Emergent Enemies of Doctrine Affirmed--Sort Of . . .
Don’t deny the dangers of doctrine. They are deadly, and chief among them is that they divide. Doctrine divides otherwise happy communities of believers by exposing and then exacerbating contrary convictions about everything from baptism to birth control; from the way we worship to whether we welcome wine.
The danger of doctrine is not lost on emergent believers who relish relationship and emphasize belonging before believing. And they have support from no less authoritative a voice than the Apostle Paul himself. Paul took something of a Rodney King (can’t we all just get along) approach to the nasty “herbivore versus carnivore” and “one day is holier than another” debacle in Romans 14 and 15. On these disputed questions at least, love and unity trump and indeed displace any fierce hankering after some supposedly discoverable and essential “will of God.” Instead, Paul’s command is—don’t go against conscience and don’t look down on your brother whose conscious is contrary to yours!
Can this be the same Paul who gets his back up in Galatians over a little thing like the gospel? He encourages anyone who dares to preach a gospel other than the one he preaches not to stop at circumcision, but to just go ahead and castrate themselves and when they are done with that, well, just go to hell. I am not making this up. Paul says, “let them be anathema.” I am afraid that emergent believers will need to accommodate some of this castration and anathema stuff if they truly mean to plant and nurture “biblical communities of faith.”
Some emergent communities, while adamantly not abstaining from alcohol (thank you very much) are going off doctrine cold turkey. They’re loving each other, telling they’re stories and sipping Ripple—no doctrine allowed. Those who weaken and allow a little doctrine to squeeze in tend to stick with the Apostles’ Creed—which is great but then the Apostles’ Creed lacks any straight gospel/atonement talk, which is just what the Apostle himself got his back up about. [When someone seems permanently settled into ambiguity on the atonement and homosexual behavior but picks fights over their right to imbibe, one wonders about the exegetical priorities at work]
The reason the doctrine of the atonement tends to force itself down the throats of Bible-loving, Jesus-honoring folk is because the Bible itself is fixated on the matter and Christians, across time and geography, recognize that the atonement is the heart of the faith (See Mark Dever’s fine article in Christianity Today.)
The atonement has defined and will continue to define the scandal of Christianity and render biblically faithful ministers of the word odious to the practitioners and purveyors of politically correct, pluralistic, group-hug spirituality.
Doctrine does damage to our fellowship when it displaces the Bible as our authority or displaces exegesis and so determines beforehand what passages might mean. Doctrine does damage when it becomes a fig leaf for deluded brothers who imagine that true believing can coincide with disobedience. But doctrine defends our communities against the deniers of the Savior when it declares the meaning of his death as vicarious, substitutionary atonement. The Apostles’ Creed is a good thing, but it has proven insufficient as a doctrinal basis for enduring communities of faith where believers are encouraged to read, believe and obey the teachings of Holy Scripture.
More about the necessity, dangers, and benefits of doctrine in future posts.
The danger of doctrine is not lost on emergent believers who relish relationship and emphasize belonging before believing. And they have support from no less authoritative a voice than the Apostle Paul himself. Paul took something of a Rodney King (can’t we all just get along) approach to the nasty “herbivore versus carnivore” and “one day is holier than another” debacle in Romans 14 and 15. On these disputed questions at least, love and unity trump and indeed displace any fierce hankering after some supposedly discoverable and essential “will of God.” Instead, Paul’s command is—don’t go against conscience and don’t look down on your brother whose conscious is contrary to yours!
Can this be the same Paul who gets his back up in Galatians over a little thing like the gospel? He encourages anyone who dares to preach a gospel other than the one he preaches not to stop at circumcision, but to just go ahead and castrate themselves and when they are done with that, well, just go to hell. I am not making this up. Paul says, “let them be anathema.” I am afraid that emergent believers will need to accommodate some of this castration and anathema stuff if they truly mean to plant and nurture “biblical communities of faith.”
Some emergent communities, while adamantly not abstaining from alcohol (thank you very much) are going off doctrine cold turkey. They’re loving each other, telling they’re stories and sipping Ripple—no doctrine allowed. Those who weaken and allow a little doctrine to squeeze in tend to stick with the Apostles’ Creed—which is great but then the Apostles’ Creed lacks any straight gospel/atonement talk, which is just what the Apostle himself got his back up about. [When someone seems permanently settled into ambiguity on the atonement and homosexual behavior but picks fights over their right to imbibe, one wonders about the exegetical priorities at work]
The reason the doctrine of the atonement tends to force itself down the throats of Bible-loving, Jesus-honoring folk is because the Bible itself is fixated on the matter and Christians, across time and geography, recognize that the atonement is the heart of the faith (See Mark Dever’s fine article in Christianity Today.)
The atonement has defined and will continue to define the scandal of Christianity and render biblically faithful ministers of the word odious to the practitioners and purveyors of politically correct, pluralistic, group-hug spirituality.
Doctrine does damage to our fellowship when it displaces the Bible as our authority or displaces exegesis and so determines beforehand what passages might mean. Doctrine does damage when it becomes a fig leaf for deluded brothers who imagine that true believing can coincide with disobedience. But doctrine defends our communities against the deniers of the Savior when it declares the meaning of his death as vicarious, substitutionary atonement. The Apostles’ Creed is a good thing, but it has proven insufficient as a doctrinal basis for enduring communities of faith where believers are encouraged to read, believe and obey the teachings of Holy Scripture.
More about the necessity, dangers, and benefits of doctrine in future posts.
posted by Mark DeVine at 4:37 PM
3 Comments:
Nice post. I definitely concur with the priorities you mention here.
I will have to say that I think Dever misses the point with some who are not trying to get rid of penal substitution but are rathering trying to clarify that this is not the only metaphor used for the atonement. Not only that but his placement of McKnight next to Finlan was a bit of guilt by association.
Thankfully not all emerging types are jettisoning substitutionary notions of the atonement.
Good words Mark. I was able to read Dever's article while at the TFTG conference. I thought it was good, but elementary. And then I realized - that is the point. Calling vicarious, penal atonement "traditional" and dismissing it is in vogue these days among many who want to be considered evangelical. I am very happy to hear this doctrine remains front and central in the preaching and missiological teaching of men like Driscoll, Keller, and Stetzer.
I am enjoying your blog.
Doctrine does damage to our fellowship when it displaces the Bible as our authority or displaces exegesis and so determines beforehand what passages might mean.
Great observation there. Sometimes "doctrine" is an excuse for mental laziness.
Post a Comment
<< Home