Thus says the Lord: "Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.
But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'" --Jeremiah 6:16

 

28 April, 2005   comments: (0) Postmodernism   Emerging 'Odd Couple' Could Teach Each Other The Odd Couple. I used to love that show when I was kid. Felix was cultured, polite, and disciplined. Oscar on the other hand, was rough around the edges, always said the first thing that came to his mind, and had an ulcer from being so easily angered. Recently as I was surfing one Emerging Church blog, I couldn't help thinking that I had discovered a postmodern version of those colorful opposites, and these guys may even need each other's help, much as the original odd couple did. They say that the Emerging Church is a broad and diverse movement, and if we were to base that on personality types, the two guys that I found on the same blog recently would be all the proof you'd need. I was surprised that I had found Dan Kimball there, ending his comment with affirmation and encouragement to Iggy (aka: Carlos "Watchddawg" Shelton). As I read on, I was struck by how vastly opposite these two Emerging Church personalities are. Dan Kimball for example, once started off a reluctant critique of a John MacArthur letter by saying "I rarely, rarely ever try to specifically talk about someone in a negative light". An opposite mindset is quickly encountered on the Watchdawg blog however. Just as the original odd couple had pooled their resources to help one another, I think these two postmodern guys might have something to offer one another as well. No surprise, Dan Kimball's friendly demeanor could provide a positive behavioral example, but what does Iggy have to offer Dan in return? Well, Iggy could show him how to be a little more open or forthright. Allow me to explain: As you read Dan's reluctant critique of John MacArthur's short (and in my opinion - accurate) synopsis of the Emerging Church Movement, it almost seems that Dan has developed a case of amnesia. That's because, after so many of MacArthur's points, you find Dan Kimball responding with things like "What emerging church is he possibly talking about?", "Who in the world is he talking about?", "Where is he getting that information?". Meanwhile, as I'm reading MacArthur's points, I'm thinking "Yep, that's the Emerging Church Movement alright". So let's take one example from that page, one in which Iggy could really help jog Dan's memory. It's the subject of the Emerging Church's downplay of biblical doctrine. MacArthur says: "[People who are drawn to the emerging church] reject the notion that God's Word is clear, and anyone can understand its meaning. That means every doctrine you and I find precious is subject to new interpretation, doubt and even wholesale rejection. Everything is being questioned and deconstructed. ... The result is a movement that thrives on disorganization, lends itself to mysticism, distrusts authority and dislikes preaching, feeds intellectual pride and recognizes few (if any) doctrinal or moral boundaries..." To that Dan Kimball responds: "... So where is he getting the information that most emerging churches don't hold to doctrines? ... You go on their web sites and you quite often see the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed listed. So to say emerging churches don't have doctrines is very incorrect. ... I don't know of any emerging church who doesn't teach doctrines in their church. ..." Now, I'm certain that John MacArthur never meant to imply, as Dan tries to portray, that Emerging Churches "don't teach doctrine". Dan Kimball is a smart guy, and he knows that all teaching is "doctrine", technically speaking. So the fact that they teach "doctrine" is an easy claim to make, but it misses MacArthur's point. Dan also tries to enlist the Emerging Church's widespread acceptance of the slender early church creeds (along with some other basics that he's determined to be important such as the atonement and inspiration) as proof that these churches adequately embrace biblical doctrine. But unlike the Confessions of the 17th century, those earlier creeds encompass such a small fraction of the bible's doctrine, and offer no protection from numerous other heresies. So here's where Iggy can help Dan to grapple with what John MacArthur really meant about "doctrine". Granted not everyone in the Emerging Church Movement (including Dan) share the severity of this doctrinal disdain, but you only need to skim through the comments on Dan's blog to see that much of what you are about to read is not an isolated case. The following types of anti-doctrinal sentiments from Iggy's blog are commonplace throughout the Emerging Church Movement, though perhaps not in every last proponent: They stumble over Jesus as they try to fulfill their doctrine... A religionist will be overly concerned with doctrine ...that it be perfect. they are worse without even realizing it as they in their religious zealousness, have turned Christianity into an idolatress religion that seeks to only control God by their rules and doctrines... [they replace] Jesus with "doctrinal rules" We are not to place "stumbling blocks" in front of others ... and that includes man made doctrine... Doctrine is more important than people [to modern day Pharisees]. if one does not tow their doctrinal line... then they can judge, mock, bear false witness, and gossip against that person A religionist places doctrine before Love... I have learned from you that Love your neighbor does not apply if it interferes with your doctrines. I am sadder at the lack of love from some "so-called" Christians who push doctrine yet miss that the two commandments we are given are to Believe on Christ and to Love one another. Many of the harshest critics come from fundamentalist religious traditions where hot and inaccurate rhetoric is acceptable whenever doctrinal matters are in play. That's just the way certain kinds of fundamentlists do business, and they have done so for centuries - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, whatever. (Iggy quoting someone) Iggy in his post about James White: They write books to refute the other Christian's view yet rarely seem to write to reach the lost. This shows their concern more for "correct doctrine" as they define it over truly loving the lost. Iggy, about Phil Johnson's posts related to Dan Kimball: I for one am not fooled by Phil Johnson's fake apology... He is still showing the fatal flaw of Lordship Salvation... grace to you...only if you line up behind John MacArthur and other men and THEIR doctrine ... personally I will continue to be a Christ Follower! Phil, who made you Jesus and judge of another man's servant[?]... I think really you need to recheck your own doctrine and heart... stop preaching "works salvation" under the guise of Lordship Salvation and realize Spurgeon did not die for your sins... As I see you quote him almost more than the Scripture itself...God is on the move Phil and you are in the way. Iggy, speaking about yours truly: be sure to contact Jim and let him know how he has lied and bore false witness against me for it seems he has let his emotions dictate the meaning of Scripture and his doctrine stand in the way of Gods Grace. (Bold emphasis added by me). There's not that many postings over there, so you should have no problem looking up the contexts of those remarks, and I would encourage you to do so. Iggy is more blunt than most, but I've seen disparagement of doctrine like that in so much of the writing that comes from those who identify themselves with the Emerging Church Movement. Even if Dan Kimball doesn't share those sentiments himself, why didn't he fess-up to the reality of it all as he critiqued John MacArthur's letter? Instead, he behaved as though he had no idea what MacArthur was talking about. I have no reason to doubt that Dan Kimball is a brother in the Lord who shares the burden that so many of us have for evangelism in our culture. Putting aside this one case of apparent amnesia however, I am still left with concern over Dan Kimball's views of doctrine, which he is teaching others. Specifically, which doctrines he considers important enough to make a very strong defense of. Dan is helping many postmodern folks know where to draw lines of doctrinal certainty. But inevitably, when someone draws a line saying all of the things on this side are important, assumptions are then made that the things on the other side of the line are not important. And yet, everything in the bible was important enough for the Holy Spirit to inspire. As far as certainty goes, I believe that if people would commit to studying their bibles earnestly (2 Timothy 2:15), and if they would pray for help in putting aside biases and idols, all sorts of things would become certain that hadn't seemed that way before. The church today does not need compartmentalized unbelief and doctrinal-downplay; quite the opposite instead, as Spurgeon insisted . . . The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire. Posted by: Jim B.   Link: http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.662   Be the first to post a comment about this article        Home  |   About  |  Videos   |  Calvinism