Emergents, Mysticism, and Postmodernism

The philosophical influences of postmodernism have fundamentally affected the epistemology, metaphysic, and ethic of the EC movement in numerous ways that will in turn seriously shape its hermeneutical methodology. Epistemologically, the EC movement has clearly abandoned a distinctly Christian theory of knowledge. There is no mention of arriving at how things really are through faith, which is grounded in the historical event and person of Jesus Christ. Rather there is an emphasis on the mystical encounter of God through human consciousness, as though human consciousness can be trusted as a reliable source for intimate knowledge of God, or even a legitimate religious experience for that matter. John Frame writes,


"The Christian knows by faith that this world is not of his own making, that there is a “real world” – a world of facts – that exists apart from our interpretation of it...What prevents us from constructing an absolutely crazy world? Only our faith. Only our faith assures us that there is a “real world” that exists apart from our interpretation. Only God’s revelation provides us with a sure knowledge of that world and so serves to check our fantasies.”

The only justification we have for claiming to possess true knowledge, is that we know by faith through God’s revelation. We interpret the facts of God’s world according to his interpretation of the facts of that world. If the EC movement denies to Scripture the status of God’s inerrant revelation, it follows that some theory of knowledge must take its place. A Christian theory of knowledge humbly submits itself to divine revelation. It does not reject it in favor of unaided human reason or an unjustified reliance and overconfidence in human consciousness. Greg Bahnsen writes,

“The word of the Lord is self-attestingly true and authoritative. It is the criterion we must use in judging all other words. Thus, God’s word is unassailable. It must be the rock-bottom foundation of our thinking and living (Matt. 7:24-25). It is our presuppositional starting-point. All our reasoning must be subordinated to God’s word, for no man is in a position to reply against it (Rom. 9:20) and any who contend with God will end up having to answer (Job 40:1-5).”

If the sole authority for knowledge is not the self-attesting Word of God, then it must rest elsewhere. Moreover, if that ‘elsewhere’ is either the human mind or human consciousness, as the EC movement contends, then the question becomes which human mind, or which human consciousness serves as the norm? There can be only one starting point and one ending point to arrive at absolute truth. That point must begin and end with the triune God who has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ through sacred Scripture. This is because the source of all created reality is God. Human beings are not the source of reality, and therefore, cannot serve as the final authority for how we know facts about that reality. Every other theory of knowledge, reality, and ethics proves to be considerably deficient. These voices are simply multiple iterations of the voice of autonomy as it cries out in the streets looking to seduce its next victim. The only safety from this creature is found in the objective truths that are the acts of God speaking to us in the person of Christ through the medium of Scripture as his Spirit graciously illumines our darkened minds to understand.

Text, Telos, and Transformation

Some scholars may label much of what has been discussed thus far as naïve realism. Certainly, that label may appear to stick in some minds. However, I contend that far from being a naïve realism borne out of modernistic philosophy, it is Christian realism that I am getting at. It is simple because it is common to the common, yet it is anything but simplistic. There is nothing naïve about taking God at his word. At the same time, it is important to point out that sin has complicated the discipline of interpretation just as it has every thing else it has touched. Moreover, human communication has obstacles that it otherwise would not have had. Hermeneutics is about overcoming these obstacles so that we may enjoy the rich blessings of divine and human relations.

A text is an organized set of signs and symbols designed in order to convey meaningful information with an end-state in mind. The end-state may simply be to tell a story for the purpose of entertainment. It may be to report on the state of affairs of the current North Korean crisis. It could be to publish the results of an investigation around the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Hence, a text inherently has been designed by an author for the purpose of a specific goal. That is to say that the author had a definite purpose in mind when she put pen to paper. The author does not simply wish to inform of this or that matter. The author hopes for some change in the reader. The extent of this desired change is dependent on the author. The desired change may be very small. An author may write an entertaining story in order to provoke love or fear in the reader as they enter the world of fantasy. On the other hand, the author may be making a promise in hopes that the reader believes him, and acts on the information because the author can be trusted to keep his word. There are three components in communication that must be understood if hermeneutics is to be given the respect and attention it is due. This is especially true for biblical hermeneutics.

First, the author uses locution in order to construct his text. Locution is simply a word, phrase, or expression. However, that word phrase or expression can be classified by what it is doing. For example, “get off the lawn” is the locution by which I issue the illocutionary effect of a command. This is related to the author’s intention for uttering the phrase in the first place. The author intends to issue a stern order to the recipient to get off his grass. Finally, and ultimately, the author wishes to produce change in the hearer/reader. The author hopes the recipient will relocate off his grass. This last piece is the intended effect the author is looking for. The author hopes for a change in the hearer/reader. This change is called the perlocutionary effect. This is what Paul is getting at in Romans 12:2 when he uses the phrase “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” The transformation means to change inwardly in fundamental character or condition. This transformation is indelibly connected with the renewing of the mind. The idea of the renewing of the mind means, to cause something to become new and different, with the implication of becoming superior. It is used only here and Titus 3:5. This renewal of the mind is a renewal of critical judgment in terms of the will of God. One now lives with the new orientation that has come with the new birth.

With the undoing of authorial meaning, or intent, and the death of the author, this perlocutionary effect fades into a cloud of extreme relativism. Hirsch points this out when he says, “There is no magic land of meaning outside human consciousness. Whenever meaning is connected to words, a person is making the connection, and the particular meanings he lends to them are never the only legitimate ones under the norms and conventions of his language.” If meaning is borne in human consciousness, with it comes telos and with telos comes objective meaning. The goal of hermeneutics is to get at that objective meaning by utilizing the rules inherent in language. These rules are borne out of the rational aspects of the human mind. As such, they are not arbitrary conventions, engineered by human culture. They have their source in the Divine Engineer and Creator of all things human, the triune God. This fact provides hermeneutics with the necessary foundation it requires in order to function. Without this foundation, hermeneutics ceases to be hermeneutics. The whole concept of interpretation requires a meaning out there somewhere to be discovered. Otherwise, what is the point of engaging in a practice that has no hope of discovering what is there? The alternative is that the only thing we can ever hope to get at is what is here. With this, all hope for change evanesces. When we say out there, we do not intend to imply anywhere. The there to which we refer is a definite, fixed place. It is in the intent of the author that the there is actually located. Thus, the hermeneutical journey is a journey toward the center of authorial intent, to include an eye on the perlocutionary hopes found in authorial intention. After all, readers have a purpose for reading the same as authors have a purpose for writing. The two horizons inevitably meet and with the fusion of these horizons, something changes. The question is; does the text transform the reader or the reader the text?

As Thiselton rightly points out, “The phrase “transforming texts” can be interpreted in two ways. Texts can actively shape and transform the perceptions, understanding, and actions of readers and of reading communities…But texts can also suffer transformation at the hands of readers and reading communities.” This awareness must never be underestimated in the practice of biblical interpretation. The sin nature must always be in view as we seek to better understand the meaning of God’s word. In his book, Theological Hermeneutics, Alexander Jensen argues along the same lines. He writes,

“The theologian needs to keep in mind that his or her hermeneutical approach, both in biblical and wider theological hermeneutics, is informed, if not determined by certain fundamental theological decisions…It is therefore important for the theologian to be aware of his or her presuppositions, and wherever possible, make them explicit, reflect on them and where appropriate, criticize them.”

Most often, we transform texts that threaten us. What is the threat we feel from a text that causes us to engage in this transforming activity? Quite simply, the text threatens to transform us. We encounter the text as an enemy who threatens our way of life. It is here that the word of God does its best work in our lifestyle. The text causes moderate to serious discomfort because it confronts us with the truth about our state and actions. In short, the text threatens our autonomy. It seeks to subdue that part of our living, and thinking that has yet to be subdued in Christ. We refer to this progressive activity as ‘progressive sanctification.’ As these two horizons fuse, something must change. When hot air and cold air meet under the right conditions, a tornado is the result. When God’s horizon fuses with our understanding, a tornado is produced. Either we will destroy the text (in our minds), or the text will destroy the unbiblical thinking that has invaded our mind through sin. This is the process Paul described in Romans 12:1-2 as I mentioned above. Transformation will take place when the two horizons meet. The only question concerns the object of transformation.

Necessary Preconditions of Hermeneutics

[I have posted an excerpt from my Th.D dissertation - in progress]

Transcendent Otherness and Authority


One of the consequences of the Renaissance was the displacement of tradition and authority. However, it soon became apparent that the displacement of authority was problematic for ethics and morality, and something had to be done to answer the question. The answer was a turn to the “Book of Nature.” Man needed something that was acceptable to modern views. An alternative that did not offend the new self had to be presented. The “Book of Nature” was man’s way of seeing the design of the Creator in reality and hence a reflection of moral perfection that was desperately needed for self-control. This turn was of course, not the right course of action, but the need for authority was self-evident. Roger Lundin writes,

“The “Book of Nature” was meant to resolve the “problem of many authorities” by providing incontrovertible evidence of the designs of God.”

However, with the romantic epistemology of the self, in which the world was nothing more than a mirror or a projection of the self, the power of the “Book of Nature” lost its authority. Without authority, the goal of hermeneutics dissolves. Lundin comments further,

“With nature drained of moral significance and the locus of meaning shifted so dramatically to the self, the “problem of many authorities became in the romantic tradition the “problem of endless authorities.” In a radically Protestant world, “every being” became not only its own “father, creator, and destroying angel,” but also its own pope and authoritative interpreter.”

The otherness and authority of the text is essential for meaningful hermeneutics. Without these, hermeneutics becomes a subjective exercise with as many authorities as there are interpreters. In other words, norms evaporate into radical subjectivism and extreme individualism. With this, we witness the death of God and metaphysics. The self becomes the measure of all things and for each self there is a different measure. Meaning dies an agonizing death and communication is like a ship at sea without a compass or a map. It does not navigate to where it ought to go; rather it ought to go wherever it navigates. If the goal of hermeneutics is transformation, then change remains a presupposition for engaging in the discipline. Otherwise, what is the point? Some travelers on this journey would contend that hermeneutics is merely about understanding. However, that merely begs the question of why understanding is so important in the first place. We seek to understand, not merely for the sake of understanding, but so that we may be moved, affected, or changed on the other side of that understanding. In other words, we seek the difference in life that understanding promises. The degree of transformation that understanding engenders, depends on the nature of the communication we are engaging and interpreting. Nevertheless, without the transcendent other, change becomes an exercise of pure subjectivism. Not only is there no compelling reason for change to begin with, there is no way to know if change is really for the better. One person’s projection of heaven is another person’s projection of hell. Who is say? Whose projection is best? In addition, who is to say if we are actually in heaven or hell, or some place else as far as it goes? Without otherness and authority, there is really no way to tell.

[Taken from: The Evolution of Jesus: Hermeneutical Foundations of the Emergent Church - A Case Study for Presuppositional Hermeneutics]

Evangelical Feminism and Christianity

Feminism and Christianity, some would argue go hand in hand. On the other hand, others would contend that the two are like trying to mix oil and water. Proponents would suggest that the feminist movement is about freedom from oppression and so too is Christianity. Opponents of the feminist movement would argue that feminism is a radical manifestation of female autonomy and as such is just one more act of idolatry. Both camps have very distinct methods by which they arrive at an understanding of what Scripture teaches on the subject. In fact, both employ, to one degree or another, the use of Scripture as support for the truthfulness of their view.

This article will treat the issues related to the distinctions of feminist hermeneutics and how this movement approaches the text of Scripture. Moreover, because of significant cultural intrusions into the Christian community, it is necessary to explore ways that we inadvertently and unwittingly embrace feminist theologies.

Feminist philosophy attempts to correct the problem of patriarchy and male oppression. Patriarchy is a form of social organization that places the father or the eldest male at the head of the family structure. It should be understood that most feminists consider patriarchy not just potentially oppressive to women, but ipso facto oppressive to women. Moreover, it should also be understood that a feminist is not necessarily a woman. It is anyone who adheres to the tenets of the feminist philosophy. In addition, feminists do not see themselves as wholesale rejecting the teachings of Scripture. They understand Scripture to teach a distinctly feminist theology. They are feminists because they understand that feminist philosophy best reflects the character of God. The only time Scripture departs from a feminist perspective is when the cultural biases of the men who pinned the words in that particular text emerge. Feminists like to have their cake and eat it too. Ann Loades comments

“Feminist interpretation is here understood as presupposing that the Bible is still read and heard and preached as an authoritative text in communities of belief and worship.”

It should be noted here that ‘authoritative’ does not necessarily mean authoritative in the sense of the traditional orthodox understanding of authoritative. Here is means that by using reason, imagination, historical insight, reflection on human experience and whatever other resources we can muster, the Bible somehow mediates to us a God who enables human beings to be most fully themselves. And therein lays the key to a feminist understanding of Scripture. God desires that women are enabled to be most fully themselves. It is difficult, in my opinion, to understand how a definition could be more porous than this one.

Feminism has certainly infected every area of philosophy, theology, society and politics in Western culture. Politically, women are encouraged by the likes of Simone de Beauvoir to try and improve their social and political position. Kate Millet argues that patriarchy is evident in every aspect of society. As such, women are not treated justly. Notice that patriarchy does not lead to unjust treatment of women, but rather it is unjust treatment of women. One feminist argues that “God’s original intention for women and men is that in work and in marriage they share tasks and share authority.” Gilbert Bileziken claims “that it would be natural to expect some indication of male authority in Genesis 1 if any existed, since Genesis 1 is a text that is permeated with the concept of hierarchical organization.” This is the classic case of looking for something implanted in the text merely on the grounds that the text itself seems to be attacking a favorite view. Since the text contradicts my understanding, it cannot be teaching what it appears to be teaching and therefore there must be an explanation that avoids contradiction and offense.

Even in the area of ethics feminism adopts a different emphasis. Carol Gilligan, in her book, “In a Different Voice,” writes, “When understood from a feminine perspective, ethics are grounded in the maintenance of interpersonal relationships. The feminist view of ethics emphasizes personal moral responsibility.”

In addition to this, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza asserts that “women have special insight into truth and knowledge. Consequently, only women can interpret the Bible properly.” To those of us in a conservative church, having been immersed in a conservative tradition, these comments seem very eccentric. However, these views are migrating, more and more, into the mainstream of conservative evangelicalism. As genuine participants in the Christian community, we are obligated to recognize these shifts within our own ranks and as such, respond to counter all ungodly views and practices that threaten the believing community. Every predication that threatens truth is a threat to the faith community. Hence, not only does such a response require an understanding of the issues at hand, but it also requires a great deal of courage. We all just want to get along. However, in the Christian community, getting along requires the practice of purging the community of error and evil that often tends to move stealthily into its ranks. Thus that work is hard; it is dirty; and most often, it is unpleasant. We have been conditioned to avoid anything that is hard and unpleasant. So how do we proceed to purge ourselves of these ungodly cultural tendencies? First we must understand our roles and what they imply. Second, we must understand our value to our heavenly Father and each other. Next, we must know where to look for these attitudes in ourselves. Finally, we must be able to spot these attitudes in our neighbors and act accordingly. The rest of this article will deal with these four areas.

What do I mean by understanding our roles and the implication of those roles? In the beginning, God created man, male and female. He later reflected on that creation and said that it was very good. I cannot image a holy, perfect, loving Father, like God, being so satisfied with something, that He called it very good. When God created man and woman in the garden, he did so for his own glory. We came into existence by God, for God. We are here because he wanted us here. God is never does anything in a capricious or arbitrary style. He had a very specific purpose in mind for man and woman when he created them. We are to understand that purpose and respond to it positively. Man is created to serve and glorify God by being his authoritative leader. Woman is created to serve and glorify God through willful, gracious submission to the authority and leadership of the man. Paul instructed Timothy that he did not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over man, but to remain quiet because Adam was created first, and then Eve (I Tim. 2:12-13). By referencing our first parents, Paul is pointing to an axiomatic universal structure. Man leads and is in the position of authority and the woman is to submit to that leadership.

What is our value to the Father and to one another? Being redeemed by the blood of Christ places great value on our worth in the eyes of our heavenly Father. However, it is only through Christ that this value comes. Outside of him, we are useless God-hating sinners worthy of death. Hebrews 12:5 says God only disciplines those He loves. God cares for our true well-being, as biblically defined. Since we are valued by God, we should also value one another. A husband values his wife by serving her, protecting her, keeping her home functioning, providing for her, making her feel secure in life’s basic needs. Neglect in these areas sends a woman the signal that you do not value her. A woman values her husband by honoring him, respecting him, and submitting to his leadership. If she challenges everything he does, she sends him the signal that she does not value him.

Where do feminist attitudes most appear? The feminist attitude in conservative churches appears in women that reject the biblical teaching on the roles of men and women ipso facto. A woman may freely criticize her pastor and reject his leadership. One should not understand this as simply differing with the pastor on something he preached from the pulpit. That happens from time and time and that alone is not refusal to submit to male leadership. However, going to the pastor and calling him on the carpet is another matter entirely. That is not her place. That is unequivocally contradictory to Paul’s command in I Tim. 2:12-13 and 1 Cor. 14:35. Women who reject this view of Scripture use all kinds of excuses for why they do so. Some women can be heard grumbling that those men, ‘the elders,’ are not God. They are just a bunch of fallen sinners the same as the rest of us. This is also asserted about the pastor and the husband. Some women think they only have to submit to their husband if he is meeting their personal standards of excellence. In other words, a husband has to earn their submission. While it is unquestionably true that a husband has clear mandates from God about loving and serving his wife, Scripture never places conditions on female submission to the male. These are just a few examples of how feminist philosophy appears in the Christian community. By trusting her husband, her pastor, and her elders to carry out their God-ordained roles, a woman honors God and submits to Him. By rejecting male leadership, a woman also rejects God. You cannot reject God’s word without rejecting God (Jn. 8:47)!

How do we when we see feminist philosophy in the faith community? We address it directly and without hesitation. It is a scandalous sin for a woman to put off the leadership of man. This is God’s ordained structure from the very foundation of creation. He created man and woman with specific roles that are equally designed to honor, serve, worship and glorify him. When feminist theology and philosophy infects our thinking to the point that we begin rejecting the sanctified order of God, it is time for repentance in humility and fear. We are to submit to each other and hold one another accountable to live godly lifestyles. When we see others within the Christian community wavering on the feminist issues, we have no choice but to speak with them in love, pulling them out of the flames of error.

Good News

Paul Tripp writes,

You cannot escape sin because it dwells within you. All the things you learn get twisted by its power. You can't outsmart it or buy your way out of it. You can't move to escape it. This is why the coming of the King is the best of news. Change is possible! You can stand amid the harshest realities of sin and have hope that will never disappoint you (Rom. 5:1-5). That marriage can change. That teenager can change. That church can change. That friendship can change. That bitterness can be put to death. That compulsion can be broken. That fear can be defeated. That stony heart can be made soft, and sweet words can come from a once-acid tongue. Loving service can come from a person who once was totally self-absorbed. people can have power without being corrupt. Homes can be places of safety, love, and healing. Change is possible because the King has come! [Tripp - Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands, pg. 6]

Notice that no where does Dr. Tripp assert that we can actually bring these profound changes about as a result of our own will power or intellectual capacity. The good news is that the King has come! He has arrived and because of this, we can have genuine hope. Jesus proclaims this glorious facts throughout the gospels, but Luke 4:18-19 records one of the most profound announcements in all of Scripture:

“THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, 19 TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.”

Now that we have this good news, the question is, 'what will we do with it?' Will we appropriate it into our lives? Will it become that which drives our thinking, our speaking, and our behavior? Will we believe it? And finally, will we share it with others? Will we share it with others by living it out in front of them AND by speaking this truth in love? Change has arrive because the King has come!

The Lost Message of Jesus - Steve Chalke

As I read more and more of Chalke's book, it seems clearer that he has an agenda that is clearly based on philosophical presuppostions from the start. At the core of Chalke's point seems to be the idea that Jesus came with a radical message that offended the established religious power of His day. It seems as if Chalke desires to compare Jesus' relationship to the religious powers of His time with the EC and the established church of our day. He seems to want to operate on the premise that it is good to radically depart from the established church simply for the sake of departing. One senses the method of Descartes and his orphan in Chalke's idea. Mind you that Chalke so far hasn't made a single attempt to make his case with Scripture. He simply points to Jesus' handling of situations, in particular His offenses of the established religious leaders and leaves one to believe that he thinks he has made his case. What Chakle fails to do is establish a valid connection between what the EC is attempting to do and what Jesus actually did. Moreover, Chalke fails to demonstrate just exactly how conservative evangelicalism is the modern parallel of the ancient legalism propogated by the Pharisees of Jesus' day. He simply wishes for us to take him at his word. For all we know, the EC could be the Gnostics of John's day and the established church could be the parallel of the apostolic church of John's day. After all, what is good for Chalke's subjective approach is equally good for my own subjective approach, is it not?

Commenting about Jonathan Edwards' sermons, Chalke says,

Commenting on Edwards' sermon, the academic Ola Winslow reflects, Two centuries and more later, this is still a grim sermon on the printed page and delivered to a packed auditory under the strain of 1741, it would have been almost unbearable.Preaching like Edwards' has been all too resentative of the portrayal of the gospel by the Church over the last few hundred years, and, by implication, of any popular understanding of the message of Jesus. [Chalke - The Lost Message of Jesus, pg. 56]

Chalke then proceeds to assert that love is "the very quality by which the New Testament defines him" [God]. No one who has ever read the Bible honestly and read Jonathan Edwards' sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in light of the Scriptures, would ever condemn the sermon as a false portrayal of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Contrary to being unloving, it is one of the most profoundly loving sermons ever delivered to the church in modern times.

It seems quite clear that Chalke desires to substitute the image of God found in Scripture and preserved in the Christian tradition for thousands of years now for one that he and his partners find acceptable. And what "kind of god" is it that Chalke desires? Chalke discusses why Moses had to be hid in the cleft of the rock while God passed by. Typically it has been accepted that the reason was because no human could ever see God and live because of the aweome holiness and power of all that God is. But Chalke has a different take on this notion. He says,

"In Exodus 33, God is not hiding from Moses, but he is hiding the immeasurable suffering caused by that love. No-one could bear to see a face wrung with such infinite pain and live."

The idea is that God is so hurt and injured by man's rejection and man's own self-inflicted pain that God did not want Moses to see the pain in his own face because Moses would not be able to handle it. And so God hid Moses in order to spare Moses the awful experience of seeing all this pain in the face of God. Chalke wants a god who is more human than he is god. He wants a god who is more concerned with social causes and the liberation of the socially oppressed than He is with the truth or with the salvation of sinners from an eternal hell.  This theme continues to emerge as I make my way through the book. While I was hoping for a cogent, scholarly treatment of why the church has completely missed the point of Jesus' message, all I am seeing at this point is another preacher who rejects the biblical image of a sovereign, holy, God who judges sin and saves undeserving sinners for one who is the great social divine in the heavenlies who desires that we establish a socialist state here on earth, stamping out poverty and taring down the establishment of the privileged and the wealthy. At the end of the day, this seems to be the same old cloak we call "autonomy" with the latest fashion design attached to it.

The Lost Message of Jesus - Steve Chalke

The Masai

Chalke tells a story of Vincent Donovan, a Christian missionary working with the Masai in Tanzania, East Africa. It seems that the Masai believed in a god and that this god favored their tribe above all others. Donovan told them there was a High God above all others and that the Masai should consider leaving their tribe in order to search for this High God. After some time, a Masai elder broke the silence. He asked a very pointed question: Has your tribe found the High God? Have you known him? What an opportunity for Donovan to share the gospel of Jesus Christ! But is that what he did? Did he launch into a sermon similar to the one Paul preached to the Greek philsoophers at Mars Hill? Here is Donovan's answer:

"No, we have not found the High God. My tribe has not known him.For us, too, he is the unknown God. But we are searching for him...Let us search for him together. Maybe together we will find him." [Steve Chalke - The Lost Message of Jesus, pg. 23-24]

Chakle praises this response and claims that Donovan was freeing these people from their tribal view of their god. But in freeing them of this view, what did he provide them in exchange? Nothing! He addmitedly had nothing to offer them. For he too had not found God. Is this the message that Christ sends us out to proclaim? We are to go into all the world and release people from their tribal view of God? In the end, isn't it just as true that Donovon would have free the Masai from their tribal view of God by providing them with the biblical one? Rather than his agnostic approach, the exclusive gospel of Christ would have also moved them from their tribal view of God just the same. But Chalke doesn't seem to take that into account.

The Lost Message of Jesus - Steve Chalke

As many of you know, I am in the middle of concluding some academic work in the area of theology, and more narrowly, hermeneutics. Hence, I am writing my dissertation, entitled, "The Evolution of Jesus: Hermeneutical Foundations of the Emergent Church [EC]." To that end, I am engrossed in a variety of the materials from those who are associated with the EC movement. Steve Chalke just happens to be one of those EC associates. Mr. Chalke wrote a book in 2003, entitled "The Lost Message of Jesus." I will be making some epigrammatic and some not so epigrammatic comments concerning the contents of Mr. Chalke's work and the reasoning he employs to arrive at some of his conclusions. Without further ado, I wish to point out a fascinating contradiction at the very outset of "The Lost Message of Jesus." Due to my research load, my comments regarding the EC over the next several months will be more pithy than not, and certainly more pithy than usual. In his book, Chalke makes this assertion:

"It has been said that every great leader or teacher has one core message that permeates everything they do and say.....And it's equally true of Jesus." [Chalke - The Lost Message of Jesus, pgs. 15-16]

Here Chalke asserts that Jesus' teaching can be summed up under one major theme just like that of other great teachers like Marx, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Freud. Yes, Chalke not only does he place Marx and Gandhi within the same class of great teachers, he places Jesus there as well. I wonder what Mr. Chalke means by use of the adjective, "great." Chalke continues with another incredible assertion:

"My aim in the chapters that follow is to demonstrate that the core of Jesus' life-transforming, though often deeply misunderstood, message is this: The Kingdom, the in-breaking shalom of God, is now available through me." [Chalke - The Lost Message of Jesus, pg. 16]

Now let me add this one warning so that people don't run out and purchase this book: anytime an author uses the word "lost," or "hidden, secret message" in the title of their book, it should be seen as a "red flag" which means that what is inside is worth less than the cost of the paper required to pen the message in the first place. Notice that Chalke has now provided us with a summary or theme of what he thinks Jesus' message was and is. The many messages of Jesus can be summed up in this core theme, according to Chalke. But then Chalke adds one more assertion:

"To assume that we have got Jesus "pinned down" or "summed up" is not simply arrogant but stupid, and in the end inhibits our ability to communicate his unchanging message to an ever-changing world." [Chalke - The Lost Message of Jesus, pg. 19]

This is not an apparent contradicition. Rather, it is a violent contradiction of the worse sort. In fact, I am not sure anyone could succcessfully pull off a more violent contradiction than this one. In one breath, Chalke asserts a summation of Jesus' core message and then in the next one, only three pages later, asserts that anyone who does what he has just done is not only arrogant, but stupid. There, pithy enough?

Counterfeits of Saving Faith - A.W. Pink

In closing this first article we will endeavour to point out some of the particulars in which this non-saving faith is defective, and wherein it comes short of a faith which does save. First, with many it is because they are willing for Christ to save them from Hell, but are not willing for Him to save them from self. They want to be delivered from the wrath to come, but they wish to retain their self-will and self-pleasing. But He will not be dictated unto: you must be saved on His terms, or not at all. When Christ saves, He saves from sin—from its power and pollution, and therefore from its guilt. And the very essence of sin is the determination to have my own way (Isa. 53:6). Where Christ saves, He subdues the spirit of self-will, and implants a genuine, a powerful, a lasting desire and determination to please Him.


Again; many are never saved because they wish to divide Christ; they want to take Him as a Saviour, but are unwilling to subject themselves unto Him as their Lord. Or, if they are prepared to own Him as Lord, it is not as an absolute Lord. But this cannot be: Christ will be either Lord of all, or He will not be Lord at all. But the vast majority of professing Christians would have Christ’s sovereignty limited at certain points; it must not entrench too far upon the liberty which some worldly lust or carnal interest demands. His peace they covet, but His “yoke” is unwelcome. Of all such Christ will yet say “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).

Again; there are multitudes which are quite ready for Christ to justify them, but not to sanctify. Some kind of, some degree of sanctification, they will tolerate, but to be sanctified wholly, their “whole spirit and soul and body” (1 Thess. 5:23), they have no relish for. For their hearts to be sanctified, for pride and covetousness to be subdued, would he too much like the plucking out of a right eye. For the constant mortification of all their members, they have no taste. For Christ to come to them as a Refiner, to burn up their lusts, consume their dross, to utterly dissolve their old frame of nature, to melt their souls, so as to make them run in a new mould, they like not. To utterly deny self, and take up their cross daily, is a task from which they shrink with abhorrence.

Again; many are willing for Christ to officiate as their Priest, but not for Him to legislate as their King. Ask them, in a general way, if they are ready to do whatsoever Christ requires of them, and they will answer in the affirmative, emphatically and with confidence. But come to particulars: apply to each one of them those specific commandments and precepts of the Lord which they are ignoring, and they will at once cry out “Legalism!” or, “We cannot be perfect in everything.” Name nine duties and perhaps they are performing them, but mention a tenth and it at once makes them angry, for you have come too close home to their case. Herod heard John gladly and did “many things” (Mark 6:20), but when he referred to Herodias, he touched him to the quick. Many are willing to give up their theatre-going, and card-parties, who refuse to go forth unto Christ outside the camp. Others are willing to go outside the camp, yet refuse to deny their fleshly and worldly lusts. Reader, if there is a reserve in your obedience, you are on the way to Hell. Our next article will take up the Nature of saving faith.

Pink, A. W. (19--). The doctrines of election and justification. Swengel, Pa.: Reiner.

Use to be Made of the Doctrine of Providence

John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion

No man, therefore, will duly and usefully ponder on the providence of God save he who recollects that he has to do with his own Maker, and the Maker of the world, and in the exercise of the humility which becomes him, manifests both fear and reverence. Hence it is, that in the present day so many dogs tear this doctrine with envenomed teeth, or, at least, assail it with their bark, refusing to give more license to God than their own reason dictates to themselves. With what petulance, too, are we assailed for not being contented with the precepts of the Law, in which the will of God is comprehended, and for maintaining that the world is governed by his secret counsels? As if our doctrine were the figment of our own brain, and were not distinctly declared by the Spirit, and repeated in innumerable forms of expression! Since some feeling of shame restrains them from daring to belch forth their blasphemies against heaven, that they may give the freer vent to their rage, they pretend to pick a quarrel with us. But if they refuse to admit that every event which happens in the world is governed by the incomprehensible counsel of God, let them explain to what effect Scripture declares, that “his Judgments are a great deep,” (Ps. 36:7). For when Moses exclaims that the will of God “is not in heaven that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us? Neither is it beyond the sea that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea and bring it unto us?” (Deut. 30:12, 13), because it was familiarly expounded in the law, it follows that there must be another hidden will which is compared to “a great deep.” It is of this will Paul exclaims, “O! the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his Judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?” (Rom. 11:33, 34). It is true, indeed, that in the law and the gospel are comprehended mysteries which far transcend the measure of our sense; but since God, to enable his people to understand those mysteries which he has deigned to reveal in his word, enlightens their minds with a spirit of understanding, they are now no longer a deep, but a path in which they can walk safely—a lamp to guide their feet—a light of life—a school of clear and certain truth. But the admirable method of governing the world is justly called a deep, because, while it lies hid from us, it is to be reverently adored. Both views Moses has beautifully expressed in a few words. “Secret things,” saith he, “belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever,” (Deut. 29:29). We see how he enjoins us not only studiously to meditate on the law, but to look up with reverence to the secret Providence of God. The Book of Job also, in order to keep our minds humble, contains a description of this lofty theme. The author of the Book, after taking an ample survey of the universe, and discoursing magnificently on the works of God, at length adds, “Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him?” (Job 26:14). For which reason he, in another passage, distinguishes between the wisdom which dwells in God, and the measure of wisdom which he has assigned to man (Job 28:21, 28). After discoursing of the secrets of nature, he says that wisdom “is hid from the eyes of all living;” that “God understandeth the way thereof.” Shortly after he adds, that it has been divulged that it might be investigated; for “unto man he said, Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” To this the words of Augustine refer, “As we do not know all the things which God does respecting us in the best order, we ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law, and in some things be acted upon according to the Law, his Providence being a Law immutable,” (August. Quest. lib. 83 c. 27). Therefore, since God claims to himself the right of governing the world, a right unknown to us, let it be our law of modesty and soberness to acquiesce in his supreme authority regarding his will as our only rule of justice, and the most perfect cause of all things,—not that absolute will, indeed, of which sophists prate, when by a profane and impious divorce, they separate his justice from his power, but that universal overruling Providence from which nothing flows that is not right, though the reasons thereof may be concealed.

The Discipline of Critical Thinking: Phronesis

It is now time to take the five steps involved in Critical Thinking and put them into practice. Perhaps the best approach in demonstrating how the Discipline of Critical Thinking is to be worked out in day to day life is to use an example that most people can relate to.

A good example to conduct an exercise in critical thinking, in my opinion, is the recent election. Current President Barak Obama ran on the promise of two key words: Hope and Change. He stated during his campaign that he was going to fundamentally change the Armerican system, and that this change would serve to usher in a new hope. In the years leading up to this promise the American people had experienced a devastating terrorist attack which threatened our very way of life. And just as this experience was being put behind them, they experienced a financial crisis, the like of which had not been felt since the Great Depression. Within 7 seven years, Americans experienced a shattering of their confidence to the very foundation. They experieced fears that had previously been written off as impossibilities. The culture was ripe for anything that promised a return to the secutiry and confidence it had once taken for granted. Enter Barak Obama and an electrifying message that was all too easy for desperate hearts and uncritical minds to latch on to.

Proposition: If elected President, I will fundamentally change the American system!
The proper response of a critical thinker is to ask the question "what kind of fundamental change are we talking about? Do we really need fundamental change? Can you really deliver on your promise, assuming we do need this fundamental change? But too many Americans were so upset with the circumstances to pause, and apply these preliminary questions to the situation. Aristotle said that if we are to be succesful, we must first ask the right preliminary questions! How many Americans really stopped and ask these questions before they made their decision.
Secondly, what reliable and valid evidence did Mr. Obama provide in order to support his proposal of fundamental change? Did he propose economic models that have been tested elsewhere? And if so, how have those models held up in good times and how are they holding up now? Are those models insulated from the economic crises we find ourselves in? How is the healthcare system in those models?
Third, are there alternative ways of interpreting what Mr. Obama means by change? Are their alternative ways of interpreting the evidence that has been provided which he claims suggests that the old model of capitalism has failed? Can one really assert that a system that has been around for centuries has finally failed only a few months into a crises? Could it be that the capitialism is dead announcement is politically motivated more than the result of an actual assessment of the system itself? Wasn't it a bit early to make such a pronouncement? And couldn't one really say that such a profound and startling view was irresponsible given the timing of when it was made?
Fourth, what additional evidence is being offered, or is available for examination and evaluation? One can look very closely at the historical background of Mr. Obama in order to understand what his worldview is and from there deduce where this ideology is taking us. One could also examine the experiment of other countries to determine if similar models are working. Finally, one may examine the economics of the program to determine if it is affordable and perhaps what it would take to pull it off in terms of cost. The point here is not whether you agree or disagree with the President's philosophy. Rather, the point is that you are willing, able and ready to think more critically about what you are being asked to believe.
Fifth, based on all the questions that have been posed and the evidence that has been presented, laying aside all personal biases, what is the most likely outcome of your assessment of the proposal of change and hope that you have been asked to believe? Far too often people put on their blinders and hold true to one party or one man for all the wrong reasons. And for others, they have become so accustomed to just accepting their favorite party's offer that they don't even bother to determine if it is the best thing for the long term health and growth of our nation. In the end, the discipline of critical thinking is exchanged for mere convenience and the path of least resistance. There is an unjustified optimism around the supposed infallibility of our country and lifestyle that is built upon an arrogance, the like of which is unmatched by any generation preceding it. At least other generations had to prove themselves through hard work, sacrifice, suffering, wars, market collapses, etc. But this generation remains confident for no other reason than that it "is." The lack of critical thinking skills may not be the sole cause of the collapse of western culture, but it will certainly be one of those most fundamental characteristics that will do its part to contribute to the collapse.

It is now time to elucidate on what a distinctively Christian approach to critical thinking looks like. Since I am working in the field of hermeneutics it only makes sense for me to leverage that work by addressing one of the most interesting methods in hermeneutics in modern Christian culture: feminist hermeneutics. In order to understand what I mean by feminist hermeneutics, some qualification and amplification is useful. What is the central contention of feminist hermeneutics? That is to say, what are we being asked to believe by those who embrace a feminist interpretation of Scripture? Ann Loades writes,

And 'authoritative' here means that by using reason, imagination, historical insight, reflection on human experience and whatever other resources we can muster, the Bible somehow mediates to us a God who enables human beings to be most fully themselves. [Ann Loades: Feminist Interpretation - The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, 81]

Note that each one of these resources mentioned by Loades is located in the human person. She understands interpretation as presupposing that the Bible is still read in an authoritative text in communities of belief. But for Loades, authority seems to be defined differently than the tradition orthodox understanding of authority. In the traditional sense, the authority of Scripture was understood to mean that all doctrinal norms and praxis were to be taken from the authoritative other, namely, the text of Scripture rightly interpretated by the aid of the Holy Spirit who is faithful to instruct sinners and illumine our hearts through faith. Scripture carries the final word. It is not my purpose here to offer an apology on the authority of Scripture or even the nature of authority, but rather to put the assertions of the feminist hermeneutic to the test using the discipline or skills of critical thinking. D. Martin Lloyd Jones wrote,

The authority of Scripture is not a matter to be defended, so much as to be asserted. I address this remark particularly to Conservative Evangelicals. [Jones: Authority, 41]

Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said,

There is no need for you to defend a lion when he is being attacked. All you need to do is open the gate and let him out. [ibid.]

There are two components of Loades statement which merit examination: 1) Her understanding of authority, and 2) her understanding of what it means for humans to be most fully themselves. By relocating authority within human experience, reason, imagination, etc., she abandons the traditional understanding of the authority of the other and in effect, authority in any meaningful sense. Secondly, and key to feminist hermeneutics is understanding how humans should be defined in and of themselves. What does it look like when I become most fully myself? For the feminist it means seeing everything from a strictly female perspective. It means taking up the cause of the abused and oppressed women of years past and cultures the world over and removing this oppression, freeing them to be who they truly want to be! But is being who you want to be and being what God commands or intends one to be the same thing? A man may want to be a millionnaire. In this country he is free to pursue that endeavor so long as he does it within the confines of the law. But just because he is free, according to our culture, to engage in this pursuit, does this mean that God's purpose in giving us the Bible was to remove all obstacles in his way to being who he truly wants to be?

The Feminist Assertion: The Bible was written in order to remove all obstacles that stand in the way of us becoming most fully ourselves. (With ourselves meaning who we are most comfortable being).

What are we being asked to believe? We are being asked to believe that the purpose for Scripture is to assist us in becoming the person we are most fully comfortable being. Is this really the purpose of Scripture? Does Scripture every really assert that this is in fact its purpose? Romans 12:1-2 commands us to be transformed by the renewing of our mind. But transformed into what? We are to be transformed into that image which is found in God's perceptive will for us, the church. Romans 8:29 we are to be conformed into the image of Christ! Again, Col. 3:10 emphatically says we are being renewed to a new image, the image of the one who has created us.

What evidence exists to support the feminist's assertion? Basically the evidence is weak and without objective foundations. The feminst assertion begins with where it desires to go and renovates the evidence in order to make it appear that the assertion is valid. For instance, what does it really mean to be most fully yourself? The answer is that it means different things for different people. In fact, it could mean whatever you want it to mean. This is precisely how the homosexual movement asserts that they too, belong in the community of faith. They are most fully themselves when men are allowed to carry out their sexual desires with other men and women with other women. They argue that this is not a behavior but rather  the definition of who they actually are.

Are there alternative ways for interpreting the evidence? Beginning with the relocation of authority to the human person, there is in fact an alternative. The alternative is a theocentric approach to authority as opposed to an anthropocentric one. Authority can and should be located in God, not man. If authority is not located in God, and therefore transcendent, then it, by definition ceases to be authority. Moreover, authority simply becomes he who has the most power when the transcendent other is removed. Authority, by nature, must transcend all human existence in order for it to be truly authoritative. Otherwise it becomes mere social convention. A way for getting by in this life and not real authority. In this case it can be replaced by the philosophy of the next power grab that comes along.

What additional evidence would help evaluate the alternatives? Outside of scripture it would be helpful for one to examine the history of Christian orthodoxy to see where the evidence for the feminist hermeneutic leads. In so doing, one can quickly begin to determine how the church dealt with such views over the centuries. A survey of churchmen throughout the history of the church would also help one arrive at an understanding of Christian tradition on this issue. Such investigations serve to help one arrive at the validity of the feminist claim in light of Scripture as well as help us understand how it should be dealt with.

What conclusions are most reasonable based on the evidence and the number of alternative explanations? Based on scriptural teachings, a history of Christian doctrine, and a survey of Churchmen and Theologians of years gone by, it would seem that the feminist location of authority within the human person, and of what it means to be fully oneself is a derivative of a radical feminst philosophy invented by a human desire for autonomy as opposed to the plain teachings of Scripture.

The point of this blog is not to provide an exhaustive review of one's political philosophy, nor is it intended to be a thoroughgoing treatment of a feminist hermeneutic. The point is to sketch out how one should reason or think about these and other assertions from day to day as they seek to love the Lord God with all their mind. While this requires a great deal of effort, discipline, and self-sacrifice, the fruit of such an endeavor is well worth it. What fruit is that you might ask? The fruit of a humble obedience to Christ as one diligently attempts to honor their Lord and Master with their mind, and subsequently, their conduct. After all, thinking is a behavior just like any other behavior. Think about it!