In the world? Or of the world?

How close do you need to get to being “of the world” in order to reach the unchurched?  I ask this because it has been something I have noticed over the years.  With the proliferation of “Seeker-Sensitive” churches and the “Emergent/Emerging” church movement, the emphasis has been moved to a Christianity that seems willing to “blur the lines” of doctrine in order to reach those who were not previously reached.  I appreciate the desires of these movements and I appreciate the heart behind them.  It has a lot in common with the heart of the apostle Paul who followed the idea of being “all things to all people.”  I am reminded in many ways of the approach taken by our master, the LORD Jesus Christ.  Jesus was not against dining with the “unclean” and making them feel loved.  He never left anyone out of the ever-abiding glow of His grace who sincerely wanted in.

Here, however, is where the similarities end.  Unfortunately, the going trend I have seen from these movements is not “bring the unchurched out of the world and introduce them to the life that is found in Jesus Christ.”  Instead, it concerns itself with “worship experience design,” is Ted Kluck called it in “Why We Are not Emergent.”  The substance of the Gospel that brought repentance and a turn of one’s life toward God is strangely absent in this new worship experience that much like Miller Lite, tastes great but has less filling.

The funny thing is this:  while the current church movement is trying to move away from the reality of sin and the chasm between God and us, Jesus never once backed off of that issue.  Jesus was quick to offer grace to those willing to receive it, but just as quick to point out their sinfulness as well.  I think part of the allure of the LORD is that even though he was just in pointing out the fallen state of man, He did so while holding out grace in His lovingly outstretched hands.

I think this is to be the model of Christianity:  Holding out the open hand of grace that is willing to point steadfastly toward the truth of the redeeming gospel of Jesus Christ, that we may both delight in the Lord’s mercy as well as rest in His law and thereby live in peace.  The church grew after Christ’s death precisely by not being part of the world.  We should do the same.

Carelessness in Scholarship

I have been reading a book entitled “Why We’re Not Emergent”, by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, and I am actually enthralled with the book. These two young guys, who should totally be into the emergent movement, are actually very into conservative orthodoxy.  The thing that stands out to me, though, is a passage they took from one Rob Bell, the author of “Velvet Elvis.”

In the passage, Bell basically sets out to challenge the necessity of the virgin birth.  He compares it to the mystery cults of Dionysus and Mithras, and basically is stating that whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin, isn’t his way still the best way to live?  Now, I agree with him that the Jesus Way is the best way, but let’s get serious here.  First of all, let’s all take a moment and really look at this mystery cult thing.  First, they were popular WAY after Christianity.  Second, let’s look at both Dionysus’ and Mithras’ birth accounts.  First, Dionysus was saved from his mother’s burning carcass by Zeus, who impregnated Semele the same way I impregnated my wife.  He sewed the child, wait for it, IN HIS THIGH, and the child gestated there.    And the parallelism is totally absent, by the way.  Dionysus was born of a mother and a god via intercourse.  Jesus was born of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit filling her.

Now, for Mithras.  Mithras emerged totally formed from a rock.  Yes, rocks are virgins in that they are not capable of intercourse, but come on!  This is ridiculous.  For someone who considers themselves to be a leader (well, emergent voices don’t consider themselves leaders at all, which is why some of them are screwy), you can’t go around speaking as a voice people respect when you yourself have not put enough scholarship into the matter to know for yourself.

Second, his casting aside the virgin birth obviously shows no knowledge of scripture.  Here’s the short of it:  God promised David an eternal throne for his descendents.  Jeconiah was the last king of Judah before the exile.  God through Jeremiah proclaimed that Jeconiah was to be marked as childless, and none of his seed would sit on the throne of Judah or Israel or anything else for that matter.  So, while Jeconiah’s bloodline still had legal claim to the throne, they never did possess it again.  Joseph was from this bloodline.  God used Mary, who was a descendent of David through his son Nathan, as Jesus’ mother and used Joseph as his adoptive father.  As legal firstborn of Joseph, Jesus was the rightful legal heir.  Without having Jeconiah’s blood in His veins, He qualified by God’s requirements to be King of Israel.  Besides, either Jesus was born of a virgin, or He was conceived out of wedlock.  Seeing as how Messiah was to be a sacrificial lamb, that wouldn’t work, because He would then be blemished.

I agree to some extent with Rob Bell.  Yes, Jesus’ way of life is a far preferred way, but you can’t throw out sound doctrine.  Truth and Grace are inseparable.