The Churches of Revelation
A link to this book on Amazon, with reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Not-Emergent-Should/dp/0802458343/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213545840&sr=1-1
I finished "Why We're Not Emergent (by two guys who should be)" yesterday. The last chapter was perhaps my favorite. It is entitled: "Listening to all the churches of Revelation." I haven't shared a lot of quotes from this book, but it's one I would not hesitate to recommend if you just want to understand what the emergent movement embraces, what it doesn't, quotes from its authors, and the opinions/criticisms offered by those who are not in complete agreement with the emergent message. The book is written by two guys with completely different writing styles. Kevin DeYoung is a pastor. Ted Kluck is a journalist/sports writer.
In the last chapter, the writers discuss the seven real churches in Asia Minor listed in Revelation and how they are also representative churches. "In other words, the problems in these seven churches are the root problems in all churches. Their strengths are our strengths and their weaknesses are our weaknesses."
There are eight parts that appear in almost every letter: (1) instructions to write to the angel of the church in such and such a place; (2) a statement about Jesus that matches the problem in the church. This section begins with "These are the words of . . ." and then it describes Jesus; (3) a section of commendation, often beginning with "I know your deeds"; (4) an accusation section--"But I have this against you"; (5) a call to change and repentance--"Do this"; (6) a statement of what the Lord will do, either as an encouragement to press on or as a warning of judgment; (7) a promise to "him who overcomes"; and (8) an invitation--"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
The seven letters conform to a definite pattern, but the churches themselves are all different. They struggle with different sins and shine in different areas.
Ephesus was your loveless, fundamentalist church. They were orthodox, moral and hardworking. But they didn't love the lost or even one another. Instead, they were doctrinally sound navel-gazers. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Love."
Smyrna was your persecuted church, similar to suffering believers living in countries in today's 10/40 window. These Christians were afflicted, slandered, and impoverished. But they were spiritually rich. They were vibrant, but fearful. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Be faithful."
Pergamum was your ungrounded, youth-movement church. They were faithful, passionate witnesses. But they had compromised with the world and accommodated to their sexually immoral and idolatrous culture. They were witnessing, but undiscerning. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Discern."
Thyatira was your warmhearted, liberal church. They were strong in love, faith, service, and perseverance. But they undervalued doctrinal fidelity and moral purity. They were loving, but over-tolerant. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Think."
Sardis was your flashy and successful, but shallow, megachurch, or your Bible-belt church chock-full of nominal Christians. They had a great reputation. But in reality they were spiritually dead. They were the church of the white washed tombs. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Wake up."
Philadelphia was your small, storefront, urban ghetto church. They felt weak and unimpressive. But they had kept the Word of God and not denied His name. They were a struggling, strong church. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Press on."
Finally, Laodicea was your ritzy, influential church out in the rich part of town. They thought they had it all together. But they were as spiritually poor as they were materially rich. The church was filled with affluence and apathy. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Be earnest."
Surely, there is something for everyone to love and to hate about these churches. We can all see our besetting sins mirrored here, even if we can see the sins of our neighbor churches more easily. And while it is certainly legitimate to see individual churches as more relevant to our particular settings, we must pay attention to what Jesus says to all seven churches.
And that's my beef with the emerging church. Doctrinally minded evangelical Christians like me would get more out of emergent critiques if they recognized that there are just as many undiscerning, overtolerant Pergamums and Thyatiras in North America and the United Kingdom as there are loveless Ephesuses. I pick these three churches not because they are most important but because they best represent what is right with the emerging church (a good eye for Ephesus problems) and what is wrong (a blind eye to Pergamum-Thyatira problems). Emerging and non-emerging Christians need to listen to all three churches.
...Ephesus was under-engaged with the culture; Pergamum over-identified with the culture.
...Each of the churches is called to overcome. But how do you do that? The answer is found in chapters 4 and 5. You get a breathtaking glimpse of God and the Lamb. You take your eyes off your earthly situation and gaze into heaven and see what true reality looks like. No matter the church's problem, what is most needful is to see God in His glory. Lost your first love? Being persecuted? Impure? Bad theology? Spiritually dry? Full of weakness? Apathetic? You need to know God better.
...One of the things that keeps me grounded as a pastor is to ask myself, "Will this help me and my people die well?" Promoting radical uncertainty does not help people die well. Calling people to live the life of Jesus while minimizing the death of Jesus as the substitutionary sacrifice who turned away our Father's wrath does not help people die well...
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Not-Emergent-Should/dp/0802458343/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213545840&sr=1-1
I finished "Why We're Not Emergent (by two guys who should be)" yesterday. The last chapter was perhaps my favorite. It is entitled: "Listening to all the churches of Revelation." I haven't shared a lot of quotes from this book, but it's one I would not hesitate to recommend if you just want to understand what the emergent movement embraces, what it doesn't, quotes from its authors, and the opinions/criticisms offered by those who are not in complete agreement with the emergent message. The book is written by two guys with completely different writing styles. Kevin DeYoung is a pastor. Ted Kluck is a journalist/sports writer.
In the last chapter, the writers discuss the seven real churches in Asia Minor listed in Revelation and how they are also representative churches. "In other words, the problems in these seven churches are the root problems in all churches. Their strengths are our strengths and their weaknesses are our weaknesses."
There are eight parts that appear in almost every letter: (1) instructions to write to the angel of the church in such and such a place; (2) a statement about Jesus that matches the problem in the church. This section begins with "These are the words of . . ." and then it describes Jesus; (3) a section of commendation, often beginning with "I know your deeds"; (4) an accusation section--"But I have this against you"; (5) a call to change and repentance--"Do this"; (6) a statement of what the Lord will do, either as an encouragement to press on or as a warning of judgment; (7) a promise to "him who overcomes"; and (8) an invitation--"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
The seven letters conform to a definite pattern, but the churches themselves are all different. They struggle with different sins and shine in different areas.
Ephesus was your loveless, fundamentalist church. They were orthodox, moral and hardworking. But they didn't love the lost or even one another. Instead, they were doctrinally sound navel-gazers. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Love."
Smyrna was your persecuted church, similar to suffering believers living in countries in today's 10/40 window. These Christians were afflicted, slandered, and impoverished. But they were spiritually rich. They were vibrant, but fearful. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Be faithful."
Pergamum was your ungrounded, youth-movement church. They were faithful, passionate witnesses. But they had compromised with the world and accommodated to their sexually immoral and idolatrous culture. They were witnessing, but undiscerning. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Discern."
Thyatira was your warmhearted, liberal church. They were strong in love, faith, service, and perseverance. But they undervalued doctrinal fidelity and moral purity. They were loving, but over-tolerant. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Think."
Sardis was your flashy and successful, but shallow, megachurch, or your Bible-belt church chock-full of nominal Christians. They had a great reputation. But in reality they were spiritually dead. They were the church of the white washed tombs. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Wake up."
Philadelphia was your small, storefront, urban ghetto church. They felt weak and unimpressive. But they had kept the Word of God and not denied His name. They were a struggling, strong church. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Press on."
Finally, Laodicea was your ritzy, influential church out in the rich part of town. They thought they had it all together. But they were as spiritually poor as they were materially rich. The church was filled with affluence and apathy. To them and to us, Jesus says, "Be earnest."
Surely, there is something for everyone to love and to hate about these churches. We can all see our besetting sins mirrored here, even if we can see the sins of our neighbor churches more easily. And while it is certainly legitimate to see individual churches as more relevant to our particular settings, we must pay attention to what Jesus says to all seven churches.
And that's my beef with the emerging church. Doctrinally minded evangelical Christians like me would get more out of emergent critiques if they recognized that there are just as many undiscerning, overtolerant Pergamums and Thyatiras in North America and the United Kingdom as there are loveless Ephesuses. I pick these three churches not because they are most important but because they best represent what is right with the emerging church (a good eye for Ephesus problems) and what is wrong (a blind eye to Pergamum-Thyatira problems). Emerging and non-emerging Christians need to listen to all three churches.
...Ephesus was under-engaged with the culture; Pergamum over-identified with the culture.
...Each of the churches is called to overcome. But how do you do that? The answer is found in chapters 4 and 5. You get a breathtaking glimpse of God and the Lamb. You take your eyes off your earthly situation and gaze into heaven and see what true reality looks like. No matter the church's problem, what is most needful is to see God in His glory. Lost your first love? Being persecuted? Impure? Bad theology? Spiritually dry? Full of weakness? Apathetic? You need to know God better.
...One of the things that keeps me grounded as a pastor is to ask myself, "Will this help me and my people die well?" Promoting radical uncertainty does not help people die well. Calling people to live the life of Jesus while minimizing the death of Jesus as the substitutionary sacrifice who turned away our Father's wrath does not help people die well...
Comments
You know, I think that is the wrong question. I think the question is what will help us live well. Even as we live in the shadow of death. Jesus met us in death and in our sin so we can live well.
Ultimately, this is what fundamentalist minded emergent critics don't seem to get about the gospel- that Jesus came to bring life- not fire insurance.
Thank you for visiting my blog and for your comments.
You said you believe that's the wrong question. Well, while I would say it is definitely not the only question, it is an important question. But not because I don't "get" that we are to live well.
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to live like Jesus. And if you read more of my blog than just one post about this book, you will know that I don't believe in a "fire insurance" gospel. And I don't read any authors who do. My definition of living well is glorifying God with my life and never diminishing the role of the cross as the only way to salvation, pointing others to Christ through my faith in him as the only way.
Jesus said he is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him. He didn't just say he was the way to live. He is also the truth and the way. His death on the cross made that way for us. THAT is the good news of the gospel.
The Bible tells us that our lives here are like a vapor. We are here for a moment and then gone. We are to live for the unseen, not the seen, things. We are to live in continual expectation and longing for Christ's coming. We are to lay up treasure in heaven, not treasure on earth. Ultimately, it's not about this life. It's about the glory of the coming kingdom. That kingdom has already come in part, but not in full.
If you read this book, you will see that it's not written in a critical way. It's fair, balanced and thoughtful. The authors point out the things they agree with as well as the things they disagree with.
I cannot embrace this movement because I can't get behind any Christian who says there are many ways to God when that view contradicts Jesus' own words. And I have read quotes by the main emergent guys saying Budhists can stay Budhists (other faiths as well) and do not need to become Christians to find God. They just need to live well -- like Jesus did. I strongly disagree. Even Oprah embraces that gospel. I can't.
Living well AND dying well, as a follower of Jesus, is dependent upon our faith in Jesus as Savior (not just example of how to live well). His role in salvation did not originate with me or "fundamentalist minded emergent critics." He is the one who made the claims -- I'm just believing him.
I want to live well AND die well. What good is it if a man gains the whole world and loses his soul? (I don't know if I'm quoting that scripture verbatim -- probably not). I don't want to live entirely for this world and my "vapor" of time here, losing sight of eternity. I think by dying well, the author was meaning that a life lived in and for Christ is the best way to die well. My brief quote in no way conveys the entire message of this book.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your comments.
In rereading this sentence, I realized I needed to correct it.
A life lived in and for Christ is not the "best way" to die well. It is the "only way" to die well.
More importantly, it is the only way to truly live the abundant life that Jesus came to bring.
I think it is interesting that you say you have "read quotes" of those who somehow deny that Jesus is the only way. I am not sure what few sentences you are reading, but that is not what those taking part in the emergent church conversation are saying.
Yes, guys like Mclaren have wondered if one might be able to stay a Buddhist while embracing the substance of Christ and his life. It is an interesting question when you understand it is not an indictment against Christ's claim to be the way the truth and the life, but rather is an indictment against the religious framework of various traditions of Christianity as the only way.
All those I have read and talked with that lean into the emergent conversation believe that Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and they hold to the ancient creeds of the faith such as the Apostles or Nicene creeds.
I also do not know any emergent leaning follower of Christ that denies the cross. Yes, they may reject one specific theory of how redemption specifically works through the cross known as penal substitution, but this is not a rejection of the cross or Christ's atonement. One does not have to embrace the specific theory of penal substitution in order to embrace Christ or cross and his atonement.
Despite what they claim, critics of the emergent church often are not in reality arguing that Jesus is the only way. They are really arguing that their religious framework and beliefs like penal substitution are the only way.
I understand where you're coming from and I realize that a blog discussion isn't going to resolve these issues.
The quotes I'm talking about are directly out of their own (emergent leaders) books and interviews and they are numerous.
The authors of the book I've quoted from are not like the critics you are talking about. I know this because I've read their book. I'm not claiming there are no critics who fit your description. I'm just saying these guys don't.
Just to give you a little better understanding of me and where I'm coming from, I will tell you that I grew up in a church that taught I had to reach sinless perfection in this life to receive eternal life. I was not taught that Jesus' death on the cross accomplished my salvation. I was taught that he came to be my example and show that it could be done. Since leaving that church and finding the true gospel, the cross and Jesus' atonining sacrifice on my behalf have become everything to me. But not in the sense that I think it doesn't matter how I live. It's not a dilemma of one or the other. However, no matter how well I live, I am still a sinner in need of a Savior; Not just an example of how to live well. If an example of living well was the reason Jesus came, his death on the cross was unnecessary.
My sin made it necessary for Jesus to take God's wrath upon himself. He became sin for you and for me. I don't hear the emergent conversation talk about sin. You can't receive Christ or the gospel without acknowledging that the problem is our sin.
Rob Bell said in his book, Velvet Elvis, that Peter's problem (when trying to walk on the water) was not a lack of faith in Jesus, but rather, a lack of faith in himself. Where in the Bible are we taught to have faith in ourselves?
I don't agree that one can remain a Budhist and embrace Jesus as Savior. If one is embracing the "substance of Christ and his life" in the same way they embrace Budha and his example of how to live, Christ is not their God and Savior. I base this on the words of Jesus, not the critics of the emergent conversation.
From all I have read, Bell and Mclaren are closer to Universalism than Christianity. I could list a bunch of quotes for you, but I don't think you're probably interested in that, so I won't. Besides, they are out there if you're interested in reading them.
The book I've referenced is excellent. I highly recommend it to anyone who truly wants to understand the legitimate concerns of those who do not embrace the emergent movement.
If there is no substitutionary atonement, then we are still under the condemnation of God.
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Without Jesus substitutionary death on the Cross all would still be dead in their sin.
Sin must be punished because of God's Holy nature which includes God being Just.
We have a real problem in that we have sinned against an infintely Holy God and are under his condemnation.
God's nature of being Just causes a real dilemma as written in God's word: Proverbs 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
God being Just can not just forgive our sin, it must be punished. Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
The atonement through the blood of Christ was the wrath of God that man deserved being poured out opon Jesus.
Isaiah 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
See in verse 10, it Pleased God to crush Jesus, that is love that we can not understand. God taking on flesh and taking the wrath that man deserves.
The substitutionary penal atonement is why God is Just and the justifier of men. Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
I believe men hate the doctrine of the atonement because it absolutely strips away the least bit of "good" in man and any of his ability to contribute to his being made right with God.
That is what separates True biblical Christianity from every single religion that you can think of. Religion is man seeking to make himself "right" with God. True Christianity is man being given the grace to see that he his filthy and vile and in desparate need of a Savior in Jesus Christ and places his faith in Him alone, "nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the Cross I cling".
The emergent movement systematically attacks historical biblical Christianity. Many in the movement deny the faith through universalism.
Sound biblical answers to the movement: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/42-250.htm
God bless,
Todd E.
The conversation is not about galvanizing truth, but calling all truth into question. And for what purpose? "We don't like the narrow way...at least not the narrow way of real repentance, real holiness, and the finality of God's unyielding truth." Give us a narrow way that we can define as "cool," as "relevant," and one that will allow us all the kingdom of God while maintaining our lust for the world and the flesh.
Emergent disposes of God's unbending truth and makes a "philosophy" out of it. It disposes of Christ's absolute Lordship and makes a "guru" out of Him.
And...yes...Bell, Pagitt, and McLaren are Universalists all day long. In this, they do deny Christ as the only way. They refuse to stand flat footed and simply answer the question, "Was Peter right? Is Jesus the only name given unto men that they might be saved?" They refuse to answer because they DO NOT BELIEVE.
James, you need to get over being "post-modern cool" and really get back to the Word of God as your plumb line. The "conversation" is leading you astray. The gospel is not a conversation. It is the way, the truth, the life. Don't be deceived by "hollow and deceptive philosophy." That is all this junk is.
Of course, I know that I'm probably just one of those "mean spirited Fundamentalists" to you, but when it comes to deception and error, there just isn't a lot of room for running around the mulberry bush. I care about you enough to tell you exactly how it is. And this is how it is.
James, come back any time! You are always welcome.
Shari
Thanks for all the scripture. That was nice. Now, if you would like to do some home work you will find that there are other atonement theories through out Christian history that are scriptural and valid. Accepting the specific view of penal substitution which did not exist until 500 years after Christ is certainly one of them, but not an essential of Christianity. I am not saying the cross or the atonement is not essential but rather a particular systematic framework of understanding it.
Jslimbaugh,
I don’t think you are a “mean spirited fundamentalist” at all. In fact I believe you when you say that you care and that is why you say what you say. I do think the framework of fundamentalism has its problems, as also does post modernity.
I would caution you however from categorizing my argument and others as one that is just concerned with being “post modern cool”. It really is a cheap way to minimize the legitimate questions and journey people are on. I do not take part of this conversation because I think it is “cool”. I take part in it, believe it or not, because I actually am interested in what is true.
I am convinced more than anything that Jesus himself is Truth as is testified by scripture. What I find so intellectually, and even spiritually, dishonest though is the modern view of “absolute truth” as a philosophy in of itself being so integrated with faith and Christianity today that people can not see or admit that they can not tell the difference between the two.
Again, I believe that Jesus, as a divine person and God incarnate is absolute truth. Absolute means “total”, “complete”, “unlimited” and “supreme”. I have no problem believing this about Jesus, but from other people- no way. How can this kind of truth even be captured in human language? Not that we can’t touch it, relate to it, and interact with it, because I believe we can. Ultimately though, as a follower of Jesus I believe that the only way we can ultimately relate truth is through Jesus Christ himself. But when I hear people tell me that the very specific words and thoughts they have about something is “absolute”, even if it is on the right track and encourages us rightly to Jesus Christ as the embodiment of absolute truth, then I think they are nuts to think that their specific words and limited human understanding are “absolute”.
Truth came to us as a Person- a God Person. Jesus said that he came to “complete” and “fulfill” the scripture. The word “complete” is a synonym for “absolute”; and scripture could not convey complete and absolute truth the way Jesus himself could and does. This does not mean that scripture is “false”; no way! Scripture is faithful to pointing us TO the absolute complete truth that Christ is, even if scripture can not convey truth completely or as absolutely on its own. Again, this does not mean scripture isn’t God breathed, but humanity is also “God breathed”. Even before the fall being “God breathed” did not mean that humanity was equal to the absoluteness and completeness of God himself.
You ask for what purposes do we call what truth into question? One answer is because we are interested in what actually is true and what isn’t. Another answer is because of credibility. You know, sometimes we need to admit what we don’t know or can’t know before people will even hear us when we tell them what we do know.
You don’t have to agree with me at all. I understand if you don’t. But you should know that the lens in which you are looking at the Christian faith and scripture is not free from philosophy, and the trappings that can come with it. The idea of “absolute truth” as an epistemology is an idea that came out of the Greek world and was refined in the modernity of the west. This is a big part of your cultural lens and, whether you admit it to yourself or not, you apply it to scripture as you read it. Certainly post-modernity has its own trappings, but it does have similarities with pre-modernity in which was the context most of our scripture was written in. I think understanding this helps us better understand our Christian heritage, as the saints before us followed God through Christ, and ourselves as we seek to do the same.
I am sure for those that are so thoroughly entrenched in an epistemology of just western modernity they will think that anything different is somehow “deceptive philosophy”. They will somehow think that their beliefs are “only based on the bible”, not realizing that the way they approach the bible, with the epistemology they bring with them, effects how they read it. How can any of this be “absolute”?
No, I am not trying to be “cool” here; I am just trying to be honest as I follow Jesus. Thank you for sharing with me your views out of genuine concern, know that I share mine for the same reason.
Peace,
James
Why do you assume that I have not studied other "theories". I have and do not think they are scriptural. The substitutionary atonement is not just a theory, it is plainly revealed in scripture, no theory needed. I agree the scriptures are nice, they are not only nice they have the power to save the lost and dying of this world.
I know we may start chasing rabbit trails with this, but there is only one gospel. So, I whole heartedly believe that anything other than the substitutionary atonement is a different gospel. It is foundational truth, which we may have to agree to disagree. That is what concerns me greatly about the movement that it often appears that the only absolute truth is that there is not absolute truth and one of the worst things someone can do is hold to absolute truth.
I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree, because I have studied the postmodern/emergent movement and as a whole it attacks the foundation of Biblical Christianity. The majority of the leaders of the movement are nothing more than thinly veiled universalists. There are not many paths to God, there is only one and it is through Christ Jesus.
You see, I grew up in a cult that denied the Deity of Christ and by the grace of God, I was delivered. I am not about to embrace or give any credence to a movement that attacks the foundational truths that are in the bible, been there and done that and have the long-sleeve t-shirt.
God bless,
Todd E.
you wrote, "Why do you assume that I have not studied other "theories". I have and do not think they are scriptural. "
Wow, Ransom theory, Satisfaction theory, and Christus victor theory all not scriptural?????? Now I know you haven't studied them.
It is hard to talk about these things when you don't know about them. Even harder when you condemn things that have been accepted as historical Christian orthodox thinking for centuries.
These things have nothing to do with the crazy cult that denied the deity of Christ you thankfully got free from. Just because you don't know about something or understand it does not mean it is cult, because you just through most of the early church and early church fathers under the bus for not being "scriptural". It is all kind of absurd.
Peace,
James