The exasperating enigma of existence

By Steve Cornell

The story of humanity has always been a mixture of goodness and evil; love and hate; beauty and cruelty; life and death. Themes of dignity and depravity are relentlessly recurrent in all human cultures at all times. Although we experience times of deep happiness and peace, thoughtful people realize that things are not the way they’re supposed to be. Human existence is a combination of joy, vulnerability, tragedy and sadness.

The birth of a baby, for example, is a moment of great joy unless, as we say, “something goes wrong.” Marriage can be a beautiful relationship unless things go wrong in it. When husbands and wives treat each other with honor and respect, happy and healthy homes bless human communities. When these relationships are filled with selfishness and neglect, everyone pays a price—particularly children. When governments seek justice and mercy, people flourish. When governors are greedy and selfish, people live in oppression. When what we call natural disaster destroys a community, human responses range from heroic rescue to calloused indifference and thievery.

Why do we need words of sharp contrast to explain ourselves? Wouldn’t it be nice to only need terms of dignity to tell our story? But the required vocabulary for a truthful account must include words of depravity. Why are things as they are? Who has a satisfying explanation? “It is what it is” might be the only answer some can offer but I would like to know more. Where did our story begin? Where is it going? How will it end? Can we find answers to these questions? Do we just bide our time making the best of it until the grim reaper visits us?

Struggling with what he felt to be the exasperating enigma of existence, frustrated Scottish writer, Richard Holloway, groaned, “This is my dilemma. I am dust and ashes, frail and wayward, a set of predetermined behavioral responses, … riddled with fear, beset with needs…the quintessence of dust and unto dust I shall return…. But there is something else in me…. Dust I may be, but troubled dust, dust that dreams, dust that that has strong premonitions of transfiguration, of a glory in store, a destiny prepared, an inheritance that will one day be my own…so my life is spread out in a painful dialectic between ashes and glory, between weakness and transfiguration. I am a riddle to myself, an exasperating enigma…the strange duality of dust and glory.”

There are surprisingly few places to turn for thoughtful answers to the deeper questions of life and death. Many efforts to explain the human story are either simplistically naïve in their utopianism or forced versions of scientific reductionism. I have only found one source to be wide enough to explain the complex mixtures of the human story and large enough to address the innate longings of the human heart.

The source I have found deeply satisfying invokes reactions from some who know little about it yet feel surprisingly justified in rejecting it. Merely mentioning this source in most academic settings invokes condescending ridicule. Those who take the source seriously are treated like unenlightened simpletons. Ironically, the academicians who do this, rarely know anything beyond the superficial, and poorly reasoned arguments against it. More importantly, they have no worthy alternative for answering the important questions.

The source I look to offers truths that range from simple and accessible to complex and mysterious . It speaks to the child and challenges the scholar. It reaches the scope of both time and eternity. It tells us where we came from, why we’re here, what went wrong, and where to find hope. It addresses the universal human needs of forgiveness, freedom, security and peace.

The source is the most widely circulated and best selling book of human history. It’s main character came from eternity to enter humble earthly circumstances. His death, we are repeatedly informed, was a redemptive sacrifice for all people. He transformed countless individual lives and human history itself more than any other person who has lived. He introduced himself as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, who is, who was and who is to come. He said, “I was dead and behold I am alive forever and ever” (Revelation 1:18). The source is the Bible and the person is Jesus Christ.

The story chronicled in the Bible turns on four main themes covering the whole account of reality. First, there is creation: the good; secondly, the fall of humanity: the evil; thirdly, redemption, the new; finally, restoration: the perfect. Here we find truth about dignity and depravity; the finite and the transcendent; time and eternity; dust and glory—God’s word through the words of men. A rich treasure awaits you in this amazing book.

Steve Cornell

Character counts: But do we really want it?

“We say we want renewal of character in our day but we don’t really know what we ask for… We want character but without unyielding conviction; we want strong morality but without the emotional burden of guilt or shame; we want virtue but without particular moral justifications that invariably offend; we want good without having to name evil; we want decency without the authority to insist upon it; we want moral community without any limitations to personal freedom. In short, we want what we cannot possibly have on the terms that we want it.” (The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age Without Good or Evil, James Davison Hunter, professor of sociology and religious studies at the University of Virginia)  

Professor Hunter suggests that, “the most basic element of character is moral discipline — the inner capacity for restraint, an ability to inhibit oneself in one’s passions, desires and habits within the boundaries of a moral order and on behalf of a greater good.” Hunter believes (rightly in my view) that “the boundaries of moral order come in significant measure through social order.” If character and culture are inseparable; if the social order of the individual is what largely shapes his conscience, liberating or restraining it, perhaps we can understand why the professor believes character is dead.   

Although churches have often played decisive roles in framing the boundaries of conscience, Hunter acknowledges that “character does not require religious faith.” What it does require is “the conviction of truth made sacred, abiding as an authoritative presence within consciousness and life, reinforced by habits, institutionalized within a moral community.”  

Here is the great challenge for western culture (and particularly for democratic societies). The diversity of moral traditions and varying ideals of the common good in pluralistic culture can become powerful forces of division. Hunter believes that such diversity forces us “to confront the sources by which we define the ‘moral’ life and, by extension, ‘good’ character.” If, for example, “our commitments to benevolence and justice are to have any substance and meaning, if they are not to be merely slogans, it is essential to open a discussion of the means by which we support these commitments.” 

How then do we arrive at consensus regarding the right means for truth and morality? This is far more than a theoretical question for those who care about the good of humanity. But the discussion of means is particularly difficult for the absolute moral relativist and the militant atheist. They have nothing to look to outside of their own feelings or experiences.

On what basis should we impose one standard or law versus another? Appealing to principles of utilitarian consensus will not satisfy. In the wrong hands (or minds), as history verifies, this theory is dangerous. Something stronger must undergird utilitarian conclusions.  

Judges who take the bench must repeatedly make decisions based on laws. These laws have an undeniable moral background to them that was forged in a social context based on something. Many of the laws of this country were forged by minds which were strongly informed by Christian Scriptures. Although we cannot ask that our government and laws be formed explicitly from the Scripture, the current cultural trend is to push as far from these Scriptures as possible. This could be the final source of our demise.            

Steve Cornell

Senior pastor

Millersville Bible Church 

Postmodern smirk

“Postmodernists reject unifying, totalizing, and universal schemes in favor of a new emphasis on difference, plurality, fragmentation and complexity. Postmoderns are suspicious of truth claims, of ‘getting it right.’”                        

       (Kevin Vanhoozer, “The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology”) 

Postmodernists promote anti-theory by using theoretical tools to neutralize all theories. They demand a type of uniformity in an effort to resist uniformity.  Postmodernist use propositional statements to negate truth based on propositional statements.

Of course, if you expose these inconsistencies and contradictions to postmoderns, after several twitches, you’ll likely get the postmodern smirk that says—“poor soul, you are so bound by modernity.”

Steve Cornell

 For a better understanding of postmodernity, see:

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/25/

Is the Bible really from God? part 1

Sometimes it becomes necessary to restate the basic truths that many had considered to be clear for years. Such a time has come regarding the origin and nature of the Bible. A number of popular authors and speakers (particularly in the Emergent Church strand) are unclear about their commitment to Scripture as God’s Word. At the present moment in the life of the Church, there is an urgent need to reaffirm with deep conviction and clarity the divine origin of Scripture. After weighing this evidence, the burden of disproof is on those who contend against the evidence for the divine origin of Scripture. 

I. The Origin of the Bible:

The word “Bible” is derived from the Greek word biblos which means book, and is used in reference to the thirty-nine Old Testament and twenty-seven New Testament books of Judeo-Christian scripture. The sixty-six books of the Bible declare themselves to be God’s revelation to mankind. This truth is substantiated through careful examination of key passages of Scripture and several important biblical terms. Further verification of the Divine origin of the Bible is established in Jesus’ view of it.      

A. Key passages:

The Bible gives clear testimony to its own origin. The internal witness of Scripture demands a response from those who deny its divine origin. Consider the following witness concerning the origin of Scripture.         

1. II Timothy 3:16-17

 

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (NASB)

 

Prior to these verses, the apostle Paul reminded Timothy of his early training in the holy Scriptures (vv. 14-15). In v. 15, the apostle identified the Scriptures as “sacred” (i.e. holy). This places them in association with God’s own character (cf. Isa. 40:25; 57:15). The word scripture itself could refer to writings of another nature. The point made here is that these writings are holy. They are set apart from other writings due to their origin with God.

In verse 15, the apostle also wrote of the central purpose of Scripture: “Which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Christ is the central person of Scripture (Lk. 24:25-27; 24:46-47; John 5:39, 46; Acts 17:2-3) and the Scriptures have an innate ability to make one wise unto salvation. The Scriptures are powerful (Hebrews 4:12) and initiate the conviction (John 16:8-10; Ephesians 6:17) that leads to conversion. Having mentioned the Scriptures, the apostle takes the opportunity to restate two basic facts about all Scripture: a) their divine origin and b) their specific usefulness (vv. 16,17).

a. Their divine origin: (v. 16)

All Scripture is God-breathed.

“This is another way of saying that Scripture is God’s word (cf. Jesus’ use of ‘Scripture’ and ‘Word of God’ in apposition to each other in Jn. 10:35). The same thing is also said when the NT uses ‘God says’ for what is found in Scripture, whether the words were originally spoken by God or not and when Paul insists that the message he speaks consists of words taught by God’s Spirit (I Cor. 2:12-13; cf. Heb. 3:7; Acts 1:16; II Pet. 1:21)” (p. 447, N.I.G.T.C. Commentary on the Pastorals, George W. Knight III ). 

Old Testament Writings as statements from God

Matt. 19:4-5 w/Gen. 2:24

Acts 4:25 w/Ps. 2:1-2

Rom. 9:17 w/Ex. 9:16

Heb. 1:7 w/ Ps. 104:4

 

The reference to Scripture as God-breathed points to the origin and nature of what is written. ”All” Scripture reveals the extent of inspiration. The word “Scripture” may refer to the O.T. writings as in v. 15 “sacred writings” (i.e. holy scripture) or to an enlargement from that to include NT writings as well. It is significant that the apostle Peter includes the writings of Paul in the category of Scripture (cf. II Pet. 3:15-16).

Knight wrote that: “Paul insisted that his letters be read (I Thess. 5:27), exchanged (Col. 4:16), and obeyed (e.g. I Cor. 14:37; II Thess. 2:15) and identified the words he used to communicate the gospel message as ‘those taught by the Spirit’ (I Cor. 2:13). In this letter, Paul has praised Timothy for following his teaching (v. 10), has urged Timothy to continue in what he has learned from Paul (v.14), has commanded Timothy to retain ‘the standard of sound words’that he has heard from Paul (1:13), has commanded him to entrust what he has heard from Paul to faithful men so that they could teach others (2:2), and has insisted that Timothy handle accurately ‘the word of truth’ (2:15). After his remarks on ‘all Scripture’ he will urge Timothy to ‘preach the word’ (4:2), i.e., proclaim the apostolic message about which Paul has said so much in this letter” (P. 448, N.I.G.T.C., The Pastorals).

 

 

Notice the inclusion of other parts of the Bible under the title “Scripture”:

Luke 24:25-27, 44-45 — Moses, prophets, Psalms;

John 10:34-35 w/Ps. 82:6 — Law, Psalms;

II Peter 1:19-21 — prophecy. 

b. Their specific usefulness (vv.16-17).

The usefulness of Scripture extends beyond “giving wisdom that leads to salvation” (v. 15). In vv. 16-17, the divine origin of Scripture points to a usefulness that invades all areas of life under God. The apostle reveals positive and negative uses in the following pattern:

Positive: Teaching (Instruction cf. Rom. 15:4; II Tim. 2:19)

Negative: Reproof (rebuking error cf. II Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9)

Negative: Correction (setting right with reference to conduct)

Positive: Training in righteousness (right conduct in keeping with the teaching)

 

The New English Bible paraphrases this: “for teaching the truth, refuting error, for reformation of manner and discipline in right living.” Knight points out that the first pair deals with belief and the second with action. (Ibid., p. 449)

 

Note: By virtue of their origin, the Scriptures are the final standard for faith and practice. Every believer is to be subjected to the Authority of the Word of God which is powerful and able to judge the motives and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12). The authoritative place of the Scripture is especially seen in relation to the way the NT writers applied the OT to their readers (Lk. 16:29-31; Rom. 15:4;I Cor. 10; Heb. 12:5-6 w/Prov. 3:11-12). For more on the authority of the bible, see also: I Cor. 4:6; I Thess. 5:12; II Thess. 3:14; II Tim. 3:16-4:2; II Pet. 3:1-2. 

Yet, as Dr. John Bright has written, “We do not worship a book. On the contrary, the sole legitimate object of worship, and the supreme authority to whom the Christian submits himself, is God — the God who, according to the Scripture, worked his redemptive purpose in Israel and, in the fullness of time, revealed himself in Jesus Christ.”

“The Christian’s God is the Creator and Lord of all things, and is the Lord also of Scripture. He existed before there was a Bible, and quite independently of it. He performed his work of creation when no man was there to record it. He gave his covenant law at Sinai, and that law had authority in Israel before the Pentateuch was written. He did his saving work in Jesus Christ, who came, did mighty works, died, and rose again, and this would be just as true had the Gospels never been penned.”

“The Bible, therefore, derives its authority from God; it does not have authority of itself, but rather by virtue of the God to whom it witnesses and who speaks in its pages. The God of the Bible is the Christians’ supreme authority in all senses of the word  True. Yet there is a practical sense in which this comes to much the same thing. What, after all, would the Christian know of his God, of Christ, and of the nature of the Christian faith apart from the Bible? Suppose for a moment the Bible had never been written or had been lost to us. What would we know of the history and faith of Israel? What would we know of Jesus, his life, his teachings, and the significance of his saving work as the early church understood it? The answer is: precious little” (p. 31, The Authority of the Old Testament).         

2. II Peter 1:19-21

 

“And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (NASB). 

The major theme of II Peter is the danger presented to the church by false teachers. In v. 19-21 the apostle identifies Scripture as the ultimate source of stability and confidence for the believer, as well as the needed antidote to heretical teaching (2:1). In v. 19 Peter encourages his readers to pay attention to the prophetic word (OT), which he identifies as a more certain source of revelation and guidance than even his own dramatic witness of Jesus’ transfiguration (v. 16-18). Peter goes on to provide the two-fold bases for the absolute reliability of Scripture’s teachings.     

a. Negatively — The source of Scripture is not human (v. 20).

 

In verse 20, Peter was addressing the question of the origin of scriptural revelation. He asserted that it is not a matter of one’s (the prophets) own interpretation. In other words, the prophets did not “put their own spin” on what they saw or heard. They did not “interpret” with their own limited human minds what God said or showed them. Peter was probably countering the false teacher’s charge that the Scriptures were merely human myths, much like they discounted the report of Jesus’ transfiguration as “cleverly devised tales” (v. 16). 

In v. 21a, Peter placed added emphasis on his denial of a merely human thought process in the formation of Scripture: “For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will . .”

 

b. Positively — The source of Scripture is Divine (v. 21).

 

Although Peter acknowledged a human element in God’s revelation through the Scripture (“Men ……. spoke”), his focal point was the motivation and source of their speaking: “men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God”.

The apostle Peter taught that it was not the prophet’s will, but God’s Spirit actually “moving” (guiding, superintending) the human agents that brought about the writing of Scripture. Therefore, when men spoke, God spoke. Scripture is the communication of God’s truth to us, arriving through the agency of human writers and speakers who were so guided by the Holy Spirit that they reported exactly what God intended. (See Jer. 1:9; Num. 22:38).

To assert or imply that “the Bible is just a book written by men,” is to wrongly assume that there is no process by which a sovereign God could use fallible man to convey infallible truth. II Peter 1:21 reveals such a process, though some of the technical details remain a mystery to finite minds.  

Steve Cornell

see also: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/is-the-bible-really-from-god-part-2/

Loss of knowledge: A professor of Jewish history provokes a few thoughts

How far have we drifted? Bernard Dov Cooperman (Associate Professor of Jewish History at the University of Maryland), in a recent letter to the editor (Newsweek, 9-03-07) acknowledged that “…our society is more than happy to accept spin and cant because we have come to believe that all expertise is bias, that all knowledge is opinion, that every judgment is relative. I see this daily in my university classroom. Many of even my best students seem to have lost the ability to think critically about the world. They do not believe in the transformative power of knowledge because they do not believe in knowledge itself.” 

The sense of loss in Cooperman’s words is evident. What interests me is that he does not refer to loss of morality or virtue but loss of belief in knowledge itself. At the risk of oversimplification, in modernity, the loss focused more on morality. Relativism ruled out moral absolutes. In postmodernity, the inevitable occurred: knowledge itself became suspect. This is a shift from an ethical to an epistemological dilemna. Knowing (or how one knows things) is now radically individualized.  

However we frame the current zeitgeist, we are reaping the consequences of decades of demand for moral relativism. Ironically, those who most vocally required the position of relativism have finally threatened their own viability. Now the profession of teaching (at least on the university level) is suspect. As for Church ministers who danced to the music of relativism, they have become the most irrelevant to society. If teaching is suspect, preaching is just plain rude and ignorant.  

But there are other losers–parents. Some years ago, psychologist Helen Lynd noted that “the teachers and ‘sophisticated’ parents were abandoning the moral framework in which guilt had played a part in training children. No longer were children being told that they were ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ or even that a certain action had been ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Now, she said, ‘the words good and bad have been replaced with mature and immature, productive and unproductive, socially adjusted and maladjusted.’ These new words described the same actions as the old, and carried the same weight, but they had become morally neutralized.”

With the fading of moral vision come other losses. Values such as inspiration, motivation, vision, community and purpose—all fade in the dim light of a society that demoralizes virtue as merely individual taste. When people embrace moral relativism, they become a colorless, tasteless, blandish melting pot of meaninglessness. David Wells aptly notes that, “The problem is not that we cannot discuss moral theory, although even that is rapidly being lost, and it is certainly not that we are unconcerned about our cultural circumstances. The problem is that our talk is now empty.”

People who abandon shared morality also become the proverbial “sheep without a shepherd,” or, perhaps more accurately, sheep who don’t want a shepherd. Let’s not fool ourselves, the prevailing relativism in our culture is, as David Wells observed, “driven by a deep sense of entitlement to being left alone, to live in a way that is emancipated from the demands and expectations of others, to being able to fashion its own life in the way it wants to, to being able to establish its own values and beliefs in its own way, to resist all authority. The internal ethic of the self — what is right for me — has become the means by which all external standards, external controls, and external expectations are remitted” (Losing Our Virtue).

 

More deeply troubling is the fact that such individualism often occasions the greatest opportunities for large scale evil. When people embrace and even cherish, the idea that all knowledge and morality is relative, it leaves a dangerous moral vacancy. Such vacancies have often been filled in the past with the tyrannical rule of radical regimes. A civil society cannot exist without law and order. But when people have radically individualized morality, often the government, courts and legal system become the moral parents of society. This is why a people without moral bearings become easy victims of tyrannical regimes. If you doubt this, study the history of such regimes or keep watching Europe (the mother of relativism) as they dance around radical Islam.

 

Meanwhile back at the evangelical Church, we find a new brand of leadership that is uncertain about issues of truth and authority. In the last three decades, great strides have been made to make the Church more relevant to society. On one level, this is admirable and even mandated. One thinks of the reference to the men of Issachar who, “understood the times and knew what Israel should do” (I Chronicles 12:32). The danger in seeking relevancy, however, is becoming a Church shaped by cultural expectations.

 

Church leaders must also be perceptive enough to recognize that “lostness” has become a more complicated matter. Someone once said that the answer will not help the person who has lost the question. In these times, we face the challenge of reframing the question before offering the answer. Compelling a morally complacent society about the urgency of being right with God is not an easy assignment.

The Church must provide the moral compass so desperately needed in our times. Failure to do this is a failure to take seriously Jesus’ words, “You are the salt of the earth, You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13,14). Yet meeting this challenge requires a great deal of wisdom and discernment. Above all, this is not a time for us to de-emphasize the sweeping claims of the Bible. Paul’s words to the philosophers on Mars Hill should be our message, “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth” (Acts 17:24, NIV). From this affirmation, we can move to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am convinced that we are in deep trouble unless Church leadership everywhere vigorously reaffirms its commitment to the fact that, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.” (II Timothy 3:16-17, NLT). This is the message needed most among those who are lost in a postmodern world.

Steve Cornell

Senior pastor

Millersville Bible Church

Millersville, PA 17551

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/category/postmodern/

Postmodernity and Genesis 1-4

By Steve Cornell

A compelling example of the way the bible connects with the human story is found in the consequences to human rebellion against the Creator. Recorded in the third chapter of Genesis, seven consequences emerge. Interestingly, each one affects a major area of human existence. Each one also provides a background to the primary occupational courses we choose today. They included the following:

1.     Physiological: death, decay, sickness and suffering  

2.     Psychological: shame, guilt, fear

3.     Sociological: blame shifting, alienation

4.     Ecological: ground is cursed, thorns and thistles

5.     Spiritual: hiding from God, enmity: seed of woman & seed of Serpent

6.     Epistemological: distorted thinking, spiritual blindness (II Cor. 4:3-4)

7.     Criminal: Genesis 4—Murder! 

Colleges continue to offer majors related to one of the seven categories above (e.g. doctors, psychologists, sociologists, environmentalists, ministers, philosophers, law enforcement). Our problems trace back to the biblical narrative of the first act of human rebellion against the Creator. This is not a time for us to de-emphasize the sweeping claims of the Bible. The message of the Bible is what is needed most among those who are lost in a postmodern world.

Steve Cornell

Audio link: “Damaged Goods Restored” 8-5-07 

Download Sermon (9.12 mb) 

Is there a narrative for all people?

Is there a narrative or story that applies to all humans throughout all history? Does anything speak to us with univocal impact? I believe that the Bible is the narrative that best explains the human story. It answers the main questions of life: Origin: Where did we come from? Meaning: Why are we here? Morality: How should we live? And Destiny: Where are we going?

The Bible cannot be localized and limited.  It embraces the whole account of humanity by answering the four questions above. An example of the connection of the bible with the whole human story is the descriptive consequences of the first human act of rebellion against the Creator. This is recorded in the OT book of Genesis. The act of disobedience to God resulted in seven consequences affecting every area of human existence. They included the following:

1.     Physiological: death, decay, sickness and suffering  

2.     Psychological: shame, guilt, fear

3.     Sociological: blame shifting, alienation

4.     Ecological: ground is cursed, thorns and thistles

5.     Spiritual: hiding from God, enmity: seed of woman & seed of Serpent

6.     Epistemological: distorted thinking, spiritual blindness (II Cor. 4:3-4)

7.     Criminal: Genesis 4—Murder! 

Those who go to college chose majors related to one of the seven categories above (e.g. doctors, psychologists, sociologists, environmentalists, ministers, philosophers, law enforcement). All our problems trace back to the biblical narrative of the first act of human rebellion against the Creator.  

There are also seven inclusive truths in Scripture that testify to the extensive sweep of the biblical narrative.

1.  God has demonstrated his love for all people (John 3:16).

2.  God desires the salvation of all people (I Timothy 2:3-4).

3.  God has made provision for the salvation of all people (I John 2:2).

4.  God commands all people to repent (Acts 17:30).

5.  God will hold all people accountable for their response (Acts 17:31).

6.  God takes no pleasure in anyone’s rejection of his provision (Ezekiel    18:23,32).

7.  God will save all people who place faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16). 

This is not a time for us to de-emphasize the sweeping claims of the Bible. Instead, this is the message needed most among those who are lost in a postmodern world.

Steve Cornell 

What is the Emergent Church?

The purpose of this article is to critique a relatively new wave of Christian identity known as the Emergent Church. It is a rapidly growing network of individual believers and Churches who would prefer to be understood as a conversation or a friendship rather than an organization. Yet due to overwhelming interest, those who have joined the conversation have found it necessary to organize and designate leaders on the national and international levels. Other titles associated with Emergent include: post-evangelical, post-conservative, post-fundamentalists, post-foundationalists, post-propositionalist, and younger evangelicals. www.emergentvillage.com is a primary web site for emergent. 

Emergent Church leaders

The late Stanley Grenz was considered the professor of post-conservatism. Roger Olson and Robert Webber have been called the publicists of post-conservatism. Tony Jones is the U.S. National Coordinator for Emergent and Brian McLaren is arguably the most popular name associated with the work of emergent. Other names include: Leonard Sweet, Erwin McManus, Spencer Burke, Edmund Burke, John Franke, Rob Bell, the late Mike Yaconelli, Chris Seay, Carol Childress, and Dave Travis. 

Critical assessment of Emergent

Before offering critical assessment of Emergent, it’s wise to remember that such analysis should never be approached lightly. We are all one body. “We have the same Spirit, and we have all been called to the same glorious future. There is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and there is only one God and Father, who is over us all and in us all and living through us all” (Ephesians 4:4-6). Yet our spiritual unity does not preclude our responsibility to critique new movements within the body of Christ. New waves of teaching and identity must be evaluated by the faith that was- once for all — delivered to God’s people. The New Testament warns about the danger of being easily enamored with novel ideas. When believers are not firmly grounded in biblical truth, they vacillate like susceptible children who constantly change their minds about what they believe because someone has told them something different.  

Emerging in reaction

Emergent, like most new expressions within the Church, is partly a reaction to existing identities in the body of Christ. Some of the most influential leaders in Emergent have emerged from conservative and fundamentalist approaches to Christianity. It is apparent from their writings that these leaders feel betrayed by their upbringing. They reject the simplistic, biased and judgmental way they were taught to look at people in the world –many of whom seem more pleasant, humble and nice than the people from their fundamentalist Churches. Reacting to this background, they are determined to transcend the separatist spirit of Christians who seem to have nothing more important to do than to defend how right they are and how wrong everyone else is. With a chastened spirit of repentance, they reach out with open arms of tolerance and acceptance to those they were warned to avoid. 

The Emergent offer

Emergent offers what they believe to be a more generous orthodoxy. Commendably, they believe the Church should be a welcoming and authentic community of creativity and learning—a place where people with different views are treated with the utmost respect and dignity (rather than being looked down on). They offer an eclectic use of traditions in worship—candle lighting, prayer stations, liturgy, symbols, meditation, sermons, songs and conversations. They desire to move beyond a creed-based identity to a spirituality-based identity. They recommend embracing and celebrating the mystery of the world, life and God rather than conquering it. They prefer theology as a quest for the beauty and truth of God rather than a search for propositional statements, proof texts and doctrinal formulations —-used to measure those who are in and judge those who are out. Committed to what they call a missional focus, they see the world as something to reach out to not something to hide from and arrogantly renounce. 

The Emergent overreaction           

Those who share a common conservative background (especially younger leaders) will be drawn to the concerns raised by Emergent. Conservative and fundamental Church leaders have been guilty of reactionary extremes. Yet, as is almost always the case, reactions to reactions swing the proverbial pendulum to opposite extremes. Sadly, in the case of emergent, the desire to be perceived as accepting and non-condemning is being taken too far. In their effort to avoid being misunderstood by nonbelievers, they soft-pedal around the exclusivity of salvation through Christ alone. They are evasive on teaching about eternal punishment. They blur Scriptural condemnation of homosexual behavior. In the end, one is left to question the extent to which they embrace Scripture as the authoritative, univocal divine revelation for humanity. 

Emergent’s limited generosity

The welcoming spirit of emergent is commendable but it is generously extended to everyone except conservative Christians. The best example of this is found in Brian McLaren’s, “A Generous Orthodoxy.” Mimicking the spirit of the culture, McLaren offers everyone (except conservative Christians) large doses of tolerance. Parroting the academic community, those considered liberal or on the left receive the most generosity from McLaren. This is significant because emergent is built on the assumption that evangelicals (of both the conservative and pragmatic stripe) have made far too many concessions to modern culture. It is often the case that the things we condemn in others we are guilty of in other areas. Evidently, McLaren doesn’t recognize how cynical, sarcastic, and condescending he sounds toward those he deems old fashion, non-emergent Christian modernists.

The Emergent overstatement

Emergent leaders emphasize a need for radical reform in the Church based on an understanding of postmodern culture. They operate on “the assumption that postmodernism has effected such a gigantic and irreversible shift in people’s thought patterns that the Church is faced with a fundamental choice: adapt so as to respond better to postmodernism, or be relegated to irrelevance” (D.A. Carson, “Becoming Conversant with Emergent”).           

In this area of emphasis, emergent leaders should be cautioned against the kind of overstatement they deplore in other twigs of evangelical identity. First, the nature of the shift from modern to postmodern is highly debatable. Is post-modern actually most-modern? Perhaps we should really be talking about a trans-modernism culture. Secondly, while it is true that some spiritual leaders do not adequately understand the cultural changes that have occurred over the last several decades, many others have faithfully and effectively addressed those changes before Emergent ever emerged. I fear that Emergent, in an effort to emphasize the urgency of their mission, has inadvertently disrespected the outstanding work of many leaders in this area of concern. Emergent and postmodernity           

A more troubling possibility is that Emergent leaders are not really interested in thoughtful biblical critique of postmodernity. Is it the Emergent enterprise to seek a better understanding of the shift to postmodernity and address it as a communicational challenge for the gospel? Or, have the Emergent leaders embraced the values of postmodernity because they actually consider them superior?The most important value of postmodernity is the inadmissibility of all totalizing ways of viewing any dimension of life. Postmodernity, as a theory, refuses to allow any single defining source for truth and reality beyond the individual. The gospel clearly contradicts this value. While Emergent leaders raise legitimate concerns about adding too much to the gospel, they also must be careful not to reshape the gospel to accommodate this primary value of postmodernity. If the gospel is held hostage to the restrictions of postmodernity, it ceases to be good news.

Steven W. Cornell

What does “postmodern” mean?

We live in a postmodern world. Or, so we’re told. But what does this mean? Postmodern is a word used to describe major changes in the underlying ways people think—especially the way people view truth and reality. Understanding postmodernity requires an understanding of modernity. But before we lived in a modern era, the world was considered pre-modern. It helps to consider the main differences in these eras.

The pre-modern era was one in which religion was the source of truth and reality. During this era, God’s existence and revelation were widely accepted in the culture. In the modern era, science became the predominate source for truth and reality. During this period, religion and morality were arbitrarily demoted to the subjective realm. In the present, postmodern era, there is no single defining source for truth and reality beyond the individual.

In postmodernism, we encounter radicalized forms of relativism and individualism applied to all spheres of knowledge—even science. In a postmodern world, truth and reality are individually shaped by personal history, social class, gender, culture, and religion. These factors, according to postmodern thinking, combine to shape the narratives and meanings of our lives as culturally embedded, localized social constructions without any universal application.

Postmoderns are suspicious of those who make universal truth claims. All claims of universal meaning are viewed as imperialistic efforts to marginalize and oppress the rights of others. The most important value of postmodernity is the inadmissibility of all totalizing ways of viewing any dimension of life.

Postmodernity, as a worldview, refuses to allow any single defining source for truth and reality. The new emphasis is on difference, plurality and selective forms of tolerance. Postmodern thinking is full of absurdities and inconsistencies. It is, for example, the worldview that says no worldview exists. It is an anti-theory that uses theoretical tools to neutralize all theories. It demands an imposed uniformity in an effort to resist uniformity. It employs propositional statements to negate truth based on propositional statements.

Postmodern concern for plurality, diversity and tolerance have not led to a more stable and secure society. Instead, the postmodern era exchanged one misguided mood for another. Postmodernity was fueled by a shift from the human optimism of modernity (based on scientific certainty and technological progress), to a pessimistic mood of skepticism and uncertainty. One observer noted that, “Modernity was confident; postmodernity is anxious. Modernity had all the answers; postmodernity is full of questions. Modernity reveled in reason, science and human ability; postmodernity wallows (with apparent contentment or nihilistic angst) in mysticism, relativism, and the incapacity to know anything with certainty.”

This mood change was fueled by the devastation and disappointments of two world wars. Philosophies of despair and nihilistic existentialism became popular fare throughout Europe. These philosophies would later provide the ideological framework for the rejection of authority and institutionalism in America.

During the 1960’s and 70’s, the prevailing attitudes against authority, institution and establishment produced overwhelmingly negative effects on our nation. It was during this same period that we experienced a massive societal shift away from the institution of marriage and family. This involved alarming increases in divorce rates and the widespread acceptance of co-habitation.

As a result of these changes, pastors, counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists and therapists are stretched to the limit as they try to help overwhelming numbers of people pick up the broken pieces of their lives and become whole again. Yet many of these helpers are equally lost because they accept the postmodern lie.

What is the lie? It is the wholesale rejection of universal reason and absolute truth. It is the delusional mindset that there is no objective goodness and rightness. These prevailing opinions have led to the dismissal of an absolute deity. Don’t misunderstand; God is warmly welcomed in the postmodern world as long as he doesn’t try to play God.

“Postmodernity returns value to faith and affirms the nurturing of our spiritual being as vital to humankind. Unfortunately, with the loss of truth, people will now seek faith without boundaries, categories, or definition. The old parameters of belief do not exist. As a result, people will be increasingly open to knowing God, but on their own terms.” (Graham Johnston).

Yet the true and living God will not be defined by finite creatures. While postmodern guru-philosophers like Richard Rorty have tried to write the obituary of the “God’s eye view of the world,” the Creator of the universe still determines the standard of truth, goodness and beauty.

Steven W. Cornell