In Which I Agree with Tony Jones on Something

I don't agree with Tony Jones, the Emergent Church leader, about much of anything and I don't read him much any more. I happened to link to his blog while reading a post at Mere Orthodoxy on Jim Wallis and his little flap on homosexuality. (It looks like Sojourners is in the last stages of resistance to the spirit of the age.) Anyway, here is what I thought I could honestly quote and agree with from Jones:

But here’s the thing. I get questions like this a lot: “C’mon, you know him, what does Jim Wallis/Rob Bell/Shane Claiborne/fill-in-the-blank really think about gays?” The point is, a lot of people are making a lot of assumptions about leaders in the Protestant church who are progressive on other issues. And the questions those people ask me, I think, disguise a more fundamental question: Can someone who is theologically thoughtful and progressive on other biblical and social issues remain conservative on issues of human sexuality?

Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, and others have, to this point, answered yes to that question. I have my doubts about whether that position is tenable in the long run.

Later, in the Comments section, Jones says:

Annie, I agree that economic justice does not require a progressive hermeneutic, although there are many conservative Christians who find defenses of capitalism in the Bible. However, a progressive hermeneutic is necessary to argue for racial equality and gender equality from scripture. I say if you affirm inter-racial marriage and women preachers, then you’re an eyelash away from affirming gay ordination.

Setting aside the nonsensical jab about inter-racial marriage, (I'll bet Evangelical churches are far more racially diverse than Emergent ones), I have to agree with his linkage of women's ordination and approval of homosexuality. He is right that you need a "progressive hermeneutic" to get approval for women's ordination and you obviously need it for approval of homosexuality too.

Don't ask me what a "progressive hermeneutic" is: ask him. It seems to be any method of twisting Scripture into a pretzel so as to make it - amazingly! - line up with the current prejudices of the Western middle-classes in the late modern world. But whatever it is, you clearly need one to make the Bible sound like a 21st century political correctness seminar.

One after another, liberal Protestant denominations are capitulating to the sexual revolution. Today comes news that the Presbyterians have taken the leap too. It will be interesting to see which, if any, of the denominations that embraced women's ordination will have not embraced homosexuality 20 years later. It the answer turns out to be zero, will that have proven conclusively that women's ordination was a theological mistake? Or will it just be evidence for why we should all embrace our inner sexual nihilist?

I think Tony Jones is right to say that it is not really possible to remain conservative on sexual issues and to become "progressive" on social and economic issues. I tried for years to do it and I found that there are logical and historical links - not to mention dodgy hermeneutical moves - that join progressive thought on a wide range of issues. The Marxist critique of society is a total critique that seeks to overthrow the family, the state and private property and Marx and Engels were quite right to link them together.

A choice must be made and I made mine. I concluded that if support for abortion and the sexual revolution were logically entailed by a socialist approach to economics then socialism must necessarily be immoral. So I said farewell to socialism. The alternative is to become a liberal Protestant and I'd rather be a Christian.

Defending the Gospel Colation and the Revival of Reformation Theology It Embodies

David Fitch continues to criticize the revival of traditional Evangelicalism represented by the Gospel Coalition at his blog. He seems to think that something has happened in history that makes the teachings and practices of the Church outdated and in need of changing. What is this "New Thing" that is so significant that it makes Reformation doctrine and biblical preaching no longer "relevant"? Well, it seems to me to be nothing other than the same old "New Thing" that liberal Protestants have been talking about since the early 19th century.

Fitch claims that we need to eschew a defensive position and embark on a journey into "the unexplored territories of the new cultures of post Christendom." Exactly what territory is left unexplored at this stage in history? Are people really different today? Has technology improved us morally? Fitch claims that what he calls "Christendom" is over, but surely that is old news. He also conflates it with "Modernity" even though Modernity has been a centuries-long assault on Christendom.

Let's go point by point through his criticism of the Reformed revival embodied in the Gospel Coalition. He writes:

"1.) If We Purify Our Doctrine The Rest Will Follow. I have observed an impulse in the TGC that says if we just get our doctrine right (which means a certain version of Reformed orthodoxy), then mission and church renewal in post Christendom will follow. But at least in post Christendom (as it is in the N United States urban areas and Canada) this is not enough. This is not 16th century Europe where the majority Catholic population, under the influence of a corrupt Roman Catholicism, need doctrinal renewal. This is not the 1920′s N. America where the majority protestant mainline Christian population, under the influence of a modernist liberalism, need doctrinal renewal. This is post Christendom territory where there are very few Christians of any kind left who have no doctrine to be renewed."

I would reply that if we don't purify our doctrine nothing else matters. Fitch seems to think that purifiying doctrine is an outreach strategy but it is nothing of the kind. It is a matter of internal church renewal and if the church does not have its doctrine right then even if it grows it does not fulfill its mission. This is why all the calls for "exploring new territory" and being sensitive to the prejudices of the contemporary culture are distractions from the true mission which is to "be faithful" before "going" in mission.

"2.) We Must Return to the Reformation. Is the TGC seeking a return to the Reformation? The Reformation cannot be discounted, but neither can it be returned to. The Reformation was built on the back of Christendom. It gave birth to the Sola’s, especially Sola Scripture and Sola Fide which in their time called people to a renewed purity and personal commitment to the gospel. Today however, those same impulses, aligned with the Enlightenment, have given birth to a modernist individualism, Christian relativism, Cartesian rationalism and experientialism that later became modernity, protestant liberalism and indeed the current manifestations of evangelicalism that the TGC appears to be in critique of. We therefore must go beyond the Reformation, not back to it."

He criticizes TGC for wanting to go back to Calvin, but he himself makes much of his "Neo-Anabaptist" approach. Apparently we can go back to the Reformation, after all.

But I would argue that much of Evangelicalism today, including the neo-Anabaptist sub-group, needs to catch up to the Reformation, not "go beyond it." To view the Reformation as an expression of incipient Modernity is to adopt a controversial liberal Protestant version of the narrative of modern church history. I fear that Fitch is taken in by the self-justifying narrative suggested by liberal Protestantism that covers up its radical departure from the Reformers in order to embrace modernity and accommodate itself to the culture. Calvin, especially, had far more in common with medieval scholastic realism than with the nominalism of the late Middle Ages and the Cartesianism of the modern period out of which modernity grew.

"3.) Woman Cannot Be Pastors. Is TGC seeking to enforce a particular reading of the NT that opposes the role of women in authority within church ministry? I have observed the prominence of a particular view of women in ministry in the TGC. I would characterize this view as a.) based in an inerrancy view of the text, which b.) latches on to texts as if they were isolated units of universal teaching on women, which then c.) leads to a blindness to the NT’s overall elevation of women into ministerial authority in the church. To me, this robs the church of the new politic that was birthed in Jesus Christ. It robs our witness to the reconciled relationship born of Jesus Christ in the post-non-Christendom cultures. I personally have spoken against the egalitarian form of politics I believe has been adopted naively by some evangelical feminists at the expense of both women and Christian marriage. Nonetheless, I believe that the NT calls women into the full participation in the new authority of the Kingdom unleashed in the church (this means I affirm the full ordination of women)."

Here Fitch writes as if his were the majority view in the church, whereas it is a sectarian view of a small and declining portion of the ecumenical church. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are joined by a large section of the Anglican Communion, the largest Protestant denomination in the US and by a large remnant (in fact, the alive and growing section) of Protestantism in holding to the 2000 year old consensus view that Christ and the NT do not authorize this novelty.

The traditional interpretation of the NT continues to be the majority interpretation and the segments of the church that embraced the ordination of women in the 1970s are declining numerically and spiritually, embracing the sexual revolution including homosexuality, divorce and the family breakdown, and failing to evangelize the world by simply reflecting back to the pagan culture what it already believes. Can a church reject inerrancy and remain counter-cultural? The votes are still being counted but the early returns suggest that the answer may be no.

I suggest that we wait 20 years and see if the Evangelical groups which have recently embraced women's ordination follow the depressing and debilitating trajectory of the liberal denominations that embraced it 20 years earlier. It is too soon to judge how this novelty will work out. (I am particularly interested to see how this plays out in Pentecostalism.)

4.) The New Perspective is Our Enemy. John Piper and Don Carson have energetically sought to dismantle the New Perspective on Paul (most notably here, here and here). I do not agree with everything written by Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn, Wright etc. Nonetheless, I believe it is a mistake to see the New Perspective as the enemy (it’s not even that new any more). I believe there is much to learn from it.

I think the New Perspective is vastly overblown in importance. As historical theology it is highly deficient and has little understanding of the Reformers and tenuous links to Evangelical piety and spirituality. It seems to me to be rather typically modern in its attempt to make Christianity "relevant" by stressing its immanent, social dimensions at the expense of its cosmic, eschatological and personal dimensions. It would be an odd hill to die on.

"5.) The Mega Church Still Makes Sense. Because of the above mentioned Reformed tendencies (exacerbated by American pragmatic evangelicalism) to individualize the gospel, to individualize the reading of Scripture, to individualize salvation, to separate doctrine from “way of life,” the Neo-Reformed do not see the problem of mega church for the future of church engagement with post-Christendom. Mega churches have worked well within Christendom’s modernity."

It is hard to understand why Fitch is so concerned that a revival of Reformed theology would undergird the concept of the mega-church or why the size of churches is such an important non-negotiable. Most mega-churches are seeker-sensitive and would greatly benefit from a dose of solid, Reformed theology, exegetical preaching and counter-cultural ethics. They would no longer be so seeker-sensitive; they would be more God-centered.

Large churches are not the problem; they are a sign of successful mission. Prior to the 20th century they were called cathedrals and they emerge wherever Christianity is successful in evangelizing a large portion of the population. The fact that we live in a largely post-Christian culture is not something to be celebrated but something to be lamented. We should be asking ourselves "Why are we under judgment?" not congratulating ourselves for having become smaller, purer and more righteous.

Of greater concern is the conflating of "Christendom" and "Modernity." Modernity is what triumphed over Medieval Christendom, historically peaking in the Enlightenment. We live in the long sad denouement of Modernity, a culture in decline because cut off from its Christian roots. Fitch seems to have swallowed the progressive myth of history, which is so fundamental to Modernity in always seeing the ideal as out there in the future, something to which we are moving providing we are willing to stop looking back.

Why not admit that we are not progressing, but rather we are regressing (by practically every possible measure) in the West? We live in the culture of death of late modernity and the church is scattered, weak and greatly reduced. In such a situation the rhetoric of "moving forward" is as irrelevant and unhelpful as it was in the days of the 8th century prophets. Much more relevant is looking back to God and God's Word, from which we derive the imperative of repentance and the hope of revival.

Brian McLaren Interviewed by Scot McKnight

The following interview of Brian McLaren by Scot McKnight at a recent conference is an interesting opportunity to hear McLaren's answers to three pre-approved questions. McKnight does not really debate or dialogue with McLaren: he just reads the questions. So it is really like a structured speech by McLaren.

What I found interesting was the way in which McLaren obfuscates on doctrine and sounds the clarion call with utter clarity on social work and politics. He expresses frustration with those who read him to see if his views are compatible with biblical truth saying that when he is in the presence of people like that it feels like the inquisition. He advocates reading an author for what one can get out of it rather than to see if the author is orthodox, which is to present a false dilemma between two kinds of reading with two different purposes - both of which are perfectly legitimate. To suggest that only one way of reading is legitimate when one has been accused of teaching false doctrine is pretty self-serving and question-begging.

He says he was "stunned" that people could read his book, Everything Must Change, and then ask questions about the doctrine of the atonement - as if to think of a question on atonement after reading a book about Jesus is somehow surprising. He says "I talked about war, I talked about poverty, I talked about the environment - and all they wanted to talk about was atonement theory." The scorn in his voice here is crystal clear: how provincial and uncaring these people must be! Yet, if the greatest need of the poor is to know Jesus and the eternal salvation he offers, then it is cruel and unfeeling to place socialist ideology above the spiritual needs of poor people. Yet this is what he does - and then calls his critics uncaring because they object to his rejection of the penal substitution doctrine of the atonement, which is the heart of the gospel.

The discussion on universalism in the third part is not very interesting to me because I don't think we can know or are supposed to know whether it is somehow possible that more than we think will end up saved. All we know from Scripture is that eternal punishment is eternal and some are eternally punished. To go beyond this is dangerous. But it is interesting to see McLaren dancing around the question like a politician who knows he will lose votes if he gives a clear answer no matter which side he comes down on. It simply reinforces the impression that theology qua theology is not very interesting to McLaren; it is simply a tool that can be used to motivate certain people to embrace left-wing positions.

Answering a question about whether some of the things he writes are "provocatively ambiguous" McLaren compares his approach to that of Soren Kierkegaard, who said that when you are talking to people who are in the grip of an illusion, who are wrong but don't know they are wrong, it is difficult to be indirect. This shows what McLaren thinks of his "theological critics." Of course, it is not the liberals who criticize his theology; they have no problem with his theology because it leads him to agree with them on what they deeply care about: namely, politics. But conservatives are the ones who are concerned about possible false teaching and McLaren shows very little patience for them in this interview. They are the ones who are in the grip of an illusion and are so obviously wrong even though they can't see it. And why is he so sure they are wrong? Because they don't accept his leftist views on politics and ethics.

When asked about whether his rejection of "the Greco-Roman narrative" in A New Kind of Christianity does not contradict his affirmation of the faith of the Christian Church in Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren proceeds to redefine the word "faith." In so doing he sounds a lot like Rudolph Bultmann insofar as he makes a distinction between "faith" as trust and dependence on God and "faith" in the sense clearly meant in the question, which was "faith" in the sense of the main teachings of Christianity: the Gospel and the cardinal doctrines flowing from and supporting the Gospel. McLaren makes a great point of affirming the need for "faith" in the Bultmannian sense, which Evangelicals would not deny, but fails to go to affirm the importance of the Biblical Gospel and major doctrines that flesh out the Gospel, which would be just as important to Evangelicals as "faith" in the sense of trust.

McLaren shows a tendency here to view doctrine in a pragmatic manner; true doctrine is doctrine which leads those who hold it to take up a properly left-wing political stance. False doctrine is any doctrine that leads people to oppose left-wing politics. Doctrine is not true or false in itself; it becomes true or false only when its political outcomes are observed.

McLaren is not shy about specifying who in church history is right and who is wrong. He lists St. Patrick as over against Constantine, St. Francis as over against the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches in their colonial era and their crusading era. He also identifies with the approach taken by the Anabaptists and the Radical Reformation and in the modern era with movements like the Social Gospel, Liberation Theology, Black Theology, Latino Theology, Feminist and Eco Theologies and so on. Ironically, he gives this list of the "Good Guys" right after criticizing those who look in the Church for only one line of purity stretching down through church history. One wonders if he really objects to the methodology or the conclusions because he seems to be utilizing the same methodology by constructing his "alternative history" of what I suppose could be termed "counter-orthodoxy."

If you don't want to invest the time in reading his books, this 18 minute video is an excellent way to acquaint yourself with his main ideas in a first hand way in a short time.

Q | Conversations on Being a Heretic from Q Ideas on Vimeo.

The Emergent Church: Substituting Style for Substance

We have turned our church worship services into youth rallies. But even so, that suffices only to make the Emergent types mock us as not "cool" enough.

When is it going to dawn on us that there is no endpoint to the relentless accommodation of church architecture, music styles, order of worship, type of preaching etc. to the sloppy, middle class, youth culture-dominated mores of the modern West.

Watch this. It is enough to make you either laugh or cry.

So How About that New McLaren Book?

People have been asking me what I think about Brian McLaren's new book. I have not yet posted my opinion on it because I have this old-fashioned hang-up about actually reading a book before I trash it. (I know not everybody has this inhibition!) But seriously, it is coming as fast as Amazon.ca can get it here and I will read it and respond as soon as possible.

In the meantime, Bill Kinnon has compiled a very handy list of responses so far to McLaren. From what I've seen so far, I would have to agree with one person who offered the view that the majority opinion is a hesitant tendency to admit that the cranky conservatives have been right about him all along. I would not be surprised if that were the case, but as I say I want to read the book first.