My Opinion on the Emerging Church Movement

       Over the past fifty years, postmodernism has found itself in the forefront of western philosophy.    For the purposes of this article, I will mainly be talking about postmodernism in the United States.   Many see truth as relative and that true objective truth does not exist.  Postmodernism affects most areas of life, even the church. 

       Within the church is a movement usually associated with postmodernism called the emerging church.  Here, the emerging church is not to be confused with the Emergent church.  The Emergent church is actually an organized body under the overarching movement of the emerging church. 

       Though there are many who align themselves with the emerging church, the emerging church is by no means any sort of organization.  Rather, it is an umbrella capturing a truly diverse mix of people and churches.  One central fact about the emerging church is that it is a reaction to postmodernism and rigid orthodoxy. 

      In Christianity Today, Scot McKnight names five areas which characterize the emerging church (of which he confesses to participate).  McKnight categorizes the emerging church as: 1) provocative, 2) postmodern, 3) praxis-oriented, 4) post-evangelical, and 5) political.  Within each of these categorizes, there are many different approaches from individuals and churches alike. Because of the diversity within the emerging church, I find it hard to give it an approving or disapproving vote. 

       One thing evangelicals can learn from this movement is the importance of relationships and how we live our lives.  Even though the emergent church reveals this importance, it generally fails to see the real importance of belief.  We can also glean from the idea of holistic ministry where we minister to not only the spirit, but to the physical, emotional, relational, and other needs of people.  This promotes a more effective method of ministry, because it ministers to the whole person.  These are just some of the many positive things evangelicals should take into consideration about the emerging church movement. 

       It would be nice if the emerging church only promoted good things.  However, there are strands within the emerging church which teach the wrong things.  For instance, some have taken on the idea of a full postmodern philosophy which leads to religious pluralism.  Others live out the social gospel above the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The emerging church finds it is easy to fall into a belief that how we live is more important than how we believe.  Again, these are just some of the negative teachings and doings of the emerging church. 

      Thinking about the emerging church movement, makes me think about Forest Gump.  The emerging church is like a box of chocolates, you never know what your going to get.  There are just too many different groups of people and individuals within the emerging church to make a generalization about whether the movement is good or bad overall.


I highly recommend reading the article titled "Five Streams of the Emerging Church" by Scot McKnight on the Christianity Today website.  The URL is: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html



Here are some videos about the emerging church movement:

John Piper Argues Against the Emerging Church (I think he may be generalizing a bit too much.)

     

This video is an interesting one which argues against the emerging church movement as well.  The speaker may be misquoting people or not providing the proper context.  However, it is interesting to hear his arguements against the emerging church. 

Here are some videos from Mark Driscoll about the emerging church movement.  I tend to like Mark Driscoll's presentation better, because he seems to look at the movement dialectically and break the movement into sub-movements to explain some things more accurately. 

The New Perspective on Paul

Paul

      The new perspective on Paul is really a new perspective of Paul's writings on justification and justification by faith rather than works of the law.  As a reaction to antisemitism in the 1970s, E.P. Sanders argued for a new perspective on the Judaism of Paul's time in his book titled, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. From this reaction against antisemitism came the foundation for the new interpretation of Paul's teachings on justification by faith. 

      First of all, Sanders claims that works of the law such as observing the Sabbath, circumcision, eating kosher, and etc. were thought of as markers which set apart Israel as God's covenant people.  Therefore, works of the law do not mean self-righteousness or meritorious works of righteousness as some may proclaim.  Second to this, faith is viewed as the new marker which sets apart God's people from those people who are without God.  Faith is merely what distinguishes God's people from everyone else. 

      This new perspective on Paul limits the doctrine of justification by faith.  Instead of taking a balanced approach and seeing "works of the law" as referring to both that which distinguished God's covenant people and things people were doing to try to earn divine favor, the new perspective limits "works of the law" to solely that which distinguishes God's covenant people.  In light of this new interpretation of "works of the law," the new perspective on Paul limits the meaning of faith as well by making it to be only that which distinguishes God's people.  Faith is the new distinguishing marker for both Jews and Gentiles of who is a member of God's people.  By this, justification takes on so much of a community oriented approach that individual justification takes the back seat.  Thus the new perspective of Paul leads to a view of justification where the importance of personal individualistic faith is diminished in importance. 

      I like the cultural connections the new perspective of Paul brings to light.  However, the new perspective limits too many things, just as a solely works based righteousness view of "works of the law" does ill in limiting the definition of  "works of the law."  There needs to be some balance.  The Bible reveals the Jewish people as striving to fulfill the law in order to gain favor and standing with God, just as it reveals the "works of the law" as a distinguishing marker of Israel as God's covenant people.  Because these are both biblical, they need to be incorporated in an integrated systematic understanding of justification.  The same thing goes for the issue of faith.  It is both a distinguishing marker of God's people as a whole which incorporates both Jew and Gentile, but alsoindividuals are justified by grace through faith apart from meritorious works.

      We cannot lose sight of the importance of individual justification by faith rather than by works.  Because the Bible reveals both sides of the coin on justification and the "works of the law," we cannot sit back and say it is only one sided.  To do so would lose the richness of the meaning behind Paul's teaching.  Thus we need to have a balanced approach when interpreting Paul's teachings on justification, the works of the law, and faith. 


Sources:

My information on the New Perspective on Paul came from the following article from Christianity Today.


Simon Gathercole, "What Did Paul Really Mean?," Christianity Today, 2007, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/13.22.html.  Accessed on November 23, 2011. 

    

The Inerrancy of Scripture

The Bible

      The inerrancy of the Bible is a much debated topic in Christian theology today.  Much of the debate stems from the emergence of Higher Criticism in the nineteenth century.  People claim that the Bible is erroneous and contains many issues that cripple the Bible as the inerrant word of God.  Inerrancy is a very important doctrine, because a lot of Christians view the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God.  If the Scriptures are fallible, then there is no reason that the Bible should be used as the foundational revelation of God to man.

      I hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  The reason why I believe in this is because I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible.  Because the Bible is inspired by God, it contains his authority. For more on the topic of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, please read my article titled, SOLA SCRIPTURA: AN OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC OF BIBLICAL AUTHORITY located in my September 2011 posts. 

      The post I just mentioned is a concept study I did on the topic of biblical authority.  In it I explain my position on the inspiration and authority of the Bible.  With this information in mind, I will lay my convictions of the inerrancy of the Bible. 

      As the authoritative word of God, the Bible--in its original manuscripts--is without error in what it says when interpreted properly.  First of all, I believe that the Bible is true in what it asserts and affirms, not necessarily in what it reports.  For instance, the Bible contains accounts where ungodly men and women report things that are not true.  In this case, the assertion of what was said is true, but the actual statement said by the ungodly person is not true.  Second, when interpreting the Bible, people need to look at the proper contexts of the passage and find the meaning which best fits within these contexts.
 
      Also, the Bible needs to be read and understood according to its purpose.  For example, there is an approximation of Pi in 1 Kings 7:23-26.  If one were to calculate Pi from this, one would find the value to be erroneous.  However, was the intent of the author to give an exact numerical analysis Pi, or was this section mainly intended to be an estimate?  Naturally, this passage is dealing with an nontechnical estimate and should be interpreted this way.  From this example I stress that the biblical text should be read through a natural interpretation which looks at the central purpose and context of the biblical passages in question. 

     Though the validity of some passages may not be scientifically resolved, it is because we do not have enough information to make conclusive statements about them.  Even though there exist some of these minor problems which would be cleared with more information, the Bible is inerrant in and of itself.  Problems that arise are usually problems of interpretation or lack of information.  These should not be used to deny the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures. 

    

Here are some good links:

Reformed Declaration of the Inerrancy of the Bible:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

Pi in the Bible?:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/pibible.htm

The Importance of the Charismatic Movement

An Illustration of the Holy Spirit Descending at Pentecost



      The charismatic movement started during the years of World War II.  During this time there was a resurgence of interest in spirituality and the supernatural.  Similar to the pentecostal movement, the charismatic movement emphasizes the Holy Spirit.  However, the charismatic movement is not restricted to several denominations, but is rather a movement across the Christian denominations. 

      This is one of the most important features of the charismatic movement.  Its emphasis on Spirit filled living did not make people separate from their denominations, but rather encourages them to live Spirit filled lives within their denominations.  As such the charismatic movement is very  interdenominational.  What makes this significant is that movements of theology within the church usually cause more of an impetus for separation rather than fellowship and collaboration.  Rather than forcing separation, the charismatic movement welcomes all who are born of Christ across all denominations. 

      Beyond this unity of the Spirit, the charismatic movement encourages everyone to live out their faith by the power of the Holy Spirit who works within them.  Spiritual gifts are emphasized as the empowerment towards service for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.  People are actually called to worship holistically.  We are not called to only worship with mental assent, but with the whole of our being.  The charismatic movement reminds us that it is about our whole person.  God wants everything of us, not just our minds. 

      Overall, the charismatic movement encourages people to live their lives fully devoted to God through the guidance and empowerment of the Spirit.  It does not seek to crush denominational walls, but to unite Christians in this world for the glorification of Christ.  The charismatic movement is by no means perfect.  There are definitely some flaws within the movement.  However, its importance lies in that it leads Christians to see their unity in the Spirit of God without having to break down denominational differences, and encourages Christians to live Spirit filled lives for the glory of God. 

Fundamentalism

A Societal Response to Fundamentalism



      Fundamentalism came on the scene of the early twentieth century as a reaction to liberal theology.  In both its offense and defense, fundamentalism aims to preserve conservative biblical Christianity and Christian doctrine.  Central to fundamentalism are these five doctrines: 1) the innerancy and infallibility of the Bible; 2) the virgin birth and deity of Jesus; 3) the substitutionary atonement; 4) the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ; 5) the literal, physical return of Christ.*  These are all good doctrines. Standing up for these five doctrines is very admirable.

     Throughout the past century, fundamentalism impacted society by standing up for morality and urging fellow fundamentalists to engage in political activism.  Within the United States, fundamentalists have impacted the political realm by their support of ultra conservative politicians such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  Currently, one of the most important political/moral battles fundamentalists face is the issue of abortion.  No matter what fundamentalists combat politically, they promote the Judeo-Christian foundation of morality. 

      There are a lot of things within fundamentalism that I agree with.  I agree with the  five main doctrines, standing up for morality, and preserving conservative Christian orthodoxy.  However, there are many negative sides that make me wary of associating myself with the title of "fundamentalist."  First of all, fundamentalism is known for its strong reactionary nature and exclusivity.  Fundamentalists have the tendency of separating and denying fellowship with anyone who does not agree with everything they believe.  This belief elitism divides the Church of Christ, and damages fellowship.

       Calling oneself a fundamentalist carries a lot of harmful and unnecessary connotations.  For instance, most people think fundamentalists are uneducated and unintelligent.  Fundamentalism also brings up images of riots and hate crimes like those of the congregation of Westboro Baptist Church and the radical fundamentalist Muslims. 

      Even though there are a lot of admirable things about true Christian fundamentalism, there is so much that disfigures the the name of fundamentalism.  Because of this, orthodox Christianity may be hindered by association with fundamentalism.  Therefore, we should seek to use different names to describe a conservative orthodox Christianity.  There is too much to lose by connecting ourselves to religious fundamentalism. 

    
Sources:

* David L. Smith.  A Handbook of Contemporary Theology: Tracing Trends and Discerning Directions in Today's Theological Landscape. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992. pp. 22. 

The Barmen Declaration

A Banner of the Confessing Church

    

    With the rise of Nazism in Germany, there came a Pro-Nazism movement within the church called the "German Christians."  In an attempt to stand against Nazism and its evils, the confessing church called a synod in Barmen, Germany.  During this synod, members of the Reformed church and Lutheran church came together to re-articulate tenants of the faith which were abused by Nazism.

    The resultant document of the Barmen synod was the Barmen Declaration.  Karl Barth was the principle formulator of the Barmen Declaration.  At the center of the declaration are six theses backed by scripture.  One goal of setting these six theses was to ground the truth of the faith and give a rule for judging the false teachings (especially found in Nazism).

      Within the Barmen Declaration, the confessing church denies the right of the state to take power over every aspect of human life, and also denies the right of the church to take power in the state.  This outline of separation of church and state struck a strong chord against Nazism which mixed the two together.  The Barmen Declaration really came about as a reaction against Nazism.  During the time this declaration did not resonate with the majority.  This is noted by the considerable amount of followers of Hitler's evil regime. 

      Even though the Barmen Declaration did not express the thoughts of the majority, it is a document that stood against evil and stood for the foundations of the Christian faith.  The confessing church's attempt to thwart acceptance of Nazism is absolutely admirable.  It is often most difficult to stand for what is right when everyone else is against you.  May we always stand for the truth of God and live accordingly. 



Here is a link to the six theses followed by some commentary: 
http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/barmen-declaration.html


This is another link to the full Barmen Declaration:
http://creeds.net/reformed/barmen.htm

The Importance of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    

     Many present day theologians count Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a Neo-Orthodox theologian.  Though he did not write a systematic theology, it is relatively easy to see Karl Barth greatly influenced Bonhoeffer's theology. Like Barth, Bonhoeffer disregarded religion and  placed a personal existential encounter of God through Christ as what matters most. (1) 
     Bonhoeffer stressed that faith without obedience is not really faith.  Whenever one has faith, one's life is marked by obedience.  Otherwise, there is no reason for faith.  Along with this, Bonhoeffer believed that Christians needed to be active in reconciling the world to God.  This meant the eradicating of evil at whatever costs. 
     Even though Bonhoeffer did not produce a ton of theological writings, what makes him important was his amazing dedication to a life of action.  He did not only believe what he believed, but his belief drove his actions.  This is the point of theology: application.  Without the application of theology, theology is nothing more than words on paper. 
     Many know Bonhoeffer as a man who stood against the terrible regime of Nazism in Germany.  Bonhoeffer not only spoke and wrote against Hitler and his regime, but he also involved himself in an attempt to murder Hitler.  Though using murder as a means of a good outcome is not right, Bonhoeffer's dedication to reconciling the world to God had no bounds.  He truly lived as he believed.  That in itself is a most admiral quality. 


Sources:

1)  Smith, David L. A Handbook of Contemporary Theology: Tracing Trends and Discerning Direction in Today's Theological Landscape. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992. pp. 35-36.

Barth's Theology

A Sketch of Karl Barth



      After studying classical liberal theology, Barth's theology was absolutely amazing and refreshing.  Barth's dialectical method of theology is very intriguing.  For Barth, the dialectical method of theology is the balancing of saying that we can know fully objective things of God and saying that he is so transcendent that we cannot possibly know anything about him.  These two extremes known as dogma and self criticism are balanced by a dialectical approach to theology. 
       One thing I love about Barth's theology is that it is totally Christ centered.  Barth stressed that Jesus is the image of God made flesh, the ultimate revelation of God to man.  In Christ alone does man find reconciliation with God.  Though Barth had such a wonderful view of Christ, his theology on the atonement drifted towards universal election. 
      Barth's focus on God's sovereignty also gives me great joy.  We cannot know God or speak of God unless it is by His grace.  This is so true.  It is only by God's grace that we can know him and speak of Him.  Taking this further, Barth pressed the idea that we can never speak of God unless God speaks through us.   When God speaks through us, he is unveiling himself through the veil of human language.  This is so interesting to me.  I mostly agree with Barth here, but I do believe that we can say some objective things about God even though they may not be fully understood. 
      God veils and unveils himself to us in the Word of God.  For Barth, this is not actually the Bible.  Barth breaks the Word of God into three components:  the Word Proclaimed, the Word Written, and the Word Revealed.  The Bible fits inside the Word written.  The Word Proclaimed is when people preach.  Finally, the Word Proclaimed refers to Jesus.  Though Barth had such a great view of the Bible, he did not directly associate it with the Word of God. 
      Though Barth's theology does not directly regard the Bible as the Word of God, I agree with a lot of Barth's theology. I think he did a great job of providing a dialectical method of theology.  Barth properly attributes a division between creator and created.  At the center of Barth's theology, his Christology is absolutely beautiful.  Whenever I read or read of Barth's theology, I find myself greatly engaged and fascinated.  He was a truly remarkable theologian.