It’s often said that bad company corrupts good morals. What happens when the company you’re keeping is way beyond your league? Actually, I’m quite humbled to be included in this “Pastor’s and Theologians Forum on the Emerging Church.” Nine Marks Ministries has devoted their most recent newsletter to the topic of the emerging church and I had the privilege of contributing an answer to the question of “What do you hope will ultimately emerge from the emerging church conversation for evangelicals?” My answer is included among answers from D.A. Carson, Mark Driscoll, Carl Trueman, Michael Horton and others. What a humbling experience to see my name amongst men I so highly respect.

In addition to the aforementioned forum, they have provided several helpful resources for trying to understand and deal with the emergents (remember, in the interest of fairness, these are from a Reformed viewpoint) including another forum featuring contributions by the ubiquitous J. Ligon Duncan and others. Enjoy:

• Read Justin Taylor’s “An Emergent Primer”
• Read “The Emerging Consequences of Whose Ideas” (featuring comments from Greg Allison, J. Ligon Duncan and others)
• Read Mike McKinley’s Review of Mark Driscoll’s “Radical Reformission” and “Confessions” books
• Read Greg Gilbert’s review of Rob Bell’s “Velvet Elvis“

P.S. for those wondering, the photo is Paul Rodgers of Bad Company.

As I write it is Monday afternoon. I just exited Justin Taylor’s breakout session entitled: “A New Kind of Christianity? A Look at the Emerging Church Movement.” Playing off of the conference theme “Humble Orthodoxy,” this is certainly an appropriate consideration given the fact that so many within the EM (Emerging Church Movement) seek to hijack the concept of humility, trying to force it to equal uncertainty.

Let me simply be honest upfront. I was a bit curious to see just how objective Taylor would be given his ties to Wayne Grudem and John Piper. There is a tendency within Reformed Circles to give more weight to the negatives about the EM while ignoring many of the goods that are indeed coming from the movement. I say that not as a proponent of “emergence” but knowing that I have been guilty of these exact things. With that being said however, I feel that Taylor was very fair and evenhanded (but then again, that could be just because I agreed with most of what he said!).

He began by humbly admitting that he is not an expert on the movement. He was not there to simply provide conclusions, but rather, to help us to learn to think biblically for ourselves, using Dr. Mohler of a good example of how this is done. He opened with the biblical exhortations that “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7) and that we must actively call out for this wisdom (Proverbs 2:1-5). Directly applying this to the considerations at hand, Taylor admonished that we must “understand before we evaluate.”

The problem in understanding EM though is that there is not a standard, uniform definition. Taylor did a good job of distinguishing between Emergent (an organization) and “emerging” (a movement, dialogue, discussion, conversation, etc. ad naseum). He noted some popular definitions that ranged from calling it a “collection of high profile churches that are youth-oriented,” to asking “aren’t those the people that use a lot of candles and couches in church?” He noted that we might go to three different sources for a definition: 1) the Sources, 2) the Critics, 3) Sociologists, etc. He rightly argued that in seeking to “understand before we evaluate,” we must start with the sources but we cannot stop there.

Going only to the emergents to understand EM, says Taylor is like going to the personal ads. Everyone always says something like: “Hobbies included listening, long walks on the beach and giving people flowers.” No one says: “Hobbies are drinking a lot of Mountain Dew, staying up late to play video games and I have bad breath.” In order to get the full picture, we must seek input from all angles, not just the “personal ad” perspective.

Taylor lists a couple of different lists of “Four Things that EM is Concerned With” One of the lists, taken from Wikipedia, the first list includes: 1) Authenticity, 2) Missional Living, 3) Narrative Theology, 4) Christlikeness and the second list taken from Emergent includes: 1) Commitment to God in the way of Jesus, 2) The church in all its forms, 3) Committed to God’s world and 4) Committed to one another. Notice that in all of these affirmations is the implicit charge that the “other people” don’t do these things.

Taylor rightly argues that EM cannot fully be understood apart from Postmodernism, which cannot be understood apart from Modernism, which in turn, cannot be understood apart from Premodernism. Broadly (VERY broadly) speaking, Taylor argues that Premodernism might be summarized in the word “supernatural,” Modernism in the word “scientific” and Postmodernism in the bumper sticker “Question Authority.” While these are admittedly oversimplified, they are at least somewhere to begin.

Here Taylor made the interesting note from Michael Horton who argues that “Postmodern is actually Most-Modern.” In other words, if the trend in Modernism was reason, then Postmodernism is simply the extension and internalization of reason to the point that it becomes the key deciding factor for many.

Taylor continued to “understand” EM by citing Ed Stetzer “3 Movements Within the Movement and then moved to the “evaluate” phase. He quoted J.I. Packer’s statement that “a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” In other words, some of what EM says is true, but the fact that much of it is not means that we ought to exercise extreme caution, especially when dealing with the likes of Brian McLaren (more on that in a bit).

Taylor gave four broad categories by which to consider EM: 1) God’s Word. Here he noted the move towards “narrative” over “proposition” and argued that “the first thing out of Satan’s mouth is not a lie but a question (Genesis 3:1). The warning here was particularly against McLaren who seems to pride himself on “questions,” which in reality work to undermine the authority of Scripture. Moving back to the narrative/proposition argument, Taylor noted that Scripture is more than propositions, but it is not less than propositions. In other words, yes it is narrative, but those narratives include propositional truth, without which we no longer have the Gospel.

Second was the Cross/Atonement. Here he noted that many emergents argue that the atonement is “bigger than substitutionary atonement.” Again, while that might be true, it is certainly not less than substitutionary atonement and we are not free to question or redefine the essential elements of atonement or we are very close to renouncing our faith altogether. He noted Steve Chalke’s book “The Lost Message of Jesus” in which he refers to the traditional view of substitutionary atonement as “divine child abuse,” he calls it “twisted” and “morally dubious.” Brian McLaren refers to this as the book which could “help save Jesus from Christianity.”

Next, Taylor noted the ideas of Truth and Knowledge. Again referring to McLaren (because as Taylor noted, he’s written the most, many look to him as a spokesperson and he says the most outrageous things), Taylor noted that we cannot accuse McLaren and others of disbelieving in absolute truth. They simply believe that we cannot know truth absolutely. Taylor noted that “doubt is not a virtue” and that many “confuse exhaustive knowledge with certain knowledge.” In other words, I cannot know God exhaustively, but I can know Him with certainty.

Last, Taylor touched on Sexual Ethics, noting that many are now questioning whether premarital sex is actually sin, and of course touching on McLaren’s recent comments on homosexuality and his call for a “five year moratorium on pronouncements.” Here Taylor noted that “we have to call a spade a spade” and note that McLaren’s comments are simply foolishness. Not that he is a fool in the pejorative sense, but in the biblical sense; there is a fog that prevents him from seeing God’s clear moral commands. Taylor referenced 2 Timothy 3:7 which reads: “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” as an apt description of McLaren.

Before questions, Taylor asked “What’s the Alternative?” In other words, how do we move on some of the valid criticisms raised by EM and avoid the extremes of McLaren and others? Taylor argued that first we must adopt a “humble orthodoxy” and reclaim biblical humility from those who would define it as uncertainty. Secondly, we need what he called a “contextual confessionalism.” In other words, we must learn to communicate the Gospel in culturally-sensitive ways without sacrificing its nonessential elements, citing Tim Keller as an example of how to see this done well. Next, Taylor reminded us that we must “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), which is a parallel to the call for “humble orthodoxy.” Lastly, we must always turn the critical gaze inward and see if there is any validity in the criticisms being offered up by EM.

Overall, I thought that Taylor’s presentation was fair. Of course he leans toward one side, everyone does, but he intentionally tried to focus on many of the postive aspects coming from EM while not turning a blind eye to the many negatives as well. I’d love to hear thoughts from anyone else who was able to attend.

One last post regarding the Together For the Gospel conference held this past weekend in Louisville, KY and then I’ll move on to other issues.

One of the things that struck me was the difference between the speakers and attendees at this conference and much of the rest of modern Christendom. I have said and say again that there is much among the “emerging church” that I appreciate. However, there is also much that I think is plain and simple error. One of those errors which has often been addressed is the move away from propositional truth to “dialogues” and “conversations” even to the point that sermons are now supposed to draw out conversation and response (something which sermons certainly ought to do; the question becomes timing and intent) and themselves become conversations.

Much of this is clothing itself in a false humility, even calling itself the “hermeneutic of humility.” While Brian McLaren may not speak for all emergents (but then again, when everyone is speaking, no one is really heard…) but he certainly delineates some of these concerns. In a PBS interview, McLaren states that:

certainty can be dangerous. What we need is a proper confidence that’s always seeking the truth and that’s seeking to live in the way God wants us to live, but that also has the proper degree of self-critical and self-questioning passion.

The problem with McLaren’s approach and the application of many emergents is that, when put into practice, this often results in continual “seeking the truth” and never being able to say that you’ve found it, because once you say you have, you’re labeled a “fundamentalist modern” or something silly like that. In other words, “get with the times dude, no one can say they’ve found the truth anymore, it’s all about the search; don’t be so arrogant to pronounce that others are wrong…”

Brian McLaren is wrong and he further muddies the waters by confusing his refusal to take a stand with humility, stating:

It is a passion to say, “We might be wrong, and we are always going to stay humble enough that we’ll be willing to admit that.” I don’t see that as a lack of fidelity to the teaching of the Bible. I see that as trying to follow the teaching of the Bible. It has a lot of positive things to say about humility.

Biblical humility in no way prevents one from ascertaining, pointing out and correcting theological error. It certainly in no way detracts from the ability to have certainty, which is and ought to be more than the mere “confidence” that McLaren thinks is all we ought to be able to possess. Just as McLaren misunderstands and misrepresents humility, he does the same with certainty.

People’s certainty has certainly been wrong. It has certainly led to much confusion, conflict and even bloodshed. McLaren is right, “certainty can be dangerous.” However, that in no way means we cannot be certain. In fact, God has left us with the precious gift of His written Word so that we might be certain.

This false humility undermines the very stated purpose of Scripture itself. in 1 John 5:13, John tells us why he wrote:

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

John does not write so that we might be “confident,” but that we may know; that we may have certainty. At the end of John’s Gospel we have a summary statement (21:24) reading:

This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

Again we find an emphasis on, not only truth, but the notion that truth is both knowable and communicable. In other words, I can not only know the truth, I can communicate it. Scripture and the Gospel are built around these notions! Without certainty, we are left with no Gospel at all. I cannot just be confident that the tomb is empty, I must be certain or else I am to be pitied.

I’m all for conversations and dialogues, but in the end we must say something. That is historic Christianity. For those who feel that it is “arrogant” to make assertions must realign themselves with the historic faith which not only affirms its beliefs but also excludes in order to define its boundaries. Christianity must have borders because it is an exclusive faith and we must remember this and be willing take a stand, even when its when uncomfortable or unpopular, which it will always be. Can this be done arrogantly, absolutely, but it can also be done in humility and those saying that holding the line for absolute is always arrogant need to be gently reminded of this.

While the Together For the Gospel conference was not without flaws, I must say that I appreciate the heart behind it. We sorely need men and churches willing to take a stand for the certainty of the Gospel. The men at the conference clearly demonstrated that certainty does not exclude hulimility but rather, fosters it. What a daunting notion that the God, Creator and Sustainer of the universe would trust the Church to be the “pillar and buttress” of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). May we live and work in His strength to maintain the pure Gospel.

• Read PBS’ interview with Brian McLaren.

One of the difficulties of dealing with theological (or any other) movements is the task of defining your terms. This is something that I learned growing up in Arizona where there is a large concentration of Mormons. It is possible to have a theological conversation with a Mormon and walk away thinking that there is agreement where there is not (or at least should not be). This is because both participants might be using the same terminology, but both parties are not using the same meaning.

I was recently asked about my thoughts concerning the “emerging church” to which I immediately replied “define the emerging church.” Many people use terms such as emerging and/or emergent as a catch-all umbrella, yet it becomes immediately apparent that even those under the umbrella don’t agree that they’re under the same umbrella. Ask four people to define “emergent” and you’ll receive five different answers.

Scot McKnight defines it as “a coversation about the future direction of the evangelical church in a postmodern world; it’s a reaction and a protest against traditional evangelical churches; and it’s a conversation focused less on theological niceties and more on ‘performing’ the gospel in a local setting.” That’s all fine, but now define “traditional evangelical churches.” You see the problem quickly that it’s a conversation, but no one is quite sure who’s in it and what its about.

We’ve seen this frustration in D.A. Carson’s book Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church which focuses quite a bit on Brian McLaren, which apparently is simply to critique McLaren and little else. Phil Johnson tries to define the “movement/conversation/dialogue/nebulous fog” in four parts: 1) “a broad-based and growing assortment of similar or related movements that have flourished in the past half-decade–mostly on the fringe of the evangelical movement, (wait, please define “evangelical….”), 2) “Most congregations would describe themselves as missional, by which they mean they stress the importance of evangelistic outreach by involving themselves in the lives of unbelievers…”, 3) “a preference for ‘narrative theology’ as opposed to systematic doctrine,” and 4), they don’t often hold the idea of propositional truth in very high regard.”

Johnson does little to hide his frustration and anyone who’s tried to examine the movement at all shares in at least a bit of this frustration. At some point, mere “dialogue” is not enough. The church cannot accept McLaren’s “five year moratorium” on pronouncements because God’s Word calls for them. While I feel for those involved, Scripturally, homosexuality is only a difficult issue because we make it so; Scripture is clear even when we are not.

I will be the first to admit that the emergents have much to say that needs to be heard. They present a good emphasis on community which is essential to the life of the Church. This also comes out in the relational emphasis on evangelism. This leads into the “missional” aspect, which I do think is a much needed discussion. For far too long, too many churches have become complacent with the Gospel and we need to be shaken from our slumber.

However, the good is mixed with much bad, particularly the moves away from authority structures and propositional truth. The New Testament model of Church is not a “bottom up” model that some would like to think; it is one shepherds caring from the sheep. No right-minded shepherd would ask the sheep what they think of his decisions. He is there to protect them because they need protection. Elders are given to the Church as more than figureheards. Part of living the Christian life is learning to submit ourselves to authority, whatever it might be.

While I understand that not all emergents shy away from propositional truth, we would be naive to claim that it is not a large part of the movement and I would assert that we would also be naive to believe that Christianity exists without propositonal truth. Yes, doctrine has been misused, but there’s something people say about babies and bathwaters that seems appropriate here.

As a pastor, my plea is to those involved: please, seek clarity. Please say something. There is a doctrine known as the perspicuity of Scripture which teaches that it is clear, it is understandable, please don’t lose that, even if it does require propositional truth. I’m not opposed to dialogue (that’s part of why I write a blog), but at some point, the “conversation” must say something. I’m patiently awaiting that something.

• Read Scot McKnight’s article (PDF file)
• Read “Absolutely Not! A Critical Look at the Emerging Church Movement” by Phil Johnson.
• Read Rhett Smith’s thoughts on Phil’s critiques.

Last Thursday’s post examined the deadly relationship between marketing and the decreased discernment among the greater Christian community. In another post, I’ve openly struggled with those well-intentioned believers who say that they will only listen to “Christian” music while using discernment to filter all other forms of popuar art intake. Elsewhere, I’ve discussed the lamentable state of much of the artistic quality of the popular arts within the Christian sub-culture and that for many, the popular arts have simply become an outlet for progaganda, the quality of which no longer matters, as long as the message is heard.

Marketers have succeeded in convincing many that it is the label on the music that matters more than the actual content. As such, the level of creativity and/or artistic integrity of many of these “artists” is never questioned because people are no longer interested in art but the message. They fit the label, so they sell records; not because they are truly pushing creative boundaries, not because they actually make you think or evoke any emotions, but because they fit the marketing M.O. As Derek Webb sings on his new album Mockingbird for many, the typical approach to purchasing music is: “Don’t teach me about truth and beauty, just label my music.”

As the labels pertaining to music become more rigid and the quality of much “Christian” music decreases, many artists openly expressing their faith are put into difficult circumstances.

In recent years we’ve been faced with a category of artists who say things like “we’re Christians but we’re not a ‘Christian’ band.” Sometimes what they mean is that their faith will never make an explicit appearance in their art. But increasingly, what they mean is that they recognize that the label “Christian band” is understood by many to mean second rate limited content, less creative, out-of-touch and they want no part of the sanitized reproduction of popular culture.

The decreased discernment of many Christians has led them to believe that the only acceptable art is either praise and worship or an explicitly presention of the Gospel. Actually putting the Gospel to bear on real-life situations and emotions isn’t good enough because you have to think about the connections being drawn. If it isn’t explicit, then it’s no good. The reality is that we are then faced with people who already claim to believe the Gospel being reassured of their claim rather than ever being challenged to grow deeper in thought and commitment.

I recently read an article in which the band Mute Math openly wrestles with many of these issues. Mute Math is a band that recognizes all of this and more. Having come from more “explicitly Christian” musical backgrounds, the band came together seeking to explore more dynamics of their faith wider than the stilting CCM format allows for. In other words, they were “Christians, but not a ‘Christian band.’” But, something odd happened on their way to artistic expression. Singer Paul Meany states:

“All of the sudden, we began to see ourselves getting pigeonholed into this particular world that we weren’t necessarily proud to be associated with, because we aren’t really fans of the music or fans of the cause of the music.”

Mute Math and artists with similar visions, if not similar music (Sufjan Stevens, Pedro the Lion, etc.) are facing great difficulties trying to break free from the cloud that hangs over many “Christian art.” These artists openly announce their faith while arguing that their faith has more to say than simply get saved, or praise God you’re already saved and many shun them for not fitting the stereotype. Meany laments:

“We’ve always conditioned our show universally, and (we’re) just trying to speak to human beings; (we’re) not really conditioning it down to Christians, and that’s what the Christian music industry does. It’s for a certain sect of people. I don’t have anything against that–I’m one of them–but I don’t want to taper it just for that.”

In other words, the Gospel is actually bigger than most Christian musicians or music fans make it out to be, and music truly ought to be artistic expression. Cutting to the core of the issue, Meany argues,

“You know, you don’t want to be ashamed of your faith and your beliefs, but you don’t want to be marketed by that, either. It’s like, ‘Can we just market this as music?’ We’re a normal band here; we’re not trying to be the Christian version of a real band.”

The blurring of the boundaries between faith and marketing have disintegrated discernment and for many, helped destroy any sense of true artistic expression or appreciation. Rather than stifle those who see that the mold needs to be cracked, we ought to encourage them to remind us all just how big the Gospel can be and just how beautiful expressing its hold over everything, even music, should be.

• Visit Mute Math’s official website.
• Read the original article.
• Visit Derek Webb’s official website.
• Visit Sufjan Stevens’ official website.
• Visit Pedro the Lion’s official website.

A funny thing happened on the way to “postmodernism;” we fell into the trap of believing that we have to make Christianity “relevant” to the surrounding culture. Many argue that this is exactly what Paul was doing at the Areopagus, arguing from the “unknown god” to the God of the Bible (Acts 17:19-34). Others simply argue that tradition is stale and cold and people won’t come to Christ unless it’s comprehensible to them. Somewhere in between, Rob Bell argues in his book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith that “Faith in Jesus must be repainted for each generation if it is to avoid the fate of his velvet Elvis.”

Taking his cue from a velvet Elvis painting in his basement, Bell cleverly argues that we must continually “repaint” Christianity lest it find the same fate and be left behind as a cultural relic. What a small god Bell must serve. I’m so glad that we have Bell here to keep the Creator of the Universe “in touch” and “relevant.” Pardon my sarcasm, but I’m more than slightly dismayed with this batch of believers who feel that Christianity must wear the carefully casual look of the hip and modern in order to gain a hearing.

In a piece appearing in the Dallas Star-Telegram, Bell “dismisses claims that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions. Bible interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader’s bias and current realities, he says.” While Bell is correct, to an extent, we do filter our understanding through our culture, Bell accepts rather than tries to overcome this and he forgets one important thing in the process: authorial intent. He seems to take the approach of so many Sunday School Teachers and Small Group Leaders of asking “what does this passage mean for you?” I don’t care what it means for you if it is not what the author (and Author) meant to communicate. When your culture filters your understanding, it’s time to transcend your culture rather than bringing Scripture down to its level.

The article goes on to say that, “Noting the Bible has been used to defend slavery and mistreat women, he writes, “sometimes when I hear people quote the Bible, I just want to throw up.” I share his sentiment. Bell applauds himself for “trying to free Jesus from the religion that’s built up around him” because “a lot of people are deeply fascinated with Jesus and just can’t do the Christian packages they’ve seen. Christianity is a little suspect, but Jesus, right on.”

While all of this sounds quite appealing, trying to free Jesus from wrong traditional constraints, what ends up happening is that Jesus is thus re-created in Bell’s (or whoever the current hipster might be) image, complete with his own proof-texted virtues.

Christianity is nothing less than living as Christ’s follower, and Bell, Donald Miller and others who refrain from using the word because of the baggage that comes with it are taking exactly the wrong approach. Christianity in its barest form will never be “culturally relevant,” no matter what clothes or candles you dress it up in.

What’s so ironic is that there are times when Bell seems to understand the folly of his “velvet Elvis analogy: in a Belief.net interview, Bell remarks that “I don’t follow Jesus because I think Christianity is the best religion. I follow Jesus because he leads me into ultimate reality.” Though he has set up a false dichotomy between following Jesus and Christianity, Bell is absolutely right that only in Jesus will or can we find Total Truth. Only in the shadow of Christ can we find the ultimate reality and finally understand things as they were meant to be. This is a bold message, and one that transcends cultural dress-up parties.

The problem is that we’ve robbed the Gospel of its power (Romans 1:16). God doesn’t need us to make Him “relevant.” If not even the gates of hell will prevail against God’s church, (Matthew 16:18), do we really think that it’s up to us to make sure “people can connect?” Our role is to boldly proclaim “repent and believe”(Mark 1:15) to a generation of God’s enemies (Romans 5:10) and that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). This is a message that transcends culture, yet we have dragged down and convinced ourselves that we must keep it meaningful to a people who don’t want to hear it in the first place (Romans 3:9-12).

The Star-Telegram article closes by picturing Bell “sitting in the warehouse offices of Flannel, a nonprofit film company that has produced a series of short videos featuring Bell. In each, he delivers a faith-based message in the hip, witty style that has packed worshippers into Mars Hill.” I’m so glad that my ministry does not depend on “hip, witty style” but on the God who does as He pleases (Psalm 115:3), cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2), who will raise up His Church on the last day (John 6:39-40) and who doesn’t need me to keep him from growing dusty in the basement.

Read the Star-Telegram article.
Read Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith by Rob Bell.
Read a Belief.net interview with Rob Bell.
Visit the Mars Hill Church website.
Visit the Relevant Magazine website.
Download Just Because by Elvis Presley.
Download Let Me Be There (live) by Elvis Presley.

Reading Nancy Pearcey (yes, her again) I had several thoughts regarding Donald Miller’s use of the term “Christian Spirituality” in his book Blue Like Jazz (actually, the thoughts started with Miller, went to a recent Newsweek story and soon moved to the emergent church and Brian McClaren, but it’s my blog and I’ll ramble if I want to).

Whether or not we realize it, Miller’s trend is a common one as more and more people are moving away from (what they feel is) rigidly defined religion towards the more personal and ambiguous “spirituality” as the recent Newsweek confirms. Pearcey notes in Total Truth that “today people are less likely to talk about religion at all, preferring the term spirituality” (pg. 117; emphasis hers). We may understandably ask what is the difference? Pearcey continues, “Religion has come to refer to the public realm of institutions, denominations, official doctrines, and formal rituals - while spirituality is associated with the private realm of personal experience” (pg. 117).

Indeed, this fits well with Miller’s highly subjective approach. What we see modeled in Miller is a move inward; a move to subjectivity and experience as the final filters of all truth. Yes, Scripture is clear, but it must be filtered through our own experience, so it may not mean the same thing to you as it does to me; the important part is that we keep open dialogue, each growing from the other.

What are we to make of this? Are the emergents on to something? Have the modernists formalized and categorized even Christianity to the point that it needs deconstructing? Or have the emergents fallen into a subtle trap? Notice that the result of the Religion vs. Spirituality construct is that even faith may be divided between the public and private realms. The formal structures of the church and formal doctrine are for the public sphere, but the important part, my spirituality, that is my private reality, and that is really the core of “my Christianity.” While this may seem subtle, it is also a destructive move away from the realm of Christianity as objective truth.

Notice also in which category doctrine belongs. What is subtly being communicated is that the formal faith of the past may be done away with, along with its formal structures of hypocrisy, but also with its formal doctrines. We see this modeled even in lifechurch.tv saying that their approach will rid the church of hypocritical people. Yet, at some point we must allow doctrine to divide, because truth divides. Scripture clearly tells us that we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming (Ephesians 4:14), and we are to correct certain strange doctrines (1 Timothy 1:3). This seems to imply that doctrine is a necessary element of the Christian life. Public doctrine.

Though we cannot draw concrete conclusions, it is interesting to note that as we see the increasing chasm between religion and spirituality, we also see an increasing move away from doctrine and from anything resembling traditional Christianity. Newsweek’s poll also shows that we have moved away from an understanding of the exclusivity of the Gospel: 68% of the magazine poll and 48% of the internet poll claim that someone who is not a Christian may still go to Heaven. The rapper Kanye West, appearing recently on Charlie Rose echoed the same sentiment: he claims to be a Christian who claims you don’t have to believe in Christ for salvation. At the same time, we see emergents such as Brian McClaren moving away from traditional doctrines such as hell and others. All of which results in a cheapening of our Savior and His work.

While on one hand we must applaud the move away from formalism which often leads to hypocrisy, we must also lament the loss of clear doctrinal boundaries. What we find is an interesting situation in which many emergents claim to be reaching back into history and tradition for worship while they also move farther away from the historic creeds and beliefs that grounded that very worship. Adopting a liturgical approach is not the same thing as holding to historic Christianity.

With men such as Brian McClaren steering the ship, I worry that it’s not long until they drift into the waters of heresy. I appreciate McClaren’s willingness to ask hard questions, but that’s not enough. At some point, we must also recognize the answers that Scripture provides; answers which will often divide and must be allowed to do so. The deeper question here is whether or not Christianity is even possible without objective, propositional truth? Paul certainly thought it necessary to ground the resurrection as objective fact and the Genesis account does the same for creation. The move towards a personal “spirituality” undermines the very idea of presenting Christianity as a Total Truth that makes sense of all life. We must maintain clear doctrinal standards, because Scripture does so. In the end, it’s not enough to cling to “spirituality” if your slipping away from Scripture.

Read Blue Like Jazz by Don Miller.
Read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey.
Read Newsweek’s article In Search of the Spiritual.
Take Newsweek’s poll.
Learn more about jazz.
Visit the Blue Note Records website.
Download live Miles Davis (10/27/69).
Download Blue in Green by Miles Davis.
Download Epistrophy by Thelonious Monk.
Download Don’t Blame Me by Thelonious Monk.