Why George’s Question Is Critically Important
It is very likely that the first words written in the Christian community that are still available to us today are the words of Paul in what the Bible calls the Epistle to the Galatians.
Very close to the beginning of that ancient Christian letter, Paul the Apostle defines how crucial adherence to the true Christian message is. These are his words:
“ Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person.” (Galatians 1:8-9 NLT)
Now, think about who Paul was. He was a stunningly brilliant man. And, more than that, he was an original thinker. The more I read his writings the more I am flabbergasted by his creative ability to integrate his understanding of the essential truths of the Christian message with history, culture and law and philosophy. Paul was an absolute intellectual giant. No one blazes the kind of trail he blazed without a willingness to ask questions courageously.
But, when he asked himself the question of the tolerance of theological diversity—particularly diversity in the proclamation of the ‘Gospel,’ his answer was simple and straightforward. His answer has two components to it.
1. Diversity is not permissible. Period!
2. Anyone who diverts from the essential truths of that message should actually be cursed. (Those first words in verse 8 in the NLT are a prayer!)
So, understand how important George’s question is.
It is permissible to question. More than permissible, it is essential that we take on every question. We can’t proclaim the Gospel in a way that has meaning to our world unless that proclamation answers the questions that people who don’t follow Jesus are asking.
But, our questioning should be sober and humble. Questions of doctrine are critical. And, in Paul’s mind at least, wrong answers to those questions are not permissible. They are worthy of a curse.
In the postmodern culture questions are important. And, we can’t be effective missionaries to that culture without asking questions with the best of them.
However, Jesus calls us to transform our culture, not to be consumed by it. We are to be witnesses and ambassadors to the postmodern culture. We are not to become postmoderns. We are called to be followers of Jesus. If we are worth our salt, we will be a counter-culture force.
So, ask any and every question you need to ask. But, understand how important your answer is.
posted by bill Sloat at 8:17 AM
45 Comments:
I would agree that any CGGC pastor should be able to quickly and gladly affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.
George here is the opening to your first comment using the Conservative CGGC badge.
"Alright, I can stand it no longer. I have been reading many of these posts on the Emerging CGGC blogger, and have considered responding, but I held back due to my concern about identity theft. I did ask Brian a question one time regarding clerical collars, and the reason I didn't get a blogger account was due to my concern regarding identity theft. However, this "A Heretic's Guide to Eternity" blog was the "straw that broke the camel's back" for me. Let the hackers come. I can be silent no longer. By the way, my name is George Jensen and I am the pastor of the Enola First Church of God. I am proudly and unashamedly a TRADTIONAL conservative evangelical born again Christian."
You came in waving your arms and shouting alarm. Then when you tried to wrestle a few people to the ground and pin them down, they didn't think like it very much.
Since then, you have been very gracious and much more conversational. I am hopeful and fairly confident that you will find that most (if not all) can agree that Jesus is Lord and the Bible is the Bible. But they suspect you are just getting started and are looking to root out the non-CONSERVATIVE, non-TRADITIONAL rabble for the good of God, Conservatism, and the CGGC.
George,
I think Brian may have something.
I've known you for years and still see you and talk to you regularly and I was a little surprised at the intense reaction your posts have generated.
The truth is, though, that most people don't know you as the cuddly little fuzzball I know you to be.
But, this is all good. You've been a catalyst for an important discussion.
Bill,
You quoted Paul in Galatians as saying “Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person.” (Galatians 1:8-9 NLT)
Then later you wrote "But, when he asked himself the question of the tolerance of theological diversity—particularly diversity in the proclamation of the ‘Gospel,’ his answer was simple and straightforward. His answer has two components to it:
1. Diversity is not permissible. Period!
2. Anyone who diverts from the essential truths of that message should actually be cursed. (Those first words in verse 8 in the NLT are a prayer!)"
What do you see as the essential truths of that message? It seems that whether we call ourselves Baptist, Methodist, CGGC, charismatic, fundamentalist, or whatever; we (as Christians) should be able to find common ground on this basic point.
Perhaps I'm naive, but it seems if we can agree on these essentials we have a strong basis for unity as brothers in Christ, and still be able to allow for diversity in our approaches to taking that message into our circles of influence, whether they be modern or postmodern.
George,
I can’t speak for anyone else, and you didn’t really ask my opinion, but I’ll risk taking my hand from my mouth on this one. Yep, I read your first couple of comments and the original post, and I thought it had a bit of an “accusatory tone” to it. That may not have been your intent, but it seemed like you were insinuating that some of us on this blog – because of some of the things we were reading, ideas we were having, and questions we were asking – were some kind of heathens and that those of us who were pastors should repent and/or resign. So it wasn’t so much the question that was asked, it was more how it was presented. You seemed to be saying, “I want to hear what you have to say, but if you say ‘this’, then you are wrong!” I don’t have a problem with Jesus as Lord or the Bible, but your question kind of smelled like fundamentalism to me, and I wondered what else was coming; how far it would go.
Also, I think there are maybe some pastors who are “younger,” or “newer” to this (I’m not as young as I think I am) who have already been “put in our place” one too many times – we’ve heard how people feel about our clothes and earrings and whatever else – and that was where this blog was kind of a breath of fresh air (I thought so anyway). It seemed like that was being challenged. Even though I like much of what the “emerging church” is about, I’m honestly not very good with the “conversation”… because I’m just really tired of arguing and bickering with people who, as far as I can tell, want to see the same things I want to see anyway.
I admit I took your comments, and some of the other ones, a bit too personally, especially when the issue of integrity came up. You know, I can (and do) believe Jesus is Lord and Savior with all my heart, but it doesn’t mean that every stinking day I don’t have trouble LIVING that belief. And I have a problem with people who seem to think it’s enough just to “say” what they believe, and they try to then make those of us who are honest enough to share our struggles in LIVING IT OUT feel like we are less than them or unworthy. That’s why I have a hard time especially with someone who throws accusations around, naming names, saying who should or should not be allowed to do or be whatever, but then they sign their posts “anonymous.” Yeah, I’m a bit too defensive about this. Sorry.
So, there you have it. Sorry this is so long. I agree with Brian though, after your first few posts, you have seemed rather gracious. And I certainly appreciate your straightforwardness. I hope you can appreciate that some of us are just tired of fighting, and tired of having to always defend ourselves, and tired of accusations that don’t really make sense. If it makes somebody feel better for me to forfeit my ordination papers – whatever. I don’t really even know where they are. Personally, I think there are a lot more important things to do with our time.
Thanks for sharing, and caring.
Sincerely,
Dan Horwedel, pastor
Fairview Church of God
Yoder, Indiana
Kudos Dan,
I couldn’t have said it better myself. I’m tired of fighting with those who say they are about loving people also. But some things never change, do they?
Bill,
It's all well and good for Paul to say that there shouldn't be any tolerance for theological diversity about his gospel message. The difficulty I see though is the question "what is Paul's gospel message?" Calvinists, Wesleyans, Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Mainline Protestants, CGGC, etc. are all going to give you very different answers to the question of what Paul actually taught. Whose interpretation, then, is the correct one that must be upheld upon pain of being "cursed"?
(I happen to think that evangelicals have largely distorted and emaciated the gospel message. Do you suppose I ought to curse evangelicals then?)
IMHO, tt doesn't really matter anymore whether Paul says diversity is not permissable, diversity is already an inescapable reality. Maybe if Paul was still around to clarify for us exactly what he meant, then we could follow his admonition not to teach anything except what he taught. But the problem these days is not in teaching a gospel contrary to Paul's gospel, but in figuring out what Paul's own gospel was in the first place. And if that proves more difficult than we originally reckon, perhaps we should allow more grace for the diversity of Christian traditions that have all understood Paul's message in slightly different ways over the centuries.
Just my .02...
Peace,
-Mike
Two thoughts come to mind as I read George's question about why it created such a stir:
1) He started the post with a really good question. I've known George for a long time (he's the first person to introduce me to Veggie Tales!), so maybe my personal interactions with him cause me not to be offended by some of his early comments. But for the past year, if you take a look at most of the posts that received the most comments in response, they were mostly good questions that created a strong line of responses.
2) The question was based upon some rather significant philosophical assumptions. Some of the responses were not in reaction to George's question, but the assumptions he was making when he wrote it.
Asking good questions and challenging other's assumptions - I see that as a good approach to take to spiritual growth.
George wrote: "I am 37 years old (although to Sleasman and Clawson, that probably sounds like Geezer-hood for sure)"
Don't panic George, you have a few good years left in you.
Brent
I want to thank you for allowing me to be a part of this "dialogue" concerning the emerging church and the CGGC. I know my presence here has made many uncomfortable, and I am sorry for that. It isn't my preference to post anonymously, but I have explained why I thought it was necessary in this case. Again, I want to stress that most of you would have no idea who I am, so don't concern yourself with wondering.
However, since I am not in the CGGC any longer, since I am uncomfortably "anonymous", and since Pastor Jensen's participation has caused the sense of panic that sparked my initial comments to subside somewhat, I feel it is time for me to bow out of the conversation. I have many pressing concerns that I am responsible for and I need to turn my focus to those things at this time.
Dan H. said....."And I have a problem with people who seem to think it’s enough just to “say” what they believe, and they try to then make those of us who are honest enough to share our struggles in LIVING IT OUT feel like we are less than them or unworthy. That’s why I have a hard time especially with someone who throws accusations around, naming names, saying who should or should not be allowed to do or be whatever, but then they sign their posts 'anonymous.'"
I urge you in the future not to confuse passion and conviction with ungraciousness, exhortation with condescension (of course we all struggle daily to live out our faith), and anonymous posting with lacking integrity. I am sorry you felt put on the defensive. That's not all bad, though. It helps you assess the things you're being defensive about...are they worth defending? I assure you that nothing I have said was meant personally for anyone, but rather meant to address the CGGC as a whole.
The emerging church scene truly is a melting pot of doctrines, ideas, agendas, and teachings. I understand why it was birthed in the first place....there are many flaws in the American Church (not just in America). However, it is my conviction that man-centered philosophies are not going to help matters any, and it will only muddy already mirky waters. When I read McClaren, or Bell, or so many others, I see more what is missing than what is there. That is why quotes are so misleading. I rarely hear about Christ's atonement, and rather than man creating a kingdom here on earth (which is so much of the focus), I hear next to nothing about Christ's return and how HE will make all things new. We must preach Christ and Him crucified, we must stress his victory over death and sin, and we must prepare people for the reality of His judgment after His triumphant return. I hear way more about ministering to the poor, making culture comfortable with the church, and saving the planet from human destruction than the aforementioned core truths. Where is the teaching about self-sacrifice, denying self, taking up your cross? What about, "They hated me, so they will hate you, too." (paraphrase). We are His servants, and no servant is better than his Master. It's not fun to have our message trampled on, being labled as a "fanatic" or a "fundamentalist" or a "freak." Believers in other parts of the world like Asia and Africa are literally slaughtered and burned for their beliefs. In America, we don't want anyone to be uncomfortable, especially us, and we'll do almost anything to see that happen. I'm tired, so I may not be making much sense. I just hope that you will all continue to be Bereans. Perhaps putting a "hold" on reading any more of the latest trendy books, and just spending a month alone with our Bibles would bring a lot of clarity to the table. Just a thought. I know I've been guilty of spending more hours with my nose in a human-authored book than the God-breathed Word.
Before you do that, though, I'd love to recommend a brother whose messages I recently discovered. His messages aren't directly related to the subject at hand, but rather he has such a prophetic voice and passion to see God glorified in the nations. We rarely hear preaching like this today. His name is Paul Washer, and he leads a missions group called HeartCry Missionary Society. The website is heartcrymissionary.com, and you can click on the menu for his audio messages. Truly Spirit-filled preaching, and I highly recommend you check it out.
I'm sure we'll cross paths again on the blogosphere, but if not it is my sincere hope to fellowship with each of you in eternity. Won't that be glorious?
By the way, George, 37 must be a great age.....I'm 37, too! :o) I appreciate your passion, brother. If I'm ever in Pennsylvania, I'll drop in to meet you.
God bless each of you, and thanks again for your tolerance!
In His Service,
"heartsick"
Gang,
Regarding my quote from Paul in which he called down from heaven a curse on anyone who preaches a gospel different than the one he preached, “Faithful Sidekick” said,
“What do you see as the essential truths of that message? It seems that whether we call ourselves Baptist, Methodist, CGGC, charismatic, fundamentalist, or whatever; we (as Christians) should be able to find common ground on this basic point.”
And Mike said,
“It's all well and good for Paul to say that there shouldn't be any tolerance for theological diversity about his gospel message. The difficulty I see though is the question "what is Paul's gospel message?" Calvinists, Wesleyans, Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Mainline Protestants, CGGC, etc. are all going to give you very different answers to the question of what Paul actually taught. Whose interpretation, then, is the correct one that must be upheld upon pain of being "cursed"?”
Thanks, guys, if in fact Faithful Side is a guy. (Excuse the sexism if you are not.) I was hoping someone would identify this issue. I certainly left it unresolved.
But, I need to tell you that I left it unresolved intentionally. I didn’t want my point to be missed. The truth of the passage is one that I believe we need to take to heart. In my opinion, there has been a tone in a few of the previous threads in which some who participate here come across as being too cavalier about their adherence to the message that Jesus delivered to us.
My point is that there is great danger in that attitude. That attitude, if it is unchecked in a follower of Jesus, can only lead to bad things. That attitude might reflect a lack of submission to the Lordship of Jesus and it certainly fails to display the fruit of discipleship if discipleship is defined by Jesus’ proclaim that He did not come to be served but to serve. There is an essential humility that is demanded of those who truly know Jesus and the immense power of the message He preached and the life He lived.
Mike, I find the way you present the question to be very interesting. You ask it in terms of ‘whom,’ not ‘what.’ Who among the various theological traditions available to us, do I think is correct? Interesting. Obviously, the politically correct answer in this context is the CGGC. But, I hope there was at least a trace of a smirk on your lips when you typed the question. The question is not who. The question is what. What is the Gospel that Paul preached? And, the question that accompanies the ‘what’ question is, ‘how.’ How do we articulate that message today?
I’m going to give my complete answer to your question because what my answer might be is not the issue. I will say that the difficulty with this may not be as staggering as you may be taking it to be. In these verses, Paul is not talking about tolerance of the theological message he taught. He is demanding that there be no variation is the message (literally ‘gospel’) that he proclaimed. It may be that the “Calvinists, Wesleyans, Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Mainline Protestants, CGGC, etc.” Mike speaks of may not actually define the Gospel as differently as we might think.
But, I don’t want my point to be lost. The existence of diversity in the understanding of the content of the Gospel is a grave and serious matter. And, none of us should tread that ground lightly.
Heartsick,
Please don't leave the discussion on my account. While it's true, I don't like the idea of someone lobbing accusations from behind a curtain, if you truly have questions or contributions to make, you should make them. And I am the only one who has questioned the idea of anonymous posts, and I am probably less of a consequence than you seem to think your are.
Also, I hope I am correct in stating, this conversation is NOT limited to CGGC people only (right?). I have never understood it to be such. And I am a little uncomfortable even with dialogue that seems to limit it denominationally. I certainly think our denomination is one of the best, but I feel the conversation would be better suited to things of a "kingdom" nature. But... that's just me.
Dan,
I'm not a big fan on anonymous posts either. I too long for Kingdom discussion. It is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, who reported to us that it was near, who calls us to follow in His steps, which is my total desire.
Heartsick,
To continue to suggest that working for God's Kingdom on earth isn't Biblical, doesn't make oneself a servant to Jesus Christ who longs for His Kingdom on Earth, doesn't require repentance, and doesn't require an amazing amount of self-sacrifice on one's part is starting to get on my nerves... because it is not true.
You said, "I assure you that nothing I have said was meant personally for anyone, but rather meant to address the CGGC as a whole." This seems like an odd place to address the CGGC as a whole. You've made blanket remarks about McLaren and Bell but have given no valid references for your remarks.
George,
When you make comments like "as a whole, the CGGC is still a biblically-based evangelical fellowship; I hope that gives you some comfort," I assume you are giving credance to Heartsick's remark that many of us are not biblically-based. I think it is invalid.
Faithful Sidekick,
Thanks for longing for an identity we can all run with.
This is slightly off topic, but I am interested to read a few comments about anonymous posts.
I guess I am curious why so many don't like them.
Brent
Bill, thanks for your thoughtful reply. You said:
Mike, I find the way you present the question to be very interesting. You ask it in terms of ‘whom,’ not ‘what.’ Who among the various theological traditions available to us, do I think is correct? Interesting. Obviously, the politically correct answer in this context is the CGGC. But, I hope there was at least a trace of a smirk on your lips when you typed the question. The question is not who. The question is what. What is the Gospel that Paul preached? And, the question that accompanies the ‘what’ question is, ‘how.’ How do we articulate that message today?
Sorry to disappoint you but there was no smirk. My use of "whom" rather than "what" was deliberate. Personally, I don't believe it's possible to read the Bible without interpreting it. All of our understandings of Paul's message (or any other part of scripture) are interpreted through our own personal and theological lenses. Thus, IMHO, it is impossible for us to simply talk about Paul's message, as if we can just come to scripture as a blank slate and get it directly. Instead we have Paul's message as understood by Calvin, or Wesley, or Weinbrenner, or Wright, or Clawson, or Sloat.
So for me the question is not "what is the one, absolute, objectively true interpretation of Paul's message before which all other theologies must be judged?" I just don't think it's possible for us to really know the answer to that question. To me the question, then, is a more humble, but perhaps more realistic one of "Whose particular, perspectival interpretation seems most accurate to the history, the culture, and the overall scriptural context... and have I diligently weighed all the other reasonable alternatives as well before discarding them out of hand?"
Peace,
-Mike
Heartsick said:
"I just hope that you will all continue to be Bereans. Perhaps putting a "hold" on reading any more of the latest trendy books, and just spending a month alone with our Bibles would bring a lot of clarity to the table."
To me the great irony is that it is by doing what you recommend that I was led away from the evangelical theologies that you uphold as "core truths". It was because I started reading the Bible afresh, with a new set of lenses besides the evangelical ones I had grown up with, that my opinions on so many matters started to change. Reading McLaren didn't change me, the Bible did. By the time I got around to reading McLaren my reaction was simply "Wow, he's putting into writing what I've already been thinking for a long time now."
George,
You told us to get passionate. I got passionate. I didn't assume WRONG; I'm telling you how you are being perceived WRONG. There is a difference.
I really don't have much doubt that you and I could get along just fine. What did Bill call you? A big ol' harmless fluffball?
Moreover, I do think that there is a valid question here about what is critically important. I've been trying to lay some of that groundwork.
But I can say that on my list will be helping Christ reveal His Kingdom through issues of justice and compassion. (Matthew 25) In the end, it will be Christ who unveils His Kingdom, but by faith we long for the city of God and do what we can to move in that direction. (Hebrews 11)
I think the article at the following link is a great, balanced primer on the emerging church, its strengths, and the concerns and pitfalls as well. Frankly, it is one of the best things I've read on the net that boils down some of the key issues. I would be interested in your perspectives. It is written by Justin Taylor.
Here are a few quotes to tantalize you....:o)
Begin quote:
"Remember how the serpent led Eve into disobedience: 'Did God actually say, "'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'"?" (Gen. 3:1). Satan does not begin by lying, per se, but with a question. He plants a seed of doubt: 'Hey, I'm just asking questions. Raising the issues. Exploring the terrain. I'm not saying God didn't say this. I'm just wondering if we all really understood what he said.'
We do not need a generous orthodoxy, as some have claimed. (As Al Mohler has perceptively observed, "generous orthodoxy" is neither generous nor orthodox![7]) We want a humble orthodoxy. And undermining the authority of God's Word—which I think you will observe in my next three areas of concern—is not the way of humble orthodoxy. It is neither humble nor orthodox to undermine the inerrant, authoritative Word of God. There is nothing hip or cool or relevant about asking a new generation, 'Did God actually say…?' The doctrine of God's authoritative Word should be absolutely humbling. We are weak. We are biased. We are sinful. We idolize ourselves. And God has a powerful Word that stands over and above us. We must submit."
Further on, Taylor says....
(begin quote)
"The Bible also commends the idea of seeking truth and understanding (e.g. Prov. 2:1-6). But I believe that the emerging church often makes seeking an end in itself, and Scripture condemns that line of thinking. So Paul condemns those who are 'always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth' (2 Tim. 3:7).
G.K. Chesteron offers us a biblical alternative to McLaren's methodology: 'The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.'[14]"
Taylor also talks about the positive things in the emerging church conversation. Like myself, however, he doesn't agree with some of the conclusions drawn within the camp.
You see, I think the emerging church scene is a breeding ground for error. Is it all bad? Certainly not! Are intentions good? I'm sure they are..mostly. However, the failure of key leaders in the conversation to speak absolutely on key biblical doctrines, to ask more questions than providing answers, only serves to undermine the foundation that has been laid for us, rather than fixing the problems faced in the Church.
I hope you'll read this article. It says everything better than I can.
Reading Brent's question about anonymous posting helped me see a small contradiction floating around this blog. Several (Dan, Brian, etc.) have voiced concerns over those of us who post anonymously, while at the same time referring to "some people on this blog..." who they never name. Then very often the person goes on to attack these unnamed persons. Aren't you doing somewhat the same thing that you are accusing others of doing?
Maybe we could make a deal - we'll stop "hiding behind" our anonymous posts, if you don't hide behind "some people think" without naming names.
If you are going to make a point to confront someone's opinion that you disagree with, at least give them the courtesy of naming who you are directing your comment at.
Anonymous.
My thoughts on anonymous posts: if you're going to put your thoughts out there for others to read, you ought to at least have the courage to sign your name to it. If you're too ashamed of your own words to own them personally, then I really see no reason why I should care what you have to say.
Besides that, posting anonymously makes it far too easy to hit and run, tear people to shreds, say hurtful and untrue things, all without having to worry at all about damage to your reputation or character. In short, it makes it far too easy to ignore the rules of charity and respect for others. If you're anonymous then there are no consequences for anything you say. You can act like a jerk and get away with it while the rest of us cannot. That just doesn't seem like a very good foundation for social interactions in any setting. Where's the accountability? Where's the personal responsibility?
Bottom line, IMO, if you don't sign your name then I have no reason to trust you or respect what you have to say. Call me a postmodern if you like, but IMO relationship is far more important than disembodied, abstract ideas. I want to know who you are before I care what you think.
But again, that's just my (somewhat cranky) opinion on the matter.
-Mike Clawson
Anonymous (and Brent),
Besides being the most asinine post I have read in awhile, I think it proves a point - how can one address someone who is anonymous? Are all these anonymous posts from one person, or are there several? I don't know. It does nothing but create confusion.
I agree with everything Mike said. I'm glad he responded first, because he was much more gracious than I was going to be.
That's really all I have to say anymore.
I stated clearly that Heartsick keeps making strong accusations with no support. It is the kind of thing that lingers out there and people might think that the non-exclusivity of Christ is being pushed on this site. It isn't, nor will it be. The exclusivity of Christ is an essential. It wasn't an attack. It was a statement.
I responded to one website and received no interaction, so I don't plan on looking at another one since the last one failed to convince.
I started this site because various leaders in the General Conference were looking for there to be a place for this conversation to occur. A conversation is what I long for. It is hard to have a conversation with anonymous people for a number of reasons.
If a pro-emergent person showed up here and started posting anonymously, I would likewise invite them to introduce themselves and tell us a little bit about themselves. If they refused, I would be very wary about trusting their presence here. I might still agree with what they say, but I would hesitate to really engage in dialogue with them.
(I used to interact a lot over at theOoze.com, Spencer Burke's website, and we would get those type posters every so often. Regardless of what side they took, if they didn't introduce themselves and just stuck to making inflamatory comments or posting hot-button questions, we tended to ignore them, or respond only insofar as to welcome them and invite them to make themselves known. If they refused then we generally considered them to be nothing more than "trolls". I follow the same practice here.)
I'm also curious about your choice of words in this phrase "emerging church fair-haired boys". Is this some kind of slang that I'm not familiar with, or are you implying something else? I'm really not sure what you meant by that.
Pax,
-Mike
In defense of heartsick, let me say it is nice to know some background informations (formerly CGGC) and a constant signature to know that we talking to the same person each time. Not at all like the last anonymous post to which I agree with your comments thus far.
So to Heartsick (I hope you are still reading):
1) I find it odd that you say goodbye and then continue to raise questions and make comments that need to be addressed.
You said, "Where is the teaching about self-sacrifice, denying self, taking up your cross?" -- Do you think we are not doing this? Have you been to our services, our small groups, our alters, our baptisms? We are not saying this is not important. We are searching for ways to make people (who have been hurt by the church that gets in their face) get into our buildings to meet the church once more. Once there, they can hear the gospel of Christ and learn these truths of serving Him. It DOES take understanding the culture and making adaptations to our methods to reach these people. These people are already uncomfortable with the church -- and we should be OK with that? I think it is the opposite of the "they hate you because they hated me first". I'm afraid these people hate Christ because they are hating US first -- we want to find ways to fix this problem.
2) You tell us to stop reading books by man and read the Bible, yet before you go you give us links to places where we can read more from man. Things that make me go "hmmmmmmm."
3) You also stated, "the failure of key leaders in the conversation to speak absolutely on key biblical doctrines, to ask more questions than providing answers, only serves to undermine the foundation that has been laid for us, rather than fixing the problems faced in the Church."
I can say that Brian has had more success getting people into a deeper relationship with Christ by asking tough questions and leading followers to come up with their own answers. As a teacher, I am much more successful with students when I ask leading questions than when I provide all the answers. There are definitely absolutes, and I have no doubt those are being taught in our churches. But supplying answers is not the best method to getting people ready for the "test" at the end of the chapter.
I enjoy reading your conversations -- thanks for letting ALL be a part!
Hi, everyone. I'm still lingering around and will comment a little further on things as I'm able.
For Danelle...hello there. I appreciated your thoughtful comment; you make some great points. First, I want to assure you that not all anonymous posts are from me on this thread. I will sign "heartsick."
I think it's wonderful your church teaches about self-sacrifice, taking up your cross, etc. I would say, however, that this is not as typical in the emergent church as you would hope. Again, I can't speak to your church's teaching and practice, I'm merely commenting on the movement at large.
You said....
"These people are already uncomfortable with the church -- and we should be OK with that? I think it is the opposite of the 'they hate you because they hated me first'. I'm afraid these people hate Christ because they are hating US first -- we want to find ways to fix this problem."
I think it depends on 'why' they are uncomfortable with the church. My concern is that our teaching is changing, not just our methodology. I'm not so much concerned with dress, music, atmosphere, activities as I am the teaching about Christ, and it is a message that offends...there is no getting around that. That is all I mean to say. Ministering to those who've been hurt by the church is a very difficult task. I feel that even more in these cases we must be sure of and unwavering about the true message while being gentle, respectiful, and loving. The Lord will be faithful to provide the grace to do this as we pray for His guidance and don't rely on our own flesh. Always a struggle in all we do!
Then you say...
"You tell us to stop reading books by man and read the Bible, yet before you go you give us links to places where we can read more from man. Things that make me go 'hmmmmmmm.'"
I didn't tell YOU to stop doing that. I said that maybe WE should ALL read the Bible more and less of man. Plus, I really meant that following link to HeartCry Missionary Society "tounge in cheek" when I said, "but before you do that...." Please forgive me if the humorous irony didn't come through. I know it's hard to believe. I really do have a sense of humor. :o) Seriously, though, I highly recommend Washer's teaching (again not really pertaining to this conversation, just a recommendation to edify you all.)
Lastly, you comment on my quote..."the failure of key leaders in the conversation to speak absolutely on key biblical doctrines, to ask more questions than providing answers."
You said..."I can say that Brian has had more success getting people into a deeper relationship with Christ by asking tough questions and leading followers to come up with their own answers. As a teacher, I am much more successful with students when I ask leading questions than when I provide all the answers. There are definitely absolutes, and I have no doubt those are being taught in our churches."
Praise God that the Holy Spirit has used Brian and yourself to help people go deeper in their faith. God is good. I never said we can't ask questions to get people thinking or to help them seek for answers. You're right there are definitely absolutes, and that is what I'm talking about. And, even though you are confident these are being taught in your churches (assuming you mean CGGC) I only wish we could be as confident they are being taught in the Emergent Church. There is much evidence to the contrary.
Appreciated your comments!
Blessings to your family,
"heartsick"
Dan H. and Mike C....I thought your posts were very ungracious. What "anonymous" post on this site has ever been a "hit and run" or tore people to "shreds"? The tone and content of your posts were far less gracious than anything I've read an anonymous person write since I've been visiting the site.
Don't worry, you won't have to put up with my anonymous rantings much longer.
Brian...please read my comment on your post about the DeWaay article. Forgive me that I haven't answered your analysis yet or provided proof for my accusations. I don't believe, however, that I have been making "strong accusations" with "no support" whatsoever. There is support for my thoughts all over the net. It just takes time (that I am lacking) to compile it, and I believe that I have stated several times the difficulty in this process because of McClaren's, Bell's, other's propensity toward vagueness and open-ended questions. I'll try to compile some troubling quotes and get back to you when I can.
Lastly, you said....
"I started this site because various leaders in the General Conference were looking for there to be a place for this conversation to occur. A conversation is what I long for. It is hard to have a conversation with anonymous people for a number of reasons."
Like I said, that's one of the reasons I won't be sticking around. I won't reveal myself, and since I'm not in the General Conference, perhaps I should be exempt from the conversation. I have no problem with this.
Lastly, brother George, I did want to clarify that nothing happened at the CGGC to make me leave. There were other factors involved; I don't want you to think that I left CGGC over issues or anything. Blessings to you!
With all sincerity,
"heartsick"
I'll share a few thoughts in support of posting anonymously since I may be the only one who doesn't have a problem with it. These are in no particular order. Really, the topic isn't one that I am going to get bent out of shape over, but I think both sides should be present.
First, the push for someone to sign their name comes across to me like asking someone to "look a person in the eye" when they speak. This is a very Western, especially American, perspective. For all the talk of inclusivity and postmodernism, I would think this parochial attitude would be questioned.
Second, who really owns ideas anyhow? Much postmodern theory has suggested the "death of the author", so when Mike said "Call me a postmodern if you like, but IMO relationship is far more important than disembodied, abstract ideas." In my opinion, this statement actually distances you from postmodern theory. We may be simply be working from different understandings of postmodernism. I agree with your statment, but I don't see it as consistent with some other items you have expressed on this blog. Suggesting that an idea belongs to the author alone, and forcing that author to identify him/herself, is again a very Western, moreso American ideal. Plagiarism is very different in other cultures. The whole notion of the ownership of ideas is based in very specific line of thought. I have no problem if someone supports it, but I would challenge him/her to make sure the assumptions line up with other opinions he/she expresses.
Third, St. Augustine (in "On Christian Doctrine") suggests that "all truth is God's truth." If this is true (and I believe it is), does it matter where the truth comes from? Why can't we accept a true idea from someone whether the name is signed or not?
Fourth, maybe it just comes down to "having the guts to put your name with your opinion." That's fine. But so often, again this is my opinion, we believe relationships begin with familiarity when in fact it is better to begin with distance. That is why roles are important - pastors who go by "Pastor so and so" instead of "just call me Brent", Professors who want to be called "Dr. ..." as opposed to just their first name. Maybe, anonymous posters are finding their place. They don't want to be known by their first name.
Now, I am NOT defending those who attack and leave. But that happens with both named and unnamed.
Just a few thoughts for what they are worth. I found the anonymous "Maybe we could make a deal..." comment rather amusing. But I think the point that "If you are going to make a point to confront someone's opinion that you disagree with, at least give them the courtesy of naming who you are directing your comment at" is valid.
Brent
Continued from my previous post:
Anonymous "postings" throughout history (or at least under pseudonyms):
- Federalist Papers
- Kierkegaard's writings
- NT book of Hebrews
(among many others)
Notice, I am not even going near the "free speech" angle.
Two final thoughts: There is not universal agreement on the internet about anonymous posts (based upon a quick Google search). Therefore, there is no "common sense" about this. So how can people be expected to act in a certain way if the expectation has never been suggested. Maybe their should be a CGGC blog "Suggested Etiquette" or something of the sort.
Second, if after reading my comments about anonymous postings there is still agreement that it shouldn't occur, maybe a request should be made to Brian to simply "outlaw" them. Change the settings and only let registered users post. If the option to post anonymously is available, which it is, I don't see how people can get upset if someone clicks it.
Again, I am really not trying to start something over this topic. I just thought I would provide a slightly different perspective.
Anonymous said, and Brent re-stated:
"If you are going to make a point to confront someone's opinion that you disagree with, at least give them the courtesy of naming who you are directing your comment at."
Can I ask who this comment is directed towards???
You can be sure that my previous post was less than gracious. For that I apologize. It seems to me there have been several antagonistic posts over the past week. George is the only one I know by name and apparently that doesn't seem to bother him because "he is how he is."
I am how I am also, and right now I am not in a very good mood over what has happened with this blog. Perhaps you saints can pray for me.
Dan,
When I restated the comment, I was just using it in a general way. The anonymous posting may have been for someone in particular, but my recent post wasn't directed at any one person - I just thought it may be a good practice. I have noticed that once in awhile someone will post something like "some on this blog..." and then go on to make comments directed at them. But honestly right now, I can't specifically give an example. So maybe my memory is poor or I am thinking of another place that I've read it.
Could you be more specific about "right now I am not in a very good mood over what has happened with this blog". And if any of it is about my recent posts I'll accept the criticisms.
Brent
Brent,
No, I probably can't be any more specific. I've tried to be honest and up-front, and right now I need an attitude adjustment.
Brent said there is no official ettiquete here. That is true. So here's my picture. This is a virtual coffee house. It is a public place, where I meet my friends to have some good coffee and good conversation. I'm the host. I sent out some advertisements to people I thought might be interested.
We sit down, and I say, "I'm Brian." Next up is "Brent, Dan, George (with his bright 'Ask me about Jesus!' T-shirt), Lance," and then the next person says, "You can just call me 'Sad because you guys believe wrong.'" Oh. OK. Next is "Bill, Rob, Phil, Lew", and silence. "I'm sorry, I missed your name?" Silence. "Are you ok?" "Yeah, I'm here, but only to throw in what I'm thinking with no relational context." Oh.
So we look around the table, and Bill who I've known for a long time says, "Give George a chance. He's lovable." OK. And I admit, after a week or two, I do love him, even though he spilled coffee on me a couple of times as he got really passionate.
Bill shares some concerns about one of McLaren's chapters. I read it and think it looks ok. Bill then shares his thoughts and I think, "Wow. He may have a point." Those were good conversations for me.
Maybe this is ungracious. But if I'm hosting a coffee round table and I don't say something, a lot of these people aren't coming back next week. So I'll be sitting around a table with anonymous people.
I know a few anonymous people who I've asked to go ahead and sign their name. I know a few of the people who have given names who I have talked to privately about their communications. To me, some type of congenial respect is necessary and if someone says something completely without merit, we need to call that out of bounds.
Brian,
I like your story of the virtual coffee house. It makes sense.
But (I write this knowing that we've talked enough to know that we share many, many of the same commitments) - I think your reply, while gracious, doesn't really address some of the concerns I raised about anonymous postings.
For me, this points towards the limitations of the narrative story-telling of some of the emerging church supporters. I stated a few specific points and you responded with a story. Honestly as I reread, a story that really doesn't address the points I raised. You and I talk a common language, I "get it", and yet I find the response somewhat unhelpful.
It's unfamiliar territory for me to be supporting a more propositional position, but I don't get how the story of the virtual coffee house provides much insight into the ongoing conversation.
As you wrote about George, "You came in waving your arms and shouting alarm." Sometimes I get the sense that some people come in shouting "Relationships!" with no propositional context.
Could you help me out here?
Thanks.
Brent
Brent, you raise some excellent points. In regards to my own comments you said:
"Second, who really owns ideas anyhow? Much postmodern theory has suggested the "death of the author", so when Mike said "Call me a postmodern if you like, but IMO relationship is far more important than disembodied, abstract ideas." In my opinion, this statement actually distances you from postmodern theory. We may be simply be working from different understandings of postmodernism. I agree with your statment, but I don't see it as consistent with some other items you have expressed on this blog. Suggesting that an idea belongs to the author alone, and forcing that author to identify him/herself, is again a very Western, moreso American ideal. Plagiarism is very different in other cultures. The whole notion of the ownership of ideas is based in very specific line of thought. I have no problem if someone supports it, but I would challenge him/her to make sure the assumptions line up with other opinions he/she expresses.
Third, St. Augustine (in "On Christian Doctrine") suggests that "all truth is God's truth." If this is true (and I believe it is), does it matter where the truth comes from? Why can't we accept a true idea from someone whether the name is signed or not?"
When I invoked postmodernism I meant it more in the sense that all truth is perspectival. My understanding of postmodernism is that there are no truly "objective" points of view. Rather, there are only "views from a point" - i.e. from a particular personal/social/cultural/historical context. Thus knowing who said something - their background, their biases, etc. - helps me interpret and understand their statement. A disembodied (i.e. anonymous) propositional statement is less helpful because I don't know the context of the person speaking it. My concern isn't about originality or authorship (I agree with you on those issues), my concern is about being able to place a comment within a relational and social context. Without that context, a comment is far less useful to me, and thus I'm more likely to simply ignore it.
Just my .02...
Oh, and BTW, I believe it was Wheaton College philosopher Art Holmes who said "All truth is God's truth." Not St Augustine (though I'm sure he implied the idea in his writings). :)
-Mike
Mike,
Thanks for your perspective and feedback about posting anonymously. I still support anonymous posts, but I do understand where you are coming from.
Since there are so many voices interacting on this blog, maybe a more intentional effort to help form a "relational context" would be helpful. Maybe some sort of opening post with the title "Roll Call" could give people a chance to introduce themselves and provide some of the items that are helpful in interpreting comments made here. I've said enough about criteria for posting, so I'll let someone start it if they agree.
On the quote, while Augustine didn't specifically say the words (keeping in mind the whole issue of translation) "all truth is God's truth", he did write in Book Two of "On Christian Doctrine":
"Every good and true Christian should understand that wherever he may find truth, it is his Lord's."
This has been interpreted for some time to mean "all truth is God's truth." While Arthur Holmes wrote a book by that name (in the mid-1970s), he was simply joining an ongoing conversation about the topic. Most attribute the phrase to an interpretation of this statement made by Augustine. Augustine was greatly influenced by Cicero who also suggested that the truth should prevail wherever it is found.
George, thanks for the support and clarification. Dean Hay was telling me about some of your later days at Winebrenner. There are many stories to be told...
Brent
Yeah, I figured Augustine had probably said something like that. It's been a while since I've read "On Doctrine" so I didn't quite remember. (Thanks for that quote. It's a good one.) All I knew is that "All truth is God's truth" has been somewhat of a mantra at Wheaton College since the days of Dr. Holmes.
Thanks for clarifying. I was just giving you a hard time anyway. ;)
-Mike
Mike,
Are you a Wheaton grad? I've gotten to know some of their faculty in the Communication Department. Everything I know about the campus has been positive.
Brent
Yeah, I studied Philosophy at Wheaton (after the time of Dr. Holmes though), with a double major in Christian Education & Ministry. I also got my Masters degree there in Intercultural Studies.
I appreciated my time there and I still love a lot of the professors there, though I have a lot of issues with the current administration and their gestapo tactics towards faculty that don't see eye-to-eye with them.
Umm,
Just a moment of perspective, but aside from Mike who knows me and Brian (whom I met once but doubt he remembers me), who knows anything about me besides what I've written and my blog name?
How is that different than calling myself anonymous, "heartsick," or any other label?
Could you even tell if anything I have told about myself is true?
Why should we pretend that someone's name or blog identity is who they really are? Don't we struggle with that in real life - seeing beneath the surface masks to the real people God made hidden inside all of us?
Okay, I admit I am waxing philosophical - but my point is that you don't know me aside from my posts and what I've said about myself, which may or may not be true (please don't use this to question my intergrity, it is a logical assertion). I don't know you, George, or you Bill, or Dan or Rob or...
So as long as we can tell anonymous posts apart and identify them as unique individuals, who cares whether they are comfortable enough to reveal their true names.
Although, Brian, I have to admit that your coffee shop analogy bothered me. I've heard several times that everybody's welcome, even us pew warmers - couch sitters - whatever, but your coffee shop sounded like an intimate gathering of your friends. Which is it? Are we welcome or not? And if so, can we come and not say anything? Because in face to face settings, that is social anonymity.
The best part of the internet (and yes, sometimes the worst) is the anonymity factor. People use it to become whomever they please, like Mike's comment, they feel no accountability for being brutal. On the other hand, the socially anonymous can try out their voice with no fear of retaliation. The oppressed can speak without harm. I think there is a great deal of value in that and it would be a shame to exclude anonymous comments because Mike, Brian and others (whom I'm too lazy to look up) are uncomfortable not knowing a name.
Besides, we can all tell which comments on which days by whomever (all subject to all variables) are valuable to the discussion at hand (or at least our perception of it) and which are not. And we all post some of each, so who cares what name we go by?
Sincerely and quite truthfully someone y'all barely know,
Charlotte,
I do remember meeting you and your husband after the Healthy Reproducing Conference. You guys were hanging out near the front doors and I sat with you while I waited for the hotel to figure out the bill.
As for the coffee table analogy, the deal is you are welcome at the table. And I have learned much about you through your posts, and I look forward to seeing you again in person.
As for anonymity, there are some other problems that I can't comment on or I would be betraying anonymity.
Hey Char,
Excellent points; and I definitely get what you mean about the value of oppressed people being able to test out their voice in the safety of anonymity.
What bothers me, though, is when the oppressors use the cloak of anonymity to continue their oppression w/out consequences. (I'm not saying that anyone here is an "oppressor", but I have seen it happen.)
In my experience, even if I don't know an online person well, I will still be better behaved if I have some kind of real life connection to them. Most of the guys here at the blog I haven't met in real life, and yet they are friends of my friends; and there is always the likelihood of meeting them in person at various denominational functions. This connection helps me remember to be more charitable and less harsh in my posts. Anonymity, IMHO, removes that barrier. For me, at least, it's a helpful discipline.
-Mike
It was suggested in some comments awhile ago that if a pastor in the CGGC had any doubts, they needed to step down until those doubts were resolved – in the interest of the denomination’s integrity. If that’s the case, then what role does integrity play in the denomination’s responsibility to her pastors (let alone the personal responsibility of Christians to one another)? I mean, if a pastor becomes disillusioned with the church, Christianity, they simply get burned out, or whatever… are they just supposed to walk away from the pulpit, and tell their wife and kids, “Sorry, but daddy has to quit his job, and we’re going to have to move out of the church’s house, and we won’t have insurance anymore, or any income, and you kids will have to find other friends and probably a new school. But please don’t think Christians are uncaring or unloving? The homeless shelter won’t be that bad.”
To those of you who are so certain of your doctrine and theology… what is this pastor to do? Are they just ___ out of luck? And what responsibility, if any, does the denomination have?
Signed,
Anonymous at the end of the rope
As an anonymous poster, I would like to say that fear is my main reason for posting anonymously. I agree with what the last anonymous poster said about a pastor's job being tied to what we believe. We have families to support. Mike, I have read other posts about your being hurt by the church. I admire your willingness to be honest about who you are and what you believe. I too have been hurt... by other pastors in CGGC. Please understand my hesitation to share my name. However I agree tht simply signing anonymously creats confusion. I Like heartsick's idea of a psueodonym. I think that psyuedonyms are a good compromise between anonymous posts and named ones. So from here on out I will sign "Dusty".
Thanks for sharing where you're coming from Dusty. I can definitely relate to your experience. And as I told Char, I have no problem with anonymous posts when they serve to protect people whose voices have previously been supressed or oppressed. If I had maintained my anonymity online earlier, I may not have ended up leaving my previous job.
But I do appreciate the pseudonym. And please tell us as much about yourself as you feel comfortable with. We'd like to get to know you.
Shalom,
-Mike
End of the Rope,
You are welcome to contact me privately if you like. If I can be of some help to you, I will.
Post a Comment
<< Home