Filthy Roman Sponge

Troubling.

Thoughts?

How to baptize 1,000 people in four minutes

Last weekend Noble and Furtick announced the astounding news that between them they’d baptized more than a thousand people. I was curious to see how they did it, especially given that, for NewSpring at least, none of the baptism candidates knew about the baptism until a few minutes before they entered the water.

How did Noble do that? What powerful message on baptism did he preach to persuade so many believers to take that sacred step?

The answer: he didn’t say much at all.

His sermon was focused mainly on Joshua taking off his shoes when, according to Noble, he met Jesus in Joshua 3. Jesus asked Joshua to obey the small, insignificant step of taking off his sandals. As a consequence of his obedience in such a minor matter, God put Joshua on the map.

Noble then asked what minor steps we needed to obey God in, and suggested that it might be baptism. He then explained baptism to his congregation. You can see the entire sermon here, but it was full of nonsensical examples that had the church voting for Chevy or Ford, and cheesecake or cheeseburger. You’ll have to watch it yourself to see how it related to baptism, but somewhere in there he did teach about the Why, How, Who and When of baptism.

With such an ambitious agenda, you might think this would take a few weeks to cover, though Noble got through it all in less than four minutes. The following clip is an edited version of the substance of his teaching. (I have edited out extraneous material on marital authority, fear of water, and infant baptism.)

Please understand that I am not criticizing anyone who was baptized last week, nor the church’s mission to baptize believers. What is disappointing is that the pastor thought it was worth a thousand people immediately taking an important spiritual step, yet he didn’t think it worth more than a few minutes of substantial teaching on a doctrine that literally defines his denomination.

Now, a part of his message is unassailable and praiseworthy–if Jesus tells us to do something, we really have no argument against it. That is true, but there is much more that Scripture offers us on the meaning and mode of baptism than demanding straight obedience. Can we not be obedient and informed? One would assume that knowing more about the sacrament would add to the believers’ blessings.

Commentator Tommy had guessed last week that Noble had achieved his numbers by presenting the sacrament as meaningless.

My interest here is the irony of Baptists celebrating nearly 1000 baptisms, by a group who thinks it’s meaningless.

Tommy appears to have been correct. Where does one find any meaning in Noble’s presentation here? Noble’s message was that this is such a minor step–just like taking off your shoes–, that you’d only refuse to do it if you were afraid or proud.

The only meaning he did provide was that this meant one was “going public” for Jesus.

If that’s all it is, how does getting wet in an above-ground pool behind the church building make one’s faith any more public than attending church in the first place? If going public is what it’s all about, why can’t we just post an announcement on Craig’s list?

Surely there’s more to baptism than this.

(Noble posed four questions: Why, How, Who and When. If I am to complain about his cursory answer, it might be expected that I provide my own, and so I will. Over the next few weeks, PP will answer these questions, probably in four different posts.)

Do words really matter?

If you follow the comments to any of these posts (they’re usually more interesting than the posts themselves), you’re aware that there’s a bit of a discussion emerging about the propriety of claiming to be jacked up about the Gospel. The word is commonly defined as either being broken or being under the influence of drugs. I and a few others have taken the position that it is not an appropriate term to describe one’s reaction to the preaching of the Word, and others are saying that emotions trump whatever words we choose to describe them. In other places on this blog, we’ve looked at how the modern church is frequently promiscuous in its use of language.

Does it really matter? Should Christians be so careful about the words we use?

Absolutely.

We follow a Savior who described himself as the Word. God created and sustains us and everything we see by the power of his word. Words are powerful and meaningful. If we assume we can take liberties with the words we use (Bamf, jacked and BangORang to describe God’s work, for example), then we strip words of all their meaning, usefulness and power.

When God told Timothy to study, what was he supposed to study (2 Timothy 2:15), if not words? When Peter tells us that some of Paul’s teachings are difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16), it’s the words that hold the key to their meaning. When God wanted his prophetic message to be clearly expressed in Habakkuk 2:2, what did he use? Written words. What would make Solomon judge a word as fitly spoken (Proverbs 25:11), if not an excellent match between a word’s definition and its application?

When we want to understand the precise meaning of Scripture, we go to the original languages to research the definitions and usage of the words we’ve translated into English. In knowing God’s revelation, precise and unchanging meanings are crucial. If we treat words as being infinitely malleable, we give ourselves the liberty to treat the Bible cavalierly and read our own meanings into it.

Words are so important, God would rather us not use them at all than to use them carelessly, which is one of the important lessons Job had learned by the end of his book.

The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth be silent before him. (Habakkuk 2:20)

Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong. Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty with your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few. (Ecclesiastes 5:1-2)

I would expect that there’s a very high correlation between leaders who carefully watch their language and who preach God’s Word faithfully, insightfully and effectively. If you don’t treat the definitions of words seriously, how can you possibly study the Bible?

Find a preacher with a loose tongue, and you’ll probably also find a preacher with loose doctrine.

3 Levels of Doctrine

Just finished reading a book by Al Mohler called He is Not Silent. Very good book that I’d recommend to anyone involved in ministry, even though it is effectually written for pastors. One particular thing that stands out to me is the three levels of doctrine defined by Mohler as:

1. Level 1 – Essentials of the Faith.  This level includes things like the virgin birth, the Trinity, the Resurrection, and the deity of Christ. If we don’t get these right, we can’t really consider ourselves Christians.
2. Level 2 – There is room within level two for disagreement, but these are serious enough that we couldn’t really worship together on a regular basis if we did not agree. Things included in this group may be infant baptism, charismatic gifts, and position on predestination.
3. Level 3 – These are non-essential to the Faith. It doesn’t mean they aren’t important or shouldn’t be discussed. It simply means we won’t have to break fellowship over a disagreement. One thing that pops in to my mind on this level would be eschatology.

The reason I bring this up is because it seems like some here only recognize Level 1 and Level 3. You either push to call someone a heretic, or you don’t think it’s worth making a fuss about.  That makes discussion particularly tough for me, because I would say most of the disagreements that I share on this site fall into Level 2. I’m not saying the person in error can’t be a Christian. I’m not calling them a heretic or a false prophet. However, for the most part, I’m not nit-picking either. I’m pointing out (sometimes in a light-hearted manner) things that I consider to be very serious issues. I point them out because I think these issues need to be addressed by each individual believer, and sadly, some modern leaders seem to want them swept under a rug.

I want to hear from you. Which issues fall into each level for you? Is this completely subjective, or is there a biblical standard to follow? Does it matter at all, or is it enough for one to confess belief in Jesus?

Dangerous flirtations with heresy

This retweet from Brad Cooper is giving me heartburn tonight:

Acknowledging the historical fact of His resurrection doesn’t save u (James2:9). Being changed by His resurrection does (Rom6)

I think more highly of BCoop than some of you might suppose, so seeing him entertain this kind of idea stuns me. The cancer in the modern church movement is the tolerance for the denial of the historicity of Scripture (c.f. Rob Bell et al.) With this tweet, Cooper seems to be endorsing the idea that believing that the resurrection is a historical fact is optional to our faith.

No. No. No. No. No.

If we don’t believe that the resurrection is a historical fact, we are not going to be changed by it because we have no faith. The resurrection as historical fact is everything; without it, the foundation of our faith crumbles.

Yes, I was disappointed in the whole BAMF stuff, but this is much more serious. Perhaps he’ll retract and explain in an upcoming tweet. I really hope he does.

(BTW, I don’t get the James 2:9 reference. Is it a typo, or am I missing something? UPDATE: It was a typo. The proper reference is James 2:19.)

Why Simeon matters

Seth asks how I know that Simeon is a priest, and accuses me of making stuff up by insisting that he is. Elsewhere, commentators on the Bathroom post have told us that they want to see some more theology on this blog. So let’s do some.

Getting Simeon right matters because if Simeon was not a priest, you and I could not be saved. If we dismiss Simeon as a crazy old man, we invalidate Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross.

Yes, it’s that important. Here’s why.

1. Jesus had to perfectly obey the law. Paul makes clear in Romans that the point of the law was to condemn us. No-one can obey it. Jesus, however, did. He’s the only one who obeyed the law perfectly, which makes his righteousness effective when by God’s grace it is credited to believers. If Jesus had not kept the law, he would not be able to save us from the law’s punishment.
2. Jesus had to conform to the law’s requirements for firstborns. Exodus 13:2 required the consecration of every firstborn male. Jesus was a firstborn male. He had to be consecrated.
3. Jesus had to conform to the law’s requirements for circumcision. Luke 2:21 tells us that Mary and Joseph obeyed that requirement.
4. Mary had to be purified after Jesus’ birth. Leviticus 12:2-4 tells us that she had to wait until the right time.
   

   ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.

   On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

   Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over.

   Luke tells us that this is what Mary had been waiting for in Luke 2:22.

   When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.

5. Jesus was consecrated at the same time that Mary was purified. Luke explains the connection in Luke 2:23.
   

   As it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord.”

6. Mary and Joseph had to offer the correct sacrifice. Leviticus tells us that the parents had some options on what sacrifices to bring for the purification and consecration. From Leviticus 12:6, 8:
   

   She is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.

   If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

   Mary and Joseph obeyed this requirement by bringing the doves or pigeons, as recorded in Luke 2:24. Luke is being very careful to explain the connection between Leviticus 12 and what is happening here in Jerusalem. Leviticus 12 and Luke 2 are exactly parallel. So, let’s go to the next requirement:

7. Jesus had to be consecrated by a priest. Luke says the consecration and purification are the same event. Leviticus says that the purification must be done through a priest. From Leviticus 12:6-8:
   

   When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.

   He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her…

   In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’

   Luke 2:27-28 tells us that Simeon was the one who did all of this for Jesus and Mary.

   When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God

   Only a priest could do for Jesus what the custom of the law required. Simeon was the person who did what Mary and Jesus needed done.

   Simeon must have been a priest.

If Simeon had really been the out-of-control, crazy old man that Perry Noble describes, we miss the significance of this event.

If Simeon were not a priest, Jesus would not have been consecrated according to the requirements of the law. Had that been the case, he would have not perfectly followed the law. Had that been the case, he could not have atoned for our disobedience to the law. Had that been the case, we could not have been saved.

Simeon’s resume matters.

(For extra credit, why did Mary and Joseph bring pigeons and doves instead of a lamb?)

The false comfort of fatalism

One aspect of NewSpring’s apologists that has genuinely surprised me has been the repeated appeal to fatalism, the idea that because everything is predestined it is inevitable, uncontrollable and acceptable. It has been invoked to disqualify criticism of NewSpring’s leaders’ bad behavior on the basis that God made them do it.

For example, one commentator said we dare not judge because God ordained NewSpring’s pastors’ bad language:

I do know that God knew about what Perry and Brad were going to say trillions of years ago. If they are in sin about anything that has been communicated from stage or any other medium then they will be held accountable…BY GOD, NOT YOU!!!

If God doesn’t want what’s going on at NewSpring to happen…it WON’T. He’ll wipe it off the face of the earth if He pleases.

Another said

There’s only one way to explain how this is happening – God is completely in control. Like many others have said here on your site, if God doesn’t want NS to continue, then He will shut it down. [Emphasis added]

1. It blames God for sin. If you’re going to argue that God approves of something you like merely because because it exists, logical consistency insists that God is also on the hook for evil.
2. It contradicts Scripture. 2 Peter 2:3 tells us that God’s punishment for false teachers is certain, even if not evident now.
   

   Their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

   If we make the lack of judgment our litmus test for truth, we are susceptible to all the false teachers Peter warned us about. The whole point of verse 3 is that false teachers do endure for a while without punishment.

3. It invites unthinkable punishment. If we wait for God to wipe our false teachings off the face of the earth, in the words of one commentator, we are inviting fearful punishment for them. 2 Peter 2:4-6 tells us what kinds of eventual judgements await false teachers by comparing them to the angels’ fall from Heaven, the Flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. False teachers need to be confronted and corrected, not passively encouraged along a sleepy path to destruction.
4. It fails an important test. False teachers have a purpose, as explained in Deuteronomy 13:3-4.
   

   You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

   It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.

   This explains why God will not wipe false teachers from the face of the earth; He uses them to test our discernment. If we favor fatalism, we fail that test and leave ourselves and our leaders defenseless.

Just to be clear, I am not making an argument here that Perry Noble is a false teacher. I’m sounding a warning that it doesn’t appear to me that some NewSpringers would know it or care if he were.

Don’t take my word, take Noble’s: Reformation is coming

For the last week, I’ve been trying to convince apologetic NewSpringers that when their pastor announced last weekend that he was starting a new reformation that he actually meant he was starting a new reformation.

Someone asked me if I could read Perry Noble’s mind. I don’t need to; I just read his blog. Let’s interpret Noble’s blog announcement in light of his blog posts.

1. He is driven by the need for reformation.
   

   I Believe God Is About To Bring A Reformation To America…And He’s Going To Do It Through The Local Church!

   I believe this–I am not saying it to get some “Amen’s” from the cheap seats either.
   Take a look at what is happening in our country. I hear people say that they are concerned with NewSpring and churches like ours…they think we are not going to make it and that eventually fizzle out.

   However…it’s NOT the churches like NewSpring that are dying. (And churches in America ARE dying…an average of six per day are shutting their doors!!!) In fact, churches “like NewSpring” have doubled in the past seven years. It looks like God is up to something!

   We are seeing it! …

   That is why I do what I do. I believe in the ministry that NewSpring is doing…I am smoking what I am selling.

2. It is not founded on doctrine.
   

   It does not take “professionals” to do ministry; in fact, every revival/reformation that has ever happened took place FIRST among the peasants and “common folk” and NOT the religious elite!

3. It is new and different from the first Reformation.
   

   We have the possibility of a second reformation in front of us!

4. It will radically change the existing church.
   

   As the church grows the structure has to change. There is no perfect structure for a church…that is why Scripture doesn’t speak to structure. What works with 50 people won’t work with 150.

   Institutions are ALWAYS the last things to change! (Seminaries, denominations, etc.) Institutions are there to protect the change of the previous generation. (DANG!)

There you go. All Noble, hardly any commentary.

If you disagree with any of it, you know who to talk to.

Reformers vs. Deformers

In his typically nuanced way, Perry Noble announced to the world this weekend that he has started the second Reformation. Besides its self confidence and boldness, the claim seems just a little ignorant of history. As I asked a few days ago, is this really a reformation or a deformation?

Given the stated goals of Noble and his friends, I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter. Rather than building up the church, Noble has wanted to strip it down and make it into something else.

We wanted to start a church that was stripped of religious traditions and merely preach Jesus Christ.

Dismantling something is easy. I can take my car’s engine apart. I can even be passionate about it and have a great vision about the speedster I’ll finish with, but if I dismantle too much, it will stop working. If I don’t know what I’m doing when I try to repair it, I’ll probably end up with a mess.

If you start to dismantle something, it takes remarkable effort to re-form it so that it’s better than when you started. It’s more likely that you will end up de-forming the original work.

The combination of wanting to dismantle the historical evangelical church, and a general ignorance of church history and doctrine does not give one high hopes for the outcome of Noble’s reformation. Here’s why some of these leaders may turn out to be Deformers rather than Reformers.

1. The Reformers were ready to be corrected. The Deformers don’t want to know what you think. Although Luther is famous for the stand he made at Worms (Here I stand, etc), his defense was tempered with an invitation to his accusers to correct him from Scripture. At the height of his persuasive powers, Luther demonstrated a humble willingness to change his position. Said Luther,
   

   Since I am a man and not God, I cannot provide my writings with any other defense than that which my Lord Jesus Christ provided for His teaching. When He had been interrogated concerning His teaching before Annas and had received a buffet from a servant, He said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.” If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to listen to witness against His teaching, even from a worthless slave, how much more ought I, scum that I am, capable of naught but error, to seek and to wait for any who may wish to bear witness against my teaching.

   Modern leaders routinely brag about how they don’t listen to criticism and go to great lengths to set up institutional filters to protect them from anyone with substantive disagreements. Even people with minor disagreements find themselves unwelcome. Noble has this quote from Rick Warren on his desk:

   Ignore ‘them’ and get on with whatever God has told you to do!

2. The Reformers wanted to strip man-made revelation from the church. The Deformers depend on it. Luther fought against man-made tradition. The modern church is adding man-made “vision” to demand obedience from followers. As Noble has said, the leader’s vision is what people are to believe in.
   

   People DO BELIEVE in the vision God has placed IN you.

3. The Reformers began preaching the whole Bible. The Deformers began preaching the whole TV Guide. The Reformers emphasized a return to verse-by-verse preaching. If all the Bible is inspired by God and profitable, none of it should be ignored. Their return to the whole Bible was in contrast to the Catholic Church’s careful use of only selected portions of Scripture for preaching. Visit any number of modern churches and you’ll find sermon series titled after television series or other pop culture references: America’s Idol, Girls Gone Wild, Mythbusters, Bringing Sexy Back, etc. What do these series suggest about what these churches use as a primary text? Entertainment Tonight or the Bible?
4. The Reformers constructed careful creeds. The Deformers’ only creed is deeds. The Reformation started with Luther’s carefully constructed 95 statements of belief. The need for pure doctrine motivated a flurry of creeds that we still find useful today, including Augsburg, Heidelberg and Westminster. The Roman church responded with its own at Trent. Modern leaders think they know better and want to replace the old-fashioned creeds with a passion for passion. Creeds have historically been created as firewalls against error. Rick Warren thinks they’re unimportant. Noble can’t be bothered and dismissed them as idols.
   

   It reminds me NOT to get caught up in church politics and/or debates over theological issues that have caused controversy for hundreds of years.

   Thinking you can do without them is foolish and dangerous.

5. The Reformers were learned men. The Deformers are self-described ignoramuses. Luther was a college professor, a lawyer  and a theologian. His 95 Theses were originally intended as an invitation to an academic debate. He challenged the leaders of his church to “go deeper,” if you will. Perry Noble regularly inveighs against seminary, often referring to it as cemetery. These leaders don’t want to know, and shame anyone as selfish who wants to know more. Noble, who shepherds 15,000 souls, boasted of his ignorance.
   

   I did just about everything you could do in a church and in all of that God was preparing me to one day lead a church in which I could understand the people that worked with me rather than spout out theology and ideas and methodology in which I knew nothing about.

   That sounds exactly like what a Luther or a Calvin might have said.

How can he be sure it’s not a deformation?

This kind of talk makes us non-NewSpringers very nervous.

We’re not seeing revival…I believe this is the beginning of a new reformation!!! The church has been a sleeping giant for too long!!!

Perhaps Noble would explain exactly what he’s reforming. Without a clear explanation, some of us suspect it may just be a deformation.

Twitterable Chesterton

It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands.

In my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.

I love G.K.

I like to sweat the small stuff, so that would make me a prepostdenominationalist

A few weeks ago I was talking to a friend from NewSpring church and telling him a bit of my spiritual story, which included a brief history of the various denominations that I have called home during my life so far. I was born Baptist, grew up Pentecostal, split the difference and went back to a Charismatic Baptist church, then Evangelical Presbyterian, then Assemblies of God, and now Reformed Presbyterian.

My friend was delighted to hear it. “That’s wonderful,” he said. “You’re postdenominational, and that’s where the church is heading these days.” I didn’t correct him at the time–we had other things to talk about–, but I am definitely not postdenominational. Many modern churches have embraced the non-label label, and I’ve heard several NewSpring leaders describe their church as postdenominational (even though they’re nominally Southern Baptist). The whole concept is at once naive and arrogant.

It’s naive in assuming that we can just do away with denominations. A cursory knowledge of church history, which is often lacking in postdenominational boosters, would tell you that there are important reasons for the apparent divisions within Christianity. The Christian faith has a good many important questions to which the answer is debatable.

If you’ve got a few minutes for a fun party game, get three or four of your Christian friends to answer all the questions on the following list and count how many generate identical answers, assuming they even have an answer for all of them.

1. Should infants be baptized?
2. Should baptism be by sprinkling or immersion?
3. Should Christians pray in tongues?
4. Should women be elders or pastors?
5. How should the church be governed?
6. When is the Sabbath?
7. How often should the Lord’s supper be celebrated, and by whom?
8. How much free will do we have?
9. Who can be saved, and how?
10. What is the Trinity?
11. How can Jesus be all man and all God at the same time?
12. Will Jesus return before or after the tribulation?
13. Is there a rapture and when will it come?
14. Can Christians drink alcohol?
15. When should Christians go to war?
16. Can you be baptized more than once?
17. To what extent is the Bible trustworthy?
18. Did Creation, the Flood, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection really happen the way the Bible describes?
19. What does it mean to be filled with the Holy Spirit?
20. What are God’s sacraments?
21. Is the death penalty permitted?
22. Can you lose your salvation?
23. Should the Lord’s Supper use bread or crackers, wine or juice?

Christians believe that their highest calling is to glorify God in their whole lives, especially in regards to worship. It should be important for every Christian to find answers to these questions, because they affect our conduct and bearing in our worship of God. The history of denominations is simply the story of believers associating with other Christians with whom they can worship God with integrity. If you know, or come to believe, that your church is in error on important matters of doctrine, why wouldn’t you be looking for churches that follow God’s commands more closely?

Paul said that disputes about doctrine were inevitable and could be healthy because they help sort truth from error.

I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

I think it’s the same concept as is expressed in Proverbs, which says that as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. No denomination is going to get Christian doctrine perfect, but all should be trying to get as close as they can by submitting themselves to God’s Word. The great value of denominations, then, is that they at least try.

The only way you can achieve postdenominationalism is to say that no points of conflict over Christian doctrine matter enough to hinder personal unity, which brings me to my second objection to the postdenominationalist mindset.

It’s arrogant because it says that for 2,000 years Christian’s who have contended for the faith have been wasting their time. You can throw out the creeds, because they are all products of believers systematically sorting out doctrinal truth from error. Of course, throw out the denominations, because choosing a church over how they treat the sacraments or what they believe about the authority of Scripture is just petty and silly. Don’t you know that all you have to do is have a relationship with Jesus, and then nothing else matters?

In its arrogance lies its most profound weakness. “Just love Jesus more” has rarely been a sufficient approach for a secure Christian walk. Error comes quickly, invisibly and easily when you think you don’t have to sweat the small stuff.

Christianity is not simple. It’s a system of beliefs that profoundly influence actions; creeds that influence deeds. Paul and Peter were much more concerned that the church would be corrupted by false teaching than by its eager and obvious enemies, and the reason the false teachers could gain purchase in the minds of their victims was that error very often sounds a whole lot like truth.

G.K. Chesterton expressed the idea well in Orthodoxy.

[Balancing competing emphases] explains what is so inexplicable to all the modern critics of the history of Christianity. I mean the monstrous wars about small points of theology, the earthquakes of emotion about a gesture or a word. It was only a matter of an inch; but an inch is everything when you are balancing. The Church could not afford to swerve a hair’s breadth on some things if she was to continue her great and daring experiment of the irregular equilibrium. Once let one idea become less powerful and some other idea would become too powerful. It was no flock of sheep the Christian shepherd was leading, but a herd of bulls and tigers, of terrible ideals and devouring doctrines, each one of them strong enough to turn to a false religion and lay waste the world. Remember that the Church went in specifically for dangerous ideas; she was a lion tamer. The idea of birth through a Holy Spirit, of the death of a divine being, of the forgiveness of sins, or the fulfilment of prophecies, are ideas which, any one can see, need but a touch to turn them into something blasphemous or ferocious. … Doctrines had to be defined within strict limits, even in order that man might enjoy general human liberties. The Church had to be careful, if only that the world might be careless.

This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad.

Did someone put ignorance on the agenda?

There’s a curious sequence of posts coming from NewSpring’s leaders this week.

Perry Noble led the way, boasting about how God prepared him to lead 10,000 people by making him a theological and ecclesiastical know nothing.

I did just about everything you could do in a church and in all of that God was preparing me to one day lead a church in which I could understand the people that worked with me rather than spout out theology and ideas and methodology in which I knew nothing about.

Now Brad Cooper is following up, excusing Christians who don’t care to learn or think well, so long as they do stuff. He condemns Christian scholarship by approvingly quoting Soren Kierkegaard. If you see something in the Bible, Cooper and Kierkegaard tell us, and if it makes sense to you, jump right in there and do it. Don’t think. Don’t discuss. Don’t learn. JUST DO! We and God won’t even worry about your intentions, Cooper promises us.

It’s no accident that Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of evangelical liberalism and Christian postmodernism. There is no real truth; what you think is true is good enough.

Anyone see any potential problems with that?