Unfortunately this will not be a book review.  I haven’t had the opportunity yet to read the book, though I plan to in the near future.  I did however read the Christianity Today article bearing the same title two years ago, and I’ve seen, heard or read several interviews with the author (here's a good one).  Here I simply wish to make a few comments in light of a recent study done by ChurchRelevence.com (more on that in a moment).

Basically, a good chunk o’ Christian youth (roughly 18 – 25) are moving away from the Arminian, mainstream evangelicalism of their childhood toward (to differing degrees) classical Reformed theology (the primary motive being, at least according to the CT article, a desire for deeper theology grounded in historic creeds and confessions).  The majority of the credit for this Renaissance of Reformed thought is given to John Piper.  Because of his passionate preaching and evident concern for world missions, Piper has managed to break into circles (such as the annual Passion Conference) that were previously closed, sometimes even hostile, to Reformed theology.   Thus, Let The Nations Be Glad became a “gateway drug” to Piper’s deeply Reformed emphasis on the radical sinfulness of man, the radical holiness of God, and His absolute sovereignty in all things. 

All this makes sense to me (and I have no doubt that it’s true), but as a blogger, I can’t help but wonder if the recent advent of New Media has contributed to this exodus into the Reformed promised land.  R. C. Sproul was on the cutting edge in the late 80’s and 90’s.  Ligonier made use of every available medium of communication, from radio to cassette tapes, to videos.  Now Dr. Sproul’s teaching series are available daily on the internet and satellite TV.  So, you might ask, why wasn’t there a Reformed Renaissance in the 90’s?  I think it has been slowly building.  Many today who are in the 18 – 25 bracket could have grown up with Dr. Piper’s or Dr. Sproul’s ministries, or their parents could have been first introduced to it.  The use of so many different forms of media mean that some folk who would not have otherwise been exposed to Reformed teaching had the opportunity to see loving, Christ-like pastors and teachers arguing passionately for the clear teaching of Scripture as expressed by historic Reformation theology.  Both Piper and Sproul (and others), it must be admitted, break the mold of what most non-Reformed people tend to think of Reformed people (or worse…Calvinists!).  The point being, there have probably been 1,000 John Pipers preaching faithfully to their small Reformed congregations over the last 100 years, but no one outside their limited communities knew them.  And no one would actually pick up the writings of Calvin or Edwards because of the stigma surrounding “Calvinism.”  Godly men like John Piper, in most cases, remove that stigma.

Now fast forward to 2009.  ChurchRelevance.com has posted a list of the “Top 60 Church Blogs.”  As I looked at the list I was suddenly struck by how many of these blogs are Reformed (some of them are even “confessional”!).  Not only are the top 2 blogs Reformed, which really says something all by itself, but of the 60, a total of 10 are definitely Reformed, at least 1 (the Evangelical Outpost, formerly of Joe Carter) was Calvinist, though Joe didn’t wear it on his sleeve, and perhaps 2 or 3 others as well, but I’m not confident enough to say for sure.  Now 10 – 12 isn’t a LOT out of 60, but consider that no other single theological strain or movement has nearly so many (the Emergent movement had 3 or 4 by my count). 

Now, the correlation-causation relationship is always tricky.  Are there so many popular Reformed blogs because of the movement, or has the movement grown, at least in part, because of so many average Reformed Joes and more-than-average Reformed mega-stars getting into New Media and using it more effectively than the other guys?  I can’t really say for sure, but given what I’ve seen happen with New Media in other arenas over the past decade, I’m inclined to think the latter. 

Has anyone read Hansen’s book?  Does he address this issue at all, and if so, what does he have to say? 

In honor of John Calvin's 500th birthday, Westminster Seminary California's 2008 Conference is on the lasting legacy of John Calvin's life and work for the contemporary church.  The conference is tonight from 6 - 9pm and tomorrow from 8am - 2:45pm.  Unfortunately it is sold out, but for those of you interested in following the conference online, Dr. Scott Clark (Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at WSC) will be live blogging here.  The live blogging will begin right at 6pm tonight and run through the whole length of the conference (minus Dr. Clark's session, if he can't find someone to fill in for him). 

You can subscribe via RSS feed here. 

Also, here is the conference schedule.  And here are the speaker bios. 

Some people have argued that historical theology has little relevance to postmoderns, therefore the church must reflect the current culture to reach them. William Henard contends that historical theology is still relevant, using Jonathan Edwards as an example. For one, though Edwards did not face every manifestation of sin present today, he did encounter the same basic sins. Second, many of today’s youth and leaders are drawn to the Reformers, as evidenced in Colin Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed. Since sinners now seem to be in the hands of the Emergent church, Edwards must join the conversation.

Though no simple definition for Emergent exists, they do have a “consistent model of inconsistency.” Henard makes use of Ed Setzer’s tri-fold definition of Emergent: relevants, reconstructionists and revisionists. His focus is primarily on the revisionists, though he recognizes not everyone necessarily fits into one group or another.

There are several areas where Edwards would affirm the Emergent church. For innovation, Edwards would appreciate the Emergents’s use of music to help inspire people’s relationship with God through experiencing his presence. Edwards was one of the first in his day to make use of hymns as he believed it connects beauty and excellence with our understanding of God.

Edwards saw the value of aiding itinerant preachers in the midst of the revival occurring during his time. Though he warned George Whitefield about emotional impulses, he allowed Whitefield to preach four times at his church and let him stay at his house. Many pastors at the time were uncomfortable with such preachers, but Edwards defended them. Thus Edwards would be in favor of unusual methods of evangelism as long as the Gospel is in tact.

Breaking from typical Protestant hermeneutics, Edwards argued for a spiritual sense of Scripture. He believed that Christians are occupied by the Holy Spirit and therefore spiritual understanding of the Scriptures develops as a product of God’s grace apart from having a simply rational understanding. Thus, Edwards would affirm the desire of Emergents to partake in experiential praise.

One of the reasons Emergents are drawn to Jesus is his narrative preaching style. Edwards also often used illustrations relevant to people’s every day lives for the sake of their understanding. When his preaching changed contexts, he adapted from reading a written manuscript to using an outline that allowed for more extemporaneous preaching.

Edwards would also affirm the missional approach to cultural engagement. Noting the specific needs of youth in his area, Edwards began a Bible study just for the youth- an uncommon practice in his day. He used whatever common ground available between him and non-believers as opportunities to teach the gospel, including experiences of death and suicide.

There are, of course, a number of areas where Edwards would not agree with the Emergent church. Edwards held to the traditional Protestant view of Scripture: that it is inspired by God as His revelation and therefore it is completely accurate. He would caution those in the Emergent church who put the authority of a conversing community above the authority of Scripture. He would condemn Brian McLaren’s suggestions that the Bible has evolved over time and does not hold all the answers.

Edwards’ high view of theology is apparent throughout his sermons and writings and he understood it as the basis for Christian living and our understanding of culture. Some in the Emergent church seem to believe there can be right behavior without right beliefs and that culture should interpret theology. Edwards would stand against them and argue for the centrality of theology.

Some in the Emergent church have shifted from a proclamation style of preaching to one of conversation and dialogue. Though Edwards would agree with much of their narrative approach, he would contend for the necessity of proclaiming the truth as the central element of worship.

Henard claims that the Emergent emphasis on conversation in evangelism is rooted in a fear of confrontation. There appears to be a willingness to let people find their way into the community without a clear commitment to the truth of the gospel. Edwards believed that conversation happened at once and that there are several steps in the process. He regularly invited people to a salvation offered by Christ, recognizing that a decision must be made.

Finally, Edwards held that character is a mark that distinguishes Christians from the world around them. He argued against the notion that Christians should become a part of culture in order to be relevant. He would be critical of those who appear to be influenced by the world rather than having an influence on the world.

 

Mark Wittmer contends that many of the “new” ideas proposed by Brian McLaren were addressed 85 years ago by J. Gresham Machen in his classic work Christianity and Liberalism (1923, Eerdmans). His paper contrasted the teaching of McLaren and Machen in six important areas.

1. Living like Jesus is more important than believing in him.

McLaren suggests that what people believe is of little importance and likely not relevant to our salvation. What is important is right action as modeled by Jesus. McLaren believes that some people (conservatives) use John 14:6 (“I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me”) to mean that Jesus stands in the way of those desiring truth and life. According to McLaren, what Jesus really meant to say is that he is the way to live.

The liberals of Machen’s day saw doctrine as divisive and instead emphasized ethics. Machen replied that Christ is not merely an “example of faith” but is “primarily the object of faith.” He argued that the Christian faith is not faith like Jesus but in Jesus. He believed we should look not to “the example of Jesus, but the redeeming work of Jesus” as the emphasis of our faith.

2. People are basically good and free from original sin.

McLaren is not clear about his belief on this subject, but he wrote the foreword to Burke’s A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity and endorsed Pagitt’s A Christianity Worth Believing, both of which deny original sin. When asked in a radio interview if he believes salvation is by grace through faith alone, McLaren answered yes, “we simply accept our acceptance by our creator.” Lacking from his response is the idea that we need a redeemer, and he sounds as though he believes salvation is an “opt-out plan” rather than an “opt-in plan.”

Machen wrote, “According to modern liberal, there is really no such thing as sin. At the very root of the modern liberal movement is the loss of the consciousness of sin.” He argued that the teaching the truth about sin is necessary to teaching the gospel. “Without the consciousness of sin, the whole gospel will seem to be an idle tale.”

3. Objection to Penal Substitution

McLaren denies the penal part of substitution. He said, “Having an innocent person die for guilty people did not seem to solve the ‘injustice’ of forgiveness—it only seemed to add to the injustice.”

The liberals of Machen’s day held the same belief, insisting that a loving God would forgive without penalty. Machen saw that their view resulted from a light view of sin. He also clarified that God did not punish someone else for our sin, but that he takes it on himself and becomes our sacrifice.

4. Unite Christians and non-Christians and emphasize our common journey with God

McLaren claims that “the thrust of Jesus’ message is about inclusion—shocking, scandalous inclusion.” He continued, “To be truly inclusive, the kingdom must exclude exclusive people.” He suggests that Christianity was not created by Jesus to be exclusive based on belief.

Machen affirmed the brotherhood of man, but also pointed out that our brotherhood as Christians is far more intimate and he reserved the term brother for those who are redeemed.

5. Inclusivism: extends salvation to include those who have not believed in Christ.

 

McLaren “suspects” that a person does not need to call themselves a Christian to follow Jesus. He suggests that Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus do not need to leave their religions to enter the kingdom.

Machen replied to the liberals that taught this that the Christian gospel demands exclusive devotion to Christ. “Salvation, in other words, was not merely through Christ, but it was only through Christ.”

6. Focus on this life rather than the afterlife

McLaren believes that preoccupation with hell tempts us to devalue and trivialize life before death. He’s concerned that we are so focused on avoiding hell that God’s will on earth is forgotten.

Machen saw this view as rooted in the over-emphasis on applied Christian ethics. He saw the importance of doing God’s will today, but also understood that our ethic fits within a larger Christian framework of God’s dealings with humanity.

Conclusion

            McLaren does differ from the liberalism of Machen’s day. He does not deny the miraculous or supernatural. So in contrast to them, he affirms the existence of God, diety of Jesus and historicity of the resurrection. But like them he makes ethics more important than doctrine and reason more important than revelation.

Some of the folks who are part of the Emergent "movement" recently published their own version of the Bible. I haven't seen it personally, but this review points out some serious problems with it:

I recently purchased a copy of this fresh “dynamic translation” of Bible and spent some time doing comparative work with key passages of the New Testament from The Voice, The ESV and the Greek text. Sadly I must report that this new Emergent “translation” is so far off the mark that I think one could reasonably argue that by producing their own distorted version of the Bible the Emergent church has crossed the line from being a ‘movement’ to actually becoming a cult.

Read the rest of this review (the first in a series).

Dr. Michael Horton's new book, Christless Christianity, is now available (with a DVD set soon to follow).  I just got my copy and I'll be reviewing it in the near future.  For now, here's a short preview of the DVD:




You can order the book and DVD together for a special discounted price (or just order one at the regular price) from the Westminster Seminary California Bookstore. 

The Emerging Church is officially dead...at least, the name is dead.  Dan Kimball says of the term, "I can't defend or even explain theologically what is now known broadly as 'the emerging church' anymore, because it has developed into so many significantly different theological strands. Some I strongly would disagree with." 

"Emerging Church" is being dropped by people across the theological board.  It's no surprise that the term has become useless, for it doesn't define what must be the most central aspect of any church movement: the God they worship.  The many conceptions of God and Christianity that evolved without boundaries among the emerging churches couldn't be united on the lesser issues of evangelism and mission, as important as those issues are.  And when such a thing (uniting as an "Emerging" movement) was attempted, the result was often a greater focus on people and community (the subject of evangelism and mission) rather than on God simply because of the nature of the way the movement defined itself.  Beginning with defined doctrine is a much better way to make Christ the foundation--the focus--of a movement.

Dan has a new network in the works that will try to make a fresh start in the direction he originally intended when he created the "Emerging Church" term:

The still unnamed network has agreed to start with the inclusive but orthodox theological foundation of the Lausanne Covenant, and they intend to emphasize mission and evangelism. They appear to have learned from the emerging church’s mistake--define purpose and doctrine early so your identity doesn’t get hijacked.

(HT: Stand to Reason)

Click here Part One of the interview.

One of the criticisms made of new media platforms (such as blogging and social networks like MySpace and Facebook) is that they encourage fascination with the self. How might Christians involved in new media avoid the trap of self-fascination?

Virtual reality can simply be a world of information or it can be the world into which the lonely and the disconnected find solace and “relationships” which have none of the human reality of actual relationships.  Virtual relationships are an illusion; real relationships are what we are made for by creation.  So, we need simply to ask ourselves how we are using these technologies and why.  What needs are they meeting?  The need for information or for communication is one thing; the need for distraction, or to feel connected is something else. Technology can’t really do too much which is healthy along these lines if a basis of relationship is not already there.

You draw a strict line between spiritual practices that are pagan in nature and biblical in nature. How do some evangelical practices today reflect pagan spirituality rather than biblical spirituality?

The key is that biblical spirituality comes from “above” and pagan spirituality comes from “below.”  The language of “above” is used over and over again in Scripture of Christ’s incarnation from a realm which we as humans and as sinners cannot access.  God is, as it were, beyond our reach and beyond our natural radar.  That fact, however, is not obvious to us.  If it were, we who are sinners would not be seeking him on our own terms, in our own way, and assuming that he can be accessed when we want and for whatever it is that we want.  These assumptions make up the spirituality from “below” and while it is exactly what pagans have always done it is now exactly what contemporary consumers are doing.  The sacred is there to be used when we want, how we want, and for whatever needs we have just as products are which we can buy at the mall.

Many of the emergents who teach pagan spiritual practices "from below," as you've identified them, believe their spirituality is "from above" because the practices are based on the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Is this just the language game, or can the Spirit use practices "from below" to teach and enrich the lives of God's people?

No, we should not play games with ourselves.  The work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is tied to the Word written and the Word living.  The work of the Holy Spirit is to illumine the Scripture he inspired in the first place and, second, to apply the work of Christ to people today.  So, in this sense, the work of the Spirit coincides with the work of Christ.  Why else would Scripture speak of the Spirit is the “Spirit of Christ” or “his Spirit”?  When people start ascribing to the Spirit their own internal intuitions, senses about life, desires, and yearnings, they will soon find themselves adrift if they have not asked themselves two questions: first, have I checked what I am sensing against the (objective) revelation of God’s Word?  Second, is what I am sensing leading me to a deeper understanding of, and more faithful service to Christ?  If we have no answers to these questions, let us speak no more about the “Spirit” doing this and doing that!

Some believe that it is the churches that have neglected the reciting and teaching of Christian creeds and confessions that have fallen out of historic Protestantism today. How effective do you think creeds and confessions might be in helping to rebuild the evangelical church?

Creeds and confessions are secondary reflections on biblical truth which seek to capture what it is teaching in succinct ways.  They are very helpful to those who, at a primary level, are daily engaged with the truth of Scripture.  And, almost incidentally, they are reminders—since most come from the past-- that we belong to a single people of God which stretches across time and is found in almost very culture in the world.  Creeds and confessions, however, are of little use to those who are strangers to the truth of Scripture.

You conclude that churches must be God centered as opposed to consumer or Self centered. Since most Christians aren't involved in church leadership, how might individuals effect changes toward God centered Protestantism?

It is hard, on the one hand, for those in what used to be called the pew to change the tenor and temper of their churches when their pastors are off chasing success, numbers, and cultural “relevance.”  Many churches, on the other hand, deserve the leaders they have because their audiences (may we still say “congregations”?!) are enablers who want their Christianity lite and undemanding.  Here are all the symptoms of our decline and among those who yearn for something so much better are the seeds of renewal.  May their number grow every day!