DashHouse.com

Speak, O Lord, as we come to You
To receive the food of Your Holy Word.
Take Your truth, plant it deep in us;
Shape and fashion us in Your likeness,
That the light of Christ might be seen today
In our acts of love and our deeds of faith.
Speak, O Lord, and fulfill in us
All Your purposes for Your glory.

more (from the album In Christ Alone by Keith & Kristyn Getty - Amazon.com | Amazon MP3 | iTunes)

Tony Jones, coordinator of Emergent Village, and Colin Hansen, author of Young, Restless, and Reformed, have begun an online exchange. Says Jones:

Where we probably differ is not so much on theology, but on epistemology. That is, it seems the difference between the people you profile in Young, Restless, Reformed seem pretty darn sure that they've got the gospel right, whereas the Emergents that I hang out with are less sure of their right-ness. In fact, they're less sure that we, as finite human beings, can get anything all that right.

Here's another way I'd explain the differences. An American Christian today is beset by globalization, pluralism, and postmodernism (three terms that I use interchangeably). In other words, the world is a confusing mess. I think that conservative, evangelical, Reformed theology offers sure answers spoken in tones of certainty by authority figures. Emergent Christianity, for better and worse, offers more ambiguous answers (and even more questions!) in tones of less certainty - but, hopefully, at least with what Lesslie Newbigin called 'proper confidence.'

Ed Stetzer has given us a grid for three levels of theology. It's simple but I think it's helpful in deciding what's worth fighting over when it comes to theology:

• Essential Matters - These are areas like the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the atonement, and the gospel. Lose these and we lose the faith.
• Convictional Matters - These are still important, and include ares of theology like baptism and church polity. We can still cooperate with each other, even though some of the convictions may limit the amount of cooperation at a practical level. These are worth discussing, but we don't fight over these like we do essential matters.
• Preferential Matters - These are minor and not worth fighting over at all.

Ed says that the problem with fundamentalists is that everything becomes an essential, so we end up fighting about everything. That's clearly something we need to avoid, yet I think it happens more often than we'd like.

The other problem, though, is more common. Ed said that convictions still matter. If convictions don't matter, soon nothing matters.

This is so simple, yet I've found it really helpful. Theology seems to be discussed between people who think everything is worth fighting over, and others who think that nothing is worth fighting for. Some things are worth fighting for, but the trick seems to be distinguishing between these three levels.

Thoughts? A bit more to come on this tomorrow.

I'm sitting in my hotel room at the end of the first day of the Dwell Conference, although I have no idea when I'll be able to post this. The room comes with free high-speed Internet, but it's pretty sporadic.

The measure of a good conference is that you can walk away with one thing that you needed to hear and that will make a difference. The conference is only half over, and tomorrow looks to be even better than today, but already it's been a good conference. We've had C.J. Mahaney talk about watching our life and ministry; Ed Stetzer talk about Kingdom mission; Eric Mason talk about incarnational ministry; and Mark Driscoll talk about dwelling in the text.

I also went on a trip to the Redeemer offices for a session on how people change, taught by Lois Kehlenbrink.

Tomorrow we have some sessions with Darrin Patrick, Tim Keller, and Mark Driscoll.

Some observations:

• These guys get it. It's the best blend of gospel doctrine and mission that I've encountered at a conference, and it's contagious.
• There's been a good emphasis on not running down other ministries. It's been taught and practiced. These guys have their convictions, but it's been expressed with humility and charity toward others. I should say that this is true of Mark Driscoll as well, whose message tonight on dwelling in the Word was excellent.
• I'm not a church planter, although I'd love to be. Another day or two of hanging out here and I think I'd be in.
• Ed Stetzer once planted a church in Buffalo, where he paraphrased an old prayer: "Give me Buffalo or I die." I figured that if Stetzer could say this about Buffalo, someone needs to say it about a place like Toronto. I'm increasingly burdened to see something happen in that city.
• I love New York. I need to visit here more. I still hope to live here for a year one day.

People occasionally ask me if I would like to move on to a different church, into denominational life, or even to do more teaching. This conference reminds me why I love pastoring, especially in a place like Toronto. I've written down a number of things I need to go home and work through. Even though I'm not currently a planter, I've been challenged in very helpful ways today.

One more side note, but an important one: I've been challenged about being critical. I don't know exactly why, since it's not a conference topic. Some of the speakers here are unfailingly gracious toward others, and it looks and smells good. Mahaney and Keller are two examples. It's so easy to blog about things we don't like, and to tear down the ministries of others, but it comes at a cost and it detracts from mission. You can have doctrinal convictions and still show humility and grace to others. These guys model it.

I've rarely encountered what seems to be present here in spades: strong, missional theology, gospel and Kingdom focus, and humble orthodoxy. Exciting to see. It makes me hungry for more.

In 1740, John Wesley preached a sermon called Free Grace. Wesley debated whether or not to preach the sermon because he knew that it would lead to controversy. He decided to go ahead after casting lots.

Wesley was not irenic in his words. He spoke against predestination, a view held and taught by his friend and mentor George Whitefield. "It is a doctrine full of blasphemy," he said. "This doctrine represents our blessed Lord...as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity...You represent God as worse than the devil!"

Whitefield responded in writing a few days later:

I hear, Honoured Sir, that you are about to print a sermon against predestination. It shocks me to think of it! What will be the consequences but controversy? If people ask my opinion, what shall I do? I have a critical part to act. God enable me to behave aright! Silence on both sides will be best. It is noised abroad already that there is a division between you and me, and my heart within me is grieved.

Later Whitefield wrote again to Wesley, noting that the last part of Martin Luther's life was spent in controversy with Zwingli and others. He encouraged Wesley to focus on preaching Christ and to avoid needless controversy.

Let this, dear Sir, be a caution to us, I hope it will to me; for by the blessing of God, provoke me to it as much as you please, I do not think ever to enter the lists of controversy with you on the points wherein we differ. Only I pray to God, that the more you judge me, the more I may love you, and learn to desire no one's approbation, but that of my Lord and Master, Jesus Christ...I wish you as much success as your own heart can wish.

A few reflections:

Controversy is damaging. I can understand why many avoid controversy over theological issues. Doctrinal debate is sometimes viewed as destructive, and sometimes it can be. It's sad to see debates like this one divide friends and entire movements. This controversy caused a rift that continues today, hundreds of years later. Controversy may sometimes be necessary, but it should be avoided whenever possible.

Tone matters. I know that tone is subjective, but I wonder if things would have turned out differently if Wesley had chosen less a less confrontational approach.

It's hard to know what's worth fighting over. Wesley believed that predestination was a fighting matter. Whitefield wanted to focus on the message on the gospel and evangelism. The same happens today. We often disagree over what's worth fighting about.

More to come.

I've been doing some thinking about theology, controversy, and confrontation the past couple of days. Here's why.

At last week's Band of Bloggers, Phil Johnson said (and this is a summary), "Seeking controversy for its own sake is bad; but engaging the issues sometimes demands dealing candidly with issues. Christ didn't shy away from controversy." Yet some see Phil's approach and blog as too confrontational. Is Phil right that candidly dealing with issues means that we sometimes wade into controversy? If so, how do we do it? (A good example of Phil's approach is his recent post on defending the truth.)

On the other hand, Steve Knight left a comment here yesterday, "After all, what is 'orthodox'? and who defines it? right?"

Here you have two very different approaches to truth and orthodoxy. How do we respond to false teaching? Or do we? I hope to post a few thoughts on this in the next few days.

Trevin Wax has posted another interview with N.T. Wright, including this bit on how to disagree agreeably. He's talking about John Piper's critique of his work in the book The Future of Justification:

The trouble is, this is not a fight that I wanted to get into because Piper is a good, beloved brother in Christ, doing a good job, building people up in the faith, teaching them how to live. I would prefer that he exegete Paul differently, of course, but the people I really want to fight are (like for Paul) the pagans out on the street who are reordering society in ways that are deeply dehumanizing. The gospel is for the pagans...

As Piper says in his Intro, he and I are both old enough not to take this personally. We’re past the age of testosterone-fueled theological debate. It’s more or less, “Let’s just try to sort this thing out.” That’s fine.

I hope I will be able to respond. If he looks in on your blog, I give him my warmest greetings. I’ve still never met him. We’ve tried to meet a couple of times, but I’ve not yet made it yet.

more

The whole interview is worth reading.

After reading Young, Restless, Reformed, Al Hsu comments on what emergents and Calvinists have in common:

What's interesting to me about Collin's book is that despite the fact that the new Calvinists and emergent folks might seem poles apart in many ways, they do share a common concern - that contemporary evangelicalism is not what it ought to be. Both critique evangelical Christianity for being shallow, ahistorical, more focused on pragmatic issues than authentic spirituality and transformation. Both communities are calling the church to recover its heritage, the depth and breadth of Christian theology and worship, with a keen eye to missional ministry in this postmodern world, to the glory of God.

Of course, John Piper and Doug Pagitt, while both Minnesotan pastors, have somewhat different visions for the church. And Mars Hill (Seattle, Mark Driscoll) is a different kind of church from Mars Hill (Grand Rapids, Rob Bell). But for all the differences, I think folks on all sides can charitably affirm that everybody wants Christianity to be more faithful, more vibrant, more missional than it currently is...

I have to think that there are others like me that would like to see more fruitful collaboration and dialogue on all sides.

more (via Steve McCoy's shared items)

There are some significant differences between the two, but as we see more missional Calvinists and more orthodox emergents, I wonder if we'll also see more interaction between the two groups.

Just thinking:

One: T4G and The Gospel Coalition have brought together evangelicals (mainly Calvinists) with different views on polity, baptism, and charismatic gifts. However, the diversity does not extend to gender roles and Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist soteriology. Is a Gospel movement possible that allows diversity in these areas of doctrine within the broader evangelical movement? (Editorial comment: I still have hopes for a wider evangelical coming-together around the Gospel.)

Two: The issue of cultural engagement was largely absent from T4G, although it appears to be much stronger in The Gospel Coalition. I was pleased that T4G gave out copies of Carson's book Christ and Culture Revisited, with focuses on this issue. Will movements like T4G focus mainly on soteriology, or will we tease out the implications of Gospel relating to issues of justice and the cultural mandate?

Three: I loved being at T4G, yet it was definitely a cross-cultural experience. Will we see Canadian and other contextualized expressions of Gospel movements? Louisville is a long way from Toronto, geographically and culturally.

Four: I just noticed Ligon Duncan is one of the four founders of T4G, and is also involved in The Gospel Coalition. How can both organizations learn from and help the other?

In a comfortable room with a stack of free books beside us, and our heads full of doctrine, John Piper brought it home for us this morning. He called us to avoid being seduced by the comfort of middle class ministry. Instead, we are to be so satisfied with Christ that we live radically, avoiding complacency and the safety.

This was an incredibly challenging and necessary message that tied many of the themes of the conference together, and redirected them to their true end.

Tim Challies has a summary here. This one message was worth the whole trip, and the panel afterwards was just as good. If you're going to listen to only one message from this conference, this should be it. The free audio download should be available later today.