Between Two Worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture



Thursday, September 20, 2007

Friendship and the Gospel

27 comments | Permalink
At Emergent Village, under the FAQ on their beliefs, they write:
We believe in God, beauty, future, and hope – but you won’t find a traditional statement of faith here. We don’t have a problem with faith, but with statements (read more here). Whereas statements of faith and doctrine have a tendency to stifle friendships, we hope to further conversation and action around the things of God.
In his chapter for the forthcoming book The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World, John Piper responds:
I have two responses to this. One is to ask: Are there any statements which, if your friend really believes them, will destroy him? Statements perhaps like, “Jesus is not God.” Or, “God is unjust.” Or, “Jesus did not die for our sins.” Or, “I don’t need to trust Jesus to escape God’s wrath.” And if there are statements which, really believed, will destroy your friend, then denying those life-destroying statements and writing down the ones that lead to everlasting joy would sustain, not stifle, friendship.

The other response is to recall the distinction C. S. Lewis made between the love of romance and the love of friendship.

Lovers are always talking to one another about their love; Friends hardly ever about their Friendship. Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest” (C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves [London: Collins Fontana Books, 1960], 58.
In other words, in romance, two sit across from each other and tell each other how much they like about each other. In friendship, they don’t face each other, but stand shoulder to shoulder, facing a common challenge or a shared beauty or a great God.

For Lewis—and I think this is close to the biblical understanding of friendship—the greater the shared vision and the shared joy in that vision, the deeper the friendship. It’s true; there is a risk that when you make a statement of faith about what you see in God, someone will turn away and say, “I don’t see it,” or, “I don’t like it.” At that point, courtesy and tolerance are possible, but not any deep friendship.

It seems to me that the “emergent” ethos uproots friendship from the solid ground of biblical doctrine, and therefore preserves it in the short run as a cut flower. But in the long run, without the roots in shared biblical truth, it will not be able to weather the storms that are coming. And worse, while it lasts, it does not display the worth of God because it is not rooted in a true vision of his character and work.

The apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 1:8, “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Friendship hangs on believing the same gospel. The main joy of God-glorifying friendship is joy in a common vision of God.

Coming at the issue of friendship from a broader perspective, Sean Michael Lucas has recently been doing some posts pointing toward a theology of friendship: part 1, part 2, part 3.


27 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Justin,

I am amazed that you just wrote this. A person at my church recently gave me a book by Erwin McManus and highly recommended it. Some of the language on the dust jacket made me suspicious immediately. I have done just a little research on this and just had it on my mind to ask you about the "emerging church."

One thing I see about McManus is that he is against everything I'm for.
Thanks,

John Bird

9/20/2007 02:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Katie R. said...

Excellent. Thanks! I'm corresponding with a friend right now who's really into reading one of the emergent leaders. This is helpful.

9/20/2007 03:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Chad said...

I'd highly suggest a little discernment for both the commenters here about the emerging church. It's a very diverse group. When you see "Emergent Village", know that is the most liberal element within it.

There are also some more conservative elements and leaders in this group that are very helpful to listen to. (i.e., Dan Kimball and Mark Driscoll) Like with anything, it's much easier to label something and dismiss it than it is to actually try to listen to people individually and try to discern what they're really saying.

In regards to this post, I totally concur with what Piper says, but I do wonder at what point statements of faith divide unnecessarily. That's always a good question to ask in trying to separate the essentials from the non-essentials.

9/20/2007 03:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought Driscoll was distancing himself from the Emergents(?)

9/20/2007 03:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi,

How do I contact you individually by email? Can I please have your email address? It's regarding a business matter for your website. We'd like to sponsor your bloggings. Thanks.

Rhoda

9/20/2007 04:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please email me at rhoda_tse@yahoo.com

9/20/2007 04:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Billy said...

One thing I see about McManus is that he is against everything I'm for.

You must know him pretty well to say such a sweeping statement. I can't imagine disagreeing with someone so much!

9/20/2007 04:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Chad said...

Driscoll definitely distanced himself from Emergent (and McLaren specifically) and in fact never was part of it, but I don't know if he's distanced himself from emerging. But he's definitely "missional" and so is Tim Keller. And there's a lot of people who use emerging and missional interchangeably. Confused yet?

My point is we can label and write off a whole spectrum of people "Emergent/emerging/missional" (easy) or we can discern them individually to see if they are raising some really good questions (more difficult).

Sorry, Justin, don't mean to get off on a tangent. Just can't stand when huge generalizations are made. (i.e., "reformed" = good, "emerging" = bad)

9/20/2007 04:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chad I think your points are dead on about avoiding broad generalizations.

But I think we should come back to the point of this post. Justin is pretty specific that he is just addressing the Emergent Village here. And while I know they like to play the "we are all individuals and a diverse group card" the truth is they have organized in some ways and taken a stance on statements, ironically by making a statement.

I do not want to bash the Emergent Village here, that really is not my heart. But I think we should all think long and hard about what is being said here. If Emergent Village is right here it leaves us in a difficult place of calling people to Jesus. Because when and if we do, we have to make statements about who he is and what he has done, and if these things do not matter I do not know what is.

9/20/2007 05:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Katie R. said...

Chad,

I wasn't thinking of emerging or missional. I was only talking about the emergent branch, as some have classified them & as characterized in this post. Not writing off anybody. I'm just against ideas that don't hold water, like confessing you're not confessional, or like stating you don't like statments. But I appreciate your clarification here. :)

9/20/2007 06:17:00 PM  
Anonymous BJ said...

Recently returned to community college after a very long absence. Within 28 minutes of my world religions class, the professor claimed the life of Jesus was a myth. Later, in an english class, we were told that when it came to literature, it was silly to try to determine the author's intention. (A Geico caveman moment . . WHAT?)Its one thing to have discussions about the postmodern influence in our culture from a biblical perspective; its quite another to find yourself emersed in it; your mind being assaulted by it.

9/20/2007 06:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Chad said...

Yes, no doubt. If you can't even mention Christ and the need for forgiveness of sin, then why bothering even considering your group Christian. I can't see why Emergent would fail to accept the Apostle's Creed. That is essential Christianity and I think that's pretty much as far as doctrinal statements should go. But some would argue for a lot more narrow definition and I could see where that gets into needless infighting and arrogance in beliefs.

9/20/2007 06:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suppose that the usual comments that appear in any discussion such as this (there is a difference between emerging and emergent; it's diverse.....) sort of prove the point. Without anything at the core, there is no there, there.

9/20/2007 07:16:00 PM  
Blogger Steve K. said...

Thanks for posting this, Justin. I will have to spend some time reading the Lucas posts to see what he is saying. Until then, I just want to reflect a little bit on the Piper excerpt which you quoted.

As you know, Justin, I am someone who self-identifies myself with Emergent Village (EV). My connection to EV is highly relational. Tony Jones (National Coordinator for EV) is a friend of mine, and I've gotten to know many other people through the relational network of EV.

I'm also a "cohort" (i.e., small group) leader here in Charlotte, NC, and our group consists of people from across the spectrum (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant of every stripe; black, white, Hispanic; men and women; grandparents, parents, and children; etc.). We've formed friendships across these lines of difference precisely by standing "shoulder to shoulder, facing a common challenge ... a shared beauty ... a great God" (to use the C.S. Lewis analogy which Piper uses). The "common challenge," I would say, is the broken world system which is set against the kingdom of God. This brokenness is expressed in the disunity we see all around in us in our different churches and traditions. It's expressed in systemic racism. It's expressed in materialism and consumerism. It's expressed in the myriad other ways that we sin corporately and individually. I could go on and on.

The "shared beauty," I would say, IS the "great God" who has called us to follow him, who has inaugurated his kingdom in the incarnation of Jesus, and who is coming again to bring his kingdom in its fullness.

To say that the friendship cultivated by "the 'emergent' ethos" is like a "cut flower" is pretty pejorative. I'm not taking offense though, because I understand Piper is trying to express his grave concern. I guess what I'm wondering is: What Scriptures does Piper base his theology of friendship on? It's easy to say that "the 'emergent' ethos uproots friendship from the solid ground of biblical doctrine," but what does that mean? What biblical doctrine is friendship supposed to be grounded in exactly?

Piper writes, "Friendship hangs on believing the same gospel." I wonder, though, how this really plays out on a day-to-day basis? For example, in all his quoting of C.S. Lewis, would Piper's gospel and Lewis' gospel even be compatible? I mean, really! Would Piper and Lewis be "friends" if they were contemporaries, based on Piper's criteria for friendship? Knowing the little bit about Lewis that I do, I'm highly skeptical that they would be. (Then again, I'm "emergent," so I've always got my hermeneutic of suspicion going ;-)

So I guess I'll have to read Piper's book to find out what he's really basing his theology of friendship on. I would hope it would somehow include Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17:20-23: "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

Complete unity. I really feel like I've experienced a taste of what this is like in my Emergent cohort group here in Charlotte. I wish you all could get a taste of it as well. Who knows? Maybe we could be friends.

9/20/2007 07:58:00 PM  
Anonymous dan erickson said...

I think BJ's post raises a most important question. A foundational premise of the "emergent church" (and some of the "emerging") is that we need translate toChristianity into terms which can be embraced by post-modern culture. I fear that is much easier to do in theory than it is when one is dealing with real post-moderns who want nothing to do with a biblical meta-narrative. I don't think most folks heavily influenced by post-modernism are interested in any type of Christianity, whether it be "emergent," "reformed" or "fundamentalist. God is calling all people everywhere to repent from their modern and post-modern idols, and embrace "the way, the truth and the life." I think the church should do the same.

9/20/2007 08:54:00 PM  
Blogger Augustinian Successor said...

Yes, yes ... TQ for highlighting this, Bro. Justin. Keep up the good work. The tendency to over-contextualise the Church is just one deficiences of the Emergent Movement.

Jason

9/20/2007 09:21:00 PM  
Blogger donsands said...

"we hope to further conversation and action around the "things" of God."

What are the "things" of God?

His Word. Without the Holy Writ as our foundation for the "things" of God, then anything could be the "things" of God.

Nice post BTW.

9/20/2007 10:59:00 PM  
Anonymous bj said...

A quick example from my english class: exercise in reader response theory. We were asked for our interpretation of Williams' The Red Wheel Barrow (imagist poetry, characterized by its concise, concrete imagery using economy of language). We were told that we must stay close to the text which must provide the foundation for our interpretation. I believe I did a fairly decent job when it was my turn, not knowing much about this particular poem at the time. However, my interpretation was determined to be incorrect by the professor. Instead, the accepted meaning was given and involved a wonderful example of eisegesis. Based on the bewilderment of my classmates, I didn't think I was alone in wondering how such a profound and lofty interpretation could spring forth from so few words. When questioned about the interpretation, the professor cited that this particular interpretation was the historical consensus of literary scholars. I raised my hand and asked "If the reader is the one who determines the meaning in reader response theory, and if the text must serve as the basis for our interpretation, why must we appeal to an authoritative interpretive community outside the text for an accepted interpretation?" The discussion that followed probably seemed pointless to most, as I must have seemed rather thickheaded to the rest of the class at my apparent inability to grasp the concept being discussed. Looking a bit aggravated, a young lady nearby turned to me and said "It's supposed to make you think!"

9/20/2007 11:14:00 PM  
Blogger Augustinian Successor said...

"we hope to further conversation and action around the "things" of God."

What are the "things" of God?

His Word. Without the Holy Writ as our foundation for the "things" of God, then anything could be the "things" of God.

Amen, Brother!

Jason

9/20/2007 11:39:00 PM  
Blogger David Castor said...

I can't see how Lewis' quote and Piper's application really stands in stark opposition to the Emergent Village. In fact, the quote "(f)riends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest" seem to reflect very well the Emergent Village focus on orthopraxy over (Reformed) orthodoxy. What else could orthopraxy be than being absorbed in a common interest and a common challenge together?

Ironically, it seems that Piper actually undercuts biblical friendship and spiritual kinship himself. By effectively saying "I won't be your friend if you disagree with me" he introduces a power imbalance which compromises the very idea of friendship. Friendship allows for a different in opinion - it is not contingent upon one party acquiescing to the demands of another.

9/21/2007 12:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David Castor,

Intriguing deconstruction of Piper's comment, if I may say so, but typically postmodern and (forgive me) transparent.

There is a friend closer than a brother, whose first concern is to see I'm right before God. And it goes both ways. That isn't difficult to understand.

MarkT

9/21/2007 01:04:00 AM  
Blogger David Castor said...

Mark, I honestly can't see what your objection is to the way I've represented Piper. Just to clarify, the quote I'm paraphrasing is:

"It’s true; there is a risk that when you make a statement of faith about what you see in God, someone will turn away and say, “I don’t see it,” or, “I don’t like it.” At that point, courtesy and tolerance are possible, but not any deep friendship."

Piper is saying that if you don't agree with him he either won't or can't be your friend, is he not? If you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing how you read this statement.

As for demonstrating spiritual friendship by showing someone the "error of their ways", does not friendship also attribute a level of freedom for each person to make their own decision without fear of reprisal? For instance, if a friend of mine started a relationship with someone who I honestly believed was not right for them, I might even suggest as such. But if my friend considers what I say and then disagrees with me, I have to respect his right to his own decision. If I turned out to be right, then I would do what I could to offer my friend healing. But it could very well be that I was wrong and may need to acknowledge this. Regardless, if I this friendship is in any way meaningful, I would expect that friendship to continue.

9/21/2007 01:29:00 AM  
Anonymous michael h said...

Surprised that this hasn't been mentioned, but The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World is simply the release in book form of the material presented at the Desiring God 2006 National Conference of the same name. All the audio and video of that excellent conference is available for free here:

Desiring God 2006 National Conference

I highly recommend to those of you in the Emerging camp to at least watch or listen to Piper's sermon (though the other sermons are mostly excellent also).

9/21/2007 08:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David you might want to listen to the message in which this topic is addressed by Piper from last year's conference. Not trying to be rude but you are way off in saying he won't or does not want to be friends with people he disagrees with. I also think the word "deep" is quite important in the quote you pulled.

He is talking about the close life giving relationships in which the body helps sanctify, admonish, encourage, support, and teach one and other. While I could be friends with a Mormon, Muslim, Hindu I can not experience the deepest of friendships with them that truly transform me. Because my deepest values, beliefs, and treasures are completely different.

I am all for building relationships and conversations with people of other faiths, but Piper is dead on in saying that if EV thinks this requires getting rid of statements or creeds, than I do not know what there is to converse about. We all want to be liked, and reach out but not at the extent to which it seems EV is willing to go.

9/21/2007 09:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emergent Village:

"We believe in God, beauty, future, and hope – but you won’t find a traditional statement of faith here. We don’t have a problem with faith, but with statements..."


If the authors would actually have us believe that all statements are problematic, then THEIR statement on statements is problematic and, presumably, unbelievable.
So the real issue here is in regard to whose statements on faith are actually worth believing.
Whose "Truth" is Truth?

9/21/2007 02:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Whose 'Truth' is Truth?"

Answer - JT. Pretty much what he says goes.

9/21/2007 04:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Elmo said...

David Castor:

"As for demonstrating spiritual friendship by showing someone the "error of their ways", does not friendship also attribute a level of freedom for each person to make their own decision without fear of reprisal?"

Showing a friend that they are in error is not about "reprisal", it's about loving them. Mark is right, a true friend's first concern should be your standing before God. There is of course freedom for decision making, but can you really watch a friend make soul-destroying choices and not intervene?

"For instance, if a friend of mine started a relationship with someone who I honestly believed was not right for them, I might even suggest as such."

This is a terrible example of what Mark is talking about. What if your friend started doing heroin 3 or 4 nights a week? Would you step in then? What if your friend was playing Russian Roulette? This is about life and death. Do you love your friend enough to tell him he's turning astray? Or are you so interested in tolerance that you're willing to let him walk apart from God?

9/24/2007 02:27:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home