Kent: Looks like you made it back home. How’s things with your mom?

Michael: For the life of me, I can’t see why you and Denise feel trapped. As others have said, you guys have tons to offer and I feel certain your options are endless. Just get a dart, say a prayer, chunk it at a U.S. (World?) map, pack up, and go. : )

I’ve been reading your conversation with Frank Turk. You really are a glutton for punishment. Is he an Arkansan? I no longer run in Baptist circles, but I can easily imagine a SBC pastor going to a RCC Ash Wed service being viewed as controversial and a cause for concern. Of course this depends on the individual church.

It seems to me that a major factor is the size of the town/church. The greatest cooperation between denominations seems to take place in smaller towns – where people are more likely to view their community as one big family. Plus, rural pastors are less likely to be egomaniacs – as the nature of their work indicates. My hunch is that the traditional southern city (big town to medium size city) where the SBC dominates like Little Rock, Huntsville, or even Memphis would be the most likely to have quite a few fiercely territorial SBC churches who would strongly resist their pastor attending a RCC Ash Wed service.

Michael: By the way, I noticed that Stetzer mentioned Reggie McNeal in his presentation. I really like McNeal’s book The Present Future (of which I have written a review, if you are interested). McNeal does a great job of taking the commonly held convictions within the broader emerging movement and applying them in the local church context in very practical ways. The book is very readable and easy to follow even for lay people.

Stetzer referred to McNeal as the “recent” director of leadership development for the South Carolina Baptist Convention. Do you know what he is doing now? After reading the book, I was a little surprised he still worked within the SBC. He’s definitely pushing the envelope.

John Piper is taking on prosperity preaching.

I prefer to spend my time teaching the Bible, making disciples, and encouraging people to look to Jesus, but sometimes you just have to call out bad teaching. The whole prosperity thing riles me up. It tends to make upper-middle-class suburbanites comfy in their setting with no challenge to help others, and it takes advantage of people to too easily buy into get-rich-quick schemes. I tend to think of prosperity teaching like a zit on the backside of Christianity. (not that I have a strong opinion on it or anything…)

Another practical application that just occurred to me. Just last Sunday a woman in my church asked me if I believed that everything in the Bible was literally true. You know, did God really speak to Balaam through a donkey? Did a snake really speak to Eve? Did the sun really stop moving? Well, I told her that I have always taken all these stories in the Bible to be real stories that actually happened, but I have also come to understand that some folks who take the Bible very seriously do not think every story is literally true. So all in all, I’m not that hung up on the issue. She said she leans toward not taking every story literally.

Here’s the thing – I’m not a scholar. I’ve had very little formal theological training. I’ve not read Barth, and just a little Augustine (I was proud of myself when I read Athanasius on the Incarnation). I’ve read a few Orthodox guys like John Chrysostom, but most of my reading has been limited to contemporary Protestant theologians (NTW, Grudem, Fee) and teachers (Lewis, Peterson, Willard). I can’t hang with the theological heavyweights here at the bar. When people ask me difficult questions about theology to which I don’t have a good answer, I normally tell them I will look into it and get back with them.

However, many times as a pastor I am aware that they are asking the wrong question anyway. This is where many of the Orthodox writers have helped me. It might be interesting to ask whether or not a literal snake spoke to Eve, but the most important question is what is God saying to the Church – and therefore to me – in the story? The spiritual meaning supercedes the literal meaning. Whether or not a snake really talked, the spiritual message is the same. Are we being tempted to ignore God’s rule and do our own thing? If the answer is yes – if I am ignoring God’s rule and doing my own thing – then any chance I have of rightly understanding or interpreting or applying the Scripture is gone out the window anyway. So often – in my experience – those who are most concerned with the technical questions are most in need of actually applying the spiritual message of the scriptures to their own heart (myself included).

Michael: I have a practical application of this discussion that I just heard about a few days ago. My three sons attend a private Christian School in LR (thus the reason my brother with his vow of poverty has more disposable income than I). The school is not affiliated with any church or denomination, but is clearly Evangelical and is populated and run predominantly by Evangelicals from the mega church in our city. Borrowing Webber’s term, I would call them “pragmatic Evangelicals”. For the most part, we like the school. It is free from heavy-handed “religion”, which seems to me to be the most damaging type environment a parent could put their child under. They have a teaching track called “Worldview” that is required for the high school kids. One of the worldview teachers (with whom I happen to be acquainted) who is currently working on his Doctorate in Theology was teaching the children that Gen. 1-11 is myth and not to be taken literally. When word got to the powers that be, he was asked to desist. He refused as a matter of conscience and was removed.

If you were the person responsible for handling this matter – if the decision was totally up to you – how would you have handled it? I’m not trying to back you into a corner. I’m really just curious how your convictions, and the convictions of other fellows here, play out in real life.

I agree with Michael that the doctrine of inerrancy – and all the baggage that comes along with it – is very unhelpful. That whole technical approach to “correctness” (or should I say “exactness”?) inexorably brings to mind Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees that they were unyieldingly loyal to the Scriptures because they thought that by them they possessed eternal life, but they “refused to come to me to find life”. The application of that rebuke from Jesus seems too obvious and easy to be fair.

In the early days of his ministry, John Wimber would make statements such as “God is bigger than the Bible”, and he got blasted so relentlessly by the fundamentalists that he stopped saying it. Wimber had an excellent illustration to describe how this mentality plays out in the lives of average Evangelical believers. He asked us to imagine somebody saying they loved Scuba Diving. Upon asking them to tell of their favorite Scuba Diving experience, they reply by pulling out their Scuba Diving magazine. They show you the well worn pages, the highlighted paragraphs, and the lines with stars or exclamation points by them. They show you their favorite Scuba Diving locations, having those pages tagged with a special marker. Excitedly they proclaim “see, I love Scuba Diving!”. “But”, you ask, “have you ever actually been Scuba Diving?” “Oh no”, they reply, “I haven’t actually done it. That seems too dangerous. But I really love it”.

In my mind, that illustration is more pregnant with truth about the average Evangelical/TR relationship with the Bible than anything I could possibly say about it.

I’ve been checking in on Father Matthew’s video blog from time to time, and I came across one on scripture and tradition today.

Now, our excessively reformed brethren will balk at it, since this guy is an Episcopalian, but if you can ignore the theological differences for half a nanosecond and be entertained by the simplicity of it all, I think you’ll enjoy it.

I recommend his whole set of videos. I so want to rip off his idea and do something like this at our church.

This is sad. Theology debates take a back seat compared to stories like these.

Those who fully agree with NT Wright’s political statements can ignore this if they wish. For us wacky right-of-center types, his political statements, while challenging in a good way, seem to be – how should I say – not quite there.

Noah over at N.T. Writes has a theory that since the bishop has so gotten into the minds of First Century Jews and Christians (as he understands them) that he tends to look at our world through that lens, perhaps ignoring the political and social realities of our times.

I don’t know that I completely buy it, but it’s an interesting thought.

Holy Julia Child, Sonia! How unpatriotic. Obviously, you’ve never had my grit cakes. Grits are teh awesome because they make a fantastic ingredient for many delightful concoctions. It is a matter of comestible justice, of harmonious balance in the right order of saporific goodness. Unlike porridge, which is just a soupy culinary nullity.

Why is that self-styled discernment blogs can’t accept something as obvious as global warming and unifying as “creation care”? What exacly is non-Christian about being an environmentalist? How does tending to the health of the creaion deny God’s sovereignty? Somehow logical travesties like this are supposed to put an end to it:

If Christians can’t manage to muster the moral resolve to save 40 million American babies from murder in the environment of the womb, pardon me if I’m not going to parade through the streets on behalf of the polar ice caps. Richard Cizik needs to be more concerned about the rank heresy marching into evangelical churches nationwide while he works himself into a lather over climate change. We are not the ones controlling the climate. God Himself will determine the fate of our planet.

Why not say “God Himself will determine the fate of the unborn” and leave it at that? We wouldn’t want any “rank heresy” infiltrating our church causing people to believe we can “save” them by our activism now would we?

That anybody would conceive of God’s love as being set in the context of His wrath is incomprehensible to me. The conversation along those lines is so odd to me that it is boring. Always I have and forever I will believe that God is LOVE. Love is His essence – everything about Him emimates from His all-consuming love. He abounds in it. Now, our understanding of what love is and how it works requires our lifelong pursuit and is worthy of much fascinating conversation.

I was greatly helped when I discovered C.S. Lewis’s views on the wrath of God. God’s wrath, Lewis believed, is an allegory. However, Lewis advised us to be careful to not dismiss this allegory because, he said, it is an allegory that cannot be improved upon. Works for me.

Michael: I am interested in reading the story about protestants converting to EO, but the link isn’t working for me.

Kent: I share your categorical dismay. If you are submitting to the uncategorical categorization, then I will follow you into the categoriless abyss.

BUT I’M GOING DOWN IN A BLAZE OF GLORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Michael’s 4th question. This discussion doesn’t come up much in my present (meatspace) circumstances, but it has come up in the context of my dealings with “emerging” ministries, and it has been a thought in my own journey.

Having grown up as a Christmas-Easter mainliner, and coming to faith and joining the Evangelical Free church in college, my life in the faith has grown primarily in evangelicalism.

I’ve never had a problem talking about Jesus and the Christian faith with people, but I’ve always had a problem with the “used car salesman” approach to evangelism that seems to be the norm. (Even when presented with good evangelism information, much of what I hear eventually devolves to the cheesy sales metaphor.) This isn’t really a problem I deal with any more, but it was the beginning of the mental disconnect that made me start honestly thinking about what I believe and why.

I’ve never really been enticed to swim the Tiber, though I believe there are many fine Christians over there, along with some real screwballs. (Catholic readers, be not angry with me. I believe there are screwballs everywhere.) I only know a little about the EO, but what I see gives me the same reaction.

The more church history I read, and the more I study the Bible and theology, the more I become a theological mutt. To date, I can tell you that I happily serve in an evangelical church with wonderful people, that my theology fits best with the Anglicans, that I lean Lutheran in my views of communion, though I am open to discussion, and that I affirm the historic creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, etc.).

If I were to be walking any of the roads to the old country, it would be to Canterbury, but I’d have to make some stops in Ireland, and I’m a fan of the early church, as my email address will attest.

Michael, keep talking about the journey. It makes for some good discussion. (if not here, then at our theology pub nights in MN)

I don’t know how many times I have heard Reformed believers say things like “This gospel presentation did not contain the gospel” or “anyone who believes this gospel will be believe no gospel at all” because some element was missing. All of the sudden everyone is so concerned about the absence of the resurrection in Chan’s video when it is business as usual to tell people they will receive justification by faith if they agree with the penal substitution theory of atonement.

But why stop there? I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the Spurgeon quote “Calvinism is the gospel” given to unsuspecting Arminians. If it really is, why, as one of the Pyro commenters admits, not tell the story of God’s eternal decree to elect some to salvation and some to damnation? Why not share with the lost how they are incapable of receiving Christ without the effectual work of God’s irresistible grace? Wouldn’t leaving those out allow the heathen to take credit for his work of choosing to believe in Christ?

Can you imagine what this might sound like? Lost person! I’d like to share something with you! God in his sovereignty chose long ago a people for himself that would be saved on the last day. If you have been chosen then this good news is for you! God was so angry with you that he gave his one and only son, Jesus, to satisfy his wrath. Once that was done he raised him from the dead so that he may be Lord of all. And he could begin to love you. If God’s effectual call is working in you right now and the gift of faith is implanted in you, you will believe this. If this happens you are saved! If not you will be spared no mercy on God’s Day of Judgment!

The cross was not first and foremost about us and our sin, it was about God and His holiness being satisfied (Rom. 3:21-26).—SJ Camp

I never thought there could be an academic level 4-views theology book in print that I could not for the life of me put down, but I found it in The Nature of the Atonement edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy. Within its pages a long history of biblical exegesis and theological reflection is brought together giving the reader a stuningly comprehensive understanding of the issues and polarities found the plethora of atonement theories today. As many know via learning more about the Emerging church the penal substitutionary view has been critiqued, if not rejected altogether, and a lively debate once thought to be long passed has re-errupted. This book offers a “panel” discussion of four views of the atonement maintained by Gregory A. Boyd (Christus Victor view), Joel B. Green (Kaleidescopic view), Bruce R. Reichenbach (Healing view), Thomas R. Schreiner: (Penal Substitutionary view).

The first thing I want to say to all the BHT critics is that, at least for this Tavernite, Tom Schreiner does an outstanding job defending the PS view. His essay by far deals with the most Scripture, (though Boyd is not far behind) and paints it broad, sweeping stroaks that that almost make PS theory self-evident. Schreiner’s bests moments come in his reviews of the others where he ably defends tough (and I do mean tough) criticisms of the PS theory.

But it is not a smack down by any means. Boyd’s views are quite possibly the most interesting and ought to be taken very seriously as he shows again and again that the NT constantly zeros in on the fact that Christ has defeated sin, the devil, and “the powers” once and for all by his life, death, and resurrection (did you know that Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted OT verse in the NT? God most certainly makes his enemies a footstool to his feet). Reichenbach’s philosophical abilities are unmatched and perhaps offers the best criticism of PS theory. Joel Green I felt was rather disappointing, though I am quite convinced his ideas are very emerging-church friendly and will be foundational to postmodern atonement theory.

So why bring up Steve Camp’s quote and this book?

More »« Less

Bill, stop whining, you’ll be much safer for it.

It’s warm here too, been getting a touch over freezing each day and only a few inches of snow left; it actually rained last Saturday.

This entire discussion is amazing to me. First, while it is right to give a proper representation of Rushdoony, it only adds to the absurdity that he is emblematic of a proper theological method over against that which is emblematic of Grenz (which  is supposed to be something really really really baaaaaaaaaaad). Second, if we are to accept this bifurcation that is obviously made to represent the divide between Reformed and Emerging Christians then I think that explains a lot of the rancor, misunderstanding, and mutual disgust between the two. Personally, I will side with Grenz every time. If I could live half the life Grenz did in terms of character and theology I would consider myself blessed. If that means I have to be characterized as a “postmodernist” or a “relativist” so be it. It is better than warding off accusations of racism and anti-Semitism. 

Looks like the BHT made a good decision in abandoning Rushdoony for Grenz.

MOD: Thank you, sir. Much appreciated.

I just heard a speaker give a talk about secular (“without God”) music. Oh boy, where to begin. Let’s see, since Elton John believes its OK for men to marry men (but not goats) you are teaching this to your children when they watch the Lion King. Anitdepressants are an absolute farce that lead to suicide and are only prescribed so doctors and drug companies can make money (apparently the way to make money is to kill your consumers!). If you listen to and appreciate a band’s music you support all that they believe and all the ways they behave. Greenday’s Jesus of Suburbia really does promote “alcohol and cigarettes and Mary-Jane.”

It was so outrageous it is hard to parody. If there will ever be another great ecumenical council, I say we canonize something damning guilt by association. I can’t take it anymore.  

Michael, there’s a free paper in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area called City Pages. They had a lengthy article on a local megachurch titled “Get Rich With God.” I had to revisit your recent IM piece on the Dan Edelen post. The CP article isn’t exactly on the same topic, but it is related.

If I had to play stereotypes, I’d say City Pages is written for and speaks to the Twin Cities’ (secular) young adult culture. This is the impression they get of megachurch evangelicalism up here. (Never mind that there are some very good large churches up here. Anyone ever hear of that Piper guy?)

[AUTH EDIT: Most of the time, the front page of CP is ok, but there are things there that may offend many. Just sayin’]

The article names the usual suspects in the prosperity message – Copeland, Hagen, Dollar, etc. Sad. I’m sure there are some fine believers in the church in the article, but that’s the kind of evangelicalism that makes me run away screaming.

Joel: Actually, it began six years ago. But, hey, who’s counting? The more, the merrier.

Ellen, in PC-Talk ‘tolerance’ means agreement, but by definition one cannot ‘tolerate’ something unless one first disagrees with it.  If I were to (and I have) pray or live beside a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon, I don’t feel I’m affirming their faith as I’ve usually explained where I disagree with them, I feel like I’m affirming their role in my life as a neighbor whom I care for and love.

As a Christian I don’t feel that my tolerance of another, by that I mean ‘acceptance despite disagreement’ should be dependent upon their tolerance of me.  That would mean that my neighbor-ness is conditional; and that would not be scriptural.

Dang it. I tried to steer this conversation away from a defense of all things Young Earth, and toward a more general critique of evolution as a theory of the origin of man. My original statement to Matthew was that I believe dealing with the theory of evolution is important for the church. I come at this question not as a scientist, or as an academician, but as a pastor/preacher whose main concern is rightly presenting the truth about who God is. In pursuit of this goal, lies about the nature of God and of man that pervade our culture and educational system must be addressed.

I believe the warning that many are issuing about the destructive impact of wholesale acceptance of evolutionary doctrine by most modern Christians is appropriate. The main issue is not how old the earth is – the main issue is the chipping away of the fundamental revelation of God as creator. As Hebrews 11:3 says, He created the universe out of nothing. He created Adam and Eve in His image “of dust from the ground” (I do not see how Michael and Bill can dismiss Adam from the discussion of evolution).  As Wayne Grudem (who is not YEC) says in his Systematic Theology, “while there are sincerely held differences on that question (evolution) among some Christians with respect to the plant and animal kingdoms, these texts (various Gen. passages) are so explicit that it would be very difficult for someone to hold to the complete truthfulness of Scripture and still hold that human beings are the result of a long evolutionary process.”

More »« Less

Michael: I’ve watched my fair share of Ken Hamm videos, read some books on the subject, and endured several years of constant propagandizing from a TR church member who was thoroughly drenched in the ways of the YEC.

One of their arguments I have never bought is the point about “no death before sin”. The question that came to my mind was “did decay, which is basically death and a basic part of the ‘circle of life’, exist before Adam sinned?” I never received a satisfactory answer to that one.

Michael, my main question to you is why the YEC’ers have the burden of proof? The only possible explanation is that the belief in a young earth goes against accepted modern scientific theory. As a Christian, when I hold up scientific theory against a plain reading of scripture, I feel that the burden of proof lies with the scientific theory. Why shouldn’t the unproven theories have the burden of proof? I don’t understand.

Lastly, Michael, in what way do I believe, as you confidently assert everyone does, in the evolution from one species to another? The anwer is NADA.

I must have been really desperate for a lively discussion to stick myself out there on this one.

Michael: You’re going to have to s-p-e-a-k  s-l-o-w-e-r, please. I’m not sure I can intelligently answer you first question, except to say that I do not necessarily accept the methods by which evoutionist date the earth (or the skull of a hobit-sized human).

I do not reject adaptation. That is a scientifically observable reality, but adaptation has only been observed within a species. I reject evolution of one species into another.

I don’t know if there is compelling evidence for a young earth. I just think it is most likely what the Bible teaches. I think the burden of proof is on the old earth proponents, and they haven’t convinced me.

I can’t answer your last question, though I feel certain there are others.

Jim: Here’s my anwer to your question

 

Did Phillip tabulate the results of the poll and I missed it?

Well, I must say I relish my newfound role of keeping the BHT out of the uttermost darkness with my reluctant adherence to a young earth. You guys are really going to owe me one day!

But seriously, I said I would not argue this subject. However, everybody is being too nice lately, that Two-Edged Sword guy said we are like a country club with no brawls, and its making me nervous. So….

Matthew: Even though you are a Hog fan, and thus obviously full of wisdom and insight, I cannot agree with you that the evolution discussion is not relevant to the Kingdom. One thing that every YEC’er will point to as strong evidence against evolution is Paul’s presentation at Athens. To those heathens with no Old Testament background, Paul starts at the beginning – God as creator. As part of that creation story, Paul explains that “from one man God made every nation of men”. That one man Adam was an intelligent, historic human being.

Now, I’m not saying that if one rejects a young earth, then he or she is an evolutionist. As I’ve said, my belief in a young earth is fairly soft. However, my rejection of evolution as an explanation for the origin of man is strong. And it seems to me that the Bible is pretty plain on this. If we surrender the belief that Adam was there at the beginning walking with God in the cool of the garden, then it seems to me that we surrender that which most fundamentally defines who we are as mankind created in the image of God – created to know Him and to walk in union with Him.

On a side note, I think that YEC suffers from guilt by association. It seems to me that rejecting a young earth and anything to do with creationism is the new Evangelical PC. I have a feeling that if a BHT forum was held and both sides (Old Earth & Young Earth) were intelligently and gracefully presented, many patrons would swith to the YEC.

The Demon business is booming for Bob Larson. According to this news report, Larson has built a $1 Million church in Scottsdale, AZ, which he calls the Center for Spiritual Freedom. Larson claims to have administered over 10,000 exorcisms, including multiple exorcisms for individuals who attend his church. Apparently, if you are struggling with some issue, the answer is to “cast it out”. Man, why didn’t I think of that? I have a hunch that this is one example of a reason that so many fellows in here are leery of propenents of miraculous ministry.

Hey Jack, how far is it from Phoenix to Scottsdale? This sounds like your kind of church. The least you could do is stop by, get one of your demons cast out, and then come back and tell us about the experience. How bout it?

For the more Charismatic variety, how about this story about a deliverance ministry in NYC? The Universal Church of the  Kingdom of God, which started in Brazil, has 10 million members in 90 countries, and this is the first I’ve ever heard about it. Apparently I missed the big news story in 1995 about the “Kicking of the Saint”, when a Universal Church pastor stirred up the wrath of the Catholic Church by repeatedly kicking the statue of Brazil’s patron saint on national TV. Bad idea.

[Got the links to these stories from Thunderstruck]

The term “TR” or “Truly Reformed” in our context carries much more baggage than a simple theological description; we generally and minimally use it to describe somebody that’s reformed to the point of pride and annoyance. It is a pejorative term.

Jack, I find that there are two approaches staff can follow to work with challenging client behaviours.  1.)  “I need to walk a very narrow line and be careful that nothing I say or do possibly gives permission in the ever most slightest way for the client to maybe develop any sort of understanding that the problem things that they may be doing are even barely alright.” and, 2.) “I’m just going to be who I am and trust that I can work things out with the client in the context of our relationship”.

Individuals and I would venture to say institutions who follow the first relational modality are doomed to failure.

The banner quote makes me think about the letter I got from Dr. Dobson last night…which makes me want to read Nouwen.  That said, Pirate makes me want to read Don Miller and reformed bloggers make me want to read Capon.  Joel Osteen makes me want to read the Bible, so I guess he really must be a pastor after all.  Listening the local Christian Radio Station makes me want to listen to U2 or sometimes Lonestar, and listening to or reading NTW makes me want to become Anglican while listening to charismatic megachurch pastors makes me want to become Buddhist.

Re: Raja, Joel: I followed the ETS’s Open Theism/Inerrancy pretty closely and after reasearching both sides completely, I found that the grounds for expulsion were nothing but shifting sand. There is a very big difference in affirming inerrancy and holding to a view of God’s providence that may implicate the undermining it. If open theism does, and I am not convinced it is necessarily so, it only follows that the open theists are holding two incompatible views. It does not mean that they are denying one of them. See this blistering critique of Nicole’s arguments from a Bethel Sem philosophy professor for more fun.

I’m not totally sold on the Chicago Statement, but it may help in adding some definition to a very elastic term. In any case, I can agree that if this is used to exclude people of certain theological persuasions, it will be bad for the society. Pinnock may be wrong about a lot of things, but he was right to bring up, especially in the case of Roger Nicole, that egalitarians are next on the list.

Sharon, you obviously don’t understand, that’s simply not acceptable.  (jn)

I heard this reprobate heretic the other day who was so soft on sin, I couldn’t believe it. People looked up to him like he was some kind of modern-day prophet or something (ugh!), but when some friends tried to talk to him about sanctification, he blew up! He called them rude names like I couldn’t believe—just gutter talk. Then he started recommending books by flat-out nutjobs. No proper teachers, no books with excellent doctrine. All books with stories from losers and hippies and kids. When I found out he’d been seen in the company of prostitutes and unrepentant ex-cons, I knew I had to do more research so I could write up a nice discernment post on him. He may quote the Bible all day long, but I’ve seen who he choose to spend time with, and he certainly doesn’t toe the line on orthodoxy, or even act politely when invited to speak at good conferences. He’s got a huge following, which already tells you something, right? And half the time he seems to be advocating some thing political, or at least hippie-like.
When I’m done discerning this guy, this Jesus of Nazareth is going to wish he’d never opened his mouth.

Like social workers? (me)

Sharon, I could be coming off like a wise-arse…and I sorta mean to ;-}

...but then again I want to build bridges of understanding. I understand class struggle, but I also think I also understand the pitfalls of identification of self (or class) as being a victim. I don’t have much time to explain as I’ve an appointment in minutes…but I do believe (generally) that we hang onto class and class struggle identifications much longer than we need to…to the point of societal dysfunction…and to the point of the class identification becoming a hindrance to personal growth.

Again, I am not attempting to assess you, I mean this generally. We live in a culture that has made a habit of carrying bags full of chips to readily pile on our shoulders…we live in a culture where it is better to be a victim than successful…or maybe victimhood has become a path to (a twisted sort of) success.

Anyways (Minnesota Talk) I’ve learned therapeutically that once an ‘individual’ learns to get their needs met by being a victim that they generally start a downward spiral of relational dysfunction. I wonder if the same is true of ‘classes’.

Of course a sociology professor taught me back in ‘80 that women, though they formed a numeric majority, were indeed a minority. I think he ran for president later (jn).

Our Thinkling friend Jared sounded off a nice rant on Emerging this morning. It started with Spencer Burke’s recent book, but went quickly into an observation that nicely sums up what is the most valid criticism of things “Emerging.” His critique comes in two ways:

The first: “I don’t get it. I just don’t. I try to read this stuff, partly as a barometric reading of the younger Church, and it always smacks of “the Church adolescent.” Maybe I’m not hip enough, I don’t know. But I don’t think that’s it. I don’t know what the real bona fides are, but I’m fairly young (31), I like indie films and indie rock, I like young people, I’m not into traditional ecclesiology, I’m not a fundamentalist, I prefer “modern” worship (at least stylistically), and I drink coffee. What else is there?
By all indications, the whole emerging thing is just my style — and I know I’ve said this before — but it’s certainly not speaking my language. Am I hopelessly mired in modernism? I don’t think so. I like most postmodern fiction, if that means anything.”

The second: “I think my fundamental frustration with these types of thinkers and their books is not that they are challenging or questioning, but that they don’t really provide any answers. Or, at least, not any answers that won’t need reshaping/rethinking in another 20 years. As Lewis once wrote, “To go with the times is of course to go where all times go.” (These dudes should read more Lewis.)
And so when you start with a tenuous theology, the sovereignty of self, and the primacy of cultural relevance, you obviously get the attention of a lot of a young, spoiled, rebellious kids frustrated with Boomer-centric megachurchianity.”

As always, the points he raises aren’t true of all voices in the Emerging and Emergent streams, but he makes a good observation. Even though much lip service gets paid to recovering ancient truth, even when seeking new ways to express worship today, there is, I think, a lack of a sense of mentoring in the EC from older voices. Maybe we don’t read enough dead guys to ground ourselves in the full stream of Christian thought from Moses through now. Perhaps some of the younger Emerging voices need to stop in the middle of their big(?) new thoughts and ask what previous voices have had to say, and if there is anything valuable there.

This isn’t to say that “dead guys” aren’t read, or that there aren’t some “elder” voices in the conversation, just that they need to be listened to a little more.
Just thinking out loud…