Share your thoughts...
Thanks, Carla. Overall some good stuff in here. I really appreciate Phil saying, "Not everyone in the movement is saying exactly the same thing." And I'm impressed you have the inside track with Phil to get the transcript like this. 
Being a supporter of the emergent movement myself, I quite appreciated this critique from Phil Johnson. I appreciated the way he drew out both the strengths and weaknesses of the movement, and also gave a fair appraisal of the movements intentions even if he felt they were misguided. I haven't read any of Brian McLaren yet so I don't know if Johnson is accurate or not in what he says regarding McLaren.
The one thing that came to mind while I was reading this is why not being able to define something would necessarily make it something bad? One of the central critiques Johnson seems to have both about postmodernism and the emergent movement is that is cannot be defined. Can someone explain to me why this is a problem?
I really appreciated this honest look at the whole thing and will certainly return here to keep examining my position in the light of the critique you publish here - I think it is always good to keep ones beliefs under revision, emergent and postmodern as that may be of me!!
Thanks, I think you are busy here with some great and important work.
Thanks Carla for posting this. My wife and I are in Washington DC visiting our daughter and son in law. They are on staff at a large mega type church and we have been having lots of discussions about the emergent church stuff. I have shared many of my concerns and this post is very timely and helpful for them to see. Thanks also to our buddy Tim and all his hard work in blogging at the conference.
Hmmm.... interesting how this entire talk is vague. i.e. 'It's not true of everyone, but it is true of some...' And people want to hang McLaren for being vague?
On another note, Mr. Johnson notes, "Spiritually speaking, that literature points down a dead-end street into a blind alley on the bad side of town. I am convinced that this movement is going to be a serious detriment to the testimony of the church as a whole..."
Does anyone still believe the Spirit is directing the church, or is it entirely man (gender specific) led?
While the emerging church is often criticized for a lack of using the biblical text, this critique is equally guilty.
Let me suggest that we consider the following from John the apostle, "Dear friends, let us love one another. For love comes from God." Perhaps that would be a more God-honoring starting point?
Of course, I only suggest that as a beginning point. That choice is entirely up to you... as an emerging church guy, that is my starting point...
Come join the ways of the kingdom of God!
Some of my favorite quotes by Phil:
"Ultimately, the emerging church message begins to sound like an echo of the voice of Satan in the garden: "Hath God said?" "
"..The "emerging church movement" seems to be all about the conversion of the church, rather than the conversion of the sinner."
"The contempt for structure in the "emerging church movement" is a thinly-veiled aversion to authority. You will see that if you simply examine the angry comments that were posted at the Emergent-US blog when it was announced that the new organization would have a "director." Blogs and discussion forums associated with the movement were assaulted with complaints and angry criticisms. One member of the movement said, "A director?!! Nobody's going to direct me! That's why I left the traditional church." Another guy wrote: "I think we are going in a horribly dangerous direction. We aren't becoming a 'conversation,' we're becoming an institution. A 'National Director?' for a conversation? Give me a break . . .. I have a feeling we're going down the Anakin Skywalker path here, folks." "
"It is very eye-opening to see that every one of the arguments and biblical points Spurgeon made against the so-called "evangelical modernists" of his day can (without any modification whatsoever) be applied against the "evangelical postmodernists" of our day.
Far from being antithetical, the two movements are ultimately just one and the same. The "emerging church movement" is this generation's version of what our grandparents knew as modernism--updated in some ways, but ultimately, it's essentially the same. Postmodernists today are using the same arguments and the same strategies that the modernists of the Victorian era employed. The results will be exactly the same, too."
I appreciate where he thinks our criticism is valid. It's time for evangelicals to wake up and get out of their consumerist, big business churches and go into the world to proclaim the gospel!
Rob
Carla:
I'm really grateful that Phil allowed you to place this on your blog. I knew about his seminar before he taught it, and was hoping to get a transcript somehow. THANK YOU for supplying this, and thank Phil for us...
Steve
If there is no truth, does that mean there are no lies? But if there are no lies, then how can it be a lie to say that absolute truth exists?
Rob: I hope that you've picked up from numerous critics of EC that they are more than willing to affirm the critique that the EC levels at the mega, seeker sensitive church. The disagreement is over how to deal with that problem.
John,
Yeah, but I'd rather focus on what we agree about.
Rob
In all of the criticisms/reviews of the emergent church that I've read, Phil Johnson's critiques are hitting the nail right on the head. He also has some excellent critiques (as he mentioned) from last year's Shepherd's Conference and he peels the theological onion of author's like McLaren (with influences of N.T. Wright and S. Grenz and such) Johnson has done his homework and expressing the concern excellently and hopefully more will take heed to what he is saying.
Thank you, Cori..for having the most open response of the EC people to the expressed concerns. I must also say that Rob and I have enjoyed some good discussion of late on this and other subjects. As to your question on defining, you'll find that definitions are VERY important in Scripture. God is actually very precise, contrary to popular opinion. "This IS eternal life, to know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent (John 17:3). This is both a definitive and declarative statement. If eternal life is knowing the only true God, NOT knowing Him has serious consequences. That's just a brief starter.
Randy, come on. You can do better than that. Did you not understand one word written in Phil's piece? I begin to think you don't even want to try.
Carla- Thank you for posting that. I admit that I often don't agree with your posts or the way that they are sometimes handled here but I did appreciate his well thought out critique and criticism of the "movement." That said I still think energy is being wasted. Mainline denominational churches are dying. The Emergent movement may have its flaws but desiring to reach people isn't one of them.
I lived in LA for a long time and Grace is not a church that I would feel comfortable attending.
That's not really meant as a slam at them because I think they have done and are doing some good ministry. But, I do think that with this issue they are really wasting time. I hate to see churches (and websites) spend more time with words and critiques than they do loving and caring for lost people.
But, I don't want you to stop what you are doing. There will be people like me who will read what you post and think through it. Although I don't agree with you usually I do want to know what you think because it forces me to question what I think.
Carla,
I must say, I found it a bit hard to keep the momentum to read this review when early on the speaker suggests that:
"Nonetheless, last year Brian Mclaren and a few other leading emergent figures banded together to form an actual organization called, simply, "Emergent"--also known as "Emergent Village," or (as you find it on their website) "Emergent-US." So the terminology becomes even more difficult."
A simple check shows that the emergentvillage.com domain was registered in 2001, while the Emergent organization co-sponsored national confrences in 2003, 2004, and 2005 that ran in conjunction with the NPC convention.
In the same series of reports that explained the national cordinator job Tony Jones comments:
"From when a few of us first started meeting together in the mid-1990s, we would schedule events, but really look forward to the late-night dinners when we could sit around and talk about church, theology, and life."
Basic factual errors like this distract from his message. Perhaps the author will comment here and correct them with christian humility.
Great bit of writing by Phil.
However, as I've pointed out to Joel before, the problem with conservative evangelicalism is that it isn't intellectually coherent. It's all very well to criticise a movement which lapses into the (proto-postmodern) irrationalism of "neo-orthodoxy", but Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer had integrity and intellectual clout. Theologies such as theirs are an honest, non-obscurantist response to developments in knowledge and science.
Francis Schaeffer, the conservative standard bearer, whom Phil cites, criticised Barth for "crossing the line of despair" and denying the validity of purportedly rational apologetic arguments. Schaeffer argued from appeals to reason, but was a six day creationist - who said that any other position would mean the destruction of Christianity. So who is the more irrational?
The EC has many faults, vagueness among them; but giving room to a consideration of serious academic theology and honest thinking is not an error but a virtue.
Nate,
I appreciate your call for factual accuracy in regard to the Emergent Organization. However, I submit that Phil's statements were not as incorrect as you make them sound.
It is true, as you suggest, that the Emergent "conversation" (as they like to refer to themselves) has been around since the mid-to-late 1990s. However, it is also true, as Phil notes, the the organization became much more "organized" last summer (at their 2005 Summit). It was at that time that Tony Jones was named "National Coordinator (Director)." In fact, you can read all about it by the Emergent guys at:
http://emergent-us.typepad.com/e...gentus/2005/06/
From an organizational point-of-view, then, Emergent did undergo some significant redefinition last summer. And I think that was Phil's point.
- NB
This repeated charge that evangelicals are not intellectually coherent is getting very tiresome, and that's about as polite as I can put it. As if that wasn't enough, we get called dishonest by implication. Aside from being unadulterated effluent, (not to mention chutzpah), this reeks of the arrogance and superciliousness of which many in the EC like to accuse their conservative, orthodox counterparts! So Dr. Schaeffer (who is not the sole standard bearer for conservative Christianity BTW) believed in divine creation. So what? Many other scholars do as well..INCLUDING many degreed scientists. I wouldn't push that one too far if I were you.
I would like to know what passes for "intellectual coherence" and "clout." Hmmm. Let me guess. If you agree with liberal or heretical theologians and you are recognized as authoritative by Yale Divinity School? Maybe if we enjoyed an occasional hot toddy with Bishop Spong? This really reminds me of the political world where liberals praise a conservative for taking a liberal position by saying they have "grown." What a hoot! Maybe it's incoherent to you because YOU can't understand it. That lack of understanding can have several causes including wilfulness.
As other comments here so cheerfully illustrate, Phil was dead on. The deconstruction, unpacking and quibbling has begun..shortly to be followed by obfuscation. I agree with Dr. Os Guinness. Postmodernism is becoming passe.
Amen Joel!!!
Randy Buist, in attempting to deconstruct Phil's arguments, your comments have become the greatest proof of their accuracy.
The first known example of post-modern deconstruction:
Genesis 3:1
1Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
Phil did an awesome job in defining the ecm.
thank you so much for posting this transcript.
"So Dr. Schaeffer (who is not the sole standard bearer for conservative Christianity BTW) believed in divine creation. So what? Many other scholars do as well..INCLUDING many degreed scientists. I wouldn't push that one too far if I were you."
I'm not even going to try to rebut this. It rebuts itself.
Joel,
Or maybe we all can't understand it because God is so big that there's no box big enough to hold Him.
I know the pomo questions make you uncomfortable. I also realize that you think it's a slippery slope down to some liberal hell.
What about the slippery slope down the other side? What about killing the relational message of Christ with propositional hell? We've reduced the message to 4 spiritual laws then say if you can't agree with that you're going to hell.
If it was that simple why bother writing a book like the Bible? Why not just write the 4 bullet points and be done with it?
I do appreciate conservatives. No one knows the Bible better, or wants to defend it more.
What Phil has missed is the stuff I talked about above. I get that he doesn't like our theology. But he has missed the truth in our criticsm of evangelicalism. It has created just another religion. Somehow in our churches, liberal and conservative, the relathionship has been lost.
I spent the weekend hearing the Biblical story and after 27 years in an evangelical church it never occured to me that the Old Testament was about God pursuing His people. It always seemed to me that God was maladjusted and anti-social in the Old Testament. He had an anger management problem. He became a really small God.
I wonder if that's because I spent my life trying to reduce the gospel to 4 easy to understand bullet points? I know I completely missed God's bigness.
What Phil considers Clarity, I look as simplistic and missing the Bigness of God. To balance that though, no one knows the Bible better then McArthur or Phil. I appreciate and love their concern for the scripture. But I would challenge all conservative Christians to stop reducing the message of the gospel to it's lowest common denominator. It's unhelpful for people like me and my friends.
Rob
John 8:31-32 "So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
In response to the comment about 1 John, the context of the verse (and the whole epistle) revolved around a correct, literal, truthful, understanding of the birth, death, life, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Consider how the book starts "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us..." John is saying that Jesus is FACT.
By the time we reach the pinnacle of the letter--that God is love, let us love one another, etc--John makes it very clear that the very love which we love with, is in fact "God's love," or "God's kind of love." Well, "God's kind of love" is the kind that is manifested to our senses, intellect, heart, everything we are basically--in the sending of His Son to live and die and rise from the tomb (1 John 4:1ff. This "testimony" (ie. proposition of truth) is emphasized numerous times in 1 John directly in correlation to love. Count how many times you see "In this is love; by this we know love" in that epistle, and see how many times it directly correlates to the truth and testimony of Jesus as the Christ who paid our penalty for sin. In fact, sandwiched in between the great discourses of love in chapter 3 and mid-chapter 4 is verses 4:1-6, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error." In other words, there is such a thing as a true testimony and a false one!
Recall that this is written at the end of the Apostle John's life: some of his last words to the church--how appropriate. What is the most "loving" thing one person could do for another? Apparently, according to John, it would be to show them God's love, that is, His Son hanging on a cross. Does that preclude providing for peoples' needs? Serving the orphans and widows? Feeding the hungry? Not at all, people need to stop making artificial distinct
ions between proclaiming the Gospel and ministering the Gospel!
I won't even get into the last words of Peter in 2 Peter. Count how many times he expresses that we ought to KNOW something, and that God's promises to us are a matter of TRUE knowledge.
I suppose, however, that it is a moot point to some to defend Biblical Christianity using the Bible.
To be honest, Rob, you're projecting an awful lot on to Phil Johnson. Where do you get that he wants to reduce everything to simple bullet points. Just because it's complex does not mean that it can be known.
Every time I see one of these discussions, someone comes along and says that the critics of the EC are misrpresenting what they say or don't understand them. In other words, you want us to apply the meaning to the words as you intend them.
Why doesn't that apply to the Word of God? Don't you think he wants you to understand him? Don't you think He wants us to take Him seriously?
This complexity, no one can understand, everyone is biased is just an attempt to avoid the heavy lifting.
that it can't be know
John,
I reread my post and don't see where I accused Phil of misrepresenting anything. In fact, I think some of his criticism is quite valid. Some of it isn't though.
To answer your questions, no I don't think we can understand God, and I'm pretty sure our propositions about Him aren't His character. I think they're a great attempt at us small humans to understand an enormous God.
Now I'm not saying for a second we stop trying to understand. God breathed His breath into humans, and He desires for us to get to know Him.
I suppose it's kind of like this. Suppose you knew me really well, (like most conservative Christians know God really well), you could make a list:
1. Rob's a nice guy
2. He's overwieght
3. He's got a good sense of humor
4. etc, etc.
Nothing on that list would be necessarily wrong, but someone couldn't read that list and then claim to know me or be friends with me. Without the relationship it's just a piece of paper with stuff written on it.
I think that's what we've done with God. Made a list about Him shown it to people and say now you have to love Him. Your list isn't wrong, but we've got to introduce the relationship along with the list.
As for me projecting this onto to Phil. I think he wrote like 4, 3-part sermons here. Again there's nothing wrong with 3-part sermons, but God can't be summed up in 3-parts, then application.
That's not me wanting to do the heavy lifting, that's me saying you can't put God in a 3-point box. I think if I were God I get upset at 3-point boxes, if it's all I heard about me.
Rob
I think there might be a movement that Phil is not aware of. It may just consist of the list of the positive things he sees in the "emergent free-for-all" and orthodox theology.
I didn't notice any critique of N. T. Wright in his analysis. In my opinion, Wright would fit into the category I just described.
Everyone seems to think this is an all-or-nothing issue. One must either be a fundamentalist or a post-modernist. This seems to me to be a false choice.
I think there is an orthodox movement being born out of this "conflict."
Rod
Uh...no.
I'm quite aware of Wright, and while it may be true that some of Wright's ideas correspond at certain points with some of the things you might overhear in an Emergent Convention, I wouldn't classify those particular things as "the things I agree with."
Nor would I agree that the ideosyncrasies of Wright and the "New Perspective on Paul" ought to be uncritically accepted as an expression of [evangelical] "orthodoxy." Quite the reverse. In my assessment, much of what makes Wright's views distinctive has the aroma of unorthodoxy.
For two seminars where I dealt with that issue, see:
"A Defense of the Old Perspective on Paul: What Did St. Paul Really Say?"
and:
"What’s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul"
I'm not sure I understand your comments on relationship. I have a relationship with my wife. It's deepened by knowledge of her.
As to a lack of critique of NT Wright, Phil's done that. Last year he did a talk called what's wrong with Wright. At this point, putting Wright in the realm of orthodoxy is questionable given his NPP.
John,
I agree. But the process of you falling in love with your wife isn't exactly a formula. Which is why I'm saying the lists and the 3-point sermons aren't necessarily bad. In fact, they can help us to a deeper understanding of God.
But if you reduced your wife to a list of attributes, I think that would make her upset. Let me ask you a question that will help clarify what I'm saying:
What steps did you take to fall in love with your wife? Was it a very scientific process?
I hope your answer is no, it was a romatic, relational experience. I hope you brought her flowers and chocolates and I hope you swept her off her feet.
I wonder if the process of conversion is more like the process of falling in love then just agreeing to a set of propositions. The propositions aren't wrong but they aren't the sum of the experience.
Conservative Christianity's bent to reduce God to a formula or conversion to a series of steps is almost like an arranged marriage. It's not a real romantic or relational experience.
That's my criticism of evangelicalism. Is the answer to the worlds problems really in another 3-point sermon? Although I appreciate John McArthur and Phil I have to say no. The answer to the worlds problems is in relationship with the Creator of the Universe.
Rob
Phil,
I noticed that you kept using the phrase "conservative Christians." How far beyond fundamentalism does "orthodoxy" extend for you?
Rod
Rod: My reply to your question is here.
But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?
... Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way.
Romans 14:10 & 13
The last seventeen years of my life have been spent for the most part outside of the mainstream church. Suddenly I learn that the reason for that is that I'm rebellious and narcissistic! Man, that's cold.
By and large, members of the emerging church are the spiritual children of the established churches. Which of us, having "wayward" children would publicly criticise them in this manner? And if we are correct as to their failings, what does that make us?
I think that you will find that many of the emerging church members are hungry for Biblical accuracy, theology and doctrine. It's just that their priority is not to know "about" God, but to know God. To share with Christ in the fellowship of His sufferings. To live with integrity of heart, in honesty and reality.
The emphasis on community and home-based worship should not be sneered at. It's straight from the book of Acts.
Many people have found that the top-down, directed structure of the established churches leaves little room for the freedom that the Holy Spirit would like to bring. Being filled with the Holy Spirit, they also sense His grief at being so controlled by men.
This is not a new problem, by any stretch of the imagination. Thomas Merton wrote these words many years ago:
In other words the real test of my Cathlocity comes to be not my belief in God, or in Christ and His teachings, His Church and her Sacraments, so much as my commitment to extremely pragmatic and often very short-sighted views which have been dreamed up in chanceries and sacristies. I have to go along with policies that are often so inert, so blind, so stupid that they utterly stifle the true life of the Church…
…and with that sin is another: our compassion for man has too much in it of secret contempt. We do not believe in man, we do not accept the fact that he is in the image of God, and we are pretty slow to attach any real importance to the fact that he may also be the temple of the Holy Spirit and a member of the living and omnipotent Christ. We therefore do not really believe in freedom and in the inexhaustible fecundity of the Spirit…
That being the case, the best I can do is get out the sackcloth and ashes and go into solitude and pray that God may save us from our damned consistency.
When was the last time you went into a traditional, theologically sound church and found the entire congregation involved in teaching, sharing a revelation, giving a prophecy or an interpretation or reading a psalm as described in 1 Corinthians 14:26?
The perceived lack of Biblical authority is another area which Phil takes issue with. But true Biblical authority in the church discipline sense does not originate with
... a church leader.
Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone...
(Matthew 18:15a)
Authority and relationship are not mutually exclusive, they are mutually inclusive. How hard it is to hide sin from a brother with whom you fellowship daily!
In these areas and more, those who seek to allow God to define them, rather that seeking to define God, are finding their way. Like the mainstream church, they have their strengths, weaknesses and idiosyncrasies. Like the mainstream church, they are beloved of God.
If you want to do something for these people, please, don't publicly slam them. Don't sit there, rubbing your hands gleefully, waiting for the day you can turn around and say, "I told you so". Do something to help. If you see one of their weaknesses as doctrinal and theological understanding, why not set up a class teaching basic doctrine and theology? Invite them specifically. Give it away. In that way you will be edifying, rather than vilifying the church of Christ, and working together for unity.
You might even learn something yourself.
From Jesus (the greatest theologian ever) to Paul down through the rest of Christian doctrinal history, there has never been a problem with pointing out errors in theological positions. Jesus deconstructed (anachronistic, I know) the religion of the Pharisees and Sadducies on a regular basis. Paul did the same with the Galatians, John with the gnostics, and Peter and Jude with false teachers.
How are believers to be rightly related to God if the revelation of Scripture is downgraded? The irony I find in the ECM is their use of modern scriptural criticism as their basis of denying biblical 'truth' claims.
My major critique of ECM is their narrow focus and their loss of salvation history. The Kingdom of God will always conquer and supplant the world's systems and cultures. The Kingdom demands allegiance. Could the demand for allegiance be the reason that this movement struggles with the idea of 'truth'?
There is no "they."
Michael: I didn't "slam" the ECM any more than you "slammed" me.
We disagree. It seems to me that our differences are profound. Apparently, you agree with that enough to break your own rule about publicly criticising others.
It does seem to me, however, that the incessant pleas to stifle all criticism and get on board belies the claim that the ECM itself is just trying to have an open and honest conversation.
Ultimately, your approach to critics like me turns out to be just another way of stifling dissent. I wonder why anyone would think it superior to the dogmatizing ECM types profess to deplore.
Umm, Limber?
My post rebuts itself? Perhaps you haven't practiced taunts or sneers in a while but that rather fell flat. Sort of like a flaccid water balloon.
I'll be the first one to admit that I am not a degreed scientist. So I have a simple suggestion for you. Rather than arguing science with me, I suggest you try talking to actual scientists who support creation models. There are plenty of them out there.
Just for something to chew on..it's been believed for years that photosynthesis needs sunlight to occur. The critics of the Genesis account like to say that plants couldn't have existed without the sun (never mind that a sovereign God can do what He wants). Lo and behold, they recently find algae under the ocean WITH photosynthesis occurring. The only source of light was geothermal radiation. Hmmmm. How can it be?
Rob, I don't find pomo questions uncomfortable. I find them irritating. Many pomos ask questions not because they genuinely want the answer, but rather to obfuscate, unpack, deconstruct etc. At one point, you say that nobody knows the Bible like conservatives, but then chide conservatives for urging people to believe it and do what it says. Tell me this...did Jesus in His relational message use propositional statements about the danger of hell? Or was He merely trying to lay the groundwork of inspiration for the Brothers Grimm?
Joel, you're sounding testy. You win the invective contest. However, I wasn't primarily trying to be witty. I just don't have any time for your arguments, and I think they are obviously absurd.
Why? Because if you're intent on seeking literal truth for Genesis, you're going in the teeth of all evidence going - whatever your "degreed scientists" tell you. You're a gull, or wilfully blind - like all creationists.
Yes, I could check out your scientists, their arguments and credentials. It's not my area, but wider reading suggests that such people are usually suspect in one way or another. Either in having PhDs from fundamentalist institutions (which don't count, in my book); or in having them in unrelated disciplines; or by making statements which show a strongly unscientific (because unempirical) approach - e.g. that we must consider all "apparent" facts in view of the truth of Scripture, or such like. (I.e. that we must fit the evidence to the dogma.)
The reason I think your post rebuts itself is because you are arguing the impossible, and any intelligent observer can see that. All the evidence points towards billions of years for creation of the earth. (Moreover evolution, for what it's worth, is not "a theory in crisis", whatever fundamentalists would have you believe. Ask a real scientist.)
There are so many difficulties with your reading of Scripture, as I tried to explain previously concerning the "flat earth" question.
None of which is a sidetrack or red herring. The reason all this is relevant is because E-No's campaign, and Phil Johnson's essay - and the writings of J.I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer - and the stand taken by poor old Spurgeon - would be all well and good if we really could read the Bible as an inerrant guide to everything. It would be so easy if it were true.
But when you scratch hard enough at such a robust stand on Scripture, you end up with debates over questions such as the above. That's why strong, lucid defenders of inerrancy also tend, rather embarrassingly, to be creationists - with whatever degree of extremity (Old Earth, Young Earth, Gap Theory, I.D. - they're all as bad as each other.)
To my mind, we need a more nuanced theology, rather than a worry about whether Genesis can be proven accurate on this or that tenuous basis, by these desperate men. That's where modern theology, and the despised neo-orthodoxy comes in. You should shake Karl Barth by the hand for making evangelicalism a continuing intellectual possibility - rather than reviling him as a heretic.
But we can't. Stop dragging your heels and step into the 21st century.
Ah, my post contains the tail end of something I wrote and didn't get round to finishing off.
I'll stand by it. Stop dragging those heels!
Phil,
Your suggestion that the differences between us are profound would only be true if the Christ who unites us were insignificant.
Objective Truth--is tangentially relevant to the human condition. Truth is perceived, rather than experienced directly. The validity of truth depends on the accuracy of perception, relative to that which is perceived.
I can't help but pick @ what he (and we)call objective truth which is tangentially relevant to the human condition. Truth is perceived, rather than experienced directly. The validity of truth depends on the accuracy of perception, relative to that which is perceived.
Limber,
I would like to comment on your above statement about evolution. As someone who has researched both sides of the issue (ID vs. creationism) and has weighed the evidence, I disagree with your presupposition that evolution is the standing theory. If you scratch the surface of this "theory" it will show itself to fall apart. I could name hundreds of examples, but I do not have time.
What I see as a problem with those that accept this "theory" and reject Creationism (especially those that dont even give it the time of day) is that they dont believe the Bible to be truth. Its not a matter of how the Earth was made and how man came to be, its rather an issue of do you believe the Bible when it says something. If you say no and say that we must interpret it all metaphorically you have diminshed the base of that which we can establish truth. In the Genesis account it says days and any basic scholar of Hebrew can definitivley say that it is a literal 24 hour period.
But beside that point, many who adhere to evolution approach the bible with evolution as being valid (even though there is enough evidence against it) and then read in their own interpratation. A good Bible scholar will approach the text and say what does it say and because even Jesus affirmed the Old Testament as truth we can rely on it for being accurate in what it says. Dont approach it with your own agenda and presupposition, you will be doomed to fail. A literal reading and basic understanding of science will show that Creationism is true. It takes more faith to believe the "theory" of evolution than it does to accept creationism. You cannot say that science proceeds the word of God. The word of was given by God Himself, who incidently created the laws of creation, and creaion itself, and if we cannot believe that than your beliefe in God is shallow. Dont place science, a changing philosophy before God's word, which never changes.
Blessings my friend
Chris,
I'm afraid I can't accept your line of reasoning.
By your own admission, this begins with a dogmatic position (that the Old Testament must be literally true because Jesus endorsed it as such) - and it is from there that you proceed to the argument that 6 day creation is validated by a "basic understanding of science".
This is clearly an instance of the third of my problems with creationists: namely, fitting the evidence to the dogma. This is the pattern right from the top of the creationist tree down. Here's Kurt Wise doing something similar:
'Creation isn't a theory', he says. 'The fact that God created the universe is not a theory—it's true. However, some of the details are not specifically nailed down in Scripture. Some issues—such as creation, a global Flood, and a young age for the earth—are determined by Scripture, so they are not theories. My understanding from Scripture is that the universe is in the order of 6,000 years old. Once that has been determined by Scripture, it is a starting point that we build theories upon. It is within those boundaries that we can construct new theories.'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../i1/
fossils.asp
So you are only free to measure evidence within the confines permitted by a literal reading of Scripture. If the evidence points beyond that, it is inadmissible. Hardly a fair trial!
Turning to your other comments:
Does the theory of evolution easily fall apart? No, I think not. The vast majority of scientists in the mainstream (religious and non-religious) accept it. If it was fundamentally flimsy, they would not do so.
Does a believer in evolution come to this area with a set of (egotistical) presuppositions? Again, I'd say not. I would say on the basis of the above - from your own words and those of Kurt Wise - that it is quite obviously the conservative Christian who has "presuppositions": namely, that the Bible is God's Word and must therefore be vindicated in this particular way.
Here's the view of National Academy of Sciences on the subject of the alternative, conservative Christian theories of special creation, made in the context of the classroom teaching debate.
"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.
No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course."
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309...66/html/
25.html
What do the scientific discoveries about origins mean for Christians? For me, it means that my view of Scripture has to move away from one which depends on literalism, and indeed perhaps inerrancy, in such matters. You may well be right in saying that the Genesis account is meant literally. That seems to be the critical consensus, so it is the “soft” evangelical position – that the “days” mean “ages” – that is the fudge. I’d suggest that we have to change our theology to recognise the inevitable limitations of the Bible authors in such areas.
This is what science has shown: that in matters of faith, things cannot be black and white as the Reformers felt that they were. This, in turn, is why I think the emerging church is justified in arguing for a less rational approach to faith, and why an acceptance of ambiguity and mystery is not anti-intellectual in a way that strict literalism is.
I am curious if LU genuinely believes the fine folks at the NAS are completely unbiased "scientists" despite their radical atheistic naturalism? I take it that atheistic naturalism is not a presupposition in LU thinking? Does one have to be a radical, naturalistic atheist in order to speak about anything scientific?
Fred
Regular readers here know that I normally allow the comment threads to go whatever route they're going to go, but I have to ask at this point...
What does creationism have to do with anything Phil spoke on in his lecture?
It's been interesting to watch where this went. Away from the points Phil made, and onto a topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic.
Let's see if we can't get this back on track, eh?
SDG...
Fred, no: as I observed of evolution:
"The vast majority of scientists in the mainstream (religious and non-religious) accept it."
Where did you get the idea that the NAS are "radical, naturalistic atheists"? Have you read the link that I gave? They don't say anything of the kind, and there are many Christian theologians with science qualifications who subscribe to evolution. E.g. Alister (sp?) McGrath, John Polkinghorne.
Carla, my point was that the conservative evangelical position would be intellectually tenable if there weren't such difficulties with what it entails. Evolution, and other findings of modern science, seem to me make the whole conservative evangelical edifice highly tenuous.
Given that Phil's critique of the EC is based on a strongly held conservative evangelical position, I think the credibility or otherwise of conservative evangelical positions on origins (and other aspects of the historicity of Scripture) is highly relevant.
If the likes of you and Phil accept the mainstream academy's view of the evidence on such matters and go with (theistic) evolution, then great - but I would guess that if so, you wouldn't be quite so strongly positioned against those (i.e. the EC) who admit to the ambiguity of life following the Enlightenment.
Anyway, enough. You're welcome to move the conversation away from this if you want.
And we as modernists wonder why the ecm people don't listen to us? Look above! We snipe, say unloving things, argue about 6 day creationism (which may or may not be the case)when the first day doesn't have a sun or moon (how we have time measured) and the 7th day has no end! Phil did a good job of pointing out the inherent faults with some within the ecm and I am grateful for his piece. I disagree with many aspects and I think he is dead wrong on some area but I appreciate his working to not paint all ec people as part of this wave of heretical doctrines.
It has been much to our shame within evangelicalsim that we have been, 'out-cared' by people we call heretics or the lost. Not all are this way and I am not attempting to put all in that category. We have pushed these heresies that we ascribe to the ecm for decades within mainstream Christianity and His churches and we get angry at the ec people who are mostly unchurched and not theologically trained?? Shame on us! We are to correct others yes but, we are to do so with (I know Phil and others hate this term but I will use it anyway! LOL) HUMILITY! Confrontation does not need to be bitter or throwing rocks at those in what we think the Bible calls sin.
Jim
Carla etc..
My apologies for helping the topic get off track, but I really couldn't let LU's remark pass. What irritated me was his crack at Dr. Francis Schaeffer..implying that Dr. Schaeffer can't be taken seriously in theology because he believed in creation. That is how all this began. I note with interest that LU, despite giving me an unsought "invective" crown, didn't really reply except to further try and impugn what I said as well as anyone else who disagrees with him on evolution. He assumes that whatever "degrees" held by pro-creation scientists MUST be suspect. By that thought process, perhaps I should dismiss LU's views on theology? I seem to remember that there is a logical fallacy involved in that kind of argument/thinking.
By all means, let's stay on topic. I'd appreciate it if LU and his supporters would help us do that by not making cheap shots against a late, well-respected author and theologian who isn't here to defend himself.
One more thing. Every time comments such as LU's last one get made i.e. how "untenable" conservative theology is...a new news story (in secular AP or Reuters if I remember right) comes out about a group of astronomers beginning to question the "billions of years" aspect in relation to the Big Bang. They seem to think it didn't take all that time after all for the stars etc. to get so many millions of miles away..could have happened in a matter of seconds due to the force of the explosion.
This illustrates the problem of people worshipping at the altar of science. When their data changes, they've got to go back to the drawing board. Let's stick with the Word of God. I trust it will be vindicated in the end as it always is.
Joel - er, no.
Do you think that humans once lived 900 years?
I'm not Joel, but I'm going to answer that last question. Yes, I do believe humans once lived 900 years or more. Why wouldn't I? The Bible says it happened, why would I not believe it? If I don't believe that part of the Bible, what parts should I believe? Only those that I happen to agree with? Only those that "science" has proved? I can't and won't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. If I do that, pretty soon, I may as well not believe any of it. Why would I believe in a Virgin birth, or a man who rose from the dead, if I don't believe that humans once lived 900 years?
That's the "all or nothing" argument of Schaeffer. I think it's the reason most people stay within the safe house of conservatism.
Once you admit that you do not *really* believe in 900 year old people - or the six day creation, or a literal Ark with two of every living creature saved from a global flood - you have to do an awful lot more theological reading, to re-establish a framework of faith. Once the simplicity has gone, a series of proof-texts will no longer confound every doubt or opponent.
Ever read John Updike's In the Beauty of the Lilies? The first part tells the tale of Clarence Wilmot, a fundamentalist cleric who, in the words of the theologically moderate Baptist official he goes to see, can only "break, but cannot bend". Confronted with the modern facts - evolution, the scientific worldview - Wilmot finally caves in and has to admit that his Warfield-fed, Calvinist faith is simply not true. And so he abandons his ministry and the Christian faith itself.
What's the strength of a faith that's so vulnerable to obviously true facts? I can't bring myself to argue over Joel's new astronomical discoveries which (for him) repristinate six day creation. If you are truly honest (if you take seriously this biblical virtue!), a faith which shuts its ears to everything that humans have unearthed since Calvin's time is not worth the name. It's not surprising that apostasy is such a risk, and you need home-schooling, and sites like Slice and this one to keep you in line, when you are confronted on all sides with facts which contradict all that you affirm.
By the time I discovered non-fundamentalist theology, I was desperate to find a way of understanding the Bible which didn't require me to swallow camels like 900 year old people and swimming kangaroos - but without throwing out all that mattered much more, such as (for instance) the Resurrection, and the teaching of Jesus.
Heretical though it may seem to you, accepting that at least part of the Bible is myth, and discovering that this had been accepted in all non-fundamentalist (not just "liberal") theology since at least 1900, meant an end to my intellectual Berlin Wall - dividing what I was hearing at church on Sundays and what I was reading the rest of the time.
Giving in to the world, to human wisdom? Throw around whatever brickbats you want - I think it's obvious that humans never lived to 900. You need to believe more believably, or you'll end up waking one 3am and owning up to the fact that you actually *don't* believe it. Then if you're not careful, you'll be like Clarence Wilmot.
I feel for you, Limber Up. What happened to "faith as a little child"? You cannot possibly expect me to believe that you pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe and yet I should consider you as a "brother in Christ"? Why do you believe the resurrection? What is it about that that is more believable than a 900 year old person? Why do you believe in Jesus at all? What's the point if you decide what you're going to believe or not? What does a story by John Updike have to do with anything that I believe? I think you're tilting at windmills, putting your human interests and beliefs ahead of the Bible. You cannot concieve of someone living 900 years, so it must not have happened. I cannot concieve of someone rising from the dead, so therefore it must not have happened. Yet, I know it did, because the Bible says so. So, again, how can I (or anyone)pick and choose what to believe?
My view of Scripture is pretty much how I understand the majority of neo-orthodox theologians would operate.
Why believe in the Resurrection? A decision of faith, mainly. There's little proof for it, any more than there is for 900 year old people.
But firstly, it is undoubtedly a more important component in the make-up of faith. Whatever you and your cohorts would say, I think you can be a Christian without being an inerrantist. I don't think you can be without believing in the Resurrection (though some would disagree).
Secondly, if you do want empirical reasoning, I would point to the fact that the disheartened Apostles suddenly became a spirited movement. Delusions can and do spread - but in this case I would think that something massive must have happened, to cause such a turnaround.
I also think the Resurrection is more credible as historical fact than the various OT mythologies partly because, by definition, there is no "science" of observed nature to disprove it.
I don't pretend to have a watertight position. But it's an honest holding of the tensions of observed facts, and faith. The reason I find the conservative position so weird is that, in your wish to have everything stitched up, you invent ministries (creation science etc) to pretend that these problems don't exist.
Your approach is neatly, tidily "top down". "If the whole Bible isn't LITERALLY true, none of it can be" ... and from that highly dubious principle, you then proceed to argue that black is white (that mainstream science is all wrong, etc), on the strength of your dubious abstract principle.
I'm more in the empirical spirit of our age, I admit (I'm not ashamed of it!), by taking an approach which is "bottom up". Human observation has shown this or that (I'm afraid it HAS, my friend): so what does this say about how our theology needs to be?
(In saying that there is no science of observed nature to disprove the Resurrection, I mean of course that the Bible characterises it as a unique event where the normal rules of nature did not apply. That means that it's not vulnerable to disproof.
Whereas the OT accounts of creation, and much of the historical material, purport to be the truth about universal nature - and are thus vulnerable to the subsequent discoveries of science in its many forms: archeology, astronomy, biology, and so forth.)
LU Comments:
Where did you get the idea that the NAS are "radical, naturalistic atheists"?
(Fred responds) By reading their material. You do read their material, correct? Nature magazine had a major story that nearly 80 percent or more of the members of the NAS were atheistic in personal belief. I am sorry LU, but you seem to be extremely naive of what you are lending support to.
LU Continues:
Have you read the link that I gave? They don't say anything of the kind,
(Fred) You do read their other published materials, correct? A slick, public relations website paying lip service to religion tends to gloss over the true heart and intentions of the core members.
LU continues:
and there are many Christian theologians with science qualifications who subscribe to evolution. E.g. Alister (sp?) McGrath, John Polkinghorne.
(Fred) And I hate to say this, but they are hopelessly muddled and inconsistent theists. A sincere, Bible believing Christian cannot hold to a biblical worldview and Darwinian evolution at the same time. The two constructs are direct opposites in what they teach.
LU Continues:
Whereas the OT accounts of creation, and much of the historical material, purport to be the truth about universal nature - and are thus vulnerable to the subsequent discoveries of science in its many forms: archeology, astronomy, biology, and so forth.)
(Fred) So in your mind, extra biblical, man-made ideas can trump the Bible? In other words, nature is just as much an infallible truth as holy writ and has the authority to correct the divine record if need be? That is fine if you believe that, I just want to make sure we are clear with each other. As Dennis Prager says, "I prefer clarity over agreement."
Fred
Fred - of the NAS, I read the stuff on the link but not supporting material.
Whatever you say of this or any other group, it's ridiculous to assert that all scientists who support evolution are atheists. Likewise to denigrate non-fundamentalist theologians like McGrath as "muddled theists". They just aren't fundamentalists, that's all.
As for the Bible: it comprises man made words too. It contains, rather than is, the Word of God. If the Bible were inspired in every word, it would be without contradiction or error of any kind. Of course, that's precisely what you think it is. Well, that's where we differ.
Your (and Jim's) position would be fine if it were borne out by common sense and observation, rather than pre-cooked religious dogma.
We disagree radically, and I don't see the point in taking up any more space on this. I'm happy to go with Carla's request to leave this alone!
So...basically if some of us who a part of this "movement" or "conversatio" do not submit to Johnson's particular brand of conversative evangelicalism we are misguided Christians? Is that what I should take from his critique?
I cannot help but get this. I am not one to dismiss valid criticism but that's what I hear for the most part in Johnson's critique. Basically, it is saying this:
The emerging church movement or conversation is not evangelical nor conversative enough...therefore...its is not 'biblical'. That's what I am hearing. Maybe I'm wrong. But honestly...I am not captured by his vision of Christianity. Neither do I think Johnson's critique of the emerging church or even Emergent comes directly from the mind of God...and I get the suspicion that's what he wants people to believe:
That his critique is God speaking about the emerging church. Dangerous stuff indeed.
pax,
Ant
Hi,
just reading these bloggs, makes me wonder.
What is it that makes the believers of EC so fearful of absolutes.
Don't absolutes make it easier to wade through life.
To be sure of what we are about.
Is there some inferiority in beliving there is a right and a wrong.
my impression of those who attend the EC churches is one of confusion and lowered Scriptural enthusiasm.
Tell me the Old Old story anyday...served me well "I'm not ashamed".
By the way there is "Power" in the Gospel.
blessings
linton
This is an old thread that I'm reading, but I just wanted to make a comment regarding Limber Up's arguments regarding the inerrancy of scripture. I think it's interesting that the defenders of the ecm want to bash the evangelicals for being too rational and not allowing for a sense of "mystery" in the church, but when it comes to allowing for a little mystery within scripture, such as how people might have lived 900 years in ages past, they adopt a hyper-rationalist mindset and refuse to accept it as ever having been a possibility. Maybe the desire for a sense of mystery and awe in the church is really just a desire to be in control of when it's appropriate to be awestruck (like when a really good rock song is adapted for worship) and when it's not (like when God says something you've been conditioned not to believe by your modernist education). It's time to take a good hard look at who we are worshiping: is it God or ourselves?
Rob Auld states, "...but God can't be summed up in 3-parts, then application."
Let me try.
Three Parts:
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
Application:
For God (the Triune God) so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Commenting by HaloScan
