People outside the church are worth all the criticism

I was reading a blog post that was very encouraging. It was sharing the story of someone who was at a men's retreat that Erwin McManus was speaking at. Because of the seemingly unorthodox way Erwin goes about ministry, he gets criticism from certain contingents of Christians. The blog post told how Erwin told his church that he would take all the heat from those watchdog type of critical websites if it meant that people, like the friend at the men's retreat would put faith in Jesus. It is so refreshing to read stories like this with someone becoming a Christian from a very non-Christian background and world. And it is so refreshing to hear Erwin say that even though he gets criticized, he feels it is worth the heat to see people trust in Jesus as Savior.

** Update: you can watch the fellow that was blogged about getting baptized and him professing his faith before he was baptized here and hear Erwin's interview with him when he was at Mosaic here too.

I have found it at times fascinating, strange, helpful and hurtful when certain watchdog types of Christians write on blogs pretty mean things about other Christians and 98% of the time they are grossly inaccurate. I am aware that it is a pretty small slice of Christians who think like that and do those things, but as my theory goes - the small % are the most vocal ones. At first I was caught off guard by the tone and spirit of the "watchdogs" as I had never experienced that level of tone and words from Christians before. But then I realized, most of them are just trying their best in their own way to protect what they feel should be protected. But after reading enough of how many of them think, they really aren't watchdogs as in trained watch dogs like Doberman pinschers, but are more like little barking poodles. I like poodles actually. But the tiny ones sure can be mean and bark loudly and bare their fangs at anyone who doesn't live in their home. We owned a poodle growing up, so I have seen how you could have your best friend over and even relatives over, but the poodle didn't like anyone they were unfamiliar with. Poodles would then bark and growl in the way little poodles do even at friends and family members. It seems that many of the "watchdogs" out there, are like the poodle where they growl and bark at anything that is unfamiliar to them - even if it is the best friends or other family members of the family they live with. The poodle has good intentions, but anyone different and unfamiliar that isn't in their particular world or way of thinking gets barked and growled at. 

I do always want to listen and be open to seeing if there is any truth to critics. I need people to be holding me accountable to any teaching or writing I do. I think that comes best in the context of relationships and people you trust and respect and actually know what you are doing and aren't speculating from the outside. So I have people who do say things or ask questions that I trust and listen to them. I don't personally agree with everything under the "emerging" or "emergent" label - as there is diversity and I try to be clear about my personal beliefs which may differ from others. So we need "watchdogs" (so to speak) but ones who are trained and understand what they really should be watching out for.

Yesterday after our morning worship gathering, I had a mom introduce herself to me who shared how her son was coming to our church. She was concerned as she read all types of weird things on the web about all things "emerging" or "emergent". She trusted what she read from various watchdog types - but she shared how she never checked out for herself what was really true or not. She was simply reading the stuff and assuming they knew what they were talking about. She ended up coming to our church, seeing what we do and reading some books and ended up realizing the barks were really "poodles" inaccurately barking. You can read her own public blog post about this here.   

I am realizing, if we are truly missionaries and truly understand the way we are in a post-Christian culture today and as any missionary in a different culture does, reapproaches how they go about ministry, relationally relate to people, words and values of the culture need to be understood for knowing how best to communicate the gospel etc. - then there probably will be criticism from those who don't grasp why how we go about ministry may very likely look different than generations past in our country. It was like what Hudson Taylor experienced.

Hudson Taylor was a missionary from England who went to China in the 1800's. He was accustomed to the "English" way of evangelism, but when he got to China he realized that how you go about being a missionary there is going to look and be a lot different than evangelizing in England. So he changed his approach, he spent time with people, he even took it to the extreme of where he shaved his head, leaving a little hair which would grow into a Chinese cue [hair tied at the back of the head in a braid], and changed his normal English garb to wearing Chinese styled baggy trousers, white calico socks, satin shoes etc. He didn't just go walking into Buddhist Temples or go to Buddhists and slam Buddhism or focus on the negatives of not knowing Jesus. He relationally went in and got dirty with them, serving the people in all types of ways. The irony, is that the English missionaries who were used to evangelizing in England in a certain way - criticized Hudson Taylor since he was doing things radically different. From the outside he looked different, no proper English dress anymore, his methods were totally different. Did he teach the gospel? Absolutely. But how he did was very different and the criticism came from poodle-types. The critics had good intents and were concerned, but they just didn't understand in different cultures you need to do things differently. He eventually broke off and started China Inland Mission and trained new types of missionaries since he knew the culture there in China and understood it would be different.

I just had dinner with Erwin a couple of weeks ago when we both were in Chicago and got to spend some time together. I can say that listening to his stories is probably like it would have been listening to Hudson Taylor. We also talked about theology and I can say with full confidence that Erwin has a very high view of Scripture and it's authority and inspiration. We talked about how conservative theologically we both really are, even though our missional approach may not be conservative. But Erwin is passionate about seeing the gospel impact those outside the church and as the blog entry stated, I referred to in the beginning of this one, he said it is worth taking criticism from certain types and continue in missionary efforts so people come to faith in Jesus.

People like Erwin and Hudson Taylor inspire me to never forget about those outside the church. We must be passionate about those outside the church. I believe in the reality of hell in the afterlife and I believe in the reality of living in the Kingdom and experiencing the joy of serving Jesus and knowing Him in this life that people miss out on. One of my personal concerns about "emerging" and "emergent" things is the lack of classical evangelism quite honestly happening in many of the emerging/emergent types of churches I know of. I am not talking about the "Four Spiritual Laws" type of evangelism or raise your hand or come forward at an altar call type of evangelism necessarily (that served a wonderful purpose in a specific time period and culture). I actually met with two staff from Campus Crusade today and they were explaining how their evangelistic approach now is changing a lot which was thrilling to hear (I will have to share what they told me as it was incredibly exciting to hear). But the passion and need for evangelism still beat passionately.

I am rambling and avoiding doing some other writing - but thank you Erwin, thank you Hudson Taylor, thank you Campus Crusaders (please change your name though), thank you to the mom who did her homework.  Thank you true watchdogs as we need you and thank you poodles for your underlying motive, but please try to not be barking at those who are actually friends and family but aren't in your particular world of how you view things.

I just hope that whenever I die, I will know that I have done anything possible by the strength of the Holy Spirit who is the one who does the convicting and moving in people - and that I will be as "unorthodox" as possible in methodology and missionary emphasis in communicating the truth of the orthodox gospel to those who don't yet know Jesus. For seeing people come to a saving understanding and faith in Jesus, all the criticism, mean things written, crazy inaccurate absurdities, and the growling poodles who have good intentions - will all be worth it.

Comments

[chuck]

Christians always want to know why non-Christians dislike about church & Christians so here you go. I'm a skeptic and I'm going to tell you.

-Get rid of the cheesy Christian hair. I can't tell you how much TBN and all the phony hair turns us off. I always here Christians talking about being real yet they come off as used car saleman.

-Stop concentrating on only certain sins. If any of you have ever had premarital sex or even looked upon another person with lust please shut about about how bad gay people are. Worry about your own sins.

-Care about the environment. If you make the time to clean your own house before Jesus comes back then you should give a damn about the earth which is just another big house. And please stop sterotyping all environmentalist as pagan or witches.

-If you want to know what non Christians believe then why not ask them? Give out surveys in the community & always have a suggestion box at church. Oh yeah God gave you two ears and one mouth how about listening when we have discussions.

-Play better music at church. Play rock, alternative music anything with a beat. Why does Christian music have to be so cheesy and steal whatever is popular in secular music? Trust me on this Carmen's music won't bring Pantera or Depeche Mode fans to Jesus

-Forget about forcing people to Christ. It didn't work in the crusades, didn't work in the inquisition and it won't work in today's cultural war. Remember you can kill a man but not his ideas. By mixing politics and religion and forcing it down our throat we will only hate you more. Keep Church & State separate!

-Stop talking about how this country was founding by Christians. When you say this to a non-Christian it's like going up to a black man and saying hey guess what all of our founding fathers were white you know what that means. This is a White country. (By the way not all our founding fathers were Christian just to let you know. (Read The Jefferson Bible by Thomas Jefferson)

-Be kind if nothing else. You have to wonder if the guy holding up the God hates fag signs is he enjoying just making people mad or is he really trying to win them to the lord.

Here are just a few tips hope none of this makes you mad it's just my honest feelings.

[rudy]

thanks for this post, dan

[Connie]

I am thankful for the "barking poodles." I have seen a trend in church world lately to have a lower view of Scripture and a higher view of "man" or "self." Ken Silva is pointing to what many evangelicals have sensed but couldn't put their finger on. He can take your insults, Dan, because he is exposing the liberal interpretation and application of Holy Scripture for what it is.

Criticize and even demonize people like me all you want. Criticism is a far cry from the pain of thumbscrews and being burned at the stake. And if you think that is a joke, understand that the Inquistion was chiefly lodged against those who would not bow the knee to the false teachings and religion of the day but were strict adherents to the Scriptures.

Re: Erwin McManus. He calls himself a "Barbarian." Does that mean he kareens out of control and bashes and crashes about? Well maybe he is then. But who then really is a "barking poodle." He lambasts Christians in fact he hates Christians (like me) and wants to rid the world of them, his words. I believe that. But when asked at Columbia University about how he is "becoming", huh?, his reply is telling. He totally wimped out when he had a golden opportunity to share the Gospel, but I guess he couldn't because he might have been booed off the stage. So much for suffering for your faith. You can go to YouTube and search for Erwin McManus at Columbia and see for yourself.

Jesus says he comes not with a candle and incense but with a sword to divide. If your listeners want to follow what you are teaching, that is not what I am having an issue with, but when you are invited into churches like mine, I do care and I am prayful and hopeful that our Elders will see and hear what this post-modern, relativistic teaching is really all about, repackaged Gnosticism.

[Blythe Jacobson]

Thank you so much for this post and I don't know why there are such extremists who freak out about things that really aren't even true. I love that the mom you mentioned at first thought "emerging" was bad because all she heard about it from was from people like John MacArthur, and I LOVE that she actually took the time to vist an emerging church and read some books to see how horribly exagerrated and untrue most of what he said actually was. Thank God for moms who care enough to do their homework! Thank you for these words. I like poodles too. BUt they sure can be irritating at times.

[Jay]

I know Erwin and I've read Hudson Taylor, Erwin is no Hudson Taylor. Nice you had dinner with him, that should shutup the critics. Erwin will continue to speak and write...he's the gift that keeps on giving. Sadly.

[Kendall]

Thanks Dan for the lovely post. I enjoy reading your blog because you are always able to articulate things like this with grace and humility. I appreciate that! My husband and I are in seminary and you are certainly one of the many leaders we look up to! Hope to make it to Vintage Faith someday soon . . .

[Mrs. Timothy D. Ellis]

I thank God for "The Four Spiritual Laws"-- if it weren't for that teeny, mildly weird, yellow booklet with the dated font and kitschey circle diagrams, I'd still be a lost, raging, topless dancing, barroom brawling, often catatonic, suicidal, chemically dependent, homicidal, agoraphobic, hopelessly itchy (long story), lesbian.

No kidding!

I will not die but live,
and will proclaim what the Lord has done.
(Psalm 118:17)

[Dan]

Hi Christian!

As for Hudson Taylor and who he appealed to, it was the culture and people of China at that specific time period. You have to remember too, that all the sub-cultures and age-breakdowns and styles of churches by music and preaching approaches were not part of culture at that time. So, he represented the norm of China. We live in such a different time period with entirely different cultural demographics and influences we can't compare the age-factor like he lived in to today. The "teenager" wasn't even birthed until the 40's and 50's as we know it. So we are living in a different world that way, which impacts how we go about things as it is now a reality of our world.

If Hudson Taylor was in the USA today, I would imagine he would look for the most unreached people demographic and then culturally adopt to them, as he did in China.

I think most of what we think of as "emerging" type of churches today represent suburban America - and there are some who are influenced by urban culture. But I think most that I know are simply representing those in typical American suburbia as that is where they are located.

I'd rather not put links or single out watchdogs or (watchpoodles) on this blog. If you would like to know who I personally am thinking about when I wrote this post, email me and I will let you know the web sites of a couple of them. They really aren't too hard to find if you just google "emergent church" or "emerging church". I do believe there are some respectful "watchdog" web sites who do have insight and understanding which I read and find very helpful.

[Christian]

Dan:

Can you give us any examples of "genuine watchdogs" who usually come out on the side of disagreeing with the views of those who identify themselves with the Emerging Church movement? Or, is everyone who disagrees with the need and/or direction of the ECM automatically classified as a "barking poodle"?

Question about Hudson Taylor: Did he dress like the average common folk in China at the time, or did he dress and act in such a way so as to appeal only to a small trendy demographic sliver of the population? What I'm getting at is, although I'm sure you can cite some rare examples and present them as being the norm, the truth is - the ECM has very little appeal to the growing demographic of seniors in America. They look at some of the very troubling (and in some cases heretical) churches that you seem to have no problem linking to, and say that's a bunch of rebelious mystical 'kids' that just want to be different. Hudson Taylor on the other hand, tried to appeal as much to the old folks as the teenagers.

[ron]

Dan, thanks for the clarification. You say ; " is that at some point people do get to clearly hear how the Scriptures talk about sin, repentance, the exchanged life, the meaning of the resurrection, what it means to place faith in Jesus as Savior etc. "

I just find that so, " radically classical ", radical in the sense that it is a far more relational approach than doing evangelism in the past. Example, my brother...one the most honest, compassionate, giving and loving people I know...but is not a believer. We have had some great conversations around sin. He does not see himself as a sinful person. I think this is a pitfall of good ole' evangelism, as seeing sin in terms of doing bad things, rather than seeing sin in relational terms of a discconnect with God. It has been alot of work getting my brother to see sin this way...leading to repentance, a restoration in relationship, transformed life...and discovering the Kingdom is about now.
I have had many poodle encounters while trying engage folks on the fringe. We have made it so cut and dry, black and white...believe heaven, don't...its hell. But the reality is, sin is much more realtional than it is about morality.The reality, heaven and the Kingdom are about now...living transformed lives, the new creation is about partnership, heirs to the Kingdom...building the Kingdom today.

Sorry Dan, I think I've gotten off track. Thanks for your words, you ended your post with these words...

"and that I will be as "unorthodox" as possible in methodology and missionary emphasis in communicating the truth of the orthodox gospel to those who don't yet know Jesus."

It's my heartfelt prayer that that is what I'm doing. Pax...Ron+

[Dan]

Hi Ron!

what I meant by "classical evangelism" is that at some point people do get to clearly hear how the Scriptures talk about sin, repentance, the exchanged life, the meaning of the resurrection, what it means to place faith in Jesus as Savior etc.

One of my concerns about "emerging" things, is that we can create nifty organic worship gatherings that resonate with today's culture, but we end up only appealing to disenfranchised already christians. so we have these new communities of faith and we use art, or we go on compassion trips to feed the local homeless etc (which is very needed), and talk about theology more deeply together - but we aren't seeing conversion growth from those who weren't part of any church before. So it simply becomes a new form of consumer church who now has art, talks about theology, and does go and feed the homeless more than they used to (which feeding the homeless is a great thing, so don't get me wrong there).

that's what i meant.

[ron]

Dan, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this...a real breath of fresh air.
Towards the end of your post you said this...

"One of my personal concerns about "emerging" and "emergent" things is the lack of classical evangelism quite honestly happening in many of the emerging/emergent types of churches I know of."

I wonder if you could expand on " classical evangelism ", especially how we work that out today.

Peace...Ron+

[Dan Wilt]

Solid post Dan. Happy to run into it. In fact, running into solid posts can give one a forehead bump - a fine reminder that life is bigger than the ecosystem we each live within.

It's good to be able to breathe again when certain ideas are brought up, such as this one on cultural interface, and inter-Christian dialogue.

[Dan]

Hi Scott!

I personally don't hear emerging leaders criticizing others too much, but what I do hear and read is responses and defense to the criticism from others. I don't know if there would be too much if there weren't the hyper-critics saying things to then respond to.

With Erwin, he was making a statement not against any specific Christians, it was more about the established organized form of Christianity that has become something far from the original and not seeing much fruit evangelistically. I have never heard Erwin criticize anyone specifically.

[Scott Baker]

You're right about the importance of Matthew 28:19.

I guess I'm just a little tired of the criticism of other churches and Christians, coming from the "Emerging Churches" community. I wish they would just do their own thing and not be so negative.

Comparing other Christians to yipping dogs, stating "the greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity," as Erwin McManus does, does not seem to be in the spirit of Jesus Christ.

[Dan]

Hi Scott!

I totally, totally agree with you that people coming to sit in pews does not mean that Bible teaching should cease or be watered down or shallow at all.

I think I disagree with you that the Bible does not talk much about evangelism. Jesus' last words were about evangelism in Matthew 28 and Acts 1:8 and saying the Spirit was coming to give them power so that they would be His witnesses. The whole book of Acts is the Spirit moving and evangelizing happening.

Anyway, thanks for the comment!

[donsands]

scott,
That's some simple words, but underneath there's a lot of wisdom there.

[kerby]

Hey Dan,

Thanks for the shout out. It's been encouraging to see how things are changing within Campus Crusade, even if the name is still the same (I wish we could change it too!). It's been a blessing to be part of the Vintage Faith community this summer and try out some new stuff in Santa Cruz. Thanks for including us! I hope to come back soon!

[Scott Baker]

When I read the Bible, It's main message to me is to love and respect God, and your fellow man. Church doesn't seem to be mentioned very much. Evangelism doesn't seem to be mentioned much. I believe Church is here mainly to help our faith and works. If Church membership is down, it doesn't mean it's the Church's fault. There are many references to Christians being the minority.
Simply filling the pews by any means does not necessarily make for more or "better" Christians, although it might. God is in charge, and I hope we follow Him, not the community. I am for evangelism, but not at the expense of God's laws or teachings.

[Dan]

Hi Anthony -

i think you are totally right about humility happening from both perspectives. i hope that is the case in how I ever respond and others respond.

[Anthony Toohey]

A friend and I were talking about these types of people a few years ago and we determined that they did have value, but a little more humility would go a long way towards integrity and effectiveness with most of these groups.

And with all honesty, the same could be said of many of the voices of the emerging/emergent movement. As someone who appreciates very much what Dan and his peers are doing, yet who grew in Christ through the evangelical movement, you can't imagine how offended I have been by the attitudes cast my way by some (a minority, but a loud one) members of the movement who care little for the sort of language they use when speaking of the "traditional" church community, then hide behind the excuse of "shooting straight" or somesuch.

This humility you speak of ought to run both ways, and please let it start with me...

[LayGuy]

Great article Mr Kimball.

[Bill LaMorey]

Love the watch-dog poodle imagery!

A friend and I were talking about these types of people a few years ago and we determined that they did have value, but a little more humility would go a long way towards integrity and effectiveness with most of these groups.

Almost like they should post a disclaimer about their work: "Hey, we're watchdogs and we're going to bark at just about everything. Sometimes it will be a dangerous stranger, sometimes the mailman, and sometimes our own family. We bark, and you use some discernment in processing the threat."

[Chad Payne]

Hi, Dan! Great post. I was in the class you taught last August with Indiana Wesleyan University. And the thing that stood out to me was not how "far out there" you were, but rather how theologically grounded you were and how passionate you were about leading others into a relationship with Christ.

Every pioneer has critics. The fact that you have been criticized is evidence that you are breaking new ground. I pray for you regularly, and I am thankful that I had the opportunity to see something of your heart last year.

By the way, I'm reading "They like Jesus but not the Church" right now, and am thoroughly enjoying it.

Keep plowing the field!

[Elizabeth Chapin]

Ramble on, brother! I love your poodle as watchdog word picture and appreciate your reference to Hudson Taylor. It's a tragedy how the western church has moved so far from mission and has, as you've mentioned before, become narcissistic. Perhaps if we all viewed ourselves as missionaries and learned how to be missionaries every day following the example of men like Hudson Taylor, we would be far more effective in showing the love of Jesus to those who have yet to see. Keep writing and blogging and encouraging us to not fear the barking poodles!

[jon]

last week my aunt emailed the entire family with a link to scot mcknights "five streams" article as well as her thoughts as she's been researching the emerging churches. i think what started it was hearing that i went to vintage. anyway, there has been quite a discussion going on through email with that side of the family for the last few days. most of my family is evangelical turned orthodox (from bad experiences, i believe). lucky for me, they have been fairly impressed with what they have read.

for too long i have refused to argue because i believe most of the arguments lie, as you say, in false assumptions. to me there are bigger battles to fight. but after reading this and seeing my families reaction, i have come to see that i need to back what i believe rather that roll my eyes and walk away. i believe that requires pateince on my part. but seeing my relatives reactions and jon's moms reaction (and believe me, jon was very persistant and patient) it seems like it is worthwhile.

[donsands]

Good post to ponder. I love Hudson Taylor. He was used mightily by God. Good example for the Body of Christ.
I read "Unsoppable Force". It left me confused, and uninspired.I really don't know a lot about Erwin. I do have a good friend who speaks at his conferences though, and we have discussed the different philosophies.

I'd love to meet Erwin and talk. Maybe some day.

[Jon]

Hey Dan, I'm glad you posted this. That was my mom who you talked to on Sunday. She's an amazing person, I'm happy you got a chance to meet her! Oh yeah, and she has a miniature poodle named Sweetie Pie. It growls at me all the time.

[Amber]

Thanks Dan for reminding me of what I should have thought of myself. The mission is the main thing. Keeping above the critical is crucial. Feeding the need is necessary.

[Ron Foster]

Dan,

I was very impressed and moved to hear Jon Gordon's testimony (posted in one of the comments). God works in amazing ways to call His elect from all the peoples of the world. I am looking forward to seeing the fruit this brother will bear in his ministry. Posting his testimony and baptism on his website is an incredible beginning, a bold profession of faith in Jesus Christ to the glory of God.

Dan, like the other brother who posted a comment, I too am one of the "poodles" you mentioned and will continue to do the following: 1) hold all men accountable who call themselves pastor, or pastor by any other name - men such as yourself and Erwin McManus, men like John MacArthur and John Piper - for every word that proceeds out of your mouth and every written word as well, in regard to rightly dividing the word of God. You yourself just stated the importance of this derstand the importance of this. Furthermore, I will do my best not to be "scathing," as someone accused me of recently, but speak the truth in love, as I have always tried to do, and 2) I will always rejoice with you and the angels in heaven when our Lord Jesus Christ saves one lost sinner, bringing him or her out of darkness into His marvelous light.

Brother, stay in the Word, stay on your knees and stay after souls.

Press on,
Ron Foster
ronfosterca-ron@yahoo.com

[rev. todd]

It's funny to me how people talk about the "Emergent" or "Emerging" church. It makes me laugh sometimes because we want to put things into a certain box so badly that the accuracy of our thoughts or words are often overlooked. The whole point of anything "emerging" is that it is new and it is experimental in a way as it is coming out of something the previously existed as something different. Anyway, I like what you have to say, and it made me think of this. Keep fighting the good fight!

[joe]

Somehow I always follow Ken Silva. Interesting. I guess my question is, "What is so threatening about the Emerging/Emergent church?" In any camp, whether emerging or any other "camp" there are extremes and fringe groups. But if we label each other by the extremists we will never see each other for who we really are. I guess that was for Ken.
What does "the historic orthodox Christian faith" mean and why wouldn't this emerging/emergent crowd fit into it? Or are we being labeled by the extremes again?

[Dan]

Hi Ken,

If you read my blog posts from several weeks ago, I guess I would then also be criticized for believing in the doctrines of "historic orthodox faith" as I do and teach about.

http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/06/what_to_use_for.html

http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/04/more_ephesians_.html

[lloyd]

The reason why I love this post is that it calls out the sources of misinformation regarding the emergent church, and it does so with grace and love, while not sidestepping the issue or the people involved. Sure, constructive critique is welcome because it usually illicits growth. But criticism based on a lack of knowledge or outright lies is not acceptable. The tone of critique also can either communicate love or bitterness. Also, in response to some of the posters...

1) Methods are important. Do you read a Bible in your own language or the original Hebrew and Greek?
2) Stereotyping emergents as "whiny" would be akin to us stereotyping older Christians as stodgy or clueless.
3) If brokenness is all you need to be successful, then why does any church do anything culturally relevant? Why are we not meeting in homes and singing first-century church songs?

I'm not really sure why there is so much underlying anger toward the whole emergent thing. I love John 7:24 in this regard, "Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment." In context, Jesus is talking about people who were upset at him for healing on the Sabbath, but the point is valid: how things look to you is not always how they really are.

[Ken Silva]

"But ones who even if I would still disagree with them, give criticism that is based on reality and not stereotypes or taking things out of context etc."

Yeah, as one often mislabeled in unreality as a "fundamentalist, wooden literalist" as context is clouded falsely with my alleged "Calvinism" I sure agree!

I do wish the Emergent/Emerging Church would stop doing just that to those of us who adhere to what Dr. Walter Martin so often called "the historic orthodox Christian faith."

[Dan]

Hi JK Jones..

I think we all need critics. I know I always want to be open to criticism as we are all fallible human beings who may make mistakes. So in my life, I want to be very open to people sharing things they disagree with or catch something I may have missed that I have stated or written incorrectly.

The difference is that there are "critics" who are saying things that aren't based from reality or truth. So they are criticism is without merit.

So we do need critics who don't agree with us. Absolutely. But who is doing the criticizing and why is what I am thinking about. I want to have people of different viewpoints share with me why they may disagree and have actual intelligent discussion.

The frustrating part of all this, is that most of the vocal critics are saying things that are incredibly untrue. So they are criticizing something that doesn't really even exist. If someone was to criticize me and say "I don't like the jazz music you use in your church" and they heard it and had their opinion and i wouldn't then be defensive because if we used jazz music, they would be right. But if someone says "I don't like that jazz music you use in your church" and we don't even use jazz music, that is totally different.

Anyway, thanks for your comment and I am i agreement we all need critics. But ones who even if I would still disagree with them, give criticism that is based on reality and not stereotypes or taking things out of context etc.

Thank you!

[Dan]

Hi Jim...

Yes, that is a primary thing. To be faithful to the Scriptures as you said. I love Hudson Taylor's Spiritual Secret and about dependency on the Holy Spirit.

Hi Randy..

To me, there is a big difference. I am not out proactively calling people out. I was inspired by the story of Erwin and Hudson T., and was responding by processing how to think of what it is like being on the receiving end of the critical things which are inaccurate.

[J. K. Jones]

I understand the idea of taking the heat for a Biblical / missional stance, but as your post noted, we can take the heat sometimes when we really are the problem. It is important to listen to critics sometimes.

In a few months posting on my blog, I have learned more from my critics that I have from my supporters.

I hesitate to classify critics as “poddles.” I always liked Steve Brown’s response to criticism:

“We should always listen to our critics because, first of all, they might be right, and, second of all, think what they would say if they knew the truth.”

In all of the Humility I can Muster (which sometimes is not much),

J. K. Jones

[D Rho]

Is there really a right/better or wrong/worse way to evangelize? Don't we see all sorts of methods working in different times in Scripture and in history? Is it really about our methods? What is so important about whether group A does this, or group B does that? Isn't it the Spirit element that works in people to receive Christ? Wouldn't that render the method meaningless? Why does the church always have to divide on rather trivial things? Why is it, "They mock methods, I mock theirs"? There is not one who knows better, not one who is on top of the heap, not one who has it all right! Being ONE is more important than being right.

[Jim]

I guess this comment will land me in the doghouse (no pun intended):

Invoking Hudson Taylor would be incomplete without discussing the turning point of his missionary work in China. It wasn't his indigenous blending that flipped the switch for Taylor, it was the breaking of his spirit... "Exhausted and depressed, Hudson later confessed that only his wife's love stood between him and suicide. At this point in his life God used the situation to do a new thing. Hudson Taylor could not go on as he was bankrupt in spirit and strength. It finally dawned on him reading a missionary friend's letter. "I have striven in vain to abide in Him, I'll strive no more. For has not He promised to abide with me...never to leave me, never to fail me?" He then entered into what he thereafter called the "Exchanged Life" where his work for the Lord was no longer done in his own strength." And might I add by his own devices.

Living the exchanged life...
Romans 6

4For we know that our old self was crucified with Him in order that sin's dominion over the body may be abolished,so that we may no longer be enslaved to sin, 7 since a person who has died is freed from sin's claims.

2Corinthians, Ephesians, Galations, Colossians speak of the putting on the new man, the new creation in Christ. The Spirit-born again believer, walking in the pattern set forth by the Scriptures.

There are a lot of conversations occuring, omitting the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in the life of an obedient believer broken daily over his sin, and the blessed newness of life in Christ who dwells in him.

The distortion and confusion of the simplicity of the Gospel requires action "... mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Romans 16:17

The instruction from Paul is to "mark" the false teachers. To "mark" or be "marked" is driven by your demonstrated faithfulness to the Scriptures. The choice is yours.

[Daniel D]

Dan:

Thanks so much for sharing this story. It's important for others to remember that God, not us, brings people to Him... often in strange or unusual ways that we can't even imagine. Our role as believers is to simply be an example, show God's love, and trust God to reveal himself to those who seek Him, at least that is how I understand it to be.

Erwin mentioned on stage about a guy who initially "bugged" him to be on the show with Jon. I'm that guy. I've worked with Jon Gordon for over 5 years and even though I am a believer and Jon wasn't, God kept speaking to me and telling me to hang in there and just be Jon's friend and witness to him in subtle ways as his testimony, conversion and platform would one day do huge things to help others come to Christ.

Fast forward a few years and God's promise has held true. I think we forget that it's not up to us but it's up to God. While many can spend their time and resources slamming guys like Erwin for befriending the lost (as the Pharisees did to Jesus), the far more productive thing to do would be to start living like Jesus and caring more about what God desires.

I put Jon's story with Erwin and Jon's Baptism video up online if anyone wants to check it out.

http://www.jongordon.com/story.html

[Randy]

What is the difference between you bitching about them and them bitching about the emergent/emerging group?

[joe]

Dan,

i appreciate the humility in which you approached this post. I don't know if I could have used the same tact. it is hard for me to handle the sentences taken out of context and the broad strokes that get painted. at the same time. we are on the same time. for the most part we have the same goals. thanks for the comments on Erwin and Hudson Taylor.

[Ken Silva]

*yap yap*

Hi Dan,

As one of those li'l poodles I just want to make sure you know:

"For seeing people come to a saving understanding and faith in Jesus, all the criticism, mean things written, crazy inaccurate absurdities, and the [whiny Emergents] who have good intentions - will all be worth it."

Is exactly how I feel. See ya on field of battle. O, and peace.

[Nathanael]

Written with love and humility and wisdom. Thank you brother.
Your likening these watchdogs to well-intentioned barking poodles is as close to perfect as I think you could get.

Thank you for this post.
I thank our Lord for your heart, brother.

[Dan]

Hi Matt!

Yes, paul did at times (though we don't see him doing it as the norm) go into the public area Mars Hill which was known for being able to debate and express ideas (we don't see him actually going into a temple). So he respected that the place he gave the well known speech in Acts 17 was a place where people shared different ideas and thoughts. I don't recall that he actually when inside actual Greek or Roman temples of worship. It's interesting reading all the incidences of Paul confronting people. Even with the demon possessed fortune teller in Acts 16, she kept bothering him before he finally just confronted her and cast the demon out.

He did go into synagogues and spoke to Jews who already believed in the inspired Hebrew Bible so his starting point with them was where they were already at believing that a Messiah would come and believing that the Scriptures were from God.

But what is really, really, really important to grasp is that Paul was speaking about Jesus to people who were not yet tainted about "Christianity". In the USA we are walking around in a world that has been very tainted to what it means to be a Christian or what church is about. Paul wasn't dealing with that. He was introducing something entirely new. We are living in a world that already thinks they know what Christianity is and has generally bad impressions of it.

That is a big difference in my opinion of that world and the world we are in - so as Paul did change his approach in what he did and said in the synagogue and how he went about things in Acts 17.

Thanks for the comment!!!

[matt]

I love the post, and 90% of me says, YEAH! that's missional living.
then 10% of me says..... wait. didn't Paul go to the greek temples and tell them that they got it wrong, and Jesus was the only way? (that popped up when reading your bit about hudson taylor). And i honestly think our religious/spiritual culture is actually very similar to the religious/spiritual culture paul lived in.

anyways. that's stuff that i'm still munching on. good post.