Time for a year in review. I looked back at a year of my posts to see what consumed my mindshare. Here were six significant stories which caught my attention and why ... from 50,000 feet.
- Terri Schiavo. The plight of Terri Schiavo initiated an important discussion in our culture on what it means to be human, and if we are allowed to deem when a life is worthy of life.
- Supreme Court. The death of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the retirement of Justice O'Connor re-ignited the national debate on judicial philosophy, and the role of the judiciary in our country. Given the immense power of the judiciary in America, the outcome of this national debate will affect this country for decades. Judge Roberts flew through the nomination process. Miers never got off the ground. Alito is off to a great start. The Miers nomination, in particular, divided evangelicals in a way no one ever anticipated. Evangelicals were forced to choose which was more important: an Evangelical on the SCOTUS, or a judicial conservative. Most Evangelicals preferred a judicial conservative.
- Biological Design. This was the hottest year ever for those in the biological intelligent design movement (I distinguish biological ID from cosmological ID). Intelligent design has become part of the national vocabulary. The idea tipped. The decision at Dover will only serve to fan the flames of the movement. A government ban on teaching intelligent design will add to its intrigue, and attract even more to learn what it is that the scientists fear and the government does not want you to know.
- C.S. Lewis. This was the year of C.S. Lewis. The Narnia movie kicked off a national discussion about C.S. Lewis. I could not be more thrilled to see all of the press coverage about the true message behind The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Who'd a thunk it? Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.
- Katrina. The devastation caused by this one event was cataclysmic. The untold story of Katrina is the deployment of those in the community of faith to help those in need. World magazine seems to be the only one reporting this incredible outpouring of mercy. While the MSM covers the argument about levees and where the fault lies for a bungled response, God's people have responded in droves. Armies of churches have responded and showed what incarnational love looks like.
- Emergent Church. This massive church movement is gaining momentum. Classes on the emergent church are filled to capacity at seminaries like Fuller. I have not covered this important trend nearly enough on The Dawn Treader. Fortunately, many in the blogosphere have been covering it ... including the amazing apologists at Stand To Reason. Will this movement fizzle, or will it redefine how the church views atomistic concepts like truth, knowledge and community for decades to come?
What is Mr. Dawntreader thinking about for 2006? That is next.
Ah -- Emergent rears its head again. I poked around STR and didn't find anything substantive on Emergent, other than the usual charicatures. Are there any links you can point me to there where they really discuss it?
Posted by: dave o. | December 27, 2005 at 15:35
Dave,
Check out the links I posted here:
http://worldviewwarrior.com/blog/index.php?s=emerging&submit=Search
Hope that gets you started. Let me know if you need more reading. I plan to cover the emerging church in a more significant way in the coming year.
Jeff,
We should do a blog conversation about the emerging church sometime. I have read a significant amount and feel I am ready to tackle this.
Posted by: Brian | December 27, 2005 at 17:21
Interesting links -- not all negative? If you want to do a conversation on this (Brian too) I've read a bunch of Emergent's high level stuff and would love to join in. With respect to Emergent right now, I'd classify myself as "friendly but cautious".
Posted by: dave o. | December 27, 2005 at 23:58
Brian and David,
I think a blog conversation on the Emergent church is an xlant idear. I am in.
One of the things I have found is that the E.C. is a moving target. What can happen is that if you are critical of one aspect of it, someone can accuse you of attacking a strawman or a charicature. I remember being critical of Brian McLaren's views of truth ... only to find out that McLaren is not taken all that seriously by some E.C. apologists.
Somehow we need to find out what the tenets and non-negotiables are for the E.C. and discuss those. We need to identify who the true gatekeepers of the E.C. movement are ... if not McLaren, then who? If we can be as precise as possible, then we can avoid a lot of wasted ink (so to speak).
Make sense?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 28, 2005 at 07:30
Jeff,
I agree that we need to discuss particulars and agree on some tenets of the movement. To that end, would it be helpful to actually have an emergent join us in this conversation?
Have you read Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis?
Bell pastors a church in Grand Rapids, Michigan called Mars Hill.
Their website can be found here:
http://www.mhbcmi.org
I think you would benefit from reading his book. It voices some of the ideas of the emerging church. I will likely be posting a review of the book sooner rather than later.
I sent you and Dave e-mail about an emergent conversation (appropriate name).
BTW, are we still on for Pigfest in January?
Posted by: Brian | December 28, 2005 at 08:33
"Have you read Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis?"
No. Is it pro-EC, anti-EC, or a fair and balanced survey of EC?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 28, 2005 at 08:46
"BTW, are we still on for Pigfest in January?"
Yes. I am having it on the last Friday in January, unless there is some compelling reason to move it up. Was originally planning on January 13th, but I suspect there will be a lot of church activity then (our new pastor will be in town for a long weekend from Seattle).
I will put up a notice on TDT shortly. I have begun inviting people by word o' mouth.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 28, 2005 at 08:54
David,
What is the one book you would recommend I read to "really get it" as far as EC thinking?
Remember, my concerns are chiefly about the views on truth and knowledge ... I have no argument with promoting community or using narrative to engage culture.
By the way, I bought my first Lesslie Newbigin book ... The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. I know you think highly of him. Is he an EC-ish thinker?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 28, 2005 at 09:33
Robb Bell's book is part of the emerging conversation. Definitely pro-EC of a level headed sort.
I may not be able to make the last weekend in January for the Pigfest. Depends on what happens with this trip to see Scott Klusendorf (formerly of STR) in Virginia Beach. I will keep you posted.
You could always hold it on January 13 and invite the new pastor for a Pigfest. That would be interesting! ;-)
Posted by: Brian | December 28, 2005 at 15:08
Newbiggin is sort of "proto-EC." I never quite finished The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (bad habit of starting books and not finishing them). His book Proper Confidence probably has had more influence on EC thinking.
I don't know that there is one source to define EC views of truth. As you've said, EC is a bit of a moving target, and there's some difference sometimes between the popular and more academic literature. The book I've found most engaging so far is Grenz & Franke's Beyond Foundationalism. It's not a quick read though. On a more popular level, McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy is a good summary of some of the movement's (sorry EC folks, I mean "conversation's") attitudes about things like theology, ecclesiology and worship, though it doesn't have much depth in terms of really wrestling with questions of truth. I also read a book by Dave Tomlinson called "The Post Evangelical" that is kind of like a survey of emergent attitudes as well.
So to stop rambling -- I'd recommend Beyond Foundationalism for a serious look at how a "postmodern" evangelical-ish theology would handle truth and knowledge.
Posted by: dopderbeck | December 31, 2005 at 10:46
Sorry I missed the fun here, but since you bring up the SCOTUS, how's about a little trivia question. On the Rehnquist Court, which justice voted MOST frequently to overturn democratically-enacted legislation? And which justice voted to overturn democratically-enacted legislation least frequently?
Posted by: tgirsch | January 05, 2006 at 17:23
"On the Rehnquist Court, which justice voted MOST frequently to overturn democratically-enacted legislation?"
I sense a trap :-)
Scalia.
"And which justice voted to overturn democratically-enacted legislation least frequently?"
Stevens.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 05, 2006 at 19:40
Good sense, wrong guesses. ;) The correct answers were Thomas and Breyer, respectively. Thomas voted to overturn roughly 2/3 of the time, and Breyer about a quarter of the time. And I'm willing to bet that they almost never voted together. :)
Given that most recent complaints about "judicial activism" concern justices striking down laws, one wonders which of the above two qualifies as the more "activist." :)
Posted by: tgirsch | January 06, 2006 at 13:03
Judicial activism can mean just about anything you want it to mean. That is the danger of labels ... just like the label 'Christian'.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 06, 2006 at 18:13
Judicial activism can mean just about anything you want it to mean.That is precisely my point. Although Men In Black complained almost exclusively about justices overturning laws (or parts of laws), which is why I brought it up.
I've long argued that "judicial activism" is mostly a boogeyman. The fact is, differing interpretations of the Constitution exist and are justifiable. That certain justices don't share my interpretation doesn't mean that they are "activist," just that they disagree.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 09, 2006 at 15:50