch, the Emerging Church was taken off of  life support.

The Emerging Church was not around long enough to be declared alive, so the announcement of its death comes with an apathetic “ho-hum” for many of you. But it is true. Stop the “What is the Emerging Church?” seminars. Edit the “Beware of Brian McLaren Sermons.” And don’t even entertain starting an Emerging blog. As far as I can see, the Emerging Church is dead at 15.

It got some cries out, made some very good points, called for changed, and then died. Its leaders are disappearing or have disassociated themselves from the movement. Publishers won’t even entertain books with this title. Those, like myself, who were very well acquainted with the “movement” get nauseous when the topic is even brought up. In fact, I am nauseous now.

Did this even last as long as the “Jesus Freaks”?

Supposing I am right, let me conduct a funeral. Please, step up to the mic and tell of your association with the movement. No takers. Ok, let me. Better—I will give an autopsy. As a sympathizer of the “movement” I feel I am quite qualified to do so.

Why did the emerging church die?

1. Lack of Tact Theory: I remember learning in seminary that when one pastor replaces another, the new pastor must be very careful not to attempt change too quickly. One thing at a time. Work with wisdom. Slowly, slowly, slowly. Don’t come in and beat up the old way of doing things thinking that your passion and belief in the necessity of change with be shared by others. It won’t. In fact, your demand for change will solidify people in their own places. You will be politely asked to leave. The emerging church lacked tact. It never gained the ear of the home base. Movements such as this need to be changed from the inside out, not the outside in. That is unless you are willing to go all the way and break completely from the home base (e.g. the Reformation). Continue Reading »

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!

        

It was in my expository preaching course that I learned it. It was driven into my teaching psyche and intended to become a part of my basic presupposed knowledge of ministry. Without it, all your preparation would be in vain. Lacking this, your message will fail to do what God actually intended it to do.

It is the message for a new generation. It is something emergers know and they know that they know it. It is what  I hear on blogs, read in books, and a continued favorite among those who are despondently depressed and shamed when surrounded by “fundamentalists.” It is pridefully stated as if this epiphany is going to miraculously wake a sleeping Evangelical culture of John MacArthur and John Piper groupies.

What is it?

“Belief is no good without practice.” Wake up and smell the manna!

Sounds reasonable doesn’t it. Let’s put it another way.

“Belief is not the end, it is a means to an end. The end is doing not believing.”

In preaching, it goes like this:

“If you don’t have a way in which people can apply the lesson to their lives today, you have not really done anything.”

Another:

“Introduction. Body. Three points of application.”

A friend said it the other day. We visited a church led by a young seeker-friendly preacher. After the lesson he said, “Now I really liked that sermon.” “Why?,” I asked. “Because it has so much application,” he responded. “That is what I need—application.”

The idea here is that belief, in and of itself, is not the end game that God has for us. God primarily wants us to be active in our practice. Good works, being nicer to people, acting out our love, giving to the poor, self-sacrifice, not cheating on tax-returns, avoiding certain web-sites, bringing home flowers to your wife, forgiving your father, protecting the unborn, knowing when to set down the beer, taking your daughter out on a date, remembering to say “I love you” (don’t just suppose they know), and trading your Hummer for a Honda. These are all things I can do today. This is what we need. Right?

emergentos moschos skubula

(Excuse the French). Nice translation: “What a load.” Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

I was discussing religion with a gentleman this evening. It was a very interesting conversation in which he recounted to me how he used to be a Christian in a Baptist church. But he left Christianity for Buddhism not too long ago. He explained that the reason why he left Christianity was because of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In short, he felt that Christians were on the wrong side of this issue.

This is representative of so many in our cultural Christianity. This gentleman’s argument was simple:

Christianity is determined as valid or invalid upon the character of its adherents.

In other words, if Christians do not act a “good” way, then Christianity itself is discredited. In this man’s mind, Christians were on the wrong side of the conflict, therefore he left Christianity for something more suitable in keeping with the character that he supposed should accompany those who follow the true God.

I am going to make a statement here that I suppose is going to make many of my readers upset. This especially goes for those who are more “emerging” in their thinking. Here it goes:

Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents.

Did you get that? Let me repeat.

Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

The horse and water illustration that follows is taken from Millard Erickson’s book Postmodernizing the Faith. I use this and expland.

How should Christians engage a postmodern, post-Christian, post-evangelical world?

Horse=postmodern
Water=the Gospel
Rope=method of delivery

Question: How do we lead a postmodern horse to water?

Option 1: Deny the horse is really postmodern. No one can be a consistent postmodern. We simply need to convince them of the untenability of their professing worldview and show them how they don’t hold to it in reality.

Option 2: Convert the horse from being postmodern. Create common ground in epistemology (the way we come to know truth), then they will be able to drink the water.

Option 3: Change the rope. Christians need to change the communication method and style for a postmodern audience, being sensitive to the ethos of our culture.

Option 4: Change the water. The water we are calling “Gospel” today may not represent the true Gospel due to traditional folk theology and misinformation. Therefore, the water needs to be “purified.” Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

With all the renewed conversation about the emerging church that is blanketing the web once again, I thought that I would enter the “conversation” in a somewhat atypical way.

Some are proclaiming the death of the emerging church saying, “The emerging church is dead—at least in nomenclature, if not in spirit.” Others such as Scot McKnight, Andrew Jones, and Dan Kimball are calling this a nominal death, believing the name itself is no longer descriptive of the original intent of the group, but that the principles expressed will move on. Scot’s post had the spirit of a “call to arms” of the emerging ethos. Others, such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones may to be holding on to its designation with some hesitant resolve (if you you will allow me to combine those two words).

For those of you ready to sing a courtesy dirge, for those who are preparing their “I-told-you-so” sermon for this Sunday, for those who are breaking out the campaign, hold on. Put the cork back in. I don’t think this type of celebration is yet in order. In fact, I think that this is simply setting up for the second coming of emerging.

To me, this is a good thing that has been in the works for the last few years. It is a natural result of any attempts to reform. The movement is correcting itself. As a result, we see emergers distancing themselves from one another. It is interesting to see the way they are distancing themselves. There are no rope burns on either side. Really, it is just a matter of starting a walk together, holding  the hands of many shared concerns. But while this walk initially allowed some close associations, the ever so slight angle of the direction has proven that they were never really headed the same way to begin with. Its a matter of geometry.

How about a chart to describe this! (Start from the bottom).

(Click to Enlarge) Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

In a previous post I described the five ways Christians can evidence emerging characteristics. One of them was to “emerge ecclesiologically.” This is the way I described it:

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

Here is a quote that I found interested out of Stories of Emergence. In speaking about today’s typical church service, the author says:

“Today’s modern service is orchestrated so nothing disturbing, uncomfortable, controversial, or shocking occurs. The music is edited to eliminate mediocre musicians or off-key singer. Solo numbers are assigned to the best. Prayer requests are screened or relegated to the bulletin where they can be carefully worded. Testimonies are screened to guarantee they won’t make anyone uncomfortable or go on for too long. They sermon is inviolate. No interruptions are allowed, questions can’t be asked, assumptions can’t be challenged, disagreements can’t be voiced.” (Stories of Emergence, p. 17) Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

“Converstionism.” This is one of the few marks of Evangelicalism spoken of by Evangelical historian Mark Noll. Evangelicals believe that people must experience a sincere personal conversion to Jesus Christ. This is a hallmark of Christianity—to be a convert.

Please understand that what follows in no way detracts from this. Conversionism is essential to Evangelicalism. What follows serves as a warning about the dangers that often exist as a person’s conversion from any position to another interacts with their witness and theological integrity.

I was in a spiritual conversation with a gentleman the other day. At times, the conversation became heated. I don’t mind heated conversation or debate so long as it is respectful, honest, and intentional. At one point in the conversation, the gentleman accused me of not being able to see outside of my “Evangelical lenses” that tainted my ability to accept the truth—his version of it of course.

Did you get that. Let me pause and for a bit of repetition. He believed I could not understand because (let me paraphrase):

“You cannot see outside of your Evangelical tainted lenses!!!”

Ouch! And what lenses are you wearing?

“None. I am a postmodern. We are the only ones that don’t wear lenses.”

Interesting. Can I have a pair of those?

It seems that this is becoming increasingly common. In fact, it has happened to me three times in the last few weeks (which is why I bring it up here). The assumption is that one is not a careful thinker because they already believe according to a certain tradition. And you know what that means: it is not you believing, but your tradition believing for you.

Isn’t this odd? One cannot see the truth so long as he already thinks he has the truth, but once he does not think he has the truth, he can finally see the truth? While I do believe that there is a hint of truth to this, it can and is often taken to a self-referentially absurd extreme. As well, many of us in the postmodern world like to use it as conversation stoppers when we lack any other recourse. When in doubt and you have no answer, just say this: “You cannot see because your commitment perspective blinds you.”

In each of these cases spoken of above, the accuser, interestingly, was a convert from Evangelicalism. None of them were atheists. In fact, all were still Christians (usually of the emerging variety). One thing was clear: they did not like Evangelicalism. They were bitter about its former promises by which they now believe themselves to have been misled.

The problem is that the supposed objectivity that they think they have attained has become their master. They fail to realize that their conversion, irregardless of its justification, may have actually tainted their view more. They have fooled themselves into thinking that to take off the sunglasses of their former perspective means that they are wearing no sunglasses at all.

In reality, we all wear sunglasses that taints our individual perspective. There is no real option that allows us to see things perfectly, the way they really are. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Warning, long post ahead:

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 emerging 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 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? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Being in ministry—being in theological ministry—the passions run high. You are going to say some wrong things and you are going to have some wrong things said about you. Such is ministry. One needs to develop some thick skin if they seek to surf these waters.

As a consequence of being misunderstood, you get mislabeled. One label that has been recently tapped on my back with red crayon is “minimalist.” What does that mean to be a minimalist?

Minimalist

One who sees Christianity as a system of belief that only recognizes the least common denominator. In other words, let’s just find out what all those who call themselves Christian believe and say that this is true Christianity and then let’s not talk about anything else. Talking about what divides, well . . . divides. And division is bad, bad, and double bad. Therefore, let’s just all get along.

Many of those in Pop Evangelicalism, the Emerging Church, and the Emergent church take this perspective.

From the standpoint of those who call me a minimalist, I represent a branch of Evangelicalism that compromises truth for conciliation in the name of ecclesiastical unity.

Stepping back and looking at this criticism, I can see where it comes from. I understand how people would get this impression. I do tend to encourage people to focus on the things that unite. I do tend to plead with people about the danger of talking past each other. I am even sometimes critical of militant apologetic methods that seem to deepen chasms, hardening others in an apologetic position that only focuses on what they are against, thereby losing perspective. However, I would not classify myself as a minimalist.

Let me introduce some similar terms that will help get a grasp on this issue.

Maximalist

One who seeks unity only with those with whom there is maximal agreement. Any disagreement, no matter how small it is perceived to be, does not take away from its importance. All issues are equal, or at least close to it.

Roman Catholics, some Eastern Orthodox, and Fundamentalists would normally share this perspective.

Centrist

One who seeks unity by finding areas of compromise. Taking the dialectical method, opposing positions are rarely correct, but the truth is found in a compromised center.

Many in the Emergent and liberal Church share this perspective.

Centralist

One who starts with the center of Christianity and believes that it provides the anchor from which all other conversation will find its ground. A centralist is focused on the most important elements of the faith so that the other issues can be seen in light of the perspective it provides.

Most in the Historic Evangelical church, some emergers, and some Eastern Orthodox hold this perspective.

It is in this camp that I can be found roasting marshmallows.

What is the “center” of the faith?

The doctrine of the Scripture? The doctrine of truth? Helping those in need? Social action? No. None of these in my opinion are the center of the faith. The center of our faith is Christ. If you want to say “the doctrine of Christ,” that is good as well. It is the person and work of Christ that is the center of Christianity. “Who do men say that I am?” is the most important theological question there is. If you get this wrong, all else will not only come undone, but it will be meaningless. If you get this right, there is a foundational unifying factor that we must recognize and in light of which all other issue must find their place. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Get PDF version

I am thoroughly orthodox. No, not Eastern with a capital “O”, but orthodox meaning that I believe all the right things. Well . . . at least I think I am. But, really, it depends on how one defines “orthodox.” What does it mean to be orthodox?

It would seem that this question is taking center stage in the current theological landscape. I have heard rumors that some prominent leaders in the emerging church are going to be writing on this issue, challenging the traditional thought concerning what it means to be “orthodox”—even more than they have already done. Some in the Emergent church, such as Tony Jones and Brian McLaren, are saying that there may not be such a thing as “orthodox.” Others, like Andrew Jones, seem to suggest that orthodoxy simply should be thought of as “right worship” rather than right teaching. Some of our more fundamentalistic brothers and sisters believe that orthodox means you agree with everything in their particular tradition or denomination. Some Christians even say that “orthodoxy” is a representation of a dynamic confession that has developed throughout church history. Well . . . ahem . . . that would be me.

With this in mind, I have written a short series on this subject. I am going to try to argue that there is such a thing as orthodoxy and it means first and foremost “right teaching” or “right belief.” I am also going to propose that orthodoxy is a progressive representation of truth as it has been revealed and understood throughout history.

Here is the chart that I will use to serve as a visual aid. We will break it down and add to it throughout this series.

Let me start at the beginning.

Notice the dotted line. This represents the division between God’s eternal existence which is static (above the line) and man’s time-bound existence which is dynamic (below the line).

God gave man revelation in a progressive fashion. This is often referred to as “progressive revelation.” This simply means that when Adam and Eve were in the Garden, God did not give them a completed Scripture. For example, Abraham did not know as much as Moses about redemption. He had some basic components, but very few details. The same can be said of David. While he new more than both Abraham and Moses, he did not know as much as Isaiah, and so on.

The canon itself is a dynamic and progressive revealing of truth as God brings about his redemptive purpose with man. The small “t” represents the first installment, if you will, to truth. The “tr” shows how this revelation of truth was progressive through time. As you can see, revelation is completed in the New Testament when the complete truth of God’s revelation has been finalized in the coming of Christ and the writings of the Apostles.

But notice something important. “Truth” is all in lower case below the dotted line, while above the dotted line it is in upper case. This refers to the revelation of truth in contrast to the understanding of truth. While God’s revelation was completed, I believe, at the completion of the New Testament, the understanding of this truth in a canonical whole had just begun. I have more to say about this, but I don’t think it would be beneficial at this point. Just keep this in mind as it serves as an important presumption of my thoughts.

Notice here that while revelation has ceased, our understating of this revelation is developing. Both Catholics and Protestants hold to a theory called “doctrinal development.” While the details of how doctrine develops is much different, the basic confession is the same: doctrine develops from one stage to another. This is because truth itself is better understood as time affords.

If you can think of a seed developing into a tree. Or even better, a baby developing into an adult. The same basic components (DNA) are in the adult as was in the baby, yet the adult has matured through time. The adult has learned and developed into a more articulate and distinct looking human. The same can be said about doctrine. Our understanding, pushed forward through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, has grown.

It is not the “one deposit of faith that was once for all handed over to the saints” that has changed, but it is our understanding of it that has matured.

The capital letters in “truth” begin to arise. Again, this is not because truth itself is changing, but because our understanding of truth is maturing. For example, while the early church believed in the deity of Christ in some sense, they did not know how to articulate this understanding in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit. As controversies arose, the contrast that the controversies provided helped the church to develop their understanding to a more mature form. This maturation eventually gave forth in the articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381). That is why we have a capital “T” while the rest remains lower case. As time goes on, the church is forced to wrestle with their understanding concerning many more issues.

The capital letters are not meant to convey that we understand truth to the degree that God understands truth, but that we have come to, what we believe, is a maturation of the faith. Can it mature more, possibly, but this maturation will seldom be antithetical to that which has gone before. In other words, the capital “T” will not change to a “D” or an “N.” I will have to defend this more as we continue our study, but hopefully this is a helpful start.

Finally we have this chart which illustrate how our understanding of “orthodox” is in development along with our illumination to the truth.

The primary argument here is that while our orthodoxy may not be perfect this side of heaven, it, nevertheless, can be an accurate understanding of TRUTH. As Dr. John Hannah would say, “We cannot know God fully, but we can know him truly.” I would say the same for orthodoxy.

I was at a meeting where Brian McLaren said that he believes truth itself is dynamic, changing, and evolving. I am not sure if he still believes this or would continue to articulate it in such a way, but, at least at the time, I was very uncomfortable with his proposition (yes, it was a proposition). Truth does not change.

I am also uncomfortable with the idea that orthodoxy changes. Use the words develop, dynamic, and even evolve, but the word “change” is too strong. It implies an antithetical development of orthodoxy that I don’t think a proper view of history need allow.

Part 2: Six Views of Orthodoxy

Christians have different presuppositions that they bring to their theology. This does not make it right or wrong, but we must understand that the unexamined presupposition is not worth having. Our view of history is no different. It is a presupposition that we bring when asking the question What does it means to be “orthodox”?

There are really six primary views that I find represented in the church today. I am going to try to explain these views using both established and original terminology. I have tried to stay away from certain terms such as “neo-orthodox” and “emerging orthodox” so as not to skew perspectives and stack the deck for or against anyone.

1. aOrthodoxy. Belief that there is no such thing as orthodoxy as a set of “right beliefs” or, at the very least, Christianity should not be defined by our beliefs except in a very minimalistic way. This view of orthodoxy takes a very pessimistic view of the Church’s need and ability to define truth, believing that orthopraxy (”right practice”) is the only thing that should be in focus. This pessimistic approach is influenced by the belief that defining the “boundaries” of Christianity according to beliefs has brought nothing but shame and divisiveness to Christianity. This is illustrated most in the bloodshed of the inquisition, Crusades, and wars among Christians. To be labeled “orthodox” or “unorthodox” to the aOrthodox is an arrogant power play that is oppressive to the cause of Christ. Orthodoxy, therefore, is a contextualized subjective “moving target” that cannot be defined.

Primary Adherents:

Emergent Church (to be distinguished as a subset of the Emerging Church)

Strengths:

• Sees the importance of orthopraxy.
• Understands the difficulty of defining Christian orthodoxy.

Weaknesses:

• Christianity loses any distinction.
• Follows a self-defeating premise by establishing a new minimalistic orthodoxy of its own.
• Unjustifiably follows a “guilt by association” premise. Just because others killed in the name of orthodoxy does not mean that those who seek to define orthodoxy will do the same. In fact, most have not.

2. Scriptural Orthodoxy. This is the belief that Scripture alone sets the bounds of orthodoxy without any aid from the historic body of Christ. This should not be mistaken for sola Scriptura—the belief that the Scripture is our final and only infallible authority in matters of faith and practice—but as a radical rejection of any other sources of authority such as the church, tradition, natural revelation, etc. It is often referred to as solo Scriptura or nuda Scriptura. Here, there would not be any authority derived from the body of Christ, historic or contemporary, as an interpretive community that either fallibly or infallibly has the ability to define orthodoxy. Adherents would often be found saying, “No creed but the Bible.”

Primary Adherents:

Fundamentalist Protestants

Strengths:

• Understands that the Bible is the only infallible source.
• Causes people to go back to the source (ad fontes).

Weaknesses:

• Discounts the historic Church as a Spirit illuminated interpreter of the Scriptures that must be respected as a voice (albeit fallible) of God.
• Creates their own orthodoxy based upon their subjective interpretation. This way there will be many orthodoxies.
• Often results in cults who deny essential elements of Christian theology that have been held throughout church history.
• Fails to see that we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.

3. Paleo-Orthodoxy. This is the belief that the Christian faith can be found in the early church—namely in the consensual beliefs of the early church. This is a form of “consensual orthodoxy” (consensus fidelium). This search for consensus follows the dictum of Saint Vincent of Lrins: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, “that which was believed everywhere, always.” Normally, according to Thomas Oden, who coined the term “paleo-orthodoxy,” this consensual faith can be found in the first five centuries of the Christian church (Oden, Requiem: A Lament in Three Movements), before the “speculative scholasticism” of western Catholicism. The idea of theological progression is normally thought by strict adherents of Paleo-Orthodoxy as a post-enlightenment influenced methodology that should not be followed.

Primary Adherents:

Eastern Orthodoxy, some Evangelicals, and many Emerging Christians (not Emergent as I have defined it in my writings)

Strengths:

• Looks to the historic body of Christ for orthodoxy.
• Understands that God’s providential concern for the Church would have established the most important truths early.

Weaknesses:

• Can elevate the authority of the early church above that of Scripture.
• Hard to find justifiable reasons to believe that theology cannot develop or mature beyond the first five centuries.

4. Dynamic Orthodoxy. This view of orthodoxy would be highly influenced by a dialectical approach to theological development, believing that orthodoxy is not in any sense static, but dynamically changing as new discoveries are being made. Early views of orthodoxy might be completely overshadowed by new discoveries. This approach has characterized the more liberal theologians, especially in the early twentieth century. Theology, according to dynamic orthodoxy, can change radically in an antithetical way once new discoveries are made through the advancements of human knowledge.

Primary Adherents:

Liberal Christianity

Strengths:

Open to change and advancement.

Weaknesses:

• Too open to change and advancement.
• Christianity loses any roots.
• Often values the credibility of human progress above the credibility of Scripture.

5. Developmental Orthodoxy. This view of orthodoxy is unique to Roman Catholicism, therefore, it must be understood according to the Catholic view of authority. Developmental Orthodoxy sees the fullness of Christian orthodoxy contained in the one deposit of faith given by Christ to the apostles. These Apostles handed this deposit over in two forms of tradition, written and spoken. The written tradition is found in the Scriptures, the spoken is primarily contained in the early church. This tradition is interpreted by the infallible magisterial authorities in the Roman Catholic church. Orthodoxy itself is defined progressively by this authority as situations develop throughout time. According to this theory, it is not as if orthodoxy develops ex nihilo, but only as the situations make necessary. Once orthodoxy has been defined, then Christians are responsible to believe it, even if it was previously obscure or non-existent (e.g. acceptance of the Apocrypha, assumption of Mary, rejection of birth control).

Primary Adherents:

Roman Catholics

Strengths:

• Can be more definitive about a definition of orthodoxy.
• Ability to contextualize orthodoxy.
• Sees value in church history.

Weaknesses:

• No regulation for abuse in the Magisterium.
• No justification for an authoritative system of infallibility beyond pragmatism.
• Elements of newly established orthodoxy that cannot be found in church history is hard to justify.
• Does not take a consensual approach to orthodoxy which, in the end, positions most members of the Christian faith, living and dead, as unorthodox according to their current definition.

6. Progressive Orthodoxy. This is the belief that the ultimate authority for the Christian faith is found only in the Scriptures (sola Scriptura) and that orthodoxy is a progressive development of the Church’s understanding of the Scriptures. Like paleo-orthodoxy, progressive orthodoxy seeks the consensus of the Church throughout time for the core essential theological issues, finding most of these in the early church expressed in the ecumenical councils. But it also believes that our understanding of these issues can and may mature both through articulation and added perspective. This “maturing” does not amount to any essential change, but only progressive development as theological issues are brought to the table of church history through controversy and exegetical discovery. In other words, once orthodoxy has been established, its antithetical opposite cannot be entertained. Orthodoxy can only be advanced.

Adherents:

Most Evangelicals, Protestant Reformers, some emergers.

Here is the chart that illustrates this view:

Weaknesses:

• Often hard to define what is the difference is between maturity and change.
• Who defines when a doctrine has “matured”?

Strengths:

• It is anchored in the Bible while having a great respect for tradition.
• Leaves the door open for the Holy Spirit to mature the church’s understanding.
• Seeks first to define orthodoxy in a consensual way.
• Leaves room to distinguish between essential elements of orthodoxy and non-essential.

Of the options given above, in my opinion the two that are the most credible are Paleo-Orthodoxy and Progressive Orthodoxy. Both are rooted in the ultimate authority of Scripture and both have a high view of God’s providential care throughout Church history. I appreciate the consensual approach which I think must be present to some degree if one is to have a proper defense of the history of the Church.

In the end, however, I do lean in the direction of the Progressive Orthodox view. I believe that all the essential doctrines of Christianity were established in the early Church, but that their maturation came throughout church history. Some, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, matured earlier than others. Because of this, we find that these enjoy a greater Christian consensus. I put a higher priority on these. Yet I also believe that we need to take seriously others which matured later, even if they do not enjoy the same consensus (i.e. sola fide—which I believe existed in seed form in the early church, but did not develop more fully until the controversy of the sixteenth century.)

The distinction between the orthodoxy established in the early church and the later developing tradition based orthodoxy must be made and reflected upon.

quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus

Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy

My view of what I call “progressive orthodoxy” allows for maturation and development in our understanding of orthodoxy. I will now further explain this position. First, let me restate the definition:

Progressive Orthodoxy: The belief that the ultimate authority for the Christian faith is found only in the Scriptures (sola Scriptura) and that orthodoxy is a progressive development of the Church’s understanding of the Scriptures. Progressive orthodoxy, like paleo-orthodoxy, seeks the consensus of the Church throughout time for the core essential theological issues, finding most of these in the early church expressed in the ecumenical councils. But it also believes that our understanding of these issues can and may mature both through articulation and added perspective. This “maturing” does not amount to any essential change, but only progressive development as theological issues are brought to the table of church history through controversy and exegetical discovery.

Here is how it looks so far:

The question are many at this point. Here are some of them:

• How does this “maturing” process take place? This is not an easy question to answer for every tradition will claim that their maturation is the correct one.
• Once a doctrine as “matured” does this mean that it’s mature form is the “new” orthodoxy?
• What if someone rejects the maturation in favor of its immatured form? Are they still “orthodox” in an immature sense?
• What if some person, tradition, or institution favors a form that has matured slightly differently? Are they “unorthodox”?

Let me give you some examples:

I believe in doctrine of salvation by faith alone (sole fide). This means that the sole instrumental cause of justification, from a human standpoint, is faith without the addition of any works, including baptism. But this doctrine, as such, was not fully articulated until the time of the Reformation. It was not until then, due to the controversy that arose, that the church was forced to mature in this particular aspect of soteriology (salvation). But I have a problem. The church, until this time, generally accepted some form of works-based justification, whether it be through baptismal regeneration, or the addition of some other good work or participation in the sacraments.

The same thing can be said about my view of the atonement. I believe in what is called the vicarious substitutionary view of the atonement. This means that I believe that Christ served as the substitute for man (or the redeemed), taking their punishment and making it his own while on the cross. Yet this doctrine only existed in seed form until the time of Anselm. Anselm, in the 11th century, introduced the church to the “satisfaction” theory of the atonement. This was more fully developed later by John Calvin. It now goes by the name “substitutionary” or “penal” atonement. What of those who did not believe such before Anselm or Calvin?

For both of these (and others), I have a few options:

1. I could say that before these doctrines were understood and articulated according to my current Protestant understanding, no one was truly saved or, at the very least, orthodox. (Radical Restorationism)

2. I could say that these doctrines did exist before, just in unarticulated form. (Thomas Oden)

3. I could say that these doctrines did exist in the earliest church, but the church became corrupted and lost them to some degree. (Reformers)

4. I could say that their immature state was sufficient for the time, but is now insufficient. (Conservative Progressives)

5. I could say that these developments, while true, don’t really matter with regards to defining orthodoxy. (Emerging)

I am torn by some of these. The only one that I reject outright is #1. I also have some problems with #4. The rest may contain truth. In fact, the answer may lie in a combination of 2-5. It depends on the issue at hand. In other words, I don’t think any one of these comprehensively explains the maturation of orthodoxy for all issues. Some beliefs I believe were held by the early church and later corrupted (e.g. sola Scriptura). Some were just assumed without question and the lack of questioning amounted to their immaturity (e.g. baptismal regeneration). Some, once questioned, did reveal orthodoxy as it should be understood by all (sola fide). Some came into later maturation, but should not have any bearing on historic Christian orthodoxy (Calvinism, dispensationalism, rapture, etc.).

Next, I will try to chart out (you know how I love charts!) the way this would look with respect to Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox orthodoxy.

Part 4: Are Catholics Orthodox

Is the Roman Catholic Church unorthodox?

From the perspective of a Protestant understanding of “orthodoxy,” relations to other traditions can vary. Protestants can be found who believe that any deviation from the developments and articulations found in the Reformation, particularly with regard to justification by faith alone, amounts to abandoning the Gospel completely.

The question is this: Does a denial of sola fide (justification by faith alone) amount to the production of a different Gospel and to what degree?

If a denial of sola fide produces a different Gospel in an absolute sense, then it is, by definition, unorthodox in the most severe way. However, if it deviates from the Gospel causing a distortion of the Gospel, but not a destruction of the Gospel, can it be said to be unorthodox to the degree that the Catholic church is a heretical institution?

Please understand, the question is not whether someone can deny sola fide and be saved. Most Evangelicals would (should?) agree that we are saved by faith alone, not necessarily by our belief or confession in salvation by faith alone.

The question is Can the true Gospel be proclaimed when sola fide is denied or ignored? Is sola fide so central to the Gospel that its neglect or denial amounts to a heterodox Gospel?

Those who answer in the affirmative are going to have to recognize the difficulties with such a stand. If the absence of sola fide from the Gospel represents an absolute destruction of the Gospel, what of the church before the Reformation that had yet to articulate salvation in such a way? I know that Thomas Oden has done much to show that the early church did hold to an unarticulated view of sola fide, and I think he has done a good job of showing that this problem is not as severe as some people make it out to be (see Oden, The Justification Reader). Yet, at the same time, it is hard for me to read through the early church and see this without definite qualifications. We need to recognize that the pre-reformation church, even the pre-Roman Catholic church, did hold to beliefs that would be outside of the orthodoxy produced by a Reformed view of sola fide. For example, the early church held to a primitive belief in baptismal regeneration. As well, we often find the blurring of the lines between justification and sanctification.

Therefore, if we were to say that the Reformation’s restoration, development, and articulation of justification by faith alone was a restoration of that which was completely corrupt beforehand, we will have some issues.

Was the Gospel proclaimed in the sixteenth century for the first time?

Did true and full orthodoxy begin in the mind of Luther and the other magesterial reformers?

I think that there is a more reasonable option here. This option follows the idea of progressive orthodoxy that we have talked about earlier. It allows for corruption of orthodoxy, to some degree, as corruption is a vital part of its evolution to maturity.

Here is the chart from the last post:

Let me now advance my thesis a bit.

With regards to the Roman Catholic understanding of justification, I would see the orthodoxy produced as a distorted orthodoxy. This distortion, while serious, does not amount to an absolute departure from Christianity. In other words, the Gospel can still be found in Roman Catholic orthodoxy, even if the “fullness of the Gospel” is lacking.

Their development (along with that of the Eastern Church) may look like this (please don’t try to dissect all the letters and such; that would be over-analyzing my intentions):

Notice a few things:

Early Church: The early church was orthodox. Some doctrines were developed, matured, and articulated more than others. This is the difference in the capital letters and lower case. Capital represents maturity (e.g. the work of Christ). Lower case represents an orthodox belief, even if it remained immature. The italics represents distorted orthodoxy. In other words, there were certain beliefs in the early church that had the essence of truth, but, because of immaturity, could often misrepresent its later matured form (e.g. the atonement as a ransom to Satan).

Eastern Church: Here, I primarily mean the Eastern Orthodox church. Notice that they are also orthodox. The further developments represented by the “TH” show the progress and maturing of certain doctrines (e.g. person of Christ and the Trinity). The lower case show an undeveloped doctrine (e.g. salvation) and the italics show a distorted understanding (e.g. atonement).

Roman Catholic: Notice here, the difference. Now we have a misspelling of “orthodox.” This represents the additions that the Roman Catholic church brought to the table that, from a Protestant perspective, distorts the Gospel in a more severe way. These additions might include the infallibility of the Pope, Marian dogmas, additions of “mortal” sins, and, a definite articulation of process justification along with an absolute denial of sola fide. The distortions would include sacredotalism, depository of grace, the institutionalized church, and the like. But, as you can see, much of Christian orthodoxy remains in tact in Roman Catholicism. So much, in fact, that from my perspective, it would be wrong to call them “unorthodox” in an absolute sense. They just have a distorted orthodoxy that, when read, can still be seen as orthodox.

Reformed Protestantism: Obviously you will see I believe that Protestantism has the best articulation of orthodoxy, even if it remains imperfect. There are definitely some distortions (possibly ecclesiology) and some areas that need development (we must always leave room for such). But in the end, I believe that this represents the fullest representation of orthodoxy and, hence, the Gospel message.

Back to the question: Does a denial of sola fide (justification by faith alone) amount to the production of a different Gospel and to what degree?

The answer is yes and no. “Yes” in that it amounts to the production of a distorted or undeveloped Gospel, and, in this sense, it is different from the fullness of the Gospel (like that of the Galatian Judizers). “No” in the sense that its denial does not completely destroy the Gospel beyond recognition. For example, I believe that the Mormons have a different Gospel to the degree that orthodoxy is destroyed beyond recognition. If they were on the chart, their orthodoxy would look something like this: “XXoMOXY.” It may have some of the same elements, but it is too different and too distorted to find the truth Gospel (primarily because of the absence of the God-man). The same could be said for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Catholics are different. I don’t believe that Catholics are orthodox to the degree that Protestants or Eastern Orthodox are, but, nonetheless, orthodoxy can be found in their Gospel. They do have the God-man and this means a lot.

Once again, you must remember, this is looking at these things from an Evangelical Protestant perspective. I am an Evangelical Protestant. So don’t give me any cries of “Arrogance!” I don’t believe Evangelicals are perfect, but I do believe we have the fullest articulation of the Gospel. If I did not, then I would go to the tradition that did!

At least, this is where I am at today.

Hopefully, you can now see how my understanding of how progressive orthodoxy can account for the development of doctrine in the face of many difficulties. 

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Being in ministry—being in theological ministry—the passions run high. You are going to say some wrong things and you are going to have some wrong things said about you. Such is ministry. One needs to develop some thick skin if they seek to surf these waters.

As a consequence of being misunderstood, you get mislabeled. One label that has been recently tapped on my back with red crayon is “minimalist.” What does that mean to be a minimalist?

Minimalist

One who sees Christianity as a system of belief that only recognizes the least common denominator. In other words, let’s just find out what all those who call themselves Christian believe and say that this is true Christianity and then let’s not talk about anything else. Talking about what divides, well . . . divides. And division is bad, bad, and double bad. Therefore, let’s just all get along.

Many of those in Pop Evangelicalism, the Emerging Church, and the Emergent church take this perspective.

From the standpoint of those who call me a minimalist, I represent a branch of Evangelicalism that compromises truth for conciliation in the name of ecclesiastical unity.

Stepping back and looking at this criticism, I can see where it comes from. I understand how people would get this impression. I do tend to encourage people to focus on the things that unite. I do tend to plead with people about the danger of talking past each other. I am even sometimes critical of militant apologetic methods that seem to deepen chasms, hardening others in an apologetic position that only focuses on what they are against, thereby losing perspective. However, I would not classify myself as a minimalist.

Let me introduce some similar terms that will help get a grasp on this issue.

Maximalist

One who seeks unity only with those with whom there is maximal agreement. Any disagreement, no matter how small it is perceived to be, does not take away from its importance. All issues are equal, or at least close to it.

Roman Catholics, some Eastern Orthodox, and Fundamentalists would normally share this perspective.

Centrist

One who seeks unity by finding areas of compromise. Taking the dialectical method, opposing positions are rarely correct, but the truth is found in a compromised center.

Many in the Emergent and liberal Church share this perspective.

Centralist

One who starts with the center of Christianity and believes that it provides the anchor from which all other conversation will find its ground. A centralist is focused on the most important elements of the faith so that the other issues can be seen in light of the perspective it provides.

Most in the Historic Evangelical church, some emergers, and some Eastern Orthodox hold this perspective.

It is in this camp that I can be found roasting marshmallows.

What is the “center” of the faith?

The doctrine of the Scripture? The doctrine of truth? Helping those in need? Social action? No. None of these in my opinion are the center of the faith. The center of our faith is Christ. If you want to say “the doctrine of Christ,” that is good as well. It is the person and work of Christ that is the center of Christianity. “Who do men say that I am?” is the most important theological question there is. If you get this wrong, all else will not only come undone, but it will be meaningless. If you get this right, there is a foundational unifying factor that we must recognize and in light of which all other issue must find their place.

Those who say that Christ is the eternal God-man who died for our sins and rose from the grave have more common ground with each other than they often care to admit.

Here are some differences between the four positions:

Maximalist: Let’s find all denominators.
Minimalist: Let’s find the least common denominator.
Centrist: Let’s create a new denominator that is somewhere in the middle.
Centralist: Let’s find the most important denominator.

Maximalist: We will militantly divide over all issues since all issue are of equal importance. 
Minimalist: Issues that people disagree upon unnecessarily divides, therefore, let’s not discuss disagreements.
Centrist: Let’s all move more toward the middle ground, then we can get along.
Centralist: If we are united around the centrality of Christ, let all other issues find perspective in this agreement.

Maximalist: The truth is in the maximum.
Minimalist: The truth is in the minimal.
Centrist: The truth is in the middle.
Centralist: The truth is in the central.

Maximalist: Approach to Church history: All traditions that do not completely agree with us are anathema.
Minimalist: Approach to Church history: Find the minimal areas of agreement and form a new tradition.
Centrist: Approach to Church history: Use the dialectical method understanding history as a stepping stone to the evolution of truth.
Centralist: Approach to Church history: Find the central areas of agreement and recognize this commonality.

Maximalist: Non-essentials = essentials (there is no such thing)
Minimalist: Non-essentials = non-importance
Centrist: Non-essentials = everything
Centralist: Non-essentials should be put into their relative positions of importance to the degree that they affect the central issues.

I don’t believe in a minimalist or centrist approach to truth. Minimizing Christianity undermines the truth and strangles revelation. Finding middle ground compromises the truth.

Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God? No. Impossible.

Centralizing Christ to the Glory of God? Absolutely. By definition, when we center on the person and work of Christ, God will be glorified.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

“Converstionism.” This is one of the few marks of Evangelicalism spoken of by Evangelical historian Mark Noll. Evangelicals believe that people must experience a sincere personal conversion to Jesus Christ. This is a hallmark of Christianity—to be a convert.

Please understand that what follows in no way detracts from this. Conversionism is essential to Evangelicalism. What follows serves as a warning about the dangers that often exist as a person’s conversion from any position to another interacts with their witness and theological integrity.

I was in a spiritual conversation with a gentleman the other day. At times, the conversation became heated. I don’t mind heated conversation or debate so long as it is respectful, honest, and intentional. At one point in the conversation, the gentleman accused me of not being able to see outside of my “Evangelical lenses” that tainted my ability to accept the truth—his version of it of course.

Did you get that. Let me pause and for a bit of repetition. He believed I could not understand because (let me paraphrase):

“You cannot see outside of your Evangelical tainted lenses!!!”

Ouch! And what lenses are you wearing?

“None. I am a postmodern. We are the only ones that don’t wear lenses.”

Interesting. Can I have a pair of those?

It seems that this is becoming increasingly common. In fact, it has happened to me three times in the last few weeks (which is why I bring it up here). The assumption is that one is not a careful thinker because they already believe according to a certain tradition. And you know what that means: it is not you believing, but your tradition believing for you.

Isn’t this odd? One cannot see the truth so long as he already thinks he has the truth, but once he does not think he has the truth, he can finally see the truth? While I do believe that there is a hint of truth to this, it can and is often taken to a self-referentially absured extreme. As well, many of us in the postmodern world like to use it as conversation stoppers when we lack any other recourse. When in doubt and you have no answer, just say this: “You cannot see because your committment perspective blinds you.”

In each of these cases spoken of above, the accuser, interestingly, was a convert from Evangelicalism. None of them were atheists. In fact, all were still Christians (usually of the emerging variety). One thing was clear: they did not like Evangelicalism. They were bitter about its former promises by which they now believe themselves to have been misled.

The problem is that the supposed objectivity that they think they have attained has become their master. They fail to realize that their conversion, irregardless of its justification, may have actually tainted their view more. They have fooled themselves into thinking that to take off the sunglasses of their former perspective means that they are wearing no sunglasses at all.

In reality, we all wear sunglasses that taints our individual perspective. There is no real option that allows us to see things perfectly, the way they really are.

From what I have seen, converts are sometimes the most unable to see things with a balanced perspective. Because of their belief that their previous faith commitments betrayed them, they approach issues as “enlightened” warriors against those former allegiances. The problem is that they normally wear their bitterness on their sleeve and this further taints the glasses that they think they are not wearing.

The issue is not so much about right or wrong, but about being able to think with integrity. It may involve converting from atheism to Christianity, Christianity to atheism, Evangelical to emerging, Arminianism to Calvinism, or a belief in inerrancy to a denial of inerrancy. I have seen this militant conversion attitude much with regard to former dispensationalists who were “delivered” from the “lies” of the dispensationalism. It is interesting to see their attitude. They often have an absolute dismissive spirit toward any argument that is put forth for dispensationalism. “Oh, I took off those glasses. In fact, I smashed them on the ground. You should too.” But what glasses did you put on after you took these off? “The glasses of truth.” Oh, that is nice. Was there nothing good about the old ones? Can they not still contribute to your understanding in any way at all? At all? Are they completely invaluable? Completely? Is everyone wearing them as a duped idiot? Everyone? That is the way you make it sound since your enlightenment.

Calvinists who convert from Arminianism are also good examples. I am sad to say that we can be the most imbalanced of all. Suddenly, Arminians are absolute losers with regard to theological integrity. All things Arminian are not far from all things Satan. Many of these converts make it their life’s goal to correct the error of Arminianism. And they think they are the most qualified to do so because they used to be one!

I have also seen this attitude quite a bit from former Roman Catholics. These newly enlightened Protestants have a mission of hatred. If this mission converts others, great. But the mission of hatred must go on either way. Misrepresentation, ironically, abounds in these circumstances. They feel as if being a convert gives them a pass to say anything they want. “Don’t tell me what they believe, I used to be one!”

To the credit of Roman Catholics, from my experience, I have seen much balance and grace from converts to their tradition from Protestantism. From what I have seen, they don’t exchange their Protestant glasses for anti-Protestant glasses. They retain an appreciation for their former tradition. Most specifically, I think of the prolific conversions of Francis Beckwith, Scott Hahn, and Peter Kreeft. (Note: this is from my experience. I realize that you may have experienced things differently.)

What I am trying to say is that when one converts from on tradition to another, this does not necessarily mean they can speak objectively about the issues. In fact, they often exchange one pair of glasses for its antonymous rival with a special feature of non-appreciation, hatred, and misrepresentation.

I think that we all need to recognize the glasses we wear. We also need to see that when we set down one pair, we always pick up another. There is no objective observer. The emerger of all people ought to know this! This does not discount our ability to discover truth, but it does help us to be more productive, balanced, and realistic in our discoveries.

With regard to converts—especially those from Evangelicalism to some form of emerging: I don’t challenge the legitimacy of any conversion here (that is not my purpose), but I do challenge you to understand that sometimes your conversion can work against your influence. Why? Because it is easy to lose perspective. When I see an emerger who has converted from Evangelicalism and has what seems to be a passionate hatred for Evangelicalism, I tune them out. I can’t help it. Imbalance is something that I have little toleration for. Was Evangelicalism that bad? Aren’t there any good qualities that you still appreciate? Are you working to redeem it or destroy it? Was it that easy to move from love to hate?

If the often said definition of an Evangelical is simply a “nice fundamentalist,” I am afraid the definition of an emerger is quickly becoming an “embittered Evangelical.” No, it is not that simple. And yes, it is sometimes that simple.

• We need to recognize the relative merits of the various positions.
• We also need to understand that sometimes conversion does not have to be absolute.
• Sometimes things are not an either/or, but a both/and.
• Either way, converts need to convert with thoughtfulness, making the most of their experience and the way it might be used to further the kingdom of God.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

The Kruse Kronicle wrote a brilliantly funny post about why the emerging chicken did cross the road, so I thought that I would write why the emerger did not cross the road.

10. Because he did not want to be labeled.

9. Because he was not absolutely certain that he could cross since in order to get to the other side, you would have to go half way, and in order to go half way, you would have to go half way to the half way, and in order to go half way to the half way, you would have to go half way, ad infinitum.

8. Because it was not a labyrinth shaped road.

7. Because only arrogant people cross roads. 

6. The liquor store was on his side. ( :) Come on, lighten up!)

5. Because they don’t ordain women or homosexuals to street preaching on the other side.

4. Because everyone crosses the road, it must be wrong.

3. Because to cross the road you have to go West.

2. Because it was a one-way street.

1. Because he did not want to be accused of J-Mac-ing.

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!

        

Phil Johnson of TeamPyro started a series on contextualization of the Gospel and Act 17 (Part 1, Part 2). He is combating what he believes to be a compromise of the Gospel shrouded in the name “contextualization .”

In his words, some in the “postmodern missional ministry” (i.e. emerging/Emergent church) believe that Paul, in Acts 17, “adopted the worldview and communications style of his hearers. He observed their religion and listened to their beliefs and learned from them before he tried to teach them. And he didn’t step on their toes by refuting what they believed. Instead, he took their idea of the unknown god, embraced that, and used it as the starting point for his message about Christ.”

This is the caricature, right or wrong, that is set up.

He says that in contrast to the compromised message of the postmodern Christian, Paul was not scared of offending people because he does not set his standard by how many people respond positively to the message. In fact, as Phil points out, Paul did not win many by his ”contextualized approach.” Phil says, ”That is the biblical approach to ministry. You don’t measure its success or failure by how pleased the crowd is at the end of the meeting.”

Let me interact with this a bit.

I agree. And I also agree that many in the emerging and seeker-sensitive church are far too concerned about offending people in the culture. I also agree that this passage can be misused to defend ineffective and unbiblical approaches to culture that can compromise the truth of the Gospel. Yet I don’t agree that his blanket statement, without qualification, is correct.

First, compromise can come from not contextualizing the truth.

I would say that while there are many who are compromising the Gospel, I certainly would not limit this to a postmodernized church.

It is the danger of every generation, no matter what you call them, to compromise the Gospel. But sometimes this compromise comes because people do not contextualize the Gospel.

Let me ask this: Is there such thing as a Gospel that is not contextualized? If so, what does it look like?

An uncontexualized Gospel is hard to imagine, but it exists. But it is only in those who have chosen their contextual hallmark, built their walls, and dug their trenches. Some do this with the early church. Others cannot move beyond the polemics of the 16th century. Some still speak in dead languages or the language of 1611. Others simply follow by the statement, ”If its not in the Bible, its not in our church.” These all fail to translate the message of God’s truth into issues and communication that is understandable. In this, the uncontextualized Gospel is compromised.

I wish Phil would have provided more balance to this issue by allowing people to understand that the difference between good contextualization and bad contextualization. Even Phil represents contextualization. Here are some of the ways:

• For him, the truth of God’s word can be clothed in modern technological means of communication called a blog.
• Writing his message in English is also contextualization .
• Writing about this issue today is a contextualized message. Why? Because Phil believes it is relevant to current problems in the church. 
• The edgy artwork is another way to contextualize his message in a way that visual people can appreciate, Christian or not. (<<<jealous—but as long as he does not make charts I will be cool. That is my shtick.)

In fact, it would seem that Phil puts more emphasis on trendy pictures than any postmodern blog that I have ever seen!

There is nothing wrong with this, but it needs to be pointed out.

Second, contextualization does not necessarily equal compromise.

God has always contextualized his message. If contextualization is compromise (which I don’t think is necessarily what Phil was saying—but it does for the atmosphere of what he says), then . . .

 . . . Has God compromised by giving us his word in the language of a particular cultural context (after all, I am sure that Greek and Hebrew are not the languages of heaven)? 

. . . Did God compromise in giving the Law in Suzerain-Vassal form?

. . . Did God compromise by using Proverbs to communicate statements of Wisdom (a Proverb is not an exclusively Biblical genre—other cultures used them as well)?

. . . Did God compromise by becoming incarnate?

Forget about Paul’s Acts 17 diatribe for a moment and look across the entirety of God’s revelation. It is all contextualization —uncompromized contextualization .

Third, it cuts both ways.

Phil says, “An overtly hostile reaction is a much better indication that the message was delivered clearly and accurately than a round of applause and an outpouring of good feeling from a crowd of appreciative worldlings.” I agree with this to a degree, but again, I think it is imbalanced.

I have been involved with a KJV Only group who said that one could not be saved without reading the KJV and they got a hostile reaction. They would use this righteous martyrdom philosophy to justify their distorted message. Same with the cults.

I have seen street preachers and dooms-dayers who get ridiculed by passers-by. This encourages them believing that they are smack in the middle of God’s will. Maybe they were and maybe they were not.

It cuts both ways.

There are places where street preaching is effective. I used to give out hot chocolate and preach the Gospel at the bus station in downtown Dallas. People listened. The context was favorable. I did street preaching in Romania where hundreds of kids surrounded ”the American” preacher. It was effective. But I would never do this in certain places where it would make the Gospel more offensive. Yes, the Gospel is a stumbling block, but we don’t have to add our own blocks. 

I have also preached the exclusivity of Christ to postmodern audiences. It was not received well. Should I have taken a different approach? Possibly. But I don’t think so.

While God’s word is the power of salvation, there is such a thing as tact.

Fourth, Paul’s message was contextualized, not compromised. 

At one point, speaking about Paul’s encounter with the Athenians, Phil says, “He doesn’t try to assimilate. He doesn’t embrace the culture and look for ways to shape the gospel to suit it. He is repulsed by it.” I would reword this a bit (and this is very important). I would say “He doesn’t try to assimilate to the compromise of the Gospel. He doesn’t embrace the evil aspects of the culture and look for ways to shape the gospel to suit it. He is repulsed by it.”

Phil is right to say this: 

Notice: when Luke says in verse 17 that “he reasoned” with people in these public places, he’s not suggesting that Paul had cream tea and quiet conversation with them. It means he stood somewhere where people couldn’t possibly miss him and began to preach and proclaim like a herald, and then he interacted with hecklers and critics and honest inquirers alike. Luke uses the Greek word dialegomai, from which our word dialogue is derived, but the Greek expression is a strong one, conveying the idea of a debate or a verbal disputation. It can also speak of a sermon or a philosophical and polemical argument. Paul did all of that, because he took on all comers.

On thing that Phil does not connect the dots on is that this style of argumentation was what Areopogus was all about. Luke tells us, “Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new” (Acts 17:21). They confronted each other all the time. Keener tells us that this court of novelists, to whom Paul spoke, may have been “an accrediting board that tested lecturers” (IVP Bible Background Commentary, Acts 17:19). Ramsay sees the council acting in its role as regulator of public lecturers (St. Paul the Traveller, 245-48. Polhill, agrees (The New American Commentary, 26). This context allowed Paul the opportunity for which he was well suited.

Paul’s speech was contextualized in form and function, but did not compromise the Gospel in any way. As Polhills says,

The main theme is God as Creator and the proper worship of this Creator God. The language often has the ring of Greek philosophy, for Paul was attempting to build what bridges he could to reach the Athenian intellectuals. The underlying thought remains thoroughly biblical. (New American Commentary, 370; emphasis mine).

The contextualization of the Gospel, at one point, is stated by Phil, just in different words. Speaking of Paul’s teaching to the council in Athens, he says, “This was by no means an affirmation of their culture. Just the opposite. It was Paul’s way of homing in on what was spiritually most odious about the culture.” i.e Paul was contextualizing is message according to the most pressing needs of the audience. Right? What am I missing?

I know what I am missing. I used the word “contextualization.” But I am used to contextualization. It is not a postmodern word. It is not an emerging word. It is a Christian word. The Gospel must always be contextualized, it does not have to be compromised. Call it contextualization, incarnating, making relevant, illustrating, tangiblizaton, embodiment, personification, “building bridges,” translating, transliteration, interpretation, or “homing in” (hominization!), or whatever else. It is the principle that matters. Contextualize without compromise.

I think that these qualifications can bring balance and perspective to Phil’s statements as well as provide an opportunity for Phil to keep his contextualized blog .

All and all, I think that Phil’s article is very good. Phil is right to preach against compromise and his type polemic could hit a home-run with someone who has been straddling the fence of compromise (there are plenty of them). But we should not ever consider throwing out contextualization all-together (it is impossible anyway).

In conclusion 

Back to those to whom Phil’s polemic is directed. Here, once again is his description:

“[Those who believe that Paul] adopted the worldview and communications style of his hearers. He observed their religion and listened to their beliefs and learned from them before he tried to teach them. And he didn’t step on their toes by refuting what they believed. Instead, he took their idea of the unknown god, embraced that, and used it as the starting point for his message about Christ.”

Adopting wordviews that are anti-biblical is wrong. Phil is right. Many in the Emergent church, including McLaren and Tony Jones, seem to be doing this a great deal. We can also find this in many of the entertainment-driven churches. But to say that we need to contextualize the Gospel is not a blind advocation of adopting false wordviews.

And he didn’t step on their toes by refuting what they believed. I don’t know many who would say this. I believe that this is a bit of a straw-man. I don’t even think McLaren or Jones would make such a case.

Instead, he took their idea of the unknown god, embraced that, and used it as the starting point for his message about Christ. I have no problem with this so long as the “message about Christ” is the true Gospel. Moving from the known, believed, and accepted to that which is not known, believed, and accepted is what we do every time we preach the Gospel. Although I would take out the words “embraced that.” I could be wrong, but I am not sure any would say this.

I have used Phil’s blogs as an opportunity to bring this subject before the P&P audience. Please go read his blog. Phil is a smart man who loves Christ. Even if I disagree with his emphasis, perspective, and, what I believe to be, imbalance, we are certainly on the same page about the dangers of compromise. 

For those of you who are wondering what a non-contextualized Gospel looks like in chart form (!), here is a comparison of the exegetical, theological, homiletical process chart I made for the previous blog on Exegesis this week. Please note: I am not saying that Phil is promoting the second chart!

Contextualized:

Not Contextualized: 

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Christians have different presuppositions that they bring to their theology. This does not make it right or wrong, but we must understand that the unexamined presupposition is not worth having. Our view of history is no different. It is a presupposition that we bring when asking the question What does it means to be “orthodox”? (see part 1 in this series here).

There are really six primary views that I find represented in the church today. I am going to try to explain these views using both established and original terminology. I have tried to stay away from certain terms such as “neo-orthodox” and “emerging orthodox” so as not to skew perspectives and stack the deck against them.

1. aOrthodoxy. Belief that there is no such thing as orthodoxy as a set of “right beliefs” or, at the very least, Christianity should not be defined by our beliefs except in a very minimalistic way. This view of orthodoxy takes a very pessimistic view of the Church’s need and ability to define truth, believing that orthopraxy (”right practice”) is the only thing that should be in focus. This pessimistic approach is influenced by the belief that defining the “boundaries” of Christianity according to beliefs has brought nothing but shame and divisiveness to Christianity. This is illustrated most in the bloodshed of the inquisition, Crusades, and wars among Christians. To be labeled “orthodox” or “unorthodox” to the aOrthodox is an arrogant power play that is oppressive to the cause of Christ. Orthodoxy, therefore, is a contextualized subjective “moving target” that cannot be defined.

Primary Adherents:

Emergent Church (to be distinguished as a subset of the Emerging Church)

Strengths:

• Sees the importance of orthopraxy.
• Understands the difficulty of defining Christian orthodoxy.

Weaknesses:

• Christianity loses any distinction.
• Follows a self-defeating premise by establishing a new minimalistic orthodoxy of its own.
• Unjustifiably follows a “guilt by association” premise. Just because others killed in the name of orthodoxy does not mean that those who seek to define orthodoxy will do the same. In fact, most have not.

2. Scriptural Orthodoxy. This is the belief that Scripture alone sets the bounds of orthodoxy without any aid from the historic body of Christ. This should not be mistaken for sola Scriptura—the belief that the Scripture is our final and only infallible authority in matters of faith and practice—but as a radical rejection of any other sources of authority such as the church, tradition, natural revelation, etc. It is often referred to as solo Scriptura or nuda Scriptura. Here, there would not be any authority derived from the body of Christ, historic or contemporary, as an interpretive community that either fallibly or infallibly has the ability to define orthodoxy. Adherents would often be found saying, “No creed but the Bible.”

Primary Adherents:

Fundamentalist Protestants

Strengths:

• Understands that the Bible is the only infallible source.
• Causes people to go back to the source (ad fontes).

Weaknesses:

• Discounts the historic Church as a Spirit illuminated interpreter of the Scriptures that must be respected as a voice (albeit fallible) of God.
• Creates their own orthodoxy based upon their subjective interpretation. This way there will be many orthodoxies.
• Often results in cults who deny essential elements of Christian theology that have been held throughout church history.
• Fails to see that we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.

3. Paleo-Orthodoxy. This is the belief that the Christian faith can be found in the consensual beliefs of the church. This is a form of “consensual orthodoxy” (consensus fidelium). This search for consensus follows the dictum of Saint Vincent of Lérins: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, “that which was believed everywhere, always.” Normally, according to Thomas Oden, who coined the term “paleo-orthodoxy,” this consensual faith can be found in the first five centuries of the Christian church (Oden, Requiem: A Lament in Three Movements), before the “speculative scholasticism” of western Catholicism. The idea of theological progression is normally thought by strict adherents of Paleo-Orthodoxy as a post-enlightenment influenced methodology that should not be followed.

Primary Adherents:

Eastern Orthodoxy, some Evangelicals, and Emerging Christians (not Emergent as I have defined it in my writings)

Strengths:

• Looks to the historic body of Christ for orthodoxy.
• Understands that God’s providential concern for the Church would have established the most important truths early.

Weaknesses:

• Can elevate the authority of the early church above that of Scripture.
• Hard to find justifiable reasons to believe that theology cannot develop or mature beyond the first five centuries.

4. Dynamic Orthodoxy. This view of orthodoxy would be highly influenced by a dialectical approach to theological development, believing that orthodoxy is not in any sense static, but dynamically changing as new discoveries are being made. Early views of orthodoxy might be completely overshadowed by new discoveries. This approach has characterized the more liberal theologians, especially in the early twentieth century. Theology, according to dynamic orthodoxy, can change radically in an antithetical way once new discoveries are made through the advancements of human knowledge.

Primary Adherents:

Liberal Christianity

Strengths:

Open to change and advancement.

Weaknesses:

• Too open to change and advancement.
• Christianity loses any roots.
• Often values the credibility of human progress above the credibility of Scripture.

5. Developmental Orthodoxy. This view of orthodoxy is unique to Roman Catholicism, therefore, it must be understood according to the Catholic view of authority. Developmental Orthodoxy sees the fullness of Christian orthodoxy contained in the one deposit of faith given by Christ to the apostles. These Apostles handed this deposit over in two forms of tradition, written and spoken. The written tradition is found in the Scriptures, the spoken is primarily contained in the early church. This tradition is interpreted by the infallible magisterial authorities in the Roman Catholic church. Orthodoxy itself is defined progressively by this authority as situations develop throughout time. According to this theory, it is not as if orthodoxy develops ex nihilo, but only as the situations make necessary. Once orthodoxy has been defined, then Christians are responsible to believe it, even if it was previously obscure or non-existent (e.g. acceptance of the Apocrypha, assumption of Mary, rejection of birth control).

Primary Adherents:

Roman Catholics

Strengths:

• Can be more definitive about a definition of orthodoxy.
• Ability to contextualize orthodoxy.
• Sees value in church history.

Weaknesses:

• No regulation for abuse in the Magisterium.
• No justification for an authoritative system of infallibility beyond pragmatism.
• Elements of newly established orthodoxy that cannot be found in church history is hard to justify.
• Does not take a consensual approach to orthodoxy which, in the end, positions most members of the Christian faith, living and dead, as unorthodox according to their current definition.

6. Progressive Orthodoxy. This is the belief that the ultimate authority for the Christian faith is found only in the Scriptures (sola Scriptura) and that orthodoxy is a progressive development of the Church’s understanding of the Scriptures. Like paleo-orthodoxy, progressive orthodoxy seeks the consensus of the Church throughout time for the core essential theological issues, finding most of these in the early church expressed in the ecumenical councils. But it also believes that our understanding of these issues can and may mature both through articulation and added perspective. This “maturing” does not amount to any essential change, but only progressive development as theological issues are brought to the table of church history through controversy and exegetical discovery. In other words, once orthodoxy has been established, its antithetical opposite cannot be entertained. Orthodoxy can only be advanced.

Adherents:

Most Evangelicals, Protestant Reformers, some emergers.

Here is the chart that illustrates this view:

Weaknesses:

• Often hard to define what is the difference is between maturity and change.
• Who defines when a doctrine has “matured”?

Strengths:

• It is anchored in the Bible while having a great respect for tradition.
• Leaves the door open for the Holy Spirit to mature the church’s understanding.
• Seeks first to define orthodoxy in a consensual way.
• Leaves room to distinguish between essential elements of orthodoxy and non-essential.

Of the options given above, in my opinion the two that are the most credible are Paleo-Orthodoxy and Progressive Orthodoxy. Both are rooted in the ultimate authority of Scripture and both have a high view of God’s providential care throughout Church history. I appreciate the consensual approach which I think must be present to some degree if one is to have a proper defense of the history of the Church.

In the end, however, I do lean in the direction of the Progressive Orthodox view. I believe that all the essential doctrines of Christianity were established in the early Church, but that their maturation came throughout church history. Some, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, matured earlier than others. Because of this, we find that these enjoy a greater Christian consensus. I put a higher priority on these. Yet I also believe that we need to take seriously others which matured later, even if they do not enjoy the same consensus (i.e. sola fide—which I believe existed in seed form in the early church, but did not develop more fully until the controversy of the sixteenth century.)

The distinction between the orthodoxy established in the early church and the later developing tradition based orthodoxy must be made and reflected upon. I have argued such here.

Where do you all stand?

quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus

Send post as PDF to

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

        

There is a new Bible being released by Bible Society out of UK that is focused on “the most important issues of the day.” It is called The Poverty and Justice Bible. Based on the Contemporary English Version (CSV), the Bible “highlights more than 2,000 passages that reveal God’s sorrow over poverty and injustice.”

N.T. Wright, president of the Bible Society, says, Poverty and injustice are two of the biggest issues of our day, challenging the minds of politicians and social activists around the world. . . The imbalance of global wealth, famine, water shortages, exploitation and corruption are all issues that invoke outrage and demand attention. But The Poverty and Justice Bible shows that, in speaking out on these issues, God got there first.

Emerging Christian leader and commentator Tony Campolo added, "Here’s proof that faith without commitment to justice for the poor is a sham, because it ignores the most explicit of all the social concerns of Scripture."

You can find the roots in this Bible primarily in the emerging communities, but you will also find significant influence from Rick Warren (who essentially laid its foundation) and U2’s lead singer and activist Bono (who has had significant influence over Rick Warren in the last few years).

‘We want the world to see that the Bible is relevant to life and not full of rules, finger-wagging and old-fashioned ideas,’ says Bible Society Chief Executive James Catford.

From the Bible’s website: 

“There is a generation of Christian young adults who are passionate about their faith but who struggle to connect it with the Bible. So this Bible starts where they are, with issues close to their heart. This special Poverty and Justice Bible gives them a way to begin to engage with Scripture, and we hope and pray this will be the first of many encounters for them.”

I am glad that Christian’s are focusing much attention on the need to engage social issues and I am sure that this Bible will make a fine edition to the plethora of study Bible’s out there, but I do have some initial hesitations concerning this project:

I can’t help but see this Bible as one possibly motivated by an imbalanced agenda. For example, commenting on Romans 13:8-10 the Bible has these notes:

“Paul was a great traveler. It is estimated that he travelled more than 10,000 miles during his ministry. I wonder, if he were alive today, would he be zooming around Turkey on the Asia Minor equivalent of EasyJet? Would he be insulating his tent and reducing his carbon footprint?

The Bible says that God will end the world, not global warming. But that doesn’t mean we can ignore it. Experts argue about the effects of climate change, but, like so many global disasters, it will probably be the poor who suffer the most. No one who loves others will harm them, writes Paul. If we truly love other people, we care about their lives, their prospects, their living conditions, their future. And that means changing our lives so as not to damage theirs. We make sacrifices for their sake.”

I am not one for promoting planetary stewardship underload, but I am not sure that this is the best example to use for Romans 13:8-10. It seems rather manipulative. After reading this, I thought that it should be called The Democrats Study Bible.

The tag-line from the Bible’s web-site says, “You know God cares for the poor. Now you can know how much.” Is the answer: “So much that he sent his own Son to die for the poor?” It should be. Yes, he does care for the poor. But he first cares for the poor in spirit. Those who recognize their need and utter dependence on him. We respond to his redemption by our good works, by our mercy, by our aid to those in need. Can we truly be expected to respond without this redemption being the focus?

The Bible is first a book of soteriological history revealing our need and God’s mercy. Isn’t it?

My single biggest problem with the idea of this Bible is that it might have the tendency to present God as an incompetent ruler who’s primary desires—justice, mercy, and environmental protection—are hamstrung until socio-political-theo activists can bring in his kingdom on earth through their own efforts. Please understand, I would say the same thing if someone were to put out a Bible entitled The Pro-Life Study Bible.

These type of maneuvers, which can be quite manipulative, cause people to have an imbalanced and distorted view of the Gospel. God becomes a cheerleader in a game in which He may not even be playing. Far from becoming more relevant, God can become sidelined while our game-plan is focused on quasi-foreign agendas. Is that what we really want?

The game that God is in is one where there is the tension between the Christian’s efforts to bring in God’s kingdom through the reality and necessity of suffering in a sin-infected world. Does this mean we sit on our hands? Certainly not (perish the thought!), but we do not see the alleviation of poverty and oppression as the ultimate victory until we see the alleviation of sin dealt with through the cross.

As an aside, I have yet to see anything about justice for the unborn in this Bible.

Send post as PDF to

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!

        

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!