I was reading John Mortenson's blog tonight, while reading more on the internet about the postmodernist/emergent controversy stewing at Cedarville University these days (about which I had already heard an inside perspective or two).  Specifically this post and especially the three other previous posts linked from that one.

I am so heartbroken to see my friends embracing postmodernism and "teaching others to do the same".  (I revived my similar post below from October of last year... same thoughts once again... these same thoughts burn through my mind increasingly more frequently).

I am delighted to see the love and acceptance which friends like Mortenson pour out on the needy people around them, and I seek to do this more myself.  But I have "great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart" when I see postmodern friends avoiding the exclusive and absolute teachings of God's Word (the Bible) and and allowing the culture to dictate the Church's perspective on the Bible, Christian life, and God Himself.

I will tread as lightly as possible as I quote below from Mortenson's earlier post:

"We go outside and he smokes. He is way across the yard from the children and worries that he is smoking too near them. He asks my permission to speak freely, meaning, can he swear in front of me. He says bullshit and watches to see if I will condemn him."...
Eddie comes by. Eddie is on the same road, but much farther gone. Eddie is deeply lined in his face, and skinny, and walks unrhythmically. He shakes hands with everyone over and over. Yeah, hey, hi, you’re a gentleman, thanks a lot, great to be here, shake my hand. He works a crowd like a politician. But this isn’t Eddie; this is Eddie’s robot, the mechanical part of him that the addiction needs to keep going. The addiction gladly kills all that is human, keeping only the smooth scheming parts, the clever negotiating parts, so that the body can get a little food and live another day and keep the addiction alive.
Ray knows this will be him.
He tells me where the crack houses are in this neighborhood, and then says this place gets bad after dark and he wants to leave now.  Gets bad? What could you meet that is worse than this?
He shakes my hand, not scheming like Eddie, but heavy and slow and sad. He walks away.
What Bible verse would you read to Ray?  ...
“Jesus of Nazareth…went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.”

There is an extremely fine line to walk.   It is good to be brokenhearted on behalf of others, to "weep with those who weep."   Yet there are words by which we are told to "comfort one another".   Jesus of Nazareth certainly did go about doing good and healing, but He also called people "broods of vipers" and even told some people "Go and sin no more".

Job's three friends sat with him in his misery for seven days without saying a word.  Then they opened their mouths.  The emergents/postmoderns say they should have kept their mouths closed-- that's where they went awry.

But I disagree.  Their problem was that they lost sight of God!   They "knew not the scriptures, nor the power of God".  They went astray not in their confidence about who God was, but in the content of their incorrect supposed knowledge.  They should have known from Genesis (Abraham's story, Joseph's story, etc) that God is not a cosmic karma machine.

The postmodernist will say, "But that's exactly it Tim - don't you see, Job's friends thought they knew God, but actually they were mistaken.  Herein is the lesson for us, never to speak with full authority or confidence on our interpretation of the Scriptures, because we might be wrong.  We ought never to rule out any perspective- be it McClaren, McClaine, or Bin Laden... because we might arrogantly miss some aspect of the truth that they could teach us."

Two thoughts in response: first a tiny caveat, then the main point.  Caveat- I agree that "100% certainty" is an unhelpful thing- it can lock one in to incorrect notions from which there is henceforth no possibility of getting out.  However, I suggest that 99.999...% "asymptotic certainty" is not only very legitimate in many cases, but that it can look outwardly indistinguishable from "100% certainty" in many situations.  Where do we ever see Jesus or Paul or Peter or any Biblical character preaching "Thus and thus says the Lord, and thus and thus you should do in response, but I might be mistaken in my interpretation of His message, so let's dialog about this-- what do you think God is saying to you?"    !
I do suspect that Peter and Paul and Jude had "only" 99.999...% asymptotic certainty, but it didn't preclude them from taking a firm, "dogmatic" stand on what God had previously stated (i.e. the very words)... and it didn't preclude them from saying things like "...I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.  For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

Now the main point:
Notice the Emergent/Postmodern emphasis on avoiding condemnation... as in the quote above "...and watches to see if I will condemn him".    I suggest that the focus in Emergent/Postmodern Christianity is too small... too limited... too terrestial.   My arbiter ought not to be my fellow man.  In fact, if I am looking to peers' approval to make sure I am on the right spiritual track in life, I am committing idolatry.

Rather, my arbiter must be God Himself, through His Word, the Bible (unmediated by human gatekeepers of traditions, but rather aided through the Holy Spirit to understand (cf. Alvin Plantinga's writings on 'warrant')...  yet trusting even no "spirit guidance" except what concurs with the revealed written Word of God, following Jesus' example).

My chief concern should be whether Jesus Himself would want me to confront the swearing man or not... rather than whether or not the swearing man might feel uncomfortably 'judged' by a Christian and henceforth perhaps spurn God.

In the words of the old song, "There's a call going out..."   a call to all true Christians in America and the West... to be broken....  doubly broken... in Christ's service and for His sake.

The first brokenness is an empathetic understanding of our postmodern peers... to seek to understand where they're coming from, to listen to them, to engage in gentle kindness and hospitality to them, to avoid the strident sounds of 'harsh, fundamentalistic, modernistic, arrogant, simplistic, judgmental, thoughtless' Christianity whenever possible as part of 'becoming all things to all men.'  We are called to become 'as postmodern' to the postmoderns.

Yet Paul's veneers had limits, as must ours... and thus comes about the second brokenness.  Our postmodern culture tells us that all perspectives are equally valid, and if we believe differently, we will face ridicule, rejection, and persecution by our peers.   We must be willing to accept this rejection... we must be willing to be broken a second time.  To be villified on the one side by the moralists for our empathy and hospitality, and be villified on the other side by the emergents for our unswerving stand upon God's Word and for the exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ.   To be villified by our supposedly Christian brethren on both sides, for the sake of Christ.  As Jesus so poignantly asked the Pharisees, "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"

We must be compassionate and loving, while simultaneously 'setting our faces like flint'.  We must be shrewd as serpents, but innocent as doves.

This is the call...   It is a call to love.  Not tolerance, which is cheap... but real love... tough love... which is excruciating.

We live in extremely challenging times...  God has placed us specifically here 'for such a time as this'.

The question was asked above: "What Bible verse would you read to Ray?"  I suggest that for us who truly follow Christ, this question cannot be a rhetorical one.

Romans 8:31-32:  "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?"
This is really quite amazing.  This is something that every Christian should be extremely familiar with.   "If God is for us..." ...if we have been saved through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ... and this is where faith comes in.... not 'blind trust', but 'actionable trust based on the evidence'.

Is God really for me?  If I have believed in Jesus and been saved, then yes.   If I have not believed, then no.

For me personally then, the answer is yes... God is actually for me... He is on my side... The Omnipotent King is my Adoptive Father, Friend, and Benefactor.

Well then.  Who is against me?   Who could possibly be against me?  Whose negative opinion could possibly affect me in any way?   My boss?  My neighbor?  My classmate?  My coworker?  My relative?  My enemy?

Nope...  they don't compare to God.

Paul wrote this about 2000 years ago -

Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.  (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3)

It just so happens that the Democrats are currently proposing a "Department of Peace and Nonviolence".   Heh.  You can't fault the Democrats for neglecting the cultural mindset.  Our postmodern culture (about 50% of America and 80% of Europe) is clamoring for exactly that - peace, safety, nonviolence, dialogue, etc.  Anything but war.

Why?

Why is the current generation (in the West) so extraordinarily passionate about 'peace' and 'dialogue', that they are willing to give up their freedoms to ensure safety for themselves?  (Example: New York Times' reaction to Virginia Tech shooting: "We need more gun control..")   Gone is the attitude of a former generation: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  And even more importantly than their freedoms, they're willing to give up the truth itself.

I think it's not only because the folks in the West are tired of war (which they/we certainly are... the last century has been very violent), but also that since they have given up believing in God and the Bible (i.e. since the West has become "Post-Christian"), they no longer have any ground for truth at all.  Their proposed alternative source of verity is "truth by consensus."  All must come to the table and have an equal voice - only thus may truth be found, says the Postmodern West.

But the Muslim world believes in no such thing.  Rather than "truth by consensus," they have their Quran which gives them truth.  And when the West invites them to the table, they see it as Allah giving them the world.

How should we Christians respond?   We should keep untiringly presenting the Truth we have been given from God... the Gospel of Jesus Christ... the teaching of the Bible... the power of God for salvation!  We should share it with love and respect.  And if/when the culture ostracizes or persecutes us for daring to suggest that there's only One Way to God (and that Islam is not that Way), let's rejoice and keep right on sharing the Truth regardless.

"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me..."  --  Jesus Christ

"...born of a gorilla, not of a virgin."

Hmmm.

It is a "Bible for skeptics, seekers, and people of different faiths."

Lots of faiths, perhaps.  But not Christianity.

It's interesting that a book self-claiming to be postmodern and inclusive should so stridently insist that Christians and Jews have "got the story wrong" on origins (and on Jesus).

Also, "The first volume in the series – which will eventually present the Torah, Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist sutras, and Sufi mysticism – covers the Gospel of Mark."

Notice one particular "holy book" that's missing from the revisionist/parody-series?   I wonder why...

Here's a recent email I wrote to a email group of creationists...   I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Dear -------, -------, and other friends,

I think you're both right.   We Christians can (and must) base our belief structure upon Christ and the Word of God as our sure foundation (more sure than shifting science).   Yet our faith in Christ is not subjective or based on circular reasoning, but is based on real historical facts (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) that have empirical/historical/scientific backing.

Our "presuppositional structure" can be based on the Bible (a more 'postmodern' emphasis), while our trust in the Bible itself can be based on the "evidence" for the accuracy and truth of the Bible (a more "modernist" emphasis).   Neither full postmodernism nor full modernism are correct (they are both human-centered rather than God-centered), but both philosophies of knowledge have some truth to them.

While saying "Christ should be our starting point" sounds great, problems arise whenever we ask the "What" and "Why" questions.  What/who exactly is this "Christ"?  Is He the Christ of the modern emergent church, the liberal socialistic activist-for-the-poor?  Is He the Christ of Luther? or of the Catholics?  "He's the Christ of the Bible," one might say.  But all of those groups claim Biblical basis.  It is necessary to go back to the "brute facts" of the not-completely-subjective Word of God to ascertain exactly who Christ was and is.    Furthermore, "Why" should Christ be our starting point?   Why not Muhammad or Buddha or Joseph Smith?  Why must we believe in any God whatsoever? Again we must go back to the historical "brute facts" of creation and the history surrounding Jesus of Nazareth to provide a basis for our hope (1 Peter 3:15).

Yet brute facts presented to a nonbeliever will be as ineffective as water rolling off a duck's back... unless God opens the heart and mind to believe.

The Bible itself supports both perspectives on the issue I think (they are complementary rather than contradictory) - in Acts 26:26, 17:22-32, 1 Cor. 15:1-8, etc, examples are given of pointing to Christ from empirical evidences and proofs, philosophical reasoning, and historical facts.   Yet in Col. 2:1-10, 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 and 1 Tim 6:20 we are warned against "philosophy"/"human wisdom" and in 2 Peter 1:19 we are told that the prophetic word is even more sure/reliable than direct sensory experience.

Will people come to believe in Christ without God working in their hearts to open their eyes?  No.  "Evidence" or "brute factuality" without God's regenerating power is useless.  (Acts 16:14, Rom. 1, John 6:44, 65, Eph. 2:1-10, etc).  Kuhn and Polanyi showed the stubbornness of mere scientific paradigms in the face of data... how much more the stubbornness of a human heart that hates God.
On the other hand, was Van Til right that the only way to witness to people is to first get them to adopt your presuppositional starting point (e.g. the Bible is God's Word)?   I see plenty of evidence from Scripture that there are other ways to present the gospel... including ways that start from "scientific facts" or philosophical reasoning, and end at Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Scriptures (e.g. Acts 17:22-32).

Different people are led to Christ from different starting points (1 Cor. 9:19-23).

With esteem,

In Christ, Tim

My mom sent me info about this book - The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception by John MacArthur.   Here's the blurb: In our postmodern era, a war is being waged against truth. Absolute Truth is argued away as a belief of the past, replaced by cultural relativism and uncertainty. Surprisingly, the world is not the only enemy. Pastors and Christians have fallen prey to subtle deception and are leading others astray. Dr. John MacArthur sounds the alarm in this call to apologetic arms. He examines how the Emerging Church movement, incorrect exegesis, apostasy, and false teaching are all attacking truth and denying Christ’s lordship. Reserve your copy now, arm yourself with the Word of God, and join the battle for truth today!  

One thing that is pretty noticeable in the blurb (and I presume in the book) is a sense of alarm - notice the words "war", "enemy", "fallen prey", "sounds the alarm", "call to apologetic arms", "attacking", "arm yourself", and "join the battle".   Of course, Christianity in America today tends to be polarized with respect to these words.  If you're an American Christian, you may tend toward one of two responses upon reading the blurb.

(1) MacArthur's right - there's a deception and a war going on - a battle for truth - we need to get back to the Bible, arm ourselves apologetically, and eliminate heresy from our midst!

or

(2) MacArthur's gone off his little fundamentalist rocker again - all this talk of "war" and "battle" is precisely the problem with the church today - instead of showing unity and love to the world, we take up arms and fight to the death among ourselves about doctrinal nitpicks.

Where do you fall on this (admittedly slightly overstated) spectrum?

You probably know which view makes more sense to me.  (1)   Though my habitual thought on this (my Marcius Cato ecclesiotheraputic meta-statement) is: "what we need in the Church today is not less doctrine but more love."

But what I really wanted to mention about this book/blurb is this.   In the human body there is a special collection of organs and cells that make up the "immune system".   When foreign material of any type enters the body, the system is triggered and "alarms" the rest of the body, stimulating killer cells, repair cells, tissue inflammation, etc etc.   It is a very sensitive part of the body, responding to tiny little "problems" like a single virus or bacteria swimming through the bloodstream.

It is also an extremely important part of the body, because if these "tiny little problems" were ignored, they would establish a hold on some part of the body, and by the time the body noticed that something was wrong, it would be too late - the bacteria or viri would be swarming through the body and the person would be dead.

Now Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.

If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.

If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.

If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."

On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

So it seems pretty obvious that some Christians have been given the (gift? role? interest? talent? task? responsibility? even, genes??) of "sniffing out" what is true and what is false doctrinally... and they are not to be shunned for their sensitivity, but rather supported and listened to.    Meanwhile other Christians have been given the (gift? role? interest? talent? task? responsibility? genes??) of "showing love to all men" and "accepting one another" without much suspicion of whether they might accidentally be "accepting wolves in sheep's clothing."... again, rather than being shunned for their indiscriminate bleeding-heart-ness, they should be encouraged in their role.

Yet the encouragement and support should be tempered with wisdom from the "other types" of Christians.  The ideal church will have BOTH (plus more) types of Christians... the "doctrinally-sensitive" types helping the "oozing-compassionate" types to wisely discriminate truth from error, and the "oozing-compassionate" types helping the "doctrinally-sensitive" types to make sure they're putting their knowledge into loving action.

Example #1 - 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 19-20 -  But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. ... For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly. For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face.

Paul explains to the Corinthians that they are way too "accepting" - when someone comes and preaches "another Jesus" or "a different gospel", they blindly and naively accept it!... and Paul writes to them to help them be more discriminating.

Example #2 - Galatians 2:1-10 ... "they only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I also was eager to do."  

Paul had gone to check with the Jerusalem apostles to make sure the doctrine he was preaching was correct.  They agreed with him that it was correct, but they wanted to make sure that he was "remembering the poor" - i.e. putting his knowledge of the truth into action.  And of course, Paul was gung-ho about that.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Personal experiences?

This six minute video is absolutely hilarious... especially if you've ever heard any of these arguments from an atheist or evolutionist.  There's also a related piece of text, but the video is even funnier.

This really hits on many of the most important questions about God.   Right at the beginning, the question is asked: "If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?"

There are lots of obvious answers - perhaps "because he's got better things to do with his time", etc.  But personal subjective experience isn't the only type of evidence... maybe he's "shown himself" to other people...?   Ah, but what if all those other people who claimed to have seen him are all lying?   Or delusional?/hallucinating?   Or merely spreading legends and hearsay?

The logic is almost exactly the same as the evidence for the Biblical Jesus and His miraculous life and resurrection...   and once you have a miracle-working, resurrected, Messiah who teaches that God does exist and that He is in fact "one" with Him, the evidence for the existence of "God" begins to stack up quite substantially...

... here's another very nice list of the "top ten" questions atheists ask, with answers.   All answers except for #4 are pretty good.   For #4, it would probably be better ask a bunch of questions in reply, asking the evolutionist exactly why he's so sure about his scientific theories.

Came across this excellent blurb tonight: "Why James MacDonald is not emerging"...

-- here's a large excerpt:

Let me begin with a word of personal appreciation for the current leaders of the emerging church movement. I am deeply grateful for your courage in standing against the many shortcomings of the modern Western church. Thanks for insisting that authenticity in relationship is the foundation of genuine Christian community. Thanks for standing against the formulaic/instant Gospel which fills our churches with tares and insulates the human heart from a genuine transformational encounter with the living Christ. Thanks also for daring to believe that failure is not final and that Christ yet longs for His bride to function with the health and wholeness He created it to enjoy.

In case you are wondering why my gratitude for the leaders of the emerging church does not translate into enthusiasm for their current emphasis and direction let me take a few words to explain why I am not emerging.