I picked up a copy of Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives at the library recently. It’s one of those point/counterpoint books, in which five church leaders (Mark Driscoll, John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, and Karen Ward) each write a chapter on what they believe about the church’s role, and the other four authors all make a short response/rebuttal.

The first chapter, called “The Emerging Church and Biblicist Theology”, is by Seattle’s own Mark Driscoll - pastor of the Calvinist hipster megachurch Mars Hill Church, blogger at TheResurgence, and all-around bad-boy of the conservative evangelical subculture (Donald Miller’s famously referred to him in Blue Like Jazz as “Mark the cussing pastor”). Mark’s main objective in his chapter, as evidenced by the 700 (!) Scripture verses he references in the endnotes, is “to defend the traditional Protestant doctrines of scriptural authority, the Trinitarian nature of God, and the substitutionary atonement” (p.16, from the introduction by Robert Webber).

Mark represents a passionate adherence to the particulars of a Reformed evangelical theology, and in that sense, is not typically emerging. He is a theological traditionalist leading a cutting-edge church that ministers primarily to the new emerging generation. (ibid.)

I think that his perspective is valid, and I understand the concern of [some] theological “conservatives” that some doctrinal essentials are being overlooked or ignored [by some] in the “emerging conversation”. With that said, however, I think that Mark setting himself up as the arbiter of truth is a bit disingenuous. “This chapter is my attempt to address three of the hottest theological issues in our day and to correct emerging error with biblical orthodoxy” (p.21). I get the impression that he thinks that he’s the only one that does theology; that if everyone else would just read the Bible and take it seriously, they would come to the same conclusions that he has.

The following lengthy quote is from pages 34-35. It’s the climax of his chapter, in which he defines and defends his position on hell:

The following Old Testament truths about hell are worthy of note:

• Hell is unending, conscious, loathsome torment.¹⁵⁹
• Heaven and hell will have people in them forever.¹⁶⁰

Also, Jesus had much to say about hell, including the following:

• The pain in hell will be excruciating, causing “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”¹⁶¹
• The torture in hell comes from Jesus.¹⁶²
• Jesus is coming to throw people into the fiery furnace of hell.¹⁶³
• The physical pain of hell is like being burned in a fire.¹⁶⁴
• Unrepentant sinners will be thrown into a fiery hell.¹⁶⁵
• Hypocrites will be butchered and spend eternity in pain.¹⁶⁶
• God will send unbelievers to the same fate as Satan and demons.¹⁶⁷
• Jesus said the eternal torment of Isaiah 66:22-24 is literally coming.¹⁶⁸
• The punishment of hell is like a painful beating.¹⁶⁹
• Hell is a place of unending torment.¹⁷⁰

Lastly, the apostles also speak of hell in the following terms:

• Jesus will repay unrepentant sinners with everlasting destruction.¹⁷¹
• Jesus today holds the unrighteous in punishment.¹⁷²
• Jesus will rule over hell as well as heaven.¹⁷³
• Hell is like spending eternity in a fiery lake of burning sulfur.¹⁷⁴

---

Footnotes:
¹⁵⁹ Is 66.22-24
¹⁶⁰ Dn 12.1-2
¹⁶¹ Mt 8.11-12; 13.40-42, 49-50; 22.13; 24.50-51; 25.30; Lk 13.27-28
¹⁶² Mt 8.29; Mk 1.24; 5.7
¹⁶³ Mt 13.40-42, 49-50; 22.13; 25.30
¹⁶⁴ Mt 13.49-50; 18.8-9; 25.41; Mk 9.43-48; Lk 16.19-31
¹⁶⁵ Mt 18.8-9; Mk 9.43-48
¹⁶⁶ Mt 24.50-51
¹⁶⁷ Mt 25.41
¹⁶⁸ Mk 9.43-48
¹⁶⁹ Lk 12.46-48
¹⁷⁰ Lk 16.19-31
¹⁷¹ 2Th 1.6-9
¹⁷² 2Pt 2.9
¹⁷³ Rv 14.9-11
¹⁷⁴ Rv 19.20; 20.10-15; 21.8

Honestly, this section has me fuming. To my reading, Mark’s tone seems to be giddy to “correct [this] emerging error”. I can understand and respect that people hold to the traditional doctrine of hell as “eternal, conscious torment”, but I just can’t deal with the smugness, superiority and presumption that he exudes here.

Additionally, I think that his over-eagerness to stand up for orthodoxy causes him to overstate his arguments. I didn’t have the time or energy to investigate all the verses he cited, but two of the claims struck me as preposterous, if not disgusting - and here I find his exegesis dubious at best:

• The torture in hell comes from Jesus
  Mt 8.29 - “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”
  Mk 1.24 - “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
  Mk 5.7 - He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won’t torture me!”
  So, some demons ask Jesus not to torture them, and Mark sees this as saying that Jesus does torture? That’s just wrong - not to mention that even if it were a valid argument, the passages in question are about demons, not people.
• Jesus is coming to throw people into the fiery furnace of hell
  Mt 13.40-42, 49-50; 22.13; 25.30 - all variations on The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
  Quite simply, these verses do not say what Driscoll says they say.

I’m done. If anyone wants to evaluate the rest of his claims, that’s fine; I think I’m going to wash my hands of this whole thing. It’s neither useful nor helpful in living an authentic, spiritual life - rather, it seems to be only concerned with defining the boundary markers of acceptable belief, in order to decide who’s in and who’s out. I’m tired of it.

Not only was it bad theology, bad gaming, and a bad idea all around, it was also bad business. The Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game, which has been out for a while now, has thoroughly tanked.

Investors Give No Quarter to Convert-or-Die Videogame

When Left Behind Games launched its convert-or-die videogame Left Behind: Eternal Forces on November 7, 2006, its stock traded at a peak price of $7.44 per share. Breathless boosters at RedChip issued a “strong buy” recommendation and predicted that within 18 months, the stock would soar to as much as $18.70 per share. Really?

In fact, Left Behind Games’ stock chart looks like a ski slope. Not a gentle bunny hill, but a World Cup grand slalom course, groomed for a world-beating downhill run. Today, you could buy a share of Left Behind Games for a quarter — with change left over. On March 21, 2007, the stock closed at 18 cents a share. link

Here’s a visual on their stock price:

For the non-financial types among us, downward slopes are bad when you’re reading a stock chart. The mountain is the stock’s price, and the small bar graph below is the trading volume. Note that the trading volume has been high lately, probably mostly due to people dumping the nearly-worthless stock or buying it up since it’s so pathetically low right now.

This is somewhat gratifying, but I suspect Mr. Frichner and Mr. Lyndon are still enjoying their big salaries from their failing company.

Talk2Action also has a pretty in-depth (if one-sided) series of articles on whether the game promotes violence against non-Christians (see also this post). I’m done thinking about it, but wanted to post the update (hat tip: Jonathan H.).

Greg Kendall-Ball wrote recently about how simple-church advocates tend to be judgmental about those who stick with big, less-simple churches. He suggests that there is plenty of room for variety, and it doesn’t really matter what kind of church you’re in. To wit:

For me, I can see a place for these simple, organic house churches. I think they will reach a segment of our population that might never set foot in a “traditional church.”

But, what I do not hear from the simple/organic/house church crowd is that there is any room whatsoever for churches like the ones I am a member of and work with. In fact, most of what I hear from that quarter in regard to a church that meets in a *gasp* building is that we’re basically theologically corrupt, criminally irrelevant, and quite possibly not a church at all. The borderline-hateful attitude toward those unenlightened Christians who choose to meet in a building or have “programs” is quite unpleasant. I, for one, am tired of having my faith or discipleship called into question because my ecclesial activity doesn’t center around films, beer or candles.

The candles are incidental, but as a founding member of a film-and-beer-centric church, I do have a few things to say in response. Greg asks:

why are house-church people so opposed to institutional churches?

Surely they don’t believe us to be completely corrupt or co-opted, and if they don’t believe that, then why not adopt a more “live and let live” attitude?

Actually, I do believe that the New Testament contains certain fundamental design features, if you will, that the church needs to stick with. I am not, however, a “patternist;” that is, I do not believe that we have a detailed model that we must follow right down to the every last word in the Pastoral Epistles. There is certainly room for diversity, as the church described in the New Testament clearly shows.

I’ll elaborate in later posts, but here are some clear principles I see for a biblical ecclesiology:

• Community and fellowship (the term authentic might apply, but it’s overused, so I’ll leave it out)
• Fivefold APEPT (Apostolic, Prophetic, Evangelistic, Pastoral, Teaching) leadership
• A communal focus on discipleship
• Benevolence

It’s not so much that you don’t see these things in big, complex churches - you certainly do - but that the church seems to be structured primarily with other purposes in mind.

It’s not that having a building is bad; it’s that having a building implies certain purposes and values, and requires significant financial investment from the congregation.

It’s not that having a paid pastoral minister is bad; it’s that having one changes the relational and leadership dynamics within the church in ways that are not easily realigned with fivefold APEPT leadership (see The Shaping of Things to Come for more on this).

It’s not that having programs is bad; it’s that they feed a passive, consumer mindset that is not easily countered.

Corrupted? No. Co-opted, and inextricably so? Yes.

Greg and I are friends, and I have a lot of respect for his thinking. I’m provoking this discussion because I have significant questions about the viability and strengths of my own church model, and look forward to writing and experimenting to explore solutions to these shortcomings.

It’s over now, but my fencing class at UW with Jason Norris was awesome. You can register for the next fencing class here if you live in the area.

This is me on the left:

I came in 2nd in our 12-person tournament, but only because the first guy who beat me (in my 2nd bout) had to leave early, so I got a bye for one round. The photo is actually of the bout I lost, but it was a great bout, so I have no regrets.

Fencing rules. At least Europe has one cool martial art.

Elaine, who is part of the church to which all three Radical Congruency authors belong, put together a terrific summary of Parts I and II of The New Testament and the People of God (more here), which must have been a substantial project to accomplish in one week.

The New Testament and the People of God, Part I and Part II: Tools for the task of approaching the New Testament texts, Historical data of the first century, and Theological questions

In these first two sections, Wright places his work to look at the Gospels, the persons of Jesus and Paul, and the historical context of it all, within the context of intellectual knowledge since the Enlightenment.

He draws on what others have said and hypothesized regarding epistemology (how we know things) and movements within the last century in the fields of theology…Read More

Great work, Elaine! You’ve set a high bar for the rest of us as we take turns leading our weekly discussions.

(Product)^RED is a joint marketing/fundraising initiative, the brainchild of U2 frontman Bono, in which (RED)-branded products raise money for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. The campaign has received a good deal of criticism for its use of blatant consumerism to raise money for charity - or, it could be argued, the reverse - using charity to promote for-profit brands.

Mike Todd had a better idea a few months ago (blogged here) - simply give money to charity. Duh. Bono believed, rather brilliantly, that Americans would really get behind something commercial, which would do good for people in need even if it was just another outlet for our selfishness. But there’s also a good argument that we can do better.

A somewhat satirical website is now up at BuyLessCrap.org (warning - some Abercrombie-esque semi-nudity). As the name suggests, it advocates simply (gasp!) giving money to charities that help our planet’s neediest.

A recent article in Advertising Age criticized (Product)^RED for spending $100 million on marketing but raising only $18 million for the Global Fund. Defenders of the campaign say these initial marketing expenses will pay off handsomely in public awareness and real dollars for charity, but not everyone sees this as a good shift. From the Ad Age article:

Mark Rosenman, a longtime activist in the nonprofit sector and a public-service professor at the Union Institute & University in Cincinnati, said the disparity between the marketing outlay and the money raised by Red is illustrative of some of the biggest fears of nonprofits in the U.S.

“There is a broadening concern that business is taking on the patina of philanthropy and crowding out philanthropic activity and even substituting for it,” he said. “It benefits the for-profit partners much more than the charitable causes.” link

Does RED benefit megabrands more than the poor?

You asked, Luke and Daniel. Pictures after the break, since some people don’t like to see stuff like that before (or after) breakfast.
(more…)

It’s Lent, and while I’m not much for fasting, this is intriguing:

One billion people live on a dollar a day or less! The Mutunga Partnership is trying to turn this tragic statistic into a tool for raising awareness, for building a sense of community with the poor, and for raising funds for micro-credit development. The idea is that a household lives on a food budget of $2.00 a day, per person for a week. The money saved is then donated to The Mutunga Partnership. This idea doesn’t require finding extra cash – just a temporary change in lifestyle. It’s a challenge! link

I recall David talking about eating only rice for a while, and it is intriguing on multiple levels:

• The spiritual discipline of fasting (at least from some things)
• The spiritual discipline of simplicity (which is necessary given such a limited food budget)
• The spiritual discipline of almsgiving
• The advantage this challenge grants to those who grow their own food

Would you do it? Are you going to? What do you think?

In case you’re wondering, the money is used for Kiva-like microfinance projects.