Even I bless them
At the Brian McLaren postcards event the other night, the Rev asked what Brian’s reaction was to the recent criticism of Emergent by DA Carson and others. He responded by referring to this poem posted on his site, written by Bishop Nikolai Velimirovic, a Serbian Bishop who spoke out against Nazism, was arrested and sent to Dachau. I thought his response was pretty good and the poem even better. I have posted the entire poem in the extended entry:
Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them. Enemies have driven me into your embrace more than friends have. Friends have bound me to earth; enemies have loosed me from earth and have demolished all my aspirations in the world.
Enemies have made me a stranger in worldly realms and an extraneous inhabitant of the world.
Just as a hunted animal finds safer shelter than an unhunted animal does, so have I, persecuted by enemies, found the safest sanctuary, having ensconced myself beneath Your tabernacle, where neither friends nor enemies can slay my soul.
Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless and do not curse them.
They, rather than I, have confessed my sins before the world. They have punished me, whenever I have hesitated to punish myself. They have tormented me, whenever I have tried to flee torments. They have scolded me, whenever I have flattered myself. They have spat upon me, whenever I have filled myself with arrogance. Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
Whenever I have made myself wise, they have called me foolish. Whenever I have made myself mighty, they have mocked me as though I were a [fly].
Whenever I have wanted to lead people, they have shoved me into the background.
Whenever I have rushed to enrich myself, they have prevented me with an iron hand.
Whenever I thought that I would sleep peacefully, they have wakened me from sleep.
Whenever I have tried to build a home for a long and tranquil life, they have demolished it and driven me out.
Truly, enemies have cut me loose from the world and have stretched out my hands to the hem of your garment.
Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
Bless them and multiply them; multiply them and make them even more bitterly against me:
So that my fleeing will have no return; So that all my hope in men may be scattered like cobwebs; So that absolute serenity may begin to reign in my soul; So that my heart may become the grave of my two evil twins: arrogance and anger;
So that I might amass all my treasure in heaven; Ah, so that I may for once be freed from self-deception, which has entangled me in the dreadful web of illusory life.
Enemies have taught me to know what hardly anyone knows, that a person has no enemies in the world except himself. One hates his enemies only when he fails to realize that they are not enemies, but cruel friends.
It is truly difficult for me to say who has done me more good and who has done me more evil in the world: friends or enemies. Therefore bless, O Lord, both my friends and my enemies. A slave curses enemies, for he does not understand. But a son blesses them, for he understands.
For a son knows that his enemies cannot touch his life. Therefore he freely steps among them and prays to God for them. Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Don Carson essentially questions his basic doctrine which on the surface looks suspicious and he makes an analogy of a person who was killed because of Hitler!
He not only avoided the question he was being very precious
February 27th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
He responded to a question of persecution with a story of persecution, what is strange here?
February 27th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I thought his answer was a good one, and one which I haven’t set out in great detail. His response was in effect that if this guy who is undergoing this level of pain, persecution and injustice can respond in such a way, then it is a response which shows an enormous grace which he would seek to emulate.
I didn’t get him at all saying that he believed his situation was equivalent, quite the opposite. The point of the post was to point out the poem, which I had not heard of before and which I found to be profoundly touching and challenging.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
persecution?
He is being some pretty baisc questions on biblical doctrine which he apeears to dog every time.
His answer was a disgrace.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Homer, I think you might have misinterpreted my reporting of the Rev’s question as well as Brian’s response. The Rev asked what his personal reaction to the criticism was - how do you feel? how do you cope with it? - he didn’t ask him to respond to the substance of the criticism.
I don’t know how you can say that the answer was a “disgrace” when you weren’t there, didn’t hear what was said, and have chosen to draw conclusions from a few words in a post which was directed to explaining how I came across this poem/prayer that I found challenging.
You are entitled to criticise McLaren’s theology or position if you want, and he certainly said some stuff that could provoke a lot of discussion. However, this question and response was not one of them.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Dan,
people are criticised all in any area let alone theology.
It isn’t a life and death situation where you have to make a stand on whether you wil die for what you believe in.
Everyone wants to be a martyr!
February 27th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
I do not know about the criticism of the emergent movement made by Don Carson, and perhaps I should find out more before I comment…
Who is Don Carson?
February 27th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
The question was not what is your answer to these criticisms, but rather how do you deal with them on an emotional level. His answer is, when I compare what I have to go through to what this guy had to go through it is minor in comparison. And if he can love and bless, then surely so should I.
He feels he is being taken out of context, and that his questions are being used as positions against him.
It was a good answer, and a biblical one:
“a soft answer turns away wrath” “Bless those that curse you and pray for those that abuse you”
the rev
February 27th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Rev, his problem is that hie has been highly ambiguous in making statements on the central tenets of Christianity.
Don Carson wouldn’t write a book at another structure for assemblies.
As I understand it he is questioning the the basic biblical doctrine behind the emerging church as elucidated Mr McLaren.
There is no better person to ask the questions.
Only Mr McLaren can answer them however.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
“Rev, his problem is that hie has been highly ambiguous in making statements on the central tenets of Christianity.”
Where?
February 27th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
In his ‘answers’to these and similar criticisms pre-book indeed from what I have read that is the reason for the book.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Where are his statements that are “highly ambiguous” on the “central tenets of Christianity”?
February 28th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Phil,
when someone left a link to defence against don Carson’s book I spent a day looking at them, book reviews and various websites on this topic.
I have to tell you it is a common theme in evangelical circles.
Indeed if McLaren had have answered it plainly in the first second or three hundredth place the book would have never been written.
I am left wondering whether McLaren is simply a poor theologian or being deliberately ambiguous to woo people from both sides.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Blogs: redefining how many times one can ask a question without getting an answer.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:29 am
You said: “Rev, his problem is that hie has been highly ambiguous in making statements on the central tenets of Christianity”
I understand you have spent time looking at this and on different web sites etc. In your travels you have obviously come across statements by Brian McLaren that you think are “highly ambiguous in making statements on the central tenets of Christianity”.
I would be interested in knowing what statements from Brian McLaren you have come across to make such a claim.
Can you point them out, quote them, link them up?
February 28th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Homer, I’d be interested in knowing what statements from Brian McLaren you think are highly ambiguous on the central tenets of Christianity.
I’m also interested in knowing what you are referring to when you say “I have to tell you it is a common theme in evangelical circles.” What is a common theme?
February 28th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
The ambiguous statements relate both to salvation by the cross and the physical resurrection.
If my memory serves me well there was a debate in Christianity today on those lines as well as regularly occurring in most book reviews by evangelicals.
February 28th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
What were the ambiguous statements on the cross and the physical resurrection?
February 28th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
McClaren made no ambiguous statements about the cross, or the resurection when I heard him. Infact he affirmed them.
the rev
February 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
yes, I heard clear affirmations too.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Can anyone see an analogy between the emerging church and the never-ending reshuffles that take place when a new leadership team takes over a department or organisation? The new leadership team, wanting to inject some kind of value into the organisation to justify their existence (and their salaries), decides on a restructure or a new mission statement or brings in a new management fad. The underlying business doesn’t change of course; its the same customers dealing with the same coalface employees about the same problems. All that senior management have achieved is more stress and unnecessary employee turnover, but they have at least created the illusion of progress, even if the company is going down the gurgler.
Is the emerging church an illusionary distraction from the underlying trend away from Christianity in the West? Is experimentation and theorising about new structures made any real difference to this trend?
February 28th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Yes it has made a difference.
The difference between your analogy and what we are dealing with is a cultural shift. This cultural shift is in my mind as important and far reaching as the industrial age, or the enlightenment. Now most people would consider the Amish’ way of dealing with the technological advanced of the industrial age to be overboard and unnecessary. Infact most would think they are very devout but backwards. The thing we are wrestling with, is how must Christianity deal with this public shift? Now this shift does not throw out the old, but includes the new. So we are grappling with what it means.
Many of the concepts we are espousing are not new, but rather traditional forms of engagement in missionary work from the past. But rather than an exportation of culture along with religion, allowing the religion to “fit” into that culture. The question becomes what is the non negotiables? In the past we have exported western culture along with Christianity because we thought our culture was built on Christian values therefore our economy, our government, our dress etc. was the “most Christian”. We are trying to figure out how to look at the current post Christian western world along the same lines.
What Phil is doing is too hard for me. He is walking with people in both worlds, and trying to transition people to a new way of thinking. I am not patient enough so I relate to others that think the way I do, and non Christians that are completely out of the church culture.
I wind up finding Jesus with Punk rockers, artists, fighters etc that had not considered Jesus an option, because of their mistrust for what they deemed to be a failed religion.
the rev
February 28th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
I’ve read a bit of McLaren and am yet to come across him calling into question the cross and physical resurrection Homer? If he has I’d like to hear how he justifies that so can you please tell me which book its in?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Here’s a thought-exercise for putting the non-negotiables into perspective:
Imagine Kieren Green approaching a church (say NCCC or one of your’s Rev) claiming he was now a believer and ready to embark on a Christian lifestyle. Now, after the laughter has died down, what would you be looking for and what beliefs would you expect him to hold before accepting him?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Before accepting him? Nothing, we are called to love everyone, and its hard to love someone while fearing someone.
To feel comfortable about calling someone a fellow member of NCCC doesn’t take much more for me, just an undertaking to attempt to grow as a christian within the framework of our 7 spiritual disciplines and a connection with God/Jesus/HS as ‘God’.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Isn’t a minimum set of beliefs required. For example, could I believe that the concept of God is just shorthand for humanities ultimate ideals? Can I be a Christian and just take the story of the resurrection allegorically?
March 1st, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Others will make different responses to you Kieren, but our approach at NCCC is pretty open. If you were to choose to come to our church and join one of our communities, then it is hard to think of something that would prompt us to close the door on you.
As someone who wanted to embark on a “Christian lifestyle” (whatever that means) you would be invited and encouraged to regularly attend one of our congregations, through which you would be encouraged to observe and challenge yourself in relation to our spiritual disciplines and core values. Then if you wanted to become a member of the church, you would be eligible to do so if you made an acceptable confession of faith (adult baptism by preference) and continued involvement in one of our congregations.
We are a non-credal church, so we don’t even have a formal list of things that you must believe in order to become a member. I think that in practicality there would be some things if you believed them which would prompt a few discussions with you, but it might be hard to pin down what they are. In relation to both of the matters you mention, they would probably be sufficient to require some clarification
March 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pm
“just take the story of the resurrection allegorically” isn’t that like saying “Just a small case of anthrax for me” or “just a slight case of spontaneous human combustion.”
There are no simple answers, there are very very few basic tennants that everyone agree are required parts of Christianity. 1 god in 3 persona and Jesus being a real person and the son of God is the limit of commonality amongst all christian faiths.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Dan, if you get “good vibes” from someone and he doesn’t look like an axe murderer and talks the talk then he’s in? You say you have no formal creeds, but amongst the above commentary I detect that some things are required - like a belief in the physical resurrection. This must imply beliefs in the reason(s) for Christ’s death and resurrection. Which in turn must imply believing something about sin. Which must imply a belief that once the world operating in a different (perfect?) state. That’s a whole raft of beliefs, not to mention the Church of Christ’s beliefs about baptism. And the additional 7 spiritual disciplines you’ve added. Why not make it simple with a formal list of beliefs - you know, the “what we believe” page found on many church websites.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Kieren, i’m speaking for myself on these comments. I have never gone to NCCC and my opinions may not represent the opinions of others on this blog.
we get many people who come into my church in perth, many who do not believe in God or who do not accept christian beliefs in general, but they continue coming to church and to some of the social events held because they are genuinely accepted for who they are.
i have seen many of these people, who by being open to receive a different point of view, have been impacted by the teachings of Christ and prompted by the Holy Spirit, have made public confessions of a new found faith in God and have professed the physical resurection of Jesus.
You don’t need to believe what we believe to attend our church and be loved by our church. Jesus taught that we should always love our neighbour as ourselves.
The term Christian means to be a follower of Christ and as such you are on a journey with him. The basic principle is taken from the bible. We are told “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
—Romans 10:9
In other words, salvation begins when we put our faith in God to accept that Jesus was raised from the dead (more than allegorically), and accept him as Lord. yes there will be doubts, but it is a starting point.
It looks to me like you have done some study on this yourself and are not oblivious to Christian doctrine.
Some churches have a “what we believe” page because they want people to understand what is required to “partner” with them in achieving the mission of that local church. For instance, if the mission of a local church is to tell everyone that Jesus has paid the price for your sins and you can find forgiveness in him, than those people who partner with the church in sharing that message will need to believe that too.