smerickson.com the personal website of steven m. erickson

This semester I have been taking a gym class in order to fulfill the PE requirement for graduation. This morning I offered the devotional before our workout. I thought I’d post it here.

“As a door turns on its hinges, so does a sluggard on his bed.” ~ Proverbs 26:14

This morning I would like to do a bit of a history lesson. I want to reflect on this verse through the life of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was a Puritan pastor in North Hampton, Mass during the 18th Century. He is probably most known for his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” This is somewhat unfortunate, because although Edwards was very concerned about sin and firmly believed in a literal hell, a good portion of his writing was devoted to the study of the affections and happiness. He has been called by some, “the greatest mind that America has ever produced.” The reason why I bring up Edwards today is to reflect for a moment on his daily schedule.

In accordance with the verse for today, Edwards rose every morning around 4am; this is partly because he would spend close to 13 hours each day in study. Although Edwards was 6”1’, he was not of great strength and he was often plagued by sickness. Yet these did not hinder his daily activities. He maintained the rigor of his study schedule only with strict attention to diet and exercise. Everything was calculated to optimize his efficiency and power to study. One of his biographers writes that he “carefully observed the effects of the different sorts of food, and selected those which best suited his constitution, and rendered him most fit for mental labor.” He therefore abstained from eating those foods which made him sick or sleepy. This was in accord with his Resolutions, which he wrote at the age of 21. They are a collection of statements by which he lived his life. Two that are most pertinent to us are numbers 20 and 40. They read:

20. Resolved, to maintain the strictest temperance in eating and drinking.

40. Resolved, to inquire every night, before I go to bed, whether I have acted in the best way I possibly could, with respect to eating and drinking. Jan. 7, 1723.

An entry from his diary reads:

“By a sparingness in diet, and eating as much as may be what is light and easy of digestion, I shall doubtless be able to think more clearly, and shall gain time: 1. By lengthening out my life; 2. Shall need less time for digestion, after meals; 3. Shall be able to study more closely, without injury to my health; 4. Shall need less time for sleep; 5. Shall more seldom be troubled with the head-ache.”

Not only was Edwards attentive to his diet, but he also was intentional about exercise. During the summer, he was fond of going horseback riding for hours at a time and of walking through the forest. In the winter, he would spend time chopping wood for half and hour a day in order to stay in good health. There is much that we can learn from Edward’s writing, and I recommend them to you, but we can also learn something from his lifestyle which facilitated such excellent writing. Today, consider your own health and its profitableness for your studies.

This blog entry is a little bit out of the ordinary for me. By that I mean that I usually have things pretty worked out in my own mind and in print before I post them here. This entry is not like that; it is more of an idea that I am toying with and would appreciate some feedback on. With that said, here is my ill-formed thesis.

I’m going to go out on a limb and make an analogy. As I see it, some of what the Emergent Church is to America as is what Liberation Theology was to South America. Now, I recognize that is a bold claim and some in the movement may not be real excited about it; although I suspect that some might be thrilled with the comparison. As I said above, this is not completely fleshed out and I have not tried very hard to be thorough in my explanations of either Liberation theology or the Emergent church. All I am trying to do is point out some broad similarities that I see between the two groups. One final qualification is that I’m not trying to make any evaluations here about whether or not these similarities are positive or negative; I’m merely describing. Now, let me try and explain what I mean when I say that Emergent is the “liberation theology” of North America.

1. The names

Let me start kind of superficially by just pointing out how similar the names of the two movements are. The term “liberation” is closely tied to a notion of freedom from some oppression or oppressor. The term “emergent” also has connections with this language of freedom from some prior entity. This isn’t really a huge deal, I just found it kind of interesting as I was reflecting on the similarities between these two movements.

2. The “grassroots” nature

Both Liberation theology and the Emergent Church are very much “grassroots” movements. They share a similar skepticism towards authority and hierarchy. Because of this, they have really come from the ground up, so to speak. It is a theology by the people for the people.

3. House churches and base communities

One of the ways that this bottom-up understanding of theology plays itself out is in the clustering of small groups outside of what they perceive to be the authoritarian structures from which they want to separate themselves. In Liberation theology this took the form of “base communities”. These were small gatherings of individuals who would come together for prayer, discussion and fellowship. Sometimes there would be a priest who was part of these communities but other times not. In Emergent circles, often their ecclesiology leads them towards more of a house church format. Partly this is due to the hurt that some of them have experienced in more institutional churches. At any rate, when you read about the base communities of liberation theology they sound an awful lot like the house churches or even, dare I say, blog communities of the Emergent Church.

4. Distrust of modernity

Another way to state what I have been saying thus far is that both groups are very skeptical of different aspects of modernity. (Now I know that I have just stepped out into a place that I don’t want to be by using the word modernity. Even though the term is now out of the bag, please don’t read into it more than what I’m saying.) Liberation theology is quite hostile towards certain aspects of what is called modernity, specifically, colonization or the dominance of the west. Their writing very much reflects a distrust towards anything which might come from the modernized world. So also, one cannot read much of Emergent writing without getting a sense for their distrust of modernity. Now, their critiques do not specifically have to do with colonization in the same way that Liberation theology did, but they do very much wish that Christianity was not associated with, say the Republican part in America or what some on the political left see as a new imperialism.

5. Critical towards an overly rational faith

In staying with this theme of a distrust of modernity, another aspect of modernity which is looked down upon by both Liberation theology and the Emergent church is what they perceive as an overly rational approach to faith. In Liberation theology this works itself out in an attempt to move theological reflection from the academy to the common people. In their own terms they would say that theology ought not be something that is limited to the “intellectual or cultural elite”. In the Emergent church we see the move away from an overly rational faith in things like a return to more mystic church practices. Another way this is seen is in the whole discussions regarding epistemology.

To make my point, read what Brian McLaren has written and see if it sounds anything at all like Gustavo Gutierrez.

In the modern world, theology was done by scholars, and was expressed in books and lectures. In the postmodern world, many of us believe that the theologians will have to leave the library more often and mix with the rest of us. And the best of them will join hands and hearts with the poets, musicians, filmmakers, actors, architects, interior and landscape designers, dancers, sculptors, painters, novelists, photographers, web designers, and every other artistic brother and sister possible not only to communicate a postmodern, Christian theology but also to discern it, discover it. Because one major shift of this transition is the shift from left-brain to whole-brain, from reductionistic, analytic rationalism to a broader theological holism a theology that works in mind and heart, understanding and imagination, proposition and image, clarity and mystery, explanation and narrative, exposition and artistic expression.

One of the terms which shows up often in Liberation theology is orthopraxis or “right living”. This is sort of their alternative to the point above about rational faith. One writer describes liberation theology in the following way: “Theology is not the basis of pastoral work, but occurs in light of it. Indeed, theology is then a process, a discerning of the times and of what needs to be done.” You test a theology by how it is worked out in practice. So also, the Emergent church is a movement, mainly by pastors or lay leaders in the church who are concerned about how doctrine gets lived out in the culture.

7. Political associations

Those who know anything about Liberation theology do not need to be reminded that it has strong political and economic associations. When it comes to the Emergent church it is not always obvious that it too has political associations. At the same time I think some connections can be made. For example, as I said above, most members of the Emergent church are very uncomfortable with the way that Evangelicalism has, at least in the media’s eyes, become affiliated with the Republican party. A lot of them see this as bad and something which needs to be moved away from. Also, it is no secret that Brian McLaren is good friends with people like Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo, both of whom are very politically engaged Christians.

8. Community and structural sin

Finally, both groups no only have a positive view of community but also there is a call to see some “communities” or structures as sinful. Both groups want to move away from an overly individualized view of Christianity. This is both in terms of sin and salvation. We’ve already mentioned a little bit about what they see as the positive aspects of community. The flip side to emphasizing the communal aspects of salvation is the communal aspects of sin. For both Liberation theology and the Emergent church, it is not just individuals who are sinful but also non-personal structures. For example, in Liberation theology capitalism was seen as a sinful economic system. One gets the sense that some in the Emergent church might say the same thing as something like foundationalist epistemology (sorry for using loaded words without defining them) or the political associations described above.

Well, that is a fast and brief overview of some of the similarities that I see between Liberation theology and the Emergent church. This proposal is definitely lacking in terms of specific quotes and references; in doing so I am assuming on the part of the reader at least some familiarity with the two movements. I’d be curious to have some interaction with some of these points.

I came across a great document put out by the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. It is the the results of a committee which was comissioned to research and report on the New Perspectives on Paul. Although this topic has been around since the 70’s, it has been getting a lot of press lately because of people like NT Wright. What I have found is that for those new to Biblical Studies, it is difficult to get up to speed on the issue and its implications for other areas of theology. The document by the MVP is a wonderful introduction into the topic. If you’ve heard about the New Perspectives but haven’t quite figured out just what everyone is talking about, this document will be very helpful.

LINK: Mississippi Valley Presbytery report on the New Perspectives on Paul

Here is a link to the audio files from the Radical Reformission Conference. The conference was held back in November in Seattle. Mark Driscoll and John Piper were the main speakers. This was a pretty good conference. I really appriciated Piper’s candidness and courage to address current pressing issues in the church. I found his first session on Open Theism to be very well done. The sessions are pretty long, but if you have the time, I would encourage you to listen.

LINK: Radical Reformission Conference audio

I came across a great apologetic response to the culture’s false commitment to “moral neutrality”. This was a lecture given by Greg Koukal of Stand to Reason at the University of California. It is a wonderful example of how to help people of our culture see the inconsistency between what they profess to be their worldview, namely moral relativism, and how they actually live. Understanding this is a huge step forward in helping our culture see, first, the reality of moral absolutes, second, acknowledge that they know they have not abided by those moral absolutes and third, that they are therefore accountable to the One who established those moral realities. Koukal speaks with great clarity on these issues and I recommend this lecture for your encouragement.

LINK: Greg Koukal at UC (real media)

The concept of a “worldview” is one which is used often today, especially at Christian colleges. On one level this is exciting because the topic of worldviews is incredibly important. On another level it is disappointing because it has led to an information inflation regarding worldview studies. This leads to the subject becoming so familiar that it begins to lose its worth. One recent effort explaining the need for a Christian worldview, as well as, how to develop one is a book called Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey (Crossway, 2004). This book serves has a monumental step forward in the ongoing discussion of a Christian worldview and its comprehensive influence on all of life. As somewhat of course book for the Christian worldview Total Truth is thorough in its analysis, broad in its scope and quite clear in its treatment.

One of the main themes in the book is an analysis and rejection of, what Francis Schaeffer called, a “two-story” view of truth. In today’s world there are two “stories” or levels of truth – facts and values. Both are true, but in a different sense. Facts are “true” because they can be publicly verified. In our society the naturalistic worldview, characterized by a commitment (although sometimes unspoken) to Darwinian evolution, has come to dominate this lower, more concrete story. The other side of truth is that of values, which are limited to being more personal, private and subjective. Pearcey’s claim is that, sadly, Christians has accepted these false categories and have become content to speak only from and to the realm of values. As a result, Christianity is pushed out of public life and consigned to the private sector. This capitulation of Christianity to the thought forms of this world is a problem because it does not harmonize with the claims of the Bible. Christianity is not just about subjective, privatized religion, rather it speaks to the whole of reality; it is the truth concerning reality. It is Total Truth. It is truth because it is revealed to us by the Author of Truth. Yet how many Christians live as though Christianity were totally true, not just true for what we do during our devotions or in our small groups or on Sundays, but truth concerning all aspects of reality? Moreover, do we really believe that Christianity has something to say about the social problems of the world, life and relationships in the home, or how businesses should operate? Our answers to these questions have significant bearing on all that we do. Above all, if Christianity is total truth, then Christians need not despair that they are not really engaged in Kingdom work if they are not in full time ministry. Because God has called us to redeem all of culture with His truth, each person’s vocation/calling is significant and plays an important part of God’s work of redemption in the world.

Pearcey’s book is divided into four sections. The first section deals with identifying different forms of a “two-storied” view of truth and also provides the foundation for a Biblical worldview rooted in Creation, Fall and Redemption. The second section focuses specifically on the Creation. It critiques Darwinian naturalism, as well as, the influence of the naturalistic worldview on other disciplines outside of science. Subsequently, a defense of intelligent design is given to show how Christianity does speak to the whole of reality and even serves as a more coherent alternative to naturalism. The third section is devoted to a short history of American evangelicalism and explains why we have largely acquiesced to the two story division of truth. Finally, in the fourth section, Pearcey addresses some suggestions for how Christians can be salt and light in the world.

This is an important book which I strongly recommend be read by all Christians. If it means anything, I spent my entire weekend just reading this book. It was too intriguing to put down. Seriously consider getting it; each of us needs to be aware of the thought forms and worldviews of our day which inform every aspect of our lives, be they political, economic, domestic, scientific, literary or artistic. This book serves as a fervent call to evangelicals to wake up from our cultural captivity to the paradigms of the world, especially the fact/value split. May we be people who believe that “Christianity is not just religious truth but truth about total reality. It is total truth.”

LINK: Amazon.com Tim Challies’ review

This article has been out for a week now, but it’s getting some attention so I thought I’d make a comment about it. Last week Time magazine named the 25 Most Influential “Evangelicals”. I’m always fascinated by the way the media portrays “Evangelicals”. This is mainly for two reasons. First is that I never knew the group was so big. At least according to time it includes Roman Catholics and a modalist (one who denies the tri-personality of Trinity). The second reason is that, although I’ve usually heard of the people mentioned, I guess I never really knew just how influential they are. I wish that every media person could have attended the important conference at Gordon Conwell this past weekend called, What is an Evangelical? I didn’t go, but I’m sure it would have been very helpful. Larry King had a couple of the individuals on his show last week as well. I’m anxious to see what becomes of the name Evangelical in the years to come.

Here’s the list of people who made the cut: Howard & Roberta Ahmanson, David Barton, Doug Coe, Chuck Colson, Luis Cort?جø¬?s, James Dobson, Stuart Epperson, Michael Gerson, Billy & Franklin Graham, Ted Haggard, Bill Hybels, T.D. Jakes, Diane Knippers, Tim & Beverly LaHaye, Richard Land, Brian McLaren, Joyce Meyer, Richard John Neuhaus, Mark Noll, J.I. Packer, Rick Santorum, Jay Sekulow, Stephen Strang, Rick Warren, and Ralph Winter.

LINKS: Time article Blog post at Christianity Today Larry King Live! transcript