Nehemiah - Part One - Mark Driscoll

Between the Sheets

Kaleo Church in Houston is starting a look into Scripture's most risque display of sexual liberation. Pastor Bill Streger is going through the Song of Solomon, and apparently going to be as frank as possible without crossing the line into the world of crudity and crassness, a feat certainly not accomplished more impressively than the American sex-perverted culture where sex is simply a vehicle for self-gratification and is all but detached from love, marriage, children, and God. It should be interesting. Perhaps I will write more of my thoughts on this topic at a later time.

There are banners you can click on on this blog, or you can go to www.whatsbetweenthesheets.com for the fancy official series page.

Additionally, something I've found very enlightening about this topic is a similar series on the Song of Songs preached by Mark Driscoll. He is a very effective communicator and doesn't shy away from speaking the truth, especially when it's not what we want to hear. See links below.

Part 1. The Virgin and the Vineyard I - Waiting for Love
Part 2. The Virgin and the Vineyard II - Falling in Love
Part 3. The Damsel and the Dream - Growing in Love
Part 4. The Queen and the Quest - Reflections on Consummating Love
Part 5. Recollection and Romance - Reflections on Growing in Love
Part 6. Romance and Reality - Reflections on Mature Love
Part 7. Homestead and Honeymoon - Reflections on Rekindling Love
Part 8. Tenderness and Tragedy - A Final Reflection


"A New Kind of Christian" - Emergent Church - Part 1

The "emerging" or "emergent" church (whatever it is) is a tricky thing to get your mind around because it's such a non-tangible movement if you are not involved in it, but the thinking in this philosophical upsurge is or has probably affected whatever church you're in to some extent, especially if you're in college or are involved in a young church. However visible this movement is to you, the thinking associated with it can be evaluated with a little concentrated effort. I hope to provide at least a jump start for anyone curious.

The leaders in this movement, some of them being Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, and Karen Ward are closely tied to the Emergent Village, presumably a voice for leading this mission. I won't go on about its history, but its leaders play an important role in understanding it. You can read on if you want by going to the Almighty Wikipedia.

What I do want to do is address what they actually teach and believe. So here goes. Please forgive me for some of my wordings. It is difficult to arrange my ideas in a way that is effective especially for this topic because it's so broad. Bear with me, I have a point.

The emerging (or emergent, I'm not entirely sure if it matters which one I use) type church people have a strange view on truth. They seem to want to claim they hold to historic Christian beliefs such as the inerrancy (or at least the authority) of Scripture. But if you look closely at their practice, it seems a little on the side of postmodern rather than Christian (if you are unfamiliar with postmodernism, again check out Wikipedia if you desire). Postmodernism is roughly defined as a rejection of absolute truth, whereas Christianity is sort of the opposite in that our truth lies on the Gospel, and it is unshakable.

Moving on, the emergent church is all about "questioning truth" and knowing why we believe what we do, which is fine and should be encouraged to a point. The central problem comes in when they start questioning God Himself and the sacrifice of Jesus. There is a move by this movement, whether admittedly or knowingly or not, to place emphasis off the substitutionary atonement of Christ for our sins and think of him more as a really nice guy that took a beating and was merely a great example of how to live, giving to the poor and whatnot. He very much was this, but there shouldn't be confusion here. There can never be too much emphasis placed on the Event that divides and reworks history as we know it. The entire New Testament, for that fact the entire Bible, is ripe with emphasis on the Gospel. It's all that's talked about really.

The postmodern, emergent crowd wants to be very "new" and have a new way of "being a Christian," as Brian McLaren might put it, but if we are trying to be "new and different Christians," what are we to say about those Christians that came before us? Is our Christianity better than that of Paul, Augustine, or Aquinas? I would submit that we should not lose focus on the faith that was "once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) Faith is faith. Trust in Christ is never shifted from definition, its importance, or its truth. Christians 2000 years ago have the same faith as Christians today: faith in God who alone rescues us from certain doom. I would submit that the emerging crowd wants to be "cutting edge" so badly that they have left sound reason somewhat and trying to reinvent rather than reform the church. Reform is good; it led to measureless progress and correction from Roman Catholic heresies, but even the Roman Catholic Church was originally built on the same Foundation and Faith originally dispensed by the Holy Spirit. The root of the problem with emerging church thinking is that they take questioning of truth too far, in that they end up questioning God Himself, His nature, and His character. At least this is the only logical outworking of what they are seeking to accomplish, that being, I suppose, a postmodern church: something hip, philosophically cutting edge and new.

Part of this I think is a noble attempt at reform and correcting some of the tremendous problems with modernistic, Enlightenment type thinking. Part of it however is unavoidably a decrease of faith and recognition of God's authority, unchangingness, and sovereignty over our lives. Where do we draw the line in questioning the basic pillars of Christianity? Rob Bell thinks it's "okay" for a Christian to not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus (in his book Velvet Elvis). He claims that the virgin birth is merely a "brick" of doctrine in the "wall" of Christian teaching that will not bring down the whole "wall" if removed. This is very faulty logic and is like taking a metaphor that sounds good, running with it, and ending up with no point in the end, as if he is only using this metaphor of a wall to try and sound new and hip in his writing, in my opinion.

The fact is if you take away the virgin birth of Jesus, you not only lose Jesus, you take away the authority of Scripture because it reporting lies, and we are left with only a feel good religion that lacks authority and absolute truth and you can be a "Christian" any way you want to. If you don't like the fact that unrepentant sinners spend eternity in anguish in hell, you don't have to believe it, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's true and will occur. All the efforts to be "tolerant," "open," or "welcoming of other faiths," only result in a lack of authority, tons of questions with no answers, and inevitably a complete loss of hope. I am not saying we should not be welcoming in terms of loving people and wanting them to trust in Christ, but are we to begin questioning God Himself? Are we to begin questioning the justice of God? His love? His wrath? His incarnation? His death? His resurrection? Are they merely bricks in the wall of Christianity? Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, our faith is in vain and we are without hope. All we are left with is another empty human religion with false hope.

How do emergent types deal with this inevitable outworking of their philosophy and theology? I see no other way out. No, I think we must take a cue from Scripture here. Jude 3-4 warns us of false teacher:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jude exhorts us to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, us Christians. Ephesians 4:4-6 echoes this well:

There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

There is one faith, faith in Christ who took our sin upon himself and not only rescued us from the deserved wrath of the Father, but took the punishment by bearing our iniquities. We must contend, fight for the faith delivered to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, David, Samuel, Noah, Peter, Paul, Jesus, and us today, because it's the same faith: faith in Christ for our redemption. Paul warns also against false teaching in 1 Tim. 6:3:

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understand nothing.

I am compelled to think that this means that all wisdom comes from a healthy understanding of the Gospel, which is unchanging. Fools that don't understand the Gospel malign the word of God and formulate their own theologies that are full of conceit and really end up understanding nothing.

According to Paul, there are doctrines we should contend for and some we should not tolerate in the family of God because of the destructive, misleading nature of the latter. God cares about His people and does not wish them to go astray. It is the responsibility of pastors primarily to guard their flocks from dangerous teaching that threatens and diminishes the sovereignty of Jesus and the utter importance of his work on the cross, that alone is our hope and object of faith. It is also the responsibility of each family, each father, each mother, each husband, each wife, each individual to guard against false teaching brought into the church by wolves in sheep's clothing. This carefulness cannot be simply written off as "fundamentalist" or "intolerant" thinking. Would you let your kids be taught that you really are not their father/mother? Would you let them be taught to question your authority and loving commands? Would you watch your child run in front of oncoming traffic, stop, and say "well, that's his opinion?" No! We guard those we love and warn them against lies spread by wolves. It's the same in the family of God, the Church. We should be on guard at all times, even when a hip new theology comes along.

None of what I say here is to imply or express that certain "emergent" types thinkers are not sincere or that they are not Christians. It really matters not who is teaching something. We should judge what is being taught either way.