Acts 1:1-8

[The following post is a continuation of some ECM observations. Click on the label "emerging church" to catch some of the other posts.]

ECM and Specifics--Thy Kingdom Come

If you've spent any time talking to someone from "emerging" circles, you've heard the word "kingdom." The phrase "kingdom of God" or "kingdom of heaven" (this post will not attempt to explore any difference in these phrases) are certainly Biblical terms. Using this term is certainly not a bad thing, for Jesus used it often. Many who speak of the "kingdom" merely claim to be adopting Jesus' language.

However, like a Sicilian squealing "inconceivable," I'm just not sure they know what the term means. The more they use the word, the less it denotes. One has to wonder if this is intentional, for in my experience, those who use it most seem less capable of giving a definition. Is the word attractive because Jesus used it, or because it can be a bit hazy?

[Side note: The above paragraph used a cultural reference (gasp), suggesting maybe some have painted me with too large a brush. I do not hate culture, nor can culture even be avoided. Everyone lives within a culture, just everyone isn't obsessed with American "pop culture." I would also point out that it was merely an illustration and that now we will be turning to the New Testament, not the works of Rob Reiner.]

Perhaps Acts 1:1-8 can provide some definition. Consider the following:

1. "The first account I composed..."

Luke makes reference to the Book of Luke, Chapter 1. Acts, therefore, is a continuation of the first book he wrote to Theophilus. In the introduction of Luke, Luke explained his intention. Luke desires to compile a history for Theophilus (v 1). Luke worked hard to gather all the eyewitness information and record it in a sensible order so Theophilus could follow along (v 2-3). He did this so that Theophilis could know the exact truth of what he had been taught (v 4). Truth was available, and Luke's written account should make that clear to Theophilus.

2. "until the day He was taken up to heaven..."

Luke makes it known he is picking up right where he left off. He ended the book of Luke with the ascension and begins the book of Acts just before the ascension. We're not missing any major portion of the story.

3. "by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles..."

Christ spent His last moments with them instructing. These instructions were not advice or helpful aids, Jesus was giving them commands (orders [entellomai] means a strong command each of the four times Luke uses it). He was telling the apostles what they were to do. However, we must not see that this time of clear instruction has ended, for Jesus Himself said, "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away..." (John 16:7). Are we really to believe that Jesus gave the apostles clear teaching for them to obey and then left us with less? The Spirit Who led Christ in instructing the apostles has now given us His completed revelation and resides within us. Jesus said we are better off now with our instruction than the intense training these apostles received for 40 days.

4. "speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God..."

During these forty days, Jesus presented Himself to the apostles, gave them many proofs of His resurrection (undoubtedly, much of the proofs involved teaching from the Old Testament), and spoke to them about the kingdom of God. We're not given much description for what that looked like, but the disciples response later will help us understand.

5. "He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem..."

The kingdom of God is sandwiched between clear instructions. Luke lays out that He has commanded them, spoke about the kingdom of God and then commanded them regarding the Holy Spirit. He told them to stay in Jerusalem. He told them the baptism of the Spirit was coming. He told them it would be a matter of days. His instruction is very clear. Why would we assume He got foggy during the kingdom of God sections?

6. "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"

The disciples are all gathered together and ask Jesus, "Are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Clearly, the disciples were fired up about the kingdom. Jesus had been speaking to them about it for forty days and now they have one big question: "Now?" There are also a couple of other things to note from their question: a.) It could be immediate. The disciples do not ask Jesus if the long, slow development of the world into a multi-millennia program is about to start. From what Jesus had taught them, we must assume the kingdom was described in a way that meant it could imminently arrive. b). It would be by Jesus. The disciples did not believe they would be restoring the kingdom. They asked Jesus if He was going to do it. However Jesus chose to speak of the kingdom, we have to assume that over these forty days it was presented in such a way that the disciples believed it was the Lord's work. They do not even ask if "we" are going to restore the kingdom, having some role within the restoration. All responsibility is placed on Jesus' shoulders. c). He would restore Israel. These apostles, trained on a crash course in the kingdom, came away believing He would restore Israel. This is key for two reasons. The word "restore" means to return to its former state. (This is the same word Luke used to describe Jesus healing a man's hand.) Apparently, when Jesus spoke of the kingdom, it sounded a lot like the kingdom of the Old Testament. Thus, they also believed the kingdom was coming to Israel.

7. "It is not for you to know times or epochs..."

One could easily say the disciples got it all wrong and their question exposes their dense nature. Certainly, they had a track record of misunderstanding Jesus' teaching. Yet in this situation, Jesus only addresses one point of error: timing. He does not say, "Enough with the Israel talk, fellas, I'm done with her." He does not say, "No guys, this kingdom is a spiritual-inside-the-heart thing. It doesn't look anything like the kingdom used to." He doesn't even say, "Me? No guys, you are the ones who will usher in the kingdom!" To the idea of Jesus ushering in a kingdom much like what Israel had experienced before, Jesus simply says, "It's not for you to know when." If they were wrong about their expectations of the kingdom, Jesus did not set them straight.

8. "And you shall be my witnesses..."

Witness is not really a kingdom related term. It's connotations are that they could testify to Christ's life (especially to His resurrection) and to His teaching. It also is the same word (martus) which can be translated "martyr" (Acts 22:20, Revelation 2:13). Christ commissions them for the role of being His witness.

While there are certain elements of the kingdom that are hard to understand, it is amazing how this confusion can turn "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) into "this world is My kingdom." However, many today consider the kingdom already here, or that it is our responsibility to usher in the kingdom. Rarely is this conflict noticed.

But of all groups, shouldn't our fellowship notice this the most. Within our Statement of Faith (which is silent on issues like creation, complimentarianism and is surprisingly brief about God the Father), we articulate:

11. SECOND COMING. The personal, visible, and imminent return of Christ to remove His church from the earth (1 Thess. 4:16-17) before the tribulation (1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 3:10), and afterward to descend with the Church to establish His millennial kingdom upon the earth (Rev. 19:11-20:6).

Our fellowship takes a decidedly premillennial perspective. We determine that Israel and the Church are separate. We determine that Christ is returning before the Tribulation (let alone before the Millennium). We also determine that Christ will establish His kingdom rule. (On a side note, I also find it strange that those who know our fellowship and are attracted to this language have not read Greatness of the Kingdom, possibly the gold-standard book of our fellowship's history.)

Today, many employ kingdom language to describe good works that are happening on the earth. Helping the poor, dealing with political injustice and cleaning up the environment are considered kingdom work. Most startling, these works can often be severed from gospel proclaiming ministry and even implimented by unbelievers and yet still considered of the kingdom. Surely, in the kingdom the poor will be cared for, the environment will be clean and justice will defintely be on hand. Therefore, it is wise fo the believer to pursue these God pleasing issues today.

However, to believe we can usher the kingdom in through these efforts, or to belive this is all there is to the kingdom is to miss much of God's future plan. Christ alone will usher the kingdom into existence at God's appointed time. Yet, these details are ignored or misrepresented, despite the fact that it provides the clearer language in Scripture.

If people really wanted to adopt Jesus' language, they'd spend much more time speaking of these future elements. We could probably speak of the kingdom less, but speak more clearly about how the Word describes it, and people would understand it better. After all, the kingdom isn't totally "inconceivable."

James 3:1

[My caveats had caveats, and it was making me naseous. So if you want to read that I'm not mean, actually like people and just want to honor God, you can read those caveats here.]

ECM and Language--Does it REALLY Matter?

Some will claim we just can't know what the Bible is saying. Others will claim the Bible may speak with authority, but we should not. Still others may just find criticizing offensive.

But occasionally you'll run into a people who doesn't mind critique. They welcome a dialogue about Scripture, for they do believe you can find truth within it. But as you begin to discuss specific words, they think you've crossed a line. It's one thing to evaluate the entirety of the message, it's quite another to start breaking down exact words. We should be concerned with the message, not the words used to convey the message. But can the two actually be separated?

You may be thinking, "Who claims the words don't matter? That's ridiculous." But if you examine the amount of coarse language, overstatement and redefinition of words, it is clear that some communicators are not concerned with the integrity of words. But teaching should not be done loosely:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.--James 3:1

A couple of points:

Prevent it!

Become (ginesthe) is in the present middle imperitive plural. James is discouraging the church as a whole from having many teachers. It should not be an easy thing to teach in the church. A man should consider it carefully, but should also have a church there to protect him from the office if they see he is unqualified. James is so serious he does not merely tell the church to watch teachers carefully, he tells them to guard the position carefully.

Strict Judgment

James says that the teacher will face a stricter judgment. James does not say the teaching will face scrutiny, but that the teacher will be judged. This must be understood as life and doctrine.

Specifically, there are three areas that concern me:

1. Coarse Language

This is not an attack of Mark Driscoll, and I wouldn't even mention his name except I know some would immediately assume him. Though I have been offended by words Mark has said, I have found he is typically repentant about these words and has a church body that calls him to accountability. What is scary though, is that at times, I have heard people viligantly defend that Mark said nothing inappropriate even when he admits that he did. (Of course, there have been times he has been accused of being inappropriate when he has simply said what the Bible says. Thankfully, I have not heard him apologize for these situations.) However, some seem to think that unless a pastor uses a word you can't say on TV, then his speech has been fine. This just isn't our standard. The words that come out of our mouth matter, for they reveal the condition of the heart. If define relevant as not being any different than the world, then I guess this could be one way.

2. Overstatement

Our soundbyte culture appears obsessed with shock value. It generates the maximum amount of effect for the minimal amount of time and effort. People (preacher included) are just too impatient to allow accurate statements to have their effect. Certainly, God's Word is so counter cultural that at times it will shock us to our senses. An example in more "fundamental" circles of the past would be to condemn all drinking instead of just drunkeness. However, today it typically swings the other way. A preacher is likely to proclaim as liberty those things which actually are not (like language: see above). Doctrines may even be amplified (or diminished) beyond their scope, just to "make a point." The teacher responds that he is simply trying to see the people come to action, but couldn't the same argument be made for Ananias' slight exaggeration?

Fuzzy Teaching

True to our postmodern era, words are easily redefined. A preacher may use the same words, but they don't necessarily mean the same thing by them. Many of these words are terms to dictate doctrine. A preacher may claim to adhere to a doctrine, but he is choosing to redefine it. Also, a teacher may present a "new concept." He does not either confirm or deny the concept, he simply presents it. When questioned, he has the ability to release himself, telling the critic he didn't really support the position. He's just doing his part to keep the listener fully informed. But our call is not simply to let them know what doctrines are out there. Our call is to teach them how to obey Christ's commands. This must be done through direct, passionate, clear teaching.

We should be careful with teachers and they should be careful with their teaching. In the next three posts we'll carefully at some specific topics.

Matthew 13:13

[The caveats were gettting out of control. Therefore, I encourage you to check a former post to see that I desire to not be mean, rude or condescending.

I don't think all of the ECM is guilty of these issues. But the ECM has brought some of these issues to light. These issues, however, are prevelent in other areas of our fellowship as well.

If nothing else, I'm thankful that these issues caused me to look deeper into some passages.]

ECM and Teaching--Can We Use Authority?

In the last post, I suggested that Scripture teaches that it is perspicuous. Many today espouse a "hermeneutic of humility" that contradicts this point. Others, claim the Bible is clear and understandable (again, do not assume this means some texts are not difficult), yet they find that clear teaching is not as effective. Either people are turned off by past preachers who hammered every topic with iron clad confidence (even in areas where the Bible is silent), or our learning style has changed. Therefore, many preachers today choose to be vague. Ambiguity is in, clear directives are out. Many advocates of this teaching style claim a pretty prestigious line of teachers. In fact, aren't they simply teaching like Jesus did?

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.--Matthew 13:13

Therefore, if we present a captivating story, it will draw our audience in. They may not comprehend all of the details and perhaps they may even misunderstand elements, but at least they will be listening. Is it concerning that people may not understand? Certainly. But Jesus acknowledges this tendency and yet prefers to use parable as a teaching method. Isn't it a good idea to follow in His footsteps?

Let's consider a few details about the text:

1. Christ's Idiosyncratic Ministry--Christ did not speak in parables to help them understand His teaching, the text suggests He used parables to keep them from understanding Him. It has not been granted that the audience would know the mysteries of the kingdom. There are a number of reasons for this:
a. God's sovereign choice (Romans 9:14-18). God is glorified to reveal that He will grant understanding to some and not grant it to others.
b. Predetermined Plan (Acts 2:23). The Israelites had to reject their Messiah so that He could offer His life for their sins. Only by being rejected could Christ become our reconcilliation.
c. To Fulfill His Word (Isaiah 6:9-10). Jesus tells His disciples that He teaches in parables to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. Not only is His crucifixion God's predetermined plan, His speaking in parables is one of God's predetermined forms to keep the crowd from listening.
Christ's ambiguous teaching was for our benefit. However, the sacrifice has been made, and there clearly is no longer any need for us to prevent people from coming to repentance. I am shocked that so many who claim "humility" fail to see this giant distinction between their ministry and His.

2. Non-Missional--Therefore, the parables were actually to prevent people from understanding the mysteries of the Kingdom. One must acknowledge that Jesus chose non-propositional story telling as a Kingdom stagnating teaching method. The Kingdom was not expanded (though it was further initiated) through this literary device.

3. Solved Mystery--Jesus is not content to leave His elect in mystery. Consider:
a. Mystery--Many people perk up when they read the phrase "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." However, they seem to ignore that His disciples were granted to know these mysteries. Jesus did not desire for them to remain mysterious.
b. Knowledge Granted--Jesus tells the disciples that it has been granted to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom. They are not smarter or more clever than the others, they have simply been chosen.
c. He Teaches Clearly--Lost in Jesus' admission to using parables is that He does so while clearly teaching propositionally. He explains why He teaches in parables, explains that they are different and then explains the parable...piece by piece. His propositional teaching, only available to the disciples (v 10), was the means through which God desired to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.
d. Good Soil--When Jesus is explaining His parable, He declares that the seed that fell on the good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it (Matthew 13:23)! His very parable was about people who would understand His teaching (and that the majority would not).

Yes, Jesus often spoke in parables. But he had a unique mission and even desired that some would misunderstand. Those who choose to model their teaching after this typically ignore these issues. Furthermore, they tend to neglect that Jesus explained many of His parables to His disciples. They often consider His parables ambiguous and claim to be following His pattern. However, they also tend to ignore that His teaching had amazing authority! In fact, the crowd observes His authority in teaching just after He has told them that the wise man hears His words and obeys them.

But the proponents of this "new humility" will counter, Christ maay have taught with authority, but certainly we cannot. We have no authority! This would be humble if only it did not place the person in direct conflict with Christ. For His instructions were:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."--Matthew 28:18-20

He does not call us to teach them all I have commanded, but teach them to obey all that I have commanded. This cannot be done in vague terms. A person must be introduced to Christ's commands and introduced to practical application. But how can we do this? Don't forget...

He has all authority.

And He is with us to the end.

It's time for us to teach like it.

2 Peter 3:14-16

[Pre-caveat caveat: This post is the result of a series I did regarding Scriptural interaction with some emerging church trends. However, the truths of the text certainly expand beyond the emerging scope.]

[Understand that as I work through these posts, I am not saying these issues relate only to the emerging church movement. I also am not saying that every emerging church has these issues, some will not. All I am saying is that the emerging church movement (or ECM for my lazy fingers to type) has been a recent and/or prevalent catalyst for certain topics. I also understand that the ECM discussion may stir up topics for me that others do not see as germane. I am not claiming to be an expert and will confess that in many ways I feel like an outcast in my own generation.

If it appears I am painting the ECM with too broad a brush, I would encourage you to consider it should be even broader. Any atempt to address specific churches, pastors or teachers has typically resulted in me being considered mean, rude or non-brotherly. Instead, if an element of a movement causes us see an area of a concern, we should see if that broad brushstroke doesn't also cover some of our own ministry. Quite frankly, much concern I have about elements within the ECM are problems we have long had within our own fellowship of churches.

Furthermore, it is not my desire to be mean, pugnacious or divisive. I believe we are called to refute error when we see it. However, I do not believe this has to be personal, rude or demeaning. Justin Taylor has an excellent series of quotes from John Newton (1, 2, 3) regarding refutation. I hope I exercise the positive dimensions expressed in those quotes when addressing controversy. If you spot words or ideas in conflict to the standards addressed by Newton, please bring them to my attention.

Understand also, that I do not believe that modernism is glorious. Modernism has major problems too. I have no explanation for God's sovereign choosing of me, so I am baffled, yet grateful for His divine continuous working in this world. I do not believe science has all the answers and I do not deny that there is mystery in this world. These posts are in no way an attempt to call people back into modernity. I believe Christ's message trandscends all era and times, therefore I would not call myself a modernist either. Understand that this is not a nostalgia quest for me.

Understand also, that it makes me nauseous that I find it necessary to introduce a post with such a caveat.]

--sigh.

ECM and Clarity--Is it humble?

Have you ever had a person come to you with a "word" from God? "God told me you should buy this house! God told me you should apply for that new job!" even "God told me you should serve in this ministry!" Don't you just chafe at that? How do they know God told them that? Furthermore, if it is about me, why wouldn't God come and say that to me? Why did He need to go through that person?

But could the person speak with conviction regarding other issues? "God says it is wrong to lie. God says you should wait until marriage to become intimate. God says you should do that which is honoring to your parents." Can each of these things, grounded in Scripture, be said with clarity and conviction? Certainly, a person can say these things with confidence, for God has not only told them, but He has told all of us in His Word. These words come with authority, because they are not based on a person's feelings, emotions or thoughts, they are based on God's revealed Word.

Though Israel, the apostles and the early church all saw the Scriptures as authoritative, we eventually had to fight the battle over whether Scripture really has ultimate authority in the life of a believer. Once that battle was behind the chuch (as far as formally articulated positions) the next battle came over inspiration. Some were wiling to accept that the Word has authority, they just weren't sure what portions of the Book counted as Scripture. The church was again called to articulate a clear statement affirming that all Scripture is God-breathed. But with authority and inspiration being settled, the question has moved to perspicuity. Can we really know what the Scriptures are saying? Aren't some passages really hard to understand? Can those passages have any authority?

It may be of comfort that even an apostle acknowledged that portions of the Bible can be hard to understand. Peter said:

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.--2 Peter 3:14-16

Some observations:

1. Paul's letters = Scripture--This does not mean every thing Paul ever wrote is Scripture. However, Peter is saying that the letters the church had received from Paul are Scripture. He says that men distort what Paul says like they do the rest of Scripture. In one brief statement, Peter made it known that he considers Paul's letters to be on equal footing as the rest of Scripture.

2. Some things are hard to understand--Peter acknowledges that Paul makes some difficult statements. He does not say it is easy to read or discern. He does not say that it takes no effort. Peter says that Paul has written the letters to the churches and some of the content is quite difficult.

3. Peter loves Paul--Peter refers to him as a brother and beloved. This is after Paul has corrected Peter! (Galatians 2:11). Peter does not consider Paul's difficult writtings to be the by product of sin in Paul or a poor character trait. Peter says he loves Paul and that he is his brother.

4. Paul is smart--In fact, Peter says that Paul's letters are a by product of the wisdom given him. Some portions are difficult, not because Paul was a poor writer or lacked knowledge. The text is difficult because he had been given profound wisdom.

5. Paul's letters are useful--Peter only brings up Paul's letters because they help make Peter's point. Peter is expressing why the end times have not played out to completion. In this statement, with subsequent application for the church, Peter appeals to Paul's letters. He does not say, "This is what Paul was trying to say when he said..." Instead, he says "regard the patience of our Lord as salvation" just like Paul told you to do! He's not making a statement of clarification, he's making a statement of compliment. He is aligning himself, and his reader with a perspective they have already heard, understood and applied to their lives.

6. The untaught and unstable distort Paul--Peter does not excuse the church for misunderstanding Paul. Instead, he condemns those who misunderstand what Paul says. Peter says the reason the miss the passage is due to their own instability and ignorance. Peter expects his audience to do otherwise.
a. Unstable--Peter is really claiming that God will not grant them wisdom. They may ask for that wisdom, but they doesn't really believe God will grant it. In reality, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. James says that the man who asks but doubts God's ability to supply shouldn't expect it.
b. Untaught--Peter is claiming that the Spirit is inactive or disabled in His ability to instruct them. The Spirit may have inspired it. He may have preserved it. But He is not functioning as a teacher. (The Spirit of God residing silently should be a troubling concept.) Peter then is claiming that they lack the annointing of the Holy Spirit.

7. Missing the point can be destructive--Peter says that those who distort Paul do so to their own destruction. In fact, they do not just distort Paul, but they do this to the rest of the Scriptures. Since the problem is with the person and not with the author, their distortion extends beyond Paul to all of Scripture. They miss the point with Paul because they cannot handle the Scriptures at all.

In a nutshell, Peter acknowledges that Paul's writings are Scripture even though they are difficult. However, even though he considers them difficult, he expects the reader to understand them, for we have the Spirit to illumine the text. In fact, those who misuderstand difficult passages of Paul also misunderstand the rest of Scripture too. The complexity of the text does not diminish its authority.

While this is the traditional approach to Scripture, there is a new hermeneutic on the rise. It's called a "hermeneutic of humility." It's adherants claim that they, unlike so many arrogant Bible teachers of the past, are humble, admitting they don't know what the text means. They condemn a former perspective that believed the text has a particular meaning (authorial intent) that can be known and discerned by the reader. We should be more ambiguous, for direct statements are purely arrogant. But one cannot hold this perspective without being in bold defiance:

1. Of Peter the Apostle--As we've already seen, this perspective disputes what Peter said. You can only practice this hermeneutic of humility if you are willing to say Peter got it wrong.

2. Of the Apostle Paul--Paul tells Timothy that the Scriptures he has had from childhood (that would be the Old Testament only) were sufficient to produce a faith leading to salvation in Jesus Christ! Therefore, Paul did not see Old Testament passages as veiled and too difficult for Timothy to comprehend. In fact, he next directs Timothy to the fact that all Scripture is inspired and useful.

3. Of Jesus Christ--Jesus tells a group of untrained and uneducated men that the only reason they can comprehend the parable is that God reveal it to them. Paul corroborates this idea when he says that the Word of God is not comprehendable unless God reveals it to us (1 Corinthians 2:6-16). In fact, never once does Jesus excuse the Israelites for misunderstanding Scripture, but He criticizes them for not reading and comprehending the Scriptures.

Hermeneutic of Humility advocates often cite Deuteronomy 29:29:

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

They simply tell you they are celebrating the secret things of God. But is something which is difficult to understand the same as a secret? If I tell you something, even if it is difficult to comprehend, you could no longer say I was keeping it secret from you. Therefore, Moses is telling us that there are aspects to God which have not been revealed to us. There are things about God which He has not revealed, but has kept secret. However, it is inconsistent to then claim that God kept those things secret by revealing them in His Word. In fact, Moses says that the things revealed should now be proclaimed! Moses actually has confidence in the Israelites ability to understand the Scriptures, for he states that they should observe it! How could they obey what they do not understand?

And that appears to be the crux; obedience. Today, the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture is called into doubt, not over texts which are difficult to understand, but by texts difficult for our society to obey. Male headship is considered too vauge to know for certain, despite very clear text. Again, homosexuality is a topic too hazy, despite concrete statements. We can't know about the length of hell even thought Jesus said it is eternal. But this same humility is not exercised to ask Did Jesus really go to Capernaum? (as John MacArthur points out). This hermeneutic is not employed for all Scripture, but rather, only those Scriptures which our society finds hard to accept.

Because unregenerate society finds a text difficult to comprehend, we are encouraged to reconsider our approach. This is encouraged even though Scripture tells us they will be incapable of understanding.

A person dismisses the text because they claim they are exercising personal humility. However, they are really bringing God into a place of humiliation; stating that He is not capable of making His Word discernable to fallible men. We're not told it will be easy, but we are told God is capable. Peter says it will be difficult, but he also expected the people to understand.

We can speak with authority because we can speak the Word of God. And when God spoke, He did not mumble.

Titus 1:9

[Pre-caveat caveat: Though the following post was written in response to items surfacing in the emerging/emergent church movement, the principles are based out of Titus 1:9]

[Understand that as I work through these posts, I am not saying these issues relate only to the emerging church movement. I also am not saying that every emerging church has these issues, some will not. All I am saying is that the emerging church movement (or ECM as my lazy fingers will from here on type) has been a recent and/or prevalent catalyst for certain topics. I also understand that the ECM discussion may stir up topics for me that others do not see as germane. I am not claiming to be an expert and will confess that in many ways I feel like an outcast in my own generation.

Understand also, that I do not believe that modernism is glorious. Modernism has major problems too. I am baffled and grateful for God's continuous divine working in this world; for my own salvation has no other explanation. I do not believe science has all the answers and I do not deny that there is mystery in this world. These posts are in no way an attempt to call people back into modernity. I believe Christ's message trandscends all eras and times, therefore I would not call myself a modernist either. Understand that this is not a nostalgia quest for me.

Understand also, that it makes me nauseous that I find it necessary to introduce a post with such a caveat.]

--sigh.

ECM and Criticism--Is it Biblical?

Boy, wouldn't it be nice if in one sweeping post I could evaluate an entire movement and breakdown whether it is Biblical or not? If you came to this post expecting that to happen, you will be disappointed. I am far too verbose, the topic is way too broad, and let's be honest, your attention span is far too short to answer that question in one incredibly long post. Yes, I understand that the question "Is the ECM Biblical?" is not even a fair question to ask. (Don't make me start writing retractions again.) But if you look closely, that wasn't the question. Blog titles must be relatively short (It looks really odd on the FGBC blogpage if I use long titles) and therefore can affect clarity. I am not saying that I am critiquing the ECM on the basis of its biblicity. I'm asking:

Is even criticizing something, like the ECM, a Biblical practice?

In the past, this blog has received significant heat from some. I will admit that my posts are not strictly positive and complimentary. Typically, if I critique something on my site, within a day I will get a comment from someone that says, "Why do you have to be negative? If you didn't like the book/author/sermon/speaker/event/host/seminar/program/curriculum/etc just don't do it. You don't have to say it was bad. You simply could just point to what you consider a positive alternative." While this is not the fault of the ECM, I have received this comment every time I have said something non-complimentary about emerging/emergent. I am told the proper response would be to leave well enough alone and continue to serve in my specific sphere. If someone else wants to minister in that way, it's none of your business! I'm told I don't have to participate, but that I should just get out of the other guy's way.

I'm sorry, I just can't do that.

No seriously, I can't.

And pastor/elder, neither should you.

You see, I'm not claiming that I find it impossible for myself to do that. Contrary to my impression left on some, I do not crave confrontation. I think I generally have a healthy and normal attraction to peace and comfort. I do not go looking for a fight. I can not link my compulsion to speak where I see error to heredity, environment or even to sin (though my response may not always be pure). I chock it up to calling.

And no, I am not alluding to that ultimate Christian trump card. I am not stating that God gave me a vision in the evening, calling me to defend issues and point out error. I'm not trying to claim some experience or even burning in the bosom that compells me to refute error, but which--since it was entirely personal--is conveniently impossible to challenge. I have received a very real, very tangible, very public calling to refute error.

Don't believe me?

Check it out:

For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.--TItus 1:7-9

A couple of observations about this calling:

1. Non-prioritized.

While many believe the opening statement that an overseerer must be above reproach (a concept repeated from verse 6) may be an umbrella introducing all of the other qualifications, it is clear as you work through all of the rest that this is not presented in any prioritization. Are we to claim that not being self-willed is more critical than not being controlled by substance? Obviously, each qualification is equally important.

2. Not on the curve

Paul does not say that an overseer must generally adhere to these qualifications. This is the standard. Therefore, meeting 80% of the qualifications is not a "passing grade." Like the fruit of the Spirit, this is a list where the standard is to hold all of these qualifications. (Obviously, no man is able to claim absolute perfection in any of these areas. However, he must see enough sanctification in his life for others to acknowledge they see him as qualified in these areas.)

3. Disqualified by being qualified?

These qualifications cannot be mutually exclusive. Contrary to the climate of our current culture, it is possible to refute errant doctrine without being quick-tempered, self-willed, pugnacious and out of control. Of course, it is possible to disagree with someone and fail to preserve these other qualifications (I have lost my cool before and failed to meet above standards). However, we must acknowledge that the action of refuting unsound doctrine is not disapproving action in itself. Just as we would expect any elder to be able to exhort in sound doctrine, Paul says he must hold fast to the teaching well enough to refute those who contradict as well.

I should also explain the term "doctrine." I am not speaking only of head knowledge and facts. Doctrine is not pleasing to God unless it plays an active role in the believer's life. Therefore, when I speak to doctrine, I am not simply saying that a person must affirm facts. They must follow those facts. A person can claim to understand the sovereignty of Christ, but if they lack obedience, it is not accurate for them to affirm Him as Lord (Luke 6:46). Therefore, when an elder is called to refute unsound doctrine, he does not merely evaluate a verbal profession, but is called to examine whether the mode is consistent with the creed. Does the person practice what they preach? If they regularly act in a way that is contrary to a faith statement they make, it must be concluded that they do not understand the faith statement they claim to affirm. Therefore, the elder must be prepared to lovingly refute their method, exposing the error in their understanding, and calling them to consistent thought and action. This is doctrine.

Therefore, if the ECM (or anyone else) incorporates a method which contradicts a doctrine, the elder is obligated to speak up. In fact, his ability to contradict can only be evidenced if he does, and his refutation of unsound doctrine is the outworking of his faithfulness to the word.

I've been told this as a pastor before. "It's one thing to say what you believe. It's okay to say what another believes. It's even okay to say that you believe differently than someone else. You may even find it appropriate to lay out your case for why you have a belief. However, you really shouldn't say someone else is wrong." I have been told this by so many within our fellowship, that I've wondered if it has replaced "The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible" or even "Knowing Him and Making Him Known" (which wouldn't be tragic if the latter was lost).

Frankly, that's American advice, but it's unbiblical. It may sound consistently gracious, but it's self-contradictory as well. When I have received this "just do your own thing and leave the ECM alone" advice from others, I have noticed a few contradictions:

1. Impeded Vision?--Postmodernity is a response to modernity. It is a reaction. Therefore, much in the ECM is a reaction to "traditional church." In nearly every post, book, sermon or ECM lecture I have listened to, they must make their point for why they do what they do by stating how the traditional church is doing it wrong. From my observation, the movement has no problem pointing out the "traditional church flaws" but can get quite upset when they are questioned.

2. Brothers' Keepers?--Most in the ECM will acknowledge a desire to think more globally and outside of denominational borders. However, when one outside of their camp questions their practice, the thought is often raised that each man should mind his own business. This seems contrary to thinking globally. If I want to expand my thought from beyond my geography and I want to focus on the church beyond my denomination, shouldn't I also acknowledge my responsibility to my brother outside of my practice? If we are truly united in Christ, shouldn't we care about one another enough to confront one another?

3. Method free?--Many in the ECM are frustrated with an easy believism that seperates belief from action. However, many seem readily willing to divide methodology and theology. But Peter said that life and godliness are borne out of true knowledge of God. Therefore, the two cannot be so easily extracted. What you believe will impact the way that you live, and the way you live is a reflection of your beliefs. Certainly liberties extend to many things. God is so gracious in the freedom He gives His bride. However, a methodology can be a manifestation of a faulty doctrine and therefore should be open for examination.

In the past, I have been called arrogant, rude, mean and childish for challenging certain things. My judgment has been questioned and my motives have been doubted. This has not just happened with the ECM discussion. It's happened when I've questioned books, sermons or even celebrity statements. Apparently, my ministry would just go smoother if I would keep my mouth (or laptop) shut. Perhaps people are right. Perhaps my role as an elder would be more peacable and calm. Most would not deny that we must exhort in sound doctrine, even though this can occasionally disturb the peace of ministry. Yet we know that peace is not our guide for action, God's calling is.

And He has called us to refute that which is unsound.

Isaiah 61:1-4

After listening to a message by Brian McLaren, I decided to review his understanding of the text quoted. I ask you to please read my purpose and intent in this exercise before reading any further.

The first text McLaren turns to is Isaiah 61:1-4

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, To grant those who mourn {in} Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified. Then they will rebuild the ancient ruins, They will raise up the former devastations; And they will repair the ruined cities, The desolations of many generations.

McLaren's Emphasis

1. McLaren says this poem was written to people "standing on the ledge of dispair" to tell these oppressed captives that a better day is coming.

2. [Referring to verse 4] "The structures of your civilization will be renewed. The environment of your civilization. Like if it were today, maybe he'd say, 'The toxic waste dumps will be cleaned up. The places that have been paved over by concrete. The places where species are going extinct. Those will be renewed. The cities that are filled with urban blight. The cities that are filled with poverty and unemployment. God cares about them, and you will have a part in rebuilding them.'"

3. McLaren points out that, contrary to our expectation, Isaiah does not point them to thought of eternity for comfort, but the hope is found in a point in history. He does not comfort them that they will leave this earth, but rather that the "poor, broken hearted, captive, prisoners, all who mourn and grieve, and those in dispair are going to be helped."

4. In the midst of discussing this issue, McLaren makes the statement, "Most of us would rather go to heaven later rather than sooner...but that's another story."

Some observations

1. We are never told these oppressed, downtrodden people are Jews. Why does this matter? It matters because Israel was in captivity as an act of judgment by God. They were not innocent victims. They had rebelled against God and He disciplined them. Yet, we see His grace extended in that He pursues restoration. No mention of this theme at all.

2. Again, McLaren glosses over the importance of the promised land and of Jerusalem in particular. He makes no mention of covenants made to the people, nor that this is even God's chosen nation. Strangely, in a message that is intened to motivate compassion for people, McLaren seems to be more focused on the environment. There is a significance to the "Promised Land" (see Hebrews 3 & 4) that unfortunately seems ignored.

3. I'm not sure I even fully understand McLaren's point here. He is right that the text does not point them to heaven as their solace. But the text does point them to future events. In verse 4, it regularly says "they will" indicating these are future events. In fact, Jesus states that this passage was fulfilled by Him. (Which happens to be the next text we'll examine.) Any immediate fulfillment of this passage seems to be secondary to the fulfillment in Christ, thus pointing us to the future, not Isaiah's present conditions.

4. I do not want to be overly harsh on his sidebar statement, "Most of us would rather go to heaven later rather than sooner...but that's another story." Every pastor occasionaly makes a sideways statement he knows could become a full blown "rabbit trail" and therefore brings himself back to the point without further explanation. This very well could be such a case. However, I do wish he would have articulated that the Scriptures only exhort believers to look forward to the Lord's appearing. Perhaps his facial expression or gestures articulated that not wanting to be with Christ is not the God pleasing heart attitude.

Summary

McLaren encourages the people of Mar's Hill to be good stewards of creation. He also encourages them to not fall prey to "escapism," thinking so much about eternity that they do not look to impact the present. These are both good, Biblical concepts. However, it is questionable to say they are themes addressed here in Isaiah 61, and it can certainly be said they are not the main theme of the passage. To this point in the message, there has been no mention of sin, God's judgment, God's holiness, or even His grace in restoring a people who did not deserve it of themselves.

Luke 4:16-21

After listening to a message by Brian McLaren, I decided to review his understanding of the text quoted. I ask you to please read my purpose and intent in evaluating before reading further.

First, McLaren directs the congregation to Isaiah 61:1-4. (You can read my review here.) Next, he turns the group to Luke 4:16-21.

McLaren's Emphasis

1. Technically, he does not "turn" the group there. He simply summarizes the passage, and actually tells them it is found in Luke 3 (We've all given the wrong reference before.) He concludes the Biblical narrative with, "Today, this day, those words are fulfilled in your hearing."

2. He explains that what Jesus was saying is that what happened in Isaiah's day is happening again today.

3. McLaren warns that we can tend to spiritualize the texts, assuming Jesus is talking about hearts rather than literally helping the poor and the oppressed. He contrasts the caricature of heaven (clouds and harps) with God's desire to rebuild cities in the here and now.

4. In illustrating this point. McLaren describes a boy who wishes to get out of cleaning his room by explaining entropy to his mother. The boy explains that entropy is a law of science and that God has established all of the laws of science. Therefore, attempting to reverse such a law would be rebelling against God. He suggests that some take this attitude when it comes to prophecy or even evaluating our current circumstances. Some look and claim that we shouldn't help the poor or clean up the environment because it's a helpless cause. However, McLaren says this passage shows us, "that God actually cares about this world. God has not abandoned creation. The law of entropy might be a law of physics, but there is a deeper law in the universe, it's the law of God's faithfulness. And that God does not abandon His creation, but that God cares about it being renewed, and restored, and rebuilt."

Some observations

1. While McLaren is able to summarize the details of Luke 4, I couldn't help but get the impression he was not very familiar with specific details. For one, he stated it was Luke 3 a couple of times. This would not be a major concern (again, we've all missed a reference before) except that he misses something else critical within the text. He tells the audience that Jesus quotes the passage in Isaiah 61 (verses 1-4 is what McLaren read aloud) however Jesus only quoted Isaiah 61:1-2. Why does this matter? Because McLaren spends a majority of his time in Luke 4 telling the audience how concerned Jesus is with cities and ruins, yet Jesus did not find it necessary to read that portion. Instead, Jesus concluded with "to proclaim the favorable year of the LORD." Jesus did not even bother reading the portion about cities and ruins, therefore it seems a stretch to say that was His main point when speaking to those in Nazareth.

2. To say that what Isaiah prophesied (and saw happen) in his day is happening again in Jesus' day seems to put Isaiah's and Jesus' ministry on the same plain. He does not take opportunity to share that Jesus was a greater fulfillment of the prophecy, nor that He had a greater mission than Isaiah.

3. I don't just struggle to see how the text makes McLaren's point, I actually struggle to see how it doesn't contradict his main point. He states that Jesus tells them the prophecy is fulfilled in their hearing and then goes out and actually performs these acts. McLaren warns us not to spiritualize this fulfillment, for Jesus says He will restore sight to the blind and we certainly see that literally fulfilled (thus making his case). However, I am not aware of Him creating release of the captives (actually, He left John the Baptist in prison to be beheaded), or to set free those who had been oppressed (I do not remember Him freeing a single slave and when His political motives were challenged He stated His kingdom is not of this world.) Again, Jesus mentions nothing of restoring cities and buildings, yet McLaren claims that was part of His mission too (even though He spoke of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem and did nothing to prevent it). John 9 seems to be an important place to turn. Yes, Jesus cared abou the physical nature of things (we are not gnostics) and healed a man born blind. However, He seems to care even more about the man's soul, pursuing the man to reveal Himself as Lord to him.

4. I actually really liked McLaren's "clean your room" example. (I could hear myself trying that kind of approach as a child.) And he is quite right that we should not throw our hands up in dispair, refusing to influence the world. However, I was greatly disappointed to not hear the gospel articulated at this point. Entropy gave him a great opportunity. The law of entropy was not in effect when God said, "It is good," but became a law imposed upon a fallen world. This was a great door for McLaren to introduce the problem of sin. Sin is the reason for entropy, and only if God reverses the problem of sin can He reverse the problem of entropy. Yet McLaren presented entropy as if God created a world full of sin, disease, decay and death. Second, I'm not sure what better suggests that God has not abandoned His creation than to state He was willing to die to reverse the curse. Yet McLaren gives no reference to the cross.

Summary

The passage in Luke does not seem to be about the environment or social reform. In fact, the passage does not even contain some of the statements that McLaren draws as his main points. Not only does the listener focus on a point the text does not make, but it also causes the listener to miss the main point of the passage. The first line Jesus quotes from Isaiah is about proclaiming the gospel. The last line He quotes is about it being the favorable year of the Lord. McLaren does not acknowledge either of these points, instead focussing on the environment. By this point in his message, he has mentioned personal sin (acknowledging it is bad), however it is placed right beside social and political injustice. It is not presented as a violation of God's righteousness.

Mark 10:17-27

After listening to a message by Brian McLaren, I decided to review his understanding of the text quoted. I ask you to please read my purpose and intent in evaluating before reading further.

First, McLaren directs the congregation to Isaiah 61:1-4. (You can read my review here.) Next, he turns the group to Luke 4:16-21 (review here.) Lastly, he goes to Mark 10:17-27

McLaren's Emphasis

1.McLaren suggests that when the ruler asks what he must do to inherit eternal life, he does not mean heaven. He suggests the man is saying, "Jesus, there is a different kind of life that You are talking about. You call it the kingdom of God. It's life that is on the higer level, it's not just stuck in the mundane. It's life that has an eternal significance. Life in the kingdom of God."

2. Jesus questions why the man would call Him "Good Teacher" since only God is good. McLaren says what Jesus meant here was, "Look, if you're just interested in the opinion of a good teacher, that's one thing. But if you really are interested in what God says about this, let's go back to the commandments in the Bible."

3. The rich young ruler claims that he has kept the commandments. The text says that Jesus felt compassion for him. McLaren understands His compassion was borne out of thinking, "He's [the rich young ruler] is really sincere." McLaren states this man has everything we all want. He is young, he has money, he has influence. Jesus sees all this, but sees a man who wants something greater.

4. McLaren states that if this was about eternity, Jesus gives the wrong answer. But if he's asking a question about higher signficance, life on a higher level, then Jesus' answer makes sense. When Jesus tells the man to sell all he has and follow Him, McLaren understands Jesus to be saying, "You are a really commited guy. You're doing great. But if you really want to be a part of the kingdom of God...[at this point, McLaren references back to Jesus' main point in Luke 4 being social action, even though he acknowledges the ruler wouldn't have been there to hear Jesus read Isaiah 61]...back then I said the reason I am here is to bring good news to the poor. If you want to be a part of My thing, if you think I am more than just a teacher, and that God is really speaking through Me, then what I'm asking you to do is join me in my concern for the poor."

5. When Jesus says it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, He is not speaking of heaven. He's talking about being a part of His work, that He calls being a part of the kingdom of God now.

6. McLaren states that Jesus could not have been talking to the rich young ruler about eternity, or else He really messed up the Lord's prayer. He says that "thy kingdom come" and "thy will be done" speaks of Jesus' desire to bring God to us, not for us to look forward to escape in heaven.

Some observations

1. If the rich young ruler did not mean life after death, there are several words that need explanation. First, the ruler asks about inheriting eternal life. He does not say greater life, he does not ask for abundant life, he asks about eternity. If the man sells all he has, Jesus says his treasure will be in heaven. He does not say here on earth, but speaks of life after death, and its reward. The rich young ruler does not correct Jesus for focussing on eternity. The disciples ask who can then be saved. This seems and odd question if Jesus was merely speaking of quality of life.

2. McLaren misses Jesus' emphasis on God's righteousness when He questions the ruler for saying "Good Teacher." Jesus is saying that only God is good. Yet, this is also a moment where Jesus is expressing His divinity. For if God alone is good, and "Good Teacher" is an applicable name for Jesus, then Jesus must be God.

3. See observation 1.

4. McLaren paints Jesus as in oppostion to the Apostle Paul in Romans 1-3. The suggestion seems to come across that man can be good enough to come before God.

5. See observation 1.

6. McLaren gives the listener two options: a) Either care about the present, and improving conditions of life now, or b) focus only on heaven. He does not seem to believe both can be accomplished. I know McLaren has stated his doubts about orthodox doctrines of hell, but he seems to dismiss the eternal so much, I'm wondering if he believes in heaven either. The believer should be able to strive to improve life around him and long for heaven.

Summary

McLaren redefines many words in this passage. If you took the literal dialogue in the passage and compared it to what he believes they were really saying, it would not appear to be the same conversation. The gospel continues to be neglected, and comments are even made that appear contrary to the gospel. He does not address God's righteousness, though "Good Teacher" is a great place to do so. He does not present man's depravity, though the commandments are a great opportunity to do so. It even appears to be a bit of a works salvation, that "joining Jesus' social program" is what it means to inherit eternal life. Not only do traditional interpretations of passages go out the window, but many orthodox doctrines seem to disappear as well.