A View of the Emerging Church--From the USA Today, November 12, 2007
Check this out.
I believe this is very well said, and presents an unusually balanced view of the Emerging Church. So often this sort of article presents a straw man, either to justify the Emerging Church or to condemn it.
I'd be particularly interested in reading comments by Ken and others of you who condemn the Emerging Church or hold on to reservations about it.
(One last point of information, especially for those from the Eastern Region: I was referred to this article by George Bullard, the Renewal guru who was our Keynote Speaker last year at Conference.)
A force for good
For a growing movement of believers, an activist faith means more than proselytizing about Jesus and stoking the fires of our culture wars. Welcome to the new (and yes, liberal) world of evangelical Christianity.
By Tom Krattenmaker
A passerby might not have known: Was this going to be a church service or a concert by an alternative rock band? The set-up on the stage suggested the latter — a drum kit, guitars on stands, several microphones, and large screens flashing iconic Portland scenes — and so did the look of the young, urban-hip crowd filling up the auditorium.
Then the band hit the stage with a loud, infectious groove, the front man singing passionately about God, and it was clear that the Sunday gathering of Portland's Imago Dei Community was both alt-rock concert and church service, or neither, exactly. So it goes in the new world of alternative evangelical Christianity, better known as the emerging church.
(Illustration by Sam Ward, USA TODAY)
There's a growing buzz about the emerging movement, and depending on your point of view, its robust growth and rising influence are worthy of applause, scorn, or perhaps just puzzlement. Fitting for a movement that eschews hierarchy and dogma, emergents defy simple definition. Perhaps the best one can say is that they're new-style Christians for the postmodern age, the evangelicals of whom the late Rev. Jerry Falwell disapproved.
Postmodernity is nothing new. Philosophers will tell you we've been living in the postmodern age for decades. But its expression in the context of fervent Christianity, in the form of the emerging church, is a fairly recent phenomenon, only about a decade old.
Like the postmodern philosophy it embraces, the emerging church values complexity, ambiguity and decentralized authority. Emergents are quite certain about some things, nevertheless, especially Jesus and his clear instruction about the way Christians are to live out their faith — not primarily as respectable, middle-class pillars of status quo society, but as servants to the poor and to people in the margins. In the words of Gideon Tsang, a 33-year-old Texas emergent who moved himself and his family to a smaller home in a poorer part of town, "The path of Christ is not in upward mobility; it's in downward."
Nothing to resent
To the many Americans cynical about religion, news of the emerging church might come as a stereotype-busting surprise. Christians fired up not about wedge-driving culture-war issues, but about spreading non-judgmental love and compassion? What's to resent about this public face of religion?
According to best estimates, several hundred emerging church congregations, or "communities," have sprung up around the country. Although some are quite large, with memberships well into the thousands, emergents are still bit players on the national religious stage. But the emerging church is making its presence felt, with new groups forming rapidly and major secular and religious media outlets chronicling its influence and potential to dramatically change religion in this country.
Rick McKinley is a goateed thirty-something who leads Imago Dei (which means "image of God" in Latin). McKinley is not your mother's minister. He threads his sermons and two books with youthful slang, as in being "stoked" about things that excite him and acknowledging that "it can really suck" to live with sin.
Ask McKinley whether he and his community are evangelical Christians, and he'll tell you yes — and no. "We'd say 'yes' in terms of what we think about the authority of Scripture and those things," says McKinley, who is finishing his theology doctorate this year. "What you have is evangelicalism defined doctrinally, which we'd agree with, and defined culturally, where we would disagree. Culturally, it has been hijacked by a right-wing political movement."
Like mainstream evangelicals, emergents believe in spreading the Gospel and in the necessity of believers having a personal relationship with Jesus. The difference lies in how faith is applied — the way it's acted out "in the culture," as emergents typically put it. In the eyes of the emerging church, Christianity lived out in the respectable confines of megachurches and suburbia is fading into irrelevance as a new generation comes of age with a passion for healing society and a reluctance to shout moralistic dogma. "If the church doesn't love its neighbors," McKinley says, "I don't understand how it can say anything that's going to have meaning in the culture."
Emergents tend to be more tolerant than establishment evangelicals on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Do emergents believe in heaven and hell? Yes, McKinley explains, but according to emergent theology, the point of being Christian is not solely to achieve heaven in the next life, but to bring some heaven to this life by doing the work of Jesus.
That conviction recently translated into "Love Portland," a Saturday of service around the city. Groups from Imago Dei fanned out to perform service projects — beautifying a school in a poor neighborhood, refurbishing a rundown community theater, and the like — and then gathered to celebrate at their Sunday service the next day with music, video clips and stories from those who partook of the service work. Of course, most evangelical churches perform community service. What makes groups such as Imago Dei different is "sustainability," McKinley says — a commitment to serving the community day after day, week after week — and a soft-sell approach to evangelizing to those on the receiving end of their good works.
Serve the community
The "downward mobility" cited by the Texas emergent applies as well to the church-growth strategy, or lack thereof, of emerging communities. Unlike the megachurches of mainstream evangelicalism, emerging groups do not emphasize attracting new members (although it seems to happen anyway) or constructing church buildings. Some emerging groups meet in rented auditoriums, some in people's homes, some in pubs. There is less emphasis, too, on programming for members. In their view, the church exists not primarily to serve members but to serve the community.
Typical of the movement's critics, Falwell accused the emerging church of trying to "modernize and recreate the church so as not to offend sinners." That's probably code for "liberal," a shoe that would certainly fit.
Writer Scot McKnight, a supporter of the movement, says emergents are seen as "a latte-drinking, backpack-lugging, Birkenstock-wearing group of 21st-century, left-wing, hippie wannabes. Put directly, they are Democrats."
As is so often the case with religious movements in this country, the emerging church is both old and new: Old, in that Christianity in America has seemingly always been in a state of re-invention in response to the ever-changing culture; and new, in that we see in the emerging church a group of Jesus followers who reject the social conservatism modeled by Falwell and many other leading evangelicals this past quarter-century.
Is the emerging church compromising biblical truth for the sake of being hip? That debate won't be resolved here. Whatever the case, there is something hopeful about the appearance of a youthful, idealistic form of faith focused more on healing broken neighborhoods than accumulating members and political power.
For those hoping religion can more consistently serve as a force for kindness, unity and society's renewal — and not so much as an argument-starter — the verdict seems simple: Let the emerging church, and its larger ideals, continue to emerge.
---------------------------------------
Tom Krattenmaker, who lives in Portland, Ore., specializes in religion in public life and is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors. He is working on a book about Christianity in professional sports.
posted by bill Sloat at 7:51 AM
51 Comments:
Agreed, it does present a more balanced view than we usually see, but it seems to be a simplistic one, which, I suspect, has more to do with its original place of publication than anything else.
Personally, I would have liked a bit more development of McKnight's quote and the statement that "liberal" is a shoe that would certainly fit. The emerging church seems a bit more amorphous than that. I'm afraid such characterization paints the emerging church in simplistic political terms when the emerging church itself seems to be trying to distance itself from the realm of politics in that it stresses the demarcation between earthly kingdoms and the Kingdom of God existing in its "already-not yet" tension.
Having said that, if you want a two-sentence summary of emerging church movements, this seems like a good start: "Like mainstream evangelicals, emergents believe in spreading the Gospel and in the necessity of believers having a personal relationship with Jesus. The difference lies in how faith is applied — the way it's acted out "in the culture," as emergents typically put it."
Sorry for slipping into student mode in the middle of the comment there. I guess my mind is starting to transition over now that registration is upon me ...
Thanks for posting this, Bill. I actually like the term/descriptor "alternative evangelical christianity". I wonder if what scares some people is they see emerging as against evangelicalism totally. I like to think it's only opposing those things that have veered off course from the Gospel message.
I also agree with Tammie about that being a great two-sentence summary.
Balanced? Definitely not.
Krattenmaker is showing his own liberal bias which a little research will demonstrate is typical of his writing. He may not be erecting a straw man, but he's certainly leading us down the yellow brick road.
Astoundingly, in his opinion, after 2,000 years of failed attempts by the body of Christ to understand what Jesus taught His disciples, the EC has finally figured it out for us:
"Emergents are quite certain about some things, nevertheless, especially Jesus and his clear instruction about the way Christians are to live out their faith — not primarily as respectable, middle-class pillars of status quo society, but as servants to the poor and to people in the margins. "
If we follow this statement to its logical conclusion, the Church as we know it, has never had a commitment to the poor. It has ignored the marginalized, in complete disregard of the example of Jesus to become servants. Doesn't anyone else see this as ludicrous? A few months ago, by way of illustration to another poster here, I listed charitable work being done by several of my friends---all in the 40+ age bracket. Not to boast, but to show that service to the poor is not an invention of the postmodern generation.
On second thought....I was wrong. Krattenmaker IS setting up a straw man----a caricature of mainstream Christianity as "proselytizing; wedge-driving & stoking the fires of culture-war; middle-class pillars of status quo society; hijacked by a right-wing political movement; Christianity lived out in the respectable confines of megachurches ; doesn't love its neighbors; emphasizing attracting new members / constructing church buildings."
While this may be true of some individuals or even congregations, it is an unfair characterization of the body of Christ. Who does Krattenmaker think is responsible for the majority of charitable work being done both here and around the world? Christians. And yes, many of them "moderns". Who is manning the soup kitchens, rebuilding storm-ravaged neighborhoods, visiting the sick and imprisoned, supporting and staffing missions, caring for the homeless in shelters, providing financial assistance to those in need, and on and on? Christians.
Even in my work, when there is a need not met by the standard government programs, where do I look for help? A local Christian charity or church. It's not a new concept to serve Jesus in the "least of these".
But what is even more striking in the article is the statement:
"Christians fired up not about wedge-driving culture-war issues, but about spreading non-judgmental love and compassion? What's to resent about this public face of religion?"
Wedge-driving culture-war issues??? Is the implication that Christians should not take a stand on moral issues that affect society? Should we stand quietly by as unborn babies are murdered, so as not to offend the sensibilities of some who call it "pro choice"? Can we not love the young woman who chose to abort her baby, yet still call abortion a sin against a holy God----the Creator of that life which was taken? Did Jesus not call sin....sin? Maybe Krattenmaker should re-read Luke 6:46. To preach love and compassion, without obedience to our Lord and Master, is to mislead those who listen to your words.
If society is NOT at times offended by what your Church teaches--if you are not resented for your beliefs-- find a new Church.
Painting the Emerging Church as the antithesis of mainstream Christianity, and in the process villainizing the latter, is an offence against the Holy Spirit who has been at work thru His Church from the beginning. None of us is perfect, and we can all learn from each other. Sure, there has always been wheat and chaff in the body of believers, and there always will be. Jesus will sort it out in the end. But for now, the best we can do is look for the Holy Spirit to be at work in all His Church----even the EC---guiding, inspiring, strengthening, teaching, and refining.
In His Love,
Felicia Swavely
I thought the article was a pretty good description of what I've seen, not so much in the "famous" emergent churches, but at least in the "emerging" ones that I've seen up close, including our own.
Felicia brings up an interesting point. The emerging church isn't emerging from Christianity. They are emerging from conservative evangelicalism. When you read about the renewed focus on serving the poor and the reduced effort on political issues, you have to read it in contrast to conservative evangelicals, not Christianity as a whole. The emerging church didn't "just figure it out after all these years." They most often look to the past to see what we've lost (again coming out of evangelicalism, which most of the emerging leaders have).
Brian,
Can you define "evangelical"?
Thanks,
Felicia
I'm not great at definitions but in post-modern fashion, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
Hello again,
I did try it, and that is why I'm asking you how you define it.
Seems its difficult to pin down exactly what one means when one says "evangelical".
For the sake of discussion in this particular post, what is meant by "evangelical"?
Thanks,
Felicia
Felecia,
The word Evangelical is illusive because it means different things to different people--even, I suspect, in the context of this discussion.
Perhaps the best way to capture its broad meaning is that it is:
Christian
American
White
Middle class
Not Catholic
Not (captial L) Liberal
Not Fundamentalist
With post WWII roots
pb
I would say fundamentalist fit in the evangelical group as well. Thanks for the definition Bill.
I read on another blog where someone referred to themselves as an "ex-evangelical". Another person questioned them about it, and supplied a definition of evangelical, and asked what it was they didn't agree with.
The definition they supplied (from www.dictionary.com) was:
1. Also, e•van•gel•ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings.
2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.
3. designating Christians, esp. of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible.
4. pertaining to certain movements in the Protestant churches in the 18th and 19th centuries that stressed the importance of personal experience of guilt for sin, and of reconciliation to God through Christ.
5. marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.
The response of the "ex-evangelical" was:
"i fully agree with that definition. that’s a classic def of evangelical. like i said in my comment above, i still believe the classical tenants of evangelicalism. but the popular definition of evangelicalism has shifted. it has moved from a centered set of common beliefs to a bounded set, more interested in defining who’s in and who’s out, more interested in creating an alternate parallel culture, more interested in withdrawal and isolation. i’m not interested in self-defining myself with that kind of thinking."
I can relate to that.
(btw - I debated on whether or not to include where this exchange took place, but chose not to because I don't feel it's important *who* said it, but *that* it's being said)
Could it be that the term 'evangelical' is becoming as elusive as the term 'emerging'?
Felicia,
"'Emergents are quite certain about some things, nevertheless, especially Jesus and his clear instruction about the way Christians are to live out their faith — not primarily as respectable, middle-class pillars of status quo society, but as servants to the poor and to people in the margins.'
If we follow this statement to its logical conclusion, the Church as we know it, has never had a commitment to the poor."
No.
I don't agree.
The statement indicates that in the Emerging Church there is, in some quarters at least, a commitment to ministry to the poor and marginalized.
While I admire you for your courageous service to and witness to the poor and marginalized, I've been to the place you worship.
It doesn't shout, "downwardly mobile." It makes the place my congregation meets for fellowship look like a dump.
So, yeah, the Emerging Church is not the first to care for the downtrodden, but few before it has made that aspect of the Gospel so central and intentional.
Brian,
I would say fundamentalist fit in the evangelical group as well.
Maybe this is me speaking from the perspective of one who's ancient enough to have heard stories about dinosaurs in the backyard from his grandfather, but in my day, when one proudly spoke of himself/herself as an 'evangelical' it was precisely to imply, "I believe in the Bible, but I'm not of those fundamentalists.
Pastor Bill said: "So, yeah, the Emerging Church is not the first to care for the downtrodden, but few before it has made that aspect of the Gospel so central and intentional."
**************************
So do it! Convince the CGGC to take service to the poor more seriously. Start preaching it from your pulpits. Get your congregations involved. That's not a new movement--it's Matthew 25; it's the Good Samaritan; it's Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles----it's part of the Gospel message.
BUT ...(if I could change the font I'd make that alot bigger)... BUT, while it is important, service is not MORE important than spreading the Gospel. Compassion is a beautiful thing. But if it does not flow from a heart obedient to Christ, it is lacking the power of the Holy Spirit to draw souls to Him.
Caring for the "least" is commendable. But if a disciple is afraid to also call him to repentance, that disciple does him a great disservice. "For what does it profit a man..."
*******************************
Here's what confuses me...why do you need to leave your denomination and start a whole new movement to do what you should have been doing in the first place??? Why not reform from within your denom?
Recently, I attended a study group at a friend's church--Evangelical Lutheran. Ya know what they were discussing? Kelly Fryer's book "Reclaiming the "C" Word: Daring to be Church Again". There were about 20 people in the group, mostly 50+, discussing how to more effectively engage their community in participating in the work God is doing there.
They weren't leaving their own church family to join an "emergent" group. That pastor had the guts to try to convince even the "white, middle class, conservative, post WWII" folks in his congregation that they should be living out the Gospel.
And, from what I could see, they were extremely receptive. Many of them suggested "out of the box" ways of being Jesus to the community around them. Not to mention, alot of them were already involved in volunteering to help those in need.
Maybe you are under-estimating your folks, and you simply need to lead them and challenge them. Who knows what might happen?
After all, your Boss took a bunch of fishermen and turned them into evangelicals! ;-)
Peace,
Felicia
PS. Aside to Pastor Bill: My church is over 100 years old and was built by European immigrants who came here with very little. Right or wrong, they shared a belief that their house of worship should reflect the best they could offer to glorify God.
And, it didn't cost as much to put up a beautiful building in those days, especially when you had folks willing to pitch in and do alot of the work themselves.
So, the building is paid for. As much, if not more, of what I contribute to my church each month goes to charitable causes that my church supports, than to building/salary expenses. In fact, many years ago, one of the church-owned buildings was converted into a home for single mothers-to-be.
Most of the members of my church are lower middle class--not much different from yous guys.
btw...You are welcome to visit any time. :-)
Felicia said, "Here's what confuses me...why do you need to leave your denomination and start a whole new movement to do what you should have been doing in the first place??? Why not reform from within your denom?"
Why do I feel like I walked in on somebody else's conversation? Who is leaving the denom? What do you think this site represents if not "reform from within?"
I wrote earlier "The emerging church didn't "just figure it out after all these years." They most often look to the past to see what we've lost (again coming out of evangelicalism, which most of the emerging leaders have)."
So when Felicia says, "That's not a new movement--it's Matthew 25; it's the Good Samaritan; it's Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles----it's part of the Gospel message."
That is exactly the point we've been trying to make. Exactly. It is my feeling that there has been a slow eroding of the Matthew 25 part of the Gospel in Evangelical circles.
And I did preach it from the pulpit. Last night, at our local community service for all the churches in our town to gather. I preached it with guts. I preach it in my church all the time. If I'm ever invited to speak at a denom function, you will hear it again from me.
Good for you, Pastor Brian! But I'm not sure if you are typical of the "conversation".
I was reacting to comments that "Emergent pastors" come FROM evangelical roots---implying they've GONE somewhere else.
For instance:
"... several hundred emerging church congregations, or "communities," have sprung up around the country. ...But the emerging church is making its presence felt, with new groups forming rapidly ..."
If what you are saying is true, then Krattenmaker is missing the point. "New groups" are not forming. Evangelicals are reforming their focus to include a large dose of service to the poor. That would be awesome.
But that's not what I'm hearing. Sounds more like evangelicals are abandoning their foundation and setting off in a new direction. One that leaves behind a firm understanding of Biblical truth.
JMHO,
Felicia
Felicia said,
"service is not MORE important than spreading the Gospel"
Way to go! I was going to respond on this thread, but God stayed my hand. He brought you in to expose the foolishness of what is advocated here.
Our commission as a church is not rooted in Matthew 25. It is rooted in Matthew 28. The church is a living organism, and certainly while we are "going", some of us will see that God is calling us to work among the poor. But that does not mean that is everybody's calling, nor is it to be mistaken as the express purpose of the church. Ministering to "the least of these" is a ministry of the church where it is appropriate and the calling is present. It is not to be confused with salvation. Those who would like to make Jesus their role model for these things, must adequately exposite verses such as Luke 4 "I must preach the kingdom of God in other cities also, for therefore am I sent." and also when the issue was raised about using money to anoint Jesus instead of spending it on the poor, Jesus said, "The poor you will have with you always, but me you will not always have." Jesus was sent to preach the gospel, not to encourage others to practice "downward mobility". The primary purpose for Jesus ministry was to save people's souls from hell, not to correct social injustices.
By the way, you should be a little more discreet in hiding your political agenda on this blog, its becoming increasing transparent.
By the way, Bill, reading some of this stuff has started to make me reconsider fundamentalism. I am starting to see the advantages of being one of "them." At least they have a fairly clear scriptural idea of what the church is to stand for. I'm beginning to wonder if that is the case here. I hope these ideologies are not rampant among the CGGC.
Krattenmaker said, "Like mainstream evangelicals, emergents believe in spreading the Gospel and in the necessity of believers having a personal relationship with Jesus. The difference lies in how faith is applied."
This seems to imply they are still evangelical, only not "mainstream."
Dan made a comment earlier about how he doesn't see emergent leaving evangelicalism.
Perhaps the fault is mine. I usually see the comments as conversation about the topic. The people in this conversation don't share your opinion.
If McLaren (or Pagitt or McKnight or whoever) has left evangelicalism, which I have no idea whether they have or not, that doesn't mean we're all on the same bus. That isn't the indication I get from anyone I talk to. I feel very comfortable reading Luther, Calvin, and Augustine, though none of them were evangelicals. Mother Teresa is a hero, but she wasn't evangelical. I even like Ghandi and some of Malcolm X's ideas were interesting. Am I leaving Christianity?
In fact a guy like Mike Clawson, who is more "emergent" than anyone I know, sought to be a part of our denomination. Just the opposite in fact of leaving.
This all seems to feed the "Fear change" factor that I often see. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this but conservatives love to play the "Be afraid of where this will lead us" card. Sometimes we should be afraid. Sometimes they just play the card because it's a trump. I'm less and less afraid.
Felicia, I'm not sure where you are coming from. I'm assuming you are not evangelical, yet you chide us to remain evangelical.
Ken, you mentioned Luke 4 as a foundational Scripture.
"18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, 19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Seriously? Jesus didn't come to right social injustice?
Ken wrote, "By the way, you should be a little more discreet in hiding your political agenda on this blog, its becoming increasing transparent."
As per my last post, "Be afraid."
Who are you talking to Ken? Who is "you"? We aren't going to make innuendos here.
Brian,
I stand behind what I said about the political agenda.
I have not said, "see where it might lead." I am not in the business of speculation such as you. I do not hide behind rhetoric.
I say "look at where you are." You are in error. I don't care who shares your opinion.
You are the one who labels those who disagree with you as conservative. You are the one who seeks to denigrate the work of those who over the past generation who have openly involved themselves in the political process, tired of where the liberals in this country seek to lead them. You are the one who have made the insinuations that they stand for moral issues and don't care about the justice issues.
By the way:
My whole doctoral thesis is directed toward that passage in Luke chapter four.
You have not even begun to get to the meaning and application of that passage.
If you have, you would know what it means to be "evangelical."
Felicia has you dead in the water. The CGGC does not need your attempts at "reformation from within." We need you to concentrate on bringing people to salvation, and making better disciples for Christ. This is what the church is about Pastor Brian.
Wow.
Brian said...
Krattenmaker said, "Like mainstream evangelicals, emergents believe in spreading the Gospel and in the necessity of believers having a personal relationship with Jesus. The difference lies in how faith is applied."
Our primary purpose in life is not to worry about how to apply our faith. This is a problem that the church has had down through its history (going back to the Galatians). Faith is a gift of God and it is given by His grace. God will provide the circumstances and the opportunities for us to strengthen our faith.
For us as Christians/Evangelicals, Proverbs 1:7 is appropriate:
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Our primary goal in life is to seek out His instruction. Do that and you will live.
...And there are those who actually wonder why people who believe in the tenets of evangelicalism would no longer want to be associated with those who describe themselves as evangelicals.
Ken,
It's obvious you're not interested in listening to anyone. But what I want to know is... In your first comment you said, "I was going to respond on this thread, but God stayed my hand." So... did you decide to defy God, or did you overrule him? :)
Other than that, Wow.
Felicia and Ken,
Re: “"service is not MORE important than spreading the Gospel"”
I don’t know what Bible you guyz are reading, but in mine there is no dichotomy between these two activities. They are one and the same.
Period.
In my Bible, Acts 2 describes life in the church in this way: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.”
In Acts 2:42-47, that was the outreach.
They, as you say, were ‘spreading the Gospel’ by caring for anyone in need. I can only assume that the filling of empty tummies open closed hearts.
But we actually know two things from God’s inspired word:
1. The caring for anyone is the only outreach mentioned in those critical verses that describe the way the early community of believers operated.
And,
2. “The Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”
On what Biblical basis are you proposing that service and spreading the Gospel are two separate actions?
Matthew 8, the chapter that follows the Sermon on the Mount is remarkable to me in that, immediately after Jesus preached the ‘sermon’ upon which all His teaching is based, He was approached by two people who were not present when He was “spreading the Gospel.” Both asked for healing. And, without any preaching at all, Jesus healed them. The healing itself--the act of service--WAS the preaching.
So, correct me if I’m wrong.
Perhaps I’m missing something. There are certainly many things I don’t know. And, there are also many things I think I know about which I am in error. But, based on my understanding the ministry of Jesus and the early believers, you two are creating a distinction where there is no biblical distinction.
When it is done properly, service IS spreading the Gospel. Nothing more. Nothing less.
“By the way, Bill, reading some of this stuff has started to make me reconsider fundamentalism. I am starting to see the advantages of being one of "them." At least they have a fairly clear scriptural idea of what the church is to stand for.”
So, Ken, what about Fundy ecclesiology appeals to you as being Scriptural?
Brian,
Re: "Wow."
Comments have been coming in at so rapid a pace, I'm not sure which of the comments that deserve such a reaction actually prompted it.
Do tell.
Ken,
"Our primary purpose in life is not to worry about how to apply our faith."
Ken, that's outrageous!
Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but only he who does the will of my father who is in heaven."
Take a gander at the Book of James. "Faith without deeds is dead."
How about Revelation 3: "I know your deeds that you are neither cold nor hot. So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
Ken, what are you thinking? How a person applies faith is critical!
Bill,
You live with your faith and your works,
And I will live at peace with my faith. We'll see how it all works out in the end. I'm comfortable with that, how about you?
By the way, read the whole post that I submitted Bill and quit picking at parts out of context. The answers to you questions and concerns were all laid out in the entirety of what I said.
The issue you raised is a Non sequitur based on the entirety of my post. You do that alot. It does not make it any less annoying.
Salvation does not require works
RE: the thief on the cross.
It is time that the works based theology that you seem to promote is challenged.
Justification is by grace (alone) through faith,and that not of ourselves so that no man can boast.
If you want to talk about works, talk about it in terms of how God gifts you to serve the body of Christ. Works are appropriate to talk about in terms of our sanctification. It is appropriate to talk about them in terms of working out your salvation with fear and trembling. Works will be there, but they are not necessary for salvation. By the way, Jesus did not say that you will know them by their works, He said you will know them by their love. The love that is spoken of there is the love that arises from the knowledge of God's gift to us (the blood of Christ).
You are taking verses out of context in Acts and supplying your own interpretation to them. Acts 2:42-47 describes community life WITHIN the early church. It says nothing about the way outreach was done. Outreach happened when the gospel was preached by the apostles and people were convicted of their sins and repented. That was the WAY that the community grew.
Service is NOT spreading the gospel. Opening your mouth and telling people that they need a Savior is.
Your argument according to traditional Christian doctrine and what we believe in the CGGC holds no water. You cannot do one measly thing to earn your salvation. It doesn't matter how many soup kitchens you work in.
That is just basic theology 101 Bill. Our Catholic friend (who is more evangelical than any of us) has it exactly right. Shame on you for trying to cloud the issue.
Dan:
A non-issue my friend. God said not to, and then the Spirit said "Go ahead." The opportunity would and did present itself. There was no way I was going to let a sincere sister hang out to dry. Not to hard to figure out is it:)
Personally if I were you, I would concentrate more on studying the Scriptures rather than trying to catch a brother in a contradiction. It will serve you better down the road.
My participation in this thread is finished. Over and out.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Is there a point to this anonymous comment about Mars Hill being place here?
Ken,
"By the way, read the whole post that I submitted Bill and quit picking at parts out of context. The answers to you questions and concerns were all laid out in the entirety of what I said.
The issue you raised is a Non sequitur based on the entirety of my post. You do that alot. It does not make it any less annoying."
I did read the whole post. Then I did it again. I believe I read it accurately and responded to it appropriately.
As far as my responses to your posts being non sequiturs, I truly hope they are not.
I'll say this in response to your charge and ask you to take it seriously.
1. You've made that charge in the past and demanded an apology. I asked the rest of the community here to mediate and promised an apology if the community felt I owed you one. No one agreed with you that I did. Even among those who were taking your side in that particular discussion.
2. As you know, I have a decent amount of academic training and am very experienced at reading texts. I read yours carefully and do my best to focus on one or two comments at which you push your argument to its logical extreme. I only ever use your actual words.
If you want to explain to me how I misinterpreted your words, I'll be glad to read your explanation. And, if my reading proves to have been unreasonable, I will certainly apologize.
On the other hand, I have noticed that you often submit lengthy responses to posts almost immediately after they appear on the blog.
I often craft my own responses over a period of many hours and through several drafts, as is the case with what you are reading now.
Perhaps you should take more care in what you put in writing here.
bill
Bill,
As I was reading your post, the Spirit caused my heart to reach out to you. Your sincerity came through.
I will accept what you say that you are not intentionally misinterpreting my posts, but for some reason (perhaps inadvertantly), you misrepresent what I say. It seems that happens alot, and it frustrates me because it seems that I had answered what you said perhaps even in another sentence. Maybe my communication is not as exact as it should be.
At some point brother, you and I need to get together personally and get a handle on where each other is coming from. That way, although we might disagree on some things, we can get away from the semantics of trying to decipher each other's posts. In addition, it might be a good idea to develop an understanding and respect of where each of us is theologically.
In the meantime, I will let it go.
We don't accept anonymous posts. I deleted it.
I just ran across some old notes and thought this might fit into some of the discussion here. Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne is a pretty dangerous book. I recommend it to anyone interested in being a follower of Jesus'.
In chapter 1 he talks about how he became bored with church life as a teenager. He says (38) "I came to realize that preachers were telling me to lay my life at the foot of the cross and weren't giving me anything to pick up... People had taught me what Christians believe, but no one had told me how Christians live."
He also introduced some interesting terms: (p.39) SPIRITUAL BULIMIA - "where folks consume large amounts of food but vomit it up before it has a chance to digest." They are "suffocated by Christianity but thirsty for God."
On 45 he defined SPIRITUAL MASTURBATION - feel-good, emotionally charged Christianity where "it feels good but never really gives birth to anything."
Finally he talked about going to Eastern University, but finding Jesus in the poor people on the streets of Philadelphia.
Ken pointed out to me yesterday that I needed to study the Scriptures more. That is certainly true. But we are called to love God AND others. Pastors who teach without knowing their audience have been likened to a resounding gong. It's not only important to know Scripture, but to also know people. That is one element of things emerging that I find refreshing (though it's not solely an emerging characteristic).
Happy Thanksgiving, all of you.
May you have abundant reason to be thankful over the upcoming year.
Ken,
At some point brother, you and I need to get together personally and get a handle on where each other is coming from.
I'll look forward to that.
bill
Ken said to me,
"I stand behind what I said about the political agenda."
My question isn't for Ken. He has said he is done with this thread. My question is for the rest. Am I communicating that poorly here?
It's an important question. What we discuss here is I believe of incredible importance. Ken obviously does not understand what I am saying.
Brian,
I have never had any trouble understanding you. But I think we probably look at things from a very similar perspective (at least in my opinion). I was completely puzzled by the political agenda accusation made against you. At first I thought there was just a misunderstanding between conservative politics and conservative religion, but... I was pretty lost by the whole thing. I fail to see where politics has ever been an issue here - especially from you.
So if it makes you feel any better (which it might not)... you made sense to me.
Dan, I think that is the point -- you and I see things similarly. All of us have our theology enmeshed in a culture of understanding.
For instance, Ken said, "Our commission as a church is not rooted in Matthew 25. It is rooted in Matthew 28." The Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 25 have been given a lesser place and practically abandoned in some circles. Why exactly? I don't see any conspiracy or anything, but I'm not comfortable with giving them a backseat. I see Matthew 25 as speaking directly in and through Matthew 28. "Teach them to obey everything I have commanded you." Wouldn't that include Matthew 25 and the Sermon on the Mount?
It is my hope to see those two passages put back into a primary place in our churches.
Whenever this is said, someone always worries that we are replacing God's gracious salvation, paid for with the blood of Jesus Christ, demonstrated by His resurrection, and sealed with the Holy Spirit... replacing it with a works based theology. As the Apostle Paul would say in Romans, "By no means!"
Backing a Democrat isn't going to bring about the Kingdom of God. It doesn't even show up on my radar.
Our faith is applied as we seek first His Kingdom, as we pray for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, as we turn the other cheek, and help the least of people as we would help the Lord Himself.
Jesus said in the sermon on the mount right after the Lord's Prayer that if we don't forgive others, God won't forgive us. We have to have a change of heart towards people when we make the decision to follow Jesus. It is part of the Gospel.
I mentioned the use of fear before because I think this is the gap. Fear causes people to think someone like me has an agenda other than the Gospel. I don't.
Just for the record....
the anonymous post that was deleted was not mine.
Felicia
"O God, be merciful to me a sinner"
*********
Father,
I try so hard to know your will. Straining to hear your voice, I stumble thru life doing my best to serve you. My brothers and sisters here all seem to love you with all their hearts, yet disagree about what you want from your children.
Rising above my sinful nature is almost impossible. Pride blinds my eyes and stubborness clogs my ears. Sometimes I wonder how you tolerate my weak faith and timid efforts to share your truth.
Forgive me, Lord, for not being the child you want me to be.
Send down your Spirit, O God. Your word promises that He will come to those who ask--- and I am asking.
Give me a spirit that truly wants to know your will above all else. Holy Spirit, open my mind and make your thoughts, my thoughts. Help me to love as Jesus loved when He walked among us.
Give me the courage that comes from trusting in your power. Instill in me a passion to follow you fearlessly wherever you call me to go. And then send me, Lord.
Being used by you is my greatest joy.
Amen.
(F.S.)
bill Sloat said...
Re: “"service is not MORE important than spreading the Gospel"”
I don’t know what Bible you guyz are reading, but in mine there is no dichotomy between these two activities. They are one and the same.
*******************************
Well, I do have a few extra books... ;-)
While I agree that there is no dichotomy between service and evangelization, they are not "one and the same"; still, we are called to both.
When Jesus "went public" with His ministry, and began to preach, His first words were, "The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." Mark 1:15
"The gospel is the 'good news' of God's mercy and love revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ."
Recently, an acquaintance, who is an atheist, said something interesting to me. And I believe he was sincere. He said, "I work with several Christians who know I am an atheist. Yet none of them has ever tried to witness to me. If they truly believe I am going to hell, don't they care?"
He didn't say that they were unkind or unloving in their general treatment of him. But he questioned why they did not share the gospel message.
Even though I have a different perspective on "works" than Pastor Ken, I have to agree on one point: sometimes you have to "open your mouth".
Ok, works.
"Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will anser them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will GO OFF TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, BUT THE RIGHTEOUS TO ETERNAL LIFE." (caps mine) Matt 25: 44-46
Listening to my pastor preach on this passage one evening, the realization suddenly hit me that Jesus is dead serious. (a "duh" moment)
Works don't always naturally flow from love of Christ. We are by very nature selfish---and we have to continually fight to overcome our selfishness.
Serving Jesus in the least is a conscious, deliberate act of love. Love really is a verb, as they say. And, yeah, "faith without works is dead".
Evenso, Jesus tells us why He came: "I came so that they might have life, and have it more abundantly". John 10:10
Embedded as this is, in a Good Shepherd parable, it is clear that Jesus is not speaking of material goods. And, if you need more evidence, He goes on to say, "My sheep hear my voice...I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish". John 10: 27-28
Works of mercy and spreading the gospel are definitely related, but they are not one and the same.
As for Acts 2, there's a whole lot more goin' on there than simply sharing possessions! The chapter begins with a recounting of Pentecost and Peter's first sermon. And what is Peter doing? He's sharing the gospel and calling men to repentance and baptism.
Check out 2:37-41; the 3,000 were added right after Peter's words convict them and they are "cut to the heart". Vs.42-47 comes after.
**************************
Pastor Brian,
I am not "an Evangelical", but I am evangelical in the sense of having a passion to save the lost. And I'm not afraid of the Emergent movement---at all. But I do see a danger in coaxing disciples to let go of truth in order to replace it with more socially acceptable attitudes. Even though it is subtle, it's there in the Emergent philosophy.
But, afraid? No. I've got nothing to lose.
My reason for coming to this blog was out of curiosity about this new development. My personal philosophy is that we can learn from one another even when we don't agree. I figured there may be something I could take away from the conversation that would help me in my own spiritual growth.
I do realize that no two "Emergents" are the same. :-)
If you are able to filter out the positive aspects of the "conversation" without sacrificing your firm grip on truth, more power to ya.
I sincerely apologize if I have offended you in any way. I truly meant no offense.
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
"All of us have our theology enmeshed in a culture of understanding."
No we don't.
If you believe that, you have no business standing up in front of people on Sunday morning preaching.
You were ordained in your region to preach the Word of God. You were consecrated or set aside to do that. Your responsibility is to immerse yourself in the Word of God. God's responsibility is to ensure that the Word speaks to you first and opens up your mind and heart to its proper understanding. Your studying should serve to reassure you that what you are saying is not your own opinion. No minister should be doing anything from their own understanding. Only a fool relies on their own understanding (Prov. 1:7).
Brother, the church has never operated laboring under the misconception that all you can understand is culturally bound. If that were the case, it would be impossible to know anything objectively. The Word of God preached is not dependent on our understanding. It is God who communicates what needs to be known via His Holy Spirit. You do not understand the nature of truth and how God communicates it. You are lost in a spiral that can only lead to futility. All of this is postmodern thinking, and it is error.
"It is my hope to see those two passages put back into a primary place in our churches."
Matthew 25, and the Sermon on the Mount have never been out of place. They have been exposited for centuries. Just not in the context that you try and place them. They are not the Gospel. The Sermon on the Mount points us to the Gospel. It speaks to its reader of their need for repentance. I notice that besides you, there are others who try and make the Sermon on the Mount normative Christian living. First of all, the Sermon is not a monolithic passage. It has to be broken down into its constituent parts. Its application varies upon the context of those parts. Context is everything.
You need to reread Matthew 25 and ask yourself just who it is and how Jesus can "Be" someone. "To the extent that you did it to the least of these, you did it to me." I'm not going to stay up tonight and explain that to you Brian. You need to figure that out on your own. You need to go back into Leviticus, and understand just who can stand in the presence of God. The verses that you are concerned about there are referring to the elect. They may or may not be referring to just any poor person that you confront at the city mission. You are making a presumption in these verses that is totally invalid. I challenge you to find one place in the Gospels where Jesus is interacting in a situation where a conversion does not take place. Confession and forgiveness of sin is always in view. You are reading into those passages things that are not there. That is called eisegesis.
No one accused you of backing a Democrat. It is interesting that you would say that.
What was said that you have a tendency to insinuate that you know a better way than "conservative evangelicals". This denomination is full of "conservative evangelical pastors." I am quite certain that they prayed along time ago and received affirmation from God that they should come out and make a stand on moral and social issues. Whether they are brought to a place where their conscience tells them to vote Democrat or Republican is between them and God.
"Our faith is applied as we seek first His Kingdom"
God's kingdom is not of this earth. The kingdom that exists now is Christ's church. We will not bring in the kingdom on earth by doing good deeds. God's kingdom will never be brought in entirely until Chirst returns. We will bring in the kingdom on earth as we wait obediently upon God. We will bring in the kingdom on earth as WE pray. We will bring in the kingdom as we do the work of reaching out and saving sinners that God has known along will be saved. We will bring in the kingdom as we "Go, make disciples, baptizing them, as well as teaching them." By the way, this is the work of the church. This is not the work of isolated individuals that are going out seeking to "apply their faith" There is no salvation outside the church. There is no emerging or emergent. There has only ever been the church. The body of Christ in this world. Once again "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." We need to understand how He operates. God told us that He is not interested in our burnt offerings and our sacrifices. He is interested in our obedience. The commandment is to love the LORD your God with all your heart... and to love your neighbor as yourself. God will tell us in accordance with His Word and through His spirit how He wants that done. Sometimes it will be to come alongside them. Other times it will be to confront them with their sin and call for their repentance. It is not for us to just set out and arbritarily apply our faith in ways that seem right to us. "There is a way that seems right to a man that leads to death."
"Fear causes people to think someone like me has an agenda other than the Gospel."
I am not afraid of you Brian. I am sure that no one else is either. I am concerned that you have not thought through your theology. You will deny that naturally, but that does not make it any less so. I am also concerned that you take Scripture out of context. I understand that these are serious charges. I do not derive any pleasure from this. I also understand that I am not in any position to affect you in any way. I know I said that I was going to discontinue my presence on this thread. But your last post demanded a response because someone not knowing any better might read this and think that what you were saying sounded right. That is a situation that needed to be corrected. I have a responsibility as a Pastor to stand against bad doctrine. That is what I am doing. You have alot of good ideas, but they are mixed in with much error.
This is the Gospel Brian, it is no more and no less. I am sure that as long as God exists, it will never be taken away from or added to:
1Co 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Once again Brian, your worth to God is not any less than mine. I want you to do God's work and be as succesful as you can doing it. My prayer is that you see your way through to doing things God's way.
I haven't been in this conversation at all, but it seems to me that there is a contest to see who will have the last word. Can I have it? Gee, thanks!
No, Ben, you can't.
So, is it just me, or does it seem like there are some who participate on this blog for the sole purpose of trying to discredit anything and anyone associated with the emerging church? I know discipline has been discussed before, and I'm not sure if this is the same thing or not. But I am tired of the accusations, the arrogant attitude of thinking they are the only one that knows God's will, the unwillingness to listen to anyone else, the inability to understand what someone is saying without picking out a word or phrase and harping on it, and just generally creating an atmosphere of discord. And, yes, I am talking about Ken.
I know some people like it when there are a lot of comments on posts, but I don't know that the number of comments necessarily means *good* conversation is taking place. And I don't have a problem with someone asking questions - if they are really trying to understand. But I don't believe there has ever been an attempt made to understand. His sole purpose seems to be to argue.
So, is it just me? Because if it is then I'll deal with it. Or is this something that needs addressed again?
Questioning whether I should be allowed to preach in my Region is totally inappropriate on this blog. I can take it, but I shouldn't have to. If the comment had been made about anyone but myself, I might have deleted it.
As has happened at least twice before, a person feels like they need to explain the truth so as people won't get misled. And again what has happened is the message relayed is "Be afraid." You are liable to have your credentials reviewed if you make any comment that someone deems heretical. It has already happened.
And I agree with Dan, this has been close to a total waste of time.
And Ben you can have the last word if it's a worthy word. You know I believe you have it in you.
I can see the mistake that I made in my use of pronouns.
I can see where you would take it as an attack upn you.
I'm sorry for that, brother.
It would have been more appropriate for me to say, "none of us can get into the pulpit..."
It was not my intent to make the point that "You should be allowed to preach."
My point was that your idea that ""All of us have our theology enmeshed in a culture of understanding." can not be correct.
My reason for using "you" in that context was to get you to remember how it is on a Sunday morning and say "Thus saith the Lord." When we come across in that way, it cannot be based on a cultural understanding. Our theology as Pastors cannot come out of the culture that we come from. It has to come out of our study of Scripture.
Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Your commissioning board in your region is alot more qualified than I am to determine who should be preaching in their region.
Dan,
So, is it just me, or does it seem like there are some who participate on this blog for the sole purpose of trying to discredit anything and anyone associated with the emerging church?
I'm not certain what Ken's motivation is in participating here. To this point his posts have had the effect of creating far more heat than light, that is for certain.
It has occurred to me, Dan, that you are one of the most level-headed and sweet-spirited people I know. I have watched Ken irritate you in thread after thread. I have seen him have the same effect on Brian as well. And, you may recall that I have asked if the community that participates here can discipline Ken for some of the remarks he has made.
It is curious to me that Ken, then, ends up demanding apologies from others here.
I have recently counselled Ken to take more time before he enters his posts. And, I hope that he will begin to do that.
I've said before and I'll say it again, I don't want to lose what Ken might bring to this community.
I have known him personally for many years. I know him to be a passionate student of the Word who deeply loves the Word. What we seem to be seeing on the blog that is that he loves the Word of God much more than he loves the people of God.
Ken,
I hope you will take note of the frustration the insulting and arrogant tone of your posts elicits in Dan. You will never meet a nicer guy if you live as long as Methuselah did. And, I hope you repent of the sort of insults you have hurled at Brian, among others.
I don't want to lose you for the blog, but the time has come for you to take seriously Paul's admonition that the truth must be spoken in love.
This blog has always been characterized by a spirit of love and grace among those who disagree with each other. And, you need to get with the program.
I refuse you believe that you are as arrogant and angry as your posts present you to be. Take some time before click "Publish."
I am glad to see that you have apologized to Brian for your comments. You were forced to acknowledge that you didn't express yourself as well as you should have.
Unless you begin to interact here in a more Christlike manner, I will ask that your posts be blocked in the future.
In His love,
bill
To Brian and Dan,
Brian said: "And I agree with Dan, this has been close to a total waste of time."
For what it's worth, your posts here have helped me to expand my one-dimensional view of the Emerging church. Although there is much that still doesn't sit well with my beliefs, I do accept that there is a positive aspect to it.
Balance is the key, I suppose.
And again, I apologize if anything I said comes across as insulting or arrogant. My objective isn't to add to the tension here, but to share my thoughts and listen to yours, in order to establish a more informed opinion.
Sometimes words in print come across as more cold and harsh than is the intent.
Your sister in Christ,
Felicia
I am a little confused here...
Is this a blog sanctioned by the CGGC?
Or is this Dan's, Brian's, and Bill's blog.
When I asked to be able to post and start threads, I got an e-mail that said "You are welcome to post on "Brian's blog." That is why I have not gone ahead and started any threads.
If this is "Brian's blog", then I do have to consider the possibility that I need to apply my time elsewhere then being involved in someone's "personal blog."
If this blog does indeed have some affiliation with the denomination, then I believe it is entirely appropriate to challenge what I see here particularly when I perceive it to be opposed to what "We Believe."
If I did not have some suspicions that this is the case, I would not need to post the comments that I make that apparently rub people so wrong. It is like you said Bill, I am not an "angry" person. I have no axe to grind, other than my genuine passion for the Word of God. I have honest misgivings about what I see that is posted here. Not just the comments that are made, but the content and message of the articles that are presented. You will notice that in none of my posts have I gone outside of the Scriptures and our denominational statement to express what I think and believe. I am not concerned with other people's opinions. I think that it is interesting that instead of answering the points I make with Scripture and theology, it always comes back to my character and motives. It is like, "Everything that we say around here is just absolutely reasonable, there is no way any thinking person can disagree with us." I challenge that. I believe that you are wrong. if in no other way, it is how you express what you believe.
My request to all of you is,
"Let us reason together from the Scritures."
Let us quit going to articles, and websites, and other people's materials to affirm the "expressions" that we want to make. We don't need some reporter from the USA Today to try and tell us basically that, "people are more interested in the church today because they now see 'latte-drinking, backpack-lugging, Birkenstock-wearing group of 21st-century, left-wing, hippie wannabes.' instead of "establishment evangelicals." Let us quit going to places like Willimon's blog to find affirmation for emerging/emergent when they are basically saying nothing about it. We also need to ask ourselves whether promoting one's suggestion concerning "spreading non-judgmental love and compassion" is really what Christ is all about, or whether He really did in fact come to convict the world of their sin.
We need to search the scriptures and found out if these things are appropriate. If you can reason with me from Scriture (in context), then you will get absolutely no argument from me. We need to talk about what the Scriptures say. You asked me what my motivation is here, it is this and nothing more, Scripture and right theology. I am interested in truth! I want to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn, and be confident that we are walking in His way. His way by the way, is the narrow and more difficult way.
As far as Dan is concerned, it grieves me that "he gets irritated." Dan has insulted me in at least two places that I know of. I suspect that some of his other more general comments are intended to also cut at me. I have never addressed him negatively at all, except in the case above when he sought to question my motivation, and I asked him whether that was appropriate to do to a brother. My advice to him would be to seek out within himself why I produce such a reaction in him. Just why is it that he gets so defensive. Those are questions that he needs to explore within Himself, in conjunction with the Lord.
I will be glad to come to Findlay and sit down in the office of Ed Rosenberry with any brother here and deal with the theological issues that they believe I am in error with. I read my Bible every day, and spend alot of time there. I am very comfortable with the orthodoxy of the things that I believe. The Scriptures do no make any mistakes, and they have not led me astray. It is important to me that this denomination stay on track theologically. If in fact we have "veered off course from the Gospel message." as Dan said above, I would be interested in knowing exactly where that is. otherwise I ask that we continue in the thinking that existed when I came in. If I am considered wrong in what I have seen and believe, or if I have been mistaken, then I need to know so that I can make what changes I need to make ministerially speaking. I am not interested in being a Pastor just for the sake of being one. I am interested in serving with those who consider the Bible their rule of faith and practice, and are interested in doing things the way that God has said to do, as it is supposed to go in the body of Jesus Christ, as it has been outlined in the book. That is what success is for me. I have a mind to do nothing else.
There are certainly ideas out there that the church needs to reckon with. It is very appropriate to say that the church needs to be more than just sitting in pews and doing things status quo. It is inappropriate though to think that we must think that what the church has traditionally believed soteriologically, ecclesiologically, Christologically, or eschatologically needs to change. Everything DOES NOT need to change. People need to just start being obedient to the Word of God. That is where I stand.
Felicia, you do not owe me any apology. I have not been offended by you at all.
Ken, I appreciate your apology. As for my comment about theology being enmeshed in culture, you only have to look at different ethnic groups and see how their theology differs and how obvious it is that their culture influenced it.
The African American church theology is greatly influenced by their history with slavery and civil rights. The Latin Americans theology is greatly influenced by their history of oppression and the need for liberation. The Catholic church's theology is greatly influenced by their preeminence in the Roman empire.
And you can assume that your theology is unvarnished by your culture and history, but it isn't. You just don't see it. And so as the culture takes a major shift, so will theology. And we had better be aware of it so as not to become heretical.
As for your desire that we only quote Scripture (and that, not out of context), I doubt your desire will be realized. It seems that whenever I quote Scripture, which has been often, you deem me out of context. I cannot seem to rise to your standards. And since culture does affect theology, a study of culture is crucial. The Apostle Paul did exactly this at Mars Hill. It is important to see where modern culture has varnished our current theology as well, so that we can have a clearer untainted theology.
This is not a CGGC sanctioned blog, though I've tried hard not to make it my blog, though I guess it is.
Ken, you have been welcome to challenge here. No one has stopped you. I even gave you the opportunity to start your own posts, though I have recently revoked that invitation.
Brian,
Have you considered pulling this post? I'm not saying for sure that you should do this, but due to the frustration I am seeing as an observer, it may be in the best interest of everyone to shut this post down. Notice I said "may." I'm not sure. I trust your wisdom to know to do the right thing.
-Rev. George Jensen
Enola First Church of God
Post a Comment
<< Home