Excellent Essay on the Emerging Church

I just read an excellent essay on the Emerging Church by my former Theology Professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I havn't read too much on the Emerging Church, but I have read a fair share. I believe this to be the best treatment of the Emerging Church I have read yet. It is only 24 pages long so go check it out. You can get to it by going to www.theologyprof.com
The article is entitled Fast Friends or Future Foes: The Emerging Church and Southern Baptists
I trust that you will enjoy his balanced critique and forward glance of the Emerging Church.

2 New Postings

I just posted two of my latest projects from school. The first is a book review of an excellent book by D.A. Carson entitled "Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church." I recommend the book to anyone and everyone. It is difficult to read at points, but it is well worth the struggle.

The second is a research/reflection paper on culture. Both in regard to what it is, and how it expresses itself. This is an important topic, because we live in the midst of a culture that shapes us and the way we think. It is helpful to know what culture is and how it expresses itself so that we might know how to discern what is good and bad in it. So many today are being shaped by culture in ways that they do not even know. Enjoy!

Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church; A Book Review

As with anything in this world, Christianity is in a constant state of change. Changing with the times is good for Christianity only in so far as it can be done without compromising it’s unique doctrine and practice. This in no way makes changing with the times not worth it. No Being culturally relevant is worth running the risk of being affected by our culture in negative ways. But if Christianity is going to seek relevance she must always guard against leaning over so close to the world that she ends up “falling in.”

D.A. Carson, in Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church, is concerned that some of the leaders of the emerging church movement have done just this–they have “fallen in” in their attempts at cultural relevance. The bulk of Carson’s concern is with those whom he considers to be the most outspoken representatives of the emerging church--Brian McLaren and Steve Chalke. Carson’s purpose is not to condemn the emerging church movement, but rather to: 1.both commend the strengths of the emerging church movement and warn of its dangers, and 2. to challenge other emerging church leaders to “rise up and call McLaren and Chalke to account where they have clearly abandoned what the Bible actually says.”

Carson was born on December 21, 1946 to very godly parents (Thomas and Elizabeth Carson) in Montreal, Canada. Carson got a degree in Chemistry and Mathematics from McGill University (Montreal), a Master of Divinity Degree from Central Baptist Seminary (Toronto), and a PhD in Philosophy in New Testament from Cambridge University. He is presently research professor in New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Carson is known as one of the most prominent Christian scholars in the twenty-first century. He has written over forty-five books. Carson is more than qualified to write a critique on the emerging church conversation. In fact, two of his most acclaimed books are written on the subject of Christianity and culture.

Argument of the Book

Before critiquing the emerging church, he sets out to faithfully present the main distinctives of the movement (Chapter 1). Many have expressed frustration at Carson’s over generalizations and misrepresentations of the emerging church, but this is why he prefaces the whole book with this statement:

“The Diversity of the movement, as well as its porous borders, ensure that I have not found it easy to portray it fairly. I have tried to be accurate in description and evenhanded in evaluation. Even so, I must underscore the fact that when I am forced (for the sake of avoiding endless qualifications) to resort to generalizations in order to move the discussion along, one can almost always find some people in the movement for whom the generalization is not true...”

Carson identifies the emerging church movement as a protest movement. They are in protest against three things: evangelical fundamentalism (and it’s discriminating, out-of-date, meta-narrative, modern methods), modernism (and it’s overly confident, dispassionate absolutism), and the megachurch movement (both in it’s emphasis on reaching the already-churched, and in it’s institutional nature) .

Although Carson has issues with much of the emerging church, he does see some things in it that are worthy of imitation. Much of this movement, after all, is the result of genuine Christians who have had issues with evangelical Christianity and it’s neglect of important aspects of Scripture. Carson agrees that evangelical Christianity has it’s flaws, and therefore lists four strengths that he sees in the emerging church movement (Chapter 2). The four strengths include: their attempts at cultural relevance; their rejection of passionless inauthentic Christianity; their recognition of our limited, culture-bound mind set; their undiscriminating evangelistic zeal; and their embrace of forgotten aspects of tradition. All five of these strengths are things that could help evangelical Christianity be more faithful to God and His Word.

In Chapters 3-6 Carson discusses the weaknesses of the emerging church movement. His first critique is that their portrayal of modernism is altogether simplistic. According to Carson, they portray Christianity under modernism as “rationalistic, cerebral rather than emotional, and given toward arrogance because of it’s absolutism.” He then goes on to give some convincing examples of Christians (Spurgeon, Packer etc.) who successfully rose above the cocky pretensions of modernism.

Carson also has issue with the emerging church’s understanding of what postmodernism is. While Mclaren thinks of postmodernism in terms of social change, Carson prefers to think of postmodernism in terms of epistemology, and views social change as one of the “correlatives” of postmodernity and it’s epistemological approach. Carson points out that although the leaders of the emerging church say that they do not completely reject modernism, they never say anything good about it. In the same way, even though the leaders of the emerging church say that they do not wholly embrace postmodernism, they never say anything bad about it (Chapter 5).

Because the emerging church is primarily affected by postmodernism and it’s epistemological approach, Carson spends Chapter 4 giving a brief survey of premodernism, modernism, postmodernism. His conclusion is that postmodernism, like modernism, starts with self as the arbiter of all truth. But that postmodernity, unlike modernity, has a negative view of the abilities of the human mind, which leads them to conclude that nothing can be known because of the limited perspective of the finite knower. After this survey, Carson shows how postmodernism’s premise that we are limited in what we can know because of our culture-bound perspective can be reconciled with modernism premise that we can know absolute truth.

The most pointed critiques of the emerging church are found in Chapters 5-6. The majority of Carson’s concerns have to do with their commitment to postmodern ideals over/against the Bible. He points out that many of the fundamental issues in the Bible are questioned by some of the leaders of the emerging church. For example, he discusses Stanely Grenz and his near pluralistic view of other religions, McLaren and his weak stance on both homosexuality and hell, and Chalke and his outright rejection of the atonement.

In Chapters 6-7 Carson provides the reader with a large amount of scripture that speak to some of the downfalls of the emerging church. The majority of the scriptures speak about knowledge and how we can come to know things for certain. Some of the other scriptures cited deal with morality, the superiority of Christianity, the place for objective-historical evidence, and our need for the Bible to help us interpret our experiences.

Carson ends the book with a short one-page challenge to the emerging church and it’s leaders. His challenge goes as follows:

“If emerging church leaders wish to become a long-term prophetic voice that produces enduring fruit and that does not drift off toward progressive sectarianism and even, in the worst instances, outright heresy, they must listen at least as carefully to criticisms of their movement as they transparently want others to listen to them. They need to spend more time in careful study of Scripture and theology than they are doing, even if that takes away some of the hours they have to devoted to trying to understand the culture in which they find themselves. They need to take great pains not to distort history and theology alike, by not caricaturing their opponents and not playing manipulative games. And above all, they need to embrace all categories of the Scriptures, with the Scripture’s balance and cohesion–including... what the Bible says about truth, human knowing, and related matters.

If they manage this self-correction and worry less about who is or who is not emergent and rather more about learning simultaneously to be faithful to the Bible and effective in evangelizing the rising number of alienated biblical illiterates in our culture, they may end up preserving the gains of their movement while helping brothers and sisters who are more culturally conservative than they are to reconnect with the culture.”

Use for Ministry

Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church is a must-read for modern day leaders in Christianity. Although Carson’s representation of the emerging church is not true of everyone in the movement, he does an excellent job of exposing some dangers of those who have over reacted against evangelical Christianity and modernism. Carson’s approach expresses a balance that is needed in a society that seems to only operate in extremes.

Carson presents two helpful pictures of how to be culturally relevant in our postmodern context without, in any way, neglecting the ultra importance of knowledge in the Christian life. The first is found in Chapter 2 where he speaks of a non-emerging, doctrinally driven church in New York City that has impacted it’s surroundings without compromising it’s doctrine. The other is found in Chapter 5 where Carson speaks of his own evangelistic efforts. He often creatively uses the book of Revelation, which utilizes vivid word pictures, in his evangelism because people, in our postmodern context, are more likely to be more interested. Here we do not see a rejection of the Bible for the sake of relevance, rather we see how Biblical doctrine can be espoused when thoughtful creativity is involved.

This book is also helpful in understanding our present cultural context and how it got to be the way it is. I personally have benefitted in my evangelism because of Carson and his cultural studies. The models he provides for explaining how a finite knower can know things for certain without knowing things exhaustively have also been of great benefit (Chapter 4).

Cliche- "I have a personal relationship with God" Part 4

What does it mean when someone is biblical? How does one become more biblical?

Let me answer this first by explaining what being biblical does not mean. Being Biblical does not necessarily mean that you hold fast to Biblical truth. Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics hold to Biblical truth. Athiest's hold to Biblical truth (because they affirm the necessity for love etc.). Everyone holds to biblical truth.

What then does it mean to be biblical? Being Biblical has to do with holding to everything that the Bible says. Being Biblical has to do with emphasizing the things that the Bible emphasizes, and to the extent that the Bible emphasizes it.

Many today hold to the biblical idea that Christians are to have a personal relationship with God, BUT they are not Biblical about it. In other words, they put an unbiblical emphasis on it and therefore ignore or downplay other crucial aspects of the Scriptures. This fault is most evidently seen in the modern day Emergent Church movement. I have had numerous talks with people who are embracing the ideals and convictions of the Emergent church movement.

Now, the Emergent church movement is far too diverse to generalize it on the whole, but one of the overwhelming characteristics of the movement is the pessimistic view of the institutional structure of Church. The Emergent church strives to get the church back to the way it was in the NT. Therefore, they see the value of not having formal meetings, pews, pulpits. They do not dress up when they go to church. Many of them meet in houses.

Many of them even go so far that they say that going to church really isn't all that important. The important thing is that you have your own personal time with God. The Mega Church movement, in many cases, has done the same exact thing. Many Mega Churches provide the option of becoming a member through the television. The idea is that you become a member of a church, but rather than actually going to the service, you attend church by watching the service on TV. Why? Because the matter of importance is not in going to church, but in having a personal relationship with God.

I have talked to many people who refuse to go to church, because they "don't need" it. They say that their church is in their heart. Whatever that means. "All that matters," they say, "is that I have a personal relationship with God."

Are these sorts of people Biblical? NO! Of course not. Let me ask another question. Are these people embracing biblical truth? Of course they are! They are embracing the fact that Christians are to have a personal relationship with God, BUT they are unbiblical because they are putting more emphasis on it than the Bible does so much so that they ignore and misinterpret other aspects of the Scriptures.

Are Christians to embrace this idea that we are to have a personal relationship with God? Yes, of course we are, but we are to be Biblical about it.

What does it mean, from the Bible, to have a personal relationship with God? What does this look like? Guess what! The Bible does not go into great detail about this. The Bible puts great emphasis on prayer, but, according to the Bible, what is prayer? Prayer is essentially petition. Prayer is asking God for stuff! Look at the model prayer in Matt 6. Every little part of that prayer is petition except for the very beginning when Jesus addresses God as "Our Father who art in heaven."

Prayer, according to the Bible, is not straight up communion with God. I am not saying that the Bible does not teach that we are to have straight up communion with God, I am merely saying that straight up communion with God is not prayer. Prayer is pettition.

The Bible commands us to "rejoice in the Lord always." This obviously has to do with a believers joy in the Lord. Thankfulness for who He is and what He does. The Bible says in John 17 that eternal life is knowing God. What does it mean to "know God?"

Let me look unspiritual for a moment. You cannot know God without first knowing about God. Knowing God begins with knowledge and fact. You cannot know God without first learning about Him. The more you know about God the greater your relationship with God becomes.

I believe that the Bible is much more practical than we could ever imagine. I think knowing God has more to do with every day life than it does with our devotionals.

Knowing God starts out with embracing theology. "What? Man! You must be a cold hearted seminarian! Knowing God begins with embracing theology?" Yes! Knowing God begins with the recognition of who He is and what He has done. You cannot have a relationship with God apart from the knowledge of what He has done for you in Christ.

Your relationship with God begins at conversion. The knowledge of what God has done for you in Christ fuels and sustains your relationship with God. The great bulk of a believers relationship with God has to do with over flowing (intellectual) gratitude for what God has done for us in Christ. The more the believer knows about what God has saved him/her from, the more thankful that believer is. The more the believer knows about who God is the more the believer wants to know God, the more the beliver wants to know about God, the more the beliver loves God.

Why do we believe that devotionals and prayer times are the places where the believer experiences God? Where, from the Scriptures, do we have warrant to teach and believe this? The Bible, as read in context, does teach that the Spirit is present with us while we are praying. This is why we can "pray in the Spirit." We pray what the Spirit brings to mind. The Bible also teaches that the Spirit is present when we read our Bibles. This is why David asks that he might behold wonderful things in the law. But the Spirit is just as present in the work force, and while you are driving, or while you are on the phone with your grandmother.

For some unknown reason when most Christians talk about prayer and devotions they speak as if that is where they meet the Lord. Devotionals are the place where it is just them and God, and this is the place where if they are silent enough they will hear the voice of God. This place of solitude is where the believers relationship with God is the strongest. Where does this teaching come from? It is true that Jesus went off by Himself on occassion to pray and be alone with God, and it is true that Christians ought to pray continuously, but where ever does the Bible teach that this is where our relationship with God is at it's best. Where, in the Scriptures, does it say that a believer's relationship with God will only be as strong and vibrant to the degree that the believer spends time in devotion and prayer?

Why are prayer and devotional reading held in such high esteem in today's version of Chrstianity? Are they held as high in the Bible?

Here is an honest answer: The Bible does hold them in high esteem. In fact, the Bible commands us to pray. The one who does not live a life of prayer is one who lives a life of sin. The Bible also holds Bible reading in high esteem. The Bible is the place where Christian's are informed of what is right and true. The Bible is that which forms and shapes our beliefs, values etc. The Bible holds these things in the highest regard. But the Bible does not necessarily distinguish between devotional and intellectual reading of the Scriptures. Why do we make these distinctions. When the Bible is read correctly application and devotion flow out of the text. One of the greatest enemies to context driven interpretation is devotional reading (I will speak about this in a later post).

Why do we enshrine prayer and devotional reading to be that which characterizes the truly spiritual ones? Does the Bible give us warrant to do this?

The Bible does not set up prayer and devotional reading to be that which helps us gauge another believer's spirituality. 1 Cor 13 tells us that love for the brethren is that which expresses spiritual maturity. The Corinthian church was experiencing much division and grief. One of the things that fueled this division was a misunderstanding of spiritual gifts. The Corinthian church was very charismatic. Therefore the spiritual gifts of tongues and prophecy were held in high regard. Paul had no conflict with this. What Paul was concerned about was how they were using the gifts as a way of gauging how spiritual they were. The more one spoke in tongues the more spiritual he was. The use of spiritual gifts, according to the Corinthian church, was the test of true spirituality. This was causing all sorts of problems in the church. Paul confronted their problem by telling them that love, not the use of spiritual gifts, is the way to gauge how spiritual someone is.

How Spiritual are you? Well, How much do you love?

How Spiritual are you? How close are you with the Lord? How is your personal relationship with God these days? "Well Jimmy, I pray 3 hours a day. I read my Bible devotionally 3 hours a day as well?" Well, since when is that the gauge of Spirituality?

Remember that Jesus fought against the Pharisees because of they used prayer and devotion to show others exactly how Spiritual they were. In this context Jesus teaches that humility is that which exhibits spirituality. Humility expressed in prayer and devotion divorced from the compliments of men. The Publican in the temple parable (Luke 17) also teaches that humility rather than expressive prayer is that which exhibits true spirituality. Jesus surely did emphasize prayer, but he emphasized forgiveness and love just as much if not more.

A personal relationship with God cannot be had apart from prayer, but that does not mean that prayer is the primary place where this relationship is fostered.

This misunderstanding is the result of over simplying the teachings of Christainity. How is a relationship with God fostered and strengthened? It is strengthed through a life of prayer, Bible study, singing, working, community with believers, evangelism, rearing children, believing the Words of God, memorizing Scripture, working heartily for the Lord, and many other things. This is a very difficult thing for Christians to embrace, because then it becomes a bit more complicated to judge how spiritual the guy sitting next to you in the pew is.

Spirituality and a close walk with God, in the NT, seem to always have something to do with serving others. The one who walks closest with God is the one who is not all that interested on how well he/she is performing the Christian life. He does not have time to keep a close look on how well he is performing because he is too busy serving others.

What does it mean to have a personal relationship with God? If you haven't caught on yet, I haven't really answered this question with any great precision. Why? Because the Bible does not answer this question with any great precision. What I am trying to stress in this post, and especially in this blog, is that your idea of what is true and right ought to come from context driven interpretation. Most people's idea of Spirituality does not come from the Bible. It comes from the modern day slogans of pop culture Christianity.

The one who has a deep personal relationship with God will pray, but he will not emphasize prayer to the exclusion of evangelism, or Bible study or anything like this. The one who has a deep relationship with God will desire fellowship and will seek to love the brethren in practical ways. The one who has a deep relationship with God will believe certain things and reject certain things.

How does one get a personal relationship with God? It does not necessarily come through 6 hr/day devotionals. It comes through obeying the Word of God. It starts with a knowledge of what God has done in Christ. It then expresses itself in obedience to God's commands, and love for God and the brethren.

What does it mean to have a personal relationship with God? I can't necessarily nail it down. God is not here with me in human form. I can't just have a flowing conversation with Him. I can't hold his hand or look Him in the eye. A personal relationship with God has to do with knowledge and joy brought about by that knowledge. It has to do with obedience. It has to do with love. It has to do with service. It has to do with identifying with the Savior in his life and death. It has to do with so many things.

In Philippians 3 Paul says that he wants to know Christ and "the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings." You see, knowing God and having a personal relationship with Him here is directly tied to suffering.

I want to form my idea of what a personal relationship with God is by context driven interpretation. I do not want to say more than what the Bible says when read in context, but I also do not want to say less than what the Bible says read in context.

Most people will not like what I have written in this post for two reasons. First of all, some people will not like this post because a Biblical view of spirituality is not quite so cut and dry. It makes it harder to judge whether a person has a vibrant relationship with God or not. The loud guy who always raises his hands in the worship service and evangelizes like a mad man and knows evertyhing about theology may not be the most mature Chrsitian in the church, because he might not be full of love. At the same time the quiet guy right next to him who is simple minded about everything and never really says anything, but prays a lot also may not be all that spiritual. How can I say this? Well, he may pray to be known as a prayer warrior (you know, like a pharisee), and he also may neglect the command to evangelize.

And second, many may not like this because it makes it harder for them. Being godly is no longer easy. Being godly consists of giving your whole life to the Lord, not just during your devotionals. This is also difficult to swallow because then it becomes all too apparent how ungodly you actually are.

Where do we get our idea of who is close with the Lord and who is not? We need to get it from the Bible. We need to get it from the Bible read in context. It is very dangerous when we start throwing our own ideas of spirituality upon the Bible. This is exactly what the Corinthian chuch did, and it created division. It turned their church into a competitive arena where Christian's would show off and compare their great spirituality. They became a bunch of pharisees.

According to the Bible what is the greatest test of a close relationship with God? From reading scripture in context I am convinced that love and humility are the greatest tests of spirituality.

From our study, how does one pursue a personal relationship with God? By obeying the Word of God. God is not all that impressed with those who pray endlessly when they neglect other pertinent aspects of His Word. Obey God! Learn more about Him! There is no secret to spirituality. It has to do with believing, obeying, and loving God. It has to do with serving and forgiving the Brethren. This is how a relationship with God is nurtured and fostered.

Many people today are running to and fro doing all sorts of crazy things to strengthen their relationship with God. They are getting all bent out of shape and nervous because they just don't seem to be close enough to God. What is their remedy? Well, I need to pray more. I need to pray more. I need to journal more. I need to fast more.

What is the result of all this striving? First of all, if they fail at it they feel that God does not love them. Second of all, they learn to trust in their good performance rather than the Cross. Third of all, if they succeed, they start to look down on those who don't pray or fast as much as they do. They then neglect the wheighter matters of the law. You know, things like forgiveness, love, and humility.

Ideas and goals that are not formed by the Word of God are dangerous.

Context Is King! Sola Scriptura! Be formed by the Word of God alone! Even if it merkys the waters a bit. This clouding of the water may be the thing that forces you to cling to the cross. This clouding of the water may be the thing that keeps you from looking down on others.

In the next post I will share those moments in my life when I knew that I was closest to the Lord.

Sola Scriptura--The Prey of Cultural Influence

As said before, these next few entries will be aimed at exposing those things that most often hinder our ability to read the Bible in context. They will hopefully shed much light on how we often force the Bible to say what it is not saying.

The first barrier to correct interpretation that I want to talk about is cultural influence. This may take two or three entries. Christianity has been effected in a great way by the culture in which it exists. Some of it's effects have been wonderful and some of it's effects have been awful. Each culture brings both good and bad to the table.

One of the great new movements that is sweeping across the country is the Emergent Church movement. This movement is way too large and diverse to make any general characterizations, but a few things can be said for sure. The Emergent type churches see the need for Christians to engage their culture in greater and more profound ways. The culture has changed much over the past few decades, and therefore our approach to the people in our culture ought to be different than it was before. For example, you would approach evangelism much different if you were in China than you would in America, because China's culture is much different than America's.

I am not part of an Emergent Church, but I do see the value of much of what they are pushing for. I also see many (at least) potential problems with this movement. I recently read Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell and was not overly impressed (Not all Emergent types are like Bell). Bell had many positive things to say, but many of His statements were informed more by culture than by Scripture. In fact, it appeared that his view of Christianity has been shaped, in a great way, by culture.

It appears that culture has so influenced Bell that he looks more to what culture is saying, than he does to Scripture, to judge what is best and most important for 21st Cent Christianity.
For example, on pg 167 Bell informs us that if we have an agenda, when talking to non-believers, then we cannot truly love them. He says, "we have to surrender our agendas." Bell could not be further from Biblical truth. The 21st Cent culture teaches that love (go ahead and give it [love] your own definition) is to be the only agenda. The Bible teaches that the Gospel is to be the agenda. The Gospel then produces love. Paul, in Col 4 tells us to "make the most of every opportunity." We are to let our speech be seasoned with salt and grace so that we might be able to know how to answer every man. You are disobedient if you are agendaless. Culture has so shaped Bell's ideals and practices that he has missed the primary role of the community of faith, which is intentional evangelism.

Bell's problem is much like the RCC's (Roman Catholic Church). The RCC interpreted the Bible in light of Church tradition. Bell interprets scripture in light of 21st Century Postmodern Cultural influences.

This Catholic tendency in much of the Emergent Church has caused them to go so far that many (not all) of them question whether or not Homosexuality is a sin. Mclaren even questions the Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which is the heart of the Gospel. Why does he reject the Biblical view of the atonement? Well, why do the Catholics believe in purgatory (something that cannot be found in scripture)? Because they are not heeding the call of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

Now,

Christians of all sorts: Doctrinal types, Practical types, Charismatic types, Arminian types, Calvinst types, Denominational types, Introspective types, Emergent types, Emerging types, Democratic types, and yes even Republican types, see the need for change to occur in modern day Christianity. All agree that Christianity is in need of change. What we cannot find agreement on is what needs to be changed, and how that change needs to be brought about.

One obvious question is raised in light of this observation; How are we going to discern that which is most in need of change for Christianity here and now? In answering this question it is most important to start with what the Word of God has to say. Only after the Bible has been consulted can we then look elsewhere to find help. Our search for what needs to be changed must begin with the Word of God so that we may have a sufficient rule by which to discern those changes which would be helpful for Christianity, and those which would be destructive.

For example, suppose we were to seek to change the face of Christianity for the sake of reaching those in a culture which hated absolute truth (which is true of much of our radical postmodern culture). If we were to start our search for change by first consulting the culture, which says that absolute truth is bad, then the Bible would become useless (since it is full of absolute truths). Is there a problem in this? Of course there is. Why? Because the Bible is the very Word of God given to us by God and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteous (1 Tim 3:16). And because the Word of God is the revelation of who God is and what He expects of us. God’s will is revealed in the Bible, not in the culture. Therefore, if one were to set out to change Christianity to better reach a certain culture, it must first start with the Bible so that it may discern those aspects of the culture which are not right.

What would be the purpose of reaching the culture in the first place but to change that which is bad about the people and make it good. But if we use the culture, which has many areas of weakness, of discerning what is bad in the culture, will we be able to discern what is in need of change? Of course not, because we will be using the flawed culture as a standard to decide what is flawed about the culture so that it can be changed. The reason why the Bible must be the starting point is because it is the only perfect standard. The Bible does not need to be changed, but the culture does. If the standard we use to decide if something is flawed is flawed in and of itself then we can have no assurance that our standard will be able to accurately detect that which is flawed in the thing being tested. If a perfect standard is used however then anything that does not agree with that perfect standard can immediately be seen for what it is–a flaw that needs to be changed. The reason the Bible is the standard is because the Bible is not in need of change, therefore the agenda’s set forth by the Bible (i.e. intentional evangelism, seeing homosexuality as a sin, upholding Penal Subsubstitutionary Atonement etc.) are to be that which we use to discern what is good and bad about culture.

All changes, therefore, must be grounded first and foremost on the Bible. The problem with much of the American church is that it does not begin with the word of God, but rather with the culture. Therefore it morphs Christianity to look just like the culture since the rule and standard is not the Word of God, but the culture itself. Christianity then begins to be tested by the truth claims of the culture and there you have it, Christians begin to speak more about the changes that need to take place within the church than they do about the changes that need to take place within the culture. I do not deny that Churches are always in need of becoming more conformed to the Bible. But the NT emphasizes the fact that Christians are to go out and effect and change the culture more than the culture is to come in and effect the church. The goal of the church becomes to look more like the culture rather than more like the NT church. Much of the church therefore adopts the agenda’s of postmodern culture rather than the agenda’s of scripture, which are to be what informs us of what agenda’s are most important. Culture cannot inform us of what is most important, only the Bible can do that.

These misunderstanding of how to assess the problems of Christianity, at the outset, may not seem like all that big of a deal. Many conservative fundamentalist Christians find it hard to speak out against the average church in America because they have not completely rejected the Bible. No, the majority of churches have not rejected the Bible, but they have distorted the Bible, because they force the Bible to cater to the agenda’s and slogans of
post modern culture, in much the same way that the RCC has distorted the Bible because they force it to cater to the agenda's and slogans of Church Tradition.

It is of utmost importance that Christians do what they can to find ways to cater to the needs of the culture in which they are presenting the Gospel, but it is also of utmost importance that these same Christians do not learn more from their culture than they do from the Word of God. Christians are to inform the culture of what is most important, the culture is not to inform Christian’s as to what is most important. Christians are to go forth and do what they can to meet the felt needs of their culture, but this is never to take precedence over what is most important. Meeting the felt needs of a certain culture is to be the platform upon which the Christian works to meet that cultures true needs–those needs which are revealed in the Bible.

I have much more to say about cultural influence. The next post will be more geared toward how culture influence hinders even non-emergent types to not heed the call of Sola Scriptura.