Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

Brian’s first whipping boy is what he terms the “Greco-Roman six-line narrative.” Many of us are familiar with it’s story:

In Brian’s words, “To be a Christian has required one to believe that the Bible presents one very specific story line, a story line by which we assess all of history, all of human experience, all of our own experience.” (33) His quest for a new kind of Christianity begins by questioning this story line. How does he do this? By claiming that “it’s the shape of the Greek philosophical narrative that Plato taught!” (37)

In two conversations with two separate friends, “a suspicion began to grow in [him]” and he began to “realize it was also the social and political narrative of the Roman Empire.” According to Brian, the historical understanding of God’s Story of Rescue in terms of Creation, Rebellion, Rescue, Re-Creation (or Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation as it’s also known; this is my own re-framing) is Platonic.

According to Brian, this narrative framing mirrors the story line of Platonism: we start with a “Platonic Ideal,” which is a perfect Platonic paradise; from there we fall into darkness, which mirrors Plato’s famous parable, the Cave of Illusion; now our being has been transformed and the Greek blood-god Theos is furious because his perfect world is “spoiled and now decaying;” salvation occurs when the god of this Greco-Roman version of the biblical story finds a way to forgive this fallen, pathetic, detestable creation through justification, atonement, and redemption; those who are forgiven/saved are returned to an “eternal state in which they will be safe forever;” those who are not “are banished to hell-the Greek Hades” and the tainted universe is destroyed. (41-44)

On the one hand Brian’s explanation is barely coherent and fraught with inconsistencies (He also brings in Aristotle and links him to Plato to explain this Greco-Roman narrative. I’m pretty sure that Aristotle would take issue with being so tightly bound to Plato as an extension rather than a replacement!) On the other hand, from the start you are required to agree with this framing, a framing Brian supports with ZERO scholarship and ZERO supporting voices. In fact, another blogger more familiar with the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle insists Brian’s reading of Plato is naive and just plain bad. “McLaren does nobody any favors (especially those of us who love teaching Plato) by inventing a syncretic thought-system that simply does not exist in classical texts.” His imposition of Plato onto the historic orthodox telling God’s Story of Rescue is at best inventive nonsense and worst a bald-face lie. Furthermore, not only is his foundational argument inventive and disingenuous, it is so innovative that he could find no one to support his conclusions! From an argumentative standpoint, it’s not looking too good for Brian. The foundational argument on which the rest of the book hinges (Creation, Rebellion, Rescue, Re-Creation is not the true shape of the biblical narrative [35]) is indefensible.

Brian ends his explanation of the “Greco-Roman six-line narrative” by claiming, “This is—more or less, and put baldly—the “good news” taught by much of the Western Christian religion…Its true defenders will quarrel with various details here or there, because their version, no doubt, tries to avoid being this starkly dismal.” (44) He claims “this version…keeps popping up in church history.” I’d really like to know where, Brian? I want everyone to see what he has done here: Brian has created a gross, unfair, patently false caricature of both the Story and the God behind the Story. Theos IS NOT REAL. It is a rhetorical device designed to get you to say, “Yeah, that’s a disgusting way to tell the Story. I don’t want to serve that God!” The Straw Man Brian constructs here finds no representation within evangelicalism by neither scholars nor practitioners. Romans Road, 4 Spiritual Laws, Evangelism Explosion, (models which I myself take great issue with) and the Kyperian narrative itself are not this gross caricature.

Instead, what we find is one consistent Story that God has been telling from the beginning:

First, Creation is never presented biblically or theologically as a “perfect state.” It was “good” and the way God intended it to be, which in no way discounts forward motion and progress. In fact, we understand that from the beginning God was taking Creation “somewhere” into the future, where he would ultimately make his dwelling on earth. Furthermore, Rick Warren is biblically and theologically WRONG to suggest that “life on earth is a temporary assignment” and simply “dress rehearsal before the end.”¹ The world really is our home; we are earthlings.

Second, “the Fall,” or as I like to frame it Rebellion, is NOT an ontological change in being as Brian and others wrongly suggest, but an ethical shift. We understand the Story to maintain that we are still Images of God (we do not share the sentiments of the 16th century Lutheran, Matthias Flacius, who argued our sin changes us into an Image of Satan!), but we are ethically morally rebellious. The shift is ethical, not ontological, but with ontological consequences: death and disease (and perhaps others at the DNA level); the change is in our will, not being, with massive “being” repercussions. In the words of Cornelius Plantinga, we and the whole of creation are “not the way it’s supposed it be.” How on earth could you argue otherwise?

But as the Story maintains, we are not without hope. Rescue came when the One True God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. The Father sent the Son to live as a human was intended to live when Adam did not through his sinless life, provide the final sacrifice by entering into the Most Holy place by his own blood as a substitute offering in death, and defeat the dark, evil powers through his triumphal bodily resurrection where he has ascended to the right hand of the Father.

Through Jesus Christ and the church (who is the continuing presence of Christ on earth), by the Holy Spirit, God is progressively re-creating the world to the way he originally intended it to be at the beginning. This Story is not Platonic. It is Scripture. Brian tells a very different story, however.

According to Brian, Scene 1 opens with God telling Adam and Eve that they are free with one exception: “If they eat one specific tree, on the day they eat they will die. Notice, the text does not say they will be condemned to hell, be ‘spiritually separated from God,’ be pronounced ‘fallen’ or ‘condemned,’ or be tainted with something called ‘original sin’ that will be passed to their children. There is only one consequence: they will die…not eventually die, but on the day they eat.” (49-50)

Notice what Brian does here: 1) he rejects the historic doctrine of original sin, which places him outside the historic Rule of Faith on this point; 2) he completely misrepresents and misinterprets the text in order to call into question the foundation of the “Greco-Roman six-line narrative,” which rests on the presupposition that human nature is ethically morally rebellious.

Either Brian is ignorant or patently lying when he says the text says ON THAT DAY THEY WOULD DIE. Mainstream commentators agree that the narrative “is concerned not with immediate execution but with ultimate death.”² Robert Alter—Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Berkley—in his masterful translation of The Five Books of Moses translates 2:17 thus: “But from the tree of knowledge, good and evil, you shall not eat , for on the day you eat from it, you are doomed to die.”³. Alter makes it clear that the verbal construction is consistent with other patterns in the Bible used for issuing of death sentences for the future. Brian’s explanation of Genesis 2 is just plain false.

In scene 2, Adam and Eve abuse their freedom and eat of the one forbidden tree in Genesis 3. According to Brian, this is not a Fall in the orthodox sense, it is a “classic coming-of-age story,” (51) in which “God pushes them out of the nest.” Rather than a fall, it is “the first stage of ascent as human beings progress from the life of hunter-gatherers to the life of agriculturalists and beyond.” Instead of punishing them, God “makes clothes for them, mercifully shielding them from their shame at being naked in one another’s presence.” (50)

Rather than being a Christian reading, Brian is actually making a purely Kantian reading of Genesis 3. Similarly to Brian who paints Gen. 3 in a good light, Kant praises Adam for his willingness to make his own moral judgements, rather than blindly follow the instructions of another, even from God⁴ In “Conjectural Beginning of Human History,” Kant makes clear the Gen. 3 account is, “transition from an uncultured, merely animal condition to the state of humanity, from bondage to instinct to rational control—in a word, from tutelage of nature to state of freedom.”⁵. Though Brian doesn’t celebrate their rebellion against God, it is clear it is not an episode of mourning. Instead he absolutely mirrors J. Baker’s declaration: “What happens there is not a ‘Fall,’ but an awakening.”⁶ In fact, Brian doesn’t even frame this and other acts of rebellion as “against God.”

What Brian does not explain here, is that both Adam and Eve aspired to be “as gods,” which was the temptation from the Serpent in the garden to begin with. The ability to “become as gods, knowing good and evil,” was “as lusts to the eyes.”⁷ The narrative is not about fruit, it’s about power; the story isn’t about a tree, it’s about autonomy, self rule. The promise of the Serpent was “unlimited privileges, unheard-of-acquisitions and gifts⁸ Ultimately, though, they lost “unsullied fellowship with God.”⁹ God is not a mother birdie sending Mama Eve and Papa Adam off to better adventures outside the “nest” of the Garden. No, this is expulsion! They aren’t gently “pushed” out of the Garden; they are thrown out! “Sin separates from God. Intimacy with God is replaced with alienation from God.” This is not the story told by Brian, however.

“Since Adam was the only human being who could have resisted temptation, his failure implies that humanity cannot keep covenant with God…humanity at its best rebels in the prefect environment.”¹⁰ And rather than celebrating this rebellion, the narrative makes it clear this is a bad thing. A very bad thing indeed. Shame, naked, afraid, expulsion are all terms given to heighten the sense of rupture. Something has ‘happened’ to humanity in Adam’s and Eve’s desire to “become as gods,” not least of which are physical death and separation from God. Romans 5 picks up this theme, a conversation I have already had here. Romans 5:18, 19 in particular make clear that “in Adam” we are condemned (vs. “in Christ” we receive justification and life); “in Adam” we are made sinners (vs. “in Christ” we are made righteous).

As I wrote elsewhere, “Ethically we are morally rebellious because of the ethical violation of Adam: disobeying God; ontologically we receive the consequences for Adam’s disobedience and our sinful nature: condemnation and death. Theologically this cashes out as “original sin,” though the “total depravity” variation is not completely necessary. You can hold a lighter view of depravity (i.e. semi-Augustinian or even semi-Pelagian) and still hold to the orthodox view of original sin. You cannot deny original sin, however, and still be orthodox. That doesn’t make sense with Paul and that’s simply not Christian.”

Next, scenes 3-4 represent the struggles between two forms of life outside the garden: Abel’s simpler/nomadic herder life (which seems more acceptable to God because perhaps nomadic life is not as morally compromised as settled farm life [whatever that means...]) and Cain’s agriculturalist life as a settled farmer, which leads to murder. (51) According to Brian, this represents a descent from primal innocence as much as it represents an ascent.

In scenes 5-6, humanity is distanced from both garden and farm and now congregate in cities. Humanity has become “urbanized,” which fosters systemic injustices. God responds by destroying the earth, because He refuses to let evil go unpunished. He uses Noah in an act of surprising mercy and later repents for destroying the earth. Post-flood, humanity continues its paradoxical ascent-descent by building a massive tower and becoming “empire builders.” Apparently all of this human ingenuity and technological advancement is itself a bad thing, rather than the ethical manner in which said humans use that technology to try and do what Mama Eve and Papa Adam had tried at the beginning: “to become as gods.”

After 11 chapters “this repeated pattern of human stupidity and divine fidelity opens into something new: God calls Abraham and Sarah and imbues them with a new identity as the father and mother of a nation who will be blessed in order to bring blessing to all nations.” (53) First, I would argue that “human stupidity” and “divine fidelity” are misnomers: it isn’t human “stupidity” it’s about individual human sin and rebellion against God in an attempt to “become as gods;” Second, while the Genesis narrative and, more broadly, the Israelites story does revolved around chapter 12 with the calling of Abraham, it seems as though Brian is attempting to pivot God’s entire story around Abraham in order to reduce the Christian faith to be one among three options of reaching God. As I previously mentioned, Brian sits on the Board of Directors for a nonprofit called Abrahamic Alliance, an organization that “exists to unite faithful Jews, Christians, and Muslims who are deeply committed to loving the God of our father Abraham,” “where children of Abraham…enjoy peaceful coexistence and mutual appreciation of our faith is deepened by meaningful encounters with one another…” This association is incredibly key.

This is important for this entire blog post series because I maintain for Brian it really isn’t about Jesus Christ, it’s about God, which is very different than the biblical narrative and historic Rule of Faith. Amazingly, Brian’s retelling of the biblical narrative is Christless. Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah is missing. He exclaims, “you cannot serve two masters, Theos and Elohim, the god of the Greco-Roman philosophers and Caesars and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…” (65) On the one hand, his Theos rhetorical device is patently false and intentionally misleading. On the other hand, the god of Muslims is not the same as the One True God incarnated in Jesus Christ. I would even suggest that unless Jews serve Yahshua Mashiach (Jesus Christ) as Lord and Messiah they aren’t really worshiping the same God, because the Holy Scriptures equate Jesus Christ with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I will assert Karl Barth, yet again: “God is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone is God…We cannot be sufficiently eager to insist, nor can it be sufficiently emphasized in the Church and through the Church in the world, that we know God in Jesus Christ alone, and that in Jesus Christ we know the one God.”

In the end, for Brian “if we were looking for some kind of short hand for this narrative…we would refer to the peaceable kingdom of God, the marriage of God and creation, the family of God, or the embodiment of God…the story of the peace-making kingdom ignites our faith with a sacred vision of the future, a vision of hope, a vision of love.” (64-65) While I agree with Brian that God is establishing His Kingdom here on earth now, He will also do so with the future. In pushing his new approach, the peacable-kingdom, this narrative “becomes the desired future toward which the people of God orient themselves, the constellation they set course and sail by, the dream or goal or vision or imagination they pursue.” (63) Unfortunately for Brian’s story, Jesus Christ is not the catalyst for this Kingdom, Jesus Christ is not it’s center, and the “people of God” are not distinguished as the Church of Jesus Christ. (in fact, the word “church” appears only in one chapter…which I find odd and disturbing.) Because for Brian, it’s really all about god, not Jesus Christ.

Now that we’ve explored how Brian tells God’s Story of Rescue, Wednesday we will explore how Brian views the Holy Scriptures. Stay tuned.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Rick Warren, Purpose Driven Life, 36, 47. [↩]
2. Oswalt, Genesis 1-17, 172. [↩]
3. Alter, Five Books of Moses, 21. [↩]
4. Oswald, Genesis, 211. [↩]
5. Kant, Kant on History, 60 [↩]
6. J. Baker, “The Myth of Man’s ‘Fall’—A Reappraisal,” ExpTime 92 (1980/1981) 235-37, p. 236. [↩]
7. Alter, Five Books of Moses, 24. [↩]
8. Oswald, Genesis, 208. [↩]
9. Oswald, Genesis, 208. [↩]
10. Waltke, Genesis, 100. [↩]

Post Series
1. Introduction
2. Pagitt and Pelagius On Human Nature
3. Pagitt and Pelagius On Sin
4. Interlude on Sin
5. Pagitt and Pelagius On Salvation
6. Pagitt and Pelagius On Discipleship and Judgment
7. Conclusion
8. (Final Thoughts)

UPDATE: Please not in point #3 I accidentally suggested that Doug’s leader is Pelagius by typing LEADER instead of LEAD. I did not mean to suggest that Doug’s “leader” is Pelagius, but rather wanted to convey my dismay over Pagitt not following Pelagius’ LEAD in his strong views on sin and judgment. Sorry for that, Doug! I need to proof read these posts better…

ON DISCIPLESHIP AND JUDGMENT

As we saw in the last post on salvation, while Pelagius and Pagitt agree that the example and pattern of Christ is primary for our “salvation” and “integration with the life of God,” they go about it in different ways. Pagitt denies the penal essence of the event of the cross by dismissing the suffering, bloodshed, and death of Christ as reflective of ancient Greek blood god myths. Pelagius on the other hand, acknowledges that Christ’s suffering, shed blood, and death actually does something for us. While a more exhaustive study of Pelagius’ soteriology is necessary, it appears likely that he believes the cross is penal in essence, recognizing Jesus’ suffering and bloodshed provides justification for, salvation from, and forgiveness of sins, while needing the example of Christ to carry us to the end. Pagitt’s theology of salvation reduces the cross to mere example. In fact, in so doing he is left only with the example, pattern, way, and teachings of Christ. This is likely why Pagitt and the broader Emerging Church focus on following the teachings and example of Jesus: without the penalty of the cross that is all that is left.

Here is where Pagitt agrees with Pelagius: in order to live a life of righteousness, a new example and pattern must replace the old ones found in Adam and others. The cross does not save, but the example of Jesus does. While Pelagius believes the cross provides for the forgiveness of past sins through faith and “the holy lather” of baptism, Pelagius does not stop with faith alone, but rather requires disciplined following after the example of Christ to provide for future salvation. Both Pagitt and Pelagius, then, rely upon the example of Christ for ultimate, eschatological salvation, in addition to the inner goodness of humanity to obey and choose integration with God.

This theology of “salvation by example” influences how Pagitt views discipleship and eschatology (end things). Those who decide to follow this new pattern are invited into God’s work now, for “the kingdom-of-God gospel calls us to partner with God, to be full participants in the life God is creating, to follow in the way of Jesus as we seek to live as people who are fully integrated with our Creator.”¹ Instead of choosing to live lives of disintegration, we are called to be fully integrated with God now. This is possible because 1) we are “inherently godly,” having the “light of God” within us; and 2) “we can change the patterns wired into us from our families and create new ways of relating and being.”² Discipleship, then, is about choosing to live well with God in this life.

The problem comes when the question, “Why?” is asked. Why must we live lives of integration? Pagitt does not address judgment or what happens when one does not choose to live a life of integration with God, or better put, when a person intentionally chooses not to “partner with God” or seek to live as a person who is fully integrated with their Creator. Instead, Pagitt assures the world that “God will dwell among us, that God will be with us, that the whole of creation will be healed and restored and fully integrated with God. Earthly life will be made new as it is transformed into the Kingdom of God.”³ While Pagitt reflects Pelagius in calling people to find salvation and life in the example of Jesus and calls all people to follow Jesus’ pattern of integration with God, he does not go as far as Pelagius does.

Pelagius places a premium on discipleship and takes judgment very seriously. In To Demetrias he says, “The bride of Christ must be more splendidly adorned than anything else, since the greater one whom one is seeking to please the greater the effort which is required to please him.”⁴ The bride is called to live a life that is “blameless” and “guiltless” in order to reign with Christ in the end, “for nothing is worthier of God, nothing can be more dear to him, than the blamelessness should be maintained with all possible circumspect.”⁵ Why? What is the promise for those who fail to live such a life post-baptism? Judgment and hell. Pelagius makes plain in On Divine Law that those who believe in Christ and receive him through baptism and renounce the devil and the world are called to pay attention to the things which are forbidden and to diligently fulfill the things commanded, because “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.”⁶

Not only does Pelagius believe in hell for those who do not believe, he also believes hell is reserved for those who fail to choose righteousness, to (in the words of Pagitt) “live in sync with God” after they first have faith in Christ through baptism. Pagitt does not go this far, however. Instead he merely suggests that “the afterlife isn’t a place. It’s a state of being.”⁷ That state of being is vaguely defined as the state in which God’s hope and dreams for the world are fulfilled and come to fruition in the Kingdom right now, with no mention of judgment or a “state of being” for those who do not “faith” in Christ or even partner with God and His dreams.⁸ While Pagitt agrees with Pelagius in that humans are called to “[align] their lives with the things of God, with the work of God,” he does not go as far as Pelagius to suggest what happens to those who don’t, or even those who were aligned and then fall out of alignment.

A few parting thoughts and questions:

1) While both Pagitt and Pelagius respectably believe followers of Jesus are called to live “lives of integration with God”—this presumably means to follow His commands—both believe we can do so on our own. The grace of God and power and power of the Holy Spirit. Instead, we because we are still “inherently godly” we can on our own live “in sync with God.”

2) Pelagius had a very strong view of sinning after baptism, which was the point of forgiveness, salvation, and regeneration. This strong view led to a very strong view of judgment, in that those who fail in this Christian endeavor receive the punishment of hell. For him, every human is in control of their will to such an absolute extent that when they sin after salvation/baptism, having their sins washed away, it is really bad. So bad that “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.”

3) Unfortunately, Pagitt doesn’t follow his leader Pelagius’ lead (WOAH this was a major typing mistake! I mean to write LEAD, not LEADER.)⁹ in this regard, because he has a low view of sin and a non-existent view of judgment. For Pagitt, the afterlife—whatever that even means; it is so vague and vanilla but seems to point to a “heaven-type” state—is a “state of being.” The only time this idea of a post-death, post-Jesus coming event is even mentioned is this one time on page 222. Even then that “state” is where “all of God’s hopes for the earth, all of God’s desires for this partnership with humanity, come to fruition.”¹⁰ This cashes out as the present “kingdom” which is “in all of us, through us, and for us right here, right now.”¹¹ While I appreciate the “here-ness” of Pagitt’s perspective on the Kingdom, he forgets the “not-yet-ness” which is explicit in the teachings (particularly the parables) of Jesus. Which leads to my first question…

4) Question for Doug: It is obvious you are a universalist and do not believe in a literal judgment, a separation of good and bad. What do you do with Jesus Christ’s teachings on the subject, 25% of which make-up his teachings, especially his parables.

5) Question for Doug: In light of your rejection of a real, literal judgment, what do you do with Jesus’ parables of the Nets in Matthew 13 and Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22? Both have an EXPLICIT eschatological orientation and teach about a time of judgment, where the righteous and wicked will be 1) separated and 2) punishment.

In the case of the Parable of the Nets, it is the final bracket that, along with the Wheat/Weeds, emphasized severe judgment for neglecting the ethical implications of the Kingdom. Both parables emphasize a gathing and separating process at which the wicked are rejected and thrown into a fire. Whether this is a literal fire is not important. Paralleling the Wheat/Weeds, the Nets envisions the Son of Man, who is Jesus Christ himself, sending angels to do the separating and punishing.

From a Jewish perspective, this “net” imagery would have made sense: fishing imagery has a long OT history of representing hardship, captivity, and judgment from God (Hab 1:14-17; Ezek 32:3). A net, then, could be expected to evoke thoughts of judgment for the Jewish hearers. “The primary concern of this parable is tht separation will occur, that at the end the evil will be excluded from God’s kingdom.”¹² Because people themselves are wicked—they aren’t simply broken or live after bad patterns—because they are ethically morally rebellious. The basis of this separating and judgment is ethical, and those who are worthless/evil will receive eternal punishment, which the Sheep and Goats emphasizes.

In the case of the Wedding Banquet, I’ve included parts of the section from my own book that deals with the subject:

Here we face a story of a king who sends out his servants with an appeal to those already invited to his royal wedding banquet. In the Jewish and ancient Near Eastern cultures, social gatherings and parties had a double-invite: The first one told of the event and sought initial acceptance; the second was a reminder and told the guests that all was ready and they should come. In the story the slaves are not sending out an invitation; they are calling on those who have already been invited and accepted to remind them to come.

These people have already accepted the first invitation, but now they make excuses to reject the second invite. This was a huge act of betrayal because huge social significance was attached to rejecting the second invitation. Apparently, they had better things to do and they put their selfish concerns over their obligations to the king. They cared more about their “farms” and “business” than their social obligation to attend the royal banquet of the king. They even go so far as to subject the king’s messengers to violence and death!

In this parable, Jesus is speaking to two religious groups: the Chief Priests and Pharisees. Jesus reminds these leaders of the nation of Israel of their original invitation and subsequent rejection, directly tying into the next part of the story.

Because these originally invited people failed to respond to the second invitation, the king opens the door to everyone in the city. People from all corners of the city are invited to come to the royal banquet and enjoy a feast and festival. All people, both good and bad are invited, irrespective of person. The invitation did not depend on who the person was, but on whom the king chose to invite; he chose to invite everyone in his Kingdom and it didn’t matter who they were.

We have two groups contrasted: those who think they have the right to their position as invitees, the right to a place at the banquet table and who think they are “in.” Then there are those who are unexpectedly promoted and surprisingly invited to the feast.

Originally, the Jewish people were invited to covenant with God to be His people. They received the first invitation. But throughout their history they did not live up to their obligations to that invitation. In Jesus’ story, they are replaced by an unexpected collection of street people. The first invited group who rejected the second invitation are replaced with a second group. As Jesus says, “The first will be last, the last will be first.” To be a member of the new group and new nation is no more guarantee of salvation than to be born into old Israel; it still depends on a persons reaction to the invitation, here symbolized by the wedding clothes.

In this story, we come to a man who is wandering around the king’s royal wedding banquet in completely inappropriate attire. He is the guy in Rustler jeans and a Hanes t-shirt at your wedding reception. A sight to behold for sure! The king notices him, calls him friend and asks how in the heck he got into the party without the proper wedding clothes.

The event to which this man was invited required him to make a change, to change his clothes into something that was appropriate to the event for which he was invited. The parable assumes the man had time to change and come in appropriate attire anyone might have. While the cultural context of the parable didn’t require a specific type of clothing, any invited person was to come clothed in a way fitting this specific event, nonetheless. Instead, the man made no preparations to wear clothes fitting to the feast he himself chose to attend!

So here’s the question: How are we coming to the banquet at judgment? What clothes are we wearing? How are we coming to this grand banquet at the Day of the Lord?

The first invitation goes out indiscriminately to every person. The second invite begs a response. This second invitation is the other side of the paradox between divine grace and human responsibility. The first invitation was the announcement proclaimed by the Heavenly Hosts in chapter 8: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth shalom to all humans, on whom His favor rests!” This announcement heralded the coming Lamb of God, the coming Rescuer, an invitation to take part in this new act of rescue by the Creator. The second invitation was by Jesus himself, which we will consider in the next chapter. In this invitation, Jesus announces to the entire world that the good news for which all humans have been waiting (the Kingdom of Heaven) has arrived. We are invited to respond in repentance, belief, and following.

I get the feeling from this parable, though, that there are a whole lot of people who have accepted God’s invitation to salvation and shalom. Of course everyone wants everlasting life and re-creation at some level. Many people, though, will respond by coming dressed to the banquet as a lumberjack or in their frat house sweatshirt.

This lavish banquet with Jesus as host is for us, and the question is: how are we coming? Are we following the social customs of this Kingdom, or going inappropriately dressed to meet our Creator? Are we clothing ourselves with the righteousness that God requires or are we simply coming, not as we are, but as we insist on being?

These are the questions we need to ask as we think about “That Other Place” and who will or will not go there in judgment. Often, people make hell and judgment out to be God problems, as if the idea of eternal judgment somehow makes Him out to be less than the hyper-relational Lover that He is. Hell and judgment are not God problems, they are human problems. Just as rebellion and the consequences of rebellion are human problems, how we are judged for our willful vandalism of shalom and willful rebellion against the Creator and His Rhythm of Life are also our problems.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Pagitt, Christianity, 226. [↩]
2. Pagitt, Christianity, 137, 141, 167. [↩]
3. Pagitt, Christianity, 230-231. [↩]
4. Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 123. [↩]
5. Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 118. [↩]
6. Pelagius, “On Divine Law” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 99. [↩]
7. Pagitt, Christianity, 222. [↩]
8. Pagitt, Christianity, 222. [↩]
9. I did not mean to suggest that Doug’s “leader” is Pelagius, but rather wanted to convey my dismay over Pagitt not following Pelagius’ LEAD in his strong views on sin and judgment. Sorry for that, Doug! I need to proof read these posts better… [↩]
10. Pagitt, Christianity, 222. [↩]
11. Pagitt, Christianity, 223. [↩]
12. Snodgrass, Parables with Intent, 491. [↩]

Update 2: Through the help of some blog friends I’ve revised this a bit to reflect what we should explicitly and implicitly take from these Creeds to inform our understanding of the Rule of Faith and minimums necessary for belief. Thanks Greg and Blake!

Update: In my haste I forgot the Holy Spirit! Oops I’ve made the revision below to the answer to my first question

Two questions have arisen a few times this week as I’ve waded waist deep in emerging church theological critique: 1) What do I mean by “Rule of Faith”; 2) If I am rejecting the theology that has come out of the Emergent conversation, what do I embrace? Am I simply replacing once camp with another?

1) What do I mean by “Rule of Faith”

First, in regards to The Rule of Faith, and I’m tipping my hand here, for me that is shorthand for historic Christian orthodoxy. I feel that’s become a loaded set of words, which is why I’ve swapped them for RoF. I realize I am opening myself up to the question, “Well WHOSE orthodoxy do we choose? The East, West? Catholicism or Protestantism? Calvinism or Arminianism? Who or what decides as orthodox?” I get the question, but find it to be an easy out for a conversation on basic Christian beliefs.

While I am well aware of the differences between West and East, between Catholic and Protestant, there are still some things at the base upon which the apostolic Church of Jesus Christ (EO, RC, P) is built. The Rule of Faith at its broadest point is the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. You could call it Nicene Christianity.

Everyone at minimum must agree with Nicene Christianity in order to be a Christian. That’s what I’m saying.

Look at the Apostles Creed for reference:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Look at the Nicene Creed for reference:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Both Creeds explicitly affirm:

1. Trinitarian theology.
2. God as Creator who is distinct from creation.
3. the Lordship of Jesus as exclusive Lord
4. the deity of Christ; Jesus was/is very God
5. physical incarnation of Jesus as a man in virgin birth; Jesus was/is very human
6. the literal suffering, death of Jesus (more on this below)
7. the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
8. ascension and exaltation of Jesus Christ as Lord
9. individual culpability, forgiveness and judgment of sin
10. Jesus Christ will come as Judge, where resurrection of the body and the life to come in the glory of His Kingdom is given for those who believe in Him.
11. The Holy Spirit is an active member of the Trinity, who is co-worshiped with the Father and Son, the giver of life, and author of Textual Revelation.

While not explicitly spelled out, there is also an assumption of are four implicit ideas we could draw from these Creeds to inform the Rule:

1. Holy Scriptures, as given and applied by the Holy Spirit, are the revelational authority for understanding these components of the Christian faith.
2. Original Sin: while this cashes out differently in the West (a strong view) and east (a weak/different view) it is still assumed by both. Both Creeds assume something is wrong with us (Sin), which necessitated Christ’s death and resurrection, and need for forgiveness of those sins in the first place. This later translated into the belief in Original Sin, a belief affirmed by the apostolic Church which submitted to those Creeds. It seems as though this later affirmation can be said to be implicit in these Creeds, though admittedly this is taking theological interpretive license. It is a belief, however, that is necessary for confessing Christians.
3. Substitution (not necessarily penal) has been a vital part of understanding the Event of the Cross. The Creeds explicitly draw attention to Christ’s suffering and death and to their significance for rescue. Implicit in Jesus’ sufferings and death is His “shouldering the penalty which justice required them to pay (for sins) and reconciling them to God by his sacrificial death.” Implicit in the Creeds is a substitution on behalf of humanity. (i.e. How can you be a Christian and not believe that Christ died in your place?).
4. Eternal Life(heaven on new earth) and Eternal Death (hell), the results of judgment. The Creeds affirm Jesus’ descent into Hell and that Jesus will stand as Judge, logical results of which is judgment. While the positive consequences for judgment are explicitly stated as “resurrection of the dead” and “the life of the world to come”/”everlasting life,” it is logical that the implicit negative consequences of judgment are “hell” (explicitly stated in Jesus need to descend there in his salvific death) and death.

In true Kuyperian form: Creation, Rebellion, Rescue, Re-Creation. This is how I believe God tells His Story of Rescue, as I outline in my first book. (Yes, shameless plug!) From my estimation, this is the Story to which both the Communion of Saints and the Spirit of God testify. Yes, I realize this is parsed-out and nuanced across the East/West and Catholic/Protestant lines of division. As far as historic orthodoxy—aka The Rule of Faith—goes, though, this seems as basic as you get.

So the working definition for The Rule of Faith (as rooted in Tradition and Scripture):

1. The Holy Scriptures are authoritative revelation for understanding Church/Christian life, practice and belief.
2. God is Creator, who is both above/outside/separate from creation and intimately involved with it.
3. Humanity is rebelliously fallen and individually sinful, in need of rescue. Theologically this is translated into Original Sin.
4. Jesus Christ is both very God and very Human.
5. Jesus Christ rescued us through substitution (not necessarily strictly penal) on the Cross; He took our place by suffering and dying.
6. Jesus Christ physically arose from the dead and ascended to the exalted right hand of God.
7. Jesus Christ will return as Judge, where resurrection of the body and the life to come in the glory of His Kingdom is given for those who confess Him as Lord and Messiah; eternal death are given for those who don’t.
8. The Holy Spirit is active in the world, revealing, provoking, nourishing and sustaining a person in everlasting New Life in Christ.

So what do you think? Do you think this is fair? Do you think this is, at minimum, what it means to be a confessing Christian? Am I missing something? If so, what? Do I include too much? If so what?

1) If I am rejecting the theology that has come out of the Emergent conversation, what do I embrace?

As to the second question, I’ll let you read below if you have time. My answer is basically my blog’s “faith” section, which outlines my credo, what I believe. I think you’ll find it will be difficult to pin me to any theological tradition (sorry, no “young, restless, Reformer” here), though I am broadly protestant and perhaps more particularly evangelical.

I realize it is very long, overly detailed, and thoroughly systematic, so I am not expecting or insisting you engage or even read all of it. Perhaps there are pieces (like the Sin section) that would give more context to where I am confessionally, especially for the discussion at hand.

Enjoy!

On Revelation

Prolegomena

I believe the Nature of Revelation should be understood as divine self-disclosure. God, through his own will, decides to purposefully unveil Himself to Humanity. These God-revealed things belong to Humans, allowing them to understand what is real about God and His Works. (Deut. 29:29)

I believe we understand what is real about God and His Works through two sources: General Revelation and Special Revelation.

Creation—General Revelation

I believe General Revelation is God’s self-disclosure to all of Humanity through the Created Order in three purposeful acts of unveiling: Nature; an internal, created awareness of the Divine; and the participation of God in History. (Rom. 1:19)

I believe that God unveils Himself through all He Created in the Natural World, and it is a means by which Man can both know of and about Him. (Rom. 1:20)

I believe all of Humanity has access to the knowledge of and about God through an internal awareness of an “Other” that is beyond and above themselves. (Rom. 1:21)

I believe God’s purposeful participation in History reveals a Creator who is intimately involved in the affairs of His Creation through deliberate acts of disclosure, human involvement, and redemption. (Ps. 140)

Sin—Effect on Understanding of General Revelation

I believe, that despite God’s purposeful act of self-disclosure, Humans struggle with properly understanding God and His Works. Though Humans are crafted after the Image of God and poses a limited understanding of Him, that Created Image is broken because of Sin; because Humans have consciously chosen the Way of Self over against the Way of God, Humans misread God’s self-disclosure through nature, human conscience, and history. (John 12:40)

Redemption—Special Revelation

I believe, while God’s transcendence is disclosed through General Revelation and reveals a Creator who is over and above His Creation, Special Revelation helps us understand God as a Creator who is intimately involved with His Creation, a God of immanence.

Function of Special Revelation

I believe this second instance of Divine Unveiling corrects the distorted and misunderstood views of God broken Humans experience as the result of Sin; because Humans are holistically broken, they need a more complete unveiling to understand God and His Works. Furthermore, this second act of disclosure more fully unveils God in light of his partial disclosure through Creation. God is more fully unveiled through the Holy Scriptures, Jesus Christ, and continued acts of divine self-disclosure. (II Cor. 4:4)

Types of Special Revelation

I believe, while the ultimate standard for understanding God and His Works is found in Jesus and testified to by the Holy Scriptures, God, through the Holy Spirit, continues to aid Human understanding through continued acts of divine self-disclosure. Through lesser forms of unveiling—including visions and dreams, miracles, redemptive acts in History (such as the Exodus), prophecy, and personal encounters with the Redeemer—God continues to reveal what is real about Himself and His Works. This understanding never conflicts with the Person of Jesus Christ nor does it stand over and against the Holy Scriptures.

I believe, through the climax of Special Revelation, God and His Reality is fully unveiled through Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Ultimately, the fullest expression of what is real about God’s nature, character, intentions, desires, and Works are entirely revealed through the Person of Jesus, and only properly understood by observing, understanding, and listening to Him. Though we textually understand God and His Works through the Holy Scriptures, even this piece of revelation must be interpreted through the Teachings, Way and Person of Jesus Christ. (John 14:9; Heb. 1:3)

I believe one of God’s primary acts of immanent unveiling is through the sacred writings of the children of Israel and apostles of Jesus. These collections of writings in their respective testaments are compiled in a Sacred Text we call the Bible. While it is not God’s ultimate act of self-disclosure, the Holy Scriptures are the standard by which we measure our understanding of God and His Works. (II Tim. 3:16)

I believe the textual unveiling found in the Holy Scriptures is well preserved, proves and authenticates itself, and truthfully contains everything God desired to communicate to humans about Himself and His Works. Through this textual self-disclosure God beckons Humans to relationship and worship, calls them live according to a Way of Life, and restores them to the way He intended them to be at the beginning of creation. (II Pet. 1:23-25)

I believe the Sacred Text God gave to Humanity is composed of the 66 books of the Holy Scriptures. This Sacred Text includes the 27 historically recognized New Testament texts and 39 Hebrew texts of the Jewish Testament. God primarily authored these books through the full participation of human authors under the guidance of their Jewish Spiritual Traditions, Culture, and specific contexts.

Marks of the Holy Scriptures

I believe God’s textual self-disclosure, as found in the Holy Scriptures, are marked by six distinctions: Authority, Power, Unity, Sufficiency, Perspicuity, and Contemporaniaty.

I believe the marks of the Holy Scriptures are understood by the following: it is authoritative on how to restore Humanity and Creation to God, and what it means to live restored in these relationships (Matt. 4:1-4, 7, and 10); it unveils the power of God to restore the God-Man relationship and Creation to the way He intended them to be at the beginning of creation (Rom. 1:16; Is. 55:11); it is an ancient document of great unity that reveals God’s one continuous Story from beginning to end, and to properly understand God a reader and listener of this particular divine self-disclosure must sit in this grand, unified Redemptive Narrative, which includes four Acts: Creation, Rebellion, Redemption, and Consummation (Gen. 1:1, John 1:1, Rev. 21:1); it sufficiently testifies to everything we need in order to understand how the God-Man relationship and Creation is restored, and how to properly relate to God and others (II Pet. 1:3); it is perspicuous, meaning the Message of Restoration it carries is clear and can be plainly and simply understood by all Humans (Deut. 29:29, Ps. 119:105); finally it applies to contemporary problems and provides contemporary solutions, because while God was speaking to specific people at particular times, He was still speaking through the prophets and apostles to those people with us in mind, too (I Pet. 1:23-25).

On God

Prolegomena

I believe God is properly understood as balanced Transcendence and Immanence, both over and above creation and intimately involved with it.

Creator-God Over And Above Creation

I believe in one God, the Almighty and Creator of all that existed and still exists on Earth and in Heaven, both material and spiritual. As Creator, God stands over and above the creation; the creation has its origin in God and is dependent on and separate from Him.

I believe God is properly understood as existing in three Persons with one Essence; God is the Father, the Son (Word), and the Spirit, and unified through a mutual indwelling, interpenetrating dance that centers on one character. As such, God is a community of self-giving lovers who know, will, and act together and in each other in accordance with this Divine Character.
I believe, as the Creator of creation, God is entirely independent, is from Himself, and depends on no one or thing for His existence. Also, because God is entirely independent He needs nothing, including creatures; because God exits in an eternal interpenetrating dance, God needs no one and nothing.

I believe God’s character is stable and unchanging, but God’s actions are not; while the essence of God does not change, God does change His mind and responds to Humans dynamically.

I believe God is everlasting, meaning while God stands above and beyond time, He still experiences it along with His creation; though God never had a beginning nor will He have an end, He does move through the Sequence of Time with Humans.

I believe God knows all of the possible outcomes of yet-unexperienced Time, while not entirely knowing how the exact Sequence of Time will unfold. Because He created Humans as free creatures who can freely choose from a range of possible actions, God does not know exactly what those Free Creatures will choose. But though Humans can choose different options, thus shaping the Sequence of Time, God still knows how that Sequence could unfold and is endlessly resourceful to accomplish His will in the face of those choices.

I believe, while God is above and beyond Time, while still experiencing the Sequence of Time, the same is true for God’s presence in created space: while God as Creator stands above and beyond created space, He still is intimately involved with that created space. Through Yahweh, we see God both experiencing Time with His people and standing above and beyond It.

I believe God the all powerful and fully capable of carrying through to completion the plans He established before the foundation of the world. While God fully participates in His Story and is affected by the choices of Humans, He also stands above and beyond It and actively accomplished His holy will.

Fall-God’s Relationship To Evil In Creation

I believe, since God created Humans on purpose to be in relationship with Himself for eternity, He created them with the freedom to choose Him or not. This potential for relational rejection left allowed for sin and the presence of absolute evil. So while God did not create evil or sin, He allowed for the possibility, and still does. I do not believe God decrees nor does He desire evil and sin.

Redeemer-God Intimately Involved With Creation

I believe the fullest expression of the nature, character, and desires of God is found in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-with-us God. In Him, we see a hyper-relational, hyper-present God who fully participates in the Sequence of Time; God is intimately involvement with His creation through Jesus Christ as Redeemer.

I believe one of God’s primary postures before Humanity is Love. As the God-with-us God Jesus Christ, He relates to Humanity as a Lover. The Cross

I believe God also relates to Humanity in holiness. While He is hyper-relational and relates to Humanity in love, God’s essential characteristic is Holiness. Because God is holy, He demands that we be holy as He is holy; God designed us to choose Him and His holy Way

I believe God’s Holiness includes wrath and judgement. God both has and will stand as judge over Humanity for their sinful choices. At the Cross God did judge the sins of the world through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and poured out His wrath upon him; at the End of the Age God will judge the sinful choices of each Human and render due punishment.

On Creation & Humanity

Creation

I believe the Creation event was a purposeful act of God to bring into existence a Reality for His glory, reflection, and interaction, a Reality that was formed from nothing; the universe and all that exists therein was created on purpose with purpose by the Creator. This act of creation was a real time-space event that set the universe and all its processes in motion through the Will and Word of God. (Gen. 1 & 2; Col, 1:15-17)

Humanity

I believe Humans should be understood by the term Eikon, a Greek word that means “image bearer.” Man is the culmination of God’s purposeful act of creation and is crafted after the image of God. This “reflection of the Creator” was originally created to enjoy, worship, and love Him forever in an eternal relationship with Him defined by mutual love. As Eikons made in the image of God, we are set apart from the rest of Creation not simply because we have a soul, but rather because we are fashioned after God Himself. (Gen. 1:27, 2:7, 9:6; Ps. 139:13-16; Jm. 3:9-10)

I believe as Eikons, our reflection of God is understood through our capacities and relationships. As Image Bearers, we have been given higher capacities, like free will, intelligence, and emotion. Additionally, we reflect God through our relationships with Creation, Others, and God; as God is a relational Being who exists in a community of self-giving lovers, so also we are relational and properly express our human nature in community. (Gen. 1:27-28; Ps. 8:3-8)

I believe Humans truly are earthlings, meaning earth is our home: We were created from the earth and created to exist on earth, and our eventual eternal destination will be on a fully restored earth. (Gen. 1:27-30; Rev. 21:1-4)

I believe Humans have two parts, Body and Soul, that were meant to function as an integrated whole. While Death causes those two parts to become separated, we were never supposed to realize that we have a soul separate from our body. Only Sin has opened our eyes to the distinction between Body and Soul. (Gen 2:15-17; 3:7)

I believe, because we are physical beings, the hope of the Believer is the resurrection of the Body and reunification of Body and Soul into a whole, functional unit. (1 Cor. 15)

Rebellion

I believe Sin is human rebellion against God and His Way. This intentional, personal rebellion results in a vandalism of shalom and death for individual humans. (Ps. 14:2-3; Rm. 3:23)

I believe the First Humans, by rebelling against God and His Way, disrupted the shalom of Creation, plunging all of it into disruption. (Gen. 3)

Adam’s Rebellion

I believe through Adam’s initial rebellion, Humans are born polluted by sin, receiving a distorted nature, and continue to rebel against God and His Way, resulting in Death. That pollution influences the free choices of all humans to choose relationship with God and follow in His Way. We are guilty of sin after we choose to disobey God and vandalize shalom. (Rm. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:21-22; 1 Jn. 1:8-10)

I believe Sin ultimately is autonomy; Humans want to be independent agents who are free from the constrains of an Other outside his/herself. This autonomy was expressed by Adam and Eve when they wanted to be like God, knowing both Good and Evil. To this day, Humans continue to sin out of a selfish, autonomous heart. (Gen. 3; Matt. 15:18-20)

The Consequences of Rebellion

I believe the consequences of Human Rebellion are exhaustive and holistic, infecting every crevice of Creation; Human Rebellion caused a rippled effect beyond humans to all of Creation, which groans for ultimate restoration under its weight. (Rm. 8:20-22)

I believe, while still fundamentally Eikons of God, Humans are thoroughly broken, rebellious, and shaped by Sin. Through Adam’s initial rebellion we continue to rebel against God and His Way. As cracked Eikons, we are desperate for holistic restoration, a restoration we are incapable of providing on our own. (Is. 53:6a; Rm. 1:18-32)

I believe Human Culture is fallen and polluted by Sin. While human society is capable of producing much good through common grace, such as art and science, it is still broken and incapable of restoring itself to the way God intended it to be.

I believe the earth itself and the animal kingdom are also affected by the pollution of Sin and Human rebellion. Through this pollution natural evils occur, like tsunamis and hurricanes, and animals are affected so that they eat each other, resulting in death that should not be. (Rm. 8:20-22)

Common Grace Despite Rebellion

I believe, despite a full-scale, worldwide brokenness, God blankets His Creation with common grace, which protects His valued Creation and preserves it for the sake of Redemption.

I believe the common grace which God gives Creation provides natural blessings (e.g. rain and sun), restrains Sin (e.g. enables people to do moral good), and contributes to civic good (e.g. environmental clean-up projects or volunteers feeding the homeless), and cultural good (e.g. education, art, and science). So even while all of Creation groans in its brokenness, goodness still exists and flows from the gracious hand of God through the Holy Spirit. (Gen. 20:6; 1 Sam. 25:26; Matt. 5:45; Rm. 13:1-5; Heb. 1:2-3)

I believe the existence of common grace reflects a God who did not abandon His Creation and whose posture toward it is love and restoration. It is out of His love for all of Creation that He continues to preserve it and desires to restore it entirely, a restoration that is rooted in and accomplished through Jesus Christ. (Rm. 5:6-8)

On The Son

Prolegomena

I believe God’s intention toward His good Creation is Rescue and Restoration, despite Human Rebellion; even when Humans were Rebels, God sent His Son Jesus Christ to die in order to rescue and restore. (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8)

God and Redemption

I believe God enacted His Redemptive Plan by invading the world as a human, by becoming like us; the Father willingly gave His one and only unique Son Jesus Christ to live the sinless life we could not, pay the penalty for sin, and defeat Death. (Jn. 1:10-14; 3:16-21)

Person of Jesus

I believe Jesus is one Person with two full Natures; Jesus is a single Person who is fully Divine and fully Human. As a Divine Being, Jesus possess all the attributes of God; as a Human Being, Jesus possesses all the attributes of Humanity, including Body and Soul. (Jn. 1:1, 14)

I believe you cannot give a positive statement regarding Jesus’ one person and two natures without underemphasizing either His oneness or two natures. Therefore, it is best to say that Jesus’ two natures are without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation; the natures of Jesus cannot be confused or changed, neither can they be divided or separated. (Council of Chalcedon)

I believe Jesus could sin, but would not because He had a strong moral will. Jesus chose to consciously operate as a full Human, which allowed for the possibility of sin, without using His Deity to cheat. Therefore, since He was really a Human and resisted the temptation to Sin all the way to the end, He could trace the steps of Human Rebellion and set things to rights for Humans and the World. (Heb. 2:14-18)

I believe, in His humanity, Jesus was finite, but not fallen; while Jesus was physically susceptible to the things in a fallen world that could hurt any human (e.g. sickness and disease, bruising from a fall, mistakes from the learning process, and death), Jesus could not suffer internally from guilt, corruption, or sin, nor from confusion or mental illness. (Jn. 1:14; Heb. 2:14-18)
Work of Jesus

I believe Jesus is the Victorious Obedient Substitute, and His Redemptive Act rescues and restores Creation in this way: Through His Life, Jesus obeyed God perfectly after the First Adam did not, while demonstrating how we are to live as Humans; through His Death, Jesus paid the final penalty to God for Rebellion on behalf of all Humans through a final sacrifice, thus restoring Humans to relationship with God; through His Resurrection, Jesus defeated the Dark Powers to liberate all Humanity from Satan’s control and free us from the bondage of Evil and Sin. (Heb. 4:14-15; 10:1-18; Rom. 6)

I believe through Jesus’ Life: His baptism commissioned Him for ministry and empowered Him by the Holy Spirit to retrace Adam’s steps, defeat the Dark Powers, and restore the God-Man relationship through His sacrifice; He perfectly obeyed God’s moral law throughout His life, resisting the temptation to sin when Adam gave in and disobeyed God’s Way; and His words and deeds taught Humanity how to obey the will of God, while actually defeating Evil. (Rom. 5:12-21)

I believe through Jesus’ Death, He bore the punishment and guilt for all Human Rebellion, making peace between God and Humans and leading to the adoption of people by God the Father as Sons and Daughters. (Rom. 5:1-2; Gal. 4:4-8)

I believe through Jesus’ Resurrection, He triumphed over the Dark Powers, making a mockery of them, and revealed that the Father accepted His sacrifice on behalf of Humans. Furthermore, we are raised to New Life through His defeat of Death, and we are declared and made righteous before God. (Rom. 4:25; Col. 2:13-15; 1 Cor. 15)

I believe through Jesus’ Ascension, we have an enthroned Lord who is now ruling over the entire world and working on our behalf by empowering us to live the Way of God that Adam did not. (Heb. 2:1-18; 7:23-25)

I believe God intends to rescue and restore all of Humanity. Thus, in coming to Earth, Jesus intended to redeem all of Humanity through His Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. His Redemptive Act is sufficient for all Humans and effective for everyone who will eventually embrace Jesus as Lord. (1 Tim. 2:4-6, 4:9-10)

On The Holy Spirit

Person of the Holy Spirit

I believe the Holy Spirit should be thought of as a personal entity, because he refers to himself in personal language (i.e. I and me). (Acts 13:2)
I believe the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead, coequal with the Father and Son. (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2)

I believe the Holy Spirit possesses personal characteristics, such as intelligence, will and emotions. As an intelligent Being, He teaches humans all things; as a willful Being He gives gifts (spiritual and personal) as He wills; as an emotional Being, He can be grieved, lied to and blasphemed, and ministers to and convicts humans. (Jn. 14:26; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph 4:30; Acts 5:3-4; Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Rom. 8:26; Jn. 16:8)

I believe the Holy Spirit is identified as God, possesses the perfections of God, and does the works of God. The Holy Spirit is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal. (1 Cor. 2:10-11; Jn. 16:13; Luke 1:35; Rom. 15:19; Heb. 9:14)

Work of the Holy Spirit

I believe the Holy Spirit’s role is as Agent; by the Holy Spirit, the Godhead accomplishes their works in cooperation with the Father and the Son (e.g. Salvation is from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit).

I believe the Holy Spirit’s presence is found in the Old Testament through several movements: He acted with the Father and Son in the Creation Event; He has acted on behalf of God’s people through acts of divine care; He empowered Old Testament civil leaders (e.g. the Kings and Judges), directed craftsmanship (e.g. The building of the Tabernacle), and anointed prophets (e.g. Isaiah and Ezekiel); and He helped accomplish certain salvific events (such as The Exodus). (Gen. 1:2; Ps, 104:29-30; 1 Sam. 16:13; Ex. 31:3-5; Ez. 2:2, 8:3, 11:1, 24)

I believe the Holy Spirit participated in the Redemptive Event of Jesus Christ. By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived, empowered at baptism, directed into the wilderness to be tempted, taught, performed miracles, offered Himself as a sacrifice, and resurrected. (Lk. 2:52; Matt. 3:16; 4:1; Lk. 4:14, 18-21; Matt. 12:25-32; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 3:18)

I believe at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit created a new people of God under a new covenant–specifically the Church–and imbues that community with new life, while commissioning them with a new mission. (1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 8:1-4; Jn. 14:16-18, 26; Matt. 28:19-20)

I believe the Holy Spirit indwells individuals after salvation to bring spiritual rebirth, empower them to live the Church’s mission, illuminate the Holy Scriptures, intercede for them, sanctify their life, seal them in relationship with God, and impart particular spiritual and sign gifts.
(Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:18; 1 Cor. 6:12-20; 2:10-16; Eph. 6:18; Gal. 5:16-26; Eph. 1:13-14; Eph. 4:11, Rom. 12:6-8, 1 Pet. 4:11, 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 28)

I believe the Holy Spirit is working to bring ultimate, cosmic restoration to the entire world as an agent applying Jesus Christ’s work.

Doxology

Thanks be to God forever, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Popularity: 1% [?]

My Monday morning blog post announcing my departure from Emergent drew far more attention than I ever expected! E-ver! Geesh, I’m just a 29 year old pastor/theology student from G-Rap who’s happened to blog for several years through my theological journey. This is one more iteration in that progression. Thanks to all those who gave encouragement and critique, questioned my motives and theological endeavor, and expressed solidarity. Your comments and interactions have given me much to think about and consider, comments I’m sure to carry with me over the course of the next several weeks.

I know I promised I would begin offering my bottled-up critiques, but I thought I should pause and clarify the obvious elephants: why? and how? Why did I leave? Why did I strap on the platform shoes and Christmas lights and strut myself down the blogosphere making my announcement. (How immature, right? How positively arrogant!) How did I come to the point in my theological/spiritual journey where I decided it was time to move beyond this conversation?

So, why? How?

First, I should clarify that I don’t want to cast aside my friendships and relationships in the conversation. In fact, Doug Pagitt and I had a great conversation yesterday about my change of heart where we reiterated our commitment to friendship, despite theological differences. My departure is much more theological than relational, so I hope similar relationships will still be preserved.

Now, in answer to the questions, here is some short context to my frustration and reasons for walking. Perhaps they will mirror some of your own. I know the comment section and my inbox is filled with similar stories, so I add this to the mix. On Friday I will begin explaining my theological frustration and perspective with some of the emerging church theology, beginning with interacting with Pagitt’s A Christianity Worth Believing through a 6 post series (Btw: I emailed him a copy beforehand of the original 30 page examination because I thought that would be fair.) Before then, here is some context:

As I explained a few days ago, I’ve been part of the emerging church conversation for half a decade but have grown increasingly uncomfortable and saddened by the theological trajectory of the project. Deeply saddened, actually. This isn’t disillusionment. This is a deep sadness and heartache over what is happening from the top ranks. And what is that? A departure (perhaps deliberate?) among the leaders of Emerging Church Inc. from the historic Rule of Faith and a fashioning together of a new, fresh version of Christianity built on “other forms” of Christianity that have been deemed foreign to that Rule.

That version questions God’s “clear and certain” self-disclosure/revelation;¹ minimizes actual individual culpability in rebellion;² ignores the deity of Christ; downright denies the exclusivity of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ;³ reduces the cross to simply an example of love;⁴ denies real judgment and universalizes salvation,⁵ among others.

It wasn’t always like this, though.

At the beginning, from what I remember back in 2005 when I entered the conversation it really was an exploration. Such sites as emergentvillage.org and opensourcetheology.net were catalysts for bursting and burning through the cobwebs and rickety structures of conservative evangelicalism. It tried to root itself in the more ancient, forgotten parts of our faith—like the Creeds—to moor itself while forging ahead with re-imagining the Church as centered around the teachings of Christ and the Kingdom He bore.

Theologically, it was a deconstructive tour de force with it’s crosshairs aimed squarely at conservative evangelicalism, and rightly so. Reconstructively (is that a word?) it helped construct a missional response to a real, genuine shift occurring within Western culture known as postmodernity. Most of the church was ill equipped to deal with the tectonic shifts our culture was undergoing, and Emergent helped navigate those shifts for church leaders as New Tribes Missions does for tribal missionaries. At the time I greatly appreciated and benefited from both, because it intersected with my own faith exploration.

Since late 2003, I had been ministering on Capitol Hill for a little known entity (The Center for Christian Statesmanship) of a more well known entity, Coral Ridge Ministries (run by an even more known entity, Dr. D. James Kennedy). During this season I became increasingly uncomfortable with the theology behind this thoroughly conservative evangelical ministry, especially their theology of the gospel. The gospel Story it told was rooted in Dr. Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosion, which started God’s Story of Rescue in the end and middle, at heaven/hell and sin. Jesus, we were told, came to inaugurate a cosmic transaction between me and Him in order to beam me outta here “some glad mornin’ when this life is o’r.”

The theology of the Story disturbed me, so did the methods methods we used to sell that Story and manner in which we did ministry in our context. You see, the mission context of Capitol Hill is thoroughly postmodern and young adult: at the time there were roughly 24,000 congressional staffers (an average age of 27) who were from the brightest liberal arts institutions this country has to offer. Missionally, we sucked because we were ill equipped to engage this  young adult postmodern culture. Theologically, God’s beautiful, majestic Story of Rescue was reduced to 5 talking points and Jesus was reduced to a product sold like a vacuum cleaner or set of kitchen knives sans nifty accessories. After my first year in ministry I began to wonder: is THIS what I’ve committed myself too?

Then along came Emergent.

My story follows others, me thinks. Many others have endured similar frustrations before wandering into the oasis-village of Emergent, finding solace, healing, and inspiration from a band of sisters and brothers making a similar trek. There I found what I needed at the time and am thankful for what Emergent was during those years. I absolutely appreciated the theological deconstruction and missiological reconstruction this conversation provided.

Over the past year or so, however, it seems like the later (missiology) has faded and the former (theology) has shifted. I have been struck in recent months by this: now that we’ve gotten the missional response to postmodern culture down, many believe the time for theological construction has begun; we “get” postmodern ministry, now we need an alternative Christian faith built on an alternative Christian theology.

So began this new era of theological construction.

Four books crystalize for me this progressive theological construction effort: Peter Rollins‘, How (Not) to Speak of God (2006); Doug Pagitt’s, A Christianity Worth Believing (2008); Samir Selmanovic’s, It’s Really All About God(2009); and now Brian McLaren’s, A New Kind of Christianity (2010).

While I sound way more conspiratorial than I actually mean, the conversation absolutely has moved from simply talking to sketching, especially the last few years. While I am fully aware (thank you very much!) that the emerging church is bigger than three or five voices, we all know it is intimately bound-up with them. Furthermore, those closely associated with the emerging church are by-and-large ensconced in their theological reflection. If I am wrong, please point me to someone on the inside of the conversation who has offered a proper, pointed theological assessment of Peter or Doug or Samir or Brian. I realize I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure it has yet to been done.

Now it will be.

It’s not personal. It’s academic.

Rather than reacting out of hurt or pain or woundedness (as some have annoyingly suggested) I am trying to provide space for an academic “airing of ideas” for the sake of healthy discussion and disclosure. I’m not blaming all things emerging for the problems of the church. What I am trying to do is live out of the person I have become through the past three years of academic training: I have a deep concern and passion for God’s Story of Rescue and for people to experience the rescue that Story provides through Christ; for theologically rooting the Church in Her faith by properly understanding the Story History and the Spirit has given us and seeing those outside the Church rescued from rebellion and put back together again in Christ. .

That’s why I wrote my first book. That’s why I’m doing this. That’s why I’m moving beyond Emergent.

Now, perhaps I am immature and petulant for bidding “au revoir” and “goodbye.” Perhaps that’s a fair critique. I don’t exactly want to leave my friends who identify with this conversation or invalidate my friendships in order to critique it. Goodness no! I just don’t know what to do anymore with the sad, devastating theological constructs being packaged and sold to thirsty, hungry, unsuspecting souls who long for rescue and re-creation and re-connection to their Creator. I can no longer sit idly by while said leaders fein innocence and drape themselves in “I’m just a mild-mannered guy” excuses in an attempt to ignore legitimate critique of their other faith.

In short: I’m tired of people being hoodwinked by the “different” theology being pushed and the hoodwinkers getting a pass, especially from those inside. Their version of Christianity isn’t different. It is other. We’ve seen this before, and I think something should be done about it. I guess someone should do something about it, so I’m stepping to the podium.

You may disagree with and decry my method, even my critiques. I’m sure both are flawed. Please grant me one request: deal with the ideas. The Emerging Church is an idea; it pushes ideas. In fact, how about those of you who think I’m whack actually deal with the ideas by giving a reasoned, intellectual defense for the theology that is pushed by Emerging Church Inc.

Yes, thats a direct challenge: Someone, anyone—Steve, Mike, Makeesha, Jonathan, Trip, or Julie, perhaps—please deal with the ideas by posting an 8-10 post theological series on both Doug and Brian’s book explaining why their theology is good and correct. I’ll even host it here, free of charge.

I myself am an ideas person. I’ve got plenty of them strewn about throughout novus•lumen, most having little to do with the emerging church and even less blasting it. The idea I am most passionate about, that is the impetus behind what I do as a pastor and theologian, is that Jesus Christ is both Lord and Messiah.

Lord. Messiah.

Both are ideas the New Testament is clear about. Unfortunately, evangelicalism all around seems incredibly confused about both, especially Emerging Church Inc.

Perhaps I can speak into the conversation (especially the Grand Rapids one) by pushing back against emerging church theology and help bring better definition to the contours of God’s Story of Rescue, for the sake of the Church. Perhaps I can follow in the footsteps of J. Greshem Machen, who wrote nearly 90 years prior: “The purpose of this book (blog) is not to decide the religious issue of the day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible.”

Perhaps.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Rollins, Speak of God, 46. [↩]
2. Pagitt, Christianity, 165 [↩]
3. Selmanovic, All About God, 9; 60-61 [↩]
4. Pagitt, Christianity, 194-195 [↩]
5. Pagitt, Christianity, 230-231 [↩]

Update 3: Apparently I misunderstood Doug’s post on fear. I am sorry for suggesting those who critique him are driven by fear. Instead, Doug means a certain kind of attitude and vitriolic reaction is “driven from fear.” Sorry for mischaracterizing you, Doug.

Update 2: An important follow-up that explains my journey in, through, and beyond Emergent.

Update: Another one who doesn’t care about the emerging church anymore.

Once upon a time I was enamored by the “I-am-not-a-movement-but-a-conversation” known as the emerging church (In fact, at my seminary I’ve been known as Emergent Jeremy!) Five years ago, I stumbled upon an “emerging” author known as Brian McLaren (even attending his church for a stint). I gobbled-up his “A New Kind of Christian” trilogy because it’s question-asking permissive narrative gave flesh to the phantom that was haunting me at the time: What the hell is this whole Christian thing about?!

Pastor Dan was my doppleganger; Neo my mentor.

Five years ago I entered a period of faith deconstruction (one particular post I wrote that I was fond of at the time was, “10 Ways to Deconstruct Your Faith“) and reconstruction the likes of which I had never experienced in my life. For the first time I was taking my faith in Jesus Christ seriously and asking a whole lot of questions.

These questions were healthy and freeing and opened up a whole new world to explore and enjoy. For this I am grateful to the emerging church conversation of which I’ve been apart for several years. As my relationship with Emergent progressed, though, I began to wonder why it was cool and trendy to disregard Paul, pity the fool who believed in real judgment, ignore the cross, and downplay individual participation in rebellion/sin.

In short: I became uncomfortable and have grown downright tired of the theology that has bubbled-up out of the emerging church.

I’m not exactly sure when my saucy love affair with emergent and liberal Christianity ended. My “I don’t” isn’t as crystalized as my “I do.”

Maybe it was when I read Pelagius‘ writings and realized much of Emergent theology really does mirror his 5th century theology.

Maybe it was after the former head of Emergent Village, Tony Jones, rejected original sin, a historic part of the Rule of Faith, claiming that it is “neither biblically, philosophically, nor scientifically tenable. “.

Maybe it was when I read Fredrick Schleiermacher and realized his and modern liberalism’s vapid, gospel-less faith are being repackaged and popularized to an unsuspecting, ignorant Christian community as a wholesome alternative to what has been.

Maybe it was after I read Karl Barth and realized the natural theology pushed by popular emergent theologians is not revitalizing Christian faith, but killing it; it is the same kind of faith Barth so vociferously fought against in order to preserve the historic Rule of Faith.

Maybe it was after reading a leading emerging church voice suggest that God and grace and the Kingdom of God are not tied directly and exclusively to Jesus Christ; ultimately its not really about Jesus, but about a vanilla, generalized World-Spirit god (lower-case “g”).

Regardless, what I’ve come to realize is that while Emergent may believe it is believing differently—and consequently believe it is offering the world a different Christianity that is more believable than the current form—in reality the emerging church simply believes otherly; the form of Christianity that this version of Christianity pushes is neither innovative nor different: it is a form of Christianity other-than the versions that currently exist but mirror those that have already existed.

The Christian faith that the authors, leaders, and followers within Emergent believe “feels alive, sustainable, and meaningful in our day” (ACWB, 2) is really forms of faith from other days. They combine other forms of faith that both the Communion of Saints and Spirit of God have deemed foreign to the Holy Scriptures, Rule of Faith, and gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the history of Christ’s Bride, the Church.

I hope my friends from Emergent West Michigan won’t claim this is a “heresy hunt” and suggest I am no better than the hyper-fundamentalists who exalt themselves as Truth Defenders and tirelessly work to expose false teachers in the church. I think this suggestion would be grossly unfair for 2 reasons:

1) I am bidding “au revoir” as one who has been on the inside of and involved with this conversation for half a decade. I attended Brian McLaren’s church; I helped host the Church Basement Roadshow at my church for Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Mark Scandrette; I’ve had several interactions with Doug Pagitt, someone I like as a person and who even introduced me to my wife and attended our wedding; and I am personal friends with the coordinator of the Emergent West Michigan cohort who is also a member of the new Coordinating Council for Emergent Village. In short, I am an insider who is simply leaving the inside.

2) I approach this effort as one who has pursued academic training in biblical studies and systematic/historical theology for nearly three years. I’m NOT trying to play the “education card” here, but rather offer this bit of information to give context for my leaving. I am finishing up the Master of Divinity (M.Div) and have begun the Master of Theology (Th.M) in Historical Theology. Specifically, I’ve spent a number of hours reading many primary theological sources from the Early, Reformation, and Modern Church, giving me a broad picture of the historical “movement” of church dogmatics. While I have been trained in a more conservative institution with Baptist roots, I am a free thinker who is familiar with the theological arguments from both sides of the aisle and historical progression of theology.

In his book, The Story of Christian Theology, Roger Olson says, “The story of Christian theology is the story of Christian reflection on salvation.” The same is true today. Over the next several weeks I am taking the liberty of taking two Emergent “theologians” to task: Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren. Like Olson, I believe any theological inquiry is by nature soteriological, by nature reflection on salvation, which means the stakes are high. Both men have taken the opportunity to make public, written commentary on the nature of salvation, on the gospel, whether they know it or not; I doubt they are ignorant of their effort.

I would like to publicly, theologically interact with their own theological interactions.

First, I am posting a series based on a theological examination I undertook for my Early Church Th.M class called, “Pagitt and Pelagius: An Examination of a Neo-Pelagianism.” Many have suggested Doug Pagitt is dishonest about his Pelagianism, an early church teaching that was declared heretical. I thought it would be interesting to read all of Pelagius‘ known works (including an interesting, little read commentary on the Book of Romans) along side Pagitt’s. These posts will explore their writings on human nature, sin, salvation, discipleship, and judgment. It will drop Wednesday, February 10.

Second, I will post on the soon-to-be released book by Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity. In it he discusses the top 10 questions facing the Christian faith. In some ways it’s a tell-all that should finally give his critics what they’ve asked and wanted for years: answers. From what I have read so far in an advance copy, this is truly going to be a line in the sand that will determine where people are in their understanding of the nature of salvation and commitment to the historic Rule of Faith, which is why I want to tackle it question by question. Along the way I will provide a theological assessment in order to understand his take on human nature, sin and rebellion, the nature of Jesus Christ, the cross and salvation, resurrection, judgment, and God. Look for this interaction at the start of March. (A friend of mine has already begun such an interaction, here.)

Recently, Doug Pagitt wrote on his blog (my apologies for misunderstanding Doug’s original point. He and others brought correction, so thanks!) and Brian McLaren said in a video that those of us who take them and others to task are held in bondage to fear and thoroughly un-loving; my motivation for analyzing the theology and beliefs of leaders within the emerging church is fear-based and inherently un-love. One word: ridiculous. I am not fearful; this has nothing to do with fear. In fact, the loving thing to do is in fact confront, prod, and question.

Why, then, am I doing this? Two words: Grand Rapids. I am disturbed and deeply saddened by what I see happening within evangelicalism, from both sides of the aisle (I could say as much about Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and James Dobson as I will about Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren. That will have to wait, though.) especially within my hometown.

Plenty of people are disaffected—even offended and wounded— by the type of Christianity offered here.

And they have bailed.

But here’s the thing: these disaffected Christians of my generation—and younger and older—still long for an intimate, rooted connection to Christian spirituality that is fresh, new, and vibrant. After leaving what they’ve known, they search after and pursue a “Christianity worth believing” and a “new kind of Christianity” that satisfies their establishment, traditionalism angst.

Yet while these fresh forms appear different and exciting, they are an “other” form from a forgotten age, a re-packaging of what has already been, what has already happened. Because most American Christians—even the ones from the Christian Mecca known as Grand Rapids—are biblically and theologically ignorant, they don’t realize what they are reading and pursuing.

So for Grand Rapids I write; for the Grand Rapids church I analyze in hopes it will better understand this other faith that is, in my estimation, foreign and inconsistent with the Church’s Rule of Faith and Holy Scriptures.

Popularity: 4% [?]