Natural Theology

The July edition of Christianity Today contains a couple of excellent articles on the resurgence of natural theology and apologetics in response to scientism, verificationism, and the so-called New Atheism touted by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. The first is William Lane Craig’s “God is Not Dead Yet: How current philosophers argue for his existence.” In it he presents condensed, contemporary versions of the cosmological argument, the teleological (design) argument, the moral argument, and the ontological argument (note: these are really the main categories or kinds of theistic “proofs,” that is, each represents a family of arguments). The second article is Troy Anderson’s “A New Day for Apologetics,” which describes the rising interest in debates concerning the evidence for Christianity. He also affirms Lee Strobel’s claim that “Many people have a spiritual sticking point - a tough question about the faith. And once they find an answer…it often turns out to be the last barrier between them and God.” I mention these articles because in subsequent posts I would like to both review and consider the arguments for (and against) God’s existence and provide an opportunity for readers to ask tough questions about the Christian faith.

Maturity

Here is a good aphorism from Friedrich Nietzsche:

A man’s maturity - consists in having found again the seriousness one had as a child, at play.

Adversity and Refreshing

The following is a selection from The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A Kempis (c. 1380-1471). I have chosen to post it here because I needed to be reminded that the spiritual life is not a comfortable one, but nevertheless that there is still solace in Christ.

Christ was willing to be assaulted and despised, and yet you have the nerve to moan and wail just because something untoward happened to you?

Christ had accusers and detractors, and yet you want to have only friends and benefactors?

How can your patience be crowned with prosperity if it’s never been crushed by adversity?

How’ll you ever be a friend of Christ’s if you’re going to cry out every time you stub your toe?

What’s the answer? Face up to it. If you want to rule with Christ, then, as Paul put it to Timothy [2 Timothy 2:12], you’re going to have to suck it in and wade through the same muck as Christ.

If you ever have the chance to visit the heart of Jesus, you’ll feel the love glowing in His hearth. No longer would you care about such petty things as convenience or inconvenience…

…What’s the moral?

Whoever loves Jesus and Truth - that’s to say, the truly internal soul who’s disciplined his rumbustious [boisterous, noisy, uproarious] affections - can turn to God whenever he wants, rise above himself in spirit, and refresh himself at his leisure.

Unanswered Prayer

 

I cannot store more

unanswered prayer.

God with throne of fiery flame,

whose absence is as conspicuous

as His presence,

pray tell me -

When will your triumph pass my way?

Lovers of God?

Moral reasoning and discernment, wisdom and understanding, as well as spiritual formation and holiness all require significant investments of one’s resources to acquire (if anyone tells you otherwise, they don’t really possess them and are lying). The grace of God does not negate our responsibility to discipline ourselves in learning obedience, increasing in wisdom, and practicing godliness (Luke 2:40; Philippians 2:12-13; 1 Timothy 4:7b-8; Hebrews 5:8, 14). It should go without saying that none of these things are possible without God’s grace and empowering presence; however, walking by the Spirit still requires our active participation and self denial (Galatians 5:24-25). Now, if we really believe this is the case, why do we devote so little time and energy to these things that matter most? Why do we neglect to exercise and develop our gifts? Why do we fail to cultivate the fruit of the Spirit? How can we legitimately claim to be Christ followers when we are content watching roughly 30 hours of television each week (national average) but disturbed when a worship service lasts longer than one? Could it be that we are lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God (2 Timothy 3:4)? Are we really too busy to spend time worshiping and serving God or are we just more devoted to other, lesser things?

Real Repentance and Renewal

Malachi, God’s messenger, warns us that genuine repentance and renewal must be evidenced in intergenerational reconciliation:

Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse  (Malachi 4:5-6).

Therefore, unless we obey in this area of generational restoration, it is foolish to think that the Lord is pleased with our worship. In fact, carrying on as if nothing is wrong makes our offence that much worse. In other words, if there are no “gray-hairs” worshiping among you - caution: your offering may be an affront to God and your community devoted to destruction (herem). Likewise, if the young have been traded for tradition, you have reason for grave concern.

Re-authenticating Authenticity

I applaud the emphasis among Emerging Church leaders on being authentic. However, despite its frequent use, the term is rarely defined in full. The Oxford Excyclopedic English Dictionary gives the meaning as follows: 1 a of undisputed origin; genuine. b reliable or trustworthy. In my estimation it seems much of the focus has been on being reliable or trustworthy. Without question, Christians ought to be characterized by authenticity in this sense. There should be no pretence or hypocrisy among us. Likewise, there has been much attention given to being genuine in contrast to the marketing hype and sham of the church growth movement. While I concur with this insight (see Douglas Webster’s Selling Jesus: What’s Wrong with Marketing the Church for an excellent assessment of this flawed trend), I wonder whether we have neglected to grapple with the idea of being of undisputed origin.

I do not intend here to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the origins of the Emergent Movement. In fact, I think many of the insights and conversations that have been initiated by the movement have been prompted by the Spirit of God. That being said, I do think some elements of it stem more from the preferences and perspectives of this generation than from prophetic revelation and Spirit-led renewal.

Now, I realize that using the prefix “post-” (i.e., post-modern, post-conservative, post-evangelical) means that one is trying to transcend a particular period or movement such that its noble features are retained while its negative features are abandoned (thus, the prefix does not automatically mean “anti-” or against, even though it may be implied at times). However, what I am driving at is this: I am afraid that the Emergent Movement (in general) is post-parental in precisely the sense of having abandoned their parents and grandparents as reputed negative, inhibiting influences. Perhaps, in many instances they have been stubborn and squelched the Spirit. Nevertheless, we must re-think our response: Are our preferred worship styles, communication forms, and practices what God really desires? Do they please the Ancient of Days enough that he endorses our Sunday segregation from our parents and grandparents? Could it be that genuine unity and community require preferential sacrifices? We need to ask, Who is absent from our so-called inclusive communities? and Why?

My point is I have come across a lot of talk and writing promoting the need to be interdenominational, multi-cultural, and even intertribal, but very few challenges to be intergenerational. What if the real mission of God (missio Dei) for this emerging generation is a ministry of reconciliation - including, but not limited to, reconciling with those who have gone before us in the faith? Indeed, we ought to recall that real renewal includes dreams for the old as well as visions for the young (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17).

Becoming before Belonging

Although I think the Emergent/Emerging Church Movement (or network of missional churches) has raised some excellent points in its critique of the modern, mega-church movement and has several praiseworthy features, I do have a few serious concerns. Since what it means to be emergent is expressed in a variety of local ways, I realize my comments may not apply across the spectrum. My intent over the next few posts, then, is not to make blanket condemnations, rather I hope to provide a few general words of caution about some troubling trends. The first trend I wish to address is the recent denigration of the need to become a Christian in order to belong to the church.

Let me say it bluntly, it is detrimental to the spiritual health of the church to distort what it means to belong to the community of faith. By definition, the church is the assembly (ekklesia) of believers; therefore, one must become a Christian to truly belong. It is absurd to think a nonbeliever can legitimately belong to a community whose essential nature or defining feature is faith. I think it is also important to ask ourselves, Why would a nonbeliever even want to belong to a church without becoming a Christian? (Note: visiting and attending are not the same as belonging - the latter entails identification).

First and foremost, the church is an organic entity (the Body of Christ); it is not a building or a nonprofit organization. This does not mean that we should spend our time sorting the tares from the wheat (Matthew 13:28-30). The true church is not identical with the visible church. This also does not mean that genuine seekers are not welcome. They are. However, this does mean that the primary purpose of the church is for believers to gather together to worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. This also means that a profession of faith and evidence of maturity are requirements for leadership and service within the church (John 14:15; Acts 6:3; 1 Timothy 3:1-10; Titus 1:6-9). The church is to be a community identified and distinguished by its love for God and one another, a counter-cultural witness to the redeeming work of Christ on the cross. We should never underestimate the attractiveness to the watching world of a mature fellowship of Christ-followers loving and caring for one another in unity (John 13:34-35; 17:23).

Of course, one of the main goals in gathering together as believers is to train and equip each other in order to become more effective evangelists, apologists, and witnesses of the gospel to those who have yet to join our fellowship (see Ephesians 4:1-16). Here is the crux of the issue: by incorporating nonbelievers into our congregations as full participants we are giving them the misguided impression that they can commune with God prior to repentance and faith. The truth is they have a sin problem that needs to be dealt with. Furthermore, without some way of ensuring those who belong to the church believe and seek to live the gospel message of Jesus, nonbelievers who hang around long enough wind up in positions of influence (e.g., voting partners, teachers, board members, etc.) with the ability to alter the mission of the church. Erasing the requirement that those who belong to the church must be believers likewise eliminates the distinction between the church and any other social club. It seems to me that being missional is antithetical to cavalierly dismissing the need to rightly discern whether or not individuals really seek to follow Christ’s teaching and example and therefore whether they truly belong to His Body as contributing members or whether they are actually parasites depleting their host.

Emergent/Emerging Church Movement

My intent here is simply to provide a rough description or sketch of the Emergent/Emerging Church Movement. Thus, without further ado, the following are what I take to be the main traits or characteristic features that create a distinct emergent family resemblance (of course, if you think I have overlooked any essential elements, please post a comment):

• Emphasizes the need to rise above (or move beyond) the sectarian terminology and jargon that has divided Christians for so long in order to recover the simple, humble way of Jesus.
• Eschews the type of thinking that distinguishes who is “in” or “out” (i.e., drawing definitive borders), especially when it comes to evaluating the eternal destinies of those who do not explicitly profess faith in Jesus.
• Embraces the multidimensional perspectives of historical Christianity in an effort to emerge or to move forward in a strong, realigned religious stream that brings health to the church as well as to those who are not affiliated with it.
• Identifies the church as a missional community charged with carrying out God’s purpose in the world: serving as witnesses to the good news of Jesus.
• Downplays potentially divisive, doctrinal-denominational distinctives, while affirming the core creeds that all Christians hold in common.
• Encourages dialogue and collaboration with adherents of neighboring religions and nonreligions.
• Seeks to be relevant to postmodern culture (including constructively engaging with postmodern philosophies and appropriating new technologies) in order to contextualize the gospel.
• Believes the Christian life ought to be characterized by humility and authenticity.
• Focuses on the narrative dimension of Scripture.
• Promotes an awareness of one’s own social location and limited hermeneutical perspective (typically) derived from an antifoundational epistemology that views knowledge as being shaped by human finitude and situatedness.
• Practices theology as an ongoing, open-ended conversation influenced by experience.
• Cares about community and views the spiritual life as a quest or a journey to be taken together.
• Values social concern and engagement on behalf of the marginalized (e.g., the widow, the orphan, and the alien).
• Strives as a community of counter-cultural conservation (i.e., stewards of creation) to protect and preserve the environment.

Postmodern, Postmodernity, Postmodernism

I must preface this entry by noting that I derived much of this information from the second chapter, “Contours of the Present: The Culture of Modernity,” of Harold Netland’s insightful book Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission (InterVarsity Press, 2001).

Postmodern: 1) a way to describe the shift from an industrial to a postindustrial society or the transition from a manufacturing to a service economy, which was marked by a dramatic increase in information and communication technology. 2) the architectural, literary, philosophical, and social critique of modern values and assumptions.

Postmodernity: the broad critique of modern culture based primarily on an antifoundational epistemology (theory of knowledge). Minimally, it is an expression of dissatisfaction with at least one aspect of modernity and a challenge to adopt a different approach. In his preface to The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, Kevin Vanhoozer construes it as “an ‘exodus’ from the constraints of modernity.”

Postmodernism: the following three definitions of the term are based on Lawrence Cahoone’s helpful taxonomy in From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996).

1) historical postmodernism: a descriptive historical distinction that perceives social and cultural changes between the emerging era and the previous period of modernism (distinguishing the transition from modernity to postmodernity).

2) methodological postmodernism: a variety of prescriptive views that share a common rejection of objective truth and knowledge about reality, especially foundationalism in epistemology, in favor of a thoroughgoing perspectivalism. The following thinkers are routinely cited as exemplars.

Michel Foucault (1926-1984) - believed that all truth claims are really just assertions of power.

Jacques Derrida (1930- ) - espoused a nonrealist theory of language and meaning that attacked the logocentrism of Western philosophy. In other words, he rejected the prevailing assumption that our words or linguistic concepts refer to objective realities in the external world: “There is nothing outside textuality.” His skeptical hermeneutical method, which allows no privileged point of reference (such as authorial intent), has been dubbed deconstructionism. In its attempt to show that we cannot transcend our own ideas this method seeks to subvert or dismantle metanarratives and objective conceptual frameworks.

Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924-1998) - is well-known for his definition of postmodernity as the “incredulity toward metanarratives,” that is, grand, over-arching stories or frameworks that seek to explain the world.

Richard Rorty (1931- ) - rejected the assumption of modern philosophy that our concepts mirror reality (the way things are in themselves). Instead he adopted an entirely pragmatic view of truth and knowledge: since justification, as the criterion for truth, is relative to audiences, truth is simply a social construct that works.

3) positive postmodernism: any attempt to go beyond the negative critiques of methodological postmodernism to construct new and different answers, albeit limited and to some extent perspectival, to the basic questions of life while avoiding the inconsistencies of total relativism. Stanley Grenz, Nancey Murphy, and Kevin Vanhoozer are examples of Christian theologians who might fit this category.