— OR —
Emerging/Emergent Errors; Puerile Pomo Prattle; Abominable Antinomian Aberrations; Novel New-Perspective Nonsense; Crazy Charismaniac Charlatanism; Sanctimonious Sacramentalist Superstitions; Cynical, Condescending Catholicity; Private Prophetic Phantasms; and Seeker-Sensitive Silliness: What Do They All Have in Common?
Emerging/Emergent Errors; Puerile Pomo Prattle; Abominable Antinomian Aberrations; Novel New-Perspective Nonsense; Crazy Charismaniac Charlatanism; Sanctimonious Sacramentalist Superstitions; Cynical, Condescending Catholicity; Private Prophetic Phantasms; and Seeker-Sensitive Silliness: What Do They All Have in Common?
by Frank Turk & Dan Phillips, but not Phil Johnson—because you people wear him out
The primary point of this post is to really bring all the people we have had consistent adversarial interaction with out of the woodwork to see if we can't make a comment thread go past the 1,000 mark—because after all, we get thousands of readers every day. Everyone should have something to say for himself.(There's a possible counter-bonus to being so open about our aims. All our friends among the jolly-raunchers and tongue-waggers and shape-shifters and gutless-gracers might read our goal, and think "Well, I'll be [EC verbiage deleted] if I'm going to oblige those judgmental pinheaded legalistic dead-lettered haters!", and stay away. Net result? We get to whack away to our hearts' content, unopposed. See? Win/win!)
So we're going to write a post determined to engage all of the above categories, and it's going to work like this:
We're going to assume that when we type phrases like "inerrant scripture," "personal sanctification," "indwelling of the Holy Spirit," and "regenerate believers," they will be blithely ignored or recklessly misconstrued, and will instantly cause someone in one of the adversarial camps to post a comment which has nothing to do with the point we were making.
- We're going to take it for granted that all of these groups are actually engaged in more important things—you know: like ministry, or real, high-flown academics—than blogging.
- We're going to have a calm assurance that, no matter what we say, Steve Camp will find a way to disagree and show us how much better his Kung Fu is than ours.
- We're going to gratuitously post graphics like this one:
And this one:
 Inspired by remarks left in the combox below |
And this one:
And this one:
And this one:
And this one:
And this one:
But not this one:
And the reason for all of that is this—after our concurrent 3-ish years of blogging, we have come to realize that blogging cannot be serious business. Investing a lot of time in posts which say things like God's provision is usually exactly what we need, or that the sufficiency of God's word far exceeds any experience we could hope to encounter, or that we often discount what God has already done never seems to work out for us. People don't remember them. They're not what people come here to see.
And that, frankly, is a shame.
So no sense in wrecking the rest of our week with prayer, reflection and the real meat of God's word. This is what the people want—verbal meat-chubbery—and frankly, from what we understand, giving people what they really want is called missional these days.
We're down with that, because we've listened, heard, read, dialogued, and it keeps coming down to the same thing: the Bible. It seems to be such a problem for so many of our critics.
If you take the Word at its word, it is God's Word. Because it is God's Word, it is truth (John 17:17), it is inerrant (John 10:35), it is sufficient for every Christian need (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Are you a real disciple ofJesus? The way you treat the Bible tells the tale (John 8:31-32). It is the end result of a long, deliberate process (Hebrews 1:1-2), done through men moved by the Holy Spirit who wrote out God's self-revelation, rather than products of their own will (2 Peter 1:20-21).And it's markedly complete. No essential God-breathed book has been found that antedates Genesis, nor any that post-dates Revelation. The whole vital, need-to-know story and all the details are there: God, man, the universe, the meaning of life and everything. How it all started, how it all ends, what we're to be believing and doing (and not believing nor doing) in the meanwhile.
And there's so much of it. Sixty-six books chock-full of revelation. So much that most professing Christians (to our shame) have never even read it all.
In the light of that, what explains a movement that in effect trivializes it all? A movement that's fascinated with low-voltage pale imitations, so much so that they will redefine Scripture itself to accommodate them? Why (on their view) did God make this perfect thing, then go mostly silent for long centuries, then recently start muttering and stammering and stuttering? It's like they think God is a one-hit wonder, who made one really great album, and then kept making a succession of tired, hackneyed thrift-shop nothing-bombs.
If these mutterings and burblings are actually meaningful, why did God bother to write the Book in the first place?
Or what of another movement that basically has to stare emptily at so much of the Bible? A movement that makes every imperative into a suggestion, treats the commandments of Christ and the apostles as more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules? That turns every vivid and hard warning into a Nerf-bat? That makes the road to Glory wide and easy, but the road to Hell narrow and hard?If these commandments, warnings, and conditions are actually meaningless, why did God bother to write the Book?
Or what of yet another movement, a vowel/consonant movement, that reduces the clarion calls,
the proclamations, the crystal-clear, black-and-white razor-edged demands of God to a "conversation"? A movement that sometimes seems to love community over clarity, dialogue over die-to-sin, leaven* over Heaven, good feelings over Good News, crass over Cross, reinvention over regeneration, edginess over edges, and hipness over holiness? A movement that has all the wisdom of a 20-year-old who's decided he's smarter than his elders (or smarter than all the wisdom of the ages) and approaches the issues of life as if no one else ever saw anything plainly before him......and (more particularly) as if God never said anything about the issues of life, or even if He did, as if no one has wrestled with His words before?
If none of the lines or limits of truth has been discovered, uncovered, and well-covered over the last twenty centuries, it makes you wonder why God bothered to give that Book as long ago as He did.
And if the most central issue of the Bible—how can man be just before God?—has been misunderstood by basically every one of the holiest, godliest, most consecrated and devoted men of God for centuries; if, that is, our most elder brothers in the faith have, every one of them, answered that question wrongly, and only a specialist engaging in specialized sub-category studies can unearth the true answer to this basic question...
...it makes you wonder not only why God wrote the Book, but why He made such a poor job of it. Why couldn't He manage to get it
And what if we lump together all those bustling, bristling groups that have found (invented) such wonderful ways of packing churches—by substituting arts and crafts, skits and dances, jokes and stories, gimmicks and
gewgaws, rather than the red-hot, passionate, truth-full, straight-up, eternal-God- talking-to-you-today (Hebrews 3:7-13) preaching of the Word?Why, really why, did He bother?
See, we may be really old guys, but we wonder things, too.
Don't you? Shouldn't you, anyway?
*Well, at any rate, yeast.
1,059 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1059 Newer› Newest»Phil says: "On the other, we have John L's made-up Jesus, who thinks it's cool to imagine oneself above His and His Father's propositional categoricals... Hmm, which to choose, which to choose? The actual, living, edgy, game-shattering Jesus? Or John's made-up, cuddlier, autonomy-pandering one?"
Would love to offer some thoughtful reply, but there is nothing here but straw and herrings. :-(
Phil said: "For the record: I do not now worship "X," nor have I ever done, nor will I ever."
???
In Christian history, and in academics today, the use of "X" as a name of Christ was/is common, and is in fact a sign of deep respect.
Sorry, I didn't know the house rules around here.
Actually, I think I'll be going now. Sorry to crash the party.
John l says:
"The church was intended to be salt - a radical, revolutionary new way of community in God – set apart from man-made hierarchies."
I agree in part with what you are saying about man made hierarchies,
but those who are truly a part of the body of Christ must obey this scripture:
Heb 13:17 - Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
This would refer to the "elders in rule" at our local churches.
It is not man made but Holy Spirit called out.
John: You take issue with Dan's comment that you follow a made-up Jesus, saying that Dan's comment is nothing more than straw and herrings.
Well, let's put your Jesus to the test. You wrote: Our obedience isn't to a set of propositions and rules. Jesus freed us from that.
So then how do we explain, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15), and "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My Word" (John 14:23)?
The real Jesus says our love for Him is confirmed when we heed His propositions.
Steve,
The heading is THE substantive example. The heading lists those in error and anyone who is in that list must not take the Bible seriously, believe all of it, etc.
I remember seeing this in my KJVO days. Establish the KJV as the standard and then judge all other translations by it. The same is happening here. Pyro has an established truth It is THE faith once delivered to the saints. All others are judged by that standard and found wanting.
There are ____________(fill in blank from heading) who believe, practice and teach ALL of the Bible. Some of us liberal,emerging, non-cessationist types just might believe the Bible but not interpret it the way you do. We might think your interpretation is clouded by your right wing political ideology and fundamentalist (separatist)ecclesiology. We might think your reformed soteriology and eschatology just might confuse your interpretation.
So, I believe the Bible just like you do, but I don't interpret like you.
Wow, Phil said those things? Cool! He and I think exactly alike.
John L, reading this comment-thread just as carefully as he evidently reads Scripture.
"We might think your interpretation is clouded by your right wing political ideology and fundamentalist (separatist)ecclesiology. We might think your reformed soteriology and eschatology just might confuse your interpretation."
Not that you would judge others by your standard and find them wanting...
John L. Lack of faith is not sin - it's simply lack of faith.
Once more I am tardy in replying. Just trying to be careful and restrained. Nevertheless, I must open this way...
Only a misunderstanding of the Bible could produce such a blatant untruth as that given above. I beg to differ for the Biblical reasons already stated by me and others, but not actually addressed by you.
Lack of faith in God and His Word were the underlying reasons our race fell in Adam, and is the fundamental, common sin that keeps all men from knowing God. It is true that Adam's disobedient act against God's direct command was the outward manifestation of sin, but Adam in some sense disbelieved that God would do what he said He would do, or that God had Adam's best interest at heart in the prosciption. Outward sin is the evidence of inward corruption and Adam actually sinned in the moment of his decision to eat.
It seems ECers in general have a vastly different understanding of depravity and the fall of man than I find in the Bible. And that reflects in what seems to be a higher view of man and a lower view of God than that which I find in the Bible. And this would not be a problem (just evidence of weak faith due to incomplete apprehension) were not doubt and lack of faith justified and touted as either harmless (see above) or virtuous (see your previous post) by elements of the EC, to which you seem to be friendly.
I prefer the word "question" to doubt - wrestling with the angel - never satisfied with a taxonomy that doesn't fully capture its intended reality.
Or - "Ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth." ;-) Not all truth. Just the truth that is plainly stated.
In the heavenly scheme of things, our preferences and $1.40 will get us a cup of coffee and maybe some conversation at Tim Hortons (The Canadian "Starbucks", but with vastly superior coffee - but that's only a preference /wink).
Our obedience isn't to a set of propositions and rules. Jesus freed us from that.
More straw. Let's build a Guy Fawkes! Nobody asserted what you are demolishing. The disagreement is about the nature of doubt and the authority on the matter is the Word of God.
As to you not seeing much doubt in others (of our persuasion) go back and read the posts. Doubt is admitted, confessed, recognized as a part of the Christian life. It's simply not justified, admired, excused or deified.
Well, that's the problem, really. There's a fundamental divergence between the ec particpants in this thread, and the 'fundies' *cough* about the basic condition of a human being.
Patrick - I meant Ignatius, not Iraneus - it was Igantius who first installed the rule of a central Bishop, circa 80-100AD. Iraneus came 100 years later.
You quote Heb 13:17 - Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves... and note “This would refer to the elders in rule at our local churches."
Yes, in 100% agreement with you.
The problem is that many of us have lost the distinction between an "elder" and a "pastor." Pastor is not an "office," but has been treated as such since roughly 200AD.
Many scholars teach that there is no distinction between elders and pastors. For instance, in Tenney's "New Testament Times" (my first introduction to Xn history in the late 70's - oh, sorry, Christian history), he says "Paul followed generally the method of organizing churches under responsible pastors." Tenney was the Dean of Wheaton College.
It's quite a stretch of the NT to say this. Churches grew, Elders of wisdom emerged organically and were recognized (not chosen) by Paul, et al.
Pastoring, on the other hand, is a gift, not an office. The gift of pastoring was never intended, as far as I can gather, to become the paid "CEO" of a local ecclesia. Yet that's exactly what it has become.
The Reformation changed the moniker from "priest" to "preacher" which later became "pastor" - but none of this manner of leadership seems to have roots in the NT church.
I would like to hear other views on this topic, but I think you are spot on - the Elders, if anyone, are the acknowledged wisdom keepers and "leaders" (true servants) of our flocks.
1
0
0
0
agonizomai said: "Doubt is admitted, confessed, recognized as a part of the Christian life. It's simply not justified, admired, excused or deified."
I would say that when someone is being brutally honest with themselves and others and God, they are honoring the creator by not playing games, not putting on a facade. We see this often in the OT, where men and women argued passionately with God. This is healthy and God-given.
In this sense, doubt and questions can indeed by "justified" - but I agree with you that we shouldn't "deify" doubt - nothing should be "deified" save God. Do you see this happening in some of today's emerging streams? Hmmm, you might be right.
To my comment "Our obedience isn't to a set of propositions and rules. Jesus freed us from that." you say, "More straw... Nobody asserted what you are demolishing."
OK, I need to go back and read some of these posts - it seems like everywhere I look, someone is asserting the preeminence of propositional logic, even claiming (by assertion) that our works (thoughts, ideas, logic) are more important than faith (leaning not unto our own understanding).
To Kevin - we're no longer under the law - no longer a people who find sanctity by following a set of legal rules (don't touch, don't eat, etc.).
Yes, Jesus said "follow my commandments" (which we do), but he also calls us into an ever-deepening relationship that is so far beyond "rule following" that anyone who claims to follow Christ and misses the call to Christ’s Jn17 realities (beyond our rational understanding) is missing 99.99% of the freedom Jesus offers us.
(Raises hand)
'Scuse me, I have a question...
When we hit post #666, does a giant foot come out of the sky and crush the poster with a "phfffft" sound like it happens in Monty Python?
And you need to make sure post #777 is perfect!
John l - you say: - we're no longer under the law - no longer a people who find sanctity by following a set of legal rules (don't touch, don't eat, etc.).
Lone Ranger to Tonto: "Tonto, we're surrounded!"
Tonto to Lone Ranger: "What u mean 'we', white man?"
In a (probably) unintended attempt to prove the thesis of the original post, John L. adopts perfect antinomian reasoning:
Yes, Jesus said "follow my commandments" (which we do), but he also calls us into an ever-deepening relationship that is so far beyond "rule following" that anyone who claims to follow Christ and misses the call to Christ’s Jn17 realities (beyond our rational understanding) is missing 99.99% of the freedom Jesus offers us.
So, John, is it possible to go beyond rule-following while notfollowing the rules, or is following the rules itself an integral part of this deeper, spiritual life? No one here will disagree with you that following rules is not the totality of Christianity. But you seem to be saying something more.
Or maybe something less. I'm not really sure, since in one paragraph you say, "We're no longer under the law - no longer a people who find sanctity by following a set of legal rules..." and in the next add, "yes, Jesus said "follow my commandments" (which we do)..."
Confusing, confusing -so let me simplify with this question. Everyone knows that it is possible to obey the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit, and we all would agree that this is not pleasing to the Lord. Is it possible, though, to follow the spirit of the law while ignoring the letter?
Let's see...623 minus 64 is 559. So when I posted my last comment and wrote "411 comments to go," I actually should have written "441 comments to go."
64 comments since then is pretty good, except that one has been deleted, so sooner or later it's going to disappear.
So as of when I opened the combox and there were 623 comments and I added this one, but excluding the one that will disappear, we have...what...only 377 comments to go! Whoo-hoo!
Sewing:
Uhhhh...OK, I'm not a math guy. You're making my brain hurt. Never mind.
Johnny,
Thant's my point. We ALL judge one another by our OWN standard. Oh we couch it in "the Bible says" but it is our own interpretation of truth that we jusge one another (thus the heading of this post) The Bible is truth. Once interpeation starts truth takes on our politics, culture, upbringing, theological training, etc.
And thus we fight..........
tom chantry said: "Everyone knows that it is possible to obey the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit, and we all would agree that this is not pleasing to the Lord. Is it possible, though, to follow the spirit of the law while ignoring the letter?"
I like that! Really, very thoughtful and appropriate.
The two, law and spirit, are clearly a continuum of reality, of God's creation, that cannot co-exist without the other.
Yes, I would say that Spirit is a far more visible reality in NT context (in Christ) than OT context. I would not "prevent" anyone professing Christ from doing so in purely legalistic forms. But I would encourage them otherwise. He is risen, no longer bound.
Great post..
this is a really really early attempt to be comment number 666
but i was wondering if anyone had the time to read my response to this post called "Getting the bible Right" where i say
"The first thing that grabs me here is what is presented as the "central issue" of the Bible - how man can be just before God? Now that may have been clearly adequate for Martin Luther and others but it seems suspiciously too small to me. Too small, too humanistic, too individualist, too man-centered."
what say ye?
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2007/09/getting-the-bib.html
The wonderful thing about Scripture is that it provides its own key. Despite the claims of many and great attempts at obfuscation and subversion by many different groups for many different purposes, there is no mystery or obscurity to what the Bible itself says. It is an outline of God's redemptive plan for humankind.
Jesus is the fulfilment of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah. His covenant is the antitype of the Mosaic covenant. The Lord's Supper is the Passover meal transformed.
He teaches that being of right heart is greater than (but does not supplant) merely following the rules (although he would end up being the fulfilment of the Law). In this, he echoes Psalms 50 and 51 to begin with, as well as so much else.
He inaugurated a new age on earth, that of the imminent Kingdom, and preparation for the age to come. He fulfilled the Law. He was the perfect sacrificial atonement for which the Lord prepared the world by instituting the practice through the Israelites. Christ incarnate was a propitiation of God's righteous, just wrath at the sin of rebellion against his commands committed by our first ancestors and passed down to us in our very nature. He did not introduce, but rather reiterated, the centrality of God's grace towards us, and our proper response in faith—in trusting God with every ounce of our being. ...Since there's nothing else we can do to respond to him properly, since our righteousness is but filthy rags.
And so we are called to have faith in God, to trust Him—to entrust ourselves to Him, and let Him guide us, all for the sake of His glorification alone, in which we have the humble privilege of sharing, solely by his grace and mercy.
This response is directed to no one in particular. It's preaching to the choir, but bore restating.
uh?
I didn't have time to read all this, but it might be interesting some day...
2 kids have taken priority over my blogging and extracurricular reading time...
actually, 2 kids have also caused a desperate searching of the bible alot more these past 5 years...
The two, law and spirit, are clearly a continuum of reality, of God's creation...
I have no idea what this means. I have always understood the letter of God's law to mean the specific instructions within it, and the spirit of the law to refer to an obedience which strives to obey out of a desire to glorify Him, or, putting it another way, to strive to obey from love, not from servitude. I don't know from "continuum."
...that cannot co-exist without the other.
Was that an answer to my question? I meant to ask, is it possible to follow the spirit of Christ without paying close attention to the letter of His commands? I say no, what do you say?
Yes, I would say that Spirit is a far more visible reality in NT context (in Christ) than OT context.
I have to disagree. I think bare, legalistic obedience in the Old Testament was reprehensible in God's eyes.
I would not "prevent" anyone professing Christ from doing so in purely legalistic forms. But I would encourage them otherwise.
I would "prevent" it, if I could. following God out of legalistic servitude is not following Him at all.
He is risen,
Amen!
no longer bound.
He was bound? When? How? By whom?
Andrew wrote: "The first thing that grabs me here is what is presented as the 'central issue' of the Bible - how man can be just before God? Now that may have been clearly adequate for Martin Luther and others but it seems suspiciously too small to me. Too small, too humanistic, too individualist, too man-centered.
"what say ye?"
It's not everything the Bible speaks of, but for the Bible's target market....i.e. a lost people destined for hell without divine intervention....it's the most urgent and immediate message. Without getting that squared away, anything else Scripture has to say will mean little and matter less.
Keep in mind that the Bible opens with the creation story, with pride of place being given to man and his subsequent fall from grace, then it ends with Revelation 22:
17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Scripture begins with mankind losing eternal life, and ends with him gaining it.
Since one of the key rules of good writing is to use a book's theme or main idea to tie together the beginning and the end, then we may safely assume that man's status with God is indeed the Bible's "central issue."
Anne in Fort Worth
No Name Preacher:
I think that's a great explanation.
Care to expound on how you read the Bible? I'd open a brand new blog up with you having full admin rights where we could discuss the question of hermeneutics -- with the only stipulation being that I have to answer any question you ask and you have to answer any question I ask, and that questions can only be asked one at a time.
You e-mail me if you're serious, and I'd be willing to make that conversation an open-ended thing with no word limit and no time limit. My suggestion for the thesis or guiding principle of the discussion would be this:
The Bible was written to allow for only one interpretive grid, and adopting other grids to interpret the Bible leads to false conclusions.
I would obviously defend that idea and advocate for it, and you might either adopt the negative stance or adopt a different grid to show that my grid is wrong.
Your funny little drive-by here may win points with certain people in the coffee shop, but I think you;re going to find it a problematic affirmation at best.
Kiwi:
That's an interesting try at poking a hole in hist/crit method. The problem is that the view of the Bible you are reproaching predates Luther.
Athanasius and Augustine come to mind, but that would be my comment-sized pass at answering your objection.
Another lurker coming up from the bowels of the blogscape here...
I wanted to respond to all the posts concerning the EC, Helen, et al with some of my fave verses in 1 and 2 Peter (namely, 1 Peter 1:10-2:3; 1 Peter 5:1-11; 2 Peter 1:3-21; 2 Peter 3), but as I sat reading these verses and being convicted by them, I realized, you know, maybe I should just quote both epistles in my comment box here, they're short letters and they really speak to the issues at hand. And of course if you want to drink even more deeply there are the letters of Paul (to which Peter refers to at the end of 2 Peter 3), and you can't ignore some of the similarities to James. And then I thought, well... there're quite a few verses there that come so much more into focus when you look into the Gospels and learn a little more about this Lord and Savior that keeps being mentioned. You know, why not just quote the New Testament, it really would do a lot to help quell a lot of these questions. But you can't really stop there in order to be conversant with those verses, it helps so much to take a look at the Old Testament and get a good grasp of where these people came from, so let's just throw some/all of that in the comment as well...
It was going to be pretty much the awesomest comment ever. I was so pumped up to do it! I figure it was going to be 66 comment boxes long... minimal input from me, well, maybe not even any... it was practically gonna write itself!
...
...
...
Incidently... if there any other TMS guys reading these posts... why aren't you studying your Greek/Hebrew...? And Tony's post doesn't count... that wasn't even a diglot weave...
Is the NASB the only version that has cross-references built into it?
...Other versions usually only having divergent readings from other manuscript traditions; alternative renderings; and so on.
We are so far from 1000, it's not funny.
This is serious stuff!
Great post and comment thread.
kudos to Tom Chantry, agonizamai, sewingand of course the TP---may God continue to bless you and your ministries richly.
Helen, I do have time to pray for you, and I will. :)
(agonizamai, would you consider reopening your blog?)
sf
שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה ׀ אחד ׃
ואהבת את יהוה אלהיך בכל־לבבך ובכל־נפשך ובכל־מאדך ׃
ואהבת לרעך כמוך אני יהוה ׃
ακουε ισραηλ κυριος ο θεος ημων κυριος εις εστιν;
και αγαπησεις κυριον τον θεον σου εξ ολης της καρδιας σου και εξ ολης της ψυχης σου και εξ ολης της δυναμεως σου;
και αγαπησεις τον πλησιον σου ως σεαυτον εγω ειμι κυριος.
ακουε ισραηλ κυριος ο θεος ημων κυριος εις εστιν;
και αγαπησεις κυριον τον θεον σου εξ ολης καρδιας σου και εξ ολης της ψυχης σου και εξ ολης της διανοιας σου και εξ ολης της ισχυος σου;
αγαπησεις τον πλησιον σου ως σεαυτον.
Audi Israël, Dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus est :
et diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex tota corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et ex tota mente tua, et ex tota virtute tua. Hoc est primum mandatum.
Diliges proximum tuum tamquam teipsum.
I'm with sf, agonizamai, in that I was very disappointed to discover your blog had been allowed to lapse.
If you'll write it, we will come! ;^)
Anne in Fort Worth
Höre, Israel, der HERR, unser Gott, ist ein einiger Gott!
Und: Du sollst Gott, deinen HERRN, lieben von ganzem Herzen, von ganzer Seele, von ganzem Gemüte und von allen deinen Kräften.
Du sollst deinen Nächsten lieben wie dich selbst.
Heare Israel: The Lorde God is one Lorde.
And thou shalt love the Lorde thy God with all thy hert and with all thy soule and with all thy mynde and with all thy strength.
Thou shalt love thy neghbour as thy silfe.
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.
[And] you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
I would have tried the Aramaic Peshitta, but I couldn't parse it to, um, copy and paste the right bits.
10 points for whoever can name the difference between the two Greek versions, and which German and Middle English versions I used.
Tom Chantry said... “I have always understood the letter of God's law to mean the specific instructions within it, and the spirit of the law to refer to an obedience which strives to obey out of a desire to glorify Him, or, putting it another way, to strive to obey from love, not from servitude. I don't know from "continuum."
OK, you’re talking about “the spirit of the law.” I’m talking about the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the mind-blowing, third-heaven-opening, unspeakable spiritual unity that Jesus points us to in Jn17 and elsewhere (like with every miracle he performs).
Yes, I see the law as given by this Spirit (not the other way around) – words and logic being one part of an infinite continuum in which God speaks to his creation, but not the only way in which God interacts with his creation. It’s the ultimate religious hubris to limit God to our own logic and reasoning, and calls to mind OT imagery of the King of Tyre, etc...
tom asks: is it possible to follow the spirit of Christ without paying close attention to the letter of His commands? I say no, what do you say?
All scripture is God-breathed and should be taken seriously if we call ourselves Christ-followers. But be careful – the early church followed a vastly smaller set of “texts.” In fact only 2-3% of them could read, so theirs was a verbal tradition.
Their understanding of Christ was not from a collection of books, but rather from spontaneous word-of-mouth stories – from people who actually walked with Jesus, perhaps a treasured parchment from an apostle (read to the ecclesia by an elder), and from sharing the supper, baptizing, and singing songs of worship to their Savior.
These believers had little or no access to the NT we know, yet I would argue that their faith and Xn experience was just as deep and genuine, if not more so, than our academically saturated, legalistically fortified, institutionally and cerebrally weighted religious communities of today.
tom asks: He was bound? When? How? By whom?
Hmm, maybe a poorly chosen word on my part. That’s my impression of Christ’s work on the cross and the days following. He gave himself as a lamb to the slaughter. If he wasn’t voluntarily “bound” for our sake – then the cross becomes a show.
ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον
Sic enim Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret : ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam æternam.
Also hat Gott die Welt geliebet, daß er seinen eingeborenen Sohn gab, auf daß alle, die an ihn glauben, nicht verloren werden, sondern das ewige Leben haben.
For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life
John L: It is true that many of the earliest Christians did not have access to much of what we have received as the New Testament. It is fair to say that there was a healthy oral tradition during and immediately following the incarnate life of Jesus.
Many of the earliest Christians were, however, quite knowledgeable about another part of Scripture: the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Even if not many were literate (do you have a source for that figure), synagogue worship had evidently already popped up in Judea by the time of Jesus and the Apostles. The word "synagogue" occurs over 60 times in the English Standard Version (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=synagogue), if we count parallel passages as distinct occurrences.
If synagogue practice at the time is anything like it is now, then there were readings from the Torah, songs from the Psalms, and presumably also the Prophets (as in the example of Luke 4:16-21, where Jesus himself tells the congregation that He is the fulfilment of prophecies in Isaiah (61:1-2, 42:7, and 58:6).
Granted, the scrolls themselves would have been written in Hebrew while the congregants' first language was Aramaic; but the sermon would have been in Aramaic, and Jewish boys of the time, like now, would have embarked upon a program of Hebrew study at an early stage in preparation for becoming bar mitzvah (son of the commandment).
So while the written textual material that now comprises the New Testament was non-existent during Jesus' lifetime, and piecemeal and not widely available in the first couple of decades after His crucifixion and resurrection, material from what is now the Old Testament was abundant and widely known, and Jesus would have been seen as the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, the fulfillment of prophecies in the [Hebrew] Scriptures.
And lest I need to reiterate, one of the most intimately known Jewish practices to this very day is the Passover meal, the remembrance of the Lord's deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, and remembrance of the covenant God made with His chosen people through Moses—with the symbolic centerpieces of lamb, wine, and bread. When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, it was as a means of remembrance of His deliverance of sinners from Hell, and remembrance of the covenant Jesus Christ Himself as the Son of God made with His people. This is, of course, one of the most intimate practices in Christianity today (or should be!), and its centrepieces are the Paschal* Lamb in whose presence we meet, and the blood and body of Christ symbolized in wine and bread.
Why this great outcry of excitement in the mid first century, as Jews from many different walks of life proclaimed that the Messiah had come, and was none less than the living Son of God? Because the earliest followers of Jesus knew what they'd learned in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, and saw in Him a fulfillment of their dearest hopes and prayers. (Granted, not everyone saw it that way, but that's what the early followers of the Way saw.)
*Pascha = Hebrew Pesach = Passover
Indeed, they saw in Him not merely the fulfilment of prophecies, but the fulfilment of the very promises of God Himself.
sf and clinging vine: agonizamai, would you consider reopening your blog?
Kind of you to show interest. It's been a long time. Why not e-mail me and let me know what sort of stuff you are looking for and I'll think about it. It was a devotional blog, and, unlike this one, didn't excite the sort of discussion you see here.
In any event I wouldn't be able to keep up the pace I did before.
In light of Gilbert's musing about 50 comments back, is this thread going to suddenly stop at the 665th comment? There seems to be a distinct levelling off of commenting going on here....
John l wrote:
Yes, in 100% agreement with you.
Yet your whole post you assumed that I would agree with everything that you said.
Although I agree with much of what you said, I do not agree with it all.
This statement was kind of out there:
Churches grew, Elders of wisdom emerged organically and were recognized (not chosen) by Paul, et al.
And this statement:
are the acknowledged wisdom keepers and "leaders"
These two above statements scare me.
I do believe that elder rule, as laid out in the scriptures, is the correct form of church govt.
And I do believe that the five fold ministry is for the local church.
Eph. 4:11-14 - 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
The reason for the “five fold ministry” is what Paul explains further in verses 12-14. Notice that All five of these offices were to help the local body. I believe that as long as you have a plurality of elders you can keep the “lone ranger” mentality from happening.
I feel like you took my post and said you agreed with it 100% and then misrepresented to the others that I would be in full agreement with you. I hope this clears that up.
I like the "Humility Poster" that
Phil did the best. Watching and participating some over the last few weeks, I think this poster best describes the majority of the EC blob posters here.
Here's an answer for whoever asked this question several hundred comments back:
The nerf-bat analogy is not mine. The whole post (aside from the graphics) is solely the work of Dan and Frank.
The poster insertions were my late, futile attempt to get in on this historic moment.
I still think this post will never make 1000 legit comments, and I hope people won't post a lot of non-comments or one-word serial comments just to inflate the count. But it's been fairly interesting, and (despite a few cheating comments) it's been a LOT more substantive than most of the other 500-comment threads you might find out there in the blogosphere. I guarantee we outdo nearly all of them in terms of actual words and sheer variety of opinions.
(I'm not counting the Thinklings' legendary "What Color Is This Liquid" post, of course.)
John L wrote:
These believers had little or no access to the NT we know, yet I would argue that their faith and Xn experience was just as deep and genuine, if not more so, than our academically saturated, legalistically fortified, institutionally and cerebrally weighted religious communities of today.
So, how would you answer this:
If you take the Word at its word, it is God's Word. Because it is God's Word, it is truth, it is inerrant, it is sufficient for every Christian need. Are you a real disciple ofJesus? The way you treat the Bible tells the tale. It is the end result of a long, deliberate process, done through men moved by the Holy Spirit who wrote out God's self-revelation, rather than products of their own will.
And it's markedly complete. No essential God-breathed book has been found that antedates Genesis, nor any that post-dates Revelation. The whole vital, need-to-know story and all the details are there: God, man, the universe, the meaning of life and everything. How it all started, how it all ends, what we're to be believing and doing (and not believing nor doing) in the meanwhile.
(The OP, for those who have forgotten it this deep in the meta!)
Would your answer be, “Well, sorta. No. Not really.”
I think you don’t really have any argument with the Pyros’ initial point. You seem to be making it rather nicely for them.
So let me ask it this way. God spoke to men in many ways. Particularly during His humiliation, God the Son spoke to many men in common, day-to-day situations. Granted. He also took the special effort to enscripturate some of His communication. He made certain that certain truths would not pass from human knowledge. He once (twice, actually) engraved something in stone with His own Finger. Can we presume that these things are of lasting significance?
Taking all of your posts together, it appears that you are saying that we should be more focused on the extra-biblical experience of God than on the truths enscripturated in the text of His written word. (Again, proving the point: you have an affinity with the charismatics, just as you do with the antinomians.) I am sure that the first century Christians delighted to hear personal accounts of Jesus’ life and conversation. Only, I’ll never hear those, and I am confident that God has graciously given me (and every Christian in our era) what we need. It is why the written word is such a gift - it outlasts the personal memories of mortals.
I still feel that my repeated question is going unanswered. Let’s assume that this fantastic, spiritual revelation can be had in any way other than from the written word. Is it possible to follow that spiritual revelation while willfully and persistently ignoring the written commands which God wrote in stone with His own finger?
I don’t accept the premise of an extra-biblical experience of God, but I think even if I did, I would acknowledge that it cannot be had while in rebellion to God’s commonly revealed, enscripturated will.
The thought just occurred to me that we should be viewing Phil’s posters as his 95 theses to the emerging church, ala Martin Luther, only in a more “relevant way.” Phil, if you can put the spirit of the posters down on paper, I will nail...ok tape…the “theses” to the doors of all of the emerging churches I can physically get to on October 31st. For any one else in Michigan, I get dibs on Mars Hill (Rob Bell). (I’m serious.)
Agonizomai your name is fabulous. I have loved that word ever since I heard John MacArthur explain Luke 13:24. Your contributions have been greatly appreciated.
Sewing…why “Sewing”?…just wondering. I love your enthusiasm and I am so happy you have found the Lord! (or rather that He found you and you followed Him).
To all the commenters…it is such a blessing to see the fellowship of those committed to the Lord and His word. And who knew you could be so funny! Great senses of humor here for such unloving fundamentalists. (wink) (I don’t know how to do those smiley things)
Centurion,
Thanks for the offer but I will pass. Been there, done that. I go way back to the mailing lists days where I debated until my fingers were numb. Of course, then I held to more of your persuasion. Calvin was proud of this boy.
Blogging, and certainly comment sections are drive-by by nature. As for the coffee shop.........I don't drink coffee and the closest Starbucks is 60 miles away. :) I live in the middle of evangelical orthodoxy land. Every Church, regardless of the tag, is the same. They all voted for George, they all think the War in Iraq is honorable and good and they all use nominal contemporary music that ranges from great to gag. I haven't heard an expositional sermon in years. Rick Warren is live and well. I am an odd duck, outcast of the Evangelical left.
I accept your statement about one truth. The Bible does teach perfect doctrine but once we interpret it, it becomes very imperfect.
That's why our salvation rests in a person and not a grid of doctrines.
I'm going to post Spurgeon now.
I don't know what bothers me more: that Phil posted comment 666 or that it mentioned Spurgeon. Good thing I'm amil, or I'd be frightened now.
Oops! Did I just mention that here? Sorry. I'd best go repost it at Dan's blog!
That just goes to show you: it's possible to be premillennial without being superstitious. Not all of us are clones of Hal Lindsey.
Sewing,
Warum hast du etwas von der koreanischer Bibel vergessen? Du sollst diese Sprache überhaupt nicht auslassen.
sewing asks: "Even if not many were literate (do you have a source for that figure?)"
The 2-3% number is from Ehrman The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Re: those who could write as scribes.
On a lark I poked around the Internet on this question. Found numbers as high as 10% literacy (readers) from Gamble Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts.
Either way, we're left with a NT ecclesia based overwhelmingly on verbal tradition.
Thanks for your thoughts, sewing - very well said – xlnt commentary.
tom chantry asks: Is it possible to follow spiritual revelation while willfully and persistently ignoring the written commands which God wrote in stone with His own finger?
I believe the two must be in harmony. But nowhere does the text limit God to the text, nor should we.
tom says: I don’t accept the premise of an extra-biblical experience of God
Then we’re limiting God with human logic – putting Him in a box of our own making. Jesus describes our relationship with the Divine as an open-ended adventure, culminating in perfect unity. We’re not there yet.
I like what NoNamePrecher just said: “our salvation rests in a person and not a grid of doctrines.”
Then we’re limiting God with human logic – putting Him in a box of our own making.
Quite the contrary: it's a box (insofar as it is a box) of His own making - the book of His revelation to His people.
If I'm to understand God outside the text of His revelation, then what am I really understanding? Words of finite, fallen, fallible teachers? My own imagination? The over-cooked gravy I had for supper?
Thanks be to God that He's created a box. He doesn't need it, but I do.
Just found your blog today, linked over from Mike Morrell's blog. I want to say that I will enjoy and learn from reading you both. Isn't it nice how the body of Christ works.
I did notice that at least for this frenzy of comments you've been ignoring rules one and 5 yourselves. Not sure I've seen such a troll feeding frenzy.
And, it seems to me that your image with the quotation attributed to Benny Hinn is the most explicit use of the Lord's name in vain that I have ever seen.
Come on boys, lets get this one kickstarted again.... 1,000 is still in reach and this should do it. To facilitate the "historic moment" here's another poster to add to the collection. All in "good fun" of course.
i'm going to try and weigh in...
if the essential question is, "Why did God write the Bible if we don't seem to be able to fully understand it?," then we have to deal with inspiration and authority, correct?
do we believe the Holy Spirit wrote the words (grabbed the hands of the authors and made them write certain things)? or, do we believe the penmen were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write of their encounters with the living God? i believe the latter.
as Christians, we worship the Triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. we do not worship the Bible. the Bible is the story of God and God's people and i believe it was written so we can know of God's work throughout history and participate in God's family.
hope that makes sense!
So you post a purposefully confrontational article specifically designed to offend everybody just to attract more hits?
Hey, the last time I saw something this shamelessly self-promotional was Kenneth Copeland on TBN trying to raise money.
(Come on, it's a joke. Crazy charismaniacs can laugh at ourselves, too).
Dan and Frank, great post. I read it before I left town this weekend and then by the time I got home there were 600 and something comments.
Let me say this. I am aggravated that I spent an hour or more reading through the comments, got hooked on the unbelieving Helen saga, and then kept reading in hopes that she would-as a good movie script would require--repent and be saved. All that reading to have Phil step in and set it all straight for me. Thanks Phil. You saved me from 300 or so comments.
Keep up the good work.
Beth: It's a play on my name. I cannot sew...at least not well. But if I ever start up an industrial manufacturing company, I'll call it "Sewing Machines," just for kicks.
Praise the Lord that He has looked with kindness and mercy on any of us sinners!
"And, it seems to me that your image with the quotation attributed to Benny Hinn is the most explicit use of the Lord's name in vain that I have ever seen."
Amen it may well be. Benny has used our Savior's name in vain over and over.
And the sadness of this, is that, so many people think this blasphemer and false teacher is full of the Spirit of God, and you better not speak against God's anoited.
Sad, very sad.
And by Wordsmith's special request, from the 개역 한글판 (Revised Hangeul Version):
이스라엘아 들으라 우리 하나님 여호와는 오직 하나인 여호와시니 너는 마음을 다하고 성품을 다하고 힘을 다하여 네 하나님 여호와를 사랑하라. (신명기 6:4-5)
이웃 사랑하기를 네 몸과 같이 하라 나는 여호와니라. (레위기 19:18b)
하나님이 세상을 이처럼 사랑하사 독생자를 주셨으니 이는 저를 믿는 자마다 멸망치 않고 영생을 얻게 하려 하심이니라. (요한 3:16)
And a special bonus:
성령과 신부가 말씀하시기를 오라 하시는도다 듣는 자도 오라 할 것이요 목마른 자도 올 것이요 또 원하는 자는 값없이 생명수를 받으라 하시더라 (계시록 (Revelation) 22:17)
I came here for the funny posters, but I stick around because of things like "we often discount what God has already done." Oh, and the weekly dose of Spurgeon is quite refreshing.
P.S.: Trying to learn Korean from a Korean Bible would be like a modern ESL student's trying to learn English from a King James Bible. Not totally impossible, but not exactly easy, and the outcome if successful would sound a bit strange to modern ears!
The Revelation 22:17 quote is there because the wind blows wherever it pleases. Just in case an unsaved Korean reader stumbles upon this comment thread....
Sewing: 10 points for whoever can name the difference between the two Greek versions, and which German and Middle English versions I used.
Haven't a clue about the Greek, but I'll take a guess that the German is Luther's 1545 translation; the Middle English translation is Tyndale.
“You cannot separate what a man believes from what he is. For this reason doctrine is vitally important. Certain people say ignorantly, "I do not believe in doctrine; I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; I am saved, I am a Christian, and nothing else matters". To speak in that way is to court disaster, and for this reason, the New Testament itself warns us against this very danger. We are to guard ourselves against being "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine", for if your doctrine goes astray your life will soon suffer as well. So it behoves us to study the doctrines in order that we may safeguard ourselves against certain erroneous and heretical teachings that are as rife and as common in the world today as they were in the days of the early Church”.
Martyn-Lloyd Jones
Threegirldad gets 6.7 points!
The Greek was (a) Deut 6:4 and Lev 19:18b from the Septuagint, and (b) excerpts from Mark 12:29-31 from Westcott-Hort/UBS4. Hebrew (Leningrad Codex), Greek, Latin (Vulgata Clementina), and German from Unbound Bible; Tyndale from the Wesley Center Online; Korean hand-typed (not to boast, but mentioned here for the sake of a complete record).
And after reading the invitation in Revelation 22:17, the natural reaction should be, "생명수를 어떻게 마시는가요?"—"How do I drink the water of life?" So for the sake of completeness:
네가 만일 네 입으로 예수를 주로 시인하며 또 하나님께서 그를 죽은 자 가운데서 살리신 것을 네 마음에 믿으면 구원을 얻으[니라]. (로마서 (Romans) 10:9)
Sorry, folks: The count's messed up now because I had to delete and repost two comments.
(There's also a deleted comment a couple of ones above ynottony's ASCII art, which if deleted, would make Phil's Spurgeon comment #665. Maybe that one should stay to keep things just so!)
Looks like Phil took my last comment to heart....
Good quote, opn.
one more comment
one last thought
Jeremy:
Please read the rules in the right sidebar before commenting again.
Thanks.
David Rudd:
I'm having a little trouble reconciling what you say in that post you linked, with what you have actually done on a regular basis in our combox.
Also, I don't understand how you can simply dismiss "the accurateness of the critiques" and jump straight to the plea for "a deeper unity."
Because if our critique of the Emerging Church community is accurate in any significant degree, then there are people and ideas within the EC movement that faithful shepherds need to refute and refuse to fellowship with instead of pleading for "a deeper unity" with them.
If you've missed that basic issue, you've missed the central point I've been trying to make.
The point of my previous comment is simply that what I'm reading on this blog, what I've read from John MacArthur and what I learned as a student at Masters and an attender at Grace Community was great theology (although a bit narrow in some areas) but it lacked meaningful missiology for most cultures emerging in the West.
The Emerging Church began as a missiological conversation NOT as a theological conversation. It has little to nothing to add to historical Christian theology but it has and must add volumes to current Christian missiology.
I'm interested in the conversation progressing. It NEEDS to progress. We desperately NEED answers to these missiological questions.
So correct the errant theology but someone, for the sake of the Gospel , assist us with answering the missiological questions of how to reach emerging cultures. All who love the truth and love the world Jesus gave his life for would be wise to celebrate those of us who are trying to find missiological answers.
Jeremy wrote:
"for the sake of the Gospel, assist us with answering the missiological questions of how to reach emerging cultures."
Why is the message of the gospel not enough for any curlture. Do we really beleive in the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit? He will saved all of His Elect at thier appointed time, using the method that He Has always used.
This is the method that He uses:
1Cor. 1:21 - For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Our responsibility is to do this:
Luke 24:45-49 - 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Why is it that we think we have to add to the Word of God and go out and dress like the emerging culture and act like the emerging culture just to give them the gospel? Are we content to preach the gospel to the lost and dying and let the Holy Spirit save whom he will?
Thanks Patrick. At least now we're having a missiological conversation.
It's tough however to get started when we even have to defend the fact that a missiological conversation is necessary.
I can guarantee you that you'll not find a single missions ministry (no matter how reformed) that would dismiss the need to talk about HOW we're going to present the Gospel to another culture. But since you started there...
How should we develop relationships?
Where do you start with someone raised within a post-Christian mindset?
How do we disciple a believer when no church exists within their culture?
My guess is that you don't mind having this conversation if I was a missionary to Uganda you just don't want to have it when I'm working with diverse cultures within the West.
Thus, our disagreement really doesn't begin with theology by sociology. And missiology is the study of how to teach the SAME historic Christian theology to DIFFERENT cultures and that is where the emerging conversation begins, but where will it end...
Phil,
If I've done anything but call for unity and deference here, I was wrong and I apologize.
I hope you'll recognize that my post pointed out my own need to do what I am asking for.
One thought that probably belongs with what I said...
If anyone ever had the "right" to use humor and satire to make his point because his audience just wasn't listening, it was Jesus. He chose to (and calls us to) die to self.
I need to do that more often.
One day, this will stop bemusing me.
John L says, In Christian history, and in academics today, the use of "X" as a name of Christ was/is common, and is in fact a sign of deep respect.
...as if that response had not been anticipated and dealt with in the comment itself, thus:
It joins "G_d" as a pretentious dodge whose convoluted rationalizations would leave 9.9 out of 10 English-language readers in the dark.
Reading what you're supposedly responding to. It's a good thing.
Just like to pop in every couple hundred retorts.
Jeremy said, "but where will it end..."
First, I would like to ask you to use question marks in situations like that. Other wise you come off like a second rate magician attempting to avert peoples attention to a floating rope or some caged woman.
Second, I'm reading "They like just but not the church". I may have typed the name wrong. I'm like a chapter and a half into it. I needed to get more versed in what you "Emers" (Trademark!) are all about.
The more I think about my friends who are in foreign mission fields the more I think the current "missiological" concern is weird. My friends wear the clothes of the culture, because that's what's available. They speak the actual language of the culture to make communication possible.
I don't see why people compare that to pre or post modern. Do we teach them math differently? Do we teach them philosophy differently? Is the answer ever to relate to them by becoming them?
People don't believe in lots of things, like racism being wrong, because of where they came from. Growing up Post-Christian is the same. Facts and growing up changes that for the most part.
I've rambled and made no real point. I'm going to go ahead and made a prediction though. When the thread reaches 1000, there will still be a disagreement between EC and TP. I know, call me crazy, but I just have a feeling.
oops, that's Jesus not just in the book title. I have to type with my forehead ever since the "accident".
"How do we disciple a believer when no church exists within their culture?"
Acts 17. Paul went about Thessalonica, and other cities, reasoning "out of the Scriptures,
Opening and proving, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom he preached unto them, is Christ.
And some of them believed."
Then Paul writes a letter to the church of Thessalonians and says, "For our Gospel came not to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, and you became followers of us, and of the Lord".
That's how it works.
Don's sounds better. I'm retracting my statement and using his.
John L—It’s the ultimate religious hubris to limit God to our own logic and reasoning, and calls to mind OT imagery of the King of Tyre, etc.
Really?
I would think the ultimate hubris would be to be exposed to the Word of God, then nod when the Tempter says, "Really? Has God said...?", and then contradicts Him.
no name preacher—Thanks for the offer but I will pass. Been there, done that
I call "bwok."
John L—I like what NoNamePrecher just said: “our salvation rests in a person and not a grid of doctrines.”
That might be a telling point, in a universe where J. Gresham Machen hadn't already explored and exploded the false antithesis nearly a century earlier.
"How do we disciple a believer when no church exists within their culture?"
Acts 17. Paul went about Thessalonica, and other cities, reasoning "out of the Scriptures,
Opening and proving, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom he preached unto them, is Christ.
And some of them believed."
Then Paul writes a letter to the church of Thessalonians and says, "For our Gospel came not to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, and you became followers of us, and of the Lord".
That's how it works.
But there was more to it than that if you read other passages:
Acts 16:3 Paul wanted to take [Timothy] along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
1 Cor 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
Why did Paul circumcise Timothy? Why did Paul become "all things to all men"?
Nebuchadnezzar—if the essential question is, "Why did God write the Bible if we don't seem to be able to fully understand it?"...
It isn't. Since you start from the wrong premise, your response also misses the mark.
Well Jeremy, here's my thought, fwiw. Saying a conversation is about missiology doesn't really excuse anything the conversers say in that conversation. Put another wya, if a group lays out the faithful Gospel, and then discusses how to get it across to the lost, that is one thing. But when a group preaches false doctrine, and then covers it all over with, "Hey! It's a mission!" — that's not going to fly.
All that to say: wanting to discuss effective, God-honoring missiology is a great thing. "How to reach out" should be a concern shared by all Christians. But it doesn't trump the need to "reach out" with truth. When that isn't done, it's valid (and necessary) for any and every Biblically faithful Christian to raise concerns and objections.
djp wrote: All that to say: wanting to discuss effective, God-honoring missiology is a great thing. "How to reach out" should be a concern shared by all Christians. But it doesn't trump the need to "reach out" with truth. When that isn't done, it's valid (and necessary) for any and every Biblically faithful Christian to raise concerns and objections.
I see what you are saying but I got the impression that even if you (plural) were happy about the doctrine being taught you wouldn't necessarily be happy about the way EC Christians try to connect with people in the culture around them.
For example, I think I'm right that Mark Driscoll shares your core beliefs - but are you completely happy about his methods? I thought I remembered seeing Phil write negatively about his use of language - which I think is deliberate, to help him connect with the culture.
Danger Chris—I have to type with my forehead ever since the "accident".
Thank you, first chuckle of the day.
Er... you were kidding, right?
"Why did Paul circumcise Timothy? Why did Paul become "all things to all men"? "
Everything Paul did was for the glory of the Lord, and for the proclamation of the Gospel.
And Paul did much, and he always made much of God.
We need to follow his example.
But the bottom line of Acts 17, and reaching people is the Gospel being declared in the power of the Holy Spirit, for there's no shame in this, for it is the power that God uses to save rebels and enemies of His kingdom.
Helen, you must be born again. Bottom line.
"He would not sin against God to save the soul of his neighbour, but he would very cheerfully and readily deny himself. The rights of God he could not give up, but he might resign his own, and he very often did so for the good of others". Matthew Henry
"I have become all things to all men"...
Would you become a thief to reach a thief? Would you become a murderer to reach a murderer? Would one become a liar to reach a liar?
While Paul became "all things to all men", he never compromised or deviated from the word of God in the process.
don: Helen, you must be born again. Bottom line.
Don, if that was particularly addressed to me, as it seems to be, it's a great example of completely missing where I'm at.
I've been born again already.
Ten years ago you would not have even questioned whether I was born again - just like none of the other Bible-believing Calvinist-leaning conservative Christians who knew me, lay or leaders, questioned it. They were completely satisfied based on my testimony.
You need a different approach for 'ex-Christians'.
Jeremy,
"And missiology is the study of how to teach the SAME historic Christian theology to DIFFERENT cultures and that is where the emerging conversation begins, but where will it end..."
May it end sooner rather than later. Your question is a good one, the one I believe it's proper to start with. But where the EC veered off very quickly was buying into this pomo nonsense that men and women are no longer hard wired for Truth in the exact same way ALL have been so wired, so created by God.
This is the lie that's fomented by many of the "academics" out there, both secular and religious, and has been bought by most of the self-appointed EC leaders. They are to blame for the mess you're finding yourself dropped into.
This is an act of betrayal. This is resulting in lambs being led to slaughter. And it doesn't get any prettier when couched in words like "missional" and "conversation."
'This is the lie that's fomented by many of the "academics" out there, both secular and religious, and has been bought by most of the self-appointed EC leaders. They are to blame for the mess you're finding yourself dropped into.'
Which religious leaders did you have in mind? I ask b/c I've been trying for the life of me to understand the tendency of you Pyro people to lump N.T. Wright into the "postmodern" camp. I mean, the guy spends one-third of his first major work ("NT and the People of God") arguing against radical postmodern skepticism and *for* the possibility of traditional grammatico-historical inquiry.
The guy's doing hardcore historical work that even mild-mannered pomos are highly allergic to. In fact, he chides people in the Reformed tradition for not being historical enough! So how is that "postmodern"? I'm assuming that "postmodern" should function as more than just shorthand for "we don't like where their grammatico-historical study wound up." No?
Mike Morrell wrote: Stratagem, you said …"Woe to you when men speak highly of you" When I see McLaren, Jones, Bell, and others actually taking heat from the world in defense of Jesus' exclusive claims, then I'll know a new day has dawned. We are a long way from that.” This to me is another wax nose that isn’t terribly useful in discussion. Certainly, SOME ‘men’ (people) speak critically of all Christians, whether Calvinist or emerging or what have you. Brian, Rob, and Tony take heat from you, for starters. They also take heat from those corners of “the world” who don’t appreciate their prophetically challenging the principalities and powers, the forces of greed, materialism, and consumerism.
No, Brian, Rob and Tony aren't taking heat from the world, they are taking heat from the dwindling remnant of people who actually still believe in the Word. They most definitely want to be friends with the world as the Bible uses the term. That's why they've adopted every left-wing cause as their own, and put a Christian tag onto it. As far as their opposition to greed and injustice, it rings hollow when they are intentionally watering down God's word as a means of greedily selling more books, videos, etc.
The Emergents would be welcomed by Hollywood with open arms for the most part, and actual Bible-believers would be (and are) ostracized by Hollywood. I think that makes things incredibly clear.
Helen,
I was unaware that you were already born again.
You said you think Jesus probably died on the Cross, and were unsure if He rose from the dead.
I took that as not being born again.
So you did believe with all your heart at one time Jesus rose from the dead on the third day?
How come you don't anymore?
luke & rachel--
N.T. Wright is not a "self-appointed" EC leader, is he? I think he's someone ECers like to pick and choose from, for the intellectual cachet.
No, I'm talking about all those who are writing popular books and putting on big seminars announcing how preaching is "an act of violence" and on and on.
sorry don, I didn't know you were unaware of that.
Yes, I did believe that with all my heart...I don't have a short answer as to why I became unsure.
You can go read stuff on my website Love is the most excellent way if you like, to see if it helps shed any light. Even the name of my site - which I chose in 1997 - testifies to what I believed in. Who chooses a website title based on a Bible passage if they don't believe the Bible? There are things on my site going back to before I had serious doubts - anything written before 2001 (the bottom of this list). You can see if you consider them to reflect true faith or not.
Oh, Don Don Don... Helen will talk FOREVER about herself and her apostasy and her unbelief. She LOVES to talk about her unbelief. She's done it all thread! Every thread! Again and again! She'll link you to it, she'll sing about it; unbelief is her story, unbelief is her song, dissing our Savior all the day long. Folks have reached out to her again and again and again, and it just makes her talk more about herself!
Please! For the love of GOING somewhere! Withdraw the question!
Dang. Too late.
Toldja.
Helen: "I've been born again already."
With respect, Helen, the evidence points decidedly to a different conclusion.
"Ten years ago you would not have even questioned whether I was born again"
That's simply not true. After you reminded me the other day that we had corresponded before, I went back and dug out that correspondence (I keep everything) and re-read it. That was almost exactly ten years ago. You were asking questions even then that revealed an extremely shaky foundation on issues related to the gospel, perseverance, and assurance. I expressed a concern about it and offered to send you a book dealing with some of the issues you were questioning. You said thanks but no thanks; you were pretty sure it wouldn't change your mind anyway. I gently urged you even then to examine yourself carefully.
However, it wouldn't matter even if everyone in the world thought you were a true believer. No one ever suspected Judas would betray Christ until he actually did it, either.
Your situation seems to be a textbook case of what the apostle John describes in 1 John 2:19.
You indicated somewhere in an earlier comment that you think because you once made a profession of faith in Christ, you have nothing to worry about even if it turns out that Christianity is true. You could hardly be more mistaken about that.
dan, fyi - I gave don the links so he could read whatever he wants, rather than me writing about my unbelief here yet again.
And in so doing, Helen, you've DONE it yet again, and trolled to your site yet again, and proselytized for your darling unbelief yet again, under the pose that yet another well-meaning soul has tried to reach out to you yet again.
Jeremy: Thus, our disagreement really doesn't begin with theology by sociology. And missiology is the study of how to teach the SAME historic Christian theology to DIFFERENT cultures and that is where the emerging conversation begins, but where will it end...
Leaving aside the fact that this is an oversimplification that ignores glaring problems within the EC Community, and resisting the temptation to argue the for fundamental need for a right theology as a sound launching point, I am cutting to the chase because "missiology" is what's on your own heart. Let me share an experience.
A good friend of mine, a pastor, has a daughter who, in her late teens, got the social gospel itch and went off to the Dominican Republic to save the world by alleviating their poverty. She started a small workshop called "La Tienda" (which I'm told means "the store") and trained husbandless mothers suffering from extreme poverty and aids to make jewellry so that they could have some money and stop having to prostitute themselves in order to live.
From my ivory tower of theoretical theology in an insular society of cloying abundance I prayed (somewhat) faithfully that, among other things, she would...
a) be kept safe (there were 2 attempted rapes on her person)
b) grow in grace
c) be made fruitful for Jesus' sake
At one point I wrote her an admirably i-dotting and t-crossing theological treatise about the ills of the social gospel and the need to preach Christ as the only means of salvation. The idea was to get her to understand that no matter how much their poverty was alleviated, it did no good if they remained lost and ended up in hell.
In response she sent me a wire bookmark made by the girls of the DR and absolutely no other feedback whatsoever. And who could blame her? (note the question mark :-) )
Time passed. She continued to live out her life doing what she was doing and I kept on praying and suppressing the resentment, judgmentalism, and manipulativeness that is my natural bent. Every one was happy - she changing the world for Jesus and me sitting in judgment, dispensing wise Biblical epithets designed to change her outlook so that it was more like my own, and praying "superior" prayers that made me feel good.
And this would be a sad story if that's all there was. But there was Jesus. The real Jesus, I mean. The One that shows up in the details and is always working unseen in the subtext of our lives - unseen not because he is invisible, but because we are so blind. The Jesus who makes silk purses out of all of our sows ears. The faithful Jesus. The omnipotent Jesus. The one that gets left out (to our cost, not His) when we go down to Egypt for chariots, or when we make flesh our arm. That Jesus.
To my charismatic friends... no! the earth did not move. The Holy Spirit didn't bring a second Pentecost or a "Great Awakening". People weren't healed on demand (in fact they kept on dying of disease and poverty). Far greater things than this happened.
Despite the pervasive garnish of her sin and my sin, and amidst the sins of those she was ministering to, Jesus changed us both. He did it quietly and unexpectedly. I became slightly less of a pompous ass and she came to see the vital need for the pure milk of the word to be fed to those around her. And if you understand the darkness of sin you can see just how miraculous even this bit of progress is, and how great the power of God is, in the finished work of Jesus Christ.
She was a postmodern child and I am an evangelical dinosaur. But the common denominator is in the Spirit, thorough the grace and power of God on account of Jesus Christ. He gets it done through us, despite what we are, and He changes us all at the same time.
My point is to wonder who we think is in charge. We say that we believe God is in control, but in practice how much do we wrest that control back through our plans, our foibles, querks, biases and sins?
I may want salvation to be a theological event produced by clean propositions of truth sagely delivered to undistracted and attentive hearers. As if! Missiological people may want to remove all the perceived obstacles to people's hearing and receiving the gospel. Bon chance! (not a strictly Cauvinistic expression) But all the time, Jesus is working and His Father is working, too by the Spirit, in the world, through the saints bringing all things to their appointed end.
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive. We are not fatalists. I am saying that it is God who moves the rocks we push against, not us. Our pushing helps us to see when God moves something.
Wherever you have two saints you will have disagreements. Our unity is in the Spirit. We build sandcastles while God erects a massive edifice above and around and among us - then gives us credit because some of the sand passed through our bucket.
Missiologically speaking, we should get over ourselves. God doesn't need us. He chose us and He chooses to get it done through us. My friend's daughter "just did it". She stared out imperfectly, but with a right heart and, though she is still imperfect, Jesus brought her to a better understanding of His priorities through the process.
And I got to see this from my insulated little covey because God had granted me prayers for her that caused me to see His hand working.
I suppose - and no offence intended - I find all this angst about "how to be missiological in a postmodern society" to be rather puffed up (and believe me, I know puffed up when I look in the spiritual mirror) in view of the story I just related. God put us where we are or He calls us to where we must be and we should just do it, trusting God to be in the details. Missiology is mainly the overflow of a vibrant and sincere chasing after Christ.
Anyway - do visit my friend's daughter's site and read the last three or four entries. Jesus is all over them and in them and through them. I hope you see Him there. It puts me to shame and fills me with joy at one and the same time. Why!- it's almost like being a Christian!
(just a coupla cents from moi):
jeremy: "All who love the truth and love the world Jesus gave his life for would be wise to . . ."
The truth is found in scripture alone, and scripture clearly cautions us about "the world"
"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (Jhn 15:19)
Christ follower's have been "chosen out of the world" and consequently become aliens in this world, like the Israelites on their way to the "Promised Land".
In this light, maybe a good rule of thumb to follow when deciding who's more in alignment with scripture in the "conversation" is to look at their "following" -if we see people in droves following any 'movement' then an extra cautious eye is required.
"The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." Pro 14:15
I've distinctly noticed that people aren't beating down the doors of churches where ministers are teaching/preaching Christ as Lord and Savior, repentance and faith and all the real good stuff.
I think what is REALLY happening in these "conversations" that attempt to take God's Word to other strange rooms, so to speak, is that the church Body is being inhibited from growth, this is the work of Satan:
Eph 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
jeremy asks a reasonable question: ""HOW we're going to present the Gospel to another culture
as has been basically stated: how `bout very plainly, as it is told us in scripture, with the pre-supposition and conviction that it is all true, and that indeed we can trust that God will move the hearts, he just wants us to get out there and speak it! (the Gospel).
At this point I think this part of the original post bears repeating:
"And it's markedly complete. No essential God-breathed book has been found that antedates Genesis, nor any that post-dates Revelation. The whole vital, need-to-know story and all the details are there: God, man, the universe, the meaning of life and everything. How it all started, how it all ends, what we're to be believing and doing (and not believing nor doing) in the meanwhile."
Great job guys.
(*also a new Agonizomai fan here :)
It seems there are two very different groups in the anti-EC crowd. Those who say -
1. Yes a missiological conversation is fine and good as long as its founded on biblical theology.
2. We don't need to have a missiological conversation within English speaking countries. If we all speak the King's English we're all the same culture.
It looks like the Pyro guys are in the first group which I'm very glad to hear. But if your real concern is to confront errant theology within the conversation why mercilessly mock the conversation itself?
It's like you walked into a group of people from various theological backgrounds discussing the need to house the urban poor and told the whole group their discussion is absurd because that guy in the corner shows sympathy to Liberation Theology.
Why mock words like "missional" and "incarnational". Everytime a new conversation begins new language is needed.
Johnney - your suggestion that the problem is leaders who think people are no longer hard wired for truth is the root problem seems to miss any biblical founding. If they take that to mean truth is unimportant then that person has drifted into theological error. But it doesn't take a PhD in sociology to observe that some cultures are more obsessed with truth claims than others.
Overall I appreciate what this blog is doing when it makes surgical strikes on specific errant theological position held by specific people within the conversation. I think its less helpful (although far more provocative) to carpet bomb missiological conversations in general.
| Thanks for the offer but I will pass.
| Been there, done that. I go way back
| to the mailing lists days where I
| debated until my fingers were numb.
| Of course, then I held to more of your
| persuasion. Calvin was proud of this
| boy.
Prolly not, given how you have turned out.
| Blogging, and certainly comment
| sections are drive-by by nature. As for
| the coffee shop.........I don't drink
| coffee and the closest Starbucks is 60
| miles away. :) I live in the middle of
| evangelical orthodoxy land. Every
| Church, regardless of the tag, is the
| same. They all voted for George, they
| all think the War in Iraq is honorable
| and good and they all use nominal
| contemporary music that ranges from
| great to gag. I haven't heard an
| expositional sermon in years. Rick
| Warren is live and well. I am an odd
| duck, outcast of the Evangelical left.
I think that you have pointed to a problem which is not really related to your problem. It's like saying that cars produce pollution, therefore I am justified in smoking.
| I accept your statement about one
| truth. The Bible does teach perfect
| doctrine but once we interpret it, it
| becomes very imperfect.
|
| That's why our salvation rests in a
| person and not a grid of doctrines.
And which person is that, I wonder? I'll bet that if we use your grid, we can't tell – you have to use my grid to tell. You might think about that before you get offended by Dan's "bwok".
____________________
Dan: yup.
Johnny D,
As far as I know Wright isn't a self-anointed EC leader. My remark stems from my impression that people around here seem to treat him as one. (Check the subtitle of this post.)
Stratagem,
'They [Bell et al.]most definitely want to be friends with the world as the Bible uses the term. That's why they've adopted every left-wing cause as their own, and put a Christian tag onto it.'
As though adopting "left-wing causes" thereby aligns oneself w/ the world. Bah. You might as well claim that by adopting right-wing causes the Moral Majority thereby aligned themselves w/ the world. (That actually seems far closer to the truth to me, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a lowly grad student who went to seminary to learn how to criticize conservatives!)
Surely we should resist the urge to make Xianity synonymous or necessarily coextensive with either left- or right-wing politics. At its best, Xianity should be a prophetic voice standing over-and-above political parties, offering critique *wherever* it's needed.
It seems to me that Helen's just answering the questions directed at her. Maybe people should stop asking her questions that require her to explain her story if you don't want her to keep bringing it up...
I want a pocket-Agonizomai. I don't suppose Frank could make some?
Surely we should resist the urge to make Xianity synonymous or necessarily coextensive with either left- or right-wing politics.
Luke, I honestly don't think any of the Pyro's would disagree with you there. I know I wouldn't.
Helen,
I don't imagine I'll check your site and story.
I have heard it here at Pyro pretty much.
I pray that you would come to believe the Gospel.
That God would have mercy on you, and that you would listen to Phil, Dan, & Frank.
Before it's everlasting too late.
Jeremy: "Everytime a new conversation begins new language is needed."
Huh?
See: I would have said, "If you're going to invent new jargon all the time, you ought to define it careully."
But, then, careful definition isn't very pomo, is it?
Jeremy, part of the problem is that I have no clue what you mean by "missiological conversation."
Do you mean you'd like to discuss whether and how we need to adapt our evangelistic strategies to do a better job reaching postmodern minds?
Because if that's what you mean, we do that all the time.
If, on the other hand, you've loaded into that expression the automatic acceptance of key postmodern values such as uncertainty, ambiguity, self-contradiction, PC-style inclusivity, a contempt for authority, and a refusal to speak plainly, then you can count me among those who are not the least bit interested in being part of that "conversation."
Why do we make so much fun of unbelief- as if logic or reasoning could actually prevail in a dead corpse. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God. I'd like to see some females step up and present the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to Helen.
I am saying that it is God who moves the rocks we push against, not us. Our pushing helps us to see when God moves something.
I'm growing a beard and dyeing it white!
Philness, before you hand out assignments to our lady readers, would you please go through all the many Helen threads, and count how many times how many people have already pointed her to Christ, and report on what progress was made?
EC errors...
- A highly ambiguous handling of truth.
- A desire to be so inclusive and tolerant that there is virtually no sense of biblical discernment in terms of recognizing and labeling false beliefs, practices, or lifestyles.
- A quasi-universalistic view of salvation.
- A lack of a proper appreciation for biblical authority over and against personal experience or revelation.
- Openness to pagan religious practices like Hindu Yoga and incorporating them into the Christian life and Christian worship.
- Openly questioning the relevance of key historical biblical doctrines such as the Trinity.
- An uncritically open embrace of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
- An unbridled cynicism towards conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism.
- A reading of scripture that is heavily prejudiced towards a social gospel understanding.
- Little or no talk of evangelism or saving lost souls.
- A salvation by osmosis mentality, where if you hangout with us long enough you’re in.
Jason Carlson (My Journey Into & Out of the Emerging Church)
In light of trying to garnish the final 261 comments needed, I pose this question (to any EC-ers of non EC-ers). From what I have seen, the "conversation" relies heavily on an attempt to introduce new theological terms or redefine old ones. Assuming this to be true, how can anyone in the conversation have confidence that true communication is taking place? Or is there just self satisfaction to be had by engaging in something that seems spiritual?
In other words, if those embracing the ECM have a desire to change the church for the better (some, to be sure, have good motives), how can they gauge if this is happening, or not happening, if definitions are up for grabs?
Phil - if I wrote to you in the 2nd half of 1996 I was still recovering from mental illness - it threw my beliefs into disarray for a number of months. Admittedly I've never been a 5 point Calvinist; nevertheless, from 1985 through 1999, excepting the second half of 1996, my core beliefs were such that none of the conservative Christians I knew questioned my salvation.
Donsands - ok, as you wish
Dan, feel free to delete the links to my website if linking to it inappropriately pushes my lack of belief.
philness - it's ok, I already know what the gospel is. It would be hard to go to Moody Church for 12 years (and be a member for 5) and not know.
I think Helen has heard the Gospel, I can offer a prayer.
I pray for God's will to be accomplished in Helen's life, this can only be done with Helen's own act of humble obedience of surrendering 'self' through repentance and faith, only then can she be reconciled to God for her eternal salvation, this is God's one will for all of our lives, to be reconciled to our Father.
May God continue to work a work in her, may she finally heed the call of Him who loves her so, that He sent His Son to be ravaged and die on a cross for all our sins, that she stop seeking the advice of mere men and look soley to God through prayer and His Word for her answers. It is a verical relationship we have to Christ, not a horizontal one.
May Helen come to know the true liberation and joy that only comes from knowing Him, through Jesus Christ our Lord ~ Amen.
"And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me."
Luk 9:23
I'm still praying as well.
I should add;
everything is for the Glory of Christ, His Glory is our glory, His joy our joy.
True happiness lies in God being glorified.
For Jeremy and all the others on the "missiological conversation" kick.
The questions Jeremy raised are:
"How should we develop relationships?
Where do you start with someone raised within a post-Christian mindset?
How do we disciple a believer when no church exists within their culture?"
With respect...(sort of) your questions are silly What the EC is trying to avoid is the "foolishness of preaching" because they're sure there is a better way than God's way.
To the questions:
"How should we develop relationships?"
Like we always have..."(Stick out hand) "Hi, I'm Bob, we're looking for a second baseman(point guard, tennis double, golf partner, ride to work, someone to invite to dinner). Interested?"
Or "Hi, I'm Sally, nice dress, where'd you get it?"
(You get the picture. Developing relationships is NOT a uniquely PoMo thing!!!Everybody eats, most people do domething for recreation)
"Where do you start with someone raised within a post-Christian mindset?"
Same place you start with anyone else. Get to know them, look for a chance to gently introduce the gospel. Maybe invite them to church (if yours preaches the gospel). I hear you say, "They're PoMo, they won't go to church...I ask, "And how does that differ from every other age in history?" If they like you, they may listen. If they won't listen, eventually they may not like you. Get over it. (Preaching to myself there...)
Last question:
"How do we disciple a believer when no church exists within their culture?"
Ummm, if they are a believer, someone led them to Christ. That someone can disciple them. After a few disciples, presto!! a church is born.
We make altogether too much of the culture thing. If they live in North America, a church exists in their culture. Do not confuse culture with sub-culture.
My thoughts...on the never ending journey to 1000...
Helen,
(At the risk of reviving the troll) Your constant affirmations of Church membership and Bible Study serve only to condemn you. Why do you carry on unrepentant?
A few observations:
1. Most all of those who are sympathetic to the EC come over to this blog at the same time like they are in a “pack”.
2. The more that we try to share the truth with them; I see how spot on Phil’s Poster on Humility is:
Humility - I'm not so arrogant as to think I have arrived at the truth about anything,
But I’m pretty sure everything YOU say is not only dead wrong, but really, really stupid, too.
Need we say more?
but of course, we ought to have at least 254 more things to "say"
;)
Helen's acceptance by the EC community highlights a huge problem I recently ran into when I encountered an emergent guy who apparently accepts a Hyper-Preterist named Adam Dada into fellowship as a brother. This Dada guy believes the resurrection has already occurred, sin is thus no more, there is no salvation (b/c there is no sin), etc. Whom will EC-ers *not* accept (I mean, besides conservative Reformed people)?
Centurion,
Jesus is that person but then you knew that.
My grid i christocentric.I affirm every doctrine that is central to the Christian faith. I simply believe those central truths are much broader than your narrow, defined reformed, calvinistic grid. Only the privileged few fit your grid. y grid has room for all those who profess they are followers of Jesus. (and no I am not a universalist)
You have no idea how I have turned out since you don't know me. But then, another drive-by right?
How easily we judge a person by a few words that person has written.
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Mat 7:14
no name preacher wrote: my grid has room for all those who profess they are followers of Jesus.
no name preacher, I'm a very non-traditional follower of Jesus. Does your grid include me?
only one citation of driscoll and only two or three of Chan! Boy, this will never get to 1000...
dlp,
Call it bwok.........I call it being prudent.
Few have called me chicken.That's not my style and that is why I have ended up in a fair share of meaningless debates that went nowhere. Kinda like debating those who believe that calvinism=the gospel (or at least the order of salvation is set in stone) Waste of time. They think they are right. I think they are wrong. No one has ever been converted in such debated
So call me a chicken.......you might be glad I am a Christian :)
In earlier years calling me a chicken might have resulted in a "let's see who the chicken is" :)
Helen,
I don't know. But I do know Jesus is a friend of sinners, all sinners. He loves all men.
If you believe who He says he is and follow Him........that is what it is to be a Christian.
...only the 'following' part, actually. So I'm probably not on your grid.
[returning to my troll lair now]
Helen,
Is you response really necessary? "...Only the following part..." It's not even coherent. A bit like saying, I'm a big fan of the Yankees, I follow them closely. But don't try and convince me that they play baseball or play in Yankeee Stadium or do anything other than write Shakespearesque plays.
Every post you write show you to be anything but what you've ever claimed to be.
Wow, we are more than 75% of the way there!
(Hopefully, that's a graspable number to the numerically and hug-challenged Tom Chantry.)
Because it needs to be said...
Some of you have made some great points here, some of you have not.
You decide.
No Name Preacher,
The true Friend of sinners says "Go and sin no more."
OTOH His strongest rebukes were of those who professed to know the Scriptures yet rejected the Word made flesh, and of those who both believed and followed him yet were not dead to self (His disciples). How then should we live?
I'll just say this. For years, I would have been a perfect candidate for an emerging church, or a seeker-sensitive evangelical church. But I never went to either. I did attend a liberal, mainline church years ago, and never came to know Christ through it. When atheist-agnostic, doubting, "post-religious" (dibs) me—having grown up in one of the most liberal, laissez-faire cities in North America, no less—finally came to find rebirth in Christ, it was at a conservative, evangelical church that actually preaches on sin, and God's justice and mercy.
Imagine that Sewing.
Giving "seekers" what they need instead of what the want produces results. Don't let that get out, it'll be the death of just about every new approach to church since Paul.
(Vancouver is a study in paradoxes. A city that revels in every imaginable indulgence, and that probably has the lowest proportion of self-describing Christians—let alone self-describing evangelicals—of any million-plus city in North America...and yet we have Regent College (home of Waltke and Packer, et alia), one of the largest traditionalist Anglican churches in North America, and my church, one of the largest small-r reformed churches in Canada. There's even a neighbourhood Founders-friendly SBC church here!)
| Jesus is that person but then you knew
| that.
|
| My grid i christocentric. I affirm every
| doctrine that is central to the Christian
| faith.
It's funny – the Boys on Bikes stopped by my house this weekend and they said the very same thing.
And I get the distinct impression that they meant the same thing you do, below, in type – even if the list they would proffer would be a different list.
| I simply believe those central
| truths are much broader than your
| narrow, defined reformed, calvinistic
| grid. Only the privileged few fit your
| grid. My grid has room for all those who
| profess they are followers of Jesus.
| (and no I am not a universalist)
Well, not yet anyway. Nobody ever starts off as a universalist.
You seem to want to assert a lot of things, but you don't really want to receive any questions. That's, at least, a special kind of narrow-mindedness. What seems obvious to me is that you don't even really understand what a "Christ-centered" hermeneutic looks like – you're more like a "no creed but Jesus" guy, and that's not "christocentric": that's myopic.
| You have no idea how I have turned
| out since you don't know me. But
| then, another drive-by right?
Nope. If I had proffered a guess, I would have said that you were a post-"Calvinistic" ecumenist who thinks doctrine is either boring or hateful and who reads the Bible as if it was printed on bingo-balls.
| How easily we judge a person by a
| few words that person has written.
My hermeneutic is Christocentric. If it can work on the many, many words of Christ and of the Bible, it can work on your peppering of quips here.
jo cool,
Have you "sinned no more"?
We all sin and that is why we have an advocate with the father, Jesus the righteous one.
Some of the harshest rebukes in scripture are towards those who think they are without sin.
I have often said that the hardest thing to do is convince a lost man he is a sinner, and the second hardest thing is to convince a saved man that he still is a sinner.
Jeremy - you've found the beauty of trying to talk to TeamPyro, which is that no one can unless you agree with everything they say and how they say it. Oversimplifying anyone's position so that they can stand over it and make fun of YOU is what they do best around here.
TeamPyro has yet to acknowledge the difference between emerging and emergent, orthodox vs heretical leaders within the EC, and recognize that much of the fire underneath emerging Christianity is, omigosh, Calvinism. Not that they care, but for the rest of us, growing emerging churches are actually spreading the gospel to the neighborhoods in which they reside, phat-free and pomo-free. Perhaps Phil, Dan, and Frank just don't believe such churches exist. Who knows?
(AAMOF, the pastor of my church will be talking about emerging churches at the Francis Schaeffer Institute in St. Louis in October.)
There are many in the ECM that are incredibly errant. Has there ever been a time in church history that people weren't? Does that mean any sympathy with emerging thinking means guilt by association? As far as TeamPyro is concerned, yes. Unfair, to say the least. But TeamPyro is not here to be fair. This is their blog, and if they want to spread the gospel with the tools of mockery and over-satire, it is their right.
cent: "It's funny – the Boys on Bikes stopped by my house this weekend and they said the very same thing."
what a moment to be a fly on the wall.
centurion,
I will answer any question you have. I will not debate you over the answers (or the questions) but I will gladly answer any question you have.
I suspect I know what a Christ centered hermeneutic looks like. I also know what a Calvinistic centered hermeneutic looks likes. Lot's of people seem to confuse the two.
I am a post many things. Post Baptist. Post Fundamentalist. Post Calvinist. Post Rapturist. Post Republican. Post Capitalist. Post anti-environmentalist.Post Catholic hater. Post Arminian Hater My life is filled with posts and it is also filled with a lot of presents.
So ask away.......Keep it simple. You know us "Jesus is our only creed" guys, with emerging tendencies are pretty "simple" I will try and keep on my meds long enough to answer your questions.:)
Northword wrote, "What a moment to be a fly on the wall."
No kidding.
'Is you response really necessary? "...Only the following part..." It's not even coherent.'
Sure it is. So-called "liberal" Xians have been doing it for years. It's called various things among you folk: having a low Christology, practicing a social gospel, etc.
The basic idea is this: we imitate JC to the best of our ability without actually taking literally his claims to divinity. That stuff's just later theological accretion, anyways. Second and third generation Xians came up with all kinds of funny interpolations ex post facto to draw adherents to their new religious cult. Just look at the ending of Mark, etc.
You might not like it. Heck, it's not what I believe either. But it's at least coherent, in the sense of being free from contradiction. Coherence is a pretty low bar. It'd be surprising indeed if everyone from Ritschl to Harnack to Tillich to Borg couldn't even manage to free themselves from self-contradiction. It would at least take a good deal of work to show this. And the burden of proof's on you.
(Hopefully, that's a graspable number to the numerically and hug-challenged Tom Chantry.)
What was that "%" glyph you used? You're not e-cursing, are you? I'd hate to see you banned for breaking rule 3!
Funny that among all the Gnostics, Mithraists, emperor cultists, mystery cults, and the like, that this obscure movement spread like wildfire, to the point that the Roman emperor co-opted it as the state religion three centuries later (for better or worse, but without it we wouldn't have had Augustine or the Reformation).
Correction Luke... perhaps coherent was the wrong word. Logical would be more appropriate. In any case claiming to follow someone who you don't believe exists, or claiming to follow someone who, when you describe them, is so far from the reality of who they really are (hence my Yankees example, while possilbiy coherent (from a purely grammatical point-of-view) is certainly not logical or sensible.
I take your response tobe primarily to make conversation, thereby increasing the comment count.
Mission accomplished...:)
Tom: "%" means "percent," which means "per hundred." So we are now over 75 hundredth parts of the way to 1000. In other words, each hundredth part of 1000 is 10, and we are 75 x 10 = 750 of the way there.
Despite my penchant for numerical analysis, however, rest assured that I am not a raving dispy (not sure where I stand on the Millennium), nor do I practice gematria.
Luke, as far as the rest of your comment (and to further add to the total), for the record, I'm familiar with how people of every stripe from civil-rights acticists to Roman Emperors, have co-opted the name of Christ to their own advantage. Fortunately God makes sure many (some?) of them actually take the name AND reality of Christ resulting in their salvation.
Sewing is doing magical things with numbers. It seems vaguely occult to me. Why wasn't that addressed in the OP?
Tom has evidently not yet escape his besetting sin of sleep deprivation...pray the he not fall into man-hugs.
...and my English is failing me as well...[escapeD...pray thAT...]
Tom has evidently not yet escape his besetting sin of sleep deprivation...pray the he not fall into man-hugs.
Actually, since reporting sleep deprivation, I have had three solid nights of slumber. I don't know whether that is more a commentary on the duration of this thread, or on how painfully long it is taking it to reach 1000. But we're trying.
No, I can't claim sleep deprivation as justification any longer - just goofiness. Perhaps my "besetting sin" is silliness!
Northword:
It was a brief conversation. They didn't recognize me from my bookstore until I asked them about Grace -- then they said, "Hey -- you're the guy with the Christian bookstore," and ended the conversation.
Nobody likes a wise guy.
No Name Preacher:
Care to expound on how you read the Bible?
Whoa...just wait a minute! Stop the presses! When we hit a thousand, will we have brought about the Millennium!? Are we ready? And will the thousandth comment that unleashes all the prophecies of Revelation be something flippant about schmeradactyls?
daryl, following Jesus isn't supposed to be logical or sensible.
Which Bible have you been reading?
1 Cor 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
(God forgive me for my irreverence. May all the glories of your plans and promises unfold in your time and according to your will.)
Umm Helen.
That arguement isn't open to you as you have already denied being willing to believe everything the Bible teaches. Picking and choosing...remember?
In believing it all, you'll find that is is in fact very logical and sensible. (Besides, it wasn't following Jesus that I was impugning, it was following Helen and calling it Jesus that I was impugning...)
Sewing,
Do you suppose that this thread is actually a translation of the Seven thunders John was not allowed to record????
Daryl wrote: In believing it all, you'll find that it is in fact very logical and sensible.
I don't see how humans could possibly reduce anything to what is 'very logical and sensible' unless they have excluded God.
Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
Bloggernaut: "TeamPyro has yet to acknowledge the difference between emerging and emergent, orthodox vs heretical leaders within the EC"
Actually, we have repeatedly acknowledged the difference in terminology and emphasis. What we have refused to do is give free passes to people who profess to accept orthodox doctrine but never actually get around to teaching it, what with all their stress on "missional" hairstyles and postmodern values and all.
Also, We are still waiting to see 1) which side of the Emerging/Emergent aquarium the greater mass of post-evangelicals end up swimming in; and 2) whether those who claim to adhere to orthodoxy will ever actually separate themselves from the heterodox and apostates, or whether they will just keep on whining about how we need to do that in our critiques of the mess they are making.
None of that precludes logic or sensibility.
I'm not saying that all of God is understandable to us, I'm saying that what he has revealed of himself, he has revealed in order that we understand it. You are saying that God has purposely given us something to read which we could not possibly understand, thus giving yourself licence to re-create God in your own image because you can understand that "god" without doing any homework.
Where is it written that God is neither logical nor sensible? (and don't tell me that his ways are not our ways, there is nothing that falls under "man's way's" in orthodox Christianity)
And to continue on the christological subtheme that's been weaving its way through this comment thread, here's a story that many of you may not have heard of, that the Holy Spirit, by the grace of the Father, led me to soon after I was saved.
Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds—compiled by rabbis in the early centuries of the Common Era (after Christ) with no vested interest in promoting christological symbolism—record a legend regarding the Temple.
For the last 40 years of the Temple's lifetime leading up to its destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70, there were signs that the Lord God no longer accepted the yearly national atonement on Yom Kippur.
One of candles in the Temple menorah would periodically go out (even though it was to burn perpetually, and was the object of one of God's miraculous provisions during the rededication of the Temple by the Maccabees in the intertestamental period, celebrated today by Hannukah). The Temple gates would blow open each night. Furthermore, the annual lot to choose the sacrificial lamb for Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) would always come up in the left hand, and the crimson strip from the azazel (the scapegoat) that was tied to the temple door never turned white, suggesting the Lord's disfavour with that year's atonement (based on Isaiah 1:18).
The latter two events should have had a statistical distribution of 50% left, 50% right, and 50% crimson, 50% white. During the 40 years of the holiest High Priest, legend has it that the lot always came up in the right hand and the crimson strip always turned white. But from circa A.D. 30 to the destruction of the Temple, these events never occurred.
The implications seem plainly obvious, but the compilers of the Talmud seem to have been oblivious to their significance for Jewish Christians, and indeed, elsewhere in the Talmud, stories concerning Jesus are written in such a way as to denigrate him.
The Talmudic sources read thus:
Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open. (Jerusalem Talmud: Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157)
Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ['For the Lord'] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves (Babylonian Talmud: Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
[Both Talmud quotes and a longer explication are from "Talmudic Evidence for the Messiah at 30 C.E." (link).]
Sewing...Wow...
In the interests of inclusivism, I bring some eastern wisdom to this blog.
Confucious he say 'Man without front garden look forlorn'
There.
That was my reaction! "Blew me away" would be the colloquial expression.
To Daryl, not to the apocryphal Confucius quote....
Phil,
Your response to bloggernaut was a lot better than mine.
Bloggernaut,
My response is, "We will start defining the differences when those within the movement do so." Admittedly, some do so (read Mark Driscoll)but the ECM cannot "have its cake and eat it too".
Look at the way that Maclaren is venerated by some and treated like a "crazy uncle" by others, but not denounced. Can you see why some of us are confused?
(I have read much about and from the ECM outside of TeamPyro and sometimes disagree with Pyro's assesment. The ECM cannot keep be "unassailable" see the poster for examplse of it)
Apocryphal??? Says who? Who decided what's apocryphal and what's Scripture anyways???
Oh, never mind. No need to go THERE...Although that may get us to 1000.
It's early yet, but I nominate Bloggernaut's comment of 11:47 AM, September 04, 2007 as the most blazingly and gratuitously ignorant (to say nothing of self-refuting) comment of the month.
Which is saying something.
Chantry...that I am not a raving dispy...
Me neither!
Sober as a judge,
DJP
800!! we made 800
Yeah, Daryl, that's the ticket...let's start talking the finer points of Confucianism!
[Note, however, that Confucius described his "way" as "the way" (道; tao), which of course is also the root of the name for Taoism. And the early Christians called themselves adherents of "the Way," echoing Isaiah 35:8. Don't know if this accounts for some of the syncretism in East Asian religious practice, though....]
Chantry...that I am not a raving dispy...
That was Sewing. I'm deeply offended. (Sniff!)
Tell me you didn't use the word "album". That's sooooo last century!
Please don't stop posting about God's provision, justification, sanctification, the cross, Jesus, and all the other truths of the Bible. I would stop reading pyro, then.
DJP, in fairness to Tom, it is I who brazenly proclaimed that I am not a raving dispy.
Now, getting on THAT particular track would definitely get us to 2000 comments, let alone a paltry thousand!
Oh, okay. Fair enough.
And here I was, being happy that Chantry was even allowing that there were other kinds of dispies than "raving" ones....
Well, you know, some of us are truly reformed. (Ducks, covers, and runs for the hills!)
I write that in jest. I'm still waiting for the Holy Spirit to guide me on how to understand the Millennial Kingdom.
And in all seriousness, I understand full well why this blog has an unstated policy on not going there, and I respect it.
True.
And then there are folks who are still Amill.
(Dives under table, since the next 192 comments are now In the Bag!)
Post a Comment