Tom Ascol yesterday provided commentary on an article with which I concur goes overboard in its response to what is known as The Emergent Church. Tom makes a proper distinction between 'emergent movement' and 'emerging movement.' I would like to offer a further explanation.
According to the article, the term 'emergent church' "refers to a loose association of people who share common values and attitudes toward, well, everything. It’s Christianity for postmoderns who don’t like truth, knowledge, science, authority, doctrine, institutions, or religion. They claim absolute or objective truth is unknowable, that the only 'truth' that can be known is rooted in communities of shared subjective experience–the infamous 'it’s my truth' of relativism." While the article is "over the top" in its criticism (Ascol, which I agree), this definition is pretty accurate. Some of the leaders in this movement are Brian McLaren (author and pastor), Stanley Grenz and Roger Olsen (theologians).
'Emergent' is a radical subgroup under a large umbrella of often referred to as 'emerging' though both terms are often used synomously. The leading spokesperson for the 'emerging' group is Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA. He gives about 4 minute distinction between 'emergent' and 'emerging' on YouTube. More info on the strain with which he identifies can be found at the Acts 29 Network. As you will note, they too are concerned about reaching our postmodern culture. However, they are not seeking to do so at the expense of truth and doctrine like those in the 'emergent' movement who have jettisoned truth altogether. While these two movements are often lumped together because of the similarity in name, they are very different in this regard. One has a genuine burden to reach this world with the truth of the gospel. The other does not, but seeks community in a purely social construct.
While I think there are dangers in both of these movements, the 'emergent' group (McClaren and others) quite frankly are heretical. While I agree to disagree with some (but not all) of the methods of the 'emerging group' (Driscoll and others), I would not and do not consider them heretical. In some ways I admire their passion and concern to reach this culture.
Tom, if I have misrepresented your distinction, then accept my apology.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Without Prejudice?
There is a new show airing on cable and satellite tonight called "Without Prejudice?" The byline for the program reads, "A panel decides which of five contestants deserves a prize of $25,000. " Seems innocent enough. However, a commercial for this program on the radio this morning revealed that one of the people the panel will "judge," presumably without prejudice in order to win the prize, is described as "a gay white evangelical."
This description provides an ethical dilemma for those involved in "judging" this individual. The dilemma begins by defining what prejudice really is. Is it based upon truth or upon one's preferences? Does disagreeing with another's views necessarily infringe on one's "rights"? Will the panel deciding which of the contestants is "without prejudice" all have views that are "without prejudice"? You see the dilemma.
Concerning the individual mentioned above, let me offer my "without prejudice" viewpoint. There is only one of the adjectives describing this man that is totally outside of his control and/or choice. That is his race - white. That is determined genetically before birth by his biological parents. The fact that he is male is also determined genetically.
However, there is no "gay" gene. There is no gene of this nature that naturally or physically predisposes one toward a homosexual orientation. For those who adhere to this fallacy, I would like to ask a few questions: 1) If there were such a gene proven scientifically (which to date there is not) then has there ever been an instance of one who has the gene to go against the genetic makeup? In other words, can one have the gene and not be gay? 2) Has there been any documentation concerning one who does not have this presumed gene and is yet gay?
Further, there is no "god" gene either. Yes, every human (and I might mention humanity alone) is created in the image of God with an innate desire to worship something. But that is not a gene that determines one's religious leanings. This man is described as an evangelical. While I might disagree with one's definition of evangelical, the point still remains that one's religious conviction, evangelical or otherwise, is a choice. The difference in the two choices is that in one who is homosexual, their choice, if they choose to remain in what the Scripture plainly calls "sin," comes from a heart that is at enmity with God. The choice of one to be truly evangelical, born by the Spirit of God according to Scripture alone by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone, comes from a heart that has been reconciled to God.
Given these truths, we see the dilemma that faces those who will judge this man "without prejudice." Of course, I realize that I would be deemed a bigot by the panel. But my eternal judge is more important than $25,000!
This description provides an ethical dilemma for those involved in "judging" this individual. The dilemma begins by defining what prejudice really is. Is it based upon truth or upon one's preferences? Does disagreeing with another's views necessarily infringe on one's "rights"? Will the panel deciding which of the contestants is "without prejudice" all have views that are "without prejudice"? You see the dilemma.
Concerning the individual mentioned above, let me offer my "without prejudice" viewpoint. There is only one of the adjectives describing this man that is totally outside of his control and/or choice. That is his race - white. That is determined genetically before birth by his biological parents. The fact that he is male is also determined genetically.
However, there is no "gay" gene. There is no gene of this nature that naturally or physically predisposes one toward a homosexual orientation. For those who adhere to this fallacy, I would like to ask a few questions: 1) If there were such a gene proven scientifically (which to date there is not) then has there ever been an instance of one who has the gene to go against the genetic makeup? In other words, can one have the gene and not be gay? 2) Has there been any documentation concerning one who does not have this presumed gene and is yet gay?
Further, there is no "god" gene either. Yes, every human (and I might mention humanity alone) is created in the image of God with an innate desire to worship something. But that is not a gene that determines one's religious leanings. This man is described as an evangelical. While I might disagree with one's definition of evangelical, the point still remains that one's religious conviction, evangelical or otherwise, is a choice. The difference in the two choices is that in one who is homosexual, their choice, if they choose to remain in what the Scripture plainly calls "sin," comes from a heart that is at enmity with God. The choice of one to be truly evangelical, born by the Spirit of God according to Scripture alone by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone, comes from a heart that has been reconciled to God.
Given these truths, we see the dilemma that faces those who will judge this man "without prejudice." Of course, I realize that I would be deemed a bigot by the panel. But my eternal judge is more important than $25,000!
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Pets Have Souls?
My travels for the month of June (and the year!) have subsided and I look forward to getting back into the swing of things. We had a wonderful time at Saved by Faith Youth Challenge (SBFYC) in Bolivar, MO (see prior blogs). We just returned from mission trip to La Poza, Mexico with To Every Tribe Ministries. This was my fourth year in La Poza and I think the best yet.
Now back to blogging! I know you have lost sleep not having anything to read for the past few weeks. Well, let me give you something worth losing a little sleep over. I woke today to find the following article in our local newspaper, "Animal chaplain prays, anoints, gives lasts rites." I have often been asked if there will be animals in heaven. And my response is that while Scripture really does not give us enough to be dogmatic either way, it seems that humanity alone (along with angels) is equipped for eternity. But this chaplain goes beyond the question. He dogmatically asserts that animals have souls and can teach humans the love of God. Really now? I would like to see the text that suggests that animals have souls. The human soul is what distinguishes it from all other life forms in God's creation. Some might argue that the soul refers simply to the life-giving aspect of God. But this is not what Scripture means by the soul of man. Whether you are a dichotomist or a trichotomist is not the issue here. When Scripture speaks of the "soul" it is always in reference to humanity. While Scripture does refer to the "spirit" of animals, this is different than the "spirit" or the "soul" of man which separates humanity from all other creatures. It is what makes humanity alone to be in the image of God, reasoning and spiritual creatures.
This is not to say that we should not offer comfort to those who have lost pets that they are close to. It does not mean that we should not pray for God's creatures either. What it does mean is that we should not elevate animals to a place that is not Scriptural. What are your thoughts?
Now back to blogging! I know you have lost sleep not having anything to read for the past few weeks. Well, let me give you something worth losing a little sleep over. I woke today to find the following article in our local newspaper, "Animal chaplain prays, anoints, gives lasts rites." I have often been asked if there will be animals in heaven. And my response is that while Scripture really does not give us enough to be dogmatic either way, it seems that humanity alone (along with angels) is equipped for eternity. But this chaplain goes beyond the question. He dogmatically asserts that animals have souls and can teach humans the love of God. Really now? I would like to see the text that suggests that animals have souls. The human soul is what distinguishes it from all other life forms in God's creation. Some might argue that the soul refers simply to the life-giving aspect of God. But this is not what Scripture means by the soul of man. Whether you are a dichotomist or a trichotomist is not the issue here. When Scripture speaks of the "soul" it is always in reference to humanity. While Scripture does refer to the "spirit" of animals, this is different than the "spirit" or the "soul" of man which separates humanity from all other creatures. It is what makes humanity alone to be in the image of God, reasoning and spiritual creatures.
This is not to say that we should not offer comfort to those who have lost pets that they are close to. It does not mean that we should not pray for God's creatures either. What it does mean is that we should not elevate animals to a place that is not Scriptural. What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)