Should Some Subjects Be Permanently Settled?
Hi everyone--I am the "new kid on the block" and am grateful that Brian invited me to join the team for this blog. I want to enter my first question, give my answer and hear your thoughts:
Are there some subjects that should be permanently "settled" in the minds of CGGC pastors? I understand that posing questions is at the heart of the Emerging Church movement. But how far should that go?
I know that my response to "A Heretic's Guide" stirred the pot quite a bit. Believe it or not, I do think there are appropriate times to deal with the subject of Universalism. For example, I have helped members of my church wrestle through this issue numerous times. I have no problems talking about theological subjects like this with Christians who are struggling with where they stand.
However, is it acceptable for trained, ordained, CGGC clergy to be wrestling with this issue (Universalism) to the point that they don't know where they stand on the issue? By the way, I am not accusing any of you on this blog of doing that. I am simply asking, "Is this acceptable?"
If you do think it is acceptable for one of our pastors to wrestle with this issue to the extent I mentioned above, then are there any issues for which a CGGC pastor should have the matter permanently settled in his or her mind?
What if one of our pastors is "struggling" with whether or not to accept the Koran as the inspired Word of God along with the Bible? Isn't this something he or she should have permanently settled?
What if one of our pastors is "struggling" with whether or not Jesus Christ is truly fully God and fully man? Isn't this also something he or she should have settled?
My question to all of the bloggers is as follows: Is there any subject at all which a fully-trained, ordained, CGGC pastor must have settled in his or her mind?
My answer: YES. There are some non-negotiables which CGGC pastors should not wrestle with to the extent I mentioned above. Such issues should be core convictions which form the bedrock of the pastor's theology. They are non-negotiable, period. I for one believe that Univeralism and the matters I raised above are definitely such issues. What do you think? If your answer to my question is "NO," then what is the purpose of ordination exams?
-George Jensen
Enola First Church of God
posted by Anonymous at 3:35 PM
40 Comments:
Saying that they "should" seems to imply that there would be some penalty for those pastors who nevertheless do struggle with such questions. What would that penalty be, exactly?
And what is one to do if the questions arise in one's mind unbidden? Or if new arguments are presented that one hadn't previously considered when they originally "settled" the issue for themselves?
Just asking.
Peace,
-Mike
wow so doubts and intellectual honestry could get one fired - seems like a hefty punishment to me. I have a real issue with not allowing church leadership to think or to call any questions they might have an attack of satan. What's the point? If blind faith is accepted but not working out one's faith with fear and trembling I fear for the future of the church.
My answer would be MOSTLY. I am very comfortable with We Believe.
Over the years, as my faith deepened, and some shallower answers didn't hold up for me, I had to pull back before I could plunge deeper. I would hope that my ordination board would be gracious through that struggling period. I would hope that I would be very careful in my teaching/preaching during that struggling period, honoring my commitment to doctrine of the Churches of God.
To say that I came out of Winebrenner Seminary with all major issues settled, to say that upon my ordination, all issues were settled, that would be difficult. In fact, I may have had more questions because of my training, questions I had never considered. Rather than being bothered by this, I am grateful that my eyes have been opened to the magnificience of God.
Not that I question whether the Bible is Word of God, but my question is "Since the Bible is mostly story, why do we insist on breaking it down further into statements." Jesus didn't do that in his teaching. And while that may sound more liberal, it sounds more conservative to me. And yet in saying this, I do think we have a pretty good book of statements in We Believe. But still I wonder, because I want to be true to the nature of the Bible and the nature of Jesus' teaching.
It seems to me that if the Ordination Board, while still having to make final decisions about acceptability, could offer themselves as a guide to further depth rather than as a guard to doctrinal integrity, we might have deeper pastors. The board would have to make more subjective decisions, led by the Spirit, rather than an objective decision demanded by the doctrine of the Churches of God.
The questioners are usually labeled as heretics, but some are labeled reformers.
George,
Here are my thoughts on this idea of having "settled" the issues in the minds of "Seminary Trained Pastors".
I understand your concern and desire to keep accountability in the forefront of your thinking. I also understand that without guidelines and rules things get out of hand and run wild. (Lord of the Flies is a great work for us to think about)
However, the idea of wrestling and questioning our faith is a necessary part of our faith. There are many examples, in the Bible alone, of God fearing men and women that didn't have it all figured out.
The first person I think of is John the Baptizer. Did Jesus denounce John for asking the question, near his death, "Are you the one or should we expect another?" Jesus does not directly answer the question but Jesus does exalt John for being a man of great faith!
Jesus himself asks questions that Christians are afraid to ask of God not once but at least twice. "Father if it is possible may this cup be taken from me." “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”
Don't question God's will we're told. Without questions how can we grow in our faith? "The Bible says it I believe it." does not show faith but ignorance. Paul commended the Bereans for questioning and examining what he taught them. He said they were of noble character, and yet we believe waht Paul taught just because his words have been accepted in the Canon of Scripture.
Many of the men we look up to for their faith in Christ over the years questioned and wrestled with their faith. There are Martian Luther (Questioned the cross as a monk), Søren Kierkegaard, and Dietrich Bonhoffer (Bonhoffer didn’t even have a relationship with Christ when he became a pastor) just to name a few.
“Yes doubt will come, even to the one who follows Christ. But the only person who has the right to leap forward even with a doubt is someone whose life bears the marks of imitation, someone who by a decisive action at least tries to go so far out that becoming a Christian can still be a possibility. Everyone else must hold his tongue; he has no right to put in a word about Christianity, least of all contra.” SØren Kierkegaard
All truth, all truth is of God. There is no truth that can stand apart from God no matter what source it comes from.
Gang,
I'm with my self-proclaimed 'Conservative' friend on this one.
When we are ordained we declare that we acknowledge that the beliefs of the CGGC are correct.
If, at any time, we can no longer honestly say that, we have no place serving as ordained pastors in the CGGC.
Certainly, we can ask questions. I do every day. But, if the questions become doubts and ultimately disagreements, we have no place in the CGGC
This all or nothing mentality is why we have so many Pastors failing in ministry. Pastors are encouraged to seek help but if they struggle then they need to be released! Why and how is this an approprate Christian attitude? "In this world you will have many struggles" is our ideas of Christ and God exempt from these struggles?
If you remember the reason we are a differnt denomination is because our founder, John Winebrenner, had unresolved questions and doubts of his German reformed roots!
I also thought that this blog was here for questions and not about the CGGC? I stand for and support the CGGC.
Here is my beef. Discussions like this put doctrine, traditions and theology at the forefront and push Christ out into the cold. If you are living a life that is to be as Christ like as possible (after all being a disciple is to desire to be just like your Rabbi not just hear and know what he says and does) then how can you go wrong?
Doctrine and theology are good, but there have been very sincere Christ followers that have been murdered and burned at the stake for trying to deepen their relationship with Christ (Questioning and exploring ideas) instead of holdign to the "doctrine of the day" which by the way has changed and changed over the years, not to mention several times just in the book of Acts!
The only thing that has stayed the same is God.
A point of clarification: George used two example -- Jesus as Lord and the Bible as the Word of God over the Koran. I assume George named these two as issues we could all agree on.
I would agree with George that if you have lost determination that Jesus is Lord and the Bible is the Word of God, then pastoring in the CGGC is probably not for you.
But George, I would ask you, We Believe determines Feet Washing as an ordinance. Many CGGC pastors I know do not elevate it to the same status as communion and baptism. Should I alert my ordination board?
Yes I do think that it is very heavy-handed to not allow pastors to go deeper and seek the truth. I am wary of upholding doctrine over truth. And even more disgusted with pastors having to deny their intellect, wear masks and lie about their questions and struggles in order to keep their jobs and support their families. But then again those are just my opinions and I'm still naive enough to desire the church to be a gathering of christ followers seeking truth and not a ridgid institution.
And btw, honestly if someone stood up at Via Christus and said they though we should follow the Koran, my response would not be to tell them to shut up. Instead of fearing new thoughts and differing opinions, we would engage them in dialogue. My faith in christ can withstand exposure to diversity. But even so, if I claim to seek truth, I'm not much of a seeker if i'm too afraid to engage with new and different ideas.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wow, I turned off my computer too soon yesterday. I missed the initial banter.
George I appreciate your concern for having some things settled. One of my questions about McLaren is his view of Scripture. I am not sure exactly what his view is but I don't think we have the same view. (The View found in We Believe)
But I am realizing more and more that some things I thought were settled are not as settled as I thought. I keep thinking about a line from Bernard Ramm at the last Seminary I attended (not Winebrenner). He said that fundamentalists believe in the Fall of Man except when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture then they believe they have it right.
Last week ministering to a young widow, whose 42 year old husband had just died of cancer, I had some doubts. For which doubts am I required to write the Commission? And how long do I wait?
Just wondering!
George,
I appreciate your line of questioning and the time you're giving to thoughtfully responding to the posts.
As I've read the discussion, a few items come to mind. First, I find it helpful to make a distinction between what's appropriate in the public realm versus the private realm. I am also an ordained pastor in the CGGC (Allegheny Region), and publicly I support the doctrines, preach messages consistent with We Believe, etc. But that doesn't mean that I privately don't continually question my own beliefs as far as their consistency with the denomination. While some may disagree, I don't find this in any way a violation of my vows. Perhaps some within the Christian camp don't find the public/private distinction helpful, but I do and would be happy to elaborate more if necessary.
Second, for me, my ordination is/was a public affirmation of a public role. If at any time I come to realize that I can no longer in good faith publicly support the denomination that granted my ordination, then I leave. Or, and they have every right to do this, they request I turn in my credentials.
Personally, I don't believe subjects need to be permanently settled. But what I do believe is that organizations MUST be very clear about their positions. If someone is in agreement, then they can maintain membership. If someone is not in agreement, then they separate from the organization.
Following this line of reasoning, the burden is upon the organization offering clarity of position AND people honestly assessing their "fit" within the given organization. The discernment process becomes essential. Ordination is not something to be taken lightly in any situation. I think you are reinforcing the importance of the vows by raising these questions.
Thanks.
Hello all,
I’ve been lurking around this blog for a long time now, but haven’t posted anything yet because they are some who are much more eloquent than me who generally have the same opinion I do, but this posting was particularly interesting to me. As a young, postmodern WTS student, who deeply desires to be in ministry with the CGGC in the future, ordination, its requirements, and how I fit in with them definitely pop into my head from time to time. I grew (am growing) up in the CGGC and our tradition has deeply shaped me, but I have been and will continue to search around and really see if what I read in We Believe really is the best I can do. I think I owe it to God to attempt to know and share His message as accurately as possible, and if that means questioning some things then so be it. Certainly there are some requirements that must be required for anyone to be ordained to Gospel ministry (Triune God, atoning sacrifice of Christ, resurrection…) and more for those of us who want to serve the CGGC (regeneration, free moral agency, etc.), but I really agree with Brent here that I don’t see private questioning as a violation of ordination vows. As I try to determine what God desires of me in the future and discuss this with the various pastors I come in contact with, I always seem to mention that the biggest reason I stick around in the CGGC is that our doctrine (and as near as I can tell, Winebrenner’s whole premise) is pretty grace filled and not overly restrictive. There is great diversity among our pastors and churches, many of whom one would never guess were in fellowship with one another if you hadn’t read the sign on the way in the door. Anyway, this is starting to get long and rambling so I will try to sum up in saying that yes, I do think there are some things that we don’t negotiate, but we also need to keep questioning and working to improve what we have, because if what we have is what God intended, I’m pretty disappointed. I hope that all made sense :)
Grace and peace to each of you, your families, and your churches!
Jim Wilder
George, you said:
I still would like to hear an answer to this question from you, Brother Clawson (and others out there), if you are comfortable answering - Is there any subject that should be permanently settled in an ordained CGGC clergyperson's mind...?
I have to honestly say because of your answer to my first question (about what the "penalty" for questioning should be) I am, in fact, very uncomfortable in answering your question. I don't think I will.
It's not that I don't have some beliefs that I hold without reservation (I do), I'm just worried that if I don't say the right things or affirm exactly the right beliefs with the right kind of terminology that I could be getting myself (and potentially a few others here) in serious trouble. I've already lost one ministry job because I didn't believe exactly what those in power wanted me to believe. I'm not about to stick my neck out again.
I'm sorry but I'm just being truthful. When one holds out threats of exclusion and termination it does tend to put a damper on honest and fruitful conversation.
Peace,
-Mike
ditto what Mike said... puts the mask back on, bows out...
Mike, you wrote:
"When one holds out threats of exclusion and termination it does tend to put a damper on honest and fruitful conversation."
I don't think that what George wrote was intended as, or needs to be interpreted as, a threat. I think any organization should be clear about who they are and what they represent - especially the church.
In fact, I see these clear distinctives as actually enhancing open, honest, and fruitful conversation.
The fact that you are clear about what George is asking, and therefore uncomfortable sharing, is actually a credit to the clarity of his question. Sometimes inclusion gets trumpeted to an extreme measure.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that George himself was threatening anyone. Nevertheless, the stakes have been raised, and I am far more wary about what I post here now.
I'm really, truly not trying to be disagreeable. I'm just very skittish these days in dealing with institutionalized Christianity and its power to exclude those who don't fit inside the box. That's based on my own past experiences as much as anything else.
I probably have no business commenting on this particular topic---I'm not a Pastor, and I'm not even CGGC. But it's just so sad what happened here.
Open, frank communication has been effectively shut down. I pray that is temporary.
Speaking as a person "in the pew", yes, I do want my Pastor to teach based upon the accepted doctrine of my denomination. And, yes, there are those core doctrines that a Pastor must accept before being ordained.
But, you're only human. Most of you WILL have questions and doubts at one time or another. And, as a member of your congregation I would understand that.
It is when those questions are ANSWERED in your mind and heart, in a way that goes against the "We Believe" statement that you've got a problem.
At that point, you have the option of going to your conference and asking that there be a change in what you denom teaches.......or you submit your resignation; you're in the wrong church anyway if you aren't committed to the statement of belief.
But if a Pastor is not allowed to be open about his struggle with uncertainty, for fear he'll be threatened with losing his credentials----well, that's just sad. Where is he supposed to go for support and counsel???
I apologize for the intrusion, but I couldn't keep quiet.
In His Love,
Felicia
PS. I will pray for you all this evening.
Felicia wrote:
"[I]f a Pastor is not allowed to be open about his struggle with uncertainty, for fear he'll be threatened with losing his credentials----well, that's just sad. Where is he supposed to go for support and counsel???"
I agree that there should be a place where a pastor can discuss these questions and concerns. My response is: does this blog represent that place? I would suggest not.
I strongly disagree with the statement that "Open, frank communication has been effectively shut down." In fact, I would say it has been encouraged and enhanced. I think full inclusion is a goal that many aim for without realizing that it doesn't exist. I am reminded of the statment by "liberals" who suggest that everyone is allowed here EXCEPT the person who doesn't want everyone to be allowed here.
I see this from time to time on items of inclusion/exclusion - every opinion is welcome here EXCEPT the opinion that suggests everyone is not welcome here.
Ethical inclusion requires some limits of exclusion.
Back to the blog: The fact that Mike does not feel comfortable sharing suggests that there is a high level of clarity. He has self-selected to not share. That doesn't mean his concerns, or anyone else's aren't important, it simply means that this may not be the appropriate context to deal with them.
There are studies that demonstrate that conservative churches grow in comparison to others because they very clearly announce what they believe and stick to it. No one likes to be a part of vagueness.
Now, if what is said takes away someone's ability to make a free will choice, that is different. But I don't think that is what happened here.
Pastor George: "Are there some subjects that should be permanently "settled" in the minds of CGGC pastors?"
Pastor Mike: "Saying that they "should" seems to imply that there would be some penalty for those pastors who nevertheless do struggle with such questions. "
Pastor George: "Such a move would be removing the individual's ordination."
Dear Pastor Brent,
I agree, this is not necessarily the forum for a Pastor to share his personal doubts and questions.
But that was not the issue.
Pastor George put forth the opinion that a Pastor should be sanctioned for merely having those questions. That is what prompted my concern, "where is a Pastor to go for support and counsel?". If he goes to a brother does he need to fear being reported to the conference???
To be fair to Pastor George, he does clarify his position with the statement "if unbidden thoughts escalate to the point that it causes the ordained clergyperson to doubt, reconsider and then adopt a "neutral position" on certain core issues..."---the key word being ADOPT.
In that case, then yes, the Pastor has 2 choices: urge the conference to reform the statement of belief... or resign.
However, the issue on the table here is not personal struggles. It is Pastor George's original question: Are there some subjects that should be permanently "settled" in the minds of CGGC pastors?".
I assume he was speaking of the concept in a general context.
Again, I should probably just shut up.
Sorry, I have trouble keeping my opinion to myself. It's a character flaw.
F
George,
From the pew, or in my particular case a Sunday couch, I do believe that the Divinity of Christ is an essential belief for a pastor within the denomination. HOWEVER, I would give great laxity in the interpretation of the way Christ's divinity is believed. If Christ is not divine, then much of the new testament theology seems to fall apart, so it seems essential to Christianity. But, my mind is already brewing with questions like: exactly how was Christ divine?, how was his divinity self-limited?, do we really understand what divinity is (answer:no!), etc...
As for the Koran/Bible issue, I'm not so sure. Having never read the Koran and knowing that Muslim believe in the same God we do, I don't know if the Koran contradicts the Bible. If so, then I'd go for the Bible every time. If not, then how do I know that it isn't inspired? If I accept that God continues to reveal himself and wasn't done when he finished penning Revelations (which he of course put at the end of the nice leatherbound first edition), then I have to conclude that inspiration could lurk around any corner, waiting to blindside my preconceptions and assumptions. Is all truth God's truth? And if so, how do we know it's truth?
If a CGGC pastor could reconcile the Koran and the Bible, it sounds like s/he'd make a great candidate for a muslim christian congregation. I hope our denomination would honor his/her quest as s/he searches for God, rather than cut it off at the knees and take away their livelihood. Perhaps a simple request to be careful of exploring the topic around ears not ready to hear, simultaneous with an offer of ears that are ready to hear.
If we do not trust our pastors to explore difficult topics why would we put them in such a position of power, authority and influence??
To answer Pastor Jensen's original question (which, by the way, I believe is absolutely central to the entire "emergent conversation")......
Absolutely, unequivocally, unapologetically...."YES!!!!!"
This is why I find the whole emergent conversation to be very dangerous to the Body of Christ.
Julie, you would start a "dialogue" with someone who stood up in Church and proclaimed the Koran worthy of consideration??? Seriously? See, that scares me. Rather, a true believer in Christ, especially a pastor, should immediately, and without hesitation, refute such a statement with gentleness and respect, but with boldness, by using the inerrant scripture as irrefutable truth. There is time for speaking with this person in private and sharing more truth with him/her, but to do so I believe one must be sure of what they themselves believe. If not, it would be unwise to put yourself in that position. By the way, I feel your posts were very unfair toward Pastor Jensen. He was trying to create "conversation" about these very important issues, which those of you who call yourselves "Emergent" are always saying we need to do. All he was asking for was some of that "intellectual honesty". I would like to hear your answer. What truths are essential in your estimation?
I believe firmly that anyone who is entrusted as a pastor should believe without wavering in the divinity of Jesus, his death and resurrection, in the exclusivity of His atonement for salvation, in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture, in the existence of both heaven and hell, the Triune God, God's creation of man, the future judgment.....
These are all non-negotiables in my beliefs, and I could only worship in a church where I knew the pastor believed the same.
For instance, T.D. Jakes (to use a popular example outside of the CGGC) doesn't believe in the Trinity. To me, it doesn't matter how popular or widely-accepted he is, or even the good things his church may be doing for society, I believe he should be rebuked and that people should be warned about his false teachings. I most certainly do not believe he should pastor a church.
Yes, I am saying that a Pastor who has adopted any beliefs other than those set forth by the denomination he was ordained in, should himself step down from being a pastor in that denomination.
Since I am no longer in the CGGC, and it has been many years since I have read We Believe, I cannot speak to specifics at this time, other than those I mentioned above.
I am thankful for you, Pastor Jensen, and I pray there are many more pastors like you within the CGGC. The core doctrines of scripture ARE truth, and they are worth fighting for. That is the only reason I continue to check in on this blog. It is my belief that the enemy is using men like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell to poke holes in the dam, and we need a few good men who will stand on the Word of God with absolute faith and hold back the waters as if their very lives depended on it.
Signed....
"heartsick" (from former postings)
Hi All,
I think that George inadvertently has opened the door for what is shaping up to a very deep soul searching discussion. Thank you George! I did not ignore your post:
Brother Rob, I sense that you feel upset by this question. By the way, I'm not suggesting it's an "all or nothing" deal. As you admitted in your first reply, you "understand that without guidelines and rules things get out of hand and run wild. (Lord of the Flies is a great work for us to think about)." You are absolutely correct! So, what "rules" (as you put it) are non-negotiable? For what can YOU personally say, "Thus saith the Lord?"
I haven’t had the time to respond yet, so here I go. The question that you pose in and of itself does not upset me in the least. I believe that in order for anyone, pastor or not, to truly call themselves a Christ Follower they have to have it settled in their mind that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. This is imperative to Christian faith.
No one says it clearer than the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans.
8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[a] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
My only concern is when we start building brick walls of doctrine and not using the doctrine as springs of our faith (Read Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis for this analogy) we become very deeply Pharisaical and miss the good news of Jesus Christ and have given ourselves back over to the law.
IF the doctrine of the early believers was not questioned and changed at times than we would have a great deal of wounded men in our congregations still to this day (Circumcision). Everyone would also have to follow the practices of Judaism before they could become Christian. All throughout history we can see that doctrines have been adjusted, changed and reshaped because of our constant desire to be open to the truth of who God is.
The premise for our faith is found in Jesus Christ, nothing else. Can we all agree on that? If not we are headed to yet another beginning of a denominational splitting of hairs and excluding of another group that “thinks wrongly” or different than “Us” this is nothing but a ploy of Satan.
Anonymous wrote: I am thankful for you, Pastor Jensen, and I pray there are many more pastors like you within the CGGC. The core doctrines of scripture ARE truth, and they are worth fighting for. That is the only reason I continue to check in on this blog. It is my belief that the enemy is using men like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell to poke holes in the dam, and we need a few good men who will stand on the Word of God with absolute faith and hold back the waters as if their very lives depended on it.
I am sorry that this is how you feel about Brian and Rob. The truth is they are very grounded in their faith. They are also men that resemble men like Jacob, Martian Luther, Dietrich Bonhoffer, Søren Kierkegaard, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Jerome, The Apostle Peter, The Apostle Paul, James (Jesus brother), to name a few, that wrestled with God and what it meant to be holy, how we relate to a God that is beyond anything we can wrap our minds around. A God that is so great that we cannot ever look upon him without dying! Man judges by the outward appearance but God judges the heart of a man. Without meaning to be harsh, please remember this before you cast a judgment on someone you don’t even know personally. Brian McLaren and Rob Bell are both created in God’s image as well as you are.
How can we say that it is inappropriate to question doctrine? Who made up the doctrine that we have but men? If we cannot question doctrine we better go back to the time of Martian Luther and renounce what he did! Because what he did was question the doctrine of his day. However, we praise him for standing up to injustice and corruption of the institution that called itself the church. I can sit with anyone and shoot holes through many doctrines, but why? All that does is cause division and disunity.
The book of acts should teach us that it’s ok to look at the doctrines we hold to, stretch it, test it, turn it over and if, if necessary replace it. Doctrine is not what makes us Christ followers, Christ is! Are there absolutes in our beliefs? Yes, God is God, Jesus is Lord and I am a feeble man, created in God’s image, trying to figure out what it means to live a life that reflects the image of my Jesus, my Lord, my Savior and my Rabbi!
Now abut the Bible/Koran issue.
George and Anonymous
Do you read anything outside of the Bible alone? Do you look to concordances, Bible Dictionaries, Commentaries, other books for direction and guidance? What about books of other Christians or fiction novels? If so you have just violated the very aspect that you say you stand for. Truth, all Truth is of God. Not all truth is included in the Bible. It does not say in the Bible anywhere that if you jump from an airplane from 5,000 feet that you will surly die. Can’t find it yet it’s truth. Does the Bible teach us that not brushing your teeth leads to cavities?, what about how to build a house, bridge, cars, yet to do so means that you have to have some form of truth. To build a house incorrectly leads to a disaster. When we view truth as only being in the Bible we eliminate much truth. We eliminate life and experience and the insight of others. Our relationship with Jesus is like any other relationship, it is a journey, it is times of discovery, times of frustration, times of joy and times of pain. To try and hold a strong line on questions and say that to question one’s faith or doctrinal beliefs systems is to be in contempt with God and his Word which clearly shows the struggles and questions of many great men and woman of faith. Men and women I would never dare to compare myself to.
God Bless and keep you,
Here's my problem. George said...
[Let me stop to say that I think George has shown extreme grace in his last several posts. Thanks George.]
George said, and he was responding to a picture of monkeys, so bearing that in mind, he said he's the "hear no evil" monkey when someone is talking about false doctrines.
"Heartsick" said TD Jakes doesn't believe in the trinity. According to Christianity Today, it isn't that he doesn't believe Jesus was God or that the Holy Spirit is God, he would just rather say they are manifestations of God as opposed to three persons.
Here's the deal for me: I have a friend who is a mormon. Do I think he has a saving faith? Probably not, though he really loves Jesus (and I know, he doesn't believe in exactly the same Jesus I do). Might others think it ok to be mormon because I hang out with him? Only if people thought Jesus hanging with prostitutes made that ok.
So we talk, and I listen, about who Jesus is and who the Father is from my mormon friend. It is at that point that I realize one of two things -- either our doctrine of the trinity isn't very well defined or I'm not studied enough on it. Either way, because I had a conversation with him, it drove me, not away from the idea of the trinity, but toward the idea of fleshing it out, at least in my own mind, so it wasn't one of those things that we just say "well it's hard to understand."
So when we want our to deepen our understanding of God, sometimes we have to see where the holes are. I'm not afraid of conversation, though just as we all have a weakness, perhaps some should be.
Thanks for the monkey business. It may serve to steer our thinking away for the post that got this particular discussion started. However I want to bring the monkeys into the discussion about things that may or may not be permanently settled. For twenty years I was the monkey with the mouth covered. That is one reason I logged on with a pseudonym. I wanted to join the discussion without fear of reprisal.
In the pastI had messages preached against me, board action requested and lost some relationships. So I shut up.
(Mike I know some of what you have been through)
I think I hear a lot of that fear in the recent postings.
Then I was outted at IMPACT.
I think it is time to move my hands.
My hands are out in front. Hi I am Lew Button. I am a pastor in the CGGC. Let's shake.
George, do you think Jesus would walk up to a mormon and first establish that he is lost and in a cult? I think first Jesus would love him. Actually, I suspect you would too. I guess the question is how long I would love him before I told him this as opposed to how long you might wait. Somewhere in between might be the appropriate time.
As for all truth is God's truth... I suppose but the Word of God, the Bible, is alive and dynamic like no other book. In fairness, it's taken a lot of questions and doubts to get to this point, but I read it more than I ever have before, and I suspect I will read it even more in the future.
As for the Koran's God being the same God as our God, I'm pretty certain Muslims would not agree with that. And if it is the same God, the Bible is pretty clear about accepting the revelation of His son as ultimately significant and that overwhelms our understanding of all Scripture.
Yes, I agree that we need to question. Questioning is how we learn.
Yes, I also agree that there are doctrines that once learned must be held onto (permanently settled). i.e. Divinity of Jesus and the authority of Scripture etc...
We may have other doctrines that we hold a little more loosely. i.e. Exact end-times scenario or the author of Hebrews.
My question is, must CGGC pastors be 100% in agreement with "We Believe". ...or mostly in agreement. ...or in agreement in key doctrines? Which are the key doctrines? Basically, I want to know how we are defining "compatibility".
What pastor could be 100% in agreement with a man made (fallible) document and still be intellectually honest?
Yet I see the need to have a standard. Otherwise, false teachers will creep into our churches and lead people away from Jesus and His truth.
Could someone post the "We Believe" and the ordination vows of the CGGC?
Thanks,
Felicia
go to cggc.org
Brian,
I accept your challenge. You said: "As for the Koran's God being the same God as our God, I'm pretty certain Muslims would not agree with that." Whether they agree or not, probably depends on who they've been listening to and reading - just as it does for you.
I had a comparative religions class back in college and the professor made a point of the commonality of origins of the three largest religions in the world - Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Christianity traces its roots through Judaism and no one here will argue that. Islam traces its roots through Abraham's son Ishmael, born by Hagar.
So, to refresh my memory, I googled "Muslim Abraham Allah" and the least "all the rest of you are wrong" slanted informational thing was a wikipedia article on Abrahamic religions.
It's an interesting read and an eye opener if you've never realized that we are all children of the same God. No wonder we fight like brothers and sisters.
BTW, here's a link to muslims that acknowledge our commonality.
Oh, and just to clarify, I'm not arguing that muslims are right (or wrong), anymore than jews are right (or wrong). Personally, I do believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. However, I think that it would be very dangerous to ignore that God has more children than just us.
Hi George,
Hey, I never thought about teaching from the Koran, I don’t know a lot about it at this time. I do own a copy of the Koran that I received free from The Council of American – Islamic Relations. http://www.ciar.com . It is a large hard cover book with English, Arabic, and transliteration in a parallel format with footnotes. Anyone interested in obtaining a free copy just need visit the web site and give them your mailing address and some info about yourself.
Now back to the question, again I will say I never thought about teaching from the Koran for several reasons. 1.) I know nothing about the Koran yet. 2.) I do hold to Scripture as being the word of God, but I have taught other material in the church from book I have read, i.e. “Purpose Driven Life” “Chasing Daylight” “The Da Vinci Code” and many other resources.
Do I hold that the Koran is the word of God, no more than I believe that the writings of Buddha are the word of God. Do I think that we can gain anything from the Koran or the Writings of Buddha, yes we can. These were both men seeking to find God, and I believe that by looking at what they have discovered may help us see God in a larger motif than we have him in our narrow Christian world view.
The only people I ever saw Jesus get irritated at were the one’s who thought they had God all figured out and that God fit neatly into their little box they carried around called the Midrash and the Talmud. These people were otherwise known as the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Not all of these leaders were anti-Jesus though).
Could the Koran be inspired by God? I don’t know. Do we believe that others are inspired by God to write books that help us see who God is? Can we learn from the Koran? I think we can get a better understanding of what eastern thinking is all about from the Koran, it has yet been tainted by our western enlightenment thinking, humanistic minds. But, I don’t know, I haven’t read it yet, have you? I think it is wrong to pass a judgment before gathering all the data we can learn from it and Pray for God’s wisdom and grace. “Judge not least ye be Judged by the same measure.” I personally am not ready to be judged so harshly, I’d rather err on the side of grace.
So to give my answer; No, at this time I would have no desire or right to teach from something I know nothing about. Would I ever, I can’t say, but it does sound interesting and thought provoking doesn’t it? Yet Jesus taught from the Midrash and Talmud plus other “Non-Biblical” writings and oral traditions of his time, was he wrong for doing this?
George, perhaps I misread your post on meeting with the mormon. My faithful sidekick Gil told me so this morning. What a guy!
And I would agree, I don't go in thinking, maybe he knows something and I should change my faith, but the conversation illuminates my beliefs and shows them to not be as solid as I might think. It really makes me want to examine the holes and provide more depth to my own beliefs. My Mormon friend reminds me of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan was more of a Muslim (though Mohammed had not yet lived at the time) if I understand right, and Jesus had to go outside of his own faith to give an example of how we should be. Sometimes I think of my friend that way. My hope is that since his faith illuminates the holes in my faith, that the same will be true of his faith.
Thanks Lew for coming "out." Over the years, I've had to make some decisions. Here are a few.
1. My ordination can not get in the way of my relationship with Jesus. Sometimes I joke that I keep it in an envelope, stamped and addressed, ready to send if it is ever recalled. My ordination is not a status for me.
2. Fear of approval can not get in the way of my relationship with Jesus. If the denom wants to remove me from my church and I lose my job, so be it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd accept it as part of my journey. The same goes for fear of approval within our church. I'm more of a pleaser than I've ever known, but if people in the church get mad because I'm following Jesus, then so be it.
A successful basketball coach, who has won several state titles in Illinois, told me, "I'm going to get fired from my job. So I can either get fired doing what they want me to do or doing what I want to do. I choose to get fired for doing what I want to do." I thought that was interesting advice. BTW, he has not lost his job... yet.
3. Money can not get in the way of my relationship with Jesus. I currently make about as little as I ever have. And not only is that ok, but I'd take less (don't tell our church) and in fact, I'd pay to be able to follow Jesus, as many of my church planter friends have, starting churches on credit cards.
Julie said she was putting her mask back on. Sometimes I wish I had a mask. But at least in this area of my life, I don't. But it did make me think that there are areas of my life where I am weak, wear a mask, and probably shouldn't engage in anything but conservative involvement.
As for Muslims, Charlotte, thanks for the conversation.
First of all, I need a history lesson. Bill??? I know that the Samaritans of Jesus day were not Jewish, but were they Muslim? Mohammed received the Koran starting in 610, well after Jesus. Does Abraham have other children? Yes.
John 8:38-40, Jesus says, "I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father."
"Abraham is our father," they answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things."
McLaren controversially asks in Generous Orthodoxy, can a Muslim remain a Muslim but find his salvation in Jesus Christ? I don't know. But I do know that Jesus Christ is the One who has set men free and there is no other way to the Father. And I agree with Charlotte that I would tend to find agreement with the Muslim and then show Him Christ as the fruition of his search, rather than cut him off at the beginning.
My faith relies on The Bible, a book that disorients me then reorients me every day. I believe that it is a living text, not to be confused with Jesus as the Living Word, but still as The Word of God that speaks to my soul and brings it alive, that speaks of Jesus Christ as the pinnacle of all creation (not that he was created) and all of history. And because it usually disorients me first, we do need to give pastors some space to grow.
The Koran, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, none of these books speaks to Jesus as the pinnacle of all things. My faith says that He is, so all truth is God's truth, but the Bible is more than that. And while I read a lot of other books, many inspired by God (hopefully all Christian writers would think so), they are not inspired by God in the same way as the Bible. Could more texts be inspired like the Bible? My academic answer would be maybe. My practical answer would be no. And in the tension, I find comfort.
If pastors must vow to uphold the teaching of CGGC to be ordained, it sounds as if many of our pastors began their ministries as liars, and they were forced to by those officially recognizing their ordination.
Why can't our pastors vow to uphold the doctrines of the Bible? Isn't the inspired word of God a better standard than a fallible man made doctrinal statement?
The difference between Christians, Jews and Muslims? Christians are the only one of the three that worship Jesus as God. The divinity of Jesus is permanently settled.
The Romans 11 Doxology proclaims...
"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable His judgments; His paths beyond tracing out!
Who can know the mind of the Lord, and who has been His counsellor?
Who has ever given to God that God should repay Him?
For from Him, to Him, and through Him are all things...
To Him be the glory forever, amen!"
There are mysteries of God that we will never know this side of heaven. In fact, an eternity will be spent knowing more of Him. To say that we can't "wonder", "contemplate", "asks questions to deepen our understanding," etc., would be foolish, and isn't the point of this post. If we stop and think, then surely we would all agree that there is an infinite amount of questions to be asked.....and sometimes more answers lead to more questions. Pastors are certainly not exempt from the luxury of "not knowing" and continuing to learn.
Having said that, it is as foolish to believe that there is nothing we can be certain of! And more than other believers, pastors should most definitely be certain of core doctrines, the bedrock of our faith. Otherwise, they should not be pastors. Period.
Doctrine is not a "bad word." And those who uphold it are unfairly labled Pharisees. One who stands on the convictions of the revealed Word are not Pharisees! The Pharisees were rebuked because they heaped extra-biblical burdens upon man, were proud and arrogant, greedy, and showed a lack of true faith in the Lord--a faith that would have enabled them to recognize the Messiah when he came. To fight for the truth of the Word is not "legalism". Let's set that straight.
For this very reason, we are given the Word of God, so that we can be sure of Truth (note the capital "T"...I submit this truth is different than the truth found in other books...yes, the dictionary, the encyclopedia, even the phone book contain truth, but let's not cheapen the Truth by such comparisons.) I don't believe the Koran to be any more "inspired by God" than the phonebook. It is a tool of deception from the enemy, perverting the revelation of God's true Word. It certainly should not be studied alongside the Bible in our churches.
II Timothy 3:16-17 says that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Paul admonishes Timothy further in the next chapter..."Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching..." If there aren't absolutes in the Word that are NOT open for interpretation, then what are we trying to convince people of? Rebuke them for? Finally, Paul says, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the TRUTH (emphasis mine), and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."
That is all I am suggesting....that a pastor should be "complete" and able to "fulfill (his) ministry." Teachings from such as McClaren and Rob Bell, and many others today, is serving to take a jackhammer to the foundational truths of our most holy faith. They are questioning important revealed truths like the inerrancy of scripture, the reality of a literal hell, the exclusivity of Christ, among others. This is not being "judgemental", it is discerning the right from the wrong, something the Bereans were called "noble" for because they searched the scriptures diligently to make sure that what Paul said stacked up against the truth. I don't stand in judgment of McClaren or Bell's hearts or their salvation; this is the Lord's responsibility, and I don't want it. Perhaps I would categorize them as those men who "deceive, having been deceived." By the way, Paul named names of false teachers to avoid...there is no shame in doing this. Sometimes it is necessary.
People like to say "judge not", but they rarely say to "judge rightly" the truth or that "judgment" should start in the house of God. For the sake of unity, political correctness, tolerance, and encouraging dialogue we now have a confused church, a watered-down gospel, and a man-centered (rather than God-centered) focus. Shepherds are to protect the flock from the wolves, not make all the sheep nice and comfy while the wolves prepare for the buffet.
Yes, we are to be gentle and respectful in our discourse with unbelievers. We can converse with a Muslim, build on shared history, and give them the reason for our hope; we don't just rebuke them, throw the Bible at them, and leave it to the Lord. Earlier in II Timothy, Paul says, "a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to ALL (emph. mine), able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth." There's that truth word again.
Also note that God grants repentance. We cannot persuade or woo the culture into believing "our way." This a work of the Holy Spirit. We must be obedient to preach the full Word with conviction and increasing knowledge, trusting that the Lord will save whom He will save. No, I'm not a Calvinist, but I'm not an Armenian either. God can be sovereign, and we can be responsible at the same time. Both are spoken of in scripture.
Sigh.....I most certainly don't want to sound legalistic or Pharisee-like. But, I won't apologize for conviction, passion for the holiness of God, and the Word. I believe in a literal judgment and hell, and believe there is so much at stake. We are to be watchman on the walls and guard that which has been entrusted. Many will say, "Lord, Lord" on that day, but they will be surprised to hear their fate. I tremble at the thought. We must all tremble more at the Word.
Speaking of which, I for one would love to see more scripture used in the comments on this site! It is our only sure guide through this process.
I appreciate all your "intentions" and don't judge or condemn your love for the Lord or your salvation status; I'll leave all that to the Lord. That isn't what this is about. I just want to exhort us all to follow hard after Him, know what we believe, and communicate that in a way that honors Him.
Lord have mercy on us, and lead us into all truth.
P.S. sorry for the length!
Signed...
"heartsick" (please address your comments to me as this so that I will differentiate between the other "anonymous" comments...I will always sign this way.)
Heartsick said, "Teachings from such as McClaren and Rob Bell, and many others today, is serving to take a jackhammer to the foundational truths of our most holy faith. They are questioning important revealed truths like the inerrancy of scripture, the reality of a literal hell, the exclusivity of Christ, among others."
I have seen them question, "how we read Scripture," but I don't recall them ever questioning the place of Scripture.
I have seen them question, "what is the nature of hell," but I don't recall them ever questioning whether hell exists.
I have never seen them question the exclusivity of Christ.
Heartsick, you may be better read in McLaren and Bell than I. Please give me references.
Thanks.
Brian,
A fair question to be sure!
Let me say first that I find it very difficult to snip quotes from books, articles, and sermons by these gentlemen to make a point. So often they seem to talk in circles, even riddles, and I find myself scratching my head. But when I look at their writings as a whole I find much to be concerned with. I find their overall view of scripture, Christ's atonement, and general focus on man/creation to be very "new age" in content and tone.
I have little time today to devote to the task of providing specifics for you. May I provide a link to start things off? Pastor Bob DeWaay has written a critical review of McClaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy" that I find very helpful. I agree with much of his assessment and submit it to you for your review at your convenience. I will comment more later, likely tomorrow.
Until then,
"heartsick"
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue87.htm
As a balance to Pastor DeWaay's article, I would also recommend that folks here read the article Response to Recent Criticisms
by Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, Chris
Seay (most of the "big names" in the emerging church).
You might also find this article, The Emergent Church – Another Perspective
A Critical Response to D. A. Carson’s Staley Lectures, by Dr. David Mills, a professor at (the very conservative) Cedarville College, helpful.
One quote from the Response to Recent Criticisms article struck me as particular relevant to this discussion. They write:
we respect the desire and responsibility of our critics to warn those under their care about
ideas that they consider wrong or dangerous, and to keep clear boundaries to declare who is “in”
and “out” of their circles. These boundary-keepers have an important role which we understand
and respect. If one of your trusted spiritual leaders has criticized our work, we encourage you, in respect for their leadership, not to buy or read our work, but rather to ignore it and consider it unworthy of further consideration. We would only ask, if you accept our critics’ evaluation of our work, that in fairness you abstain from adding your critique to theirs unless you have actually read our books, heard us speak, and engaged with us in dialogue for yourself. Second-hand critique can easily become a kind
of gossip that drifts from the truth and causes needless division.
Oh, and another relevant quote from that same article that I thought should be posted here:
"We would like to clarify, contrary to statements and inferences made by some, that yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters – if we did not believe this, we would
have no good reason to write or speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism; yes, we affirm the historic Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history – and we honor the church’s great teachers and leaders from East and West, North and South; yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus; no, we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors; no, we do not endorse false dichotomies – and we regret any false dichotomies unintentionally made by or about us (even in this paragraph!); and yes, we affirm that we love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures, because our greatest desire is to be followers and servants of the Word of God, Jesus Christ. We regret that we have either been unclear or misinterpreted in these and other areas."
Post a Comment
<< Home