UPDATE (11/05/2009): [I do want to make clear that I have not read the book yet and so I am not authoritative as a source of all that is contained within the book, nor would I presume to be anyway. My interest has definitely been peaked though and I will be reading it shortly. Looks like a great read and will give quite a bit of insight into this perspective I believe. I agree with and trust Mohler's analysis on a host of other things (including that of the emerging/emergent church, since I as well believe it to be a repeat of the same errors from 100 to 200 years ago) and I wholeheartedly agree with his contentions with the ideas presented in this book, since I agree with his analysis of postmodernism in this review and elsewhere.]

Once again, as the case has been time and again, I agree with many of the critiques and assessments of the emerging/emergent movement concerning where modern American, Western Christianity has fallen short. The Reformed faith shares many of the those same concerns. But, once again, as the case has been time and again, I disagree with the conclusions and solutions to those problems offered by emergents. Albert Mohler’s review of John R. Franke’s new book, Manifold Witness, captures those concerns quite eloquently.

Mohler agrees with Franke where there is agreement, but offers differing points of view on many of Franke’s key arguments asserted in his book. The theological arguments put forward by Franke are concisely and forcefully written, which presents an even greater challenge to those of us who hold to historic evangelicalism: more people will read this and be convinced of the “plurality of truth” assumed to be inherent within Christianty, which will open the floodgates for a dead, theological, postmodern liberalism to creep into more evangelical churches. (To be clear, theological liberalism is not equal to modern political liberalism, they are two separate categories.)

It is one thing when theologically illiterate pastors offer up their thoughts in the church’s discourse on these matters (thought certainly some have been quite influential despite that). Yet it is quite another when very learned, smart and knowledgeable theologians offer their ideas up. But it is an even greater challenge then especially when they do so in a way that lay people can understand. John R. Franke is exactly one of those people and Manifold Witness is precisely one of those works that offers such a challenge. Eventually those ideas trickle down from theologians to pastors and then to lay people. And it is for these reasons that Mohler confronts this head-on. It really does present a challenge to historic Protestant evangelicalism now and in the future.

Keep in mind, this is about debating ideas, not going after people, per se. I’m sure John Franke is a great guy. Arguments and words have consequences though. To sit idly by while ideas inherently hostile to Christianity slip in amongst us without a word of critique or disagreement is to (frankly, no pun intended) be unfaithful to Christ and His church and to go against conscience.

(It is sad I even have to say that. Maybe this has to do with the fact that most, having assumed and accepted postmodern views on tolerance, are now unable to distinguish between debating ideas (called public discourse) and attacking people? This was certainly the case with comments made on my reviews of The Shack. Good grief. It seems most believe these to be one in the same category and therefore we’re being “judgmental” in disagreeing with ideas argued so as to be accepted by the majority. For such people, this is true “for them, “at least in our postmodern context with an idea of tolerance that is really no tolerance at all, since the idea of tolerance assumes disagreement and a belief that others are entitled to disagree. But I digress.)

This is a great review of the book by Albert Mohler. Highly recommend it.

Improving the Gospel (MP3) – Mark Dever

And while this is a legitimate concern I share in seeing the quick descent of much of evangelicalism, we who would criticize those we see as doing some of the very things Dever speaks of must be careful how we 1) come across to those we are in disagreement with, 2) how we say things, 3) that we don’t let such a concern distract us from the cause of the Gospel itself by being absorbed in finger pointing, 4) use wisdom when approaching  these situations, and finally 5) think carefully before you hit the send button about what you’re saying and how you’re saying it (Ben Davis).

I have learned several things from J. Gresham Machen, the professor, theologian and teacher who left Princeton Theological Seminary and founded Westminster Seminary (as well as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church), in combating the theological liberalism of his day that has seemed to morph into a new, postmodern version in our present situation:

1. He was right to call those out who were subverting the Gospel through adapting the Biblical message to the secular culture around him (particularly a modernistic culture).
2. In biographies of Machen, his friends said he was mild-mannered and gentle.
3. But apparently his opponents said he had a sharp tongue when they spoke with him.

This last point is the one that concerns me for our day. Machen was a supreme example of someone who battled for truth. His unwavering commitment to teaching and preaching a pure Gospel message is commendable. You should read his book Christianity and Liberalism (which could rightly have been titled Christianity and the Tolerance of Liberalism actually – Gatiss). But from some of the historical evidence, he also sacrificed many relationships he could have potentially entered into and won them over. Yes God is sovereign over all of it. But don’t forget that at the same time we are responsible too and the Lord will hold us accountable.

I gleaned all of this from three recent lectures on the Tolerance of Liberalism in the early 1900′s, given by Lee Gatiss in the UK (who is a part of the Church of England, the conservative minority at least). If you want some insight into our current situation, you should listen to these lectures on what was done right and should be imitated, but also some things that were done wrong and should not be imitated. Unfortunately, I see many Reformed people (including myself at times, I’m a work in progress in this area) of doing many of the same things Machen did that were frankly wrong. This must be at the forefront of my mind personally when approaching anything critically.

My point is that we who criticize may have legitimate concerns and be right in those convictions. However, too often, it is easy for us to get distracted from preaching and embodying the Gospel to the lost ourselves, in an effort to make sure everyone else is doing this very thing “correctly”; you know, the whole, “take the log out of your own eye so you can clearly see to take the spec out of your brothers’ eye,” thing. If we’re lashing out at those we are concerned about, we should watch that we are not falling into sin, for this has the reverse effect that we desire many times. It is very easy for this to slip in amongst us with our attitudes all the while not seeing it.

Jon Dansby, a best friend of mine, recently said this in our high school discipleship group (dteam): “The Gospel is an offensive message, but don’t YOU be offensive in how you come across.” Unfortunately, I don’t think people reject the message of the Gospel as much as the messenger many times. And this goes for the lost as well as fellow believers with whom we differ with on some points. We need the wisdom of God in how to approach these things.

The reality is, we live in an emotionally-charged culture in which people think first with their feelings instead of their heads. Many arguments are made on the basis of emotions, not clear, logical, reasoned thought. Though we should work to change this, at the same time, we must come to terms with the fact that this is the way people are here. And if the way we come across is angry, arrogant, frustrated, immovable, unattentive to them, not giving an ear to what they consider to be important, then what makes you think they will hear what we have to say? Yes the Holy Spirit still does His job, yet we are responsible and the agents through which the Spirit works, true? I just wonder how much more impact Machen could have made had he not lashed his opponents with his tongue. And unfortunately, I see too much of myself in Machen in this regard. By God’s grace, I pray He changes that in me.