Thinking through Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. Moody, 2008
In the chapter, “Journey: Are the Pilgrims still making Progress?” the authors discuss the tension between the journey itself, and the destination. They quote a sentiment which is widely accepted, and perhaps especially in the emergent church that “The destination matters little. The journey is the thing” (p.32)
Here’s where it’s fun to blog through a book, not critiquing the book necessarily, but looking for application for oneself. I’m going to talk about a direction that the chapter doesn’t really go. The authors go the direction of “certainty/uncertainty,” and even get around to discussing the emergent handling of homosexuality. I’d rather talk about heaven.
The pendulum still swings, though it is hard to tell when it has reached bottom (to borrow a market term). When I was growing up, we were all going to heaven. Now, we are living the Christian life. When I was growing up, people were living the Christian life on their way to heaven. Now, we are living the Christian life, and heaven will happen eventually. See the difference?
My pastor used to refer to people who were “so heavenly minded they were no earthly good.” I’m not sure I know anyone like that these days. We may now be so earthly minded, we are no heavenly good. And the trends in the American church are further toward friendship with the world, and enmity toward God (James 4).
This is not an us vs. them problem. This is a virus the emergent church caught from the evangelicals, and now the tumors are breaking through the surface. All of us need to catch a hunger for heaven that begins to break the attachments we have to this world.
Let me take a breath and clarify. When I say “heaven,” I don’t mean an escape from God’s creation into something else. No, I understand 2 Peter 3, where he speaks of “waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” (2Peter 3:13 ESV) I know that God’s creation is good, and that it awaits final redemption, though it will be dragged through the purging wringer in order to ready it for that day. Also, I am not advocating isolationism. We must break with the world even as we love sinners and sacrifice and suffer for them.
Our problem is our attachment to this world, and the current state of things – to its comforts; its prosperities; its entertainments; its coolness; its congratulations. We seem not to believe the following biblical phrases: “the present form of this world is passing away.” (1Corinthians 7:31 ESV); “And the world is passing away along with its desires,” (1John 2:17 ESV). Our journey seems to have lost its destination, and we think we can settle here, comfortably.
I want to affirm the importance of the journey. God uses the journey to prepare us for the destination. Each test; each gift; each trial is used by God to wean us from the world and make us thirsty for Christ. But somehow, we seem to be missing the lessons.
And I also want to affirm the importance of the destination. So let me go back to those intriguing words from 2 Peter: “what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God” (2Peter 3:11-12 ESV).
The American church is way out of balance, and we are veering away from center.
Showing posts with label Emergent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emergent. Show all posts
Friday, January 02, 2009
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Experience
Thinking through Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. Moody, 2008
In the Second Introduction, and especially on pp. 27,28, the “ordinary” author refers to “experience” in a few different ways. He seems to be poking fun at the “emergent” quest for creating the optimal “experience” for Christians. This is very much a seeker-sensitive quest as well. It is just that the emergents are tending toward an experience that is less glitzy and production-oriented, and more mystical. But, my goal is not to critique the book, or even the emergents. It is to critique myself and our own church(es). We also have a worship experience.
Jonathan Edwards and others in his age talked about “experimental religion.” He was certainly not talking about a pragmatic approach to church where we keep throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, trying to find what works to make people happy and get more people to come. He was talking about the actual application of spiritual truth to life. I think when he says “experimental,” we would say “practical.” So let me combine these thoughts. What we deeply need is “experimental experience.” That is, the transforming truth incarnated by believers, who are not much like the people they used to be.
But that is not what either “experimental” or “experience” mean in our present situation. We experiment with formats and programs and approaches, trying to create the experience that will prove to be satisfying and rewarding. But here is the point – the experiment is God’s experiment, and we are the lab rats. It is not up to us to combine the chemicals. That is God’s job. The explosive results are not designed by the leadership team, but are to be seen in our lives. And the experience is not really about how we feel, or what we enjoy. The experience is a family of confessing believers who are in the process of being truly transformed, being brought into fellowship with God and with one another in ways that are not always pleasant or pleasurable. The point is not, how do I feel in the car on the way home from church, but, was God glorified?
So where, and how, is God glorified? In the worship of His people. But what does this mean? It involves Scripture, but the presence of a Bible in the lap of every attendee does not, in itself, glorify God. It involves music, but, whether hymn or chorus, piano or guitar, glorifying God can be present or absent with either. It certainly involves people, but a collection of bodies does not make a temple for God’s Spirit, and there can be more glorification taking place with four spiritual old ladies then with four hundred emotionally charged young adults.
Do we truly love God? Is that love exhibited in a sincere hearing of His Word? Does the hearing of His Word result in concrete obedience, in both attitude and action? Is the hold of the world, the flesh, and the devil on our lives being progressively weakened and crucified? Is the name of Christ regularly on our lips, both in private and public? Do our families see the change?
If so, God is being glorified. And His experiment is working out in our experience. And if not, then we ought to try something different.
In the Second Introduction, and especially on pp. 27,28, the “ordinary” author refers to “experience” in a few different ways. He seems to be poking fun at the “emergent” quest for creating the optimal “experience” for Christians. This is very much a seeker-sensitive quest as well. It is just that the emergents are tending toward an experience that is less glitzy and production-oriented, and more mystical. But, my goal is not to critique the book, or even the emergents. It is to critique myself and our own church(es). We also have a worship experience.
Jonathan Edwards and others in his age talked about “experimental religion.” He was certainly not talking about a pragmatic approach to church where we keep throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, trying to find what works to make people happy and get more people to come. He was talking about the actual application of spiritual truth to life. I think when he says “experimental,” we would say “practical.” So let me combine these thoughts. What we deeply need is “experimental experience.” That is, the transforming truth incarnated by believers, who are not much like the people they used to be.
But that is not what either “experimental” or “experience” mean in our present situation. We experiment with formats and programs and approaches, trying to create the experience that will prove to be satisfying and rewarding. But here is the point – the experiment is God’s experiment, and we are the lab rats. It is not up to us to combine the chemicals. That is God’s job. The explosive results are not designed by the leadership team, but are to be seen in our lives. And the experience is not really about how we feel, or what we enjoy. The experience is a family of confessing believers who are in the process of being truly transformed, being brought into fellowship with God and with one another in ways that are not always pleasant or pleasurable. The point is not, how do I feel in the car on the way home from church, but, was God glorified?
So where, and how, is God glorified? In the worship of His people. But what does this mean? It involves Scripture, but the presence of a Bible in the lap of every attendee does not, in itself, glorify God. It involves music, but, whether hymn or chorus, piano or guitar, glorifying God can be present or absent with either. It certainly involves people, but a collection of bodies does not make a temple for God’s Spirit, and there can be more glorification taking place with four spiritual old ladies then with four hundred emotionally charged young adults.
Do we truly love God? Is that love exhibited in a sincere hearing of His Word? Does the hearing of His Word result in concrete obedience, in both attitude and action? Is the hold of the world, the flesh, and the devil on our lives being progressively weakened and crucified? Is the name of Christ regularly on our lips, both in private and public? Do our families see the change?
If so, God is being glorified. And His experiment is working out in our experience. And if not, then we ought to try something different.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Talkers
Thinking through Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. Moody, 2008
In the Introduction, p.17, the authors refer to a lot of those in the emergent world as “talkers.” I’d like to work on that theme for a little while.
The emergent preoccupation with “conversation” is, in some ways, a reaction to ways in which conservative evangelicals talk past one another. We tend to state our point of view without listening carefully to either the questions, or to other points of view.
Call it conversation if you want, but I’m not sure that emergent leaders are much better at listening than are their more conservative counterparts. But, in the current environment, to question the conversation is rude, like ending a phone conversation when it was not you who called. So on it goes, and we find that there is much talking, but little is said. The booksellers are making a bundle, but few of the books are worth re-reading, or keeping.
I struggle to find a Biblical basis for this “conversation.” I’m much more comfortable and confident when a speaker says, “Thus says the Lord.” When God said, “Let there be light,” there was not a conversation. And when God said, “Thou shalt not,” again, He wasn’t asking, “what do you think?” God’s speech is to be met with confession, agreement, and obedience. Why all the conversation?
I understand that there can be fruitful interaction in discussing how to apply principles and graces in the grayness of this world. So I do find that conversation is helpful in this regard. But not in trying to reframe the Biblical material in some way that warps historical theology and redefines classic doctrine. In that case, conversation becomes perversity.
So there must be a difference between prophetic proclamation, and applicational conversation. There must be a difference between humble and ready response to the Word, and the sharing of creatively comfortable points of view that divorce the text from the author’s intent. We cannot be just “talkers.”
I cam across a fascinating passage in Ezekiel about prophetic speech, and the people’s contemporary (then, and now) response.
““As for you, son of man, your people who talk together about you by the walls and at the doors of the houses, say to one another, each to his brother, ‘Come, and hear what the word is that comes from the LORD.’ And they come to you as people come, and they sit before you as my people, and they hear what you say but they will not do it; for with lustful talk in their mouths they act; their heart is set on their gain. And behold, you are to them like one who sings lustful songs with a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument, for they hear what you say, but they will not do it. When this comes—and come it will!—then they will know that a prophet has been among them.”” (Ezekiel 33:30-33 ESV)
So I agree with the authors, that much of emergent-ville amounts to swarms of words. And incessant talking only serves to further cheapen words, and lead poor listeners to be even poorer.
But as I said in the first post in this series, my main goal is not to critique the group being critiqued, but to use the book to ask, “what can I learn about myself, and the weaknesses and dangers to which conservative evangelicals are prone?”
As a pastor, I’m a talker. I talk a lot. And I’m sensitive to the fact that people sit and listen to me talk. But I don’t want to be just a “talker.”
• We become mere talkers when we preach our opinions rather than the substance of God’s Word.
• We become mere talkers when we preach doctrine that is unrelated to life; when we dump loads of information without demonstrating its significance and application.
• We become mere talkers when we repeat our Biblical formulations and doctrinal statements by rote, without thinking about how this material is being received.
• We become talkers when we use philosophical or technical language that may impress, but does not lead to understanding. There is a certain kind of understanding that requires the work of God’s Spirit, but there is also a kind of understanding that happens when the speaker is speaking your language.
• We become mere talkers when we refuse to listen carefully to the questions people are asking. Now it is true that, at times, people ask the less pertinent question. And there is then the responsibility and opportunity to direct people to the better, more telling question. But all of this requires listening.
In the Introduction, p.17, the authors refer to a lot of those in the emergent world as “talkers.” I’d like to work on that theme for a little while.
The emergent preoccupation with “conversation” is, in some ways, a reaction to ways in which conservative evangelicals talk past one another. We tend to state our point of view without listening carefully to either the questions, or to other points of view.
Call it conversation if you want, but I’m not sure that emergent leaders are much better at listening than are their more conservative counterparts. But, in the current environment, to question the conversation is rude, like ending a phone conversation when it was not you who called. So on it goes, and we find that there is much talking, but little is said. The booksellers are making a bundle, but few of the books are worth re-reading, or keeping.
I struggle to find a Biblical basis for this “conversation.” I’m much more comfortable and confident when a speaker says, “Thus says the Lord.” When God said, “Let there be light,” there was not a conversation. And when God said, “Thou shalt not,” again, He wasn’t asking, “what do you think?” God’s speech is to be met with confession, agreement, and obedience. Why all the conversation?
I understand that there can be fruitful interaction in discussing how to apply principles and graces in the grayness of this world. So I do find that conversation is helpful in this regard. But not in trying to reframe the Biblical material in some way that warps historical theology and redefines classic doctrine. In that case, conversation becomes perversity.
So there must be a difference between prophetic proclamation, and applicational conversation. There must be a difference between humble and ready response to the Word, and the sharing of creatively comfortable points of view that divorce the text from the author’s intent. We cannot be just “talkers.”
I cam across a fascinating passage in Ezekiel about prophetic speech, and the people’s contemporary (then, and now) response.
““As for you, son of man, your people who talk together about you by the walls and at the doors of the houses, say to one another, each to his brother, ‘Come, and hear what the word is that comes from the LORD.’ And they come to you as people come, and they sit before you as my people, and they hear what you say but they will not do it; for with lustful talk in their mouths they act; their heart is set on their gain. And behold, you are to them like one who sings lustful songs with a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument, for they hear what you say, but they will not do it. When this comes—and come it will!—then they will know that a prophet has been among them.”” (Ezekiel 33:30-33 ESV)
So I agree with the authors, that much of emergent-ville amounts to swarms of words. And incessant talking only serves to further cheapen words, and lead poor listeners to be even poorer.
But as I said in the first post in this series, my main goal is not to critique the group being critiqued, but to use the book to ask, “what can I learn about myself, and the weaknesses and dangers to which conservative evangelicals are prone?”
As a pastor, I’m a talker. I talk a lot. And I’m sensitive to the fact that people sit and listen to me talk. But I don’t want to be just a “talker.”
• We become mere talkers when we preach our opinions rather than the substance of God’s Word.
• We become mere talkers when we preach doctrine that is unrelated to life; when we dump loads of information without demonstrating its significance and application.
• We become mere talkers when we repeat our Biblical formulations and doctrinal statements by rote, without thinking about how this material is being received.
• We become talkers when we use philosophical or technical language that may impress, but does not lead to understanding. There is a certain kind of understanding that requires the work of God’s Spirit, but there is also a kind of understanding that happens when the speaker is speaking your language.
• We become mere talkers when we refuse to listen carefully to the questions people are asking. Now it is true that, at times, people ask the less pertinent question. And there is then the responsibility and opportunity to direct people to the better, more telling question. But all of this requires listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)