I’ll warn you advance: this is one of those posts likely to get everyone upset. My intention, however, is to offer two helpful critiques in an effort to make certain discussions better for everyone. I think blogging too often degenerates into sniping, and I’ve tried not to do that lately, but occasionally sniping needs to be done (if I must call it that). To be generous to by Emergent brothers, I’ll critique my Reformed brothers first.

This year was the second year I’ve attended the ETS annual conference. As usual, it was a blast. Not just in buying 50 books (though such fun is not fiscally wise), but in learning from a such diverse group of scholars and getting opportunities to interact with them. Unfortunately, I must qualify diverse.

For some reason the bulk of distinctively Reformed scholars (men known primarily for defending Reformed theology) were not present this year, and frankly, this bugs me. I’m referring to people such as Michael Horton (though present briefly last year, was not there this year), W. Robert Godfrey, John Frame, David Wells, J. Ligon Duncan, R. Scott Clark, Meredith Kline, Robert Strimple, D.G. Hart, and K. Scott Oliphint (to name a few). Maybe because I’ve only gone to ETS for two years, I’ve missed some rationale for why these Reformed academics seem to have isolated themselves from evangelical scholarship.

This is symptomatic of what I perceive to be a practice of sectarianism in Reformed scholarship today. I respect, study, and agree with most of what these men teach, especially when it comes to critiquing contemporary evangelicalism. The problem is that much of the time they seem more interested in pointing out errors than working toward correcting them. At best, they just have a bad strategy. Each year, ETS is full of professors and graduate students who are engaged in the cutting edges of various theological discussions. Some of them will be pastors; most of them will influence important church ministers. And yet the only two men I saw consistently each year from this group were Peter Jones and Vern Poythress.  Maybe I missed some, but the point is that if the Reformed academics truly want to make a difference in evangelicalism, they need to get out of their Reformed bubbles and present their arguments before their critics. I say this because I think they’ll be successful if they actually do it and the world desperately needs them to be successful in every way possible. So with all due respect, Reformed academics, please stop acting like sectarian fundamentalists and start attempting to make a difference in the academy. (Since ETS is in San Diego next year, I see no good reason why most of the Westminster Seminary faculty shouldn’t be there.)

EDIT: My language in this criticism was harsh (eg- "sectarian fundamentalists"), and I apologize to any who may have been offended. Subsequent discussion has shown my analysis of these Reformed scholars to be largely uninformed- I refer the reader to Dr. R. Scott Clark's comment below and his link to Dr. Sean Lucas's comments.

There’s a similar problem with those who traverse the Emergent circle. At ETS, Brett Kunkle of Stand Reason presented an excellent paper describing his concerns with emerging churches (the paper is here, my summary is here). Brett was excruciatingly careful in making the appropriate distinctions, quoting people in context, and conversing with the men he cited in order to provide a fair and accurate analysis. As with R. Scott Smith’s excellent book Truth and the New Kind of Christian (our Book of the Year for 2005), those in the Emergent “conversation” have generally responded in two ways…

Response #1: Avoid criticisms by claiming to be misunderstood. Instead of dealing with any of the points raised by Scott or Brett, the points are typically written off as being straw men, without any explanation or evidence as to how the arguments are straw men. This is Tony Jones’ “public” response to Brett’s paper (see his blog and the Emergent Village blog). I don’t recall seeing many leading Emergent voices actually engage criticisms that have been made of their teaching* (please feel free point me to any you can find). Response #2: Ignore the criticisms. Scott’s book and Brett’s paper have for the most part been met with silence. D.A. Carson’s book caused quite a stir, but it was mostly a stir in the vein of the first response. Scott and Brett went beyond what should be necessary to be gracious in order avoid that first type of response. And for the most part they did avoid that response, but instead they are generally responded to with silence.

This leads me to believe that despite all the talk about “conversation,” most of those on the Emergent side of things (especially leaders such as Jones and McLaren) are really only interested in publicly conversing with people who believe exactly as they do. At best, they are just as sectarian as the fundamentalists they often criticize, and the Reformed academics I criticized above. Of course, I side with Carson, Scott, and Brett, and so I’d like the Emergent folk to engage their critics in hopes that they’d make certain changes. However, most of us critics are open to being wrong about where we stand and the best way to show us where we are wrong is to actually engage us instead of dismiss us.

*Caveat- I should note that Doug Pagitt did a public debate with one of his critics (Bob DeWaay), and I have a great deal of respect for him doing that.

UPDATE: Tony Jones has posted a response to Brett Kunkle's paper. I truly appreciate that he did this as it provides readers with a good opportunity to compare the thoughts of each author and the character with which they're offered.

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies.  To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well as the iron and coal as of our precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore.  Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.  No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.  They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. 

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people.  I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.  And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purpose, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, and union.

--Abraham Lincoln, October 3, 1863

I find Dr. Spiegel to be one of the most intriguing philosophers of our time. He’s one of the few presenters that I’ll probably highlight every year from ETS.

The contemporary understanding of the relationship between behavior and beliefs is that our actions flow from our cognitions. However, several Old Testament texts seem to suggest otherwise (Psalm 19:7, 25:9, Proverbs 1:4). Dr. Spiegel aims to explore how behavior impacts our beliefs.

His case is built on the epistemology of Alvin Plantinga. For Plantinga, a belief has “warrant” if 1) belief-forming mechanisms function properly, 2) operation is done in a favorable environment, 3) the cognitive system is successfully aimed at truth, and 4) there exists a sensus divinitatis. This is defined by Plantinga as “a kind of facult or cognitive mechanism… which in a wide variety of circumstances produces in us beliefs about God.” (Warranted Christian Belief, 154)

Sin has corrupted our cognitions and affections, such that the sensus divinitatis has been baldy damaged. This skews our ability to love and hate the right things accurately. Linda Zagzebski has criticized Plantinga’s model for being deficient of virtue consideration. We should consider some virtue amendments that are important for our intellectual life, as well as our formation into good persons.

One such virtue is that of phronesis, or practical wisdom. This is the sort of insight that may be described as a truth conducting intellectual quality necessary for moral conduct. Aristotle believed that without this virtue, we couldn’t be morally virtuous. We should also seek sophia, or speculative wisdom. In contrast to phronesis, sophia has nothing to do with conduct, it is solely an intellectual virtue. These two virtues are both intellectual virtues of insight, but one is in practical matters and the latter is in theoretical. Zagzebksi adds that phronesis is a higher-order virtue that governs all others (moral and intellectual).

One way our behaviors affect our beliefs is derivatively. For example, I must decide what to expose myself to in regards to mass media. My selection of which shows I watch, websites I visit, or radio stations I listen to will impact my attitudes and beliefs either negatively or positively.

Romans 1:18-28 presents us with a moral vicious cycle from suppression of truth to ignorance of God to epistemic corruption and further bad behavior. One way this occurs is through self-deception, such as the Christian minister who taught there’s nothing wrong with porn because it doesn’t involve touching. William James suggested that beliefs are emotions. Accordingly, regardless of the method used to arrive at our conviction, “the fundamental phenomenological feature of these convictions is emotional: our belief feels right. This, says James, is the sentiment of rationality.” For example, when we slander, the emotional pleasures we feel from it displaces our previous negative emotional associations with it. This makes the offense more likely to be repeated, thus presenting another vicious cycle.

These are corruption of the original design plan, disturbing the proper-function of our belief-forming mechanisms, creating environments hostile to correct belief formation, and further destruction of the sensus divinitatis. Conversely, the practice of virtues (instead of vices) avoids these negative epistemic effects. Exposure to beauty of all kinds improves the moral imagination, which is important to moral action. Good conduct, then, maximizes our cognitive functions while minimizing corruption due to sin. Virtuous actions result in the strengthening of our faith. Instead of a vicious cycle, here we have a “virtuous cycle.”

H. Chris Ross “Promoting Evangelical Faith Through New Media: Lessons from the English Reformation”

As Bob Dylan sang, “The time they are a-changin’.” Though he was describing the social changes of the 60’s, he could have said the same of sixteenth century Europe, or our situation today. The internet is often viewed as “the Guttenberg press of our time,” noting the similarities of the Reformation and current time periods. Mr. Ross believes these similarities have practical applications for Christians today.

The development of devotional literature in England provides important historical lessons. With the invention of the printing press, literacy levels rose and eventually the Bible and theological literature became more popular to larger groups of people. Much of the literature produced was works that used to be copied by hand.

In the latter sixteenth century, outlawed Catholic works started making their way into England. This was mostly devotional literature that appealed to both Protestants and Catholics. Due to the doctrinal emphasis of the Reformation, Protestants had not produced new spiritual literature of their own. Instead, some people, such as Edmund Bunny, adapted popular Catholic books by taking out the conflicting Catholic parts and republishing them as Protestant literature (this was before any real copyright restrictions).

It wasn’t until Richard Rogers published his Seven Treatises in 1602 that Protestants had a distinct devotional work that reflected the spiritual needs of the time. After this, more followed, but it took some time for Protestants to recognize the need and opportunity for such literature.

Mr. Ross suggested three significant parallels to today:

1)      Then, as there is today, there was unprecedented religious plurality.

2)      Those in the time of the Reformation were living between two forms of culture- oral and print. Today we live between print and electronic. The changes are gradual, but monumental.

3)      In both time periods, people gained a greater sense of spiritual autonomy, which makes them vulnerable to spiritual consumerism.

There are two lessons he believes we can draw from this bit of church history:

1)      Evangelical leaders need to be students of the present. We must at least be aware of new media and how it is impacting us.

2)      Evangelicals need to exploit the new media to spread the Gospel. We should utilize the most effective means to communicate the Gospel, which may mean utilizing electronic media.

Brett Kunkle’s paper on the Emerging Church has been one of the most popular papers this year. It is available on STR's website.

In his preliminary remarks, Brett claimed that he is qualified to speak about the emerging church because he’s personally met with many of its leading voices, attended their conferences and lectures, read their books, and attends what many consider to be an emerging church. While he made some very powerful criticisms, he noted that he does not reject everything that is going on in emerging churches.

Brett raised three areas of concern in assessing the emerging church movement (a broad missional perspective of doing church) and Emergent Village (an organization promoting changes in mission and theology) specifically. In each area, he gave examples of questionable teachings of Emergent leaders (Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt), noting that they do not speak for the whole movement, but are influential voices.

The first concern is concerning the cross. Brett cited quotes from McLaren’s work that question substitutionary atonement and promote ignorance of why Christ had to die. The second concern has to do with the authority of the Bible. Brett cited quotes from Pagitt that claim the Bible’s authority depends on the communities that use it. This makes the community authoritative rather than the Bible. The final concern has to do with the nature of truth. He again looked at remarks about truth from Pagitt that seem confused as to what truth is.

In the second part of his paper, Brett raised his most serious concern- that the door is wide open to unorthodoxy. He does not believe, for example, that Tony Jones is currently unorthodox. However, by putting “everything on the table” for reconsideration, they could easily go that route. He used Spencer Burke and his book, A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, as an example of how unorthodox those in the emerging movement can get.

This morning, Dr. Erik Thoennes read his paper “Laughing Through Tears: The Redemptive Role of Humor in a Fallen World.” He noted that the ability to laugh helps deal with difficulties we face in life.

Dr. Thoennes offered four reasons for why Christians should study humor:

1)      Humor is a unique human experience, and it is central to human relationships.

2)      Humor goes to the gutter quickly.

3)      Maturity should lead to Godly sense of humor. He cited some self-critical questions posed by A.W. Tozer, one of which was “What do I laugh at?”

4)      Ministering should lead to Godly laughter for us and those we serve.

Humor is commonly defined at words or actions intended to cause laughter. Most often, it involves recognition of incongruity.

While the Bible does not speak directly of God’s humor, and it is primarily serious in nature, humor is a subtext of the Bible. Dr. Thoennes went through several instances of humor throughout the Bible in categories such as irony, sarcasm, etc.

He suggests that there is a link between humor and hope. The story of the incarnation is rampant with ironic humor, such as the Sustainer of the universe riding into Jerusalem on a donkey as His “triumphal entry.”

I'm reporting to you from our nation's capitol tonight, gearing up for the next few days of the ETS annual conference. Each year the Evangelical Theological Society gathers a few thousand scholars from around the nation (and beyond) for a non-stop theology marathon. This year, we're in D.C. with the theme "Christianity in the Public Square." I hear there will be around 600 papers presented. Naturally I can't make it to all of them, but I can blog on a few that I do attend. Last year I reported on five papers, and to give you a taste of what's to come, here's the recap:

Wayne Grudem on Poverty and Wealth

Moreland v. Franke on Non-Foundationalism

James Spiegel on Ethics and Art (I also did a post on where I disagreed with him)

John Hammett on the Emerging Church

James Beverley on Ravi Zacharias, Robert Millet, and the New Dialogue

A Jester Unemployed has some simple suggestions here and here for honoring and supporting our military this Veterans Day.  Read through her reflections on love and self-sacrifice and consider sacrificing some of your own time or treasure (writing a quick note to a lonely soldier doesn't take much of either!) at Soldiers' Angels today.