So, I am reading the book “Preachers and Preaching“ by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a famous British preacher who preached from 1938-1968 at Westminster Chapel in London, England.
I was struck by two paragraphs from the introductory chapter and I marveled at how applicable they were to a Contemporary Theology class that I have been taking that has been discussing the Emergent Church (EC) at length, even though the book is dated 1971. It gives rise to the question of when postmodernity truly began or at least the realization of when its need to be addressed came about as this book is basically a series of lectures that were given to ministerial students and young ordained preachers, now from a generation ago. The author of the referenced Wikipedia article even goes so far as to suggest that postmodernity began in the 1950′s with the entrance of television into American and Europeanhomes, but I’m digressing.
I found the following comments interesting:
- Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, 1899 – 1981
“Here is the great question therefore: Can we justify preaching? Is there need of preaching at all in the modern world? This, as you know, is part of a larger question. We are living in an age where not only preaching, but the very Church herself is being questioned. You are familiar with the talk of “religionless Christianity”, with the idea that the Church herself is perhaps the greatest hindrance to the Christian faith, and that if we really want to see people becoming Christians, and the world becoming “Christianised”, as they put it, we have to get rid of the Church, because the Church has become an obstacle standing between people and the truth that is in Christ Jesus.
With much of this criticism of the Church one has, of course, to agree. There is so much that is wrong with the Church – traditionalism, formality and lifelessness and so on – and it would be idle and utterly foolish to deny this. Often one really has to ask about certain gatherings and communities of people whether they are entitled to the name Church at all. The Church so easily can degenerate into an organisation, or even, perhaps, a social club or something of that kind; so that it is often necessary to raise the whole question of the Church herself.”
As Chef Emeril Lagasse likes to say, “BAM!” What of this statement by Lloyd-Jones? Were these (correctly?) perceived ascertainments of the degeneration of church life into merely formality driven social clubs what drove some of who we call the early EC “leaders” to pick up their axe and start to grind it in the name of “[questioning] the Church herself”? Especially in light of the fact that nearly the entire EC movement is largely contained to the United States and Western Europe, I would have to argue yes.
So when exactly did postmodernity start and what is the issue or set of issues it seeks to resolve? Refrains from legalism? The elimination of self-righteous hypocrisy? The placement and reverence of age-old traditions above Scripture? While Mark chapter 7 can attest to these issues being old hat, I can concede the point that they are finally getting a fresh and serious look in the 21st century public forum after many decades of being the elephant in the sanctuary.
So is “the Church herself is perhaps the greatest hindrance to the Christian faith”? What a great question. I think that if the EC leaders were to rally around a single point, it would be this one. We have all heard people say that church would be great if it wasn’t for all the Christians. Many of us have given nervous little chuckles over that trite, but sadly astute statement. Are we really so surprised that some people along the way quit laughing and decided to directly address the issue head on, warts and all? The emergent conversation seems to be centered around how to get rid of the obstacle known ominously as “the church” while still finding new and culturally relevant ways to illuminate and personally apply the Gospel in 2009 and beyond. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing at all. I think that it should be discussed and dealt with within the body of Christ and among those types that we wish to reach. If it is not, we as the established church in our current form run the risk of manifesting Lloyd-Jones’s speculative fear of the church becoming the single greatest enemy of Christianity.
Where the EC seems to go wrong is in their à la carte approach as to exactly what their ecclesiastical theology ought to be. There is a certain charm in making it up as you go along, but there are limits to that. Stan Grenz and John Franke open up Beyond Foundationalism by speaking at length about the fragmentation that exists within current postmodern theology, particularly on the larger (lack of) organizational level that they deny exists. At some point, the emergent conversation will have to declare “Enough talk” and start to back that talk up with ecclesiological action. They will have to fight this fragmentation by getting further organized, even if they drag their feet and scream all the way. At some point, they will have to either start taking defining and defending positions or run the risk / be content with being labeled a marginalized fringe element of western Christianity. In short, they will need to define what their own set of “white lines” are to stay in between. I realize that identifying and even defending these definitions flies in the face of what the EC is supposed to be all about and how linear (not to mention thoroughly modern) this approach sounds, but it doesn’t negate the need.
Given the western climate that this movement is thriving in, I think it would be a tactical error on their part not to at least allow this linearism to influence their methodology as their seemingly desired younger audience are in fact, mainly linear thinkers despite their claims otherwise. The EC is not an eastern hemisphere movement and has zero discernible impact outside of the US and Europe. Brian McLaren might have gotten some bad sushi and thinks that it is with his allusions to foundational faith being more like a spider web than a building with multiple anchor points and such, but even the emergent mainstream has started to actively distance themselves from him and some of his ideologies. There’s challenging people with your theological epistemology and then there’s good old fashioned heresy.
So how do we address some of the dogmatic stigmas related to the modern church at large? Do we let the church establishment die out and be replaced wholly with postmodern theology in the next generational go-round? Operationally, what’s really important to keep? What about theologically? Is there nothing that can be retained from the current models? Must every long held tradition and/or system be made to go? Here, I am forced to commit one of my own pet peeves. Being an operational and systems-oriented person, I naturally and sub-consciously evaluate how things work on a larger scale. Most often, in addition to offering current-state analysis, I can also objectively offer suggestions to advance the agenda of the organization or question at hand. As a general rule, I despise people who are long on observations about how to make it better (read: complainers), but are conveniently short on solutions as to how to logistically get there. In this instance, I have to acknowledge the enormity of the issue surrounding the transformation from a modern to a postmodern mindset (regardless of when it actually started) and how to lead this and future generations confidently into the fray without sacrificing the authoritativeness and inerrancy of Scripture, the triune Godhead, the wrath of God and/or how we who have believed on the name of Christ have been saved from the reality of Hell because of His ultimate, atoning sacrifice and mercy. If those few foundational things can be preserved, I’m open to just about anything else dropping by the proverbial wayside and I do love well executed change management. If we can manage to stop all of the petty infighting that happens within most churches today, we just might be able to turn our attentions properly inward, then outward, then onward.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Today we swore in a new American President. I do like first-term Presidents and the season that surrounds the installation of a new one. It’s the whole out-with-the-old-and-in-with-the-new thing and I find it largely refreshing. I have kept my thumb on politics since I was very young, but have largely gone dormant since I got married. I worked my first state senate campaign when I was about 10 or so and I still have a “Perot for President” necktie around here somewhere. I should have put in on Ebay six months ago! This election cycle however, people are much more passionate in their like or dislike for the incoming administration and voice their with newly found wont that was revived with today’s inauguration. I’m all for people expressing their opinions. I think we need more of it to be honest, and have little patience for those who express opinion but do not go to the polls and vote those opinions. If you didn’t vote, then don’t complain about the job being done by those who got elected.
However, in the days leading up to today’s festivities, I have received several comments that hide behind the shield of Christian faith only to peek out from behind it and take what I consider to be cheap shots at President Obama. In all fairness, I should disclose that I did not vote for him and had several spirited discussions about why he should be allowed nowhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I don’t care for his politics and desperately wanted a third or even fourth candidate to pick from (I know, Santa’s already come and gone this year.). That being said, he won s democratically held election and was the people’s choice by a considerable margin nationally. Because of that fact, I hold him in high regard for the sake of the office that he holds if nothing else.
In 1 Samuel 24, David (the King-elect, if you will) has a golden opportunity to kill King Saul (who was set upon the throne as the first King of Israel) who was catching a midday nap in a cave after a long day of searching for and trying to kill none other than David. Saul’s reign started out good and then took a turn for the terrible, to the point that God himself was grieved that He had put Saul in that position (It’s not like God didn’t know how Saul was going to turn out. but lots of necessary things happen that we don’t always like). In Chapter 24, Saul has been actively hunting David and God has already revealed to David that he will be not only delivered from Saul’s oppression, but will succeed him as the next King of Israel. In that culture at that time, no one would have blamed David one bit for taking Saul out and assuming the throne from him right then from a feigned self-defense standpoint if nothing else. Instead, David sneaks up behind Saul and cuts part of his robe off. A time later, Saul rises from the cave and David comes out behind him calling him respectfully “My lord the King” to get his attention and reveal himself and the fact that he and his men had been hiding in that very cave to Saul. David tells Saul that essentially, he could have killed him (and was in fact urged to do so by several that were with him), but refrained from doing so. Verse 10 records David as saying:
Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the Lord’s anointed.
David recognized that Saul, wicked as though he turned out to be, was anointed to hold the position of King by God Himself and for that reason alone, spared his life and laid not a hand on him. As a result of this incident, Saul realized what could have so easily been and stopped hunting and trying to kill David on the spot. Eventually David succeeded Saul just as God had promised. We as Americans and particularly Christians would to well to remember that lesson before we start launching character assassinations against the new guy and badmouthing him to anyone dumb enough to listen us spew such venomous nonsense. Saul saw the actions that David took against him as a result of knowing God and God got His deserved glory. What actions are we as Christians publically showing in this regard while dragging God’s name into conversations that complain about who God Himself put in XYZ position (like maybe our bosses?), especially the the White House? Worse, what is God getting as a result of our inane babblings? Glory? I think not. By no means should we lie down and take whatever our leaders dish out, but they should be held accountable and judged for actions committed, not the perceptive fear of what could be. Innocent until proven guilty, isn’t that the American way? Especially in the last several months of his administration, it became very in vogue to openly bash President Bush and one was relegated to the status of a social pariah if they dared put on even the slightest defense to the name calling and questioning of the man’s intelligence. It so incredibly easy to jump on and join these bandwagons, but we as Christians must abstain from this conduct if we are to have any chance of being salt or light to those around us. For some, we are the only example of Christianity that some people have and if we are going along with the same ol’ crowd then we are not giving God his glory for setting us apart. I myself had several heated conversations in regards to the recent bailout package that went through and, true to the promises that I made to each of the office of my congress people voted for or against them depending on how they voted on that particular issue. I wholeheartedly think it was a complete misappropriation and abuse of public funds as well as a key indicator of their aptitude to listen to their constituency that sent them to begin with. But within those discussions, the personal character of each elected representatives was maintained. To be honest, I would not want their job despite my childhood aspirations.
I was surprised to find myself feeling almost a little defensive about some of the comments that I saw flying about today via various media methods and had three or four quick exchanges via IM and Facebook posts. The fact is that God established government and it is God who sits Kings/rulers on their thrones. Romans 13 speaks quite a bit about what the role of government should ideally be. Those in government are even referred to as “ministers”! Obviously ministers of both the physical realm as well as the spiritual are completely fallible and subject to the evil devices of men and can do disservice to the One who raised them out of the dust and put them in their positions, but by no means does that give us reason to wantonly attack them for merely showing up and trying. I heard several statistics today that dealt with the fact that Heads of State (obviously the context at hand was American Presidents) age at about four times the normal rate because their stress level is so high for so long. I mean, look at G. W. Bush when he first took office vs. pictures of him today. The man went from a head full of dark brown hair to nearly completely gray! He looks far older then a mere eight years. 8 x 4 = 32 That sounds about right. He looks far closer to 32 years older than 8, but I’ve digressed badly.
I too have some concerns about the Obama Administration (like a SECOND bailout?!?), but I’ll save the specifics of such for another time after the facts of the situation are in. For now I’ll be content to sit back and let him get to work. He’s only been President for one day, he has 99 left before we traditionally really start to hold his feet to the proverbial fire. I’ll help him the best way I know how to by praying for him often. Look at the crap he has to deal with! And to my Christian brothers and sisters, with all the love in my heart I take the same stance with you that I do with those who habitually don’t vote: If you don’t pray, then don’t complain about the job being done by the guy who got elected.
Popularity: 1% [?]
I have been conflicted today, but only mildly so. Yesterday was the first day of judges certification for the 2009 World Barista Championship (WBC) to be held April 16-19 in Atlanta. Currently, I am certified as a United States judge through 2010 and can judge any of our country’s regional competitions or the national one, but not this particular international event where every competitor is a national champion. Obtaining WBC certification is a prestigious thing within the coffee industry, especially with the changes that have been made to this workshop and the both practical and academic knowledge requirements placed on the judges. I was sorely tempted to vie for this certification.
Judging at the 2008 United States Barista Championships
This workshop is attended by invitation only, but you had to apply to be invited. In my pride, I wanted to see just if I could obtain an invite with no intention of accepting it. Ultimately I restrained myself as I didn’t want to literally waste the time of the reviewing committee. The goal is to crown a new World Barista Champion at the conclusion of one of the premier competitive coffee events in the world, not play games backed by false senses of ego inflation.
If I’m honest, I’ll tell you that I wanted to go really bad. However, my reasons for wanting to go were not good reasons. I wanted the notch in my belt. I wanted it on my résumé just to have it there for me to look at and point to when it served my purposes. This mindset is not that of a servant, which is ultimately what I get paid to be when I take on new clients. The truth is that while I don’t know all the coffee growing regions in Nicaragua, I probably could have gotten certified. But to what end? For me to make an addition to my proverbial my me-wall? Not good enough. Not fair to the competitors.
Instead of pursuing things that were not profitable, I spent yesterday putting finishing touches on a sermon that covered 1 Kings ch. 17 and last evening I delivered that message to a group of 20 or so inmates in St. Joseph, MO through the Keys are at the Cross Prison Ministry. My thesis was that God, in His sovereignty, can and will (sometimes drastically) set you apart for a time to prepare you according to His word for His work before He can use you. Driving home, I felt an enormous amount of satisfaction in knowing that I knew I was where I was supposed to be and that I was doing His work according to His word. 1 Kings ch. 17 deals with the training up of the prophet Elijah who is taken out of the limelight and is set apart to live next to a brook for some extended down time with just him and God before being sent out for other “adventures”. Charles Swindoll refers to the event as a kind of boot camp and I totally agree. While I can’t pretend to know what he went through, I can certainly identify with Elijah being taken out of the limelight to focus on God. Maintaining that focus is far more important than traipsing around a certification workshop that conflicts with the ordering of my real priorities.
In the past year, I have certainly been set apart as God has refocused my attention to be on HIS priority list, not my own. Ultimately, there was a less than average chance that obtaining WBC certification would have had any sort of meaningful or relevant ministry application before the opportunity presented itself again in US soil in another 4 years. For that reason, I withdrew my intention to pursue it. I know that God called me home to learn to be a servant to more than just my own desires. It is said in Christian circles that your first mission field is inside your own house, and that is exactly where I was sent. God custom made a course in servant leadership just for me and I’d much rather complete that workshop so that I can be used later. While crowning a new barista champion of the world is exciting and does have it’s own rewards, crowning Jesus Lord of my life is far more exciting and infinitely more rewarding.
Delayed gratification, baby.
Popularity: 1% [?]
