This is the question that is being asked in the inaugural issue of GraceTrax, a publication made available through GraceWorx Ministries under the leadership of Dr. R. A. Hargrave. According to their website, GraceTrax is a theological magazine that will cover essential issues which currently challenge the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The articles in the first issue include the following:
- Are Pastors Speaking in Tongues? by R. A. Hargrave
- Reformed Theology . . . Is It New? by David Wooten
- Calvinism – Should It Be Kept Secret? by R. A. Hargrave
- The Submerged Emergent Church by Tommy Clayton
- What’s Wrong with Today’s Pulpit? by Kent Pletcher
If you are interested in subscribing to this publication, the yearly price is $18.00. GraceWorx can be contacted at their website (www.graceworx.com) or by calling 386.672.1821.
Here are a few blurbs from some of the articles I read last night:
“Calvinism is a word; it is not a monster, as some people seem to think.”
“Precision has been replaced by pragmatism, and reputation has replaced character.”
“Satan doesn’t mind the Truth as long as it doesn’t make sense.”
“Apparently, it seems to be politically correct to speak of Calvinism in the pulpit as long as the preacher is railing against it. The one person who is accused of lacking discretion is the preacher who seeks to teach his congregation the truth of what the term Calvinism actually denotes.”
“The secret things belong to the Lord, not for the preacher. What the preacher knows to be true, he is obligated to proclaim to his congregation.”
“The question is, ‘Why is [Calvinism] offensive?’ The answer: ‘because its opponents offensively define it.’ So are we to acquiesce to ignorance and allow the great doctrines as taught by the Reformers, Puritans, and other stalwarts such as Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon, Boyce, and Lloyd-Jones to continually be vilified? My answer is, ‘absolutely not!’ How shall we call ourselves purveyors of the Truth when we sit by and allow ignorance to maintain its hold on the people of God?”
. . . can I get an “Amen”?
Amen, Timmy.
Did you read the piece about “emerging church?” Can I get an, “uh oh?”
ubergoober,
Actually, I have not read the article on the emerging church. I hope to get to it today. I know that he referenced Carson’s work quite generously, and my guess is that it is somewhere along the lines of MacArthur’s critique. But then again, it’s just a guess.
Personally, I am not a fan of the emerging church movement. But more than that, I am not a fan of mischaracterizations as I have become all too familiar with. In that sense, I am against those who are against a model of the emerging church piped down from secondary sources or shoddy research. I am not saying that this article would be guilty of that, but many critiques I have read have not been very impressive at all.
Timmy,
I’m curious now. When you say, “Personally, I am not a fan of the emerging church movement,” what does that mean? What is it about the movement you’re not fond of?
What I mean is I am against any ecclesiology that embraces postmodernism, in particular incredulity against metanarratives. I have serious problems with the theology of Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Tony Jones, Rob Bell, and those in that stream. I also have my reservations with Dallas Willard and Leonard Sweet, a couple of popular authors in the movement.
If you are talking about Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll as emerging, then I am sympathetic with that conservative stand. I am all for a healthy orthopraxy, authentic community, and a critique of the church growth movement, all of which I agree with the ECM.
To nuance all the points and places of tension would be a difficult task since there is very little that is uniform about the movement. So when I am not a fan, I am talking about the liberal theology and philosophical commitments underpinning much of the movement. I am not going to give an uncritical and wholesale dismissal of the ECM; however, neither am I going to say that I am emerging since there is so little clarity over what exactly that means. In some ways, I guess you could say that while the ECM is post-evangelical, post-conservative, post-foundational, post-Christian, post-___________, I am post-post everything.
There are some foundational truths that are being undermined, truths which I consider essential to my Christian identity (such as exclusivity of the gospel, absolute (and propositional) truth, penal-substitutionary atonement, belief in literal hell, and inerrancy of Scripture, and pro-ecumenicalism (and syncretism), With that said, I would be willing to have my thoughts challenged . . .
Tone can be very difficult to convey in a medium like this, so I want to start by saying I am not being in any way agressive in asking these questions. My questions come from an eager desire to dialogue and learn.
That said, please share what it is about McLaren, Pagitt, etc. that you don’t like. Also, I’m not sure what you mean about an “ecclesiology that embraces postmodernism.” I do realize that it is a highly nuanced movement (that seems to be the best word for it), but I would like to hear more of what the “liberal theology and philosophical commitments” are that are underpinning the movement.
Also, I would like to know, in your view, what the foundational truths are that are being undermined.
Thanks for engaging in the discussion.
Ubergoober,
You said, “Tone can be very difficult to convey in a medium like this, so I want to start by saying I am not being in any way agressive in asking these questions. My questions come from an eager desire to dialogue and learn.”
I totally agree (and understand where you are coming from). Part of my frustration with the discussion of the ECM is the same with Calvinism. People are talking past one another with generalizations, unqualified terminology, and wholesale dismissals. Granted, I have been guilty of that, so I am trying to be more careful and precise when I speak about the issue (or any other one for that matter).
I laid out some of the central doctrinal issues in my last comment that I believe the ECM has serious problems. To begin with, they have held some angst towards theology altogether and have formed on the issue of praxis rather than theology. I think it is safe to say that the emerging church has built their framework from a postmodern paradigm, and such a foundation I find shifting and unstable for a viable orthodox faith.
It goes without saying that there have been many more astute and articulate descriptions and critiques of the ECM, starting with Justin Taylor for example. At this point, I am working through some of their books. One I found helpful was Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches edited by Robert Webber. In it, Mark Driscoll presents the “biblicist” model, with 175 footnotes and hundreds and hundreds of texts to support his position. His chapter separated him from the rest of the presenters precisely on one fundamental issue–where they stand on Scripture.
I would be interested to know what in particular you are interested in discussing about the ECM because it is so broad and diverse that it is hard to find a place to begin.
Thanks for the feedback, and I hope I can offer some substantive thoughts.
I guess the thing is that I see a whole lot right with what the “emerging” guys are doing (at least the ones I’m familiar with). I, frankly, haven’t heard or read anything that causes me to want to start crying “heresy.” There are, I agree, many nuances that have yet to be discovered and examined, but I don’t see, in my admittedly limited exposure, anything that raises the cause for concerns that many critics see.
It may be that my understanding of the emerging movement (or whatever it is) is not complete enough, or that my understanding of the foundations that are said to be under attack is inadequate. I’m teachable on this subject, and am learning.
I like some guys that have been verbally tarred and feathered by some other guys I like. People who have influenced me are saying things that are pretty harsh against other guys who have influenced me.
One observation that I can make, at least from my own perspective, is that the emerging guys seem to be a bit more gracious about the whole matter than do the guys who are “defending” their paradigm. I’m hopeful that Nixon will go to China and alliances will be formed for the greater kingdom good.
One more thing that I find troubling with the criticisms is that they tend to be vague and general, rather than concrete and specific. The protest part of the emerging church movement seem to be very clear about what it is they are protesting. I don’t think we should be surprised, to quote Roger Nicole, to find protestants protesting. Semper Reformanda, no?
ubergoodber,
Have you read the Don Carson book? It is still fairly up to date although its getting to be about 2 years old. He shows that there is a whole world view shift behind many of the emerging writers. He interacts with specific writers and specific quotes. He does all this in an informed and gracious tone.
We should also keep saying that their is no official “emerging” tradition. By its very nature many of its people are very different in their thinking. So the label often doesn’t mean that much. Keep reader brother goober.
Tony,
I did read Carson’s book. It was my first look into the whole emerging thing. At the time it seemed helpful, and given Carson’s reputation among reformed folk, I gave it weight. Then I started reading some of the emerging guys themselves, and I found Carson’s book to be incomplete in its assessment of the “movement.”
I’m reading the Gibbs/Bolger book now, and it is helping me understand EC much more clearly. I just wrote a blog post about how I wish the two sides (can you believe we’re taking sides?!) would get together and talk this through like mature believers. I suggest it starts with John MacArthur and Brian McLaren having tea.