Our seasonal gratitude and holiday celebrations afforded us a measure of respite from any serious review of Recent Events of Great Consequence (like the Manhattan Declaration and emergent's pursuit of "art" and "conversation"). Generate published its first issue, and the three most responsible culprits excuse their "print artifact" here at TheSchmooze.

These fashion hounds of the emerging church explain why their conversation justifies the cutting down of perfectly good trees which might have been better used to make nasty splinters.

Anyhow, we forsook the dubyahdubyahdubyah and travelled with friends over to Homer, L'zzyanna, to disguise ourselves as typical holiday revelers on Lake Claiborne. In Cabin #7 the traditional jigsaw puzzle was set out, we ate food, we played games, we ate food, we exchanged gifts and awarded prizes, we ate food, we watched football, we ate food, we taunted one another for personal discrepancies, failings, idiosyncrasies and youthful misjudgments.

Some of us played a round of dimpleball at the Homer Golf Course. Halfway through the first nine we found the putting green next to some picnic tables and the restrooms! (I don't always take a putter into the Men's Room, but when I do, I prefer a Ping.)

We took a stroll around and a gander at the Claiborne Parish Courthouse, one of the very few remaining ante-bellum civic buildings.

We stopped in the PigglyWiggly on North 2^nd for a bag of Claey's Horehound hard candies which constituted my entire Louisiana Purchase.

We built many fires.

But it was pleasant, it was relaxing, it was enjoyable and we harmed no one.

All that is history now as we return to the disturbing world of theologians and church-tinkerers and where little is pleasant, relaxing or enjoyable and where many are grievously harmed.

Now thank we all our God, with heart and hands and voices,
Who wondrous things has done, in Whom this world rejoices;
Who from our mothers' arms has blessed us on our way
With countless gifts of love, and still is ours today.

O may this bounteous God through all our life be near us,
With ever joyful hearts and blessèd peace to cheer us;
And keep us in His grace, and guide us when perplexed;
And free us from all ills, in this world and the next!

All praise and thanks to God the Father now be given;
The Son and Him Who reigns with Them in highest Heaven;
The one eternal God, whom earth and Heaven adore;
For thus it was, is now, and shall be evermore.

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

Evangelicalism has successfully extinguished any artistic impulse. Not only has it failed to produce anything that rewards serious aesthetic reflection, it has erased any memory of what the religious imagination once did for the pious.

Emergents say they feel this loss very keenly, and one of the things they hoped to do was "bring Art back into the Church".

And how's that working out for them, you ask? Other than the transcendent works of Soupiset, Scandrette and McLaren, what sort of splash has Emergence made in the art world?

"Well," I reply, "there are always the wood-roasted salsas, the urban tribal T-shirts, the mittens and the totebags of Solomon's Porch, Doug Pagitt's suburban flea market of inspirational bric-a-brac."

I'd hoped to make it up for the Minneapolis show to visit with all my art critic friends from New York and Boston, but Remonstrans' travel budget took a big hit after the Christianity21 fiasco and the Dallas book signing. In addition, the editorial board failed to see any connection between art and, as they refer to them, "those disgusting postmodern rodents". Our Fine Arts editor, Ms. Prudence McSpigot, suggested in a piercing soliloquy that I stop annoying her. She said that she could not even imagine under what loathsome circumstances she would need to talk with me, but should that contingency ever arise she would give self-disembowelment a try. She said I should content myself with Doug's little 12-second docudramas here.

I pass them along for your edification and inspiration.

The molested spirits of Chagall, Masaccio, Dürer and Giorgione now shriek, wail and sob through the streets of Minneapolis.

When we last left our hireling-without-raiment he was telling us that we should question everything, especially our theology and our ideas of church and ministry. Well, that was utter nonsense and we all knew it immediately. It was so obvious that even David recognized it as nonsense, and he very helpfully came over and amended his insight: what he should have said, he now guesses, is that "we need to question all of our theology and reject all that which endorses power, etc."

And this was most helpful.

Or rather not helpful at all, but perhaps well-meaning. As it must have occurred to you all, questioning everything is impossible: the logical place to start questioning everything is with questioning the questioner. But if you say you are going to question everything and then promise to reject only certain elements, you have already aroused the suspicion of sane and honest people. If before you begin the questioning you name the bits you will reject at the end of the questioning, you are not doing the work of a completely healthy mind.

And to question everything and then reject only those bits that "endorse power" is both intellectually impossible and morally wicked. Even mentally retarded people know that some power is necessary and good. The asylum orderly keeps the big retard from eating the little retard's lunch. Even kids on academic probation in their Sunday School know that God has all power and that he dispenses it according to his will and wisdom.

So for one to comb through all his theology and then "reject all that which endorses power, etc." is—how can I word this delicately?—hmmmm, no, I don't think there is a way to word this delicately, so I'll just say it's asinine.

Is it any wonder that this guy's church is cannibalizing itself?

So in a subsequent episode—and I think here I can use the word episode in its psychological sense—Dave offers this:

The Christian culture I found myself in couldn't give me peace about how other religions fit into the scheme of things, or how people of other faiths or non-faiths were also on a valid path.

My Christian culture, on the other hand, has a ready and perfectly reasonable answer, and it gives me a bowlful of peace garnished with large dollops of hope: "other religions fit into the scheme of things" by providing an occasion for God to dispense either mercy or justice according to his eternal decree. And people of "other faiths and non-faiths" most certainly are on a valid path. As post-modernity has taught us, all paths are equally valid!

We call this the path to Hell. It is not a desirable path, maybe, but it certainly has validity.

It might not be a path that gives Dave peace, but in my own Journey of Questioning I've questioned the need for (or benefit in) David Hayward's getting any peace. I doubt that Dave will ever question that, but who knows? Perhaps there lives in the tropical rain forests a little frog which secretes a goo soon to be harvested to create a wonder drug. Then Dave's prognosis might improve.

So after much prayer, meditation, and contemplation and after taking what he thought were all reasonable measures, Dave finally realized something he knew all along. Here is how he describes it:

The apparent divisions were all unfolding of a deeper and mysterious Oneness. I apprehended the truth that I had to die to all my brain's attempts to grasp for knowledge. I had to humble myself, die to self, and, in a sense, give up the search. It was necessary for me to, in way, stop struggling to stay on the tumultuous surface and sink, sink way down.

I'm tempted to say that Dave's dying to all his brain's attempts to grasp for knowledge was probably as close as he got to a bona fide epiphany. Tragic, is it not, that Dave humbled himself only in his imagination. Humbling himself before Jesus was asking too much.

Pharisaism flourishes in the heart of every degenerate.

Most wise and generous Father, we acknowledge and confess our self-indulgence. We have abandoned your paths and we have foolishly chosen a way that seemed good to us. We have looked on your goodness and counted it a small thing. We have despised your word and pursued our own vanities. We have squandered your blessings and hoarded our own conceits. We are false in our convictions, presumptuous in our speech, insincere in our confessions, perfunctory in our repentance, tardy in our obedience, and casual in our worship.

Have mercy upon us.

Amen.

I am fascinated by the Intelligent Design argument as Stephen Meyer articulates it, and I am entertained by the shrill and doctrinaire "new atheists". I can't decide who is funnier, Tony Jones or Richard Dawkins.

Following his visit to Dallas I asked Meyer (with his knowledge of the history and philosophy of science) what might become of science as a discipline. Given recent discoveries, explanations and repercussions, what future is there for honest exploration and real science? He suggested that aspiring scientists would simply "move on to more productive efforts". I don't doubt that he is right: who wants to devote his time to pursuing answers that might cut the career short?

Still.

I'm not sure that the matter is quite so simply resolved. It's not just the work of the Discovery Institute that should have materialists worried. Materialists can surmise forever about matter and energy and chance, but I think Meyer's critique is—at this point—a mortal wound. Information does appear to exist and it does not appear to have an explanation materialists are willing to cough up. Materialism tells us precisely nothing. All the chance and necessity in the universe can't make this dog hunt. If you read Signature in the Cell you come away with the sort of hopelessness Dante spoke of.

Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.

I'm certainly not enough of a scientist to guess what possible answers might be offered in the future. I'm certainly not prepared to say Signature in the Cell will be the last book published on the subject (I do say it is a comprehensive introduction), but no answers even seem possible given what we now know.

As I say, it's not just ID narrowly defined. You should want to read about this, and you might want to pursue this line of thinking further. The very least that can be said is that "Darwinism is no longer alone in this world".

It may not be the greatest news I've heard all day, but it is now a fact of life for thoughtful men. We've been encouraged to become more reflective: here is one place to start.

Eternal things now cast a discernible shadow.

A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

--- King Solomon

If I were to tell you to listen to this—and I will definitely tell you to listen to this—you might well put your mousepointer over the linktext, look down at your status bar and think to yourself, "Oh, great, not another hieratic lullaby from the Central Sleep Clinic". Thinking that would be a mistake: go and listen.

Listen to all three addresses by Robert Delnay; even if you have a profound religious commitment to halfway measures, then at least listen to the last of the three.

There is a lowering mist, a morbid cloud, hovering among the ruins of fundamentalism, and the reflex of many has been to huddle up and pretend the problem is one of definition: perhaps one more mighty wind from the platform will blow it away. If we suppose that the world has forgotten what a fundamentalist is, then perhaps we can solve the problem with more bafflegab.

What could one more lecture hurt, right?

But if the problem is not just a misunderstanding of fundamentalism or separation, then more lectures will not help. If fundamentalism has lost its good name, then it needs to inquire as to how that happened. If future usefulness is a problem, then saluting the cap one more time is not a solution. And if you've lost your young people, then your day has well and truly ended. You have enjoyed the book so far, the protagonists have been captivating, the plot has been riveting, but as the fingers of your right hand fan through the few remaining pages you begin to suspect that things cannot end well. There is not nearly enough space left for things to end with a bang, and there is barely enough space for things to end with a satisfying whimper.

Those of us who have suggested this was the case have been dismissed as being too conspicuously celebratory. In my case, I don't care. In the case of others, I'll let them find their own words to describe this last, pitiable self-justification.

What you will not do, I guarantee, is dismiss Delnay's thoughts as party chat.

For those of you still dubious or ambivalent about all this last-minute scrambling for identity, bear in mind one thing: Delnay sees no solution in Evangelicalism or Conservative Evangelicalism or Emergence or any other death gurgle within earshot. He is not motivated by anything so small as the loss of the young to Dever, Piper, MacArthur, Mohler.... If what he says about fundamentalism is true, then the solution belongs to those willing to learn from history and act rationally.

Think about what he says. I know the man well enough to know when he is amused and when he is not.

Take it from me; I've seen him much happier.

10. Start to seriously question everything, especially your theology and your ideas of what church and ministry is. Let your theology deconstruct, realizing that much of what we are taught and have learned endorses power, authority and control, and is contrary to freedom. Begin to discover what the truth is for yourself. Your search, it is promised, will not go unrewarded.

---David Hayward

Some people think I have way too much fun at the expense of emergents. [My wife holds to a variant of this view: she thinks I have way too much fun period!] And I have to agree that in the religious world right now, Emergence is probably the funniest thing going. There is nothing funny about Fundagelicalism anymore; and there isn't going to be anything funny about it until fundagelicals can figure out what they believe. Until fundamentalists agree on what they are separating from, they cannot be funny. And until evangelicals agree on what the euangelion is, they cannot be funny either. They can be only pathetic and desperate.

Emergents can still be funny because they are not yet desperate: their naïveté makes them oblivious to the absurdity of their errors. They think they are going somewhere very fast, but they keep not getting there. That's genuinely funny.

Take Dave Hayward's statement above. Tell me that's not hilarious.

But I'm not in this just for the giggles, I'm also up for a little instruction, and Emergence is quite instructive. In fact, it would not be unfair to say that I am not as much amused by Emergence as a cause as I am intrigued by Emergence as an effect.

Fundagelicalism made some serious errors, and we knew when it made those errors there was going to be a price to pay. When fundagelicals fell off the pot that was on top of the stool that was on top of the laundry basket that was on top of the ladder that was on the top of the table...we knew it would leave a mark.

Emergence is that mark.

Once Fundagelicals swapped truth (which is eternal) for plausibility (which is ephemeral) it was only a matter of time before their children would be chasing the wind.

Mark Galli thinks that by pursuing "commitment" evangelicalism can rid itself of nominalism, and that doesn't even make sense on paper.

Tremper Longman III is embarrassed by a historical Adam. He thinks Adam's central rôle in our theology is just a result of "programming".

I sat under another troupe of grifters from Dallas Theological Seminary which was more interested in distancing itself from Young Earth Creationism than it was in a genuine understanding of the first three chapters of Genesis. Ironically, at the very moment it was engaged in this chancel farce, useful inquiries were being made into Darwinism.

So what the Church once believed was fact Evangelicals now hold to be metaphor. Unfortunately for everyone, these losers cannot share with us the tenors and vehicles of their metaphors. They not only assault faith, they debase metaphor! It's like listening to Danielle Shroyer talk about story.

Extremely disappointing.

So Emergence should not surprise us. Christianity has been a culture of disbelief for quite some time now. David Hayward flatters himself to think he is prepared to question everything, but we know he won't. He won't question his own competence—in spite of the fact he has practical reason to do just that. He will not question his own intelligence, evidence notwithstanding. He will not question his own premises. I mean what rational person in the 21^st Century can really believe that "what we learned about theology" (how's that for a convenient ambiguity?) serves only to endorse power, authority and control?

I suspect there are more people who believe in martians than there are people who believe all theology and church and ministry are priests' grab for power, authority and control.

It's fascinating that Hayward's advice comes in a convenient list of ten things. The first step in deconstructing your church is:

1. First of all, you have to really want to. It has to be an inner necessity.

I wonder if Dave will start at the beginning and question his will or his inner needs? I wonder if questioning all theology, church and ministry can possibly be grounded on something as rock-solid as any individual's wants and needs.

In the meantime, I'd like to question his psychiatrist.

We hope you each had an invigorating Halloween. My wife and I threw every reasonable caution to the wind and invited over some emigrés from the ancient land of Ouaouiatanon.

It wasn't as scary as a trip to Minneapolis, but it was still pretty frightening.

We also hope you enjoyed the Emergent Halloween Special on vimeo. For those of you who found that entertaining and might want more, I can do no better than send you over to that preacher-what-ain't-got-no-clothes-on. He's got his own ecclesiastical dance macabre goin' on, and he will share with you how he is preventing things from happening and what steps he has taken to resist success:

Our worship music is raw and unprofessional. The preaching and teaching is unrefined, crude and informal. Our community is made up of a diverse mixture of regular people. We aren't a big deal.

Sounds fundamentalist to me. I still don't see how that makes him different.

Anyway, David Hayward (who regards himself as average in intelligence) promises to devote some time to explaining his failures, how he goes about destroying his church, and how it is becoming more free and more human. Those seeking more freedom and humanity will be amused to read his upcoming posts.

Spencer Burke has been meditating in his garage. You remember the Sparkhouse smiling simpleton who wants us to listen to more heretics? Here he re-examines "success". His target generation regards the Bible as less sacred and less accurate than preceding generations.

And this is a good thing.

This is an improvement.

Ultimately we may need to let the next generation define "the power of God's Word"...

Why this man is permitted to have shoelaces still troubles the mental healthcare professionals.