— 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 401 – 600 of 1059 Newer› Newest»Donsands: "What the heck is mezgad? - That's Greetings, in Celtic." For the sake of prolonging this thread (despite Dan's most meat-chub-like offensive refusal to take me at my word re my blondness), I'd ask what on earth is "Celtic"? To which of the strands of Gaelic? Irish? Scottish? Manx? Or that well-known Celtic division, WordVerification-ish? :)
Semper Reformundo:
In case you didn't save your post and would like to re-post it without the rule-4 violation, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy. I liked your first, second, fourth and fifth paragraphs and was especially appreciative of the things you said about me.
But unfortunately, we have a pretty hard and fast rule about dragging our loved ones into controversy, so Dan had to delete your comment, much as we hated to lose your very articulate input.
Semper Reformundo — it never surprises us when people who don't take the whole Bible very seriously also don't take our rules (like Rule #4) very seriously.
What does keep surprising us, is that people who don't take the whole Bible very seriously, and similarly don't take our infinitely-less-crucial rules very seriously, themselves feign bitter shock when they discover that we do take (and mean) such things seriously.
Tag.
But Tom, if man-hugs are present in the millenial kingdom, it's no justification for amill- it just means we have man-hugs now. The question is, are they a part of the old or the new - will man-hugs be no longer with the full consummation?
Sorry Dan, it just begged for a reply.
Hey, why am I apologising, I just contributed another post!
Phil. You put my concerns towards Helen in such a gracious but truthful manner. I will still state my thoughts.
Helen. You are hijacking this thread with questions pertaining to your own stated confusions but I think you are coming across with questions that have an underlying smugness or agenda in MY opinion.
For example. You stated that your church did not allow you to take a counselor's class, but since a random guy offered to let you take the class through him, you feel justified that the church leadership was wrong and you were right. So, to make it worse, you bring it up as a sort of resentment towards the church, and ultimately towards God. If it was what God wanted for you, why do you feel a need to bring it up as a perceived wrong? I am curious why your church did not think you should take the class. If you were right, why does the issue still linger? Are you angry and so justify a rebellious heart? Everyone here is so gracious and patient with you and you persist in questions that you really don't seem to care about receiving an honest answer. You thank them politely and bring up a whole new set of questions and every so often link to articles you have written. In other words, this thread has become all about you.
On another thought. Here is a weird analagy relating to the Emerging Church issue. I live not far from the Black Rock Desert. We are the gateway to the infamous "Burning Man Festival". It started as a anti-establishment, anarchist, pagan celebration (with some interesting postmodern art I have to confess...just seen through photos mind you). It was supposed to be a celebration without law and without rules. It has grown so large that rules and laws have been instituted. It used to cost nothing. It now costs $300 to get in (liability fees and all that). This year a guy decided to burn the Burning Man five days early. Remember that the Burning Man symbolizes anti-established, corporate, mainstream society and stands for an "everything permissible" society. Well, the guy got arrested for arson. Do you, like me, find that ironic? I see the Emergent Church sorta like the Burning Man crowd. "We so go against the grain until someone actually attacks us with our own symbolism or ammunition". Just a random thought for the count to a thousand.
Dan wrote: What does keep surprising us, is that people who don't take the whole Bible very seriously, and similarly don't take our infinitely-less-crucial rules very seriously, themselves feign bitter shock when they discover that we do take (and mean) such things seriously.
I'm not shocked. Hopefully I can be a Reformed character - at least in terms of my behavior here.
Aw, man, Red-headed-French-named-girl just caught me in an eschatalogical technicality. C'mon. What part of sleep-deprived don't you understand?
Let me try this: I'm a hugging cessassionist. Man-hugs belonged to the Davidic dispensasion or something-or-other. The Huggerites were annihilated along with the Amalekites.
étrangère—eschatologizing man-hugs! Way to go, French-screenied strawberry-blondheaded girl!
"I'd ask what on earth is "Celtic"?"
I sort of made it up, kind of. Just trying to keep this thing rolling, you know.
All I know is this: In Tom Chantry's worldview, there are no man-purses, and that's good enough for me.
Candy—Good word. Thanks.
I wish I had something witty to say to perpetuate this thread.
Perhaps if I pray I can get the spiritual gift of wittiness. then I could come up with a better name and put to rest all this cessassionist talk.
Tom Chantry,
I"m sorry, puh-leeze forgive me!!!
..on a less repentant note...is it OK to repent of something while planning to do it again in a week? Some kind of a grass-cutting dispensation kind of thing...I know, maybe its a kind of purgatorial corrective for man-hugs.
I'd say it'll never happen again but y'know, it rains on the just-cut and the unjust-cut lawn.
I know, I know, I'll EC the whole thing. I'll just believe that the back yard needs cutting, maybe the length of the front lawn is like the non-inerrant part where I get to decide if it's true or not.
Oh, big problem, my wife is the magesterium on that...she'll order penance, man-hugs or something.
By the way Tom, great, great post on being faithful even if it looks like the biblical church is dead or dying.
Gilbert, great post from you too (a while back as I recall)
Oh, guys, I had a thought yesterday. Funny how the EC and others go wild for the WWJD bracelet thingys...until someone starts to rebuke false teachers like he did...A LITTLE CONSISTENCY PEOPLE!!!!
Daryl, I am so relieved. I really did not want to take this thing to Phil. As for next week, well, if you have to repent again, I'm sure we can play a few more verses of "Nearer, Still Nearer" for you.
Oh, and "just-cut and un-just-cut lawn..." That was great. Took me a minute. I really need some sleep.
By the way Tom, your profile mentions a baby coming soon...any sightings of him/her yet?
Uh, yeah, thanks. Just updated that profile.
So, are we now saying that rule 3 doesn't apply to this thread, or that it does apply, only for the purposes of this thread, "on-topic" is defined as "pertaining to life, the universe, or anything"?
Take one down pass it around....
Oh, wait...wrong thread.
Is it just me or should we steal the title "An Inconvenient Truth" and apply it to the Bible on behalf of the EC.
Can I play? Whats the bet? Whats the limit?
Isn't having a high view of the "Word of God" having a high view of Jesus?
Emergentism has definitely lost the way, it's the logical conclusion to "fundamentalism".
peace.
Serious question alert:
Has anyone ever noticed what sort of demographic commonalities (if any) exist within the ECM? To this unenlightened observer, it strikes me in part as a white-guilt, yuppie kind of thing. Has it infected (oops :) affected) predominantly black churches, for example?
Okay here’s one:
As______said, to the postmodern mind it is more important to, “embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.”?
A. Robin Hood
B. B.B Warfield
C. Rob Bell
D. Ted Nugent
Theme music from Match Game playing now.
"Okay here’s one:
As______said, to the postmodern mind it is more important to, “embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.”?"
Robin Hood? The Kevin Coster, Robin Hood; not Errol Flynn.
Mike:
You don't get to use the Lord's name in vain here.
Wha--? I think I know the offending comment, though I don't interpret it that way. If I reword it, can I re-post?
Geez, Phil, et al.--lighten up a bit, will ya's? First, you should be thanking Helen--whatever you perceive to be the state of her heart--for continuing to interact with everyone here, posing questions and doubts, as its ratcheting up the comments, which is one of the stated goals of this silly little thread! Secondly, to go into "banning" hysterics for her allegedly pushing her "beliefs" is silly in the extreme--I can understand if you have a "pastoral" heart but do you really think that the Reformed black-belts that haunt your comments sections are gonna get the Tulips-and-fear-of-God scared out of them from some innocently or deviously posed questioning?
And Helen's identity has never been secret. Her name links to her profile which links to her blog, stating clearly that she's a volunteer with Off-The-Map, an evangelism organization that tries (gasp!) to respect the people it shares Jesus with.
And for those of you tearing Helen's present state of belief apart, I think I can sum up what she's saying--I'm giving you all the benefit of the doubt that you're honestly confused and not merely being malicious.
Helen is making the observation that the way most of you all practice Christian faith is intimately bound up in the Bible. But not simply the Bible--she sees that there are clearly passages and motifs from Scripture that you treasure over others--a "canon within the canon," if you will. And she's offering the thesis that we all do this--people of all stripes of faith, and those with none.
You all are insisting that this is a false claim, that you buy into the "whole counsel of God," even (or especially!) the "tough passages" where God's no Mr.-Nice-Guy. She is saying that she struggles with assigning credulity to those texts that assign divine attributes to what would be considered by most well-adjusted people today to be immoral. As a result, she struggles with believing in a god at all, as Scripture's portrayal (coupled with her life's experiences) seems somewhat schizophrenic to her.
You all are insisting that God is good and consistent, a la your Systematic Theology. She's countering this claim, stating that Systematic Theology inherently excludes bits of text that don't fit the paradigm, no matter how carefully the paradigm itself seeks to be formed by said text. One of the reasons, she says, is because it's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole--the Bible comes to us as narrative, not abstract reasoning. (Here's my interjection: Even a book like Romans, arguably the most propositional, follows a story--of a woman with two husbands, a story of death and divorce) The narratives throughout Holy Writ, anyone approaching it with a certain unaccustomed air is forced to admit--are quite diverse. There are different kinds of stories and you wind up with different depictions of God.
Where Helen and I might hit a fork in the road is that I rather enjoy this tension. You see the people of God, Israel and the Church alike, coming to terms with their experiences of the Divine in their midst. God is real, God communicates in revelation, but the intersubjectivity between God and humanity is a rich tapestry indeed--whether because of depravity or creativity, we have a hard time perceiving God, like a divine game of "telephone." Rather than privilege one narrative strand against another(Priestly versus Prophet, Kings and Samuel versus Chronicles, Paul versus James), I see these texts as ones in conversation with each other; the sacred responsibility of friends of God in the believing community being to discern God's revelation in their midst.
Now I’m sure this sounds loosey-goosey to you and it might even sound loosey-goosey to Helen. But the older I get and the more time I spend actually reading the Bible instead of theorizing about it, the more I sense the profound paradoxes and tensions inherent in the text. It’s not that that the individual letters, poems, and stories speak with a monochrome voice that convinces me of their inspiration—it’s that they’ve managed to hang together for all these years even factoring in their different perspectives!
And this, not to harp on something that seems like an emerging cliché to you, is the difference between modern and postmodern. Its not that we’re calling for the death of inspiration, authority, and God; its that we’re passionate about inspiration being mutli-faceted, with the community of saints given the awesome responsibility and privilege of handling the Scriptures, hearing the Spirit in our midst, and binding and loosing interpretations that, in the words of the early church in Acts, “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us.” Just because it isn’t certitude doesn’t mean it isn’t reverent. I am continually astonished by our God revealed in Scripture and the lives of those around me.
Handling an objection before it even comes up: Seeing Scripture in conversation with itself does not make one amoral; it doesn’t mean “anything goes” with regards to good behavior. It’s simply that many of us locate the just and good and ethical in Christ himself rather than in some prescribed set of morality. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “Christian ethics” an oxymoron for this reason. The heart of the New Covenant is that the law of love is written in our hearts; we no longer tell one another what to do; we no longer need a capital-T Teacher, for the anointing leads us into all truth. The letter kills but the Spirit gives life, remember those passages that didn’t make it into your Systematic Theology? I am a new creation in Christ; I have a new covenant heart; I don’t do evil because it’s not who I am. And when I do sin, it’s a clear violation of who I really am and I’m convicted. Shame on you for slandering emerging Christians as having loose morals! Emerging missionaries, aid workers, ministers and churches are among the godliest, kindest, most upright followers of Jesus I know.
Finally, Helen is “insisting,” you say, that God is unknowable. I know this prompts a knee-jerk reaction in y’all for a host of dogmatic reasons, and I understand. And I, too, would like to see Helen come to a renewed appreciation for the compassable parts of God. (As the 17th century Spanish mystic and Reformation forerunner Michael Molinos said, God may not be easily understood, but he can be simply and readily loved.) But c’mon, guys…doncha think that mebbe thou dost protest too much? Scripture, in both Testaments, makes much of God’s inscrutability, immutability, and unknowability. No one has seen God’s face at any time; God’s ways are higher than our ways. As Christians we believe that God is decisively disclosed in the person and incarnation of Jesus; but surely, don’t you think, this disclosure preserves much of the original Mystery intact? Protestants in the Reformed tradition make much of the prohibition against graven images in the Pentateuch. Well don’t you think, applying this to our own lives, this refers to graven theologies and images of ‘god’ held in our hearts with rock-solid certainty? Many believers in generations past certainly thought so; I know you guys have probably never read a single one, but scores of contemplative Christians in the apophatic tradition posit just this—that we come to God with our bare essence, and know God significantly but in the “blinding ray of divine darkness,” through a “cloud of unknowing” as it were. Perhaps the best way to know that we know God is as John says—as evidenced by our love for one another.
donsands,
guess again.
Mike, please don't.
Philness, there are few "Mike"'s posting here--was the "please don't" in reference to my posting? Do you think this post'll get to a thousand comments with just an amen chorus? : )
mike morrell,
Yea it was directed at you. Your "killing me smalls" what movie? With all those words.
Mike Morrell,
Take this for what it's worth, and in the spirit it is meant... you're extremely frustrating to read, man. At multiple points during your post I wish I could just grab your shoulders, shake you, and yell, "Snap out of it!"
It's too late (east coast) to persist with the epistemological shortcomings of postmodernism as it applies to the EC, so I'm not going to do that.
One thing, though, is that I found your recap of Helen's position to be quite familiar, and so would say that I wasn't "confused," as you suggested. I also don't believe I was being malicious. If you would find me a spot where I was, I'd appreciate the instruction.
So many things... Maybe I'll give it a whirl on Monday. Then again, by then, I'm sure we'll have both forgotten.
Yeah... I'm Mike Riccardi, by the way, for all of those we're confusing. :o)
Don't know if this was serious... again, it's late over here, but "You're killing me, Smalls," is the Sandlot (1993) http://imdb.com/title/tt0108037/
mike,
Nice.
Try this one: "Here's mud in your eye"?
Mike Morrell:
This isn't complex: There's a world of difference between asking questions because you are seeking answers and stoking doubts just because you resent the truth. I thoroughly explained why Helen's skepticism seems to be the latter.
And this blog is not a forum for that.
It's not your blog, either. I get to be the final arbiter of how and to whom the rules apply.
You just violated rule 3 by taking the Lord's name in vain and rule 5 by publicly championing the very thing I asked Helen not to do. I'd calm down a bit and carefully read rule 6 before posting any more diatribes if I were you.
Hiya, "other" Mike...I'm frustrating to read, eh? I can imagine. Just like it's frustrating for me to read the articulations of so many thoughtful people who clearly love God and their mission on earth, and yet seem so sadly un-centered and out of balance...I want to tell most of you to snap out of it! : ) What probably makes me even more frustrating to read is, I know the lingo. I was PCA for years; a volunteer staffer even. I know the Johns (Owen, Piper, MacArthur)--I sat through debates on the Regulative Principle, cessation, women preaching, worship wars, and hosts of other "insider" Calvinist problems. I know how many Presbyterians wonder if Reformed Baptists are living in willful sin because of "incorrect" church government...I went through it all. And I got sick of it!
It was denomination number 3.5 for me, and the end of the road. I had been Southern Baptist, charismatic, Assemblies of God (hence the .5), and then finally PCA. But I gave up denominationalism for Lent, and I've been saner ever since.
Please don't misunderstand me--my more heated moments aside--I don't particularly reject Reformed theology. I love Leslie Newbigin, Steve Brown, Udo Middelman (of L'Abri) and Joel Hunter, for instance--godly men who articulate Calvinist ethos with clarity and love. What I don't like is the attitude--the attitude that you're better than all other Christians. You're not alone in it, mind you. Not at all! Southern Baptists thought they were the only truly 'saved.' Pentecostals pride themselves on embracing the 'full gospel.' And you people love your 'sound doctrine.'
Earlier someone accused me of holding onto the primacy of unity over truth, as though the two were mutually exclusive. Well...I have to say that I hold to the primacy of love guiding us into unity and truth--this can't be overstated, for God is Love, love incarnate.
And so...now I am a post-denominational Christian. I am uncomfortable with labels, even "emerging" or "house church." I am integrated in a local church fellowship (the same one in Atlanta for seven years, before my wife and I moved to Raleigh to help pioneer a new church), and I try to find extra-local fellowship grounded in love wherever I can, in-person and online. That is, when I'm not doing more important things, like ministry. Only kidding, brothers and sisters.
Look, I really do admire the Team Pyro zest and zeal. And good comic book and graphics sensibilities. At the end of the day I wish you no malice. It's just...sigh.
I'm on the East Coast too. Time for bed.
"Scripture that you treasure over others--a "canon within the canon," if you will."
I don't see Scripture this way. Surely I have favorite portions, and even Books of the Bible, but I see all Scripture as God's Word to us. And it is all equally His truth. And it complements itself. The OT is as important to hear as the NT. The book of Obadiah as the book of Jude.
"Man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
philness, Um. C. Rob Bell?
Sorry Phil, I was writing what I just posted before I read your response. I have a question, and it's a serious one--where are these "rules"? Can you give me a link? I'll read 'em thoroughly before I post anything else.
One other thing: I'm not going to debate the propriety of taking the Lord's name in vain. If someone has a novel "interpretation" of an expression that turns the Lord's name into an expletive and you want to argue that that's OK, take it to your own blog. I'm not even interested in hearing about it.
I don't even like the expression "geez" for that reason. It's a minced oath that is derived from a violation of the third commandment, and the rule in the sidebar clearly states that we have a zero tolerance level for such things.
And to Mike Morrell in particular:
A gentle hint: A comment touting how enlightened you now are and how ignorant and uncouth you were when you were just like some of us (You might well have titled it "I thank God I'm not like other men") is prolly not the best context in which to deliver lectures on humility to the rest of us.
The rules are in the right sidebar of our front page, where they have always been.
donsands,
Yepper. Rob Bell is correct. I got that from here: http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2006/07/emerging-churchby-gary-e-gilley-pastor.html
Just trying to be relevant with the post and silly at the same time.
Here it is:
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com
/2006/07/emerging-churchby
-gary-e-gilley-pastor.html
Philness—Just trying to be relevant with the post and silly at the same time.
It's a noble goal.
Mike: You wanna talk mysticism? I've read Theresa of Avila. I have a copy of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers. At the moment I was saved, I was praying the Jesus Prayer, though for the value of its words, not as a breath prayer as some of its Eastern Orthodox practitioners and Western proponents pray it. (And I thank the Lord Jesus Christ that He did indeed have mercy on me, a sinner: mercy I didn't deserve.) And I have undergone more than I wish to put down in writing here, but that was before I knew the all-sufficiency of Christ.
But now that I've been washed in the blood of the Lamb and know the real thing—living every day in the presence of Christ, and eating the Lord's daily manna—why would I settle for any hall-of-mirrors version of the real thing, including mystical states?
As for this "conversation" between authors? Yeah, I used to see it that way—in fact, I saw it as more of a cacophony. And the Bible seemed like a big mishmash of stuff...some laws, some history, some prophecy, some poems, some stuff about Jesus, some letters, and some weird stuff about end times. But now by the grace of God, all I see is unity: unity of God's Word; unity of Scripture as a record of His redemptive plan for humankind.
And as for "picking and choosing," you know what I love about Reformers? They're the only ones who don't pick and choose Scripture. They're the only ones who aren't afraid of the "ugly" stuff, but who also preach on the good stuff. And it's only through God's righteous wrath and severity that we can come to fully appreciate His lovingkindness and mercy.
Needless to say, I read (past tense, rhymes with "red") Merton, too—how could I forget him!?
(Imagine my surprise when I first discovered that so much of what I'd cherished from earlier stages in my faith journey was considered basically apostate by some of the discernment ministries!)
So what are we striving for here? Top of the Pops or truth? I am interested in truth, but it seems to have been lost in the many short posts that lack commentary and openly disclose their purpose is to help hit the "1000" mark.
So rant on people.
For what it is worth, 44,000 is a far more biblical and thus holy number than 1000. Unless you are speaking of the 1000 prophetic days in Daniel... So maybe it should be a 1000 prophetic day moratorium. 5 Years hardly feels like a long enough time to put the brakes on. Lets ban thought and all associated activities for 1000 prophetic days.
You're not some of that farmed Atlantic salmon, are you? I prefer the wild Pacific variety myself....
:)
Wild and free. Farmed Salmon doesn't have the same taste, or feel.
Much like other communities that rigidly define their boundaries against perceived and possible "intrusions" into the orderliness of the fish school. Farmed Salmon doesn't have the same... ... Fishiness.
I don't believe our Good Lord farmed his fish. He liked them wild and free. For he had to fish them.
I'm back.
I think I've pinpointed something i don't get. "Mysticism"
Could I have some back and forth on the topic? To me the terminology just says, "naughty don't touch".
Also, I read the post all the way through and liked it. Huzzah!
My apologies for taking my wife and kids out for the day yesterday and not getting a hall pass from my pastor, the elders, the guys at T4G, and the president of the Steve Camp fan club.
That said, I think Dan and I owe Steve Camp a Badwich for taking good humor in good humor. Or maybe the rest of you need to have a Badwich and relax. Either way, settle down -- I know it's hard to believe that I actually take days off from blogging (even when I'm on hiatus), but I do. That's not a violation of the 11th commandment.
At 450+ comments (when I left, it was 250+, which was pathetic -- this is at least competitive), it's hard to get back with everyone who's commenting, but there is one pressing issue which must be dealt with.
That faux [blockquote] thing I do in blogger comments? Those instructions are not fake. And the key is the 28-pt type thing. That makes the line length just short of the blogger quotes page wrap, and WORD will obligingly insert breaks after you save your file properly. You can shorten the lines by making the type size larger; I don't suggest making the type size smaller as longer lines will wrap and make a jumble of your citation. You want the left side to be all "|" characters to get a clean quote.
If you're really brainy, you can record the process into a macro and get everything including the all-important "save" into a macro so it's not always keystroke intensive -- it's practically a two-button operation after the first pass.
Those of you using OpenOffice or some DOS-based word processors will discover that this "save with line breaks" thing is the only thing MSOffice does well which the contenders do not do at least as well.
Now let's see if anything else important was said yesterday, or if we just got 200 comments about tone ...
And I expect that sharing this technique with you people will make reading more of the blogosphere more easy on the eyes.
I go with italics - the vertical line thing looks nice but it all seems too complicated for me. To do italics all you need to do is copy and paste someone else's comments and put {em} at the beginning and {/em} at the end - except, use pointy brackets instead of {} (it's a standard html tag)
Commenters seem to drop off on Fridays and at weekends - I think it would be easier to get more comments during the week.
Do people post from work? Isn't someone paying them to be doing something else? I always wonder about that. Is it ok as long as it's God's will that they post?
Sam --
| Frank, as usual
| you overstate your case.
That’s interesting – because what I didn’t say was that Steve Camp should be chucked out as a disreputable person. I said he makes mistakes but still stands up, like a protagonist in a kung fu movie, and believes his Kung Fu is the best Kung Fu.
I guess you have to have watched two Kung Fu movies to understand how funny that is. If you can’t watch two kung fu movies, I suggest you watch one, specifically Kung Fu Hustle, as the self-parodying top of the genre in order to get the joke.
| I think
| it is reasonable to expect you
| to show respect for Steve "in
| spite of his human foibles..."
| BTW do you see yourself as
| having any?
Here’s an experiment: search my blog for the phrase "I apologize". Now conduct the same poll on Steve’s blog. Just in case you think I have somehow mistaken myself for the Pope of Blogging.
BTW, my Dad thinks I’m the Pope of Cynics. I like that title better.
| I do not see
| myself as a Steve Camp
| apologist, he and I have had
| differing opinions on issues in
| the past. The difference is we
| dealt with them with civility. My
| problem with your post is that
| you purposely wrote something
| with the hope of getting a
| reaction out of Steve.
A pox upon me. If comparing Steve to a Kung Fu hero is "uncivil", jokes have just become an endangered species on the Christian internet.
| So in this
| case there is a "problem with
| the messenger." It's called sin.
Let me say plainly that it was here which inspired me to give you the time of day, Sam. Which sin did I commit, specifically? "incivility"? For a joke?
Dude – I once saw Swanberg do 5 minutes on Billy Graham that had me crying it was so funny, and the things he said about Dr. Graham, in comparison to the Kung Fu remark, were shocking. At some place, people have to take what they do with some sort of self-deprecation. That would be actual humility rather than the hyper-pious long faces which many people use as a substitute for the fact that we are each flawed and needy and God is perfect and generous. If we are really jars of clay in the hands of the almighty Potter, maybe we ought to admit that some of the stuff we do ought to be laughed at.
Because it should be. If we don’t recognize it as funny, we’re sunk. We’re unreachable and unable to reach others. Some of us have the good sense to take the jokes about ourselves to the limit – you know, like opening an on-line t-shirt shop. And those people who would stand up for me in the event of civility emergency, think the jokes are funny. Someone once even sent me a TeamPyro woven blanket (which couldn’t have been cheap) as part of the gag.
Live a little. Asking other people to take themselves with a grain of salt is not a sin – especially when it’s clear that we, at TeamPyro, hardly take ourselves so seriously that there are no legitimate jokes out there about us.
| You really want to start an
| argument so you can reach
| 1000 posts? Come on guys,
| pyromaniacs is better than that.
We prolly could, but I promise you that the next notch on the argue-meter (which would be "8" on 10 hashmarks) would actually offend rather than simply point out the comedy of one guy you think deserves "more respect".
And for the record, I think it was right-minded and right-hearted of Steve to take the joke as a joke. Turns out he’s no Bruce Lee, but I’d be happy to call him Billy Jack or Black Belt Jones.
My apologies for taking my wife and kids out for the day yesterday and not getting a hall pass from my pastor, the elders, the guys at T4G, and the president of the Steve Camp fan club.
At least you didn't "step out to mow the lawn." Sheesh! But at least we got that particular heresy addressed while you were gone. Daryl has repented...until next week.
Since you’re awake early (or late) Helen:
| So did God make audible
| sounds in this conversation? Or
| did he speak into Balaam's
| mind?
I’d love to read up on how God "speaks into [someone’s] mind", but that concept is completely alien to the OT text. You can’t find it there. God spoke in words. If you had been standing next to Balaam, you would have heard it for yourself.
| Does God speak into
| your mind?
Nope. Not the way you mean here.
| Like, when you are
| trying to figure out whether a)
| or not a) is God's will for you,
| how do you do that?
One of the things Paul makes clear (not to jump around in the Bible, but this is important) is that God doesn’t give daily Franklin Planner "to do’s" for every single believer. Paul says plainly in the pastoral letters – and more broadly in the letters to the churches – that the common Christian life is governed by precept and principle and not vague impulses. But he is specific (for example, in the case of Timothy) that if one receives some instruction via a prophecy one has an obligation to follow it through.
I have never received a prophecy about my life. A part of me would like that – but the rest of me, all the parts which take seriously the weight and burden of God speaking to me personally with instruction or insight, would rather not get more than what I am already overwhelmed with. The Bible is far more instruction than I am able to implement on a daily basis as it is. All I need is for God to say, "Frank, write this down," or "Frank, drive to Tulsa and find the guy who was struck blind on his way to Muskogee".
Reading the Bible is a different thing than chatting in blog comments, and the Christian life is hardly about chatting with God across the proverbial back yard fence.
| One of
| the biggest places I got stuck
| was: God is unknowable,
| because if I try to hear him in
| my head I have no idea if that's
| just me talking to myself.
I would agree that you’re not listening for God’s telepathic voice in your head. But you have demonstrated such a lack of basic knowledge of the Bible here in this comment thread, I would suggest you have never either heard His voice as he has delivered it to us in English.
BTW, you say that you have somehow "received" the implications of what Paul said to Timothy, but I don’t see how you have demonstrated that at all. What’s the point of citing that verse, and why does it impact the way we have to see the assembling of the NT?
| I go
| to the Bible - definitely outside
| my head which adds helpful
| objectivity - Christians greatly
| disagree over what it means so,
| still, things are too unclear.
Hogwash. Give me one example of a text in the Bible which relates – directly or indirectly – to the exhortation I gave you (Jesus died for sin, so the offer from God is "Repent and believe") upon which Christians disagree. You could even make the definition of "Christian" broad enough to include all cathecized Catholics, and you still couldn’t find one where the disagreement about what it means to repent of sin against a Holy God is significant enough to warrant that kind of skepticism.
However, I offer you the opportunity to prove me wrong.
| I expect you would say this is
| EXACTLY why you are so
| concerned about the EC. They
| are the ones muddying the
| water.
Many of the EC reject that the central idea of the Gospel is man’s sinfulness in the face of God’s righteousness. But it’s not because they think the Bible is confusing about this issue: it’s because the Bible is –not- confusing about this issue but the statements of man’s guilt and the penalty for such a thing is ugly to them.
That’s not about what the Bible says: that’s about what we’re going to do with what the Bible says.
| But my problems
| arose in VCC-land when I found
| myself continually noticing: "I
| think God's will (for me) is A,
| but this other Christian
| evidently thinks it's not A".
|
[-snip-]
|
| Yes, these are personal,
| subjective and anecdotal.
|
| But I expect somehow,
| somewhere, you have the same;
| you have personal experiences
| of God which anchor your
| beliefs.
The place where my faith in God is anchored is in the work of Jesus Christ. Christianity is not a moralistic religion – it doesn’t say, "if you do all these good works, you’ll be right with God." In fact, it says, "you can’t do all these things which you yourself admit are good." Christianity is not a therapudic religion – it doesn’t say, "God will make everything better if you just follow this formula." In fact, it says, "if you follow God, and follow the cross of Christ, your life (by worldly standards) is going to get a lot harder; there’s a price for discipleship."
And most importantly, Christianity doesn’t say, "God is giving you your best life right now." The promise of Christianity is the Resurrection.
The anchor of my faith is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scripture, and was buried and raised from the dead in accordance with Scripture. The offer of forgiveness is real, and the call to be a Christ-like disciple who does not achieve self-fulfillment but in fact achieves Gospel fulfillment by the work of Christ is real.
After that, you can have my beater car and my job. You can have my aspirations to be this or that. You can also have my personal experiences – they’re all tainted by my own self-obsession. I have a savior who saves.
| When people ask me
| to repent - am I supposed to
| repent of being honest enough
| to say I don't know, and start
| pretending I have faith I don't
| have?
|
| Am I supposed to
| repent of rejecting all cruel and
| unkind religion practised
| supposedly in the name of God
| who is love/abounding in
| loving-kindness?
|
| Am I
| supposed to repent that the
| discussion board I host is a
| place where I welcome guests
| and treat them with respect no
| matter what they
| believe?
|
| What exactly am I
| supposed to repent of?
From reading your posts here, you should repent of sin. For example, the sin of thinking that your personal goals are the most important thing in your life – your demand to serve in one specific way rather than in ways your church finds useful or necessary.
I’m a pretty good teacher, but until recently I only subbed occasionally at church because there were no openings. So I served by doing the baptism laundry, and by sitting with the 3-yr-olds during the main service. That’s not to say I’m perfect, but it’s to say that here’s one example of where you do not recognize your own selfishness: you reject church because it doesn’t conform to your own image of how the world ought to perceive you.
Start by repenting of being selfish in motive and in spirit. If you do that, I’ll bet other things will come to mind.
| I have a picture of what I think
| Jesus stands for, if he is
| real.
You could repent of that, too. Let me suggest that you doubt the reality of Jesus because He makes demands on your life in the broadest terms which you reject. Repent of being skeptical for the sake of disobedience.
However, it would be useful to see what your picture of Jesus is. How did you come by it without the New Testament?
| I am not going to repent
| in any way which takes me
| further away from that.
|
| And
| in this I suppose I *am* deeply
| aligned with EC thinking.
|
| The
| Spirit blows where it wills.
Well, suit yourself. I have to get ready for Community Life at church. I prolly won’t be back by here until tomorrow, so don’t over-react if I don’t post any replies until then.
Frank thanks for posting a serious answer to my comment. Have fun at church. I'll respond to it more later (or sooner, maybe).
I
think
Phil & Frank
have
been
gracious
and done "ministry" in this comment thread-it's has given grace to the hearers.
The new poster is impressive. I like the hand on the Bible.
I remember when the court rooms used to have Bibles we would put our hands on to swear an oath.
Now you simply raise your hand and swear to tell the truth, I guess we're promising to one another?
When the Word of God goes, and we make don't fight ot keep it, then God will leave us, and how scary is that.
But there is a remnant in the Church fighting to keep God's Word pure and established as the final authority of the Church.
May the Lord grant us His power, love, and wisdom to continue the fight. Amen.
Now off to church to thank the Lord for His mercy with His people.
Frank
(I guess it’s sooner)
It seems to me that you (and others) are making judgments about my character based on things which aren’t necessarily character issues. Some of the things you are using to prove me selfish (I think that’s unfair) and arrogant (again I think that’s a mischaracterization) and immature (ok, you might be onto something there) make no more sense to me than if you said my choice to switch grocery stores proves me selfish, arrogant and immature. There could be reasons. Maybe because of time you shop at the closest store and you can afford to. Maybe I am short of money, but have time, so I will drive to a further away grocery store to save money. Sometimes there are reasons we make different choices which have nothing to do with character.
(I am going to try to avoid peddling my unbelief – I hope I haven’t already failed in that attempt)
There are Christians who share your core Christian beliefs who deeply believe in the personal call of God, in vocations, etc. I respect that this is not your own experience and I would not judge you as ‘less’ of a Christian because of it. However, I think those other people would understand if I said I felt strongly and deeply called into a certain type of ministry - and that was why I responded when my church invited people to join a particular ministry. Maybe their reasons for saying no to me in particular were justifiable based on their perspective. In fact you might agree that they were if I gave more details. However, since I felt so strongly God wanted me to take the course to be trained that way, their ‘no’ was difficult to understand. And when another way to do it opened up I felt God had again confirmed, yes, I do want you to do this.
In general my approach to church was to say yes if asked to serve and I was available; and to volunteer if there seemed to be a need I could meet which I hadn’t been specifically asked to meet. And if they said no, I accepted that. I accepted the ‘no’ about the course; I just wasn’t happy about it because it didn’t seem to match what I thought God had said. Anyway, I’ve served in the nursery, on the nursery committee, on the website committee, as an instrumentalist and I gave significant time helping with worship music administration in my last couple of years at church. One of my biggest concerns about that was “if I have this many doubts should I tell them?” so that they would be fully informed about who was coming into the office – for trust reasons or whatever. I did eventually say something and they said it was ok. (I don't mean that they affirmed my lack of certainty but that they said "yes we don't have a problem with you continuing to help us this way") A year after that I couldn’t handle continuing to go to church anymore so I resigned from actively serving and stopped going.
I started a Bible study in my office (before hours) which went for a while. I think I asked permission to have it there (I hope so). For a while I was a discussion leader in a Bible study which required several hours of my time per week in order to fulfill the responsibilities that went with the role.
These days Off The Map folks know I volunteer significant time to them.
You asked about disagreement over Scripture. We no doubt see this differently because all the people in your group of who counts as Christian agree on core beliefs. Whereas I would consider the views of everyone who self-identifies as Christian. And if they all agreed you never would have posted this post, nor would you guys writing other things and making posters in the hope of alerting EC Christians to how wrong their beliefs are. I have already mentioned that one passage I am hung up on is Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus decides who goes to heaven and who doesn’t based on demonstrated kindness, rather than based on belief. Anyway enough of me and my beliefs/lack thereof in case I am crossing the line again.
I hope I addressed some of your points.
Frank—...saw Swanberg do 5 minutes on Billy Graham...almighty Potter....
Rats. Two more things we left out of the title:
Billy Graham
Harry Potter
Just in case you all wanted to read for yourself the silly article on the second burning of Burning Man and who the "malcontents" are who go these days (doctors, lawyers, etc.). Kinda funny. Just a background to a previous comment I made. Hope I did the link thing right.
For a weird reason, if you click on the date, it shows the link. I am so confused.
Sam—I was going to delete my comments in shame but I don't want to take away from your number
Now, that's brotherly love!
Also, it would take away from the historical documentation of this whole saga for future scholarship, and nobody wants that! Think of the children!
(c;`
Candy—I am so confused.
It's Blogger's job to make and keep us confused.
To their credit, most of the time what it does makes perfect sense. But you, others, and I have all had the experience of very straightforward linking code in response to which Blogger simply folds its arms, digs its heels in, and announces, "Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent!"
Oh, mercy.
If you haven't, and aren't too squeamish, you should click on the home page link "Buffet" (under "Links I have liked lately").
It has a bunch of pictures from a restaurant whose name at least should be "Everything on a Stick."
Dan,
My children are the reason I would have deleted!!! Have a great Sunday.
Sam
Helen said to Frank: I have already mentioned that one passage I am hung up on is Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus decides who goes to heaven and who doesn’t based on demonstrated kindness, rather than based on belief. Anyway enough of me and my beliefs/lack thereof in case I am crossing the line again.
There you go again misunderstanding the truth because of an underlying refusal to believe it.
Jesus is speaking about fruit. Fruit is what God produces in you by the Holy Spirit through the obedience of faith. Get it? God produces it in you. Let me repeat that. God produces it in you. You cannot produce fruit. You can abide in the vine so that the vine produces the fruit - and you will abide if you are truly His, because He will uphold you.
So you will be preserved through your perseverance. You will be accepted if you keep on until the end. But you will only keep on to the end by the grace of God. You will be rewarded for the fruit of your obedience but you will know that the reward is all a part of God's gift to you in Christ Jesus, and you will cast your crowns at His feet.
God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. We think He is altogether as we are - but He is not. The Way He has provided is narrow and, though not illogical, goes beyond what mere human thinking would invent. God is transcendent. He has revealed enough in His Word for you to be saved if you will - but it will never be enough to save you if you will not.
Moreover, even our desire to be saved is itself a result of the work of God. Regeneration and faith and repentance are all gifts of God to His elect. But God rightly commands, and has the right to expect, that all men love and obey Him, even though they cannot do it apart from His intervention.
The net result of all this immovable force and irresistible object stuff is that we are utterly emptied of all hope in self. We cannot justify ourselves. We cannot pay the penalty of our sin - neither original nor subsequent. We cannot do anything acceptable to God in spiritual causes. Instead of we considering if we are going to believe God and judging all things by the standards of our warped, corrupt and fallen minds, we submit to the wisdom of God, which is literally and figuratively in the Living Word (Jesus Christ) and the written Word. This good news is foolishness to many, but the wisdom of God to those who are being saved.
So, Helen, you know nothing. You are like all of us. Of yourself you know nothing and you are nothing. And it will take an act of God alone for you to accept this in the deepest part of your being. But until you do, you will continue to sit in judgment of Him and His Word, looking for objections so that you can maintain your unbelief. That is nothing unique. You are not a special case. Get over yourself. Plead for mercy and grace, for repentance and faith, and keep on pleading until you know you have received them.
Helen,
Here's a simple test: what is the gospel? If you can describe it clearly and confidently with reference to scripture, in a few hundred words or less, you are a Christian. If you can't, you're not.
And btw, instead of running round the same old mulberry bush for the 490th time, why don't you emergents rise to the occasion: what is the gospel? Go on the offense! (No doubt this has been done before--apologies, if so)
DLP stated:
>More like Proverbs 26:5, BH.
I believe Proverbs 26:4 is the applicable scripture.At least it seems to fit.
But whatever the case, I am a fool for Jesus. Hope you are as well.
John 4:24
DLP stated "More like Proverbs 26:5, BH."
The applicable scripture is Proverbs 26:4 actually.
But having said that, I freely admit to being a fool for Jesus.
Don't take this as personal but rather for any readers -- who's fool are you?
John 4:24
Helen said to Frank: I have already mentioned that one passage I am hung up on is Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus decides who goes to heaven and who doesn’t based on demonstrated kindness, rather than based on belief. Anyway enough of me and my beliefs/lack thereof in case I am crossing the line again.
agonizomai: There you go again misunderstanding the truth because of an underlying refusal to believe it.
Jesus is speaking about fruit. Fruit is what God produces in you by the Holy Spirit through the obedience of faith. Get it? God produces it in you. Let me repeat that. God produces it in you. You cannot produce fruit. You can abide in the vine so that the vine produces the fruit - and you will abide if you are truly His, because He will uphold you.
agonizomai that's not what Jesus said, according to the passage.
Kevin wrote: Here's a simple test: what is the gospel? If you can describe it clearly and confidently with reference to scripture, in a few hundred words or less, you are a Christian. If you can't, you're not.
Kevin, you are sooooo wrong. Where did you get the idea that quoting a short description of *anything* saves a person?
You need to read the posts to me saying I need to *repent*.
Sewing, thank you for your comments.
I have added two more movies.
Note: I wasn't entirely happy with the "Maturity" poster, because it conflated two ideas. So I revamped it and added another one. If you're not seeing a new caption under "Maturity" that starts out "Yeah, when I was like you..." just hit reload while holding down your ctrl key. That'll clear the cache so you should get the revised edition.
Both of these were inspired by this comment thread. We're grateful for all the feedback.
Phil, Jim asked me to offer you a free ticket to Off The Map Live. Every year he offers one to someone who doesn't like Off The Map. If you'd like the ticket please e-mail us at info AT offthemap.com - using @ instead of AT in the address, of course.
So now with Phil's two posters (including revisions), this post truly is a team effort?
Re Agonizomai:
I write a lot and say little of substance. Others write little and say a lot.
Helen:
Tell him I said thanks. I generally look for every excuse I can to go to Seattle. But that weekend is impossible; I'm already scheduled to teach in a conference here in SoCal.
So I received my copy of R.C. Sproul (gen. ed.)'s Reformation Study Bible the other day and it is worth infinitely more than its weight in gold (even much fine gold). In just the last three days, I have gotten so much out of it. And what was this week's sermon on? Psalm 119! Hah! I had no idea! And the application? Study God's Word as He has revealed it to us in Scripture!
Meanwhile, I was debating whether to now pass on Yancey's NIV Student Bible (which I have to say, is really not half bad, and probably as good as it gets for a seeker's or new believer's Bible) to someone close to me who may be at the right point in her life for it, and someone in our discipleship class out of the blue talks about how much she loves sharing her books with others, lending them with no expectation of getting them back, or flat out giving them away.
"If you love a book, give it to others!" I think is what she said.
Phil,
I wish I had awesome dreads like Justification Dude. And I never said I doubted the Bible--I don't, nor do I try to edit it. I'm a 66-canon-er kinda guy. (Though I do like the deutercanonical books, I'll admit...Psalm 151 doesn't have quite the poetic edge the other 150 do, but it still packs some punch. If it's good enough for the Coptic Orthodox Church, it's good enough for me!) But for being at least part of the reason for inspiring such fits of artistic flourish...thanks! I'm honored.
"The strength of Appreciative Inquiry is that it focuses on positives rather than negatives in the pursuit of change.
The presumption is that, yes, there needs to be change. Things are not the way they should be. By focusing in on things we can affirm, we are not denying the Fall. Instead, we are shifting our sole focus from the Fall to Creation.
Theologically, when we practice affirmative inquiry, we are saying that the essential nature of humanity is not our depravity but our being created in the image of God. For far too long, our evangelism efforts have started with our falleness, our sinfulness. While our sinfulness is certainly true, it is not the beginning of the story of humanity; the story begins with our uniqueness as image-bearers. The story begins with telling us about God’s glorious intention for humanity: that we would shine forth His glory as we reflect His loving essence."
For those asking about a positive emerging articulation of the gospel, here is one that Vanguard Church is using in its evangelistic endeavors. You can read the rest of it here.
BTW, this is Mike Morrell. I just realized that I'm posting via blogger while logged into an alternative Gmail account. Sorry for any confusion.
Thanks Phil - I'll let Jim know. I'm sorry you can't make it.
The part of the Frank-n-Dan collaboration that I appreciated most when I first read it and continue to appreciate with subsequent readings is this:
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).
I look forward to many more such affirmations of God's Word here on PyroManiacs.
Though this post was written by Frank and Dan, if I had to vote via pink, red, or black beads, I'd say the use of the phrase nerf bat seems an awful lot like the kind of editorial touch Phil would add.
Mike,
I read "Affirmative Enquiry". What is the ultimate destiny of those who refuse to affirm Jesus?
Sorry, "Appreciative Inquiry" :)
Helen: agonizomai that's not what Jesus said, according to the passage.
Ah yes - the Helen hermeneutic! Read what Jesus said in John 15, put the two passages together and be careful that you don't start to get the beginnings a systematic theology :-) Then mix in a little of Mark 10:18 where Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? There is none good but God alone." (and if you come up with the interpretation that Jesus was denying His goodness by this statement go back to "START" but do not pass "Go" and do not collect $200. (that's about $188 CDN)
I would like to share some observations about doubt. All doubt is sin because it is disbelief. Many godly people have seasons of doubt, and we are, I would guess, all assailed by it from time to time, especially early on in our Christian walk. This is because all believers still commit sin, but the true ones look to God for help and forgiveness. This sort of doubt is that which comes against what we believe. It is, if you like, an external attack. We are in the citadel of faith and the devil assaults the walls, looking for an opening.
But then there is your sort of doubt. That is the sort that comes from within the citadel, and repels the truth that is hammering at the gate. There is a huge difference and here is why...
You, and others with the nihilistic postmodern mindset, make a virtue out of doubt. You doubt and then excuse or adorn that doubt with a claim to the virtue of honesty, or modesty or "humility", as if the addition of a human virtue to sin somehow makes it alright. It doesn't. Christians may doubt, and they may admit that they doubt - but they never excuse their doubt or think of it as anything but the sin that it is. Doubt is disbelieving God. We all do it, but we don't all make a virtue out of it. If we did, we would be calling evil "good" and bringing the curse of God upon ourselves.
Phil had it pretty well nailed in his commentary upon your participation. Not that this is likely to instill a great deal of confidence in what I say but, having spent many years in the mental health system (as a consumer), I recognize a help-rejecting complainer when I see one. Which is to say that that there is a professional unbelief present against which no amount of argument or indulgence, no proffered help can be of any avail because the person invariably rejects that help, having decided that they are beyond help, and being content with that situation. The unbelief itself becomes mere craving for attention. It is a sort of spiritual Munchausen's syndrome.
I think that this warrants the dire but loving admonishment contained in Phil's reference to Hebrew 6 and 10 - to which you never bothered to respond. If these passages don't scare the Dickens out of you in the place where you claim to be then I honestly think further interaction would be equally fruitless. I don't want to feed the trolls - not even to get the comment count up - and no matter if they are agonizingly, pathetically and sweetly yanking at the strings of my compassion.
Agonizomai:
Bingo. Well said.
Mike Morrell inspires me.
Check the two newest posters at the top of the master list. I didn't want to bog this post down with too many additional graphics, so I didn't add them to the above post. Check them out anyway.
agonizomai wrote (and Phil agreed): Read what Jesus said in John 15, put the two passages together
agonizomai, I didn't see any Matthew 25 in what you said; that was my problem with it. It seemed to be all John 15. Maybe you can point out the parts which wouldn't be there if it weren't for Matthew 25.
I recognize a help-rejecting complainer when I see one.
I don't think I've complained enough to warrant being called a 'complainer'. Even Paul and Jesus complained sometimes - if you define complaining as being honest about difficult life experiences.
If these passages don't scare the Dickens out of you
I'm not afraid of those or any other Bible passages because I'm trusting that if Jesus is real he understands where I'm at and why.
I know, I know...several of you think that is really stupid of me.
Agonizomai,
Thank you for your latest comments concerning Helen. Every time I sit down to respond to some of what she has said, I find you or Phil have more fittingly responded than I would have.
Helen
When I consider all of the time and gentleness spent responding to your complaints and your continued indifference to the contradictory nature of your replies, I am reminded of Proverbs' warning about rejecting wisdom (Proverbs 1:20-33, sorry for no link). While the disaster spoken of here is likely in this world, there lies a disaster coming to all such as you, and you will find the Jesus you are trusting in to have been your own fabrication. May God mete out justice on that day.
Enoch
etrangere (sorry, I can html, but I'm a bit rubbish about accents on letter, but hey, someone can enlighten me and add to the count...)
just wanted to say it still looks red in the new picture. But then so does mine, and I'm actually going grey in real life...
It's not just "stupid," Helen; it's evil. By your own testimony, your problem is not an inability to understand; it's an unwillingness to believe.
"Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). In other words, even if every person in the world says something is false, if God says otherwise, you'd better believe Him. You refuse to do that. It's not that you don't undestand what the Bible says; it's that you don't like what it says. So you impugn God rather than humble yourself.
Helen, for what it's worth, I have actually been in the same thought loop as you seem to be in before now. It's not fun, and it's very frustrating.
It might seem utterly impossible right now, but I do want you to know that the comments that have addressed you - those which have been gentle in tone, and those which have been harsher - have all been made with honest passionate love for you.
I know you know all this, but I wanted to say it again - you've been given good counsel here, and I really do pray that it will help you get over the hump of unbelief.
I also wanted to say sorry to anyone who felt my previous comments on thread have been unduly harsh. My very english husband pricked my conscience when he pointed out that it's not really very proper to be quite so pugilistic. I shall go and daintily sip tea with my pinky finger upturned as penance...
Gracious me, I've just seen the time. I need to get to bed! Monster threads like this are not good for keeping to a decent schedule..
thanks libbie.
Phil, I don't understand the part about my unwillingness to believe. I don't see how I can make myself believe. As best I can tell it's not a choice. In your experience did you choose to believe? Was it a choice you made?
Phil said: "..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 Wright... er, right, the first time? Why didn't He make it plain enough for non-specialists to "get" what He was saying?"
The leaders of thousands of Xn denominations and sub-denominations have been asking the same questions for centuries, yet keep coming up with different answers. Guess it's just not "plain" enough?
Helen,
You have no trouble believing the parts you want to believe about Jesus. So it must be that you won't believe, not that you can't believe, the other parts.
In Matthew 22, When asked what is the greatest commandment,
37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.
Then in John 14:
23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
and in 1 John 3:
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.
Helen,
Jesus is not saying that kindness trumps belief. He is saying that kindness is EVIDENCE of belief.
If you believe Him, you'll love Him, and if you love Him, you'll obey Him and love others. Love is patient, love is KIND... 1 Cor. 13:4.
Unbelievers can be kind, but they won't get to heaven for it. There is only one way, and that is through faith in Christ.
I'm praying that your eyes will opened to the Truth.
Helen: agonizomai, I didn't see any Matthew 25 in what you said; that was my problem with it. It seemed to be all John 15. Maybe you can point out the parts which wouldn't be there if it weren't for Matthew 25.
Alright, Helen - I'll finish the thought and tie it all together for you. But after this I'm done.
The parable of the talents ends in Matthew 25:29-30 where we see two things...
1) "To everyone who has, more will be given and he will have in abundance, but from him who does not have even what he has will be taken away."
Who are the ones who have? They are the obedient and productive ones. Obedient + productive = abiding and trusting God to produce the fruit for which they are commended. This does not differ from John 15 - rather it complements, confirms and illustrates it. They say the same thing, but in John the emphasis is on the sovereign grace and power of our Saviour and in Matthew 25 the emphasis is upon the responsibility of disciples to believe and obey. However, both elements of the teaching are contained in both passages.
2) "And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth."
We see that the unprofitable servant, being finally condemned, was never a child of God in the first place, since the true children are never cast away. His unprofitability was not in his failure to produce, but in his failure to believe and abide. He didn't trust God to give the increase by using the talent he had been given.
You see, Helen, it all comes down to belief - Biblical belief, which is more than mere mental assent. Biblical belief rests completely in the finished work, omnipotent power and fathomless grace of God in Jesus Christ. It rests in these things not in mind alone, but in the warp and woof of living - where the rubber meets the road, day in and day out - and where fruit is produced.
Worldliness (This is you, Helen) says to God,"Show me and I will believe you." God says to us, "Believe Me and I will show you." (better yet, "Believe Me and you will see Me.") But so that I don't get dragged off on another tangent, I hasten to add that there is sufficient that has been shown to mankind for continued unbelief to be inexcusable.
If this doesn't satisfy you, Helen, don't look for more from me. Like they say in the WalMart training sessions after 40 minutes of computer-based learning, "You've listened enough, now go and practice what you've learned." That Sam Walton - What a guy!
Sewing, Phil and Enoch or Merrilee
Thanks for the encouragement and the confirmation that what is given to me to say is true. I don't comment often, so it warms me if I find I am attuned to the unity in the Spirit whenever I do take a break from lurking.
Blessings
"You, and others with the nihilistic postmodern mindset, make a virtue out of doubt."
Thank you.
Black Hat—Nope. 1 Corinthians 2:11 being true, I know my motivation, you don't. Proverbs 26:5.
Verse 4 may describe this response.
My aim is to be no fool at all, in God's eyes (Proverbs 27:11). I commend that same aim to you.
agonizomai—You, and others with the nihilistic postmodern mindset, make a virtue out of doubt. You doubt and then excuse or adorn that doubt with a claim to the virtue of honesty, or modesty or "humility", as if the addition of a human virtue to sin somehow makes it alright. It doesn't
Wonderfully well said. That and the rest, as well. Spot on.
Phil, Frank, makes me wonder yet again whether we should have a "Comment of the Week."
Libbie: just select and copy her name off her comment. Gets her pretentious little French accent thingies.
(c;
John L said...
Phil said: "..it makes you wonder not only why God wrote the Book, but why He made such a poor job of it....
"Phil" said? The only one of us NOT credited with writing this post?
< forehead slap >
Guy can't get credit (or blame) for NOTHIN'.
| It seems to me that you (and
| others) are making judgments
| about my character based on
| things which aren't necessarily
| character issues.
Sin is not a "character" issue, Helen: it's a "nature" issue. You happen to be just like me in one very specific way: you're a sinner.
Think about this: the world is full of bad things happening, and by a long shot most of the bad things that happen are things people do to each other. That should say something to someone. I'm hoping it will say something to you.
| Some of the
| things you are using to prove
| me selfish (I think that's unfair)
| and arrogant (again I think
| that's a mischaracterization)
| and immature (ok, you might be
| onto something there) make no
| more sense to me than if you
| said my choice to switch
| grocery stores proves me
| selfish, arrogant and immature.
I am pretty sure what I said to you was this:
[QUOTE]
From reading your posts here, you should repent of sin. For example, the sin of thinking that your personal goals are the most important thing in your life – your demand to serve in one specific way rather than in ways your church finds useful or necessary.
[/QUOTE]
I didn't say "selfish" or "arrogant" or "immature". You did. What I did was simply repeat back to you one of the personal anecdotes you have reported here in the meta and tell you plainly it's sinful to make personal goals the most important thing in your life.
| There could be reasons. Maybe
| because of time you shop at
| the closest store and you can
| afford to. Maybe I am short of
| money, but have time, so I will
| drive to a further away grocery
| store to save money.
| Sometimes there are reasons
| we make different choices
| which have nothing to do with
| character.
What's at stake is not "character". What's at stake is whether or not some external organization -- in this case, a church, but it could be a basket-weaving club for the sake of the example -- has a duty to do exactly what you want it to do when it has internal rules which say that what you want isn't what the organization will allow.
They don't -- but you don't have any inclination that this is true.
| (I am going to try
| to avoid peddling my unbelief -
| I hope I haven't already failed in
| that attempt)
Well, OK.
| There are
| Christians who share your core
| Christian beliefs who deeply
| believe in the personal call of
| God, in vocations, etc. I respect
| that this is not your own
| experience and I would not
| judge you as 'less' of a Christian
| because of it. However, I think
| those other people would
| understand if I said I felt
| strongly and deeply called into
| a certain type of ministry - and
| that was why I responded when
| my church invited people to
| join a particular ministry. Maybe
| their reasons for saying no to
| me in particular were justifiable
| based on their perspective. In
| fact you might agree that they
| were if I gave more details.
| However, since I felt so strongly
| God wanted me to take the
| course to be trained that way,
| their 'no' was difficult to
| understand. And when another
| way to do it opened up I felt
| God had again confirmed, yes, I
| do want you to do this.
I'm pretty sure you have just made the case precisely regarding what I said you did. You should repent of that -- actually turn away from it and ask for forgiveness -- and see if some other sins don't become obvious as being part of the undergirding of why you did that.
[ - snip - ]
| You asked about disagreement
| over Scripture. We no doubt
| see this differently because all
| the people in your group of who
| counts as Christian agree on
| core beliefs. Whereas I would
| consider the views of everyone
| who self-identifies as Christian.
It seems odd that you would count someone as "Christian" who doesn't for example, believe in the resurrection of Christ. In what way would that person be Christian?
| And if they all agreed you never
| would have posted this post,
| nor would you guys writing
| other things and making
| posters in the hope of alerting
| EC Christians to how wrong
| their beliefs are.
You are conflating two different issues. My affirmation to you is that anyone who is broadly Christian will affirm to you the need to repent and believe. You have blown that up to mean that anyone who is a Christian will believe that, for example, 1 Cor is the final box of nails in the coffin against continualist doctrine.
Those are not the same thing. I haven't asked to you believe or disbelieve in the supernatural gifts: I have declared to you that you need to repent and believe.
| I have already
| mentioned that one passage I
| am hung up on is Matthew
| 25:31-46 where Jesus decides
| who goes to heaven and who
| doesn't based on demonstrated
| kindness, rather than based on
| belief. Anyway enough of me
| and my beliefs/lack thereof in
| case I am crossing the line
| again.
|
| I hope I addressed some of your
| points.
This will probably be my last post to you, Helen, because you have everything you need to make the right decision -- you just don't want to. I'll be praying for you, but I don't have anything else to say.
"For far too long, our evangelism efforts have started with our falleness, our sinfulness." -mike
I wish that were the truth. Todays preaching of the Gospel, as far as I see it for the most part, is "God has a wonderful plan for your life because He loves you so, so why not accepy Him today, you would make Him one happy God".
This is such a sugar-coated gospel.
I think words form our Lord, such as, "If your eye causes you to sin pluck it out", are words of truth spoken in love, that are missing from today's preaching of his good news.
There is the "bad news", and we need to tell it, so that the "good news" is genuine.
Rom. 1:16
I'll admit it up-front, I haven't read all 523 comments, but I felt compelled to add to the discussion with Helen. So if I am repeating someone else, just use this post towards your goal of 1000.
Helen, yes it is true that you cannot manufacture faith. It is a gift from God. And it is true that those who call you to repent and believe do so rightly. But here's the rub: it doesn't seem like you have a desire to believe and to have faith. So my advice is to pray for faith. If it is a gift from God and not of our own making, and if you do truly wish to believe, than pray with all your might that God would give you faith. You can post here and repeat as often as needed that you can't make yourself believe, but until you ask God for faith, then all the arguments in the world won't make much of a difference.
May God give you that faith you find so elusive . . .
agonizomai said "You, and others with the nihilistic postmodern mindset, make a virtue out of doubt. You doubt and then excuse or adorn that doubt with a claim to the virtue of honesty, or modesty or "humility", as if the addition of a human virtue to sin somehow makes it alright. It doesn't."
Since when did "doubt" become "sin"? Create a straw man and attack it.. yeah - make this your "quote of the week."
Phil - sorry for the errant attribution. I don't spend much time here, was pointed here by a lady pentecostal pastor in L.A. (Cynthia Ware), and beg foregiveness. I have no idea who you or your other team members are.
These kinds of blogs remind me of Simon Peter chopping off the Centurions ear. He meant well. And Lord knows, I would probably do the same thing in his position.
i've been wirelessless all weekend, but i'll help the comment count climb now...
kevin said:
Here's a simple test: what is the gospel? If you can describe it clearly and confidently with reference to scripture, in a few hundred words or less, you are a Christian. If you can't, you're not.
i'm sure this isn't exactly what you mean right kevin?
couldn't the devil pass this test?
there really is more to being a Christian than right knowledge, isn't there?
John L: Since when did "doubt" become "sin"? Create a straw man and attack it.. yeah - make this your "quote of the week."
I answered that question already: If someone's doubt is merely weak faith seeking answers, it shouldn't be deprecated as sin (Mark 9:24).
However, unbelief that's rooted resentment toward the truth is another matter entirely. Scripture calls it evil (Hebrews 3:12).
One of the more serious failings of postmodern religion is its utter failure to make such a distinction.
Frank wrote: I didn't say "selfish" or "arrogant" or "immature". You did.
You're right - sorry I put words in your mouth.
I'm going to post the weekly dose of Spurgeon now. Everyone's free to carry on here.
But I think if this thread is ever going to reach 1K, it's going to need a lot more help.
john l: Since when did "doubt" become "sin"? Create a straw man and attack it..
"The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin."
(Rom 14:22-23)
Phil, we could do a Gene Scott, and say no more posts until this one hits a thousand. You know... sort of a Festival of Comment.
Yeah, you know what> We advertise The Dose o' Spurgeon® as a "weekend" feature, and since this is a three-day weekend, I can technically wait till tomorrow to post it.
That's what I'll do.
Carry on.
Here's
my
further
contribution
towards
the
goal...
You're
welcome.
;-)
"What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason. . . . The new skeptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. . . . There is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it's practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. . . . The old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which makes him stop working altogether. . . . We are on the road to producing a race of man too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table".
G.K. Chesterton (1908)
Where have all the defenders of the EC gone? Seems like they only come over to this blog when they can all come at once.(except Helen) Just an observation on my part. Love the post, hope we can keep pushing towards 1000.
DJP should watch slapping himself in the forehead. That can be harmful.
I think you should not change what you guys have to say because of us (the audience).
It is true that controversy will always attract more people, but I don't think it is worth it.
John L. Since when did "doubt" become "sin"? Create a straw man and attack it.. yeah - make this your "quote of the week."
Phil and Opn have beaten me to the punch on this one.
Since when did doubt cease to be sin? Since when did doubt become a virtue? Faith and doubt are antithetical.
But to show that there is no straw man but the one you raise let me ask the questions...
"Does doubt come from faith?"
"Can you doubt God to the glory of God?"
"Can you please God by doubting?"
"Do the words "Hath God indeed said...?" ring any bells?
If doubting the one true and trustworthy God is not sin - then what is sin in your book? If a whole world was lost by the sowing of doubt about God in the heart of Adam and Eve why does doubt get a pass in your theology?
Perhaps you are confusing doubt with temptation? A person can be tempted to doubt without sinning. But once doubt is embraced and entertained it is certainly sin.
The good news was not ignored in the earlier post. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses all believers from all sin because they repent and trust God. This forgiveness includes doubt repented of. Where's the problem with that?
Opn: Great quote from Chesterton.
Phil: You say it all so much more succinctly and charitably than I.
Nothing much to add....but will throw in my effort to get this up to 1000 comments!
You guys (TP) are awesome, love the posts. Ditto to the "missing the Gospel meat"...but exposing error is essential too.
I started reading all the comments...but after 200 or so I went brain dead. Uhmmmmm, your heckler's comments also reveal a lot about the EC.....say a major disconnect between "love" and "truth".
keep up the good work!
A couple of thoughts gleaned from the sermon today from 1 Samuel Chapter 3:1 ...And the Word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no widespread revelation. Our pastor made the point that God can very well withhold blessings when people despise his blessings. God can eventually withhold a heart of repentance as a judgment when people refuse to repent and remain impenitent. He is so merciful to us, but I would not want to tempt God, that is for sure.
He also made the point that starvation does not just come from lack of food but also lack of appetite.
Helen. Andy Warhol stated that everybody gets 15 minutes of fame. I hope you have come to this blog out of an inner desire to get to a place of truth. Narcissism isn't really that attractive.
I have a question. Answer honestly.
Who here has petitioned the Father that he might grant Helen believing, saving faith? Might we start there.
But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which makes him stop working altogether. . . . We are on the road to producing a race of man too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.
That's perfect! Chesterton put it marvelously.
Wonderful post, gentlemen, and the many meaty comments are a delight, as well.
Anne in Fort Worth
(I come back from church, look around, see scene of virtual flipped-over cars, virtual tear-gas cannisters rolling around, and people with quivering lips emitting soft, yet curdling yelps of terror, holding a KJV in one hand and a THE MESSAGE in the other)
So...ummm...I wonder how many pastors made THIS Pyro post the topic of their sermon today? Introduced, of course, by "We Didn't Start The Fire" by Billy Joel? :-)
Alright, a few serious comments ...
First, to Dan and Phil: I wanted to let you know again you've given God the glory in how you've handled this discussion---one that needs to be heard through the emergent church, Reformed church, and all points inbetween and beyond. And in this one, I think you've hit a grand-slam home run. And I am walking away with much stuff to learn, from how to handle people who we perceive to be or are "difficult" to deal with,
and how to do this well:
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,...
1 Peter 3:15 (NIV)
Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord...
Isaiah 1:18(ESV)
Second, what I'm trying to figure out is this: If the "emergent" or ANY church believes that Scripture is NOT perfect...why would anyone be compelled to attend, start or be a part of said "church", outside of Satan's minions controlling him/her?
Another worthwhile discussion in the whole Emergent belief is women pastors. If it is/isn't acceptable to have them, then what Scripture points to it? And if they are supposed to be silent in church, why are even the most conservative reformed Baptist churches have women as Sunday school teachers? That would be a nice 500+ response discussion! (I wonder what the record number of responses on a Blogger(tm) post is?)
Ah, well. Putting the face mask back on, as I see one of those tear gas cannisters are heading my way. :-) Have a good night!
Some of the Emergent-See posters touch upon the EC's belief that to be culturally relevant, we need to "fit in" with the world.
Here's a great Karl Barth quote regarding the problem with that:
"When the Church becomes secular, it is the greatest conceivable misfortune both for the Church and the world....It then loses its specific importance and meaning; the justification for its existence."
I gleaned that quote not from a Karl Barth volume, but from a book titled Selling Out the Church by Philip Kenneson and James Street. While this book is asbout the dangers of church growth methodologies, the quote applies well to the EC mantras about cultural relevancy.
Dr. euGene Scott. Why, oh why, did someone have to mention him? He has assumed room temperature, and probably hotter than that.
Now, my question "why oh why" has suddenly brought up horrific memories of childhood, and Sweet Polly Purebred's song, "where, oh where has my Underdog gone? Oh, where, oh where can he be?"
You see how these things can snowball.
I am so mad right now I just want to come out slapping. At several targets. But I can't. I just can't. I have to be nice. The last thing I would ever want to do is disappoint Brian McLaren.
TeamPyro might wanna do a blogspotting post in a couple days so the rest of us can get some idea of the "conversations" this blogpost generated 'round the blogosphere.
Philness: Who here has petitioned the Father that he might grant Helen believing, saving faith? Might we start there.
Not me. Not yet. But I will now, especially because of your reminder. Isn't the diversity of the Body great!
Philness - I did last night.
I'm wondering now if someone can explain 1John 5:16 to me.
Agonizomai,
Yes sir. It is as you say, great. Of which I am undeserving.
2 cents
Those have been some interesting new Emergent-see posters that Phil's come up with in the last couple of days.
Only 411 comments to go....
I'm willing to donate a comment to your cause. I haven't got something to say of the post that hasn't yet been said. There4,let me just say,
PYRO' ROCKS!!
~~AL
philness wrote: I have a question. Answer honestly.
Who here has petitioned the Father that he might grant Helen believing, saving faith? Might we start there.
Thanks philness.
Brenda thanks for already doing it.
agonizomai thanks for being a receptive audience to philness' suggestion
On the other hand if anyone has a long prayer list already, feel free not to pray for me.
The real reason it's taking so long to reach 1000 is that this has become a post on the EC, not on every group under the sun which ignores the sufficiency of Scripture.
Of the groups you addressed in the original post, only the EC is really taking the bait. There have been a few charismatic rumblings, but beyond that virtually nothing. I'm surprised by the antinomians. Perhaps you've already banned all the most entertaining ones. Or perhaps they have grown disheartened by failed attempts to sell books here. The other targets don't surprise me so much in their silence.
What's truly odd is this: the emergers want to be included, and this post did so. You "included" them in a list with multiple other groups within "Christianity" as it may be widely defined. Some of those groups you and I might think are actually Christian, others perhaps not. But c'mon! Inclusion is supposed to be the goal, isn't it?
So the more I reflect on this, the more I realize what the real irony is. Why does the emerging church put so much stock in what "fundamentalists" think about it? There are people whom I consider "fundamentalists," but I couldn't care less what they think of me. Why does the EC care?
My husband and I have been following along with all the commentary over the weekend when we can. So many comments.
Helen, I have been readng your comments, and I would not dare to enter into a debate with you, because I suspect that I am simply not up to it.
However, I don't understand this comment:
On the other hand if anyone has a long prayer list already, feel free not to pray for me.
There is no prayer list so long that someone cannot pray for the soul of another. My mother is as pagan as they come, but if I tell her I'm praying for her, she welcomes it.
kim, I was thinking about when I was a Christian: if my prayer list got too long, it started to feel like an overwhelming obligation and it was hard to care about everyone on it as opposed to reciting one sentence prayers like a shopping list.
Not that God's answer would have depended on my *feelings* as I prayed, yet on the other hand there are those verses about him not being impressed with lip service if the peoples' hearts were far from him. It didn't feel appropriate to me unless my list was short enough I could truly care about the people on it - it felt sort of disrespectful both to them and God.
(<>..<>) Alien
(^..^)~~ Cat
<:3_)~~ Mouse
(¯¯''''''¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯((((()
¯¯/_/¯¯¯|_|¯¯
Pecadillo Equipment^
:«»¤·´¯°-.¸_.-¤«»¤·´¯°-.¸_.
Snake^
(¯`'·.HELLO.·'´¯)
Cheesy Greeting^
.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.
Wave^
»»---(¯`°´¯)---»»
Lame Cupid Symbol
τωνι ŵåş חִר
Patrick:
They're taking a sabbath. I think it's cute.
I'm just proud to have uncovered that newly-minted non-lurking participation of agonizo ... agonizam ... that gray-headed guy with the greek-sounding handle.
Guy goes on a vacation, comes back, finds...THIS!
[sound of head exploding]
Observations:
It's been a magnificent run (for the most part) to 1000, but please no more cheating with serial, one word posts! Would you take a medal for a marathon if you rode part way in a golf cart?
The distinction between the different kinds of doubt made by Phil is so important. That may be one of the most important keys of all to understanding the EC. The "bad kind" of doubt is being championed, to the point that it becomes almost the "drug of choice" for many. It's intoxicating to use this type of doubt to disengage from authority and listen to one's own (bliss, heart, loins, whatever)
I do believe there has been a bit of disingenuous "evangelizing" for this type of doubt here. I have more respect for the outright opposition forces.
I'll hug Chantry, because he's just so right.
For those asking when doubt became sin:
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=doubt&x=0&y=0
I know not every verse there is in context, but many certainly are. I just didn't feel like cutting and pasting.
And to avoid any further confusion between Mikes, I added my last name.
Mike, let me help.
Blogger will not allow pasting in long URL's. We have to do it as a link, or it gets cut off.
Here's your link.
Frank, I think that agonizomai lurks like you're on hiatus.
I hope he "lurks" like this (i.e. participatorily) a lot more.
Chantry, I've noticed the same thing.
As to the Gutless Gracers, you say, "Or perhaps they have grown disheartened by failed attempts to sell books here."
What?!
One of them wrote a book?
Why don't they tell us these things?!
I'll hug Chantry, because he's just so right.
uggh.
My sleep deprivation is improving, but watch it anyway!
wooooo . . . gettting close to 600 comments - pretty dank and dark down here - wheres my candle?
hey, I just posted a little response to your post on my blog that tackles the Wright thing and hermeneutics and that kind of stuff.
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2007/09/getting-the-bib.html
peace out, and every good blessing to you as you journey on towards 1000 comments.
i am still hoping that one day you will allow non-blogspot commentors to use their own blog address.
Dan - It's hard to say. I don't know how you can expect to sell a book if you never tell people you've written it. Maybe start a blog to announce that you've written it and paste in lots of excerpts. Maybe surf the net looking for related threads and begin every comment with, "As I said in my book..."
Not that anyone we know would ever do such a thing.
Question:
When did the first leanings of
the "cultural relevance society"
come on the scene?
This is a real question, I am just curious.
This scripture comes to mind:
1Cor. 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Patrick—
When did the first leanings of
the "cultural relevance society"
come on the scene?
Mid-first-century.
< rimshot >
I am just surprised that no one threw Mark Driscoll into the fray yet...
Now that will get you to 1000!
djp:
Thanks for the link. I should reward my question to this:
When in modern times (last 300 years) did this false teaching on being cultural relevant come on the scene?
Sorry for the confusion.
Portela, gotta leave something for the sequel!
Phil, that "Mere" Christianity was priceless.
Daniel, I think the vast bulk of those PoMotivators are incredibly deft little scalpel-slices. It's almost disheartening how much Phil can say in so few words.
The chief example being FAITH / DOUBT.
I have work off today. I'm really impressed with the amount of comments here, and the amount desired. I think 1000 comments is something special to shoot for, and if you make it, I want to go down in history as being a part of that. At least .1%. I hope being off-topic in this context wont ruin my comment's chances of partaking in that far out and happening number.
I don't know how much controversy this will statement will draw (and Frankly, I'm not sure who will take offense), but in an effort to help you get the comments coming faster, here's the best contribution I can muster:
Art Adams couldn't draw his way out of a paper bag. Also, comic books are not theologically sound, and people that like them probably have EC leanings.
I'm there for you guys.
Hess L. Man
Po-Motivator t-shirts are trickling in.
Hess L Man:
Would that also include the Chick
publication comics?
Hesselman:
You're just bitter that you never got to do that Howard the Duck comic book tract.
Cent:
Love the T shirts, you might get some of the EC's to buy the stein.
Chantry—"Maybe start a blog to announce that you've written it and paste in lots of excerpts."
Right. Another winsome practice is to quote yourself no matter what the subject. Thus:
"Ah, yes, beer. I also used a word starting with a 'b' on page 275 of my tome, The Wisdom of the Ages Unfolded in 12 pt Times New Roman, published by Hi I'm Bob Press, and available at...."
How nifty to boil it down to being all about the Bible. Sure it is all about the Bible........and maybe just maybe some of us _________(fill in blank from Heading) don't interpret the Bible the way yo udo and THAT is the issue.
But since you are RIGHT and all others mentioned in above heading are wrong then , end of story.
agonizomai replies: "Since when did doubt cease to be sin? Since when did doubt become a virtue? Faith and doubt are antithetical."
Lack of faith is not sin - it's simply lack of faith.
I prefer the word "question" to doubt - wrestling with the angel - never satisfied with a taxonomy that doesn't fully capture its intended reality.
Kant drew this same distinction between the purity of a “thing itself” and our limited perception of the “thing.”
Yes, I doubt that I perfectly perceive spiritual matters - hence I am always seeking greater understanding. This doesn't undermine the work of the cross, but in fact pays it greater respect.
Our obedience isn't to a set of propositions and rules. Jesus freed us from that. There is always infinitely more to receive in the Spirit - it's the nature of God's unending creation ("exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think").
When we glimpse God's infinite nature, we realize that what we don't know is infinitely greater than what we do know. In this case, “doubt” is better described as "an acknowledgment of our limited understanding."
The good news? We are forgiven for our lack of understanding ("Father forgive them for they know not..")
Doubt and questions show an active interest in moving closer to truth. "Indifference" to Spirit might be closer to what some are calling "doubt" - and yes, indifference (a conscious disregard for God) is the original meaning of sin.
The one attribute I don’t see much in the various streams of emerging Xnty is doubt. Rather, I see a lot of souls very serious about following Jesus, but tired of religion and religious posturing. Maybe what’s needed is more grace.
I like the Chesterton quote.
I hope y'all reach your 1,000 comment goal. I'll continue to help out if you want :-).
No Name Preacher exhumes the oft-used "I Have Nothing to Bring but a Cliched 'Wahh' About What You Brought" clunker.
It's a dodge that is never-contentful, yet ever-popular.
Normally, it is said more briefly, thus: "Oh, yeah?"
The appropriate (and equally-contentful) response, I believe, is, "Says you."
There. Now back to the (contentful) post and (contentful) comments made thus far.
Here's a great quote from Os Guinness on the danger of pursuing cultural relevance--it showed up a little while ago on Justin Taylor's blog Between Two Worlds and I'm shamelessly swiping it to help pad the comment count one step closer to 1,000:
By our uncritical pursuit of relevance we have actually courted irrelevance; by our breathless chase after relevance without a matching commitment to faithfulness, we have become not only unfaithful but irrelevant; by our determined efforts to redefine ourselves in ways that are more compelling to the modern world than are faithful to Christ, we have lost not only our identity but our authority and our relevance. Our crying need is to be faithful as well as relevant.
Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness: A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance (p. 15).
And then comes John L, to champion the pro-doubt evangelism that has been attempted in this thread.
To do so, however, once again he brushes aside the carefully, Biblically-reasoned responses that have already been made numerous times.
In its place, he offers billowy, non-sequitur concepts and irrelevancies.
So, on the one hand, we have the actual words of the actual Jesus, already offered again and again in this thread.
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? Hmmm, tough choice....
Not.
No Name Preacher, your vague "you just happen to interpret the Bible differently" contention is meaningless without the help of any substantive example to back it up. Of course, the example needs to be relevant to what's at issue here.
John L, the problem with the type of doubt extolled in EC circles is that it encourages equivocation even over the things the Bible is abundantly clear on.
That is, doubt where there's no need for doubt.
Guys: This poster on justification says it all, I have never laughed so much in mym life. What is so sad, is that a new "pastor" came to our church in June and when we sat and discussed some doctrines, I was blown away. Many of these were him exactly. This next Sun. is our last. I have been teaching a Life Group, and wanted to get my facts straight before I denounced the ECM to my class. I started it yesterday, and there was so much interest, I will have to finish it this next Sun. and then I will have to explain that I can not as a Fundie sit under this mans "Talks" anymore. Sola Scriptura, Gratia, Fide,Christo, and De Gloria. maclaren and his imps will never get rid of these 5 basic Biblical standards.
John l said:
"Rather, I see a lot of souls very serious about following Jesus, but tired of religion and religious posturing."
This scripture come to mind:
1 Peter 1:15 - But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
If one is "serious" about following the Lord Jesus Christ,
then they are also serious about the holines of 1 Peter 1.
John said, "and yes, indifference (a conscious disregard for God) is the original meaning of sin."
Well, no, the original sin was a conscious refusal to obey a proposition: "Don't eat the fruit!!"
djp: The actual, living, edgy, game-shattering Jesus
Great description.
I've never been a big fan of Pyro, but this is a great post. Good luck on chasing 1K.
Especially loved the "God as a one hit wonder" bit. Though, wouldn't it be more accurate to say he was 66 hit wonder that the church compiled into a greatest hits album?
Patrick asked: "When in modern times (last 300 years) did this false teaching on being cultural relevant come on the scene?"
Patrick, perhaps Iraneus (AD80-100) was the first to bridge the church into man-made organizational patterns with his introduction of the "Bishop."
Before then, Xn ecclesia remained as the first lay-led movement in history - a God-breathed, organic gathering of Christ-followers largely set apart from man-made leadership systems.
After Iraneus, it only got worse - until by Constantine the church had almost fully employed the Roman system of social-legal hierarchy, and had successfully made a solid division between "lay" and "clergy."
Those distinctions are with us today, slightly modified by the Reformation, but still a global church that reflects a “top-down” hierarchical structure, paid religious managers, giant buildings and debt, lay / clergy paradigm, etc..
The church was intended to be salt - a radical, revolutionary new way of community in God – set apart from man-made hierarchies. Over time, as Will Durant notes, “While Christianity converted the world; the world converted Christianity, and displayed the natural paganism of mankind.”
I think if you connect the dots, you'll find that our attempts at relevancy are at least partially a result of a church which operates like a modern corporation.
" .. and maybe just maybe some of us ... don't interpret the Bible the way yo udo and THAT is the issue."
The authority of the Word is always the issue.
I listen to a friend/pastor preach a message one Sunday. I later sent him and e-mail and complimented him, and challenged him, that his interpretation was not balanced.
Surely Jesus loved sinners and went their homes, but we need to be cautious not to become friends of the world in an unhealthy manner.
And I shared some Scripture with him.
He said, "I don't understand all what the Bible says, but I know how I'm going to serve the Lord, and reach out to sinners."
So the verses I shared are meaningless, unless they fit how he feels about serving the Lord.
many in this postmoden age have this kind of spirit, which is not just building on sand, but on "quick-sand" methinks.
For the record: I do not now worship "X," nor have I ever done, nor will I ever.
It joins "G_d" as a pretentious dodge whose convoluted rationalizations would leave 9.9 out of 10 English-language readers in the dark.
Not that I have a viewpoint on that particular issue.
Post a Comment