The Emerging Church According to Carson: Reviewing Chapters 1-3

D.A. Carson is a first rank scholar, whose penetrating analysis of the emerging church is both accurate and admirable. He begins his book by giving a general profile of the emerging church, in which he describes some of its most basic principles and motivations. Before entering into a more particular assessment of emergent thought, Carson describes the essence of the movement by writing that, “at the heart of the movement, lies the conviction that changes in the culture signal that a new church is emerging.” This concept is utterly crucial to a proper understanding of the emerging church. In large part, the emerging church is tightly bound up with a particular understanding of postmodernism. Since our cultures thoughts, values, epistemology, and concerns have undergone a major shift in the past few years, it is necessary for the church to adapt to those shifts, and respond appropriately to the emerging postmodernism in our culture. Those who fail to do so are blind to these major cultural shifts, and are responding in ways that are outdated and inappropriate.

After Carson provides a basic foundation on which emergent thought is built, he begins discussing some of the particular aspects of the emerging church which drive and motivate the movement. The first aspect of the emerging church which Carson lists, is the idea of protest. Under this general heading, Carson characterizes the emerging church as protesting against traditional evangelicalism, modernism, and the seeker sensitive church. Many emerging church leaders have come from traditional evangelical churches with a fundamentalist streak, explaining the bitter reactions of many emergent leaders to this particular kind of Christianity. Obviously, the movement is large, and the major figures come from various backgrounds. Yet Carson mentions a book called, Stories of Emergence, in which all of the authors, to greater and lesser degrees, describe their journey from the, “absolute to the authentic.” Most of the authors in this book were raised in traditional evangelical backgrounds, and their reaction to this movement explains some of the bitter resentment these authors hold towards the Christianity of their forbears. Despite the obvious variety and complexity of the movement as a whole, one particular thread runs through all of their writings. This common thread is nothing more than a reaction to a legalistic form of fundamentalism which stresses objectivity, certainty, and exclusivity, over emotion, freedom, mysticism, ecumenicism, and uncertainty. Carson accurately writes that, “the reforms that the movement encourages, mirror the protests of the lives of many of its leaders.” Yet a protest against fundamentalism isn’t the only characteristic of the emerging church.

The second characteristic of the emerging church, is their protest against modernity, and the church’s adaptation to it. This issue is also crucial in understanding the emerging church movement. The movement is built upon a reaction to what they define as, “modernity”, and their subsequent appeals for reform are all grounded in their particular understanding of cultural shifts. The primary reaction is directed towards the emergent understanding of modern epistemology, and the church’s response to this epistemology during the modern era. Carson rightly asserts that the emerging church is reacting to the worst evils of modernity. He also describes the emergent reaction to modern epistemology, and the church in the modern era, as reductionistic, wooden, and linear. For emerging church leaders, modernism is described with words like, linear thought, rationality, scientific approaches, exclusivity, individualism, conquest, absolutist, and dogmatism. On the other hand, postmodernity has ushered in a new opportunity for Christians to respond in ways which are opposite and contrary to the ideas and words mentioned above. In the minds of emerging church leaders, postmodernity now dominates the landscape of the cultures we find ourselves in. In order for the church to be faithful to the times, the church must respond appropriately by casting off the burdensome ties to modern ecclesiology. A church in the postmodern era will look strangely different from the church’s of past centuries. Relativism, feeling, emotion, uncertainty, acceptance, and community are all characteristics of the church in the modern era. And while these things are embraced, older, more absolutist ways of approaching Christianity will no longer suffice.

The third characteristic mentioned by Carson is a reaction against the seeker sensitive church. A protest against the seeker sensitive mentality which arose in the 80’s and 90’s is present within many of the authors’ works. For example, Dan Kimball speaks against the seeker sensitive movement in his work, The Emerging Church, and argues that the old forms of corporate worship and church structure within the seeker sensitive movement, are no longer appropriate in today’s postmodern society. He argues for less emphasis on preaching, and more emphasis on multi-sensory experience. He rightly objects to the watered down presentation of the gospel found in seeker sensitive movements, which tend to insult the intelligence of the hearers. He also advocates the deconstruction of Biblical terminology, for the sake of connecting to postmodern listeners who may potentially be Biblically illiterate.

At the end of chapter 1, Carson proposes three things which must guide us in our analysis of the emerging church. First, “the emerging church must be evaluated as to its reading of contemporary culture.” Since the movement is grounded in a reaction to modernity, we must explore their understanding of modernity, and evaluate its historical and philosophical accuracy. Similarly, we must also evaluate its understanding of postmodernity, and analyze its reading of the times in light of the actual changes which have taken place in our world. Second, Christians must seriously evaluate the emerging church’s approach to the Scriptures. On the one hand, emergent writers describe the modern approach to the Scriptures as outdated and inappropriate, rather than wrong or erroneous. Yet on the other hand, some emergent writers describe traditional evangelicalism’s approach to the Bible in such stinging and bitter terms, that one can’t help but think that they disapprove and despise traditional approaches to the Scriptures. Their consistency on this point must be evaluated. Third, the emerging church’s proposal’s for change must be evaluated in light of their fidelity to the Scriptures. Despite the emergent reaction against the reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura, we must take into account the fact that the emerging church is not completely throwing out the Bible as unnecessary and outdated. Instead, new approaches to the Bible are being proposed. Yet as Christians who love the Scriptures, we must appeal to the Scriptures, and interpret emergent proposals for reform in light of what God has revealed to us in the Bible.

One particular emerging church which possesses striking similarities with Carson’s analysis, is Solomon’s Porch, described as a holistic, missional, Christian community. Since Carson’s profile identifies 3 major characteristics of the emerging church, I will analyze Solomon’s Porch along those lines, and compare it to Carson’s profile. The information I am using is from a video release by Solomon’s Porch describing their church, and information published on the website. First, Carson describes the emerging church in terms of its protest against traditional evangelicalism, seeker sensitivity, and modernism. Solomon’s Porch manifests a general aura of protest in many ways. For instance, one man in the Solomon’s Porch video, comments that, “traditional Christianity is no longer a viable option anymore.” A bold assertion such as this reveals the attitude and conviction driving this perspective. A protest against what this man perceives as, “traditional Christianity”, is no longer a viable option, and things must change. This one comment strikingly parallels Carson’s description of the emerging church as a movement grounded in protest. Another aspect of Solomon’s Porch which fits Carson’s description is their insistence upon creating new forms of worship as opposed to older more outdated forms and expressions. Doug Pagitt, the pastor at Solomon’s Porch, describes the church as an artistic community, where visual expression and creativity are cherished for the sake of communicating in non-verbal ways. Also, Solomon’s Porch decided early on that their celebration of the Lord’s Supper would be a, “house party”, of sorts. In the video, there are clips of people moving about talking and interacting while eating and drinking bread and wine. The, “house party”, approach to the Lord’s Supper is clearly a reaction against the more solemn and reverent communion services found in traditional evangelical churches. Solomon’s Porch is clearly an example of a church whose protest against traditional evangelicalism has produced new ways of conducting church life that are innovative, creative, artistic, communal, participatory, and easy going. Perhaps one of the greatest examples of protest against their understanding of modernity, is a clip of one specific woman boasting in the fact that there is no doctrinal statement of belief at Solomon’s Porch, because the church is cooperative, and people believe many things. More important, she says, is the fact that everyone has important ideas that should be listened to. Since Carson describes the emerging church as essentially equating modernity with absolutism, its evident that this woman’s positive regard for a lack of doctrinal clarity, is a product of her reaction against a, “modern”, and absolutist approach to theology and belief. Another instance of the church’s bitter reaction to their perceived concept of modernity, is a comment made by Doug Pagitt, that, “convincing people of things they don’t want to be convinced of is perhaps the most unloving and unkind thing you could do. (paraphrase).” McLaren describes modernity in terms of conquest, and reacts to it. Obviously, Pagitt does the same in this video. Solomon’s Porch also reacts to the kind of seeker sensitive, CEO church leadership model, by asserting that authoritarian leadership is always bound to fail. Pagitt makes a bold claim when he asserts that most every government, country, monarchy, or church which was authoritarian in any sense, was destined to failure. Despite Pagitt’s historical inaccuracy, suffice it to say that this is a reaction against the kind of CEO church leadership model which Spencer Burke has labeled, “spiritual McCarthyism.” Another instance is Pagitt’s description of the church as a community where everyone can speak for God. Instead of an authoritarian CEO/Pastor, preaching to thousands of ,“seekers”, in a church the size of a football stadium, Solomon’s porch is communal and participatory. Everyone speaks for God, and interaction and questioning is essential to church life. A quite humorous instance of this is in a clip of a young guy commenting that, “even if you don’t have a pot to piss in, and you still have friends, you’ll be fine at the end of the day, because friends are all that matter.” Regardless of the Biblical illiteracy so apparently obvious within this statement, the comment is telling. No one is an outsider, everyone is included, and people are regarded as people rather than customers or seekers. This was not intended to be a detailed analysis of every aspect of Solomon’s Porch. Yet this video was released for the purpose of informing the public about what Solomon’s Porch is all about, and the video bears many similarities to D.A. Carson’s general profile of the emerging church in chapter 1. The video can be found at
http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/2007/02/solomons_porch_.html

Chapter 3 of Carson’s book is a penetrating critique of the emerging church’s particular understanding of culture. This chapter is significantly important because the movement as a whole, and their proposal for reform, is built upon their specific understanding of modernity and postmodernity. Carson’s first criticism of the emerging church’s understanding of modernity, is its reductionistic and wooden perception of modernity, and the church in the modern era. First, the emerging church fails to take into account the variety of movements which arose during the modern era. Some of these movements are, quite frankly, directly antithetical to the emerging church’s understanding of modernity as absolutist and exclusively rationalistic in nature. Carson mentions the Romantic movement, and the heavy emphasis on emotion, beauty, and freedom. He also mentions philosophers like Immanuel Kant, whose understanding of the human mind led him to conclude that objective knowledge is out of reach for finite human beings. Emerging church leaders often attempt to stereotype modernity, failing to recognize that philosophy and culture can’t be neatly sliced up into certain categories without making any distinctions or exceptions. Second, emerging church leaders have misrepresented and redefined the church under the modern era, by taking some of the worst extremes of modern Christianity, and applying them to all forms of Christianity which existed during the modern era. For them, the church in the modern era is disproportionately rationalistic, unemotional, scientific, cerebral, and arrogant. Yet this borders on revisionist history, and these misrepresentations also border on blatant dishonesty. To prove this, Carson quotes a pastoral prayer by the great English preacher Charles Spurgeon, who affectionately and emotionally speaks to God in a way which is foreign to the emerging church’s stereotype of the modern church. A numerous list of theologians, books, pastors, and sermons could be mentioned which completely contradict their stereotypical understanding of the church in the modern era. This is a serious weakness in emergent thought, and it is blatantly and embarrassingly obvious that a resort to revisionist history is being attempted. After Carson analyzes the emerging church’s understanding of modernity, he then moves to an evaluation of their particular understanding of postmodernity. One flaw in the emerging church’s understanding of postmodernity, is their failure to recognize the inherent weaknesses within postmodern thought. In Brian McLaren’s books especially, postmodernity is understood as a culture of hope which provides the church with a variety of positive opportunities for reform. Hardly, if ever, are the inherent and serious weaknesses of postmodern thought enumerated or explained. Also, the emerging church looks embarrassingly passé, by praising a movement which was at the cusp of intellectual popularity a half century ago. Frankly, the emerging church is behind the times. Carson mentions that postmodernity is hardly ever discussed in Europe anymore, and the only ones who seem to be talking about it are the popular evangelical writers involved in the emerging church movement. The last criticism Carson offers, is that the emerging church has become surprisingly absolutist, despite their attempts to rid the church of this kind of mentality. It’s as if tolerance is offered to everyone except for the modern church who is responding inappropriately to the times in which they live. This serious weakness can be spotted almost immediately when reading Brian McLaren’s books, and it’s a shame that such inconsistency exists.

Despite the weaknesses inherent within emergent thought, many strengths could also be enumerated. Carson devotes an entire chapter to recognizing certain positive aspects of the movement as a whole. In the end, serious, gracious, winsome, and coherent dialogue with emerging church leaders is needed. One positive aspect of the emerging church is their emphasis upon peace, harmony, love and acceptance. I think we would be wise to mirror this attitude in our own interactions with them. May we both contend for the truth, and fervently love all people.

The Times Tribune, Christians Seeking Spiritual Relevance, and the Perspective of Local Churches in NEPA

I was quite surprised to find a little article in the Times Tribune which analyzed a few area local churches, many with whom I am very familiar. Included in the article is 1) an general analysis of the direction of the church at large 2) a series of interviews from local church pastors and leaders, giving specific perspectives on the direction of the church in the 21st century, and 3) the adequate responses Christians must make to the change in values, culture, and tastes of society. I want to begin the analysis of the this article by saying that I by no means intend to attack specific persons in a way which would in incongruous with the sacred truth of the gospel. This post is a product of my serious concern, that some of the church leaders interviewed in this article have completely missed the mark when it comes to Biblical ecclesiology, and the right response of Christians to our changing culture. Some might object to my critique of specific churches within the context of a blog like this. Yet when public church leaders choose to disseminate their perspectives into a public forum, I have the right to respond to their specific affirmations, and critique what I feel is unbiblical and unsound. I pray that God would enable me to do so in a gracious and loving manner.

Access to the article can be found….
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18183020&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6

The article begins by discussing the journey of a particular man, who decided a number of years ago that he wanted much more out of church than what he had grown up with. According to the article, this man desired, “a modern church strong on relationships and strong on Bible teaching, a place where his family could connect with God and connect with other people. But most of all, it had to be alive, in spirit and in practice. Tired and routine wouldn’t cut it. ” A noble desire indeed. The article goes on to narrate how this particular man found a perfect fit at Parker Hill Community Church. Parker Hill is described by the Tribune as a place where, “the ancient message of Christianity is delivered with a decidedly contemporary flair, from the music to the multimedia productions.” This particular church became so appealing to this man, that he was willing to travel 50 minutes every Sunday in order to attend their services.

After this short narrative, the writer of the article comments that, “as Christians observe Easter and celebrate the cornerstone of their faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, an increasing number are seeking out new ways of religious expression and embracing movements they find relevant to their daily lives.” I must admit, I agree with this analysis. People are indeed seeking out new ways of religious expression, and many are embracing a variety of movements which they personally find relevant to their daily lives. Yet as the rest of the article will reveal, this analysis is understood as a positive force within our culture, and a direction to be accommodated and nurtured rather than opposed and fought against. This is where I put my feet firmly in the ground. Unregenerate man will always be seeking new ways in which to worship God. The Biblical pattern of worship set forth in Scripture will never be sufficient for an unregenerate nation obsessed with novelty, change, and a rejection of the past. (what C.S. Lewis termed “chronological snobbery”) This isn’t new. It’s as old as Nadab and Abihu who attempted to worship God with strange fire, and were struck down dead because of their attempt to seek religious expression in new ways. This generation of Americans who desire novelty and originality in worship are, in a sense, the offspring of idolatrous Israel who chose to set up a golden calf to satisfy their desires, rather than adhering to the prescribed pattern of worship commanded by God. Dabbling in novelty is dangerous business. And as for the other comment that people are seeking to embrace movements which they find more relevant to their daily lives: Depraved man will always seek that which is more appealing to his own desires, rather than that which God has expressly and clearly commanded in his word. If people are becoming dissatisfied with heresy and lukewarmness, that’s one thing. Yet if people are becoming dissatisfied with God’s prescribed pattern of worship revealed in the Scripture, that’s another. I doubt that many in this postmodern generation, entrenched in their own desire for “emergence”, would deem relevant the preaching of the Word, reading of the Word, praying of the Word, singing of the Word, and seeing of the Word (in the sacraments). Our choice of churches should never be limited to what we find relevant to our daily lives. I get scared when I think of what my heart might find relevant, were it not for the Word and Spirit guiding my actions. Our choice of churches should be theologically informed, and based upon whether a particular church is being faithful to the prescribed pattern of ecclesiology set forth in the Scriptures. I’m sure there are many churches which are deemed “relevant” simply because they have big bands, stylish preachers, and doughnuts and coffee. Yet relevance, in the true sense of the word, is what God understands as best for the souls of his children. To seek relevance, outside of the Scriptures, is to tread the trodden path of idolatry and syncretism which has plagued society since the beginning of time (think back to the tower of Babel for example.)

The article goes on to give a number of figures which illustrate the decrease of churchgoers in mainline denominations, and the increase in numbers among non-denominational churches. Parker Hill Community Church is listed as a beneficiary of this increase. According to Pastor Mark Fitch, one of the six at Parker Hill, “The church has achieved that growth by stripping away hidebound traditions and other man-made obstacles that stand between people and a relationship with God, while offering a church experience that is relevant to our culture and the time that we live.” Since the pastor doesn’t define “hidebound traditions” and “man made obstacles”, I will keep silent on this particular comment. It’s his next comment that I find particularly troubling. According to Fitch, “In my experience, people are very interested in God. They have just become disinterested in religion and religious systems that have gotten in the way of them and God. I don’t think people have been turned off by God. I do think people have been turned off by church.” The pastors first comment reveals the theological underpinning which drives his entire perspective: Arminianism. He comments that in his experience, people are very interested in religion. If by this, he means that Christians, fed up with nominal Christianity, are interested in real, authentic, and true Christianity, I agree. Yet I don’t think that this is what the pastor is getting at. It seems to me as though he’s asserting that the culture at large is interested in religion, and has been turned off to God by the church. If this is what he’s saying, he couldn’t be more incorrect. The Bible completely contradicts the premise of his argument, that is, if you believe in total depravity, and the inability of man to seek God apart from irresistible grace. First, unregenerate man is not “interested” in God. How could he be? He’s dead in trespasses and sins, a child of wrath, blind to the truth of the gospel, and lost in his iniquities! Can a dead heart truly be “interested” in God? I think not. And is the root of this issue the church’s incompetencies and failures? Are people not “seeking” God because religious systems have gotten in their way? A rudimentary understanding of the Scripture reveals that SIN is what separates man and God, not churches who according to one man’s opinion have gotten in the way. The primary problem is not that the church has been unfaithful. The primary problem is that man is a sinner, and completely incapable of genuine interest spiritual things (Rom. 3:11, Eph. 2:1, Jer. 13:23). A comment such as this is driven by an Arminian understanding of salvation which basically understands mankind as intrinsically good and capable of genuine interest in the things of God. This is not historic, Protestant, orthodox, Christianity. Rather, this is the kind of Arminianism assumed by most modern and post-modern church leaders who describe sinners as “seekers” and the unregenerate as “people interested in God.” I’m saddened by the fact that Pastor Fitch didn’t mention sin as the primary obstacle between man and God. Yet sin is a forgotten and ignored concept in our culture, and we’ve opted for more comfortable answers in an attempt to water down the gospel. God help us. On a more positive note, Pastor Mark Schmidtz of Summit Baptist Church did comment on the fact that churches who ignore the concepts of sin and other Biblical truths are, “treading dangerous paths.” I would go a step farther and say that churches who are ignoring the biblical concept of sin, and other basic doctrinal issues, are no true churches at all, and wolves in sheep’s clothing. The Bible is clear on the subject of sin, and so should the church. The great revivals of past centuries were marked by a deep conviction of sin, which consequently, led to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Savior. May the Lord enable us to contend for the truth and preach the uncomfortable doctrines which so many are neglecting in our day.

The rest of the article consists in a general analysis of the emerging church, and local church leaders who are somewhat involved in the movement. Dr. Bader Saye of the University of Scranton is interviewed in the article, and gives a few comments regarding the emerging church, and his church’s involvement in the movement. Dr. Bader Saye is the founder of Peacemeal, a local emerging community in the Episcopal tradition. Peacemeal is described as combining, “old traditions — such as chanting, meditation and icons — with unconventional twists such as modern music to make worship a communal, multi-sensory experience while holding on to what it means to be a church.” Without going into a full fledged analysis of the emerging church (see D.A. Carson’s work: Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church), I will suffice it to say that chanting, meditation, icons, unconventional twists, and multi-sensory experiences are so far from being Biblical, that this kind of “christian worship” is no true worship at all. Yet I doubt my spin will hold any weight with people like Dr. Bader Saye, seeing that I’m arguing from a traditonal/historic/protestant understanding of the Bible. And this is the problem: an appeal to the Scriptures in non-existent. It’s clear from the article that people involved in the emerging church and those influenced by it, are driven by their own personal and subjective desire for relevance rather than by the Scriptural testimony. Throughout this article, comments are continually made about people yearning for spiritual relevance, people desiring churches which they find comfortable, and people seeking churches which differ from the dead and nominal churches of their past. Do you notice a common thread here? Can you see where the emphasis is placed? The emphasis is placed upon the people, and their attempts to find the churches which best fit their tastes. And what’s sad is that most of the pastors and church leaders interviewed in this article are accommodating this phenomena, rather than informing it with the truths of God’s Word.

Within the last section of the article, Monsignor Joseph Quinn comments that, “people throughout history have sought out religious methods or paths that are more responsive to their needs at the time, and the fact it is still happening should tell us something.” I agree. It should tell us something. It should tell us of the utter depravity of the heart of man, and his incessant desire to go beyond what God has prescribed in His Word. It should remind us of men like Nadab and Abihu, whose desire for new religious methods kindled the wrath of God. It should remind us of idolatrous Israel, whose persistent desire for paths more responsive to their needs brought about exile, wrath, and abandonment by God. Yes Monsignor. Many people throughout history have sought out methods or paths more responsive to their needs at the time. And what did it bring them? The wrath, anger, and total displeasure of Almighty God.

Reading an article like this can be greatly discouraging. Yet we live in perilous times where the truth of God is being suppressed, not only by professed pagans, but by professed Christians. I’m confident that the root of this issue is the failure of church leaders to love, appreciate, enjoy, and regard the Holy Scriptures as supremely authoritative in matters of faith and practice. Without the Bible grounding our desires, and without the Bible informing our worship, we are destined to eventually become idolaters who attempt to worship the true God in a false and abominable way. It’s my fervent prayer that God would pour out a great measure of His Spirit in our land, and bring revival to a nation obsessed with themselves and their own personal desire for relevance. May God help us all.

Jordan
Ps. 16:11

When the Darkness Will Not Lift: Doing What We Can While We Wait for God and Fight for Joy

Modern day evangelicals have completely missed the mark in their attempts to cure and encourage saints struggling through darkness. The reason I say this is not because everything they say is bad, or because people haven’t profited from some of their teachings. Yet still, especially in the circles I currently find myself in, something is seriously wrong, and Piper’s new treatise reveals it in a clear and visible way. The problem is that the Biblical foundation for our understanding of suffering has been replaced with a shallow substitute which ultimately, will offer no comfort and no hope for Christians experiencing seasons of darkness. What is this foundation? Nothing more than the person and work of Jesus Christ, as He is revealed in the Scriptures, as the great satisfying object to which we must look whenever we enter seasons of darkness. It’s not enough to talk about God in an ambiguous and shallow manner, ignoring the second person of the Trinity as if His redemptive work has nothing to do with our suffering. In our preaching on spiritual darkness, and in our experience of spiritual darkness, we must look to Christ, and understand our circumstances through the lenses of what the Scriptures reveal about Him. That’s what Piper does in this book. He opens the book by talking about justification by faith alone, and the need for saints to properly understand the differences between justification (a legal and objective declaration by God that a sinner is righteous on the merits of Christ’s blood and righteousness) and sanctification (the inward and progressive work of the Holy Spirit, conforming us to Christ’s likeness). Our standing before God is settled in the courts of heaven. Jesus Christ, through his vicarious life and death on the behalf of His people, has purchased a redemption so full and so complete, that God can look upon us in love, His condemnation and wrath having been satisfied. This is where we must start in our attempts to understand and fight against spiritual darkness.

“God accepts us on the basis of Christ’s righteousness, not ours. To be sure, our progressive sanctification- our all too slow growth in Christ-likeness- matters. It is the necessary evidence that the seed of spiritual life is in our soul and that our faith is real. But, O what a difference it makes to be assured, in the discouraging darkness of our own imperfection, that we have a perfect righteousness outside ourselves, namely Christ’s.” (p. 18)

Preachers of the gospel would do well to start where Piper starts in discussing this topic of spiritual depression. Any discussion of this topic, apart from first understanding the person and work of Jesus Christ as the foundation for an understanding of suffering, is destined to become moralistic, man-centered, and nothing different than what I can hear at a local synagogue or mosque. If the person and work of Jesus Christ are the dominant themes of Holy Scripture, then our theology of suffering must be radically, profoundly, and robustly Christocentric.