deCOMPOSE

I have never quite figured out why secularists claim to be grounded in scientific fact, when they concede so much mystery. A good example is dark matter. From the Christian Science Monitor’s Dark Matter Revealed?

Dark matter, which scientists believe makes up 25 percent of the universe but whose existence has never been proven, could be detected by the giant particle collider at CERN, the research center’s head said Monday.

Rolf-Dieter Heuer told a news conference some evidence for the matter may emerge even in the shorter term from mega-power particle collisions aimed at recreating conditions at the “Big Bang” birth of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago.

“We don’t know what dark matter is,” said Heuer, Director-General of the European Organization for Nuclear Research on the Swiss-French border near Geneva.

“Our Large Hadron Collider (LHC) could be the first machine to give us insight into the dark universe,” he said. “We are opening the door to New Physics, to a discovery period.”

Astronomers and physicists say that only 5 percent of the universe is known currently, and that the invisible remainder consists of dark matter and dark energy, which make up some 25 percent and 70 percent, respectively.

“If we can detect and understand dark matter, our knowledge will expand to encompass 30 percent of the universe, a huge step forward,” Heuer said. (emphasis mine)

Did you get that? Dark matter is “invisible” and makes up between “25 percent and 70 percent” of the universe… and scientists aren’t sure what the hell it is or if it even exists.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Christians are simple-minded and naive for believing in something they can’t see, something with little or no scientific evidence. Nevertheless, “Astronomers and physicists say that only 5 percent of the universe is known currently” and are dumping vast amounts of money and research into something  they can’t see, “whose existence has never been proven.”

Is this the equivalent of “blind faith”? Suddenly I don’t feel as stupid for believing in the Invisible.

Two responses have long dominated Christians’ discourse on the topic of art – separatism or engagement. The brouhaha over Avatar is a fine example. In my recent post at Novel Journey entitled Avatar and Agenda, New York Times best-selling author Eric Wilson left this comment:

I think some of us, personality-wise and gifting wise, are cut out for confronting the falsehoods in “Avatar.”

I think others, including myself, are cut out for finding the tidbits of truth in the mess and then engaging nonbelievers in conversation in a non-confrontational way. I’ve had great dialogue with others, dealing with ideas of heaven, rebirth, and the reality of the physical world compared to the “more real world” of the spiritual, based on this movie.

American Christianity has set itself up as an opponent of so many things. For me, personally, I’ve had Jesus work through me in the workplace, schools, and even church, by finding ways to connect with the heart and then redirect the mind, instead of attacking the mindset and leaving people cold. (emphasis mine)

“[C]onfronting the falsehoods” or “engaging nonbelievers”? “Redirecting the mind” or “attacking the mindset”? That is the divide. While Wilson derides neither side, he conveniently illustrates the two approaches that dominate contemporary Christianity’s approach to art. Should we stand as cultural, and spiritual guardians, so to speak, and point out lies and falsehoods? Or should we look past the worldly language, celebrate fine craft, and expound upon those themes that resonate with a biblical worldview?

Whatever one’s approach, these two camps seem to be polarizing. Several recent blog skirmishes have reinforced the caricatures that representatives from each camp impose upon the other:

Engagers tend to see Separatists as narrow-minded nit-pickers who ignore good art, impose their conservative values, and generally alienate non-Christian audiences with their sanctimony.

Separatists tend to see Engagers as snobbish, excessively tolerant liberals who are enamored with artistic nuance and wishy-washy about Gospel truth.

Like it or not, there’s probably some truth to both caricatures. But isn’t there a balance that can be struck? Is it possible to point out the “falsehoods” in a film without “leaving people cold”? Vice versa, can’t we forgo doctrinal diatribes and simply enjoy good art without being charged with compromising our commitment to Gospel truth?

A recent Christianity Today article challenges Engagers and Separatists to learn from one another:

Sadly, the engagement impulse has led many evangelicals to neglect their prophetic presence in the public square, as we often seem more set on distancing ourselves from our fundamentalist cousins than on seeking personal and corporate soul care. Discernment becomes an exercise in baptizing secular critics’ top picks, celebrating their vague spiritual themes but downplaying or ignoring pernicious ones. Or we revel in our freedom to enjoy an array of films, belittling our separatist siblings whose consciences are offended (1 Cor. 8).

The reality is, the engagers could stand to learn a few things from the separatists, and vice versa, as both camps survey the pop culture landscape. The engagers have developed keen eyes to find Light in the most unexpected places. Yet the separatists, who have an instinct for sensing the subtly devastating aspects of culture, can quicken our steps on the path of sanctification. With the engagers’ vision and the separatists’ instinct, the church and its moviegoers can navigate Hollywood’s muddled spiritualities with rigor and grace.

Perhaps the divide between Engagers and Separatists is bigger than it should be. While Separatists must face the fact that an overly-rigid approach can, as Eric Wilson put it, “leave people cold,” Engagers must face the possibility that their approach “has led many evangelicals to neglect their prophetic presence in the public square.” So not only should we learn from each other, isn’t it possible that engagement and separatism are two sides of the same coin?

When it comes to pop culture, are you more of an Engager or a Separatist? And, depending where you fall, what do you think you can learn from the “other side”?

“The glory of God is to conceal a matter, the glory of kings is to search it out” (Proverbs 25:2). Such was the “glory” of early scientists like Isaac Newton. Unlike the rampant secularism of today’s scientific community, Newton and his peers were driven by devotion to God, often doubling as theologians. On occasion, Newton’s “devotion” to both God and science took alarming form.

Once, as an experiment, Newton stared at the image of the sun reflected in a mirror. The brightness seared his retina, causing temporary blindness. Only after he hid for three days in a darkened room did his sight return. Talk about devotion to his craft! And as an expert alchemist, Newton often handled deadly elements. In fact, it is commonly believed that Isaac Newton died from lethal amounts of mercury.

These are a few of the fascinating details of one of history’s greatest scientists as revealed in Mitch Stokes’ biography, Isaac Newton. It’s part of a promising new series by Thomas Nelson publishers entitled Christian Encounters. If the rest of the books are as informative and easy to read as this one — and with biographies slated for such diverse figures as Bach, William Buckley, St. Francis, and Tolkien — there should be something for everyone. (Plus I loved the nifty size and fold-out jacket panels!)

Undoubtedly, Newton is not everyone’s cup of tea. As an astronomer, physicist and philosopher, the topics that (literally) consumed  Newton’s life can be dense. Yet Stokes balances discussions of gravitational theory and Aristotelian philosophy with more personal elements from the scientist’s life, such as his perpetual squabble with peers, fiercely guarded privacy, anti-Trinitarian views, and his virginity.  So it’s not a dry read. I found the book illuminative as regards today’s scientific culture, particularly Newton’s profession of an “intelligent Agent” behind the laws of the Universe. He wrote:

This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.

In a world that embraces Isaac Newton and his gravitational theory as foundational to modern science and physics, it’s a shame that The Foundation of his science has been discarded by today’s intellectual and scientific elite. Anyway, I really enjoyed this biography and think TN’s Christian Encounters series holds a lot of promise.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I’d like to thank Thomas Nelson Publishers for providing me this Book free as part of their BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

I have a lot more questions about prayer than answers. Somehow, thirty years of following Jesus has done little to minimize the mystery of this Divine tango. And maybe that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

So I am currently facing a situation that  compels much prayer. Yet all the while I’m pleading with God, my brain is pushing back. I don’t doubt God hears me, or that He will answer in His time or way. What I doubt is that the amount or intensity of my prayers have any bearing on those answers. I mean, if I pray more, will God answer me? If I pray less, will He not?

It’s like saying that lifeguards only save drowning people who cry “Help!” at least ten times. Drowning people who only cry “Help!” once, should start paddling faster. Point is: God saves those who call on Him. So what does it matter if I call on Him ten times or once?

Nevertheless, Scripture seems to suggest the opposite. “Keep on seeking. Keep on asking. Keep on knocking” Jesus said (Matt. 7:7-11). And then there’s the parable of The Unjust Judge and the Persistent Widow (Lk. 18:1-8) wherein Christ flat-out says that the woman’s persistence moved the Judge’s hand. In other words, if I pray more — harder, longer, with more passion and persistence — I have a better chance of God answering me.

Which is where my brain kicks in.

Because if God answers us based on the amount and intensity of our prayers, isn’t that a little like “works”? Salvation by grace and righteousness apart from deeds are integral to Christian theology; I am not saved or made right with God because of anything I can do. If that were the case, I don’t need Jesus. The apostle Paul said we are saved by grace and not by “good works” (Eph. 2:8-9), so that no one can boast. But if I can incite God’s answer by praying more, is that not a type of “work”, a formula for blessing?

I dunno. I guess that’s why me and Him tango…

I used to think romantic fiction was the best argument for book burning. But after Harlequin reported last year’s biggest growth among all publishers  — this during an awful recession — I am having a change of heart.  Why waste my time crafting three-dimensional characters and unpredictable endings when I can write romance?

So after much soul searching, and an inability to find my cyanide capsules, I have contrived 10 reasons I should start writing romantic fiction:

10.) I like the trashy cover art — longing eyes and sultry lips, sweaty cleavage and quivering loins, broad shoulders and bare chests. (And here I thought women didn’t like porn.)

9.) I can finally use the word ‘Seduction’ in a title –”Secret Seduction,” “Swoon of Seduction,” “Slave of Seduction,” and my favorite, “Willing Seduction.”

8.) “They lived happily ever after” — except when the male protagonist dies an excruciatingly long death from cancer or takes a bullet for his woman and bleeds to death in her arms (takes the guesswork out of plotting).

7.) Lots of sexual euphemisms — glistening swords, ripe melons, simmering dishes, and lubed gaskets; cool canyons and raging volcanoes and gushing geysers (Should I keep going?).

6.) Stereotypical heroes –  alpha males with flowing manes, steely blue eyes, granite C-cups and rippling abs, domineering and insensitive, daring but dense, their playing field is littered with the wreckage of bimbos, bookworms, widows, and high-powered female executives, until they meet…

5.) Stereotypical heroines — “… smart, sassy, feisty, spunky, independent… but never shallow.  The female protagonist is usually young, feisty and gorgeous — although she may not realize how tremendously sexy she actually is. She’s a little sad and hurting, after suffering a horrible trauma such as the tragic loss of her parents. But her inner bravery remains intact. All alone in the world, she is proudly independent but understandably distrustful of others. She longs for love but is afraid to love” (or, every woman’s alter ego).

4.) It will exponentially increase my chances of being published — the number of lonely, unsatisfied housewives is, apparently, staggering.

3.) Lots of female fans!

2.) You don’t need to know about real love — (which should be a plus for any male author) contemporary romantic fiction has about as much to do with real love as it does high art.

1.) I’m already metrosexual.

So I’ve plotted my first romance novel. Tagline:  “Private investigator Summer Flame has cracked her share of cases. It’s Summer’s broken heart that remains a mystery. Until she meets Rocky Shore, a yachtsman with a criminal record and a fleet of floozies. But Summer detects a low tide in Rocky’s ocean of love. Can she tame his fury or will she be drowned in the surf of his passion? When Fire meets Water there’s sure to be steam.” The title: Summer’s Tsunami. A sure fire hit, don’t you think? Oh, wait! That story line’s already been used. And used. And used. And used…

Happened upon The Paper Source not long ago as Lisa & I strolled South Coast Plaza. I’m not into scrap-booking, but the parchments, patterns, crafts, and novelty items just floored me. Some items of interest: Big Lebowski in Your Pocket key chain with recorded lines from the cult classic Coen Bros. movie, Vintage Marvel Postcard Collection, Origami Paper (great for shadow boxes and decoupage), and  Lucha Key Covers. I came away with a wolf wall hanger and a raven, which currently occupy prominent places in my office.

I recently finished a writing project project for our church — a Lenten Devotional. It was a team effort, soliciting entries from five individuals, writing, editing, and assembling the devotional. Throughout Lent, I will be posting a few of those entries. This one focuses ON CHRIST’S TEMPTATION.

* * *

The apostle Paul could say with confidence, “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Everyone, believers and non-believers alike, agree: No one is perfect; everybody falls short. We all surrender to temptation. Which makes the account of Christ’s temptation all the more mysterious and wonderful. H.C. G. Moule writes:

There is no more mysterious scene in the whole story of the Gospels than the temptation in the wilderness. That dark enigma, the existence and the awful power of a personal Lord of Evil, recognized everywhere as a fact in the New Testament, appears here in all its darkness. And, darkness is indeed a living midnight, when we see it face to face with the sinless Son of God and Man. Who shall fathom the depth of the secret reasons which constrained the Lord, under the immediate power and guidance of the Holy Spirit poured on Him without measure, to submit Himself to the personal, positive, and profoundly subtle assaults of the Evil Spirit, alone and in the waste?

All that we can know is that the dreadful encounter was a vital factor in His incarnate experience, and that the endurance of it, and then the victorious sequel, like all that He did and suffered, were of infinite import for our blessing.

This at least we know, that the Lord Jesus Christ is now, in the power of that strife and of that victory, able to enter into the very depth of every moral struggle of His disciples, and ‘able to succor also them that are tempted,’ with the sympathetic power of an almighty but all-sensitive Fellow-Sufferer.

Oscar Wilde once quipped, “I can resist anything except temptation!” and “The best way to deal with temptation is to yield to it!” His insights are painfully true. As C.S. Lewis noted in his classic Mere Christianity, “No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good.” Likewise, none of us can truly realize the power of sin until we resist its temptation. Which is why Jesus is the only Man who really understands the power of sin. He was “tempted in every way, just as we are,” yet remained sinless. Because of this, we can take comfort: that Christ understands us in the deepest, most possible way.

Lent is a reminder of the awful, but glorious, path He trod. Whereas the first Man fell in a lush Garden, the Second Man conquered in a wasteland. Whereas Adam and Eve heeded the Serpent and succumbed to temptation, Christ resisted the Devil. For this reason, we “do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses.” Rather, as Victor over sin, Jesus intimately knows our spiritual frailty… and loves us all the same.

* * *

Thank You, Jesus, for facing my Adversary; for not quelling at his onslaught, for not entertaining his lies, for not yielding to his seductions. I am weak and have given in far too many times to temptation. But You, Lord—You are without sin! And to You I cling, and desire to remain, resolutely, to the end.

You can download a PDF version of the entire Lenten Devotional HERE.

Friendliness is over-rated — especially as it relates to churches. Of course, grumpiness won’t win many hearts. And snobbery is only a virtue in Hollywood. Nevertheless, it is ultimately more important that churches articulate the Gospel than that they are friendly. Sure, friendliness can be a bridge to sharing our Message. But what does it matter that we smile, shake hands, and excel in the gift of gab, if we avoid the subject of sin and Christ’s remedy?

Maybe that’s why Group Publishing’s (GP) recent survey, Is Your Church as Friendly as You Think?, so interests me. Here’s the bullets from the survey:

Key Findings

• Home is the friendliest place in town by a wide margin. Less than 18% of Americans define Church as the friendliest place in town as compared to only 24% of self-declared Christians.
• Outside of the home, Coffee Shops get it right when it comes to being friendly more often than the Church. 90.6% of overall responders rating Coffee Shops chose it as the friendliest place in town…
• The Mall, the Post Office and Auto Repair Shops scored at the bottom of each data set.
• Friends & Family are the friendliest people in town according to over 65% of Americans. Compared to a Minister or Religious Leader who comes in less than 10% of the time, and ranked behind a Neighbor and a Co-worker, and just ahead of a Service Attendant.
• No one seems to like Government Officials. They are the number-one rated least friendly person in town among all groups.
• Only 16% of Americans say Church is their favorite place to meet new friends, and that’s 2% points behind a Restaurant/Pub/Sports Bar at number one. Among Americans, Church only ranks 5% points higher than Online as their favorite place to make new friends.
• Christians need to feel like they belong before they call a place friendly. More Christians chose “Making me feel like I belong” as the number-one factor for making a place friendly.

There is much here worth considering (as well as some nifty graphs). But I wonder if the assumption itself is faulty. Should churches be the “friendliest place in town”? Again, this is not meant to insinuate that churches should be inhospitable, cliquish, or cold. Indeed, Jesus said that love should mark His followers. But “love” and “friendliness” are two different things. Friendliness is something that can be contrived, employed for ulterior motives. A car salesman can be exceptionally friendly, as can a guy trying to pick up a girl at the local club. (It’s only after the “sale” that you see both their true colors.) Heck, any store manager can demand, er, cultivate friendliness in their reps. So my first thought is whether or not this assumption is misleading. Aren’t there other areas the church should excel in above friendliness?

It’s also interesting that, in the GP survey, the top two things that make people feel a place is friendly (see graph) are “making me feel like I belong” and “making me feel comfortable.” This sounds reasonable, but upon closer inspection, those expectations are fairly incongruous. Yes, as a community of sinners, churches should make me “feel like I belong.” Throughout Scripture, God invites “whoever is thirsty” to come. This magnanimity should pervade a Christian church. But a church that seeks to make people “feel like they belong” must inevitably make people “feel uncomfortable.”

In response to this poll, Mark Galli, senior editor for Christianity Today, writes:

When you belong to the fellowship of Christ, to the company of the committed, comfort is not the word that will describe your life.

You will find yourself worshipping with people who irritate you, people with whom you disagree, people you find difficult to forgive at times. But the very reason you put up with their flaws and stupidities, and they with yours, is that you both belong to a family you cannot escape.

Furthermore, you don’t really belong to a group until people feel free enough to tell you what they really think of you and free enough to talk about the deepest, most troubling realities.

In a place where people really belong, they are free to talk about the most uncomfortable things—sin and salvation, hate and forgiveness, suffering and hope, death and life. And they learn the fine art of forbearance and forgiveness. Merely friendly churches avoid such unpleasantness. But churches that take people seriously cannot avoid it.

Christians should love people. Bottom line. This should translate into friendliness. But make no mistake — the objective of any relationship should be to help others draw closer to God.

Spiritual growth cannot occur without confrontation and accountability, without being made “uncomfortable.” Yet, apparently, the average church-goer does not want this. They do not want people horning into their business and pressing them regarding their spirituality (or lack thereof). They want smiles, back slaps, and attaboys; they want to be told God loves them and has a terrific plan for their life. Which is why most people interpret a friendly church as being a non-confrontative church, a church that makes them “feel comfortable.”

Preaching the Gospel will inevitably make people feel uncomfortable. Churches that never make their members uncomfortable may be perceived as friendly, but they are not preaching the Gospel.

God is both infinitely far and infinitely near; He is distant and close, outside us and inside us. Or as C.S. Lewis put it, “God is both further from us, and nearer to us, than any other being.”

The theological terms are transcendence and immanence. Transcendence means that God is completely outside of us; He is supreme, sovereign, all-powerful, omniscient and self-sustaining. Immanence means that God is infinitely close to us; He knows our heart and mind, He is compassionate, merciful, gracious and sustaining.

On the surface, these concepts appear paradoxical. For if God is fully transcendent, then He cannot be known; but if God is fully immanent, He forfeits transcendence. Nevertheless, Scripture often balances these two ideas. For instance:

‘Am I a God near at hand,’says the Lord, ‘And not a God afar off?’
(Jeremiah 23:23)

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite. (Isaiah 57:15)

Notice here that God “inhabits eternity” (transcendence) and “dwells” with the humble (immanence); He is both “near at hand” and “afar off.” The Prophet Isaiah said, as the heavens are higher than the earth, so God’s thoughts are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8). Nevertheless, we can seek Him and find Him, when we search with all our hearts (Jer. 29:11).

There is a temptation to emphasize one of God’s attributes over the other. For instance, some religious groups tend to emphasize His transcendence, while others emphasize His immanence. However, learning to balance the two concepts is important.

One place these differences can be seen is in the style of worship of various groups. Contemporary Christian churches often focus upon God’s love for man, His accessibility, His nearness, His understanding, and practical applications of Scripture — immanence. Whereas more conservative or traditional Christian churches often deal with God’s power, majesty, absolute holiness, and eternal principles of Scripture — transcendence.

But an improper understanding of either concept leads to imbalance.

Extreme immanence is pantheism, the belief that God is everywhere.

Extreme transcendence is deism, the belief that God is impersonal.

A degree of this tension exists in Judaism and Islam. For Judaism, God enters history and changes destinies. God is relatively personal, immanent. In Islam, God is utterly transcendent. He does not enter into human history, per se, but remains uncontaminated from human affairs, due to his greatness and glory.

The New Testament, however, does not leave us twisting in the theological wind. Clearly, Jesus Christ is the intersection between transcendence and immanence. Take Colossians 2:9-10, “For in Him [Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in Him…” Notice, God’s fullness (transcendence) dwells in Christ, nevertheless I find myself “complete” in Him (immanence). Even the name “Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14), one of the earliest names referenced to Christ, means “God with us.” This could be the perfect statement regarding the synthesis of transcendence (God) and immanence (with us). So the greatest declaration of God’s transcendence and immanence is the Incarnation; the Most High, became the Most Nigh.

Pascal put it this way:

The Stoics say: ‘Withdraw into yourself, that is where you will find peace.’ And that is not true. Others say: ‘Go outside: look for happiness in some diversion.’ And that is not true… Happiness is neither outside nor inside us: it is in God, both outside us and inside us.

In His own divine essence, God is incomprehensible and inaccessible, indescribable and ultimately unknowable. Yet, He calls us to Himself, beckons us to “reason” (Is. 1:18) with Him and, ultimately, to have fellowship with Him. He is the Most High, but in Christ, He became the Most Nigh.

So I had this dream that my right arm, just below the elbow, was severed. It was a clean cut — so clean, in fact, that there was no blood. Just a limp, unattached, arm. Someone attended me, a man whose face was, conveniently, out of view. In a rather soothing voice, he said I would have to be cryogenically frozen until they could figure out how to reattach my arm.

I suddenly woke up.

To my relief, my right arm was still connected.

I lay in bed pondering the disturbing nightmare… and then it struck me. Some writer friends were to blame.

About a year ago, Becky Miller invited me to visit a small group of Spec Fic writers who met in SoCal. Up to that point, the majority of my interaction with writers had been over the internet. I’d never been in a real life writers group. So combine that with an aversion to introversion and a reclusive bent, and I was kind of nervous. I had to meet actual people? Nevertheless, I joined Becky, Merrie Destefano, and Rachel Marks for coffee and discussion. We shared current projects, highlights and lowlights from our writing journeys, brainstormed. And laughed a lot. My fears were allayed — these were really fun, encouraging, talented people. We have met four or five times since then. And I can honestly say, this little writers group has pretty much revitalized my writing. From a technical standpoint, a business standpoint, and from an inspirational standpoint.

So last weekend, Merrie asked us to bring “drawer manuscripts” — stories that we have shelved for one reason or another. We took turns reading our stuff. I read the first chapter of a novel I had discarded… and they loved it. They asked questions about the plot and characters, and encouraged me to finish the tale. It was very humbling. Then, after bemoaning my personal quirks, poor time management, and overall ADD-ness, my writer friends reminded me that the devil wants to prevent me from writing.

You know, I’d forgotten that.

I am not one to look for demons behind every distraction, but it makes sense. If writing is a calling, at least a gift from God, it only stands that the enemy would want to stifle it, squelch it, sever the flow and muddy the approach. But for some reason, I just hadn’t connected the two.

And so as I lay there in my bed, pondering the dream, the interpretation seemed obvious. My right arm. The arm I use for shooting a basketball, throwing darts, signing documents, and pecking out words on the keyboard. Severed. Disconnected. Cut off from life. Coincidence?

Call it reaching. Call it creative license. But I couldn’t help but feel it was an omen: the devil wants to sever my writing arm.

Thank you, writer friends, for the reminder. Thank you for your honesty and encouragement, your fellowship and your inspiration. Thank you for nurturing your talent, affirming mine, fighting the good fight, and wising me up to enemy.

And thank you, above everything else, for keeping me from being cryogenically frozen.

For the last five years, since the emergent church has landed on my radar, I have given the movement and its leaders the benefit of the doubt. During that time, I read some of their books, followed their blogs, and watched podcasts. As one who’s always nurtured a rebellious streak, believing that the American church was in deep disconnect, I was excited about the possibility of a “third way.” The emergent church piqued that possibility.

So it grieved me when a friend of mine, a member of a Calvary Chapel, informed me of an official position the movement had taken concerning emergents, one that essentially charged them with heresy. As a result, in 2006 I posted a six-part series entitled Calvary vs. the Emergents (it’s pretty raw and I haven’t cleaned up the code or the links, but here’s part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). The statements below are, I think, represented of the feel of that series:

The amorphous nature of the group makes blanket condemnations difficult. Yes, some Emergents challenge “the final authority of the Scriptures.” And some don’t. Some use icons. Others abstain. Some are more inclusive of outsiders and mystical traditions. Some are liberal, others conservative. Like any new movement, many different people and positions are represented there. And, in the case of the Emergent Church, some of those positions even veer into potentially dangerous theological terrain.

Because of the nature of the Emergent Church — and the serious charges being brought against it — I believe we must guard against “broadbrushing” the theology of the entire movement, and categorically assigning the Emergents, en masse, to one big, fat “damnable heresy.”

And I concluded the series on this note:

Yes, God values unity — but not at the price of doctrinal “essentials.” Nevertheless, the linchpin to this statement is the definition of essentials. As I see it, most Emergents believe in the basic tenets of Christianity. No doubt, some are questioning and re-thinking vital doctrines. However, there’s a big difference between expressing concerns about elements within a movement and labeling the entire movement apostate. Furthermore, all our concerns must be tempered by “charity,” and I’m wondering if this “essential,” more than any other, is being violated in the process.

Rather than jettisoning the entire movement, I would suggest we look at it critically, one Emergent at a time. Instead of issuing blanket condemnations that demonize churches and their leaders, why not give our congregation the tools to discern for themselves. Might we discern and stand against false doctrine, as my brothers and sisters in Calvary Chapel, no doubt, desire to do. But in all things, let us cultivate a spirit of love and liberty during the “conversation.”

That was back in October / November 2006. Shortly thereafter, I was invited to join several emergent blog sites. (In fact, I am still an Ooze Viral Blogger, although I have currently reviewed only two books for them.) During that short time, I had very cordial interactions with everyone involved and came away feeling that folks in the “emergent conversation” were very nice people.

Hopefully, that spirit pervades my approach to this current discussion and disarms any charges of prejudice. I am not a heresy hunter. Nor am I ultra-conservative, socially or theologically. I have no bone to pick with emergent / post-evangelicals (other than where we differ theologically); I have not been personally slighted or slandered by anyone in the movement. And I am not employed by a church, organization, or individual who would benefit from a particular position. I am simply a lay person, a non-pastoring ordained minister, who loves God, has tried to follow Him faithfully, and is asking questions about this “new” religious movement.

But despite my effort to be magnanimous and even-keeled, the longer I have observed, the more I have grown suspicious of the emerging church and the embrace of postmodernism by Christians. I’m not sure how else I can say it without sounding inflammatory but the charges of heresy concerning the emerging church are not completely groundless. Furthermore, I am deeply troubled that professed “Christian” publishers are publishing books by authors who, often blatantly, distance themselves from essential Christian beliefs.

The term “conversation” has been attached to the emergent movement from its inception. Rather than a complete reworking of historic orthodoxy, the movement was framed as a second look into what we believe, and how those beliefs may have been tainted by modernity, politics, tradition, or religious institutions, polarized believers and anesthetized the Church. I approached the movement thus. But along the way, two critical questions began to arise:

1.) Why do the questions keep coming back to the “essentials” (like the nature of God, original sin, the virgin birth, the atonement, the inspiration and authority of Scripture, etc.)?

2.) What would motivate a movement to repeatedly question the essentials?

The conclusion I’ve arrived at is that the emergent “conversation” has moved from exploration into apologetic. This is no longer about “thinking out loud.” It’s about getting something said.

more…

For the most part, I think Valentine’s Day IS trivial. Lisa, however, is not. Of course, she’d prefer a coupon booklet to a box of chocolates. Getting 15% off that next purchase is as thrilling to her as a champagne dinner. And saves us a lot more money! She still enjoys chick flicks, usually without me. But she won’t go to concerts anymore, so it’s an even swap. And as far as being a mother, she is a natural. Heck, Lisa still works the nursery at church. This year we will celebrate our 30th anniversary. (Who woulda thunk it?)

I know it sounds cliche, but Lisa is my best friend. There is no one else I’d rather be with than her. So, in celebration of this lame holiday Valentine’s Day, here’s some arcane facts about us:

• The first time we met I was wearing a leopard bathrobe (please, do not ask).
• I drove a car that we called the Spaceboat. It didn’t fly or float, and it barely ran.
• The first time we kissed was in the parking lot of a dentist office before her checkup. She tasted like cigarettes.
• When I became a Christian, we broke up. I needed to devote my time to Someone else.
• One month later, at an Easter Sunrise service, Lisa accepted Christ.
• I married her when she was 18 years old.
• We were married by Greg Laurie in, what was then, one of the largest churches in SoCal. About 75 people attended. Lisa’s hair was feathered and my pants were flared.
• “We’ve Only Just Begun,” by the Carpenters, was performed by a pianist (it complimented her feathered hair and my flared pants).
• I was laid off from the local steel mill when we got married and collecting unemployment.
• We had two honeymoons. On the second one, Lisa got pregnant.
• We had four kids, one of them planned, and two home births. Melody’s was the most amazing (I’d never witnessed a baby being born and had to be restrained by the nurse), Chris’ was the hardest (it was that cranium!), Jon’s was the most dramatic (splash!), and Alayna’s was the most emotional (what do you expect from Alayna?).
• Popcorn is our favorite snack, Mexican food our dinner of default, and Famous Dave’s Happy Hour makes us feel good.
• We are usually both in bed by 8 PM (Don’t laugh — we’re usually both up by 4 AM).

Okay, so we were a couple of kids. But God is good and we are still going strong. Happy Valentine’s Day, Lis. I love you so much! Tips up!