Roger:

Thanks for the further feedback.

You wrote: "My main point here is that it’s not helpful to point at heretics in the conversation and therefore stop engaging in it."

I'll be candid. That's where I think we don't quite see eye to eye. The problem with the Emerging conversation is not that a handful of heretics are trying to horn in on an otherwise fruitful and beneficial conversation, but that people with unorthodox doctrinal agendas commandeered the "conversation" almost from the get-go.

It's not realistic to imagine that any amount of "friendly persuasion" is going to make a change in the direction of the larger movement. There's a reason hospitals don't try to cure infectious diseases by unleashing healthy people among those who are already sick. Heresy, like infection, always works the other way around. (I don't know of an unorthodox movement in the history of Christianity that has ever gradually come around to orthodoxy through friendly dialogue with—or subtle infiltration by—sounder minds.)

I see absolutely no warrant and no apostolic example for engaging in friendly conversation with heretical teachers. Second Timothy 2:23-26 tells shepherds how to deal with wayward sheep. That is not a recipe for how to handle wolves in sheep's clothing.

On the contrary, it seems to me that there are lots of explicit commands forbidding us to cultivate partnerships, friendly relationships, or even academic comradeships with the purveyors of rank heresy. "Receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 10-11).

A friendly dialogue with Kimball or Driscoll on an individual basis is one thing. The idea of joining the whole wide-ranging "Emergent Conversation" is quite another. Such a strategy strikes me as abominable. As a matter of fact, my first bit of advice to Driscoll in any private dialogue would likely be a direct quotation from 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 and a passionate plea for him to take the command in verse 17 very seriously.

That would likewise be the heart of any message I think might truly and constructively "encourage the masses [in the Emerging mainstream] toward historical-orthodox Christianity."

Do I sound like a hard-core fundie? Well, here's my assessment of that: dialogue with some of the more thoughtful old-line fundamentalists would probably be a thousand times more fruitful for mainstream evangelicals than playing footsie with postmodern fads. For every positive thing we "can learn from" the Emerging subculture, evangelical give-and-take with that movement would expose us to a thousand deadly pitfalls. On the other hand, I think there are still a few sensible fundamentalists out there who remember some important biblical truths evangelicalism as a movement has stupidly discarded—beginning with the biblical mandates for holiness and separation from evil influences.

“It's not realistic to imagine that any amount of "friendly persuasion" is going to make a change in the direction of the larger movement…. I see absolutely no warrant and no apostolic example for engaging in friendly conversation with heretical teachers.”

I’m not talking about conversing with the heretical teachers. I’m talking about the masses of individuals who are inclined to be influenced by those teachers but are also being influenced by the better voices like Driscoll, Kimball, and Keller. I care far less about where the “conversation” or movement is going than the individuals who consider themselves in it. I know too many people who are open to this stuff to just walk away and let them walk down that path. If we have a voice in the conversation, we have a better chance of influencing them.

Roger: "I know too many people who are open to this stuff to just walk away and let them walk down that path. If we have a voice in the conversation, we have a better chance of influencing them."

I can appreciate that. Those same people are who I am most concerned for, too. But I'd rather be a voice from outside the movement itself. It seems to me church history shows a pretty consistent pattern on this: people who try to remain in an abberant movement or a mixed multitude in order to be an "influence" ultimately have less influence than those who stand outside and try from that position to minister appropriately to those still on the inside(distinguishing as carefully as possible between the convinced and the merely confused). See Jude 21-23.

What's interesting to me is that emerging/emergent folk are now wanting others to be very sensitive to finely-graded distinctions of nomenclature. "No, I'm not Emergent, I'm emerging." But according to postmodern theory all reality is socially and linguistically constructed, nothing of objective reality can really be known with any certainty, and all truth claims can only be made and understood temporally and locally.

That being the case (and I am fully aware that less hardcore Emergent/emerging folk like to take a cafeteria approach to postmodern theory, picking and choosing which postmodern ideas they find palatable), how can any Emergent/emerging pastor or leader take umbrage when some other pastor/leader/blogger in another local context wishes to use terms in a certain way?

Isn't arguing over definition of terms, as if fixed meaning which communicates authorial intent was really attainable, a thoroughly modern enterprise?

“But according to postmodern theory…”

This is why the distinctions that Ed Stetzer made are valuable. The folks in the emerging conversation who care about the distinctions (like Driscoll) are the ones who haven’t bought postmodern epistemology. I’m not convinced that even a majority of those in the conversation have bought postmodern epistemology. If you look back at Dan Kimball’s book, The Emerging Church, you won’t find an embrace of postmodernism. Instead, you’ll find him trying to remove ecclesiological elements that are obstacles to postmodern people. The Gospel is offensive; we don’t need to add offense or obstacles to it by the way we do church.

This is the “relevant” approach according to Stetzer. The problem is going to far with that and becoming revisionist, messing with theology (the Gospel itself) to remove obstacles. Some have already gone that route (e.g. Burke, McLaren), but not all have. We do the relevants a disservice when we throw them in the same camp as the revisionists.

"I’m not convinced that even a majority of those in the conversation have bought postmodern epistemology."

I do hope you're right. There is cause for concern though. On the popular side, George Barna's work suggest that a majority of Christians now question whether or not there is such a thing as absolute truth, or if there is that it is knowable. On the theological/philosophical side, Hauerwas, Grenz, and Franke (among others), do largely espouse an epistemology highly influenced by postmodern theory -- and they in turn have been very influential on the leaders of the emergent/emerging church movement.

That's true. But I think what Barna's looking at is a larger evangelical problem, not necessarily an emerging church problem. I agree, though, that Hauerwas, Grenz, and Franke have been influential in promoting postmodern epistemology.

Roger,

Where has Driscoll denied limited atonement? I don't think that's true.

Justin Taylor

Driscoll calls his position "Unlimited Limited Atonement"

Driscoll does hold to a position known as "Unlimited Limited Atonement" - in my understanding it is very similar to that of Bruce Ware. Interesting enough, Dr. Ware will be speaking on Mode of Providence in partnership with Resurgence in Seattle. I think the more the Mars Hill guys interact with good reformed theologians and the more the reformed theologians interact with the Mars Hill guys the better the both shall be. Driscoll's sermon on the subject can be found here. Personally, I like the paths being blazed which are theologically driven and missiologically contextualized...a narrow road, but one which ought to be forged in the wilderness of the contemporary West.

I'm not familiar with Bruce Ware's position on atonement. Where is that available?

I'll be posting tonight after work on Driscoll's view of atonement since apparently some don't think his is much different from the traditional Reformed view. I too appreciate his generally good theology balanced with missional adeptness. This is the only point in his theology I've had a problem with so far.

He gave it out to us in class as a five page outline...I'm not sure if it is a public document. The file is entitled:

Extent of the Atonement:
Outline of The Issue, Positions, Key Texts,
and Key Theological Arguments
Bruce A. Ware
Professor of Christian Theology
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

In a nutshell his summary is as follows:
"Un/limited Atonement or Multiple Intentions View (Four Point Calvinist Position)"

Statement of the Position
God’s intentions in the death of Christ are complex not simple, multiple not single: 1) Christ died for the purpose of securing the sure and certain salvation of his own, his elect. 2) Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people making it possible for all who believe to be saved. 3) Christ died for the purpose of securing the bone fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere. 4) Christ died for the purpose of providing an additional basis for condemnation for those who hear and reject the gospel that has been genuinely offered to them. 5) Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father.

As a guy who used to carry a bookmark of a John Owen Syllogism on limited atonement in my Bible I asked a few questions in class. I think that "atonement" of course is for the elect - what Dr. Ware does here is explain all the purposes of the cross which are multiple.

Now from my discussions with some of my friends at Mars Hill, they hold to a similar position. The hardcore Owen guys won't like it, but it is far from anything in the neighborhood of heresy or Arminianism.

Dr. Ware's file is a great summary of the positions, with this offered as a middle ground. I can see if he would permit the posting of the file.

Bruce Ware gave permission for me to post his document outlining various positions on the atonement. The third option, letter C, un/limited atonement or multiple intentions view is the one I find to be very close to that of the elders at Mars Hill. The pdf can be found here. It is in outline form but touches all the texts and positions quite well. Now one can say "this is not the reformed position" if you choose. Dr. Ware is an outstanding scholar who holds firmly to the doctrines of grace and as strong a postion on meticulous divine providence that one will find...a fine infralapsarian and a great teacher as well. So the Mars Hill guys are in now way "modified Arminians" in my opinion.

It would seem to me that Driscoll is not attempting to "blend Reformed theology with postmodern epistemologies." The truth claims he regularly makes regarding doctrine and his bibliology alone are enough to show the man holds postmodern epistemologies in contempt. I would like to see Phil Johnson (or others) be more specific regarding particular manifestations of how Driscoll is flirting with and dabbling in postmodern approaches to theology which doom his theology. I ask that not rhetorically but as an honest question seeking to understand this critique better.

It may not be fair, but when I read critiques of Driscoll I always wonder in the back of my mind whether or not the critic is more uncomfortable with Driscoll's theology or the way he packages it. If Driscoll made the same truth claims (doctrines) but wore a tie, didn't use illustrations from Ultimate Fighting Championship, and moved out of the Pacific Northwest would that make him any more or less "hopelessly naive"?

SEZ

Scott Z: "when I read critiques of Driscoll I always wonder in the back of my mind whether or not the critic is more uncomfortable with Driscoll's theology or the way he packages it."

Well, in my mind the latter concern is admittedly a factor, but I don't think a neat line can always be drawn between content and medium. Marshall McLuhan was right about that.

I have to say, however, that my concerns are hardly as gauche as whether someone wears a tie. Getting facial piercings and tattoos in order to "contextualize" oneself for the goth and skater communities would be more in the direction of the kind of thing that concerns me.

On the specific example you cited, I'll admit to you that I don't know enough about UFC® to know whether it's wholesome or not. But if a preacher starts illustrating tales in such a way as to suggest that he sees no inconsistency between the blamelessness required of an elder and a pastime or personal passion that is clearly unwholesome, he has already compromised his message.

With that in mind, let me say that the remark I made about Driscoll was in reference to language he uses and anecdotes he tells, such as the one Tim Challies cited at the end of his review of Confessions of a Reformission Rev.

By the way, the "phil" who has posted comments in this thread is someone other than me, in case anyone might be confusing us.