A Response to John Piper's Recent Article on the 2020 Election

 

A response to John Piper’s recent article.

I would like to preface this with the disclosure that I have not nor will I vote for President Trump, I have resigned to vote for third-party where possible until there are significant reforms to the two-party system. I also want to make it known I hold a great deal of reverence and respect for John Piper. It was after the reading of Desiring God that a thirst for deeper theology and understanding based in scripture that I mark my faith journey in adulthood. I am forever grateful for the presentation of God’s sovereignty.

The fun part: Yes, this is a criticism, it is one of many, hopefully this can be edifying to my Christian friends and associates who are concerned about how they ought to or not cast their vote. I think Piper’s deliberations over the choice many are likely still facing, is reflective of the broader concerns of the two-party system, but it is a little late for us to look to the remedies for this coming election. To this degree, H.L. Menken frames our present situation appropriately, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” We have made this proverbial bed.

Piper is concerned with the role individual personality traits and characteristics play in leading a nation. His scriptural support is well-founded in a biblical context, albeit not necessarily for a representative system of government. The Books of Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel provide ample examples of flawed leaders leading their nations to ruin or repentance. However, in all those examples, the ruler is a King. This structural difference in the system of governance is significant. Under a King, the people are in the direct path of their leader, and if we are considering most of European history, that right was through a divine authoritative claim. There was no concept of separated powers or representative government, rather the opposite. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is significantly remembered for among other things establishing the principle of “cuius regio, eius religio” (Whose realm, his religion), wherein the religion of the people was dependent upon that of the sitting monarch. We are far from such systems of government but not without other concerns. I am immensely grateful though that the faith of my chief executive does not have any bearing on my own faith. It is, for this reason, I think it valid to be less concerned with clear, overt character flaws in a chief executive.

The primary argument of Piper is that we ought to weigh more heavily on the individual character of those seeking to lead our nation. Again, this is wholly reasonable if power is held in the hands of a single person, but need we return to School House Rock to remind us of the bicameral legislature as the primary body to represent the People and the States? The bodies who draft legislation and ultimately make the law of the land. The President does not single-handedly dictate policy. When Presidents have done so, they have been checked. Much of President Obama’s legacy is facing such fate, which should be the expected outcome when one leads through a “pen and phone.” I would happily argue we cast an outsized focus on the occupant of the White House in an unhealthy unrepresentative manner which has hurt our ability to communicate with our neighbors about policy.

Our system of government was designed, knowing full well the dangers of human nature. In what is one of the most important essays written by James Madison explaining the uniqueness of the United States as a constitutional republic, he recognizes the challenges of competing interests, particularly when they become primarily motivated by animus against the opposition. In Federalist 10, Madison notes, “It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” The government of the United States of America is bigger than any single person, we ought to remember this. A person does lead an administration, which is far more consequential in any measurable analysis of a chief executive.

Hence, we Christians find ourselves conflicted between our citizenship in heaven as members of the royal priesthood against our earthly citizenship in these United States of America. How we chose to vote should not be a simple binary option, it was not designed in this way. It should not be something we visit only in the weeks prior to an annual election, it was not designed for that either. If the representative government is to work, we need to be aware and engaged throughout the year, in such a way that the government which theoretically operates on the consent of the governed, has informed consent.

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." -Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816

“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” James Madison to W. T. Barry, 1822

SB1146, Are Religious Colleges Under Attack?

Biola Pressroom released this letter to Biolans and Biola supporters. According to this list there are 12 Religious Colleges and Universities which could lose Cal Grant funding if SB1146 becomes law. The original text of the bill has been recently changed to only provide the religious exemption to schools not affiliated with a denomination.

This bill would limit the religious exemption from the Equity in Higher Education Act to certain educational programs and activities of a postsecondary educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization….The bill would make the provisions of the Equity in Higher Education Act severable… This chapter shall not apply to educational programs or activities offered by an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to prepare students to become ministers of the religion, to enter upon some other vocation of the religion, or to teach theological subjects pertaining to the religion, if the application of this chapter would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.

Between the 12 listed institutions just over 21,000 students may be directly impacted. Take Biola and Azusa Pacific for example, these two schools are easily the largest on the list of affected schools if this bill becomes law. If 68% and 74% of the students from Biola and APU respectively graduate with borrowed funds, it is reasonable to believe most of them receive funds from Cal Grant. For the sake of argument suppose only half actually get Cal Grant, but without it they would not be able to attend. Can any institution survive a decline of 34-39% of their students? Because there is no date found in the text and this amends an already active law, this is assess if the law is signed this summer the changes will go into effect this coming Fall.

Between the original text (see the red strikethrough) this appears to be a state response following the apparent lead by the Department of Education. In my blog from earlier today I pointed to a helpful article by a Harvard Law Professor on the Title IX bind where schools are forced to accommodate LGBT students while simultaneously sexually offending other students. By all accounts if this bill becomes a law, we will have a new version of Bob Jones v. United States (1983). Instead of racially motivated restrictive admission policies that cost the school federal student aid, it will be discriminatory policies against the LGBT community. Although the text of the bill at current has struck through that text, to me, this only means better lawyers have made alterations to target religious institutions progressively. If the original text remained there would have been active support from our Roman Catholic brethren. If the whole of the religious community does not come together to mobilize their supporters I very easily see this bill being like a poem from a German pastor during WWII.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Allegedly the author of the bill claimed this was not to target religious institutions but, based on the amended text, who was this supposed to affect? This bill only affects religious institutions. Did Senator Lara, a Los Angeles native and member of the LGBT community, have in mind that California debt was too much and college aid was fiscally important? I think it is fair that the original text of the bill does not target religious institutions specifically but it would still greatly impact them. It is the duty of a legislator to consider the effects of all parties involved, not just their particular interest group.

When I analyzed the original text, I found it to be a clear violation of the Lemon Test, brought to you by Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). The Lemon Test has three parts which must be acceptable in order for a law to be constitutional and nondiscriminatory towards an establishment of religion. These criteria are:

1. "the statute must have a secular legislative purpose"
2. "its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion"
3. "the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.””

Based on these three criteria I am having trouble seeing any of these passing muster.

Then again if one looks to the 7th Court of Appeals Wheaton College v. Burwell (2014). This was Wheaton’s suit against Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) on the same grounds as Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby. It should be sadly noted that in the 8-0 judgement more or less in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Court explicitly said that case was not to be used as a guide to other cases, specifically Wheaton College v. Burwell. In this case, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Wheaton College. The important question following Hobby Lobby’s victory, which many institutions hoped would be answered by Zubik (Little Sisters of the Poor), was if the religious exemption eligibility could be applied to nonprofit institutions. After all, if it could apply to for-profit businesses, why would it not apply to non-profit religious organizations. The primary argument against the Little Sisters of the Poor, was the claim that they were not a religious organization...Let that sink in for a minute.

If SB1146 becomes law, then all the affected institutions should file an immediate suit challenging the constitutionality of the law. In order for it to not go into immediate effect, a judge would have to declare an injunction to prevent the change until the courts processes the challenge. Depending on the sensibilities of the judge it could go one way or another. If the injunction does not occur, then there is a real possibility the schools would go bankrupt before the courts workout the challenges.

This is a state law, therefore the challenge would have to begin at the state courts. It would not be wise to look immediately to the Supreme Court as such a case would likely take at least 4 years to even be submitted to be heard by the Supreme Court. Between this case potentially being a constitutional one and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals having ruled on this, if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the colleges (if you believe in miracles, such a ruling by that court would definitely qualify) that would bring the probability of the Supreme Court to hear the case up to maybe 5% chance. Oh, being that we don’t know who will be the 9th Justice to replace Justice Scalia, whoever becomes President would most definitely impact this decision. Therefore, if we have a hope in democracy or more importantly that God can intervene, in addition to praying for the affected schools use this link for a form letter to send to your representative.

Update: Here is a response from a far better informed friend concerning my arguments and the claims of the initial letter.

Pardon me if I ignore all normative arguments about the wisdom of the law, the existence of God, and the relative merits of organized religion for a moment, and just talk about the law.

A few minor points: 1) while the bill would narrow the exception only to schools and programs offering training in the ministry specifically, it does not require that the school also be denominational. "Controlled by a religious organization" simply means that the charter of whatever organization controls the school be explicitly religious. That language appears in the Ed Code as it currently exists. 2) the bill has been amended to read that no school which currently receives the Cal Grant will lose Cal Grant eligibility. Therefore, schools like Biola and APU are in no immediate danger on that front.

Now the major point: The Lemon Test is irrelevant. You cannot raise an Establishment Clause claim against government inaction (i.e. the failure to exempt). Also, though I did not read all of the comments and replies previously made, I wanted to address something in the ones I did read: viewpoint neutrality is also irrelevant, since there is no Free Speech claim here. Any constitutional challenge that could be raised to this bill would be under the Free Exercise Clause.

The apposite cases for the Free Exercise Clause are Employment Div. v. Smith (1990) and Locke v. Davey (2004). Smith states that any neutral law of general applicability does not violate the Free Exercise clause, unless the Free Exercise right is combined with some other right (typically in practice this means the right to Freedom of Association). For you court-counters out there, Smith was a 6-3 decision written by the late Justice Scalia, with O'Connor concurring in the judgment, but arguing for the use of the compelling interest test.

In Locke, a pastoral ministries major sued the state of Washington under the Free Exercise clause for withholding a state scholarship which the student was otherwise qualified for. The scholarship program specifically excluded studies in theology. The High Court held, 7-2, that the state of Washington could withhold the scholarship on the basis of the student's religious studies. The Court ruled that states have a "historic and substantial interest" in withholding state funding from religion. Any case involving this bill would be controlled by Locke, and the state's interest in non-discrimination could easily support the state's failure to grant an exemption from its law for programs that are not directly and explicitly theological. Therefore, the bill as it stands is constitutional.

Anticipating Love Wins

I saw about a week ago from a facebook post Rob Bell is releasing a new book. Justin Taylor, a well known Reformed blogger, kicked off with a rather controversial blog about a controversial book by one of the most controversial pastors in America. I couldn't see the video of mention that many pastors have took full aim and depending where you stand either jumped the gun or addressed an important issue without haste. This is not about my speculation from Rob's video; it is rather hard to make an informed comment on a video I haven't been able to watch.

I have read all of Rob Bell's books thus far and I will read Love Wins. I don't read him because I particularly agree with what he writes, I read his writings because they reach audiences I am very concerned about. Like a parent taking an interest in their kid's video games or sports, when my students read a book you better believe I will read it too, if nothing else to discuss it regardless of content. I read his first book, Velvet Elvis, in an attempt to gain an understanding of the Emerging Church at the time. I continued to read his books when I learned a number of students read his material as well.

What have I gathered from Mr. Bell's writing until this week? He is one of the most gifted speakers I have heard. He is very creative in how he presents ideas and can quickly grab an audience through empathetic tone and genuine concern. On the other hand, in Velvet Elvis especially he proposed dangerous ideas but in his likeable fashion, those ideas we presented in a non-confrontational "just think about it" type of manner. I have yet to hear any response or clarification from his claims in Velvet Elvis. He does not need to answer to me by any means, as a pastor and teacher he is already held to a higher standard. I got to a point; whenever people discuss "What I think about Rob Bell" all I can say is "be careful". His roundabout speaking/writing style in combination with his rhetorically styled questions which offer no clarification can push people in a very dangerous direction without a firm foundation in scripture. This was where I was two weeks ago.

I cannot comment on what I have not read, what will be in Love Wins. Thanks to a recent blog post by Kevin Deyoung I can comment like Kevin did, on what Rob did say.

"Will only a few select people make it to heaven? And will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell? And if that’s the case, how do you become one of the few? Is it what you believe or what you say or what you do or who you know or something that happens in your heart? Or do you need to be initiated or take a class or converted or being born again? How does one become one of these few?

Then there is the question behind the questions. The real question [is], “What is God like?”, because millions and millions of people were taught that the primary message, the center of the gospel of Jesus, is that God is going to send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus. And so what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that, that we would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news?

This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith. They see it as an endless list of absurdities and inconsistencies and they say, why would I ever want to be a part of that? See what we believe about heaven and hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about who God is and what God is like. What you discover in the Bible is so surprising, unexpected, beautiful, that whatever we have been told and been taught, the good news is actually better than that, better than we could ever imagine.
The good news is that love wins." - Rob Bell, Love Wins Trailer

As an example of Rob's speaking style in the trailer Kevin makes a comparable "video" to demonstrate Bell's speaking style in his Love Wins trailer. In Kevin's example he asks a series of rhetorical questions which don't sound like questions nearly as much as "just consider this" and continuous flow of "what ifs" strategically placed that one gets the sense these are statements, not questions. I read a number of the comments to Kevin's blog, one of the more frequent objections to Kevin's assessment of Mr. Bell's speaking style is "not to jump to conclusions solely based on a two minute video".

This is where I chime in, because unlike many of the commentators in Kevin's blog, I have read all of Rob's books. The speaking style from this video excerpt is one of Rob's hallmarks. He speaks the same way he writes. Rob will pose controversial questions to long held doctrinal beliefs and leave it at that, he opens the door to question what has been established as orthodoxy theology and does not develop the pseudo-claims any further.

I am reminded of parts in Velvet Elvis when Rob questions the necessity of the virgin birth of Jesus in just the same fashion as these lines of questions seem to imply Universalism. Perhaps the scariest thing that came to my mind as I read the text from the video, I was reminded of a section in scripture when similar speaking occurred. It was the conversation the serpent had with Eve... I am not saying I believe Rob Bell is Satan. I am saying the manner in which he writes/speaks and the content behind that may sadly be satanic. I hope I am wrong, but I will have to wait until the book is released to see what is truly said.

This is a Hard Teaching - 1 Timothy 2:9-14

Needless to say after returning home, my blogging has been greatly diminished. This is mostly due to being back in community and much of the thoughts that roll around have been able to be discussed. Then again, while basking in perhaps one of the most enjoyable Sundays I've had in many years, this thought hit me and I wanted to see if I can grapple with it.

1 Timothy 2:9-14 probably ranks up there at the top of many people's minds when it comes to difficult passages to understand and even more apply. I think Peter said it well in 2 Peter 3:14-16, with "there are some things hard to understand" being ever so clear. The response to this passage usually varies somewhere between justified chauvinism and ignoring the passage altogether. Perhaps the unique factor about this difficult passage isn't so much its clarity but just the opposite. Plainly read it has some serious guidelines that are difficult to apply and to justify; both to the non-Christians who view God's Word as a sexist book which seeks to subjugate women; and to those earnestly seeking to follow God's Word but are at a bit of a loss on this passage's application.

This commentary tends to focus on the cultural aspect and focus on the physical adornment and exclusion occurring in the church than this as an impendent issue. The problem with this is it doesn't address if the practice of flaunting wealth and style are still applicable things to avoid in orderly worship, worse still it often tends to resign this passage to being cultural and thus outdated and we can justifiably ignore it. The primary problem with this as with other difficult passages is the inevitable slippery slope we establish within Scripture while fully ignoring clear teachings to satisfy our own wills or misunderstanding. Or as Peter through the Holy Spirit says, "ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." If we believe the Bible is God's Word and that God is perfect without error, then we must deduce the Bible is God's inerrant Word. This also happens to be a primary doctrine for you two other doctrine nerds who might read this.

On to the meat, within the context the most biting part I would think is verse 12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." While there is plenty of meat to deal with verse 11, for the sake of brevity (like I am good at that anyways...) I would rather refer to Ephesians 5:22-33 which it explicitly describes the relationship a husband and wife ought to have. A piece I have heard and fully agree with about the Ephesians passage, if a husband loves his wife as Christ loved the Church, why wouldn't she want to submit to him? Enough said.

I suppose the difficulty I have by attempting to tackle this passage is much in the practice (or lack of practice) of church discipline. The best way I could describe church discipline is the maintenance and accountability of our own. Paul speaks of this most clearly throughout 1 Corinthians (5:9-13, 6:1-8, 11:27-32). Peter also explains the concept in 1 Peter 2:13 - 3:22. In Church we ought to submit ourselves to one another, everyone ought to be submissive to someone; many of us are submissive to the pastor/elders, deacons, older men and women, and so on. There are checks in balances in the Church as well. We call him Jesus. Once we grasp the idea of submission to one another, the judgment we are to cast upon one another as a Shepherd protects his flock; in love, and the purity of Christ's Church the passage in Timothy doesn't irk as much.

It is important to remember one of the primary duties of pastors/elders in scripture is to practice authority (Shepherd in fluffier terms) over the members of the church. I might be isogeting my youth ministry experience on this, but when Paul restricts women from practicing authority over men is it really that outlandish? Consider this; within the family are mothers not the most appropriate to deal with certain issues of their daughters and likewise fathers with their sons? Likewise I directly consider this in light of my work with the high schoolers. If there is an issue with a girl, I would not attempt to address the issue at large. Women handle women's issues and men handle men's issues. I think many of us would find it odd if women sought to offer guidance on being a man when men are present to give such guidance. This is in no way saying mothers cannot teach their sons as some naysayers would attempt to imply. Children are to submit to their parents, and likewise parents are to practice authority over their children.

Whether you want to get into the issue if women can teach men, I think that is a less clear issue. The most profound example I would point to in scripture is the instruction Priscilla and Aquila gave to Apollos in Acts 18 Priscilla and Aquila are addressed 6 times in scripture. Of those 5 of those times Priscilla is addressed first, considering the writing style it is believed she had the stronger relationship with Paul in faith. In the personal setting, such as home church/bible study in which the couple instructed Apollos, it is reasonable to say Priscilla did more teaching, yet she did so without practicing authority over Apollos. I think it is also important to specify that Paul says a woman is not to have authority over a man, not boy, man. Leading up to a man, I would say it is more than permissible to practice authority on non-adult males. Then the can of beans opened "What is a man?" That is a separate blog unto itself. The short answer, a man is a male who takes responsibility for himself and those around him.

Does this expand to women in the pulpit? Yes, I think it does. I will make it clear though, based on what I have seen and read showing that women are more numerous in ministry, I believe this to be the result of males not being men. If males would be men, much of this controversy and frustration would disappear. The confusion and misunderstanding of what Paul wrote through the Holy Spirit will clear up and we can practice Church as it was meant to be done.

A Tale of Two Church Leaders

I recently finished two interesting books each on opposing sides of the “Emergent Movement”. I approached the Emergent church in Divergently Emergent Church earlier this summer. I can’t say what prompted my curiosity, because I already had a pile of books on my “to read” list but I was browsing away and with almost impulse buying speed I purchased Mark Driscoll’s Confessions of a Reformissional Rev. and Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. The package arrived rather swiftly, much sooner than I expected, and unlike my usual pattern of adding the new stock to the bottom of the “to read” pile o’ books I read them both within the week.

When I pondered the effects of the Emergent Movement I must say with complete honesty, I had little more experience than “I read an article about it here” or “I read this on wikipedia”. I was not as informed as I should have been. I suppose it was coming clean with myself that I was not as informed as I attempted to be which prompted my impulse buying and swift reading. I knew of Mark Driscoll only from a few references in sermons and I think one clip I saw with him doing a Q&A session several years ago. I was familiar with Rob Bell’s books and have seen several of his Nooma. I knew they were both in the Emergent category, but beyond that was nothing but speculation. As you might have noticed I did not offer kind words towards the Emergent Movement in my previous blog.

I don’t think I could’ve read two other books which offered a more polar opposite sides of the Emergent movement. Mark Driscoll was quick to differentiate himself from Emergent, instead adheres to Missional or Emerging. I am not a fan of titles or terms, especially when dealing with Christ’s Bride. Rob on the other hand never mentioned Emergent/emerging or really any term to identify his set of beliefs. As I continued through his book it was extremely clear Velvet Elvis was not written in a systematic style, to say the least. This blog is the first which I will stop apologizing for encouraging whoever reads my blogs to read the latest and greatest book. Mark Driscoll’s was perhaps the best book I have read concerning church, goals, ministry, and establishing a church according to scripture. His vision of church was the embodiment of what I vision church to be. A church whose primary goal was to effect the surrounding area, it would send people throughout the local community and expect its members to invest into the Kingdom. To call Mark’s style unorthodox would be an understatement, what came across to me as un-compassionate, non-loving, and crude ministry in his earlier years were instead tough love on level I have never experienced. He was not eloquent in his speech or methods, but he had the vision, goals, and heart to accomplish them and has made a radical impact on Seattle.

It was not just the success of a man who founded a church which grew to over 4000+ members in 8 years. Throughout his book it was clear the majority of that time was survival and less than 500 members. I was most compelled by the vision to actively seek the punk rock, smoking, un-churched people, growing a church from a group which did not grow up in church. Mark’s commitment to reach such a socially liberal minded crowd, yet be unflinching in his commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine, captivated me. I was inspired by the audacious idea of encouraging people not committed to the mission to leave. A church which constantly kept the big picture in sight, not to bow down to attendees seeking to use resources not in line with broadening the Kingdom. I have often heard the body of Christ analogy, but never was I reminded of the colon’s importance or its role within the church as well.

On the flip side, Rob explicitly encourages us to change Christian doctrine and theology, and implicitly denies scripture as the God’s Word. I have never outright experienced liberal theology like Rob’s. I thought such people only existed on ABC documentaries or classrooms of colleges. I was in awe that as a leader of a church, Rob would openly say “I didn’t even know if I wanted to be a Christian anymore”, as a result of massive attendance, growth, and normalization of his church. He didn’t refer to Christ’s strength to get him through his stress; in fact he described his faith with a “flavor of the week” type of attitude. Anyone who claims to be a Christian leader and would unapologetically have an “I don’t feel like it anymore” attitude brings serious questions to my mind. What kind of Christian Truth is evident with such a statement?

When I considered his implications and the possibilities he suggested I am terrified. First, I think thousands of people are being mislead into a pseudo Christian faith which I describe to be more like a New Age existentialism with a touch of Jesus in the middle. Second, within the first two weeks of starting his church he had more than 2,000 in attendance, at the time of print his church claimed more than 10,000 members. Unlike a misguided, hateful preacher who seeks to proclaim a God of hate with protests at soldiers’ funerals; Rob has a charismatic, appealing type of faith which is claiming a large population. As I went through his book I found 40 claims which I believed to be either questionable or clear denial of Christian doctrine and authority established through Scripture. I know I don’t know everything, but following my recent studies on theology, I am aware of the bigger picture in which certain claims can lead people to a Jesus who never lived. There is a huge part of me that wished I just read everything wrong instead of actually recognizing the theology and approach to scripture Bell advocated and adhered to.

As the months have been passing and my eagerness to rejoin the civilian world grows, I have been pondering much upon my return. A new chapter of my life is on the horizon, my church is in a state of change, and I look forward to accomplishing my long list of goals which have been set aside for the last several years. I wonder, could such an impact be made to better model our church after the scriptural example of Mark Driscoll’s? I have so many hopes and ideas, yet I fear falling into the trap life tends to ensnare people into a pattern of life as normal.

Epilogue: It has been over a year since Mark Driscoll resigned from Mars Hill Church and subsequently, Mars Hill Church divided into independent churches or closed. It was a sharp reminder that however passionate and truthful a church leader might be, they are not perfect. Given the long history of challenging aspects of Driscoll's style and ministry, I found it profoundly sad that the issue which brought the end of Mars Hill was what I viewed as a misunderstanding compounded by his overbearing leadership style. Rob Bell similarly left his church, I believe it was to go on a speaking tour for a time and he continues to write, he had a number of TV projects. Love Wins essentially served as his theological treatise to depart from orthodox Christian doctrine. Conservative Christian scholars, authors, and leaders examined that writing as Bell's endorsement or adherence to Christian Universalism. A label in my estimation that Bell objects to, not becuase it mischaracterized his position but because it was a label.

Divergently Emerging Church

I remember checking my myspace a couple months ago and the small blurb that attempted to advertise a new website ceased my attention for a quick second. This is the advertisements in the homepage which are usually directed towards topics match interests expressed in your profile, my page tends to get controversial religious based websites, Christian singles, or something relating to my military service. The one which caught my eye and focus for a couple seconds had a phrase on it claimed, if one wants to be a born again Christian one does not need to know doctrine. I wish I could quote it now because it was so absurd, but it was more than claiming personal relationship with Christ was the focus, it denied any rational consideration of orthodox Christian theology.

Fast forward to two weeks ago, I can’t remember what the occasion was, if I am not gaming or watching a movie I have music going. Most of you know my music collection consists mostly of the family radio Christian favorites. I was jamming to MercyMe’s Everything Impossible. I paid slightly more attention to the lyrics for some reason and was rather unsettled by them. Namely a selection of the chorus’ lyrics, “I know it all seems so illogical, but that’s okay”. Whether I can continue to listen to the song in good conscience, I don’t think I can. As with most situations I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, the theme of the song is how we ought to rely on faith and surrendering ourselves to God; however, with such a phrase to which praises one’s ignorance of theology as an act of faith, I cannot accept such a thing.

I question the kind of faith are we living when praise songs and catchy advertisements see irrationality as virtuous? The truly dangerous factor about those two, unless they are secretly heretics, they don’t realize the implications of their claims. If Christianity is illogical I would hope it would be investigated or abandoned.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of the old received their condemnation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.-Hebrews 11:1-3

A frequently referenced verse as it biblically defines faith and its virtue. Faith believes when God created all that exists it was created out of nothing. This particular topic of origins remains unknowable with any form of science. Any claim to such a thing is faith, while many scientific theories will claim a scientific answer it cannot be observed, tested or repeated; therefore, the empirical science’s limit is exposed. When God created the world, the natural law, the laws of science, and our souls, logic and reason were included. The foundational doctrine of God’s immutable character led Christians to discover scientific doctrine ranging from the laws of gravity, periodic table, genetic traits and more. The reasoning behind the claim; if we live in a world in which God does not arbitrarily intervene, in which nature will behave in a predictable manner then it can be tested to discover natural science. Remember it was not atheist scientists who laid the foundation of modern science.

I needed these two examples to lay foundation for where I really wanted to go. I believe we are on the edge of a Christian cultural renaissance, whether it be positive or negative we have yet to see as time and the products of the rebirth. Hopefully, you have guessed that I am speaking about the Emergent Church movement, if it can be called a movement. To pinpoint the definition is like trying to define it is like defining an absolute relativist; perhaps it is just as oxymoronic. I cannot do better than annotate similar behaviors/beliefs expressed from those who claim to be emergent, they have: lost faith/hope/respect in organized religion, emphasized individual faith, referred to undeclared form of organization or non-existent organization, nor set forth doctrine. To me it seems to be a cross between Christian anarchy and relativism.

It occurred to me I did not explain why I think those traits are harmful to the Church. Denying the importance of organized religion is in the words of one unabashed friend, “Calling the bride of Christ a whore”. I point to the model of the Trinity to follow we ought to be in community with other believers. I especially like the Acts 4-5 model in which it almost sounds like the early Christians made a communistic community until it was abruptly ended with a corpses of Ananias and Sapphira. At the same time I think the organization of church, many churches have lost the focus of what pure religion is. I do not believe the best solution is to turn our back on the organized church as a whole, simply reform and refocus where necessary. The increased focus on individual faith I do support. While at times it seems to practice our faith means we must congregate together frequently as an expression of our faith, I see that as our collaboration time, we ought to spend the rest of our time growing with our personal relationship with Christ.

I am hard pressed to find a non-churchese way of describing the “personal relationship with Christ”. An analogy I favor is being a good friend to Christ. Think of it in terms of how we become good friends with other people, I think those bonding characteristics translate well with Christ. A group of people that refuses to be called a group of people is more like being a nonconforming nonconformist. In an effort to not follow status quo, the rebel becomes the status quo and thus a living cliché, church culture is no different. The lack of organization within the emergent movement is beneficial because it requires more active thinking before everyone looks at each other and figures out the irrationality of it all. Namely because the foundation of theology which is common to all protestant Christians, even some emergents have abandoned. Try to sit down and have a conversation about faith in which everyone starts from square one and the shared doctrines have been discarded. The blind man is given the driver seat and thinks he’s ready for NASCAR. The only problem is he’s driving a minivan. I started to point out the dangers of leaving orthodox Christian doctrine in Necessary Beliefs.

Based on the aforementioned aspects of the emergent movement how do I find any positive value? For one, it is a faith much easier to spread; it has growing popularity with my generation especially. It prompts many people to reexamine their own faith and where they ought to go with it. It stirs the waters to say the least. While I find it to be a hazardous direction of theological faith I also believe it is potentially the next Great Awakening. I suggested in Losing Our Minds, that we have ourselves to blame and our culturally relevant forms of evangelism to credit for spreading a theologically weak faith. Perhaps this is the next level, both the Second Great Awakening and the Emergent church have; brought people back to faith, reached out to those who would not consider Christianity, and applied to the masses. I probably should not reference the emergent church as a past tense occurrence; I think we are still in the middle of it. Therefore, we can take the renewed interest in faith; the emphasis on an authentic relationship with Christ, reform the aspects of the Christian church which are un-Christian, then perhaps we revolt against the established church could be a growing experience instead of a dark moment of church history.