This week, I am summarizing the work of two evangelical theologians regarding the way forward in this postmodern era. David Wells, in Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World, argues that evangelicals should, for the most part, resist the postmodern turn. Carl Raschke, in The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity, believes we should, for the most part, embrace the new postmodernism. Today, I am summarizing Raschke’s Next Reformation.

Setting the Record Straight

Carl Raschke’s book attempts to accomplish three main purposes. First, he seeks to set the record straight for evangelicals by offering an accurate portrayal of postmodern thinking and countering the misrepresentations of postmodernism he finds in the writings of those critical of the new philosophy.

Raschke argues that postmodernism does not necessarily entail a denial of absolute and objective truth. Rather, postmodern philosophers merely question human ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

What postmodernism denies is the correspondence theory of truth – a view that perceives truth as something “out there.” Instead, postmodern thinkers call attention to the “finite boundaries of human knowledge and meaning,” a move which sets God free to communicate truth to us in his own way.

At its very core, postmodernism is a theology of language. God’s word to us is not logical or propositional. It is vocative. It is the language of relationship. “We are not reading a thing, but a Person.”

In focusing upon the revelation of God to human beings in finite language, postmodernism endeavors to “go beyond the identification of God with Being; it has positioned itself to transcend the metaphysical, or rationalist conception of God.”

Turning the Tables

Raschke’s second purpose in writing The Next Reformation is to turn the tables on the critics who believe postmodern theology is misguided. He seeks to accomplish this task by exposing an “unholy alliance” between evangelical Christianity and Enlightenment thinking that has existed since the seventeenth century.

According to Raschke, evangelicals mistakenly embraced Cartesian rationalism and moved away from the insights of the Reformers, especially sola fide and sola scriptura, and therefore went back toward the kind of rationalism that the Reformers had rightly sought to expunge from Catholic doctrine just one hundred years earlier.

Raschke believes that today’s evangelicalism is steeped in modernism, an idolatrous system of thought that puts a premium on the ability of the individual to use reason to discover truth. Therefore, fundamentalism and liberalism wind up being two sides of the same coin. Both movements seek to ground faith in reason, a disastrous idea that “empties faith of its content” and transforms it into moral imperatives and propositions.

Raschke believes the mystery of God cannot be explained in propositional argument and empirical confirmation. “Language from the Creator’s vantage point is not propositional at all. It is intersubjective. It is relational!”

Arguing for a personal God, Raschke challenges the “unholy alliance” made with Enlightenment philosophy. “The God of the philosophers is logical. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is relational.”

One may ask how evangelicalism has been so successful if it has been improperly aligned with modernism. Raschke argues that conservative Christianity has succeeded in America because of its emphasis on preaching and conversion, not on its reasoning from absolute, biblical principles.

Returning to the spirit of the Reformation will lead to an embrace of postmodernism. A new reformation will bring about radical humility in our thought, not just in our lives, which means that metaphysical disputation must give way to the cross, gospel, and grace.

Postmodernism as Opportunity

Raschke’s third purpose is to call evangelicals to see the postmodern turn in Western thought as an opportunity for true Christianity to flourish once again.

Embracing postmodernism means we must reject the correspondence theory of truth because “it cannot under any circumstances count on the temporal exactitude of correspondence between an assertion and its verification.”

Our attempts to find a firm foundation other than faith are futile. “Theology ends where faith begins.” Only faith is prior to presuppositions. To look for ultimate security in anything other than our faith in the Lord (including ontological or scientific foundations) is to pursue an idol.

Raschke calls evangelicals to abandon the idea of Christianity as a philosophy and to embrace its identity as a “relationship” – one that connects us to the everlasting God whose limitlessness exposes more and more our own limitations.

Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at David Wells’ Above All Earthly Pow’rs. Then, on Thursday and Friday, I’ll weigh in with some thoughts regarding the strengths and weaknesses of both of these approaches to postmodernism.

written by Trevin Wax. copyright © 2009 Kingdom People Blog.

“Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore,” said Dorothy upon her arrival in Oz. The scenery had changed; the landscape was colorful; the air felt different. Dorothy was right. Kansas was gone, and now she found herself in a new world filled with exciting (and scary) possibilities.

Like Dorothy, evangelicals are beginning to realize that we are no longer in familiar territory. We find ourselves in a new world – one often described as “postmodern.”

 But though most evangelicals agree that the scenery has changed and the philosophical landscape has been fundamentally altered, the definition of “postmodernism” remains unsettled. The prescriptions for evangelical engagement are often in direct opposition to one another.

Some would have us embrace the new postmodern world; others call us to resist. Philosopher Carl Raschke’s book, The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity, encourages evangelicals to embrace the new postmodern critique as a way of returning to the fundamental insights of the Protestant Reformation.

Professor David Wells’ book, Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World, challenges evangelicals to stand against the postmodern wave as a way of being faithful to the historic doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. Both men see a return to Reformation principles as necessary for survival in this new world, but they are at odds in their assessment of the good and bad in postmodern thought.

Tomorrow and Wednesday, I will set forth a brief summary of both Raschke and Wells’ books. Then, on Thursday, I will reflect upon the points of agreement and disagreement between the two authors and conclude with some brief suggestions regarding the way forward for ministry in a postmodern context.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

Yesterday, I reviewed a new book by Timothy Stoner entitled The God Who Smokes: Scandalous Meditation on Faith. Today and tomorrow, I am following up that review with a 2-part interview with Tim.

Tim was raised in Chile, South America where his parents served as missionaries. He spent his teen years in Spain. Tim has been married to Patty Grace Stoner for 27 years. They have five children, the youngest of which was adopted from Mozambique, Africa. They all live in Grand Rapids. The God Who Smokes is his first non-fiction work.

Trevin Wax: What’s with the title? Why “The God Who Smokes”?

Timothy Stoner: “A God who Smokes” speaks to me of both aspects of the character of God the Consuming Fire: His holy, passionate love and His anger.

As the Psalmist says: Righteousness and justice are the foundations of your throne; love and mercy go before you.

The column of smoke was grace in the wilderness—shade and direction. The smoke on Mt. Sinai was a mercy that protected the Israelites from the blinding brilliance of God’s glory.

We are told that when God is angry, fire comes from His mouth and smoke rises from His nostrils (Ps. 18:8) while Isaiah tells us that “The Name of the Lord comes from afar with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke.” Smoke in the book thus represents God’s goodness and severity.

Trevin Wax: You write about being “Emergent” before it was cool, but now that Emergent is cool, you no longer consider yourself “Emergent.” What aspects of the Emerging Church do you appreciate?

Timothy Stoner: I appreciate Emergent’s critique of a tendency within certain streams of fundamentalism and evangelicalism toward a divisive, narrow intolerance of those it considers enemies, and a mean-spirited, fear-based rejection of culture which it considers synonymous with “the world”.

I affirm its emphasis on wholistic and integral mission and its priority for justice and mercy.

I also believe its call to affirm the goodness of the creation, the value of listening to and respecting those who hold divergent opinions to be a very healthy and helpful corrective.

Trevin Wax: So why would you distance yourself from the movement today?

Timothy Stoner: I disagree with its equating authority with oppression, eliminating the element of wrath from God’s character, deconstructing the gospel so that it centers around politics (Jesus died to subvert a cruel, violent oppressive system) and ethics (the purpose of the cross was to give us an example to follow) rather than being essentially about man’s sin, God’s mercy, justice and glory in paying for man’s redemption and appeasing His wrath that rebels might be forgiven and restored. I also find no biblical warrant for its denial of an eternal hell for unrepentant sinners who persistently reject God’s love in Christ.

Most troubling is its universalist trajectory which denies the exclusivity of faith in Jesus and provides a back door to salvation for the sincere who do good. This is, of course, an utter denial of the necessity of the Cross.

Since my book is intended to provoke a dialogue about this theological movement, let me add the following critique which I think is quite ironic. Whereas Emergent promotes the virtues of tolerance and a generous inclusivity as its highest virtues, it seems to me to be surprisingly reactionary and polarizing. It majors in creating false antinomies: forcing choices between supposedly mutual exclusives. In other words, it is as divisive as the tradition it is most repelled by.

Trevin Wax: Can you give us some examples of these false choices?

Timothy Stoner: First off, there are the Emerging Church’s false antinomies (driving a wedge between concepts that only appear to be opposites):

1. The Gospel is about a person, not a message.
2. The Gospel is an event to be proclaimed, not a doctrine to be professed.
3. The message and its interpretation is fluid, not static and solid.
4. The Gospel is about behavior, not belief.
5. The Gospel is primal/elemental (ancient), not European/sacramental (antiquated).
6. The Bible is a human book, not an utterly unique, divinely inspired revelation from God.
7. The church is for the lost, not the found.
8. Life is about searching (pioneer), not finding (settler).
9. Evangelism is about saving the world, not individual souls.
10. The Bible is about stories (indicatives that describe), not prescriptions (imperatives that prescribe).
11. God cares about the boardroom, not the bedroom.
12. Jesus came to set an example, not appease the wrath of God.
13. God is a God of love, not judgment (because He loves He does not hate).
14. Those who teach or believe other “stories” need to be respected, not converted.
15. We are to love the “world”, not hate it.
16. Our posture toward culture is to affirm it, not critique it.

But then, as if to counter its imbalance, it careens off track by over-compensating, for it brings together things that are not the same.

Its false synonyms (equating concepts that only appear to be similar):

1. Anger with abuse.
2. Authority with authoritarian.
3. Confidence with smug.
4. Fundamentals with fundamentalism.
5. Judgment with judgmentalism.
6. Correction with criticism
7. Power with oppression.
8. Fervor with fanaticism.
9. Militancy with militarism.
10. Uncertainty (ambiguity, doubt) with humility.

Tomorrow, I will post the second part of this interview with Timothy Stoner.

Timothy J. Stoner acknowledges the validity of many of the concerns raised by those in the Emerging Church. But unlike some in the Emerging movement, Stoner is able to address these concerns without abandoning historic Christian convictions. 

His book, The God Who Smokes: Scandalous Meditation on Faith (NavPress, 2008), is thoroughly enjoyable on a number of levels. First, it is very well-written. Secondly, it uses humor as a way to communicate serious truths. And best of all, Stoner uses personal stories to help him make his case.

Tim Stoner is a dad who has seen the Emerging Church up close. A Michigan native, he has witnessed the rise of Emerging preacher, Rob Bell (who might resist the label, but seems to fit the description nonetheless). But curiously, Stoner confesses:

“I was Emergent before it was cool. Now that it’s cool, I’m not.” (109)

Stoner’s negative view of Emergent does not lead him to bash those who advocate Emerging theology. In fact, he appreciates many aspects of the Emerging conversation.

But Stoner believes the Emerging movement ultimately delivers reductionistic picture of God. He worries that the Emerging Church downplays the wrath of God and leads to a lopsided vision of God that ignores essential aspects of his character.

“We are not only invited guests but the blushing Bride. And our Groom is a heroic King, a mighty warrior who is good and just and stunning in his beauty. He is so full of passion and blazing emotion that he burns – and yes, smokes in the ferocity of his infinite, holy love that compelled him to give it all away for his Bride. And he who gave it all for us is worth giving ourselves completely to.” (14)

So we worship a God who smokes – a God whose passionate jealousy for the glory of his own name is an integral aspect of his glorious love for creation.

Stoner is a terrific writer. I think I enjoyed the writing of this book as much as the concepts. His choice of words causes images to leap from the page. Take this for example:

“From [Jesus'] carpenter’s tool belt there also hung a sword.” (31)

Or this:

“Life is not a riddle, but a romance.” (67)

Or this description of God in his glory:

“God really believes that he is the most worthy, most majestic, magnificent, glorious, stunningly beautiful being in the universe. And he is fixated on the certainty that only he deserves worship – that to him alone belong honor, glory, and praise forever and forever. With red-rimmed, stinging eyes and burning hair, all we can say is – he is right. He is astonishingly beautiful, utterly majestic and perfect in the symmetries of justice and righteousness, knowledge, and wisdom. He is as hypnotically compelling as a surging forest fire and ten times as dangerous. He is out of control – ours, not his.” (83)

Stoner’s biggest criticism of the Emerging Church centers on the tendency for some Emergent leaders to negate the exclusivity of Christ for salvation. But Stoner does not argue for Christ’s exclusivity by turning to a couple of Bible texts. Instead, he shows how our understanding of the marriage covenant between the Church (the Bride) and Christ (the Groom) should influence our understanding of exclusivity.

In the end, Stoner does not base Jesus’ exclusive claims in philosophical speculation about there being “only one way.” He makes his case relationally, with the underlying message being this: you go soft on Jesus as the only way, and you are being unfaithful to your Groom.

The only thing I would change about this book is its length. Near the end, there are a few chapters about various topics unrelated to the main subject of the book. Stoner talks about the need for Christians to be “secret agents” in the art world. He also addresses issues of sexuality. I enjoyed these chapters, but felt as if they were a digression from the main theme of the book.

The God Who Smokes deserves a wide audience. Tim Stoner has accepted the Emerging invitation to dialogue, and what results is a picture of God that is more biblical (and exceedingly more satisfying) than the pictures painted by many in the Emerging Church today.

(Check out an extensive quote from The God Who Smokes here and stay tuned for a 2-part interview with Tim Stoner this week here at Kingdom People.)

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

“That book of systematic theology is just a bunch of crap.”

I was sitting across from a bright, young college student, who was telling me why he was enamored with the Emergent movement. (Ironically, just before expressing his disdain for a popular theology book, he had told me that it was the humility of the Emergent advocates that had first attracted him.)

I asked my friend why he had such a problem with books about theology. “I tried to read some of it. I was so bored. There was nothing inspiring in it at all.” Coming to the theologian’s defense, I reminded my friend that looking for a warm fuzzy from a systematic theology textbook is like hoping to be inspired by the encyclopedia. Different books for different purposes.

But my conversation with this young college student caused me to reflect. My friend said he had been attracted to Emergent Village because of the inspiring nature of the theological conversation. The stories fired up his imagination. He came to believe that those of us in the more traditional camp unthinkingly cling to a bunch of uninspiring, dead doctrines.

When our lunch was over, I did not feel compelled to abandon my theological convictions and subscribe to the narrow-minded liberalism that is becoming increasingly characteristic of Emergent.

But I did come away with a lesson I hope to apply the rest of my life: Truth is beautiful. And if truth is beautiful in and of itself, then surely our presentation of truth should be beautiful as well.

In our postmodern age, it is not only important to make the case that a certain belief is true. We also need to make the presentation of that truth beautiful.

I realize now that I have never given much thought to the beauty of truth.

• How many times have I sought to win an argument by running down a list of Bible verses without pointing to the beautiful picture of the Bible’s complete storyline?
• How often have I pointed to the biblical evidence and historical precedent for believing in biblical inerrancy without painting the grander picture of a perfect God, condescending to humans in our language and yet who always tells the truth?
• How many times have I taught about the attributes of God without telling stories about God’s character that illuminate and reveal the beauty of our unchanging Father?
• How many times have I dealt with heavy issues of suffering and pain purely from an intellectual standpoint, not allowing the beauty of Christ’s willingness to suffer on the cross to inform my presentation?

On Trinity Sunday this year, I prepared a lesson for my Sunday morning class of 20-somethings about why we believe in the Trinity. At first, my goal was to arm them with Scripture so that they could debate a Jehovah’s Witness or a Oneness Pentecostal into the corner with Bible verses proving the Trinity.

But as I came to the end of my preparation, I felt something was missing. I could present the biblical proofs for the doctrine of the Trinity, but I felt I also needed to show why God’s Triune nature is beautiful.

The Trinity is more than a bare doctrine we can prove with a few Scripture verses. The Trinity is beautiful truth about God. The Trinity satisfies the yearning that we have for knowing God personally. We believe that the three Persons of the Trinity continuously pour out love to one another and receive love in return. The only way that “God is love” can be true is if God existed as a perfect community of self-giving love long before God had a creation to shower his love upon.

My lesson on the Trinity did indeed focus on the Bible passages that inform the doctrine of God. But I packaged those Bible truths within the awe-inspiring picture of the three Persons of the Trinity pouring out continuous love from eternity past.

The knowledge of God’s truth makes me want to know more about the Trinity; the beauty of God’s truth causes me to want to know the Trinity more personally and more deeply.

Do you ever wonder why stories often have a greater impact than debating the theological minutia of Bible interpretation?

C.S. Lewis could have written a fine theological treatise on what the world would have been like had Adam and Eve never sinned. But Perelandra worked much better. Lewis could have (and sometimes did) describe in colorful theological language the nature of the atonement, but Aslan sacrificing his life for rebellious Edmund fired up our imaginations. In his advice to aspiring writers, Lewis reminded them to describe truths vividly – not merely multiplying adjectives, but working hard to help people feel the beauty of the truths presented.

When I consider the phenomenal success of The Shack, the seminarian in me rises up and wants to make a detailed list of the book’s many theological aberrations. But perhaps the greater challenge for someone like me is to recognize the power of a good story and then to take a bestseller like The Shack as an incentive to write better stories.

Those of us who are decidedly in the Un-Emergent camp should not be smug in what we believe is theological accuracy. Getting our doctrines right is good. Systematic theologies are a terrific way to express those doctrines with precision. Debating the intricacies of Christian theology has its place (and I gladly take part in such discussions at times!).

But we need to make sure that our presentation of God’s truth is as beautiful as the truth itself. The Christian story is beautiful precisely because it is true.

True information without any inspiration leads to dead orthodoxy.

Inspiration without true information leads to heresy.

I hope to always be one who proclaims the truth beautifully.

Truth that is biblical.

Truth that is beautiful.

Truth that inspires.

Has the Emerging Church begun to recede? I say yes, and here are five reasons why.

1. The Emerging Church does little evangelism.

Surely the Emerging Church is not the only segment of Christianity that fails in the evangelistic task. So I’m not throwing stones here. I am merely pointing out that which some Emerging leaders (Scot McKnight, Dan Kimball and others) have been saying for a long time. The Emerging Church isn’t making many converts.

What the Emerging Church has succeeded at is reaching young, disgruntled Christians who are fed up with the problems in traditional evangelicalism.

Another issue that affects evangelism is the lack of clarity and focus regarding the nature of salvation. With traditional doctrines such as the exclusivity of Jesus Christ and the existence of hell being questioned (and, in some quarters, outright denied), evangelism is no longer a priority. Saved… from what? Saved… by whom?  

2. Some Emerging leaders have embraced a disturbing lack of clarity on key doctrinal and social issues.

The unchurched twenty-somethings that I meet and talk to want answers. They don’t get excited about how Christian theology is mysterious. They are not impressed with people who talk about how “they don’t have the answers” and just want to “journey” with them and ask questions.

Some Christian twenty-somethings are a different story. Reacting against the narrow, cookie-cutter, Sunday-School answers they have been fed in evangelical circles, some Christians enjoy the embrace of mystery and the idea that no one has all the answers.

But most of the non-Christians that I meet with (and most of the Christians I minister to as well) want to do business with serious theological issues, like Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to God? How can a good God send people to hell? Isn’t it intolerant to proselytize? They don’t want to hear pontifications on how “these are complex questions… maybe we can search together and eventually find some answers.” They want to know what Christians believe.

In a world of gray, black-and-white answers are not a turn-0ff to unbelievers. They are appealing if explained with grace and love.

Some Emerging leaders consistently refrain from speaking out on important moral and theological questions of our day. Asking for a moratorium on making pronouncements the Bible has already made may sound humble and gentle, but in reality, it leaves people struggling with sin and guilt without a clear word from God. 

3. Many who initially intrigued by the Emerging conversation are now distancing themselves from Emerging theology.

The whole “missional” movement is a case in point. Here you have young, hip pastors in their thirties who might be called “postmodern” in their style of worship, but who no longer want to the baggage of theological liberalism that the term “Emerging” is beginning to connote.

When dozens of successful pastors/writers/bloggers who were initially intrigued with the Emerging Church begin shedding the name and throwing off the baggage, it’s a clear sign that the conversation is ending (or at least becoming more narrow in its tendency toward liberalism).

4. Some aspects of the Emerging Church look faddish and fleeting.

The Emerging Church is about contextualization and practice. How do we contextualize the gospel for a postmodern world?

Unfortunately, some Emerging Churches look like the continuation of the Seeker movement, even as they decry the Seeker-focused mindset. Incense, candles, icons. These aspects of worship might be helpful for ministry to postmodernists somewhere. They would look silly in rural Tennessee. Contextualization does not always look the same, something the Emerging Church conversation affirms in theory, but often ignores in practice.

Now that the Emerging Church is becoming known a “style of worship” or a “way of doing church for young people,” the movement has moved out of the realm of contextualization and has joined the evangelical faddishness it once protested.

Think of Jesus Movement of the 1970′s. Replace Vietnam with Iraq, beards with goatees, and contemporary music with liturgy. (I’m overstating my case here, but you get my drift.)

5. Evangelicalism is beginning to address the good questions raised by the Emerging movement.

The Emerging Church is a protest movement and some of the protests have been good and necessary. As I’ve written before about fundamentalism, movements that find their identity in protesting usually find smaller and more insignificant things to protest about.

Now that evangelicalism has begun listening to the Emerging Church’s concerns about ecclesiology, Kingdom theology, incarnational spirituality, ancient rituals, etc., we are beginning to see the best that Emerging has to offer being incorporated into the larger stream of evangelicalism. As that happens more and more over the next few years, the Emerging Church as a movement will be more and more unnecessary.

Is the Emerging Church gone? No. Not yet.

Has its influence begun to wane? Yes.

Is the movement on the wrong track? Many of the leaders have deconstructed orthodox Christianity so much that there is no foundation on which to build. That’s a problem. And that’s why so many are jumping off the Emerging bandwagon.

The early Emerging leaders saw that traditional evangelicalism looks a lot like the Titanic, slowly taking on water and sinking towards irrelevancy. So the leaders shot up some flares and boarded a life-raft. Unfortunately, the life-raft seems to have more holes in it than does the big ship. Let’s hope the conversation ends before the boat sinks with people on it.

Has it accomplished anything good? Yes. Perhaps that’s the best news of all. We’re seeing the receding of a movement that has served its purpose – reawakening evangelicals to the necessity of the Church and the importance of being the Church to the world.

written by Trevin Wax. copyright © 2008 Kingdom People Blog.

Related Articles:

• Lessons from Doug Pagitt’s Backstage Conversation
• “Way of the Master” on the Kingdom
• Book Review: Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches

Recently, I downloaded a current (November 27, 2007) Way of the Master radio program on my mp3 player. Todd Friel, the host, made some comments about the Emerging Church and then warned his listeners that those Emerging Church guys are going to always bring up “the Kingdom.”

Apparently, talking too much about ”the Kingdom” is enough to get you labeled as Emerging now.

I’ve just about had it with the knee-jerk reactions of some of corners of evangelicalism against anything that even smacks of “Emerging.” Including talk about “the kingdom.” I guess this would make Jesus “Emerging”?

The Emerging Church deserves to be critiqued from other sections of evangelicalism. I’ll be the first to admit that.

But come on! We don’t have to choose between a theology of “the kingdom” and a biblical view of the atonement. It’s not just Emergent that talks about God’s Kingdom coming on earth as in heaven… it’s all over the New Testament. It’s in the Lord’s Prayer!

Yes, it’s true that we are not the ones who bring God’s kingdom to earth. We do not build God’s kingdom. We are the Church – the people commissioned by God to spread the gospel of the King and the arrival of his kingdom. We are the representation of the Kingdom on earth today, which means that our lives should provide a glimpse of what life is like and will be like when God is ruling.

I am not willing to give away the biblical understanding of God’s Kingdom to the Emerging Church and let that segment of evangelicalism have a monopoly on speaking and talking about the “kingdom.” Mainly because I do think the Emerging Church often gets it wrong, emphasizing the kingdom more than the King!

I am not going to stop teaching and preaching about God’s Kingdom.

It also bothers me that Todd Friel, in the same broadcast, criticized an Emerging church for speaking of the gospel as having a horizontal aspect – reconciling humans to each other. Todd’s view of the gospel is almost exclusively vertical – God and humans, and that’s it.

Of course, the vertical aspect is primary. Humans can’t be truly reconciled to one another unless they are reconciled to God first.

But the Emerging church he mentioned is right to say that the gospel does include reconciliation between humans. How else do you explain Ephesians 2? The first part of Ephesians 2 is about how the gospel reconciles us to God. The second part of Ephesians 2 is about how the gospel reconciles people with people, bringing Jew and Gentile together and destroying the wall of hostility between people.

The Way of the Master method of evangelism (presenting the Law in the form of the Ten Commandments and then the gospel) also reveals the horizontal aspect of the gospel, even if Todd, Ray, and Kirk never mention it. Six out of the ten commandments are about the relationships between human beings. It would figure that if God is forgiving us for sinning against him by sinning against others, then reconciliation from God would flow to us and then through us to other people.

Instead of immediately condemning all the Emerging lingo, Way of the Master could do some thoughtful reflection and ask certain questions:

Why is this teaching about “the Kingdom” so attractive to younger evangelicals?

Are any of the Emerging Church’s concerns about evangelicalism valid?

Have we so emphasized the personal, vertical aspects of salvation that we have neglected the biblical teaching that the gospel also reconciles us to one another?

Have we as evangelicals ignored or neglected the teaching about God’s Kingdom?

Where is the Emerging Church wrong on “the kingdom” and where is it right? Where is evangelicalism wrong on “the kingdom” and where is it right?

Answering these questions might not make for as entertaining a radio show. But it would actually provide some food for thought instead of knee-jerk reactions to unfortunate trends in evangelicalism today.

written by Trevin Wax. © 2007 Kingdom People Blog

The blogosphere has been filled with commentary regarding Emerging Church leader Doug Pagitt and evangelical pastor John MacArthur’s televised discussion on whether or not Christianity and Yoga are compatible. If you haven’t seen the video, you can watch it below.

Since the debate, a recorded conversation between Doug and one of the workers in the studio has surfaced and has been spreading throughout the blogosphere, primarily because of Doug’s scoffing attitude towards John MacArthur. A personal letter from Doug to someone else claimed MacArthur was preaching a “perverted” gospel. (Doug sounds more and more like his fundamentalist enemies every day.) 

But let’s return to Doug’s backstage conversation with this lady. After you read transcript of their conversation found below, check out the three lessons I believe we can learn from this conversation.

Pagitt: Yeah, yeah,…well, you’re sure welcome. Ok, so was it on live too, and then be re-aired? Huh; yeah, that’s great. Thanks. Bye-bye.
Woman: [Way to] go.
Pagitt: Well, thanks. It’s just so weird, isn’t it? [background, "Yes."] To hear people say stuff like that, like what he’s saying?
Woman: [unintelligible] the reason why younger people don’t go to church. You know what I mean?
Pagitt: I do.
Woman: Because everything is so black and white. You know a position has nothing to do with your body and your spiritual th-you kidding me? [Pagitt snickers in the background] Seriously.
Pagitt: Seriously, [mockingly] “if you want to relieve stress go to the Word of God.” [chuckles]
Woman: Yeah.
Pagitt: [snickering] Oh my goodness.
Woman: It’s like, that’s totally separate; how can you even-ah.
Pagitt: Ah, I don’t know; I…
Woman: I’m glad they have you.
Pagitt: Thanks. Thanks, I apologize for him. [laughs]. Ah…
Woman: [sighs] Well, maybe since that was such a nice conversation, they didn’t give us a lot of time, maybe we can see you again-
Pagitt: Maybe we’ll do it again sometime. Wouldn’t that be fun.
Woman: I got your recording so they did go live with it.
Pagitt: Well, that’s nice.
Woman: That’s here… [unintelligible] you have a DVD-
Pagitt: I have a DVD player. Now my phone should start ringing. All my quirky friends calling me.
Woman: “I saw you…”
Pagitt: “You were pathetic.”
Woman: [laughing]
Pagitt: “I told you to sit up.” I can hear it now.
Woman: No, you were great.
Pagitt: Well, thanks.
Woman: And you didn’t sound crazy either.
Pagitt: [laughing] Thanks.
Woman: Like tha’ other guy. But then you get to watch it again, so…
Pagitt: Yeah, watch it over and over.
Woman: An’ wanna make more copies.
Pagitt: Thanks.
Woman: It was cool to meet you.
Pagitt: Yeah, thank you. Good to know you.
Woman: Yeah.
Pagitt: Should I leave the tag with you.
Woman: I’ll take it for ya. Is it easy for you to go out that way?
Pagitt: Go out that door? Yeah, because I’m parked across the street.
Woman: Oh, cool.
Pagitt: Ok.
Woman: Alright, you have a good day.
Pagitt: Thanks so much.

I’m not interested in starting a debate over yoga. If you want to debate that, find some other blog and have at it. I have serious concerns about incorporating Hindu practices into the Christian’s life when syncretism is already a societal temptation for many. But I’m not going to get all hot over it and condemn brothers and sisters who feel differently.

So… leaving the yoga issue aside, let’s look at three revealing aspects of Doug’s backstage conversation.

LESSON #1: Don’t apologize for other believers.

Apologizing for John MacArthur? Do I need to say more? Regardless of whether or not you like his tone, MacArthur has faithfully pastored a church for many years, seen many people come to faith in Christ, and musters up the courage to speak the truth, boldly, wherever he is.

LESSON #2: Don’t Scoff at the idea of God’s Word being a Help

Other bloggers have jumped on Doug’s scoffing sarcasm regarding the idea that the Bible can help relieve stress. I’m not going to rehash that. Let’s just take it as a lesson to learn and leave it for now.

LESSON #3: Open your eyes to the evangelistic opportunities around you!

For me, this is the biggest strike against Pagitt’s discussion with the lady backstage. Forget for a moment his stance on yoga, his open derision of John MacArthur and his sarcasm regarding the Bible. What is really amazing is Doug’s failure to make the connections with a woman who was wide open to hearing the gospel!

How many avenues did she need to open up before he would realize she was intrigued and wanted to hear more? Doug could have used her comment about why people don’t go to church as a spring board to other questions about her community of faith, if she has any. He could have asked her what her personal beliefs are. What is her spiritual background? What does she think about Jesus?

She hinted that she’d like to have a good conversation with him some other time. But he doesn’t get her name. He doesn’t follow up. He just hands her his pass and walks out the door. (Maybe he did this earlier… if he did, my apologies!)

I’m not saying that Doug needed to present the gospel message in a three-minute soundbite here. But this woman was obviously open to continuing the discussion. In fact, she was the one initiating the spiritual discussion.

We who have been participating in the EC dialogue for several years can benefit from some of the missiological insights of the movement, take some of the movement’s healthy critique of modernism, and learn from the movement’s emphasis on narrative.

Yes, there are negative parts of the EC. But those parts of the Emerging Church doesn’t worry me too much. I’ve come to realize that, though the movement gets a lot of press, it’s not going to be around forever. Many of the EC guys just don’t have a gospel to share. They’re not reproducing themselves. They’re not making disciples, only making already-disgruntled Christians even more disgruntled.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Occasionally, a book comes along that ignites the fires of my imagination and fuels my passion for being part of the counter-culture we call the Church. Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat’s Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire is one such book.

Colossians Remixed goes where regular commentaries rarely go. The authors rewrite Colossians as if Paul were writing to postmodern, postChristian, 21st century Americans living under the rule of the American Empire. They go about this task by showing how deeply subversive Colossians was of the Roman Empire, and they seek to translate the subversive nature of the tract into today’s world.

The good
 The authors write with great insight into the biblical text, both Old and New Testaments. Their reading of Colossians with “Old Testament ears” helps solidify the points they argue. Infusing even the greeting in Colossians “Grace and peace to you” with the Jewish concepts of these two words makes for a delightful exposition of the text. The authors love the Scriptures and they like seeing modern-day audiences shocked by their “targums” just as they consider how the original audiences were surprised by Paul’s rhetoric.

The authors understand the importance of the Roman Empire for Paul’s writings. When Paul calls Jesus the “image” of the invisible God, he was subverting Caesar, whose image appeared on virtually everything. And for our image-driven society today, Paul’s statement is just as powerful. Understanding the historical context of Colossians provides fresh insight into the text and helps the authors ground their targums in historical reality.

Colossians Remixed is right to argue that the United States is an “empire” of sorts, even if it does not always resemble Rome. And the authors are correct in stating that Christians should be subversive of the current worldviews that prop up and idolize the American way of life. This thread may be unpopular, but I confess it is the thread that made me do the most soul-searching. Over and over again, the authors remind us of how deeply committed we are to the idolatrous American dream.

The bad
 Colossians Remixed fumbles in its vision of salvation. Yes, the cross of Christ defeated the powers of evil. But “evil” in this book is almost always relegated to the evil of the Roman Empire. Salvation is found in faith in Christ as one leaves behind the world of idolatry and enters the Kingdom of God. Evil in Colossians Remixed is usually defined in systemic, imperial terms – not in individual terms. It’s true that evangelicals tend to leave out systemic injustice and organizational sin in favor of individual sin when discussing this subject. But surely these two aspects complement each other. They are inseparable. Colossians Remixed swings the pendulum too far away from evangelicalism’s individualistic notions of sin and doesn’t leave much room for that kind of sin at all. Continue

I recently read Brian McLaren’s challenging book: The Secret Message of Jesus, which was generously provided to me by the publisher in order that I might write about it on this blog.

Let’s start with points of agreement. We can affirm much of “the secret message” that McLaren “recovers” in this book. Okay… forget the hyped-up title for a moment (the title sounds more like something from the Gnostic Gospels, or a new Da Vinci Code). If you can get past the McLaren’s implicit claim to be just now, after 2000 years, recovering the original message of Jesus, you might just find a lot to agree with.

I appreciate the emphasis McLaren puts on the Kingdom of God as a central component to the gospel. This is missing in many evangelical presentations of the gospel, and its omission is glaring once we read the Gospels in their original context. McLaren is right to bring us back to the idea of God’s reign and Christ’s lordship as being central to the gospel.

I also affirm the aspects of the gospel that transform life on earth here and now. McLaren believes that Christians should be working to see life here and now look more and more like life in the new heavens and new earth. He challenges Christians to begin working to bring that future into the present. He rightly corrects several mechanistic views of “heaven” and shows how the biblical portrait of God’s presence is so much greater than what we have settled for.
Continue