Could I Ask for a Little Help from My Friends?

A week ago I wrote a blog post entitled "I'm Not Losing My Faith Because I Like Bill Maher's Religious." It was a response to the flack I was taking for giving the film a positive review on Flixter. (If you haven't read it, you might need to in order to have a little context for this. Agree or disagree with its content, that's not the issue right now.) Fast forward a week. I woke up today to find that a man that I’ve never had no previous communication with, Duane Langenberg, has written a comment to my note. Here's what he had to say:

"Be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds...take on his mind. Cerebral faith will never get it. Maher is a blasphemer. Remember that word? His has an unredeemed mind and heart, and the carnal mind can't possibly comprehend the things of God. This man has nothing to teach you. You may or may not have a great deal to give him, but an unrepentant heart can't receive...dead end. You have exalted yourself against the knowledge of God, my friend, and I question whether the fruits of your life are those of a repentant sinner, and redeemed believer...you're an elitist, in my opinion. One of the things I've noticed about people of little or no real faith, is how much they talk about their faith in tangental terms, rather than about their 'Lord', or their 'Blessed savior' for the simple fact that He usually isn't, at that point in their lives. Please re-think your positions, for your own sake, and ask the Holy Spirit to break your hardened heart, and remold you into a fit vessel for His kingdom."

As you can see, both its tone and content are toxic, though well-intended. Attacked by another fundamentalist. Just terrific.

Some would say that I ignore this man's rantings. Simply delete his message and don't think about it again. Others would say to logically rip him a new one. Refute his claims. Show the factual inaccuracies of his comments, the weaknesses of his reasoning, and the ad hominem logical fallacies he employed. Then present a superior alternative. Frankly, I cannot do either. The later would be easy and the former would be satisfying, but I see neither approach as having much long-term value. The problem is, this man is sincere. Seriously. He sincerely thinks he's defending the Body of Christ and helping me by writing these things. He probably thinks of himself as a truth-teller. So this gets back to the question I'd been wrestling with for a few months now: How do you help fundamentalists see that there is another way to live out their faith?

I am caught in an ongoing battle with myself. All at once, I possess the spirit of a reformer and a tender heart. I feel compelled to stand for that which is true, just, and good. I attempt to exercise discernment in how I live that out, but I cannot turn off or minimize that impulse. It goes to the innermost being--the essence--of who I am. I am no longer exhilarated by ideological warfare. I no longer enjoy the fight as I once did. Christ has transformed my desires. My heart is compassionate, warm, and loving. I possess the ability to shut off my emotions to meet short-term needs, but I cannot shut them out for long as I used to. What's that cliche, like water off a duck's back? I used to jump into these great ideological struggles, feeling that I was waging a culture war for God's truth in a society that was quickly running falling apart. I would take shots and give 'em, but I never let any of it bother me because sometimes there's just casualties in war. I can't do it anymore. I no longer possess the ability to let things roll off me like nothing.

A couple months ago I told a relatively new mentor that I don't enjoy being embroiled in controversy. He kind of laughed and with a smirk said, "Mmmm hmmm, riiiiiight." What he didn't understand is that I don't seek controversy for controversy's sake. I by no means shy away from controversy, but I don't seek it for the purpose of being controversial. What all this means tangibly is that I'm constantly standing up to someone or something because I possess this iron will, but I leave every encounter beaten and bloodied. I stand up to these people because no one else will, regardless of the pain and the wounds that it has caused me. It's the curse of being a compassionate reformer. I think it is for that reason that I cannot get past this question regarding fundamentalists.

Jerry Falwell used to describe a fundamentalist as "an evangelical who is angry about something." In his book Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, George Marsden provides this more scholarly definition:

An American fundamentalist is an evangelical who is militant in opposition to liberal theology in the churches or to change in cultural values and mores, such as those associated with 'secular humanism'... Fundamentalists are a subtype of evangelicals and militancy is crucial in their outlook. Fundamentalists are not just religious conservatives, they are conservatives who are willing to take a stand and fight.

Therein lies the trouble. If you try to build relationship with them, you an an insidious agent of the Evil One out to undermine God's work and truth. If you take a stand against them, their passions become all the more inflamed by this innate martyr/persecution complex. If you try to avoid them, you are a coward who operates in the shadows for fear of God's wrath. If you try to partner with them, they refuse on the grounds that you have compromised the truth. If you try to reason with them using the Bible (special revelation), you are a cold, elitist academic with a hardened heart who is trying to get past the simple, plain teachings of Scripture using man's thoughts instead of God's thoughts--fanciful arguments used to get around the Lord's will. (They believe all truth must come directly from the Bible, for the Bible is not only the authoritative Word of God but the exhaustive Word of God.) If you try to reason with them from natural revelation, they said that you cannot possibly see the truth because of the scales over your eyes. You've not been enlightened and cannot see the higher things of God. If you try to expose them to new ideas and perspectives by having them peacefully engage with Christians of different traditions or even non-Christians, you don't understand the spiritual war that is raging around us. It is truly a bleak situation. Fundamentalism is this perfect combination of insular community, self-righteousness, and self-assuredness rooted in their belief that God wills their actions. Against that, what can possibly be done?

As I was turning this problem over again and again, I pondered a great deal about my own life growing up within a fundamentalist ecclesiastical context and how I behaved back when I was a fundamentalist. (Note: My parents are really way more conservative evangelical than they are fundamentalists, but the churches we attended were definitely guided by (moderately) fundamentalist leadership. And that's definitely the model I patterned myself after in my early years as a Christian.) For all the studying of done of Church history and theology, I wondered why I never picked up on the fact that I had been raised within a fundamentalist context. I only became aware of it when my buddy, Swany, was down last year for the "American Evangelicalism Conference." He made this passing comment about my "fundamentalist background." I stopped him immediately and said, "My what??" He thought I'd not heard him, so he repeated it. I must have been giving him a really funny look because he said, "You do realize you grew up a fundamentalist, right?" It was a shocking revelation, but I knew it was true. Trying to figure out why I hadn't seen it messed with my head until I came to this important realization just a month or so ago: You can't identify a fundamentalist until you disagree with them.

Maybe that is obvious to everyone else, but it wasn't to me. I love the terms "emic" and "etic" from the field of cultural anthropology. An emic perspective is an insider's perspective and an "etic" perspective is an outsider's perspective. Quite often it takes an etic perspective to see the flaw or error in one's own culture or perspective. For the longest time, I had been a conservative's conservative, so the fundamentalists at my churches loved me! They encouraged my zeal, prayed over me that I'd be a "culture warrior," and told me that God had given them prophet words that I was to lead a great many people away from the incursion of the liberal attacks of the Evil One. (I'm not kidding... And by the way, there's nothing like a prophetic pat on the back to boost your ego and encourage your pride.) Needless to say, it wasn't till I a few years later when I started questioning them that they started getting pissed off at me. Until then, I thought these people were the nicest, most cordial folks in the world; they weren't angry fundamentalists! It took six years for me to realize that even fundamentalists--nay, especially fundamentalists--are nice, respectful, cordial, and encouraging so long as you agree with everything they're angry about. But as soon you you cross 'em... Well, that's when you can you spot angry, militant spirit of a true fundamentalist.

This realization doesn't help do anything to try and help disarm the situation, but I do think it was an important step for me personally. I'd been trying to figure out why the heck I was suddenly come under this barrage of attacks the past couple years when I knew in my heart that I'd been sincere in my efforts to resolve my doubts, find peace in the Holy Spirit, worship God with my mind, and work out my faith with fear and trembling. It made no sense. Why would Christians assail me for these things? The answer all of a sudden became so clear. It's because these are not mere Christians. These are fundamentalists. They're like Urak-hai to mere Orcs. When I raised questions that made them uncomfortable and challenged their beliefs, opinions, and perspectives, I was revealing their true nature.

Yet the question remains, how does one deal with christian Urak-hai? As I've already said, you can't build relationship with them, stand against them, avoid them, partner with them, or reason with them using the Bible or general logic, or try to expose them to new ideas. What does that leave?! That's the question that has been plaguing my thoughts all these months.

Quite ironically, I think I found the answer today when Mr. Langenberg said he "question[s] whether the fruits of [my] life are those of a repentant sinner, and redeemed believer" and when he called me an elitist. That's it. Brilliant! I think he might have unlocked the very door I've been trying to find, for his question and mine are completely compatible if you take a larger look at this thing. If you take Mr. Langenberg as speaking for the general spirit of fundamentalism, he is not only questioning whether I have born fruit, but if people like me (i.e. historic neo-evangelicals that broke from fundamentalism) have born the fruits that would come from being repentant sinners and redeemed believers. And if that is shown to him, maybe--just maybe--he'll reconsider not only the way he lives out his faith, but also the way people like I do. Let us hope and pray.

OK. So to go a little Wonder Years on ya, I need a little help from my friends. I'd like to ask my friends, family members, peers, mentors, those who've I've mentored, and people who've simply stumbled across my writings to please weigh in. If God has used me to help you in any of the following ways, or if you've seen any of the following that speak to the working of the Spirit in your or my life, please comment and say so:

• Recommitted your life to Christ.
• Brought much-needed guidance to you in your (early?) spiritual life.
• Brought reconciliation and healing to the the divided Body of Christ.
• Challenged you to experience and seek the biblically-intended full christian experience of worshiping God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.
  
• Used my writings to help you deepen your faith and conquer some doubts.
• Exhibited grace, charity, or love at a time when other Christians weren't.
• Healed some personal wound you were carrying, perhaps inflicted by the Church?
  
• Stood up for what is right--speaking the truth in love--when other Christians were not.
• Helped the less fortunate by giving of my time or money.
  
• Led people to a deeper knowledge of Scripture by conversations, Bible studies, etc.
  
• Seen me grow and mature in ways that can only be explained as sanctification through the work of the Holy Spirit.
  
• Seen me demand that the Church be serious about maintaining its commitment to historic, orthodox doctrine.
  
• Etc.
  

There is no doubt that I've failed countless times in how I out my faith. (Many of the people I'm hoping will comment could no doubt provide ample evidence of this.) I don't claim to be perfect, but I do claim to be intentional, sincere, and passionate about living out my life in such a way as to worship God with the entirety of my being. All I'm asking is for those who know me to testify to the veracity of this claim, thereby showing Duane and people like him that there is another genuine way to live out faith in Christ.

Oh, by the way, I have a suspicion that Duane may try to write you off as a bunch of liberal kooks. So if you consider yourself conservative, please include that in any comments you might make.

Thank you, my friends. I cannot tell you how much I love you and appreciate your support.

Mark Driscoll

Click here for Driscoll's video.

So my school is currently embroiled in this whole thing about the Emerging Church. As I stuck my nose firmly in the middle of it, I'm quickly becoming aware of the in's and out's of the Emerging plain. Well, one of my buddies who is definitively Emerging posted the above link to a seven minute video with Mark Driscoll talking about the "four lanes" of the Emerging Church. I watched it and was immediately frustrated, so I posted the following as my facebook status: All it took was one youtube video for me to dislike Mark Driscoll. A number of people immediately responded and asked me why. I was typing up a response, but the critique kept growing till it became way too long to reasonably put down as comments. So I figured, why not turn it into a blog post?

My critiques of Driscoll are not so much about his surface level views. It’s more of a matter of how Driscoll thinks—his thought forms—which underscore those views. It seems to me that his thought processes were illuminated quite well in this short video. Here are my critiques:

1. He said, “The Emerging Reformers--this is my team so obviously it’s the right one.” Yes, he’s joking, but he's also serious. The lighthearted manner in which he states this claim doesn't negate the weight of the claim itself. This brief comment revealed his foundationalist approach to theology and made me very uncomfortable. And this isn't a matter of seriousness about the task of theology or fidelity to the biblical text. Plenty of postfoundational theologians like Kevin Vanhoozer have awesome theology, and they do so without those extra little comments. Is it because their thought forms don't lead them to think things like that? (This isn't a matter of joking around vs. being serious. One can joke without making comments like this.)
   
2. He blatantly misrepresented Rob Bell's comments in Velvet Elvis. He exhibited terrible hermeneutical methodology by ripping Bell's comments out of their original literary context. He erroneously claimed that Bell denies the virgin birth. Simply not true. Here's a quote from Bell in that same section: "I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more." I already wrote a big ol' thing about this yesterday, so if you want to understand my full view on this see the notes I posted late night entitled “Professor Claytor and TFC, Rob Bell is neither a heretic nor a universalist.”
3. He dislikes questioning. He came right out and said that there are some that you just don't question. Again, see the aforementioned posts.
   
4. He butchered history by calling Francis Schaeffer a founder of (neo) evangelicalism 50 years ago. The time line works, but the facts don't. Schaeffer was old enough, but he wasn’t a part of the movement in its early days. He was in Switzerland founding L'Abri when guys like Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, and Billy Graham were resurrecting evangelicalism, and he came to prominence a generation later. Some would even argue Schaeffer was always half fundamentalist and never actually a genuine evangelical.
5. He has this defensive posture of who the “good, safe, and Reformed” theologians, pastors, speakers, and teachers are. Again, it's foundationaism. I don’t resonate with that defensive approach.
6. His thinking clearly reflects Modern thought. In his presentation he’s trying to systematically break down the Emerging Church in such a way that misunderstands or misrepresents the entire movement's organic nature. He's doesn't use their terminology or try to get his audience to understand how Emerging Christians think. I understand the need to break things down in order to identity and assess its various parts, but it behooves the presenter to make accurately portray the movement's organic nature while explaining it. To rightly understand the thing, you've got to understand it on its own terms and in its own terminology. That's like trying to explain the rules of football using the terminology of basketball. Just doesn't work.
   
7. He described guys like Bell as the “Emerging Liberals.” Dude, get over Modernity and stop assuming that all truth in this world is bivalent. It ain't 1950 anymore. Stop trying to identify everything as liberal (dangerous/bad) and conservative (safe/good). If you wanna see true liberal, go to Harvard or Duke. The Emerging camp doesn't fit the bill.
   
8. He said, "National Public Radio was hosting a debate/discussion/conversation, can't debate anymore, you have to converse, people’s feelings get hurt, and then they blog.” As a person who cannot stand debate and loves serious discussion, upholding the clear distinction there is very important to me. Debates usually pit two polar opposite values against one another. The purpose is to prove your point and defeat your opponent, not seek the truth. (I've won formal debates by making crap up and saying it with such feigned confidence that my opponents didn't call my bluff.) Even if your opponent convinces you of a point, you're not allowed to change or nuance your position lest it appear that you lose. It's a terrible format. Discussions, on the other hand, don't have such rigidly defined positions and allow both sides to humbly bounce ideas off one another will the goal of mutually seeking truth. If the other person convinces you your position needs to be nuanced or changed, great! It's a form of engagement marked by humility and an awareness of one's own limitations, not arrogant pride and an assumption of being the brilliant philosopher king and who is here to enlightenment the masses. It's the difference between a journey and a war.
   
9. Driscoll simplifies issues way too far. (Not surprising for a man who seems to have such antipathy toward questions; he wants immediate, definitive answers rather than the laborious task of working through long, complicated questions). For example, near the end of the video he poses the question, “Is it okay to be a homosexual and a Christian?” Way too broad a question. This question does damage to a very complex issue, as well as some struggling, hurting Christians. I would propose an alternative question: Is it okay to be a practicing homosexual and a Christian? It is one thing to struggle with something or to have an inclination toward a particular sin while being a Christian. It is quite another to say you can practice a homosexual lifestyle and be a practicing Christian. But Driscoll isn't looking for complex answers like this. He wants answers that are yes/no, black/white, etc. Problem is, this fallen world ain't that simple.
   
10. The DJ Jesus t-shirt. Really? Was “Jesus is my Homeboy” in the wash? Just tryin’ way too hard.
11. Over and over, he implicitly and explicitly says that the good things about the Emerging movement is its desire to be relevant and applicable to a younger generation who has been brought up in a postmodern context. But he is clear that these churches start erring when they start reconsidering the Church's historic doctrinal beliefs. (He seems to think that the Reformation was the pinnacle and perfection of christian theology.) Yet as Rob Bell and Rob Olson both point out so clearly in Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith and Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology respectively, even the Reformers did not consider themselves "reformed." That is, they never affirmed that they had figured it out and that their theology should be the once and for all standard for the remainder of Church history. Rather, they called themselves "reformed and always reforming." Their view of theology was dynamic. They knew that the task of theology is never complete, never fully flushed out. They knew that there were always more historical contexts (i.e. economic, political, social, cultural, religious, geographic, medical, etc.) and perspectives to bring to bear. In other words, the way that "Reformed Christians" view the Reformers' doctrine as this sort of holy standard that needs to be perfectly retained doesn't even align with the views of the Reformers' own view of their doctrine. Reformed and always reforming, not just Reformed. That's the real issue that is causing Driscoll to be all upset and that's also why he's not truly Emerging. And he doesn't see it 'cuz he's a foundationalist.
    

Two final thoughts. First, I don't deny the many positive impacts Driscoll has had and the great way he has helped many people grow in their faith. I commend him in so far as that. But I remain critical. Second, I'll leave open the possibility that Driscoll was off that day and this wasn't his A-game. But from what I've see during my research over the last few hours, that doesn't seem to be the case, especially since the video was posted up there by his own church in Feb. of '08. That suggests that he still affirms the content. Moreover, I'm finding a steady stream of speeches and writings that confirm the validity of my critiques. Still, I'll leave the doors open for the time being...

(Part III) Professor Claytor and TFC, Rob Bell is neither a heretic nor a universalist

I received a cordial email from Professor Claytor this morning replying to the email I sent him yesterday. To ensure that I am fairly representing him and that his wishes are met, I am posting his email here. I will import it into facebook and tag all the same people I did with parts I & II. Here is the email:

Hi Carson,
Thanks for your reply. Let me quote you exactly what I said. "The fourth grouping (of Emergent church leaders) i, and the one that has attracted the most attention by, is Emergent liberals who do not hold to doctrinal orthodoxy, and to use their word they are engaged in a "conversation about church" which basically has no theological or cultural limits or boundaries. Some of the notables of this group are Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagit, and Don Kimball. " I hope this helps you in your blog, I stand by my statement; however, if you notice what I said, I did not call anyone a heritic. In my reading of their materials, I find a line so close to unversialism that I think they are in that stream of thought.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Dr C

-------------------------

And here is my response:

Professor Claytor,

Thank you for taking the time to write a warm response and providing me with this information. Last night I posted a two-part rebuttal on my blog and imported it into facebook as a note. I too stand by my statements. You along with 29 current TFC students were tagged. I welcome you to take part in that discussion. You may have already read these notes, but I would like to make sure my intentions are clear.

One hallmark of the Evangelical tradition that distinguishes it from Fundamentalism has been its proactive willingness to engage with, rather than abstain from, differing views in the academic world. That is, evangelicalism holds to an unconditional commitment to Christianity's orthodox doctrines along with a purposeful, yet humble, effort to engage in the marketplace of ideas. This is what distinguishes an institution like Toccoa Falls College from one like Bob Jones University and, in my opinion, is one of TFC's greatest strengths. As a firmly evangelical Christian, it is from that perspective that I wrote my critique. I strongly challenged you on a number of points and posed ten forthright questions for you to address, but I hope you will sense the tone with which I wrote. I made every effort to be academically thorough, spiritually discerning, and at all times respectful amidst disagreement. And while I employed sarcasm at a few points, I was intentional about avoiding ad hominem arguments. But why did I write this? I did so for the simple reason that I think you terribly misrepresented Rob Bell and the Emerging Church, and I think it's important the the TFC community hear the truth.

Again, I thank you for the cordial tone of your reply and I hope we can both exhibit the best of the evangelical spirit should the discussion move further on facebook. First and foremost, we are brothers in the Lord despite our differences of opinion. May any future discourse be grounded in that.

Grace and peace,

Carson

--------------------

I sent a follow-up email to Dr. Claytor telling him that I apologize for referring to him as "professor Claytor" rather than "Dr. Claytor" throughout my posts. I didn't know he had a Ph.D until a few minutes ago and missed it in my reply.

--------------------
And his last response:

Hi Carson,
Thanks for the explanatory notes, I read your blog this morning, and I am working on a reply. We are in the midst of pre-registration for the spring, and I have to meet with all my students this week (you know that routine--lol). I appreciated your thoughtfulness and have the same desire that you do, to convey the truth to a lost world. I have given my entire life and ministry to that end. I assure you I am in the center of the evangelical tradition, love new paradigms, and more effective ways to reach a lost world. I have traveled to 64 different countries at this stage in my life, I have seen the power of the gospel at work in all of those, and I have seen the destruction that theological error has caused as well. I will look forward to forming a thoughtful response as soon as possible. Have a great week!

Dr C

(Part II) Professor Claytor and TFC, Rob Bell is neither a heretic nor a universalist

Universalist

In what Professor Claytor described as the fourth type of Emerging churches, he said that they are universalists. Then he provided a quotation from Rob Bell's book to prove his point. Putting aside the fact that Bell even doesn't consider himself Emerging, let's look at this quote. This comes from pages 87 - 88. I apologize for such a long quote, but I think the only way to truly understand Bell's comments and to refute these universalist charges is to understand the whole thing within its literary context. Ya know, good hermeneutics… So here goes:

"In the same way that something can be labeled 'Christian' and not true, something can also be true and not be labeled Christian. Paul quotes Cretan prophets and Greek poets. He is interested in whether or not what they said is true. Now to be able these prophets and poets, Paul obviously had to read them. And study them. And analyze them. And I'm sure he came across all kinds of things in their writings that he didn't agree with. So he sifts and sorts and separates the light from the dark and then claims and quotes the parts that are true.

It is as if Paul is a spiritual tour guide and is taking his reader through their world, pointing out the true and the good wherever he sees it. Notice what he does in the book of Acts. He visits the city of Lystra, which hasn't heard of Jesus or the God Paul believes in, and he tries to figure out how to explain his Christian worldview to them. He tells them, "[God] has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.

Paul essentially asks his audience: Have you had enough food? Who do you think it comes from?

Has it rained so your crops could grow? Who do you think did that?

Have you ever laughed? Who do you think made that possible?

Missions then is less about the transportation of God from one place to another and more about the identification of a God who is already there. It is almost as if being a good missionary means having really good eyesight. Or maybe it means teaching people to use their eyes to see things that have always been there; they just didn't realize it. You see God where others don't. And then you point him out.

Perhaps we ought to replace the word missionary with tour guide, because we cannot show people something we haven't seen.

Have you ever heard missionaries say they were going to "take Jesus" to a certain place? What they meant, I assume, was that they had Jesus and they were going to take him to a place like China or India or Chicago where people apparently didn't have him.

I would ask if people in China and India and Chicago are eating and laughing and enjoying things and generally being held together? Because they are, then Jesus, in a way that is difficult to fully articulate, is already present there.

So these isn't so much taking Jesus to people who don't have him, but going to a place and pointing out to the people there the creative, life-giving God who is already present in their midst.

It is searching for the things they have already affirmed as real and beautiful and true and then telling them who they believe is the source of all that. 'I am here to bell you where I think it comes from...'

And if you do see yourself carrying God to places, it can be exhausting.

God is really heavy.

Some people actually believe that God is absent from a place until they get there. The problem with this idea is that if God is not there before you get there, then there is no 'there' in the first place.

Tour guides are people who see depth and texture and connection where others don't. That is why the best teachers are masters of the obvious. They see the same things you do, but they are aware of so much more. And when they point it out, it changes the way you see everything.

In the books of Matthew and Mark, Jesus has dinner with a group of religious leaders and a woman crashes the party, pouring expensive perfume on Jesus' head. The people Jesus is eating with are mad. This perfume could have been sold and the money used for all sorts of worthy causes. But Jesus defends her. He says, 'She has done a beautiful thing to me.' Jesus and his dinner companions experience the exact same event, yet they see it from totally different perspectives. Jesus sees another dimension to the events: For him it is a profoundly moving, spiritual, worshipful experience. He points out the beauty of it. The others miss it. He sees it. He is a tour guide. Pointing out the holy and sacred that are present, right here, right not."

I see nothing here that would not be taught and/or embraced by the missions profs at TFC. (Perhaps the majors from that department can weigh in on this point.) They recognize that the Bible contain authoritative truth, but not exhaustive truth. They recognize that there was truth in all societies prior to the Gospel's formal arrival. They recognize that the best way to teach/present the Gospel is to understand and use the already built-in truths within those cultures. Read it again if you have to, but you will not find Bell expressing a belief that all people are already saved, nor will you see him saying that missionaries are unnecessary. If one were to rip a sentence or two out of context, then I could see that. But no one practicing proper hermeneutical methodology should make that mistake.

From what I heard, Professor Claytor leaned heavy on D. A. Carson and John MacArthur in his presentation. But maybe Professor Claytor shouldn't embrace everything those men write/say as completely accurate and without bias. Instead, he should read these Emerging authors himself. From what I hear, the general perception around campus is that he almost certainly didn’t read Velvet Jesus.... errrr, nevermind... before assailing it in front of the entire student body. I would expect a higher standard not only of academic credibility from a college professor who's committed his life to teaching students, but of discernment from a man who is responsible for training the next generation of pastors to think thoughtfully and precisely as they lead their churches.

The Real Problem?

I've never taken a course with Professor Claytor, but I did hear him speak during a majors' chapel and over the past four years I've heard from numerous students who've taken him. These experiences suggest to me that Professor Claytor holds that "biblical Christianity" is innately conservative. I suspect this is the underlying issue with his critique of the Emerging Church—it's not conservative, therefore it's errant. If my suspicion is correct, I would offer three points of rebuttal:

1. We need to stop thinking in Modernism's binary categorizations of conservative and liberal. Yes, there's conservative and liberal, but there's also moderate and a huge ideological spectrum between those polarities.
2. The Bible teaches many different things that would today would fall along the ideological spectrum—conservative, liberal, and everything in between. To give just one example of a "liberal" teaching, check out Leviticus 19. The law provided for a form of welfare for the poor and downtrodden by commanding the farmers not to "reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest" or to go through a the vineyard a second time to "pick up the grapes that have fallen." They were to "leave them for the poor and the alien."
3. "Conservative" is relative to historical and cultural context. In 1776 conservatives affirmed the Divine Rights of Kings, and the Founding Fathers' political beliefs were considered quite liberal. Today, no conservative I've ever met would affirm the Divine Right, and the person who affirms the same sorts of political beliefs as our Founding Fathers is considered quite conservative. Also, conservative Christians prior to the Civil War used the Bible to justify race-based slavery. Again, I know of no conservative Christian who do such a thing today.
   

So many people believe that to be "biblical Christians" they have to hold conservative beliefs on everything. Straight up, that's an unbiblical position. It’s simply poor critical thought and terrible biblical exegesis to hold the presupposition that conservative = good/safe and liberal = bad/dangerous. IF this is the underlying issue for Professor Claytor, again I say IF, then he needs to reconsider not only what he thinks, but how he thinks.

Important Questions

I conclude by posing eleven questions to Professor Claytor:

1. Did you read—not just skim—Velvet Elvis before giving this presentation?
2. Have you ever watched any of Bell's videos?
3. Have you ever attended any of Bell’s presentations?
4. What books by Emerging authors did you read in preparation for this series?
5. It sounded to the majority of your audience like most your information came from secondary sources (i.e. D. A. Carson and John MacArthur) rather than primary sources (i.e. Emerging authors and pastors). Is this correct?
6. Have you ever attended a church that embraces the Emerging label?
7. Did you talk to anyone who claims the Emerging label before putting your presentation together?
8. Did you consult any of your colleagues in Bible & Theology when putting this presentation together, especially any of the younger ones who might’ve had familiarity with this topic from seminary?
9. What credentials (or experiences) do you have that would give you the expertise to understand and assess the Emerging Church?
10. Have you ever read any books or essays on postfoundationalism?
11. Was this presentation by Mark Driscoll where most of your information came from?
    

I will be tagging you when this blog post is imported into facebook. I eagerly await your answers to these questions.

(Part I) Professor Claytor and TFC, Rob Bell is neither a heretic nor a universalist

Preface

* In order to correct the inaccuracies that are being spread around campus, I would ask each of my TFC readers who has read this post and agree with the content to please click the "share" at the top-right of this facebook post and post this to your own wall. Let's start a discussion based upon the actual facts. Thank you.

Because I’m an alumnus and am sick today, I wasn't there to hear Professor Claytor’s remarks in chapel. I'm relying on the phone calls I made to students and professors alike. The story I heard was uniform, so I’m confident that it’s trustworthy. I've tried to contact Professor Claytor directly to make sure my information is accurate, but he's not picked up any of six phone calls nor responded to my email or facebook message. Nevertheless, I remain open to correction. If my understanding of the content he presented in chapel is inaccurate, I would ask that I be humbly corrected.

Introduction

As a student of Toccoa Falls College for the preceding three years, I was blessed to have had the opportunity to greatly expand my biblical knowledge while studying under such professors of the School of Bible & Theology. Reflecting back on it now, I think I learned as much about how to interpret the Bible as I did sheer biblical knowledge. They demonstrated that the Bible is not only the divinely-inspired Word of God, but the divinely-inspired Word of God as communicated by human authors in precise historical contexts. They strongly emphasized the necessity for proper hermeneutical methodology in order to rightly interpret and apply Scripture. I quickly learned that these same interpretive methods must be applied to all texts, biblical or otherwise. You can then imagine my horror then when I learned that a professor from Bible & Theology, Professor Bob Claytor, completely ignored proper hermeneutical methodology in his assessment of Rob Bell's book, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, in chapel today. He claimed that Bell is both a heretic and a universalist. Having read this book myself, I would like to respond to both comments .

Before I do that, however, I would like to quickly provide a little background on my own perspective. First, no one can accuse me of being a heretic nor a universalist, as I hold to Christianity's historically orthodox doctrines. Second, I don't consider myself an Emergent Christian. This chapel series is an assessment of the Emerging Church, so I think it's important to state that I have no vested interest in defending Bell other than simply having the truth be known. Third, evangelical historian David Bebbington came up with a widely held definition of evangelicalism. He said that it is a (Christian) religious movement marked by four clear distinctives: conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism. According to that, I gladly accept the evangelical label . Fourth, I am a moderate. Let's be clear as to what that means. It means that I am neither conservative nor liberal, and I don't use the moderate label to cloak liberalism. Any of my closest friends and family members would testify that I'm not only moderate, I'm probably the most moderate person they've ever met. So, please, don't write me off as some sort of left-wing nut job as that's simply not accurate.

Heretical

To be fair and accurate, Professor Claytor never actually used the word "heretic" to describe Bell. Yet it was strongly implied not only by the tone throughout the whole presentation, but by his description of Bell as unbiblical, erring, etc. Most troubling perhaps is that he didn't even take the time to back up these claims. My guess, and it is only that, is that Professor Claytor was picking up on the heresy charges that Bell has faced because of his supposed rejection of the virgin birth. If that is indeed the case, the simplest way I know to refute the charge is quote controversial the section in question. This comes from pages 26-27:

"Somebody recently gave me a videotape of a lecture given by a man who travels around speaking about the creation of the world. At one point in his lecture, he said if you deny that God created the world in six literal twenty-four hour days, then you are denying that Jesus ever died on the cross. It's a bizarre leap of logic to make, I would say.

But he was serious.

It hit me while I was watching that for him faith isn't a trampoline; it's a wall of bricks. Each of the core doctrines for him is like an individual brick that stacks on top of the others. If you pull one out, the whole wall starts to crumble. It appears quite strong and rigid, but if you begin to rethink or discuss even one brick, the whole thing is in danger. Like he said, no six-day creation equals no cross. Remove one, and the whole wall wobbles.

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at the time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being "born of a virgin" also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?

What if that spring was seriously questioned?

Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?

Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live?

Or does the whole thing fall apart?

I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more. I'm a part of it, and I want to pass it on to the next generation. I believe that God created everything and that Jesus is Lord and that God has plans to restore everything.

But if the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn't that strong in the first place, was it?"

The precedent throughout all of Church history is that to be labeled a heretic, a person must reject what is deemed to be an essential, orthodox doctrine and hold to something else in its place. For example, a person would be considered a heretic if they denied that there is one God in three persons and instead believes that there are three gods. Yet Bell is doing nothing of the sort. He is posing a hypothetical question to cause his readers to question how they view biblical doctrine, but he does not reject the virgin birth and, in fact, openly embraces it. Last time I checked, that doesn't qualify as heresy.

What makes so many people uncomfortable is that Bell to simply questioning some of our most sacred doctrines. They cannot believe that he has the audacity to pose such a hypothetical situation. But keep in mind that Jesus commanded His followers to worship God with their minds and Paul commanded them to work out their faith with fear and trembling. Bell is simply asking questions of his doctrinal beliefs. Not rejecting them, just questioning and working them through. It's the exact same thing C. S. Lewis did in many of his books. (Ever read The Last Battle or Mere Christianity?) Yet only the most ardent fundamentalists call him a heretic. So why are people leveling heresy charges against Bell for doing the same thing?

My first interaction with Bell's work was his recent Drops Like Stars presentation in Atlanta. I sensed that he was (subtly) defending himself from these heresy charges. He had to have said at least 10 times that he is "committed to historic, orthodox Christian faith." This is a man who holds a B.A. from Wheaton College and an M.Div from Fuller Theological Seminary, both of which are evangelical institutions. (Some will object by saying, "Fuller isn't evangelical. It's liberal and mainline!" I would recommend that these folks read evangelical historian George Marsden's book Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. No doubt Fuller is a long way from TFC on the ideological spectrum, but there remains no doubt that it is definitively evangelical.) Bell is well-educated in theology and Church history. He knows what historic orthodox Christianity is, and he holds to its doctrines. He is not a heretic.

It seems to me that most of these heresy charges stem from ignorance. Specifically, they derive from people who aren't familiar with postfoundationalism—a form of evangelical theology held by such renowned theologians as Kevin Vanhoozer, Roger Olson, John Franke, Stanley Grenz, and N. T. Wright. These aren't names that one is likely to encounter while at the foothills because they're not as conservative, but they're firmly evangelical in conviction. Rob Bell's theological methodology fits squarely in with those guys. I would suggest that we get in trouble when we assume that everything but conservative evangelicalism/fundamentalism is heretical.

The Perfect Metaphor for My Faith

So I was driving around listening to a terrific NPR program discussing whether or not Christianity is good for the world. Just as it was getting fascinating, the crisp signal suddenly gets overtaken by some cheesy christian music station called "the dove" or some crap like that. I could faintly hear NPR in the background, so I concentrated hard to try and get past the dominant signal; desperately hoping to get past this cliche-ridden song and to something with more substance... If that ain't just the perfect metaphor for my frustration with trying to worship God with my mind within the prevailing christian culture, I don't know what is.

With that, I feel the need to share this link of comedian Mike Birbiglia making fun of christian rock. Click here to share my joy.

Movie Review: The Boondock Saints

I give The Boondock Saints 4/5 stars, but not because I agreeing with its philosophy. I'm just saying it's a well-made movie that causes one to think.

As the Flixter reviews show, a lot of people probably see this as simply a great shoot 'em up action film where the bad guys get it from two rough but ultimately good vigilante brothers. But there's so much more than that. This movie is not only thought provoking, but is a direct challenge to such commonly held principles as grace, legal justice, etc.

The movie touches upon some deep sense of frustration with our society's sense of justice, and more specifically its current legal system. I think we all see the wisdom in our Founding Fathers setting up a the judicial branch in such a way as to protect the innocent from wrongful punishment, but that also means the system is built in such a way as to assist heinous criminals in staying out of prison, and that is not justice. As an avid Law & Order fan, I appreciated the film's philosophy and in some ways it as the Ying to Batman Begins/Dark Knight's Yang. Batman protects the good and punishes the bad through an admittedly broken legal system; recognizing that it ain't perfect but it's the best system of justice available. Batman will never intentionally kill even the most hardened criminals. The Boondock Saints, however, think the bad guys continue to prowl the streets because of that failed legal system protects them. Therefore, the bad guys must be dealt with directly and must be put to death through vigilante justice.

It was fascinating to see the inner turmoil Willem Dafoe's character faced in hunting them down or assisting them. Having spoken to a few retired police officers, I know many of them sometimes yearn for a sort of vigilante justice because they've seen so many evil people get off the hook on technicalities and legal loopholes. Hard to blame 'em. I just hope we never get to that point. Another interesting element was the film's portrayal of the publics' response in killings. For most of the film, the protagonists were praised for killing the bad guys when the police could do nothing about it. People felt safer and encouraged them. By the film's end, it seemed like people were split. Some thought they were as bad as the mafia thugs and others asked who gave them the responsibility/authority to enforce justice. Others praised them and thought they were protecting the innocent. Anyway, I get and certainly appreciate the movie's philosophy of vigilante justice even if I disagree with it.

Lastly, I was more than a little disturbed by the way the protagonists used a twisted form of the christian faith to justify their actions. These were two Catholics who'd apparently never heard a homily about turning the other cheek.

A Theory about the Duncan-era Spurs

ESPN writer Bill Simmons recently wrote that an old Tim Duncan doesn’t have an answer to the question, “Grandpa, what was the best team you ever played on?”* This fits perfectly into a theory I have that the Duncan-era Spurs are the perfect barometer for the NBA’s competition level over the past decade. The Spurs are a constant. It’s everyone else who changes. Check out the history:

Spurs win in ’99 because Jerry Krause liked the symmetry of two three-peats. They’re never good enough to top the Shaq-Kobe tandem as its peak, but as soon as it drops off the Spurs are there in ’03. Next year the Lakers rise again with four HOFers that should’ve won it, but lost to the team-oriented ’04 Pistons. Lakers implode that offseason and Pistons drop off, leaving the ’05 Spurs to win. The following year the Spurs are beaten by the best of the Nowitski-era Mavs, a team that should’ve beaten the Shaq-Wade Heat. Both those teams stumble the next year, so again the Spurs win it. In ’08 the Spurs go down to a restored Lakes squad, which loses to the hungry Boston Three Party. This past year the Lakers were clearly the best team.

My theory is that for ten year (’99 – ’09) the Barometer Spurs never declined or improved, so they brought home the ring when the competition went down and lost when it went up. Basketball is the sport I know most about. I wonder if there are barometer teams in other sports as well...

Simmons went on to predict that the Spurs will win the NBA title this year. He's got this theory about "Eff You" teams, which is basically that professional sports teams will occasionally be out to not only win, but to embarrass their opponents. They'll stock up on all the best talent and will seek to not only defeat their opponents, but decimate them. And the more people complain about it, the worse they get beaten. Usually it's one particular year of a dynasty. He gives examples of the '86 Celtics, the '96 Bulls, '07 Patriots, etc. Simmons is right that this year's Spurs are definitely stocked up for an "Eff You" run. I'll be interested to see if they turn out to be the Barometer Spurs or the Eff You Spurs this season. In my estimate, the competition level is high this year, meaning that the only way the Spurs win the title is if they make the switch from Barometer to Eff You mode.

This theory also highlights the difficulty in classifying the Spurs. Are they a dynasty or not? A lot of people say No! The '99 Spurs were basically an entirely different team than the '03 Spurs, other than Duncan and Robinson. However, no one denies that the Bulls of the '90s were a dynasty, despite that fact that Jordan and Pippen were the only players there for all six. So that argument is bogus. Yet even if the Spurs win it this year (making it their 5th in 11 years), I think an argument can still be made that they're not a dynasty. Four of those titles would still be barometer squads, and who wants to label a team a "dynasty" that only won championships when the competition level went down? We want our dynasties to be of the "Eff You" variety.

* Simmons' article

I'm Not Losing My Faith Because I Like Bill Maher's Religulous

Two nights ago my wife and I watched Bill Maher's Religulous. Afterward, I hopped on facebook for a few minutes, gave it a 4/5 stars on Flixster, and wrote these brief comments as a review: "Little heavy handed there at the end--a seriousness that had no prior precedent in the film. Still I thoroughly enjoyed it. Most of the people I know would hate the film. But I thought Maher had some terrific critiques that I resonate with deeply, even as a confessing Christian myself." The next morning I was contacted by a number of folks who either think I'm on the path toward enlightenment (i.e. atheism) or are concerned that I'm slowly losing my faith. Rather than reply to all of their comments privately, I thought I'd share my thoughts openly in a blog post. So, here ya go:

1) First and foremost, I'm not going to throw stones at Maher. He's being honest about his doubts and what he sees as the absurdity of organized religion in general and Christianity specifically. I don't hate people for being sincere, and I don't hate those who don't believe Christianity is true for trying to disprove it. I would too if I weren't a Christian! As I've said before, if I weren't a Christian, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins would have nothing on me.

2) Of course I think Maher is one-sided, extreme, and simply way off in certain elements of this film, but that doesn't negate the reality that some (if not many) of his critiques are spot on. Anthropologically speaking, it sometimes takes an etic (outsiders') perspective for people to see their own flaws. Christians should not hate or fear Bill Maher, but gracefully thank him for his sincere critiques and engage the questions posed by his work.

3) This past summer my pastor made a comment that has really resonated with me. He said (paraphrasing), "I have no empirical evidence to back this up, but I suspect that graduate students are one of the largest unreached people groups in our country." I completely agree, but I would expand his assertion. I would suggest that it is not only graduate students, but seriously thinking people in general. A survey of American religious history shows quite clearly most that conservative, American Christians have never put much value in serious thinking. Or as N.K. Clifford put it, "The Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed its crusading genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an over-simplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for critical analysis and serious reflection." I sense that Bill Maher is genuine and honest about his doubts, which are driven by his own critical mind and serious reflections. Yet where are the Christians who have thought about these things and are willing to discuss these things with people like Maher? Throughout the film he posed some great questions to Christians. They responded with horrendous answers based upon bogus "facts" that revealed a complete dearth of critical thought. (For example, when Maher asked a truck driver about the virgin birth, he said that recently they had tested the Shroud of Turin and found that it had the impression of a male body but had traces of female blood, and only the virgin birth would enable the body to have only female blood. The look on Maher's face was priceless.) Granted, it was outside his field of expertise, but even Francis Collins didn't fair much better answering these sorts of questions. I couldn't help but shutter and empathize with why Maher thinks Christianity is ridiculous. I would love to sit down with him and, if nothing else, show him that there are a few committed Christians who are also committed to the life of the mind.

4) I don't use "question" as a pseudonym for "reject." Question means question. If I say I'm questioning something, it doesn't mean I'm rejecting it. I'm tired of people accusing me of rejecting my faith because I sincerely question it.

5) One person wrote, "... Is nothing sacred? Is there nothing you're willing to just believe without scrutiny? How far are you willing to take this? Even to the point of unbelief?" It's not as though I'm trying to question everything. I just do. It's how I'm wired. It's in my DNA, which by the way only has male blood. I've always been this way and likely always will be. It's not in my nature to stop asking questions. To encourage me to do otherwise is to encourage me to stop being myself. Furthermore, I'm committed to seeking the truth wherever it should take me. If Christianity is in fact the truth, which I think and believe it is, then there is nothing to worry about. The truth should be able to stand up to any line of questioning or it isn't in fact the truth after all. But to answer the final question, if someone could definitely prove to me that Christianity is false by proving that there never was a historical figure named Jesus or that he never physically rose from the dead, then, YES!, I would cease to be a Christian. (Anything else is insane!) I'm a believer because I think Christianity is true, not because it's a comforting fairytale.

6) I no longer desire to abandon my faith. (That was my first couple years at TFC.) I'm a Christian committed to historic orthodox doctrine. The past few years I have questioned such orthodox doctrines as:

• The Imagio Dei
• The Fall
• Jesus' virgin birth, dual natures, bodily resurrection, etc.
  
• The Trinity
  

If I thought any of those doctrines were bogus, I wouldn't just believe them. I don't possess the ability to lie to myself like that.

7) Having affirmed that I believe Christianity's historic orthodox doctrines, I will acknowledge that there is quite a bit of adiaphora (secondary doctrines) that I question, some of which I'm coming close to rejecting. I specifically think of such doctrines as Original Sin, which is actually a logical extension of the biblical text that was invented by Augustine and has never been affirmed by the eastern half of Christianity. Maher was spot on when he took aim at that doctrine. Again, I wish there were Christians out there who could tell him things like that.

8) "I believe that if it ain't obviously broken, then we probably don't need to fix it. There're some things that can't be fixxed, so it's sometimes best to not bring them on light. That only hurts our witness to the world, " wrote one person before going on to write, "Even if some of the film's content is accurate, not all of it needs to be brought to shown... As Christians it is our duty to protect and defend the church." Unbelievable. No wonder so many people actually believe Dan Brown's novels. So many Christians are afraid--even terrified--of the ramifications of Maher's critiques. They think it'll make them look like hypocrites, harm their witness, and cause people to reject Christ. My thinking is that 1) the Church needs to openly admit that it's made up of sinners saved by grace, 2) if we try to hide our errors it should make us look like hypocrites, 3) the way to improve our witness is not to hide our faults but acknowledge them openly by practicing honesty and transparency, and 4) if we don't recognize flaws, we can't fix them. Regarding that final point, one can only treat cancer after a diagnosis has been made and the cancer has been located. If Bill Maher can in some way serve as the doctor who diagnoses the Church's cancer and tells us where it's found, then great! Now we can begin treatment.

9) One person wrote, "Never lose hope or faith in Christ or his Church. For as jaded as she is, Christ died for her (i.e. For us)." All the crap that within the Church now as well as all the crud that has happened through Church history does not cause me to lose hope and despair. On the contrary, it proves the Lord's faithfulness to His Bride despite Christians' best efforts at unfaithfulness. What causes me to lose hope and to despair is when Christians cast a blind eye to these abuses and errors.

10) The last person also wrote, "...what really concerns me is I see no hope in your messages for the church and from others commenting on your status's I see that you may not be surrounding yourself with Godly counsel." My response: If you mean people who start with an unbiblical, conservative presupposition to all they think and believe, as well as people who blatantly abuse holy Scripture by ripping it out of its original historic and cultural contexts, then, no, I have not surrounded myself with godly counsel. If, however, you mean people who are more interested in properly interpreting and applying Scripture than defending their own unquestioned cultural presuppositions, and if you mean people who openly and honestly encourage me to unrelentingly seek answers to all sincere questions, then, yes, I have surrounded myself with godly counsel.

11) No one came right out and affirmed that true Christianity is innately conservative, but it was definitely the implicit view underlying most of the communication I received. So I would offer two points of explicit rebuttal. First, "conservative" is relative to historical and cultural context. In 1776 conservatives affirmed the Divine Rights of Kings, and the Founding Fathers' political beliefs were considered quite liberal. Today, no conservative I've ever met would affirm the Divine Right, and the person who affirms the same sorts of political beliefs as our Founding Fathers is considered quite conservative. Also, conservative Christians prior to the Civil War affirmed race-based slavery. Again, I know of no conservative Christian who would affirm such things today. Second, the Bible teaches many different things that would today would fall along the ideological spectrum--conservative, liberal, and everything in between. To give just one example of a liberal teaching, check out Leviticus 19. The law provided for a form of welfare for the poor and downtrodden by commanding the farmers not to "reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest" or to go through a the vineyard a second time to "pick up the grapes that have fallen." They were to "leave them for the poor and the alien." Yet so many people believe that to be "biblical Christians" they have to hold conservative beliefs on everything. Straight up, that's an unbiblical position. An accurate interpretation of the Bible cannot categorize its teachings in such binary fashion.

Book Review: Jim's Wallis' "God's Politics"

One reviewer wrote, "This book should be called 'Jim's Politics.'" Although I disagree with the reviewer’s reasoning, I like the suggestion. I'm extremely hesitant to definitively speak on behalf of God on such controversial matters as politics. My encouragement to people is to seriously think about these matters and to not shy away from holding particular beliefs and opinions, but always be willing to adapt those perspectives as merited by new evidence. Anyone who has ever come a certain position after much research and thought only to have that position overturned or nuanced later ought to know that we should all exercise great discernment in declaring God's will—certainly more than Wallis did in this book. Our beliefs necessarily must inform our positions, but our beliefs about our own finitude and fallenness should also foster a self-awareness about the limitations of those positions. I wish the sub-title were the book's primary title: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It.

In terms of style, I didn’t find Wallis to be a particularly talented author. I never experienced a sense of beauty in his wording or insights. His emotions came through and he’s certainly a thoughtful and passionate man. That cannot be denied. But this wasn’t a book that I enjoyed reading for its artistic value.

Occasionally, you’ll read a book where the author’s thought processes are so good and the book’s content is so important that it almost makes you forgot the author’s mediocre writing abilities. This book is one such case. This is a work that a lot of people on both the left and the right need to read. What he’s attempting to do is fundamentally re-frame the way American Christians look at and engage the political realm. That’s a tall order, but he cast a great vision for how that should be done. I suspect that vision would be deeply challenging for the vast majority of politically-minded American Christians. It'd also be a good introduction for Christians who have a developing interest in politics but don't really know where to start or for people who don't care about politics but feel that they should.

I went into this book already quite politically knowledgeable and moderate. I was hoping that Wallis would offer profound insights that would deepen my understanding or modify my perspective. Honestly, I can't really say that that happened. I don't say this to sound arrogant or to make myself sound smart, but the truth is that I already knew just about everything he wrote. But I will say this: his perspective certainly enriched my views. His compassion for people touched my heart and confronted my sometimes calloused inclinations. He simply cares more for people than I do, and that kicked my butt.

Personally, I’m skeptical of Christians participating in government in the first place. It always seems that Christians always start off with the hope that the church will impact the government, but what ends up happening is the government ends up impacting (or corrupting) the church. That is, the Bride of Christ is prostituted to temporal, political agendas. My Anabaptist streak suggests that this is the foundational question Wallis missed. All that having been said, I know that religion and politics are indelibly linked in American society and I'm enough of a pragmatist to recognize that that's not changing. Telling American Christians to withdraw from the political realm sounds naïve if not wholly absurd to the vast majority of 'em, so it just ain't happening. That being the case, I think this book offers some powerful critiques of the way Christians on both sides of the aisle have typically engaged the political realm and also offers some great suggestions for how they should correct their past errors. I doubt Wallis' views will ever become the majority position among American Christians, but it remains a good exhortation for politics done well.

The next book I'm going to read is Mark Noll's Adding Cross to Crown: The Political Significance of Christ's Passion. Hopefully it'll provide some of those insights and fresh perspectives that I missed here.