I prefer to think that the infamous steering committee sincerely desired my opinion of their Evangelical Manifesto but they just didn't know how to contact me.

So out of a temporary overstock of conviction I will offer a piece of advice for evangelicals' next scheduled Statement of Our Importance to Ourselves with Accompanying Signatures.

Make all statements about your identity clear and unambiguous. If you allude to "useful idiots", leave no doubt as to what you mean.

Make all statements of belief undisputed; nothing blunts the impact of a manifesto like an ensuing controversy and a nationwide scramble for definitions. Some possible declarations might include:

God is good.
Water is wet.
We really want to make the world a better place.

It's not unreasonable to hope that a simple majority of evangelicals can sign on for that. And since credibility tends to be notable by its absence, you might include something like:

Inasmuch as judgment of sin is an essential part of the Gospel we profess to have, insofar as believers' disobedience is a scandal and a discredit to the faith, and insofar as judgment begins at the house of God (I Peter 4:17), we cordially invite all observers of the Christian religion to dismiss our preachments until such time as we demonstrate a proper understanding of divine hatred of sin, the sine qua non of the euangelion.

I offer this believing that it is truly helpful advice. But beyond that, I offer it in the hope that you might spare us the pain of hearing men like Darrell Bock whining on and on about how, Yes, abortion is a holocaust, but we must not be single-issue people because "if we tip our environment enough out of balance that we have more tsunamis, of the kinds of scale that we've seen recently, that kind of thing...could it affect my grandchildren and great-grandchildren?" He admits that 50 million abortions is a "modern kind of holocaust", but "on the other hand I sit there and say if the environment goes sour and we can't sustain life on the earth, what kind of holocaust izzat?"

Yeah. I think the emergents' would agree that that is not a marketable eschatology of hope.

But back to my point: I would genuinely appreciate it if you guys didn't give occasion for the opinions of Dr. Bock to find a home on the public airwaves. We have seen enough moral lapses and heard enough of your trendy worrying about tsunamis to last us until the eschaton, and no one seems to be discrediting the Way of Jesus as effectively as evangelicals.

For the rest of us, an alternative for the term "evangelical" is desperately needed. David Wells settled on the word protestant, I've settled on the word non-conformist. But whichever way you go, waste no more time in making necessary distinctions.

For those following this evangelical ronde de lutins, you will want to read over some of the fallout, especially thither and yon.

It reminds me of the fun we had as kids playing Chinese Fire Drill at stop lights. It was great exercise and it amused the other motorists.

What does the Manifesto mean? when will you figure out what it means? and when you find out, will you tell us?

Do you regard it as helpful that the Manifesto means so many things to so many people? Was this document offered as a demonstration of the "unity and harmony of the body of Christ"? [page 12]

Does it disturb you at all that secular people have not yet made sense of it?

What sort of progress has there been for a better understanding of evangelical identity?

How are you coming on that reformation and renewal thingy? [page 11]

See also:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/10.20.html?start=1
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-bock_13edi.ART.State.Edition1.45fa756.html

First follow Nature, and your judgment frame
By her just standard, which is still the same:
Unerring Nature, still divinely bright,
One clear, unchang'd, and universal light,
Life, force, and beauty, must to all impart,
At once the source, and end, and test of art.
Art from that fund each just supply provides,
Works without show, and without pomp presides:
In some fair body thus th' informing soul
With spirits feeds, with vigour fills the whole,
Each motion guides, and ev'ry nerve sustains;
Itself unseen, but in th' effects, remains.
Some, to whom Heav'n in wit has been profuse,
Want as much more, to turn it to its use;
For wit and judgment often are at strife,
Though meant each other's aid, like man and wife.
'Tis more to guide, than spur the Muse's steed;
Restrain his fury, than provoke his speed;
The winged courser, like a gen'rous horse,
Shows most true mettle when you check his course.

Those Rules of old discover'd, not devis'd,
Are Nature still, but Nature methodis'd;
Nature, like liberty, is but restrain'd
By the same laws which first herself ordain'd.

--- Alexander Pope

Christianity Today reviews an R-rated movie. Camerin Courtney, a single Christian woman—there's a shocker, eh?—shares with us her insights:

Most of the few Christian voices speaking to the growing single segment of the population offer ten easy steps to find our soulmate. As if it's that wondrously simple. Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda, however, show how challenging it really can be for intelligent, accomplished, and admittedly neurotic women to find lasting love. They, unlike many Christians, don't insult my intelligence. Instead they speak to the complexities of relationships in a postmodern age-addressing baby lust, the mommy wars, sexual temptation, dating outside your "class," commitment-phobia, the reluctant desire to be rescued by a man, and the simultaneous fear that you'll lose your own hard-won identity in the process. Yes, materialism and hedonism abound. But so does a messy wrestling with complex new realities of life that I wish I saw more of in Christian circles.

All of this said, there is a lot of sex and nudity in the movie. Be warned: There's a threesome, a naked man in a shower, some steamy makeup sex. The sex scenes between married folk are somewhat less offensive, but there were too many times when it seemed that the producers were simply trying to shock.

Sex and the City is ambitious for all the characters, emotions, and crises it tries to shoehorn into two and a half hours. But the attempt elevates it above most chick flicks and romantic dramedies of late. SATC offers well-developed characters, smart dialogue, interesting plots and sub-plots, and a ton of heart. Not to mention eye-candy galore in the leading men and odd-yet-fabulous fashions. Still, I personally wasn't satisfied with the way the Carrie-Big plotline played out. And I think the franchise shines best when showcasing the characters' little, daily struggles and neuroses-Why hasn't he called? Is he really just not that into me?-as it did on the TV show than when trying to make bigger statements (both of the relationship and fashion varieties) as it does here.

A certain contingent of CT readers objected to finding Camerin's high opinion of pornography in the magazine of evangelical conviction, and once again CT had to explain to its bumpkin readers that they could hardly ignore the movie. Christians who care about their faith and the Arts are not paid to ignore movies!

Apparently they could find no middle ground between reviewing a movie and commending a movie.

Elsewhere among the followers of Jesus were recited these words in their Order for the Worship of God yesterday:

O Lord, great God, whom we behold in awe and wonder, who has kept covenant and steadfast love with Your people from age to age: we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from Your commandments and ordinances. We have known in our hearts what is right, and yet we did wrong anyway. We have been fascinated by evil, delighted with pleasing ourselves, satisfying our desires, pampering ourselves with pleasures. O Lord, great God, have mercy on us according to Your steadfast love. We know You are a God who delights in goodness. You, O Father, in the name of Jesus, the Lamb who was slain and yet lives forever more.

Last week my wife and I toured the sometimes idyllic sometimes dilapidated parts of Texas. You drive through towns that started before the Civil War and began their decline immediately. You will find empty old buildings patiently waiting to collapse into the weeds. You see communities with no visible justification for their existence making desperate attempts to revitalize themselves by advertising their proximity to more desirable communities. What used to be dignified banks are now shabby junk shops pretending to be antique stores. You drive through groomed, rural residential areas where you know you have no reason for being without a dually and a horse trailer.

It is a little like observing a culture uncoil itself in the time it takes for you to finish your banana milkshake.

At Remonstrans we take little detours into backwoods Christianity for a reason.

It can be entertaining to read wacky ideas from obsessed people, but we don't do it just for entertainment's sake. It is necessary to know how unseriously some take Scripture, how dismissive some are of knowledge, and how glibly some take reason. We drive these back roads not because it is appealing but because it is a portent of significant change. Some suppose that change will come only on the heels of a noble idea.

Try to maintain that notion while driving by the churches of Northern Texas.

We live among those who, as Carson observes, use sloganeering terms "associated with left-wing social agendas that relativize all cultural values and religious claims, except for the dogmatic claim that all such values are to be relativized".

The very silliest people want to be heard on matters of eschatological hope, a church that questions and thinks, the eschaton, a Daydream Millennial Kingdom, and "shifts in thinking".

It is not enough that you laugh at them; you need to be raising a generation which a) knows nothing but this piffle, and b) only hears you solemnize the glories of a fading past.

We continue our tour of aberrant contemporary religion.

Those of you who are beginning to get a feel for emergent now need to sample missional. Missional is like emergent, but slightly different. Think of them as those two gaudy earrings your aunt frightened you with.

There is a certain similarity, which is nice. It's something for them to fight over. It gives everyone a sense of identity and personal loyalty. People who are disgusted by fighting over pre-trib/mid-trib/pre-wrath can really tuck into the nuances of emergent/emerging/missional.

Like emergent, missional represents a shift in thinking—it might help to recall the sound of shifting without the benefit of a clutch. That kind of shift in thinking.

Here they claim to have a Missional Apologetic Manifesto. It's just a list of 25 things to help you think missionally, but we learn from it that lists can be as entertaining as a well-timed joke. Here are some sample shifts:

From programs to processes
From demographics to discernment
From models to missions
From attractional to incarnational
From uniformity to diversity
From professional to passionate
From seating to sending
From decisions to disciples
From additional to exponential
From monuments to movements

If you prefer to think in circles, there is this. I realize that some of you will check out these banalities and cry aloud to anyone seated there on the couch with you, "Hey, these bromides are fluffier than momma's bunny slippers!"

This is true.

So if you want to sink your teeth into the meat of the matter, you might try this from Reggie McNeal of Fuller Seminary. This monologue is long, meandering and disorganized, and you may think it is not worth your time.

I'm not gonna argue with you on that.

But if you want to get a feel for what captures the imagination of missional folk, it might be illustrative. Listen to Redge while bearing in mind some essential differences between Church and Kingdom. "The King is not waiting for the church to catch up." The King is moving on out ahead of the church and Jesus is presenting himself in visions to imams.

Yikes!

We now dedicate ourselves to collaborative friendships, partnering and constructive caring. How could it hurt for friends to collaborate? Who would argue against partnering, and between constructive and destructive caring, who would choose the latter? These are empty phrases that could produce unanimity among a whole shelf full of bobble-head dolls. And if we are careful not to say what we are collaborating on, if we don't explain what we are partnering in, and if we don't define how our care is in fact constructive, we can promise everything and deliver nothing.

This is today's church: huge bowls of smoke. Fundamentalists are becoming more and more serious, neo-evangelicals are writing yet another manifesto, seeker-sensitives are threatening to make self-feeders number as the sands upon the seashore, and emergents are spreading an ethos from sofa to sofa.

Yes, our greatest minds have tackled the problems.

Finally there will be mighty collaborations, bold, innovative thrusts, and radical agendas. Campaign will follow campaign, and manifesto will be stacked upon manifesto. And not a moment too soon.

I poked around and sifted through some open source lunacies. I found these underneath a sofa cushion: "7 exercises for the ordinary time". Here are some hard-hitting ideas that will make you badminton enthusiasts grateful you invested $190.00 in an authentic NFL helmet.

Buckle your chinstrap.

1. There is the rhythmic way which involves a daily reading from the breviary followed by an hour of reflective silence.

2. There is the simple way: you sell half of what you own and give the proceeds "to global poverty". Not the needy person Providence has placed in your way: "global poverty".

3. There is the creative way which sounds especially productive. You walk through your neighborhood for several hours and then "write poetry or music expressing God's hopes and dreams for the neighborhood".

4. There is the hospitable way wherein you presume on someone else's hospitality by sleeping on his or her couch for several days. You might also hunker down on the street with a homeless friend.

5. The marginal way would involve your hanging around a place where you are not wanted.

6. With the subversive way you might find yourself involved in street theater, some sort of political protest.

7. And finally, a peaceful way might have you wandering a dangerous part of town at an unsafe hour. This would "foster peace".

The Rhythmic way, the Simple way, the Creative way, the Hospitable way, the Marginal way, the Subversive way and the Peaceful way.  "RSCHMSP" for short, or—as I like to think of it—what you will be saying to the police after the doctors wire your jaw shut in the emergency room because you did #7.

And of course the "eschatological hope". Don't forget the eschatological hope.

Like a mighty army moves the church of God.

On a day of our own choosing 33 years ago, a woman and I vowed to live together in defiance of every unpleasant contingency and to prove all the pleasures of love. Nearly every year we run off to some hills, valleys, dales, fields or craggy mountains to mark that day. This year that occasion falls between today and Sunday.

Because many hills, valleys, dales, fields and craggy mountains are still not WiFi-endowed, you might not hear from me this Friday. I will bring the laptop but I cannot promise the laptop will bring me the web.

I suspect she will kick off her fair linèd slippers with buckles of purest gold, sit down at an ivory table and eat off silver dishes. Afterwards I hope to make her laugh until her sides ache.

To do this I will suggest we further develop this generative friendship, collaboration and partnership; that we recommit to positive and constructive caring for one another. I plan to use a lot of silly catch-phrases stolen from the emergent writings. I will quote directly from underlined portions in Tony Jones' Anecdotes and Platitudes. I will orate from the balcony the most vapid passages I can find.  The lights in nearby cottages will come on. Curses will be shouted and security will be called.

But I will be merciless. And in the candlelight I shall whisper precious truths and poignant sorrows with the most banal, pompous and insincere phrases ever to be uttered outside the UN General Assembly.

On the left side of the page I shall make a list of positive ways that she can care for me, and she in turn will fill the right side with constructive ways I might care for her. We will move, Fred- and Ginger-like, from the ivory table to the sofa where we can discuss both sides with the sort of nincomplop earnestness that Sir Pelham Grenville might have wished to put into the hearts of Gussie Fink-Nottle and Madeline Bassett.

Thus I hope to lighten the spirit and return to the hapless drudgery of editing the abyssal thinkings of Kevin, Trucker Frank and other near-literate reformers of the great Christian faith.

The first time I read Christ & Culture I was certain I knew what Niebuhr meant by the ampersand. I was skeptical about what he meant by Christ, and I knew he was wrong about culture. So I put it back in the closet believing the thing was way too baggy to be worn in public.

Later I perused it thinking the material might have shrunk and was perhaps wearable. After all, the book was only a year older than I was, and I was willing to concede that my knowledge of culture at the time of my mother's pregnancy was spotty. Maybe since then I learned something about his culture.

Nope. Back on the rack it went.

By the third time I had had enough. It was a book worth having read, but I got the impression that even the people who said it was wonderful hadn't been noticeably benefited by it. Too many exceptions and not enough rules. When people referred to it or quoted from it, it was nice to know the context, but even people who said it was "seminal" seemed to be talking rubbish. Certainly better things could be said. Longinus, Sidney, Bacon, Pope, Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, Poe, Arnold...could clarify a lot of nice points and explain Man & Culture reasonably well. Niebuhr in explaining Christ & Culture seemed to be nailing a lemon meringue pie to the wall.

If you are a good reader and if you make notes of your reading, I would say it is worth the price. I'm not sure I would put it on anyone's short reading list. If there were a Cliff Notes version of it, I'll bet you could read that and come up with some tough questions for those people who thought it was wonderful.

So here is D. A. Carson with a tape measure around his neck, pins between his lips and a piece of chalk in his hand. I think he has taken the best measure of the thing, and I think my first reaction was fair. I'm going to say you should read Christ & Culture Revisited [Eerdmans]. And I would say (especially following the short exchange here on Remonstrans about the emergents' "eschatological hope") that this is something worth nailing down in your mind. If all you read is chapter two, it's worth it.

Evangelicals are back at it again trying to explain what it is they want to do in the public square, what needs to be done with "culture". As far as they are concerned the best thing you can do is to smile at them, ask them what qualifies them as critics of culture and walk away. But you might come across someone who has read some evangelical bafflegab and he might ask you what you think. Since culture is important, you might want to be braced for the discussion.

I haven't finished Carson yet so I'm not sure he can make this suit entirely presentable, but I have read enough to know that whether or not you end up agreeing, you'll have had the categories sorted properly.

And these days that's saying a lot.

Art is very, very important.

Some art, as we saw Wednesday, can spark vital conversations on important issues of the day. Often it provides people with an occasion for venting favored resentments. We all have been terribly wronged in this life, but it can be uncomfortable just to walk up to someone cold turkey and kvetch without having laid the proper groundwork. That would be so gauche. This is where art comes into play. Notice how the nakedpastor, with nothing more than a felt-tipped pen, can excite PC outrage and provoke really deep thoughts. This is what art does for us.

Over on Solomon's Porch they have another theory of art:

We believe that beauty, art and creativity should be valued, used, and understood as coming from or being connected to the Creator.

Here they don't say much about what it exists to do or what makes it excellent or meaningful, and to look through their galleries and read their comments one concludes they don't know what it exists for except to sell. Incidentally, wander through Pagitt's site and try to find ways you could make it even more commercial, more self-promoting.

Doug Pagitt holds that Story has a place in Christian outreach: Story is something the Church might employ using "a minimum of communication skills". The Church should, "utilize hospitality and community in a greater way".

This of course is what King David and the Psalms are all about.

Some of you will find these aesthetic theories somewhat dubious. You might think these are the idle thoughts of incompetent bumpkins. Perhaps that is only because you have not seen Emergent Art at its finest. For that I direct your attention to this. This is Tony Jones using a minimum of communication skills.

There is nothing we can do, except perhaps to tune his mandolin for him, to improve his art.

And at this point I must caution our readers: the above link takes you to an emergent website, and Remonstrans cannot be held responsible for any smut posted there as a show of hospitality and community. You might want to send your children out of the room before clicking on the link.

"The church is for those who question and think" sings Tony.

So good to know.

I link to this without comment.

Reflect.

"Things are not looking too oojah-cum-spiff at the moment."

--- Bertie Wooster to his Aunt Dahlia

It has been my contention here all along that we need a generation of shepherds who a) are competent in ideas, who b) have a functioning sensibility and who c) can make judgments; men who know the rôle of criticism and who know how to defend the faith. Defending the faith these days means writing a paper, having a conference, distributing a cassette tape—or passing a resolution condemning effective Bible teachers and winsome personalities as being the greatest peril to fundamentalism.

(Incidentally, I wrote to the OBF gang and asked what constituted "unguarded use of these people". I didn't know if I should separate from my wife because she reads MacArthur and listens to him on her i-pod. That was back on 3 April 2006 and I have yet to hear back. Apparently the threat is not as urgent as was represented.)

David Wells published No Place For Truth in 1993. He closed that book with a chapter, The Reform of Evangelicalism. This was a reasoned and unobjectionable warning which was followed by three more books, God in the Wasteland, Losing Our Virtue, and Above All Earthly Powers. Since the first book, and coincidental with the rest, there has appeared the emergent movement led by—how shall I put this in a way that demonstrates my commitment to "engagement"?—led by men too dumb to come in out of the rain. In this same span of time we have witnessed an alleged upheaval in thought at Willow Creek. It rocked their world.

Evangelicals recently issued a "Manifesto". It was so crystal clear and so unambiguous that two evangelicals discussing its meaning (http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-05-12) wondered if they'd read the same document. One signed; one didn't.

We read an explanation of "eschatological hope" and an eschaton so disconnected from reality and traditional theology that we have reason to wonder if the insane asylums had been emptied for Spring cleaning.

There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that a Tom & Jerry comic book is better researched and more professionally written than The New Christians. Tony characterized Schweitzer's apostasy as an academic trend. The only other option was snake-handling. So you had this choice: you could side with men who were admittedly embracing academic trends or you could join snake-handling fundamentalism.

Your seasoned sailor tells us it takes a certain amount of time and space to turn around an aircraft carrier, but compared to our seminaries and the boards of directors of our denominational institutions, an aircraft carrier can dart and wheel like a hummingbird.

I have a high regard for Wells' work. I think Carson has been very helpful. But where has it gotten us?

No place. This has become nothing more than a badminton tournament.

We have lost the ability to feel toward God as we ought to feel, and most church folk are acting like another paper defense of the truth is what is called for.

Fundamentalists are telling us they are serious when it is obvious they don't yet know what it takes to become serious: just listen to their liturgy. Evangelicals don't know what is true, have no way of determining what is true, and every new attempt at defining truth fractures the movement even further. We have gotten to the point where the clearest articulations of truth are found in books showing us how it no longer exists in our institutions.

Seeker-sensitives are still claiming that they will figure out how to feed the flock of God when they "deeply listen" to their consumers: they "wrote a book and launched a website". Emergents are certifiable nutjobs who misrepresent philosophy, theology, church history, Latin roots, and who don't know what to do with a narrative when the Holy Spirit gives them one.

Where in all this is a defense of the faith? If this is contending for the faith, can we call ours a credible resistance?

__________________________

* In response to ex libris.