Searching for Propositions of Truth

Lots of reading this week. Maybe not the best thing, since I leave for camp tomorrow and haven't started packing yet... but oh well. It'll all get done one way or another. I got a shipment of books that I got with birthday money (thanks Aunt Betty!) when we got back from the lake, and I'm already done with one of them. The other three are The Christian Life, by Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Cross of Christ, by John Stott, and a study book based on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. But this isn't about that.

This is about Why We're Not Emergent (by Two Guys Who Should Be), Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. It's 250 pages, and I read it in four days. Needless to say, I really liked this book. Not only was it intellectually challenging (mainly the chapters by Kevin DeYoung, a reformed pastor), but it was also emotionally stirring (especially the chapters by Ted Kluck). Above all, it was written with a posture of love for others. This does not mean blanket acceptance or tip-toeing hopes. Both authors, out of love, call emergents to account for their words, their actions, and their theology (or conspicuous lack thereof). Emergents will be offended if they pick up this book, just as I was from reading The God Delusion. But there is a profound difference here. I was offended and outraged because Dawkins misrepresented and misread the Bible, and above all, his attitude was one of arrogance: faith in anything (does that include scientific theories?) is incompatible with reason. But with this book, the authors' attitude is one of love, encouraging them to continue in the good things they embrace while seriously thinking about the things they are so quick to reject.

Maybe before I go any farther I should try and describe the emergent/ing church (apparently there is some difference, but I can't figure out what it is). I say try because this, as the authors say, is harder than "nailing jello to a wall." They reject modernism, yet thoroughly use modern techniques of argument (bulleted lists, from/to's !?). They are all about truth and salvation as journeys (searching), not as events. The phrase "searching for Jesus is cool: finding Him isn't." definitely applies. They're big on universal acceptance and tolerance... except for those who argue for concrete moral limits and conditions for church membership. Frustratingly, they're largely opposed to statements of faith or any concrete doctrine, preferring to deal with "proposition" instead. Most of all, anything they produce somehow gets linked back to a "conversation." Books (the ones on the right side are by emergent authors), blogs, discussion-based sermons, retreats, coffee shops, anything. I think the idea is great (how can we communicate what we believe if we're not in conversation with them?) but it gets old pretty quick. So, not feeling like I've done a very good job, that's the emergent church in a nutshell. They're mostly twenty-somethings (which I am), like indie music (which I love), love coffee and guiness (which I'm crazy about), and love Jesus (obviously, me too).

The books scope is those facets of emergent thought (it's a little bold to call it theology) that throw up red flags in the rest of Christendom, whether reformed, evangelical, fundamentalist, or any combination of those. As a result, aspects of emergent thought that the authors agree with go largely undiscussed (but not unmentioned). Social justice, care for the poor and widows, love as a worthy pursuit, and authenticity in worship are all pieces that I'm crazy about. But they aren't the main points.

In my opinion, the emergent church suffers from an overly "fuzzy" view of Jesus. They are of the "great moral teacher" persuasion, but also with elements of some sort of cosmic therapist mixed in. Sort of a Ghandi meets Dr. Phil. One upshot of this view is that emergents believe that people are inherently good. Jesus came because he wanted to make good people even better. (This might be wrong. I'm not emergent, so I can't speak with any authority about this. Besides, they don't really recognize any central or unifying authority on their beliefs, so technically, I'm just as qualified to speak for them as anyone else.) One aspect of popular thought that I cannot get over is the belief, whether emergent, secular humanist, or anything else under the sun, that people are inherently good. I see people ruined by wealth, seduced by lust, and indifferent to the poor. I see myself struggling with arrogance, getting angry at others for menial things, and indifferent to the poor. I see the state of the world around me. I see the ugliness of my sin. And if I didn't know Christ and the free grace He offers, I wouldn't know what to do with myself.

This grace is something that you rarely, if ever, hear about in the emergent church. Their argument is that "the meat of the gospel has to do with justice, compassion, and transformation (186)." Yes those things are there, but that's not the meat of the gospel. The week leading up to and the events following after Jesus' crucifixion are the meat of the gospel. If a call to justice, compassion, and transformation are given without the means of effecting those calls provided, there is no good news at all. Christ came atone for sin and reconcile His people to His Father. Yes, Christ's example is one we should follow, but there is so much more.

Probably my favorite part of this book was DeYoung's epilogue. He issues calls to both emergents and the church in general from the book of Revelation, specifically the letters to the churches. There are seven churches addressed, symbolizing the universal church (the number seven symbolizes completeness). "In other words, the problems in these seven churches are the root problems in all churches. Their strengths are our strengths and their weaknesses are our weaknesses (239)." He encourages the non-emergent church to let their light shine: many congregations believe all the right things, but they make no effort to live a life of love for neighbors. He pleads with the emergent church to not be prey to false teachings. Furthermore, that they understand the difference between love and tolerance. When we ignore someone's sin because we think it is for their own good, that isn't love: it's unfaithfulness. Yes, accept them, welcome them, love them. But the best way to love someone is to remind them of the gospel, whether they are a Christian or not.

In your sin, you are worse off than you could ever imagine. Christ loves you more than you could ever hope. When we trust in the atoning power of His blood, through faith, His blessings are more than we could ever have asked for.