The theological ignorance of emergents (assuming the term emerging church still describes a non-imaginary thing) is mildly irritating. One of the many things that escaped emergent's attention was the actual patterns of worship established by earlier generations of believers. They paid paltry lip service to Robert Webber and his ancient future idea, but when these posers spoke from their hearts they quoted U2 and Bruce Springsteen. Brian McLaren wrote a little pre-adolescent verse. Then there was Mark Scandrette and his faux beat poetry and the Church Basement Roadshow—which wouldn't have been invited back to a karaoke bar for Free Beer Night even if members of the audience agreed to tune their instruments for them.

All these people did was hang cheap prints of a few saints, light some votive candles and sing In The Garden at me.

So as I say, this is mildly irritating, but I can handle it because I'm a patient man. It's unfair to expect anything more from clergyfolk who don't even know the significance of the rainbow in "The Flood Story". From flunkies like this you don't expect great devotional insights or a moving liturgy.

What is completely insufferable is a "conservative church" (assuming the term conservative church still describes a non-imaginary thing) that does precisely the same! We expect illiterates to miss the importance of the Psalms of David just as easily as they miss Christ's teaching on Hell or St. Paul's on the atonement. What beggars an imagination raised on Homer, Jules Verne, Edgar Allan Poe, Lord Dunsany, Charles Williams and J. R. R. Tolkien is that fundamentalists who proclaim their highest regard for an inerrant Scripture should abandon it for fluff that Lawrence Welk would have been embarrassed to play.

You owe it to yourself to read about the place of the Psalter in the history of the Church. If you are a fundamentalist, you may not know where to begin, so I will recommend this. Recent archeological discoveries have shown that David's collection of Psalms was not collected by the Roman Catholic Church or Calvinists who lacked evangelistic zeal.

Do the purveyors of "conservative Christian music" believe the Psalms are "archaic, irrelevant, or even unchristian", or is there some other explanation for this conspicuous wickedness?

I'm certainly grateful for the people who—having the greatest respect for Scripture—had the good sense to tighten the thumbscrews on people with too-long hair and too-short skirts. That was most helpful. And having dealt so prudently with those larger issues, they might now turn their attention to the smaller details of actually introducing the inspired Psalter to their worship.

Please understand: I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my way of thinking on this. This is just a suggestion to consider.

Watching someone in the "foresight field" struggle with simple definitions and elementary ideas was like watching a live fish in a dry bucket: frantic, violent and noisy.

Part of his problem is illiteracy and part of his problem is ideology and part of his problem is general gullibility, samples of which you can find on his blog. When Howard Zinn, Dorothy Day and Tom Sine sit in the honored seats around the table, it's not hard to spot the serious handicaps.

By way of amusing example, you may not know that the cell phone is "the single most transformative tool for development" of the global poor. Yes, people, the cell phone. They might as well pass out mood rings.

But there is another explanation, one that almost provokes our sympathy: where in christendom was a persuasive case being made for conservatism? Where was the attraction in the culture of the orthodox, separated church?

The FBF? Soundfroth? Steve Pettit's Hoedown Kings? The fine thespians of Maranatha Baptist Bible College? The seductive beauty of Majesty Hymns? The homiletics and liturgy of a movement still losing its own young people?

Tell me again that culture is not important.

Recently we were poking through emergent's casual thoughts and verbal pranks when one emergent gremlin came forward to help us illustrate the point.

I'd said previously:

It is clear that Emergents have pitched their tent toward Liberalism; there is a traceable lineage and a recognizable attitude that I'm not eager to dismiss. So if someone says, or if you have ever said, that Emergence is repackaged or renovated Liberalism, that doesn't land you in the sin bin. I would say we have no quarrel worth mentioning.

I went on to make what I believe to be a necessary distinction, and I think that distinction must be observed for us to understand our times. As for the traceable lineage I spoke of, I think Mike Morrell helps us with some of those tedious begats and son-ofs.

These people do think in stereotypes and speak in jargon. When Tim King and Spencer Burke make their dichotomy between Conversion or Contribution, they themselves spell out the difference between Christianity and Emergence. Emergent belief is that if you take Modernism and stir in some contemporary buzzwords like empowerment, global, inclusion, mystery, humility, multi-cultural, sacred narratives, gender, climate...you have something new, fresh, vital and attractive.

You really don't.

Some things never change, even when uttered from a couch.

Here is a Puritan's observation to remind us of the obvious: the world has a lot of pretty, painted baubles to bewitch the gullible.

O LORD,

The world is artful to entrap,
approaches in fascinating guise,
extends many a gilded bait,
presents many a charming face.

Let my faith scan every painted bauble,
and escape every bewitching snare
in a victory that overcomes all things.

In my duties give me firmness, energy, zeal,
devotion to thy cause,
courage in thy name,
love as a working grace,
and all commensurate with my trust.

Let faith stride forth in giant power,
and love respond with energy in every act.

I often mourn the absence of my beloved Lord
whose smile makes earth a paradise,
whose voice is sweetest music,
whose presence gives all graces strength.

But by unbelief I often keep him outside my door.

Let faith give entrance that he may abide with me forever.

Thy Word is full of promises,
flowers of sweetest fragrance,
fruit of refreshing flavour when culled by faith.

May I be made rich in its riches,
be strong in its power,
be happy in its joy,
abide in its sweetness,
feast on its preciousness,
draw vigour from its manna.

Lord, increase my faith.

For those with an interest in the pig's breakfast that is American Evangelicalism, you might want to read a slice of its history (and politics) here.

It is a very small slice, and it's unfortunate that Dr. Mouw can't be a little less superficial about the issues in play, but I think we all know better than to expect more from Christianity Today.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to go through the correspondence of CT's editors and trace the movement's failures on this point right up to the Manhattan Declaration, which by the way, as of 5:54 this morning, had only 412,931 signatures in support. A pitiful number of signatures out of a desired million.

There is no published count of the number who signed and then withdrew their signatures, but you might want to follow that line of inquiry over at Pyro.

Once again Evangelicals stumble into the Public Square, stare into the bright lights, tap the microphone, take out their note cards and embarrass themselves.

So not like a mighty army...

  ...then let me be what I profess, do as well as teach, live as well as hear religion.

--- Puritan prayer

In our recent posts we have glanced around at the casual thoughts and verbal pranks of people who pretend to be voices in the emergent church. These people suppose they have probing minds capable of expressing deep thoughts which we are interested in hearing about. They fancy themselves great independent thinkers of such brutal honesty that they can tell us the virtues of doubt and the consolations of disbelief. They think they are our spiritual heroes.

And they talk like this in public:

The reason that I got involved with the Presence families of ministries is largely because I'm a student of Strategic Foresight; Transmillenial eschatology sees the future as an open book, in which we have the sacred privilege of co-creating with God, one moment at a time. While the foresight field is ‘faith neutral' (its actually historically a tad hostile to faith, though that is changing as more nuanced and integral views effect the discipline), its view of an open future is quite compatible with this "way of seeing."

I have no doubt these people will someday get honorable mention in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and I wish them well with that. I also hope that that transmillenial [sic] eschatology thingy works out for them.

I suspect we can already see the general shape of a strong delusion. This is a day made for the Dan Browns, Wayne Dyers, David Haywards, Spencer Burkes, Barack Obamas...and has there ever been an hour more suitable for nonsense about our shadow self, about the false self becoming attached to form, about hope and change, about biblical story?

Have people ever been so deluded about the essence of that thing Tozer called a Christianity of the pure New Testament kind?

St. Paul said the Gospel was the power of God unto salvation. We must wonder who still believes that.