- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (10/6)
- Next Post »A La Carte (10/7)
Eighth Letter: My Most Urgent Message to the Church
- 10/06/10
- 61
Last week I had the opportunity to speak at a local event called Eighth Letter. I’ve been asked to describe the theological perspective of the event and I haven’t been able to do better than “emerging church.” I know this title brings all kinds of baggage with it and that not too many people want to be associated with it anymore. Nevertheless, it’s probably the simplest theological shorthand I can use. Which is to say that I was definitely not representative of the speakers who were there (a list that included Shane Claiborne, Leonard Sweet, Peter Rollins, and many others).
The format of the event was rather interesting. Each of the speakers was to bring a letter, no longer than 15-minutes in length, and read it aloud. The letter was to communicate our most urgent message to the church of North America. It was that simple. I spoke on the Friday night and immediately after my talk participated in a very brief panel discussion hosted by Andy Crouch (an editor at Christianity Today and the author of Culture Making).
My letter focused in on getting the gospel right. And if you are interested, I’ve been given permission to post the message here, though only for a limited time. So give it a listen and let me know what you think. What would your most urgent message be?
The reaction to my message was a little bit on the cold side. I was probably something of a stranger to the audience at this conference and brought a letter that was quite a bit different from the rest. So while I was not booed off the platform and did not have anything thrown at me, my impression was that the message was not particularly popular.
If interested, you can buy my talk or any of the others at the Epiphaneia web site. You can also download (for free) the brief panel discussion.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (61)
Good, needed message. -
I am glad you were there and so sad that this Gospel message was not delivered on fertile soil. Maybe, you left thought for some, however, Tim. Your words were very clear.
So much of the emergent movement takes Christ as “example”, but not Christ as “Savior”, what J. Gresham Machen warned about in his 1923 “Christianity and Liberalism”.
Yes, we cannot get the Gospel wrong. Thanks for getting it right in your message.
What could be more urgent than the message of Truth which you provided? Perhaps hearts were hardened, indicating all the more the urgency needed within the Church. Perhaps encountering our God of justice can be, and at times should be, dowright uncomfortable. If God guided you in the construction of your letter, and I’m sure that he did, than His words were spoken through you. Nothing else matters beyond that. You were a good and faithful servant.
This message stirred my heart to thank and praise God once again. Well done, Tim.
Ahhh, telling them all nothing in that conference was more important than getting the gospel right was probably the kicker, eh?!
I think it was a wonderful letter ~ I really enjoyed hearing it. You’re so right. I love your illustration of the diamond looking its best against a black backdrop. So many Christians don’t like to consider the holiness, justness, and wrath of God, but that perspective deprives us of a full appreciation for His mercy and grace!
I pray Christians will hear this message ~ either your letter or in some other form ~ internalize it, understand its value and urgency, and then be compelled to pass it on.
That is very sad your letter was not popular. If people respond negatively to the Gospel and say they are Christian, then something is wrong.
Glad you took a stand!
Thanks for being bold in stating the truth, Tim. Is there any way you can post a synopsis of what the others had to say?
Hey Tim,I’m really thankful for this. Especially the free offer of the gospel at the end. Very wise.
Wow….That was really good.I’d love a written copy of that to hand out to my friends.Very powerful. and clear.
I thought this was a very stirring letter and wish you could make a transcript available. I wonder if people thought they were being talked down to—“why is this guy telling me something I already know?” But so many of us have lost sight of the Gospel, and continue to lose sight of it all the time, and it is vital that we are brought back, again and again and again, to that most important message.
This is probably a weird compliment, but you have a very nice speaking voice.
Sounded good to me - much like the Gospel presentations from Acts. Basic, to the point, offensive… above all, faithful.I think of how Paul was responded to in Acts 17. Some received, some rejected, some wanted to discuss and consider further.
All sinners, regenerated or not, regularly need to hear in full who God is, along with the message “repent and believe”. Without these occasional gut-checks we would all go astray. I know I have, and shamingly so at times.
beautifully and truthfully spoken, His word will never return empty.
Tim - I admire your courage and faith in stepping out into unfamiliar surroundings and preaching the Gospel in a plain, honest and uncompromising way. I know it puts my puny efforts of ‘evangelism’ to shame.
Don’t worry too much about the response you received, or rather the perceived lack of one. Look forward to the day in Heaven where, even though you’ll have never met them in your lifetime, the people who heard your ‘letter’, went away, responded and placed their faith in Christ for the first time - come up to you and thank you.
I wanted to add my voice to those requesting a transcript…would it be possible to get a copy of the letter you wrote posted if it’s not covered by an agreement with the organizers not to.
Tim,
Your presentation was the simple, powerful, “foolishness” of the Gospel. I can’t imagine that Paul would have said anything differently.
Perhaps you got a mediocre response because many Christians “Already know that” and have “moved forward”. I find this is a common response when I share the gospel with those who are already Christians.
Your honest presentation of the message makes you a faithful messenger. Thank you for your courage in presenting this “foolishness” to the masses. Regardless of response, His sheep heard His voice.
Marc
What can I say Tim, other than to echo what others have already said? Thank you for your uncompromising message, you truly got the Gospel right and it will accomplish what our sovereign God wants for it.
In Christ Tom
Hey Tim, a few things…
1. You were one of the first people that popped into my head when we were putting this conference together. We wanted the “non-emergent side” represented in a fair way. I thought what better way to represent than a well respected blogger and thinker, and local to boot, like yourself. We also did our best to bring some balance by bringing Andy Crouch to facilitate the entire thing. I appreciate you taking your time to write and present your letter, I think it served its purpose.
2. I heard mixed reviews about most people, including yours. I’m curious as to how you got the cold impression? Depending on who you talked to, you got different reactions, but for the record, many people requested to buy your MP3 after the fact. So I think like most people, you got the kind of reaction that would have been expected for the letter you wrote.
3. From a more personal preference, I expected a bit more. You were talking to seasoned church folk, many Christian leaders and as one commenter assumed I would think, “why did you say something we already know?” Of course, the gospel is important and central, but I think you would also have to give credit to the fact that the very reason why most people were there was because it was their belief in the gospel that brought them there. In a lot of ways, you could have taken your letter verbatim from a gospel tract. At some point there has to be a little bit of credit given to the people in the church can handle some solid food, not just milk.
4. I appreciated the questions that Crouch asked you, because I think he was digging to bring out of your letter what is implied. Assuming that the church believes this gospel, and has this gospel right already, then what does this look like practically? This is the letter we were hoping for. The assumption was that a message to people that call themselves the church are called the church because they believe in the gospel already. What is your most urgent message to a group of people that believe in the gospel? Maybe we should have asked people to write the letter with that question in mind.
5. However, with all that said, I appreciated the fact that you came, you presented, even though we are not your type. I hope that is a hint that us “emerging church” type of people don’t think we have it all figured out and are constantly looking to be shaped and molded by our global community from all traditions. I hope that this comes through. Thanks again Tim, and we appreciate the time you did put into this.
Nathan I am not Tim and he can answer for himself and I hope he will; but a couple of things come to mind as I think about what you have written. 1.) From what you wrote I take it that you actually agreed with what Tim said at the conference; am I correct?
You said that Tim presented the milk of the Gospel and to that I would agree. However, and I think this is the most important point; when Tim talked about “getting the Gospel right” he did so because he believes that if we don’t have this as our centrality, anything else we say will be flawed. Tim’s approach in making sure that people understood what he believed the Gospel is, in my view is the best approach.
2.) As someone who has been a member of “seeker friendly” Churches and who has read a fair amount of Emergent material; from such authors as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Erwin McManus, it has become clear that Emergents have not got the Gospel right; or in a few cases although they may claim to have the Gospel right. What they actually believe and say is not consistent with the Gospel.
It is for that reason that in the limited time that Tim had, I believe he did a great job of “getting the Gospel right”. Had he had more time, perhaps he could have shown how this works out “practically”.
One thing that I noticed about many emergents; is that they are very good at identifying “the problem”, but for the most part the answers they give are not in keeping with the Gospel. I believe a great example of what I just said is in Tim’s critique of Brian McLaren’s book ‘Everything must Change’.
One thing is certain, the Gospel that Emergents preach and the Gospel that Reformed believers preach is different. Both can not be correct.
I look forward to hearing your letter (I haven’t listened yet).
More and more over the last few years I have come to see that the greater the depths I realize of my depravity, the greater the glory I see in God’s majesty… the more palpably I sense how terrifying and exacting His justice, the more I savor the sweetness of His grace. The good news of Christ is only made better by understanding how bad the bad news of our sin and circumstance really is before the throne of a just and holy God.
Nice work.
The fact of the matter is, this is the great danger. We all get the Gospel wrong, and we all need to get it right.
The sad thing is when we think we have it right and we’re ready to “move on to other things”.
Well done.
Well done Tim Challies. You’re a good speaker. You nailed it down in a serious yet encouraging way.You were edifying, and yet for me with that sorrow that always touches my heart when I hear the pure Gospel. It’s because of my sin, and my Savior’s suffering and death that i have this mild sadness. Hard to explain really.. Jesus desired to go to Jerusalem and be mocked and killed by the Jews, whom He came as their Messiah, but also the Gentiles, who hated Him..He desired to go to the Cross, because His Father desired it. And also because He loved the sinners, like Peter and Andrew, and Mary, who had become His friends as He lived in this world. Jesus gave Himself for the Father, who gave Jesus for us. The depth of this love is unfathomable!
The good news is not really the good news that it is, without bad news. Thanks for making that point.
The Church has left out the bad news. And so the Church has a shallow gospel, without any depth, nor does it have any biting, and overwhelming truth. Biting in that it convicts us right through our bones, and overwhelming, because of such a love, that is beyond all comprehension!
I saw Shane Claiborne once. He was very political. That’s what seems to drive him. It was like a concert really, and he was the main guy. The series was called: “Jesus for President”, so you can see where he is sort of coming from. I did write to him, and he wrote back. And I believe he is my brother, and I his. But we are big time different. I pray your words had an impact on Shane.
BTW, did you hear about Roy “Doc” Hallady? Amazing huh. i know you must miss him a lot.
I like what Jim said below, “we all have the gospel wrong.” And to answer Tim, yes, I agreed with Tim and what he said. It certainly wasn’t that I disagreed, I just it was the first stages and that the church needs to move on being inspired by what the gospel is and into more solid foods and more practical ways of living it out.
I’m only going with the “emergent” language because that is what Challies used, but I wouldn’t call what we did an emergent conference. We very intentionally invited Challies, and invited Crouch to facilitate so it wasn’t one sided. We had messages from artists, children, conservatives, liberals, different ethnicities etc.
Of course we don’t have the gospel right, especially if you leave the entire description of emergent beliefs to bell, mclaren, mcmanus…these guys are part of the movement, but there is still a lot of major influence from brueggemann (who wrote a letter for this conference), hauerwas, peterson, wright…guys, who are helping to champion some more solid food that the church is digesting. There are plenty of “reformed” celebrities that don’t encapsulate well everything that Christians should be, so I don’t think that a few celebrity names should be expected to have it all figured out either. They are still helping bring insight where they are gifted. So I don’t think it was about identifying the problem, as much as these letters were for giving answers and practical directions to where the church needs to head and be, each voice played a particular role, including Challies. I had just hoped that the reformed role would be a bit more to chew on then a gospel tract.
The gospel Reformed believers preach isn’t different, it is just not the end of, it isn’t the whole of it, there is more to it than what Tim explained, and that is what the church is wrestling with and expanding on. We tried to offer all different viewpoints, all with the understanding that every other letter was attempting to get the gospel right in their own way, all full acknowledging that we need the other person’s understanding to have a more full picture.
For someone with such esteemed diction, your limited vocabulary in describing the event is amusing. It appears, by and large, that you missed the point of the event (and your participation in it) completely. The conference organizers set out to include a wide range of traditions in an effort to give a well rounded appeal. Your narrowly popular voice was thrown into the mix to provide equal billing. The very fact that you were given the same platform as such legends as Walter Bruggemann & Ron Sider should have left you humbled and thankful. Instead, you arrogantly claim to have announced the ‘right gospel’. How grand that the ‘right gospel’ has been Joseph Smithed to you. To even claim that you have arrived reveals your ignorance and uncovers that you’ve ceased to be a student of the scriptures.
No matter, people find solidarity in your blog and publishers send you books to review. Awesome.
Nathan
I used the names Bell, McLaren, and McManus not as a comprehensive list of Emergents, but as small sample of what Emergents teach. The ones I mentioned however, are probably the most well know.
At the following site:http://www.spurgeon.org/catechis.htm#Q1 CH Spurgeon said the following.
I am persuaded that the use of a good Catechism in all our families will be a great safeguard against the increasing errors of the times, and therefore I have compiled this little manual from the Westminster Assembly’s and Baptist Catechisms, for the use of my own church and congregation. Those who use it in their families or classes must labour to explain the sense; but the words should be carefully learned by heart, for they will be understood better as years pass. May the Lord bless my dear friends and their families evermore, is the prayer of their loving Pastor. C. H. Spurgeon
As Spurgeon indicates we “must labour to explain the sense:” of this Catechism, but I believe that if we really want to grow deep in our faith, we would do well to listen to what Spurgeon says here.I believe the first three contain the basics for setting deep roots for growth; in order to be instruments in the Redeemer’s hands.
Q. What is the chief end of man?A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God (1 Cor. 10:31), and to enjoy him for ever (Ps. 73:25-26). Q. What rule has God given to direct us how we may glorify him?A. The Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Eph. 2:20; 2 Tim. 3:16) is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify God and enjoy him (1 Jn. 1:3). Q. What do the Scriptures principally teach?A. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man (2 Tim. 1:13; Eccl. 12:13).Neither I nor Spurgeon are saying that a catechism is the only way to learn how to grow in the knowledge of our Lord. But a good catechism such as this one used properly can point us towards to what we need in order to grow.
One of the things that I believe is very important is to remember that we need to “15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Tim.2:15 KJV There are many things such as philosophy and psychology that might seem right in the eyes of men; however, most of them fly in the face of what the Scriptures teach. Even the Church has been infected with a lot of these man centered philosophies; mainly because they don’t know their Bibles well enough to know that it is not the real thing.
As a general rule, many of these philosophies have at their core “man centeredness”; rather than God as the center.This is not always easy to spot, because if it was it would be rejected outright. The problem is that many Christians who actually know their Bibles and see the deceptive lies that are polluting the Church; often are made to look like trouble makers in their own local bodies and they eventually are forced to look else where for another local body that the Bible is preached and mentored without compromise.
Admittedly this has been a problem through out the history of the Church and this is the main reason why the Church wrote creeds and confessions; in order to guard against heresy.
Thanks for your contribution Joe #23, you’ve really chased away all those condescending, defensive emergent stereotypes.
And when did the Gospel become ‘milk’? Ouch.
I am getting a bit older now — on my way to 50. I read this blog, and find it interesting, but it does remind me of several of my college friends from the ’80s. At that time, they were called the Reconstructionists. Strong, Reform-minded individuals who very narrowly defined orthodoxy. Eventually, they all came to define each other out of orthodoxy, accusations flew and then many of the representatives (though not all) became angry and difficult to work with, isolating themselves from each other and neutering their work. Many of the younger people I knew who followed these leaders have ended up doing little for the kingdom where they live.
Tim, your reaction to this conference, and your audio clip reminds me very much of the spirit (though not the theological message) of the reconstructionist crowd.
” I read this blog, and find it interesting, but it does remind me of several of my college friends from the ’80s. At that time, they were called the Reconstructionists. Strong, Reform-minded individuals who very narrowly defined orthodoxy.”-WT21
Tim’s sharing the Gospel wasn’t narrow at all to me. But simply the Gospel that is in the Bible.Satan is twisting it and perverting as much as ever.
I thank Tim for simply sharing the truth of the good news of Christ, that every believer should love to hear.
“Love rejoices in the truth!” 1 Cor. 13:7
“such legends as Walter Bruggemann & Ron Sider “ -Joe
Never heard of these guys.
Tim is a humble man of the Lord. He never says he is of course, but he is.There’s only one Gospel. Tim nailed it down. You should be moved to hear the truth; we all should. If we are not, then we need to exaime our hearts.
Ed,
thanks for making the assumption that I am ‘emergent.’
And as for the ‘milk’ bit, I think Peter and Paul had a couple of things to say about that…man, i thought all you neo-reformers knew the Bible well…
Hey Tom, thanks for that comment, and for the most part I agree with you, in fact just last night at our board meeting of one of these so called emergent churches the idea of a catechism came up, and looking through reformed catechism at that. We are not opposed to this, and we are not opposed to your or Tim’s message, this is why we invited him.
However it’s this language of only the bible and no other area of study is actually helpful. I just don’t understand nor agree with this at all especially since the way that many people read the bible is very man-centered and there is no good way to read it God centered besides telling me you are and then telling me what it means. The other philosophies help us read the bible better and understand it more truthfully. IE. Pychology might help us realize our own biases in reading religious texts, English will help us read different literature in the way it should be read, Philosophy helps us understand competing worldviews. These don’t have to be competing unless you make them.
Joe, i’m pretty certain that Paul and Peter wouldn’t have responded to a straightforward Gospel presentation with ‘oh more milk, give us something more.’
In fact, in context what Paul seems to be saying is: ‘You won’t stomach meat if you can’t stomach milk.’
Doesn’t something in your heart leap every time you hear the Gospel? isn’t that what sanctifies us and renews us each time we hear it? I’m just surprised that at a meeting of Christians, the very essence of what makes us Christians was met with so coldly.
Joe,Maybe you should open up your Bible and read it some more because the gospel is mentioned over 90 times in the New Testament.Read 1 Corinthians 15, “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” I could go on pasting the rest of the passage but I hope you get the point that the Gospel in its entirety is the centrality of the Christian faith.I will offer some more Scripture for you to read in regards to the Gospel being more than milk. Again, this comes from Paul as he is addressing the Corinthian church in a second letter. 2 Corinthians 11:3- , “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.”
I can honestly say that the most humble people I know are those who meditate consistently on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I can honestly say that the most arrogant people I have met are people who think there is something better or more advanced than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Nathan
I must admit that I appreciate the way you dialogue your thoughts.
From all your comments, I would consider you an “emergent-lite”. What I mean by that is that from all the articles and books I have read by emergents, although in many respects it is hard to nail down exactly what they believe; when they actually begin talking about doctrine etc…what they say is steeped in liberalism. For instance, Rob Bell in his book ‘Velvet Elvis’ denies that the Bible is the inspired inerrant, infallible Word of God.
Here is a quote from Velvet Elvis.”I see the Bible not primarily as God’s revealed word but as the expression of the spiritual experiences of God’s people down through the ages. …We have to embrace the Bible as the wild, uncensored, passionate account it is of people experiences the living God. Doubting the one true God.”
The Bible is a “human product…rather than the product of divine fiat.”Consequently, the Bible is helpful not primarily as the factual revelation of God’s real’acts of history, but as a metaphor to help us understand our own experiences.”
He also says that one of the main reasons that “Western Christians” get the Gospel wrong is because they view the Bible through a “Greco-Roman hermeneutic” rather than a “Rabbinical Hermeneutic”. I have done a little bit of study into what a “Rabbinical hermeneutic” is and examples from Scripture in the differences this actually makes and all I can say is that it definitely changes the very heart of the Scriptures. As a matter of fact I would say that on a number of issues such the Reformed doctrine of the justification by faith alone, in Christ alone; more towards how a Roman Catholic would understand the issue. I will not post the example here, because I don’t want this to become too long. But I will if you ask me to.
I did not say that the study of other material outside of Scripture can not be helpful. As a matter of fact, if it wasn’t helpful then catechisms would not be helpful. What you are talking about is what is often referred to as “solo-scriptura”, rather than the Reformed doctrine called Sola-scriptura (sufficiency of Scripture).The Reformed doctrine of the Sola-scriptura doesn’t say that outside material can not be helpful. It just says that the Bible is sufficient in and of itself for life and godliness. It also says that all things should be tested against the Scriptures to see if they are biblical.
For instance psychology although I don’t want to throw all of it with the bath water, much of it has to do with autonomy, while ignoring the fact that sin is the main reason for our problems. This is not to say that people have not been victimized by sinful people. It is that by and large when someone is victimized; their reaction to being sinned against is often sinful in itself. As someone who has and is suffering through pain, I know all too well how easy it is to start to feel sorry for myself and though I seek medical help in this issue, I can tell you that God is my strength through this difficult time. It is in the Scriptures that I learn to put my trust in Him and I find that when I preach the Scriptures to myself, that my trust in my Lord grows.There is a great book on this aspect that I highly recommend called ‘Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands’ by Paul David Tripp. As this book shows all of as Christians are called to council, but not all of us council biblically.
I agree with you that English is indispensable when it comes to reading the Scriptures. Without it I would not even be able to read Scripture, nor understand how to rightly divide the Word of God.
Thank you for the dialogue.
Thank you for telling the truth pointing biblically uninformed, postmodern men and women toward an encounter with non-negotiable truth.
If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Jesus Christ
Saviour mentioned in bible less then 100 times. The word Lord mentioned over 6000 times. Perhaps the issue is in Whom He is, not what He can do for us…But then that has always been the rub, like after 5,000 being fed, and many of His disciples leaving Him…How about early in the week “Hosanna, our king has come and our way done,” but by late in the week crucify Him, we have no king but Caesar.”Now, just go listen to the “gospel” in nearly all the pulpits today…It’s about what He can Do for YOU, not Who He Is.Why are we trying to all be Philadelphia, writing to Laodecia, as if we can be another churche’s” holy spirit?”The reality is all the 7 churches in Asia are GONE! Why? Because they didn’t attend to the rot in their own foundations.Look! We can all enjoy the encouragement Jesus gave to churches, but we must attend to the rot in our OWN foundation. We need NOT add to what Jesus warned of in those letters John wrote, because the problems outlined then are the same problems we face today. Satan’s lies go all the way back to the garden, and fully apply today…to our own foundation!
I am again profoundly moved by the simplicity and clarity of the gospel.
I am grieved for “Christians” who will say they believe in the work of Christ and the truth of his word, but will react coolly toward this, His gospel.
Tim, your letter was soaked in grace and truth toward those who deserve to receive neither. In this way you honored Christ and did a great kindness to the people at this “emerging church” conference. You knocked this one out of the park.
Tim’s talk was “soaked in grace and truth towards those who deserve to receive neither?” What are you talking about?
Are you saying the people at the “emerging church” conference didn’t deserve to be spoken to with grace and truth?
Gosh, I hope not.
Also, can we stop using Emerging Church language like it’s 2005? Seriously. It’s over folks. Brian McLaren has left the building.
Joe
I find it interesting that you mention Walter Brueggemann and Ron Sider as giants. As I look at information concerning these two men. What stands out is that Brueggemann is ordained in the United Church and he has been strongly influenced by liberal theologians (of the German variety). Although Bruggemann believes that the Scriptures are inherent, in actually he believes that the actual meaning of Scripture can not be known because humans are fallible. Therefore, the Scriptures become subjective, rather than objective truth.He dismisses the Reformed hermeneutic as “a slight of hand act of substituting of our interpretive preference for the inherency of Apostolic claims.” http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/225 To be quite frank; although I am definitely aware that our humanness can get in the way of how we understand Scripture; if I believed the way Brueggmann believed, I wouldn’t be a Christian today. What would be the point, it would make even my own salvation as subjective and I wouldn’t be able to know for sure if I was saved or not.
Ron Snider is a tough nut to crack and to be quite frank at this point I don’t know what to make of him. He seems like a liberal, but I haven’t been able to find out yet what he believes concerning issues such as the infallibility and the inherency of Scripture, and what the Gospel is to him.I guess what I am saying is that more study on this man needs to be done before I make a judgment.
“Consequently, the Bible is helpful not primarily as the factual revelation of God’s real’acts of history, but as a metaphor to help us understand our own experiences.” -Tom
Is this a direct quote of Rob Bell? I am trying to understand where this enigma is coming from. Thanks for sharing those last two comments they are helpful.
have a blessed Lord’s Day with the Lord’s people.
Donsands
Yes that is correct it is a quote from Rob Bell in his book ‘Velvet Elvis’.
ummm…..i’m pretty positive that is not a direct quote from Rob Bell, that is someone’s conclusion on how they interpreted what he said.
Though if I’m wrong, I’d be open to someone proving that…
Nathan,
I appreciate your critique of Tim in some ways, in that you wanted, or seem to have wanted, something practical and innovative from him. I guess, as a reformed church planter in Toronto, I have two responses to your comments here, which do form a consistent pattern.
The first response is that it seems to me that you are assuming there is a consensus amongst the listeners of the conference about what the gospel is. I don’t know that you are warranted in being that optimistic, given that the panel of speakers probably have no consensus about what the gospel is!
In fact, poll your speakers on the question of what the death of Christ means to us - is it primarily a shining example of God’s self-sacrificial love, or is it His taking the wrath of God the Father for sin upon Himself? I am pretty sure that the division of opinion would be pretty clear even with the speakers, to say nothing of the listeners.
My second response is that I think you underestimate the importance of the gospel in missiological method. My own five year experience of planting a church in Toronto has shown me that most of the skeptics we encounter, along with almost all of the people who claim to be Christians and who come from other churches, actually have a very performance-oriented understanding of the Christian faith. They have come from churches with an abundance of energy focussed on the how-to’s of Christianity.
Unfortunately, either unwittingly or consciously, those churches created a false gospel of busy church activism that sucked the joy out of it’s people. Modern emerging church focusses on the missio dei have much promise, but can just as easily turn into a new moralism just as toxic as the old don’t-drink, don’t-dance, don’t make romance moralisms of our fundamentalist churches, and the program-centric activism of the Boomer churches. Whether the ‘do’ ing is Bible study and prayer meetings, or seeker services and outreach softball leagues, or homeless shelters and organic city guerilla gardens, it is still all, doing. Unless you get the gospel right, you will fall into the same trap that you are reacting against.
The gospel is therefore not just the way into the Christian faith, as gospel tracts imply and you seem to have accepted. The gospel is the way into the depths of the ocean of intimacy with God, sanctification and obedience to the mission of God and the call of the church. It is the rudder and the engine that both propels the church forward and keeps the church propelled in the right direction. The gospel is the power of salvation - and that word as it is used in Romans 1 connotes not just justification, but also sanctification and glorification, and the cosmic renewal of all things we anticipate with His Second Coming.
What I find sad is that Tim was apparently the only one who played this note at the conference. While contextualization is important and the culture’s shifts require new ways of explaining the old story, those new ways are not the power to change our city, or world. Peruse the last 100 years of missiological innovation and tell me which ones decisively changed the spiritual course of our culture. I know of none, and I suspect the current lineup of innovations will be similarly successful. Contextualization remains important, I grant you. But only in service to the clarity of the gospel. The gospel changes everything. Tim, you did good.
Dan, great comment, and for the most part I agree. I wasn’t hoping that he would make up a new gospel or become innovative for the sake of being innovative. I was hoping that he would give some legs to what “getting the gospel right” actually means in our context now. Maybe this is where we disagree, but I just don’t think getting the gospel right equals being able to articulate a right cognitive understanding of what Jesus did and who he is.
So yes, Tim was right in terms of his words and his theology, no one argued him on that. What you said was right on as well, coming up with new movements and fads won’t get us very far either. I do think though that having dialogue about what this gospel looks like in 21st century culture in a practical sense is a very helpful discipline (and I’m sure that anyone who comments on or write’s blogs would agree).
Tim knew what kind of conference he was going to, he knew who the speakers were ahead of time. I think this is what lead him (correct me if I’m wrong Tim) to write a letter like he did. In other words, many of the people that he was talking to it is assumed had the gospel wrong, and his most urgent letter to the church, or that specific church that was there, was that they need to get it right. So from his point of view, I understand the letter. From my point of view, he only rehashed what we all were trying to do in that room that weekend and trying to understand and wrestle with what exactly that meant.
Nathan
Though that comment came from a critique of Bell’s book ‘Velvet Elvis’, I believe the author of that critique quoted Bell properly. I say this not because I have read ‘Velvet Elvis’ myself, but I have read other critiques on the book and their quotes from the book matched what that critique said to a tee.
If however, after reading what the following link says and you can show me that the author quoted Bell out of context. I would gladly retract my comment. In fact, I take no pleasure in things like this and only mention them in the hope that the truth would be known for the edification of the Church and the glory of God. If we get this aspect wrong, by the fault we get the Gospel wrong.
http://www.harvestopc.org/uploads/DVanDyke_Jumping_Off_the_Mark_%2804-22…
I’m just saying it’s not a direct quote from Bell. It isn’t.
Nathan The part in ” … ” is a direct quote.
Nathan
I just thought I would ask you if you embrace narrative theology, or systematic theology?
can you define both? So I have something to go on.
From http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&biw=1016&bih=570&defl=en&q=define:Syst…
Systematic Theology
” Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. Inherent to a system of theological thought is that a method is developed, one which can be applied both broadly and particularly. …”en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology
Narrative Theology (Postliberal theology}
“Postliberal theology began as a late 20th-century development in Christian Theology. It proposes that the Church’s use of the Bible should focus on a narrative presentation of the faith as regulative for the development of a coherent systematic theology. …”en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_theology
Further down in the link above under the Criticisms section it says the following: “Postliberal theology’s divorcing itself from historical necessity and objectivism is deemed radical by some conservative Christians.”
The reason why I bring this up is from all the research I have done, both from discussion with Emergents and reading material both pro and con about Emergent thought. Not only do I read most of them saying they believe that the Bible should be read “narratively” (story), but the about quote, where it talks about objectivism not being necessary. They say that we need to be conversant not dogmatic.
Just so you are aware I have a personal interest in this matter. I recently left a Church mainly (though not the only reason) because of the influence of Emergent thought in the Church. I recently discussed my concerns about this with the pastor of this Church and to make a long story short he believes that the Narrative theology is very biblical. Also that questions are more important than answers. He said a whole lot more than that, but I will not bore you with them; other than to say that he confirmed to me that I made the right decision to leave that Church.
Saying this I realize because of the many strains of “emergent”, there are probably some that embrace the emergent philosophy, but retain a more conservative approach to the Scriptures.
I wouldn’t say I hold to either theology 100%, both I think are important to the faith.
I think systematic theology is an important way to take all the questions we have and provide answers. I think churches and communities of people need to have a systematic expression of what they believe. The structure is good and healthy for any community and gives guidelines.
However, I still find narrative theology helps fill in a lot of the gaps that systematic theology has left. It seems to be much more alive and able to bring in people to it that doesn’t previously hold to or understand the systematic way of looking at their faith. When Jesus told parables, that was very narrative. There is plenty of systematic theology to be found and gleaned out of his parables, but at their core they are narrative and very subjective. However to leave them as stories and do nothing with them would be a disservice. I think systematic theology helps make sense of all the narratives, it helps give backbone. Systematic theology I would see as more of a second step to lay out what narrative theology has brought up.
I don’t think either one is good without the other. Narrative theology should in the end, if unable to provide answers, probably default to historical systematic doctrines of the church. Bring up new questions, seek new understanding, but if nothing, trust the church, trust the traditions and authority of the community that has gone before us. Systematic theology has serious issues when they trust the process and the history too much, even if it’s wrong. If a statement at the bottom of systematic doctrine is false, that leads to all sorts of other problems down the road, and narrative theology helps keep that process honest and always balanced.
So that’s probably how I would view it, mind you, that is hte first time I’ve ever really hear the distinction, and ironically I pastor a church called “theStory” so I’m familiar with both, just never heard them described that way.
Nathan
I don’t want to comment too much at this time about your over-all take on the issue. However, I do want to say something about one part of what you said.
“When Jesus told parables, that was very narrative. There is plenty of systematic theology to be found and gleaned out of his parables, but at their core they are narrative and very subjective.”
I am not sure you actually meant to say “subjective”. All Scripture is objective truth including the parables. Though there are parts of Scripture that the meaning is not always clear, never the less they still are objective truth. Ones interpretation of Scripture may be subjective, because they are human; but the Scriptures themselves are objective.