dangerous practices
Well, someone has tipped my attention toward this review of Emergent Manifesto, which is described as the emerging church’s “coming out of the closet tribute”:
There is another underlying theme that is permeating the pages of this book and many of the other emerging church books in print, including Dan Kimball’s. There is a continual hammering away and chiseling down of the image of Christians (the kind who take the Bible literally and stand by its authority). This effort to villainize Christians is reminiscent of Germany in the 30s when artists would draw distorted pictures of Jews with certain facial features making them look weird, and when rumors and stories would run amuck even suggesting that Jews would rape your daughters, so don’t trust them. This all out effort to get society to hate and mistrust the Jews worked. It was a campaign, not based on fact, but based on a demonic kingdom that hates anything that has to do with Jesus Christ. In the Manifesto, Brian McLaren boils down the world’s evils to the fault of Western Christians and suggests that these resisting Christians might even become militant against people one day. (Hitler was able to persuade people that the Jews were a threat so they better take them out before the Jews got them.)
There you go. Brian McLaren as Hitler. QED. To be fair, the publishers of this book have a bit of a stated position:
In the year 2000, we learned that a mantra-style meditation coupled with a mystical spirituality had been introduced to the evangelical church and was infiltrating youth groups, churches, seminaries, and Bible studies at an alarming rate.
Thus, in the spring of 2001, we began Lighthouse Trails Publishing with the hope of exposing this dangerous and pervasive paradigm?six months later we published our first release, A Time of Departing by Ray Yungen.
As we learned more about contemplative spirituality (also known as the spiritual formation movement), we came to realize it had infected the church in a wide variety of aspects. Models like Willow Creek, Purpose Driven, and the emerging church had become avenues through which contemplative was entering Christendom.
I am reminded of my dear father who, upon hearing about “this postmodernism thing” decided he ought to research it, and later told me that he knew all about it because he had purchased and read a book from a prominent Melbourne Christian bookstore entitled something like “Why postmodernism is the divisive work of the devil”.
Anyway, I must admit that I am easily tired of the “the emerging church/liberal theology/alt worship/monastic thinking is the beginning of a slippery slope to a place where people wail and gnash their teeth in outer darkness” debate. I know plenty of people who I disagree with about a whole range of things but I am perfectly proud to call my brothers and sisters in Christ. But I know plenty of Christian people that I would like to put on the other side of a large brick wall labelled with a sign saying “These people don’t speak for the rest of us”.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Yeah, it looks like it’s reverted to a default-looking setting again.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Perhaps the hits on the Hillsong thread have been killing the servers!
May 27th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Speaking of the “evils” of postmodernism and the positive aspects of modernism (!!), occasional Signposter Cheryl has a great piece in today’s Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/with-god-on-side/2007/05/26/1179601730254.html
May 27th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Hmm I think I’d take issue with some of Cheryl’s comments. Faith is not rational? The Earth simply cannot sustain us? And of all the men and woman of God throughout history, what’s this obsession with Ghandi? He was not a Christian - he was first and foremost Hindu - and his achievements and influence have been widely overstated (I mean he couldn’t stop the partition could he?)
I recommended one of Conyer’s books on another thread to Janet.
Something else from Conyer, the essay Can Postmodernism be used as a template for Christian Theology (here summarized by a blogger) which picks up the themes he developed in the book I recommended.
May 27th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Take issue?
really .. what a load of tripe
What the????
and then
that is the worst synopsis i have heard
but there is more
is she confusing “nothing rational” ie ‘irrationality’ with something that is counter intuitive?
our doctrines are based on the gospels and what is necessarily derived from them along with the creeds (see below) and as for no life after death??? then what is the point of life at all… with this view of life you may as well join Albert Camus when he said that the ‘main question of life is whether or not to commit suicide’
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. [See Calvin]
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
May 27th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I was just being postmodernist nice (plus I was watching the footy which was infinitely more “rich and full beyond measure” because Port got trounced. Yes there is a God and He is definitely rational
May 27th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Abtruth - creeds and postmodernism are mutually exclusive
Which makes me think: Laura said, of fundamentalists “My beliefs have nothing in common with theirs, apart from a historically inherited name. ”
Laura should have said “My beliefs have nothing in common with Christians who hold the faith preached by the Apostles, attested by the Martyrs, embodied in the Creeds and expounded by the Fathers. If I had two ounces of integrity, I would stop ursurping their name. Besides, as a postmodernist, I am profoundly anti-gospel.”
May 27th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
well I haven’t really read what Laura said yet, but I find not much similar with the church that the fundies have created, and the church Jesus left us in Acts, which I think makes me actually very pro gospel, and verr anti constantinian christendom
rev
May 27th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
And just so you know, I do believe in life after death, and the apostles creed.
rev
May 27th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Oh, and one more thing, I am very sick of the fundies fanatical adherence to orthodoxy, but their complete disdain for orthopraxy. I actually think their orthodox doctrine is incredibly scewed by their reliance on the dispensationalist theology, and their praxis is ruled by constantinian imperialism. Jesus called the disciples to make disciples, not converts, and to teach them to actually do what He commanded, not to believe they will go to heaven some day. The kingdom of God comes when we actually live it, not when we believe in some abstract way.
rev
May 27th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
My apologies, I said Laura in my last comment instead of Cheryl. Are you now telling us you’re Cheryl Rev? Or that abtruth or I are fundamentalists?
Hey I just found a great church for Cheryl. It’s a Holy Catholic Apostolic Church with Arius as a saint! Where Jesus is a man to be followed, not worshipped.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I like the disclaimer at the bottom of Cheryl’s piece of *%$#@
Cheryl Lawrie works with an alternative worship project for the Uniting Church.
Alternative seems to say it all!
May 27th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Rev can you unpack “The kingdom of God comes when we actually live it, not when we believe in some abstract way.” a little further and why are you against orthodoxy.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
More like parallel universe Veritas!
Question for you Rev: how can you do what you see your Father doing if you don’t know who your Father is?
Hint: his name is not Ghandi
May 27th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I am not against orthodoxy, I am against the idea that what we believe is all that matters. And the refusal to take seriously the teachings of Jesus in regards to how we actually live our life.
If you study the gospels you will see that Jesus central teaching is the kingdom of God. This is not heaven, but a present reflection of an eternal truth. It is not when we believe, but when we actually do what Jesus says, that the kingdom comes on earth. Jesus said that it is those that actually do what he teaches that are building their lives on a firm foundation, not those that believe what he teaches. Jesus is meant to be worshipped, and we worship him by our following of Him. Romans tells us that the reasonable worship is to offer our lives as living sacrifices.
The fundementalists have used a remarkably new theory and made it a template through which they can distance themselves from anything that actually confronts their wallets, their prosperity, their power and their heirarchical structures. What it comes down to is believe the proper doctrine, pay your tithe, and try to keep your genitals under lock and key, and you are a good Christian. Where James tells us that true faith requires obedience, caring for the maginalized, not judging by mans standards.
Saint, my comment was towards the idea that fundies are synonomous with the original Christianity, which I believe they are not. If you read the Early church fathers in their own words they are very different than modern fundies. They revered Mary for one, they did not support governments or military at all, they believed the Eucharist to be far far more than a symbolic rememberance ect. And most of all, Christianity for the most part has rejected Jesus specific commands to the apostles not to “rule over” others like the worlds leaders due, for the last 1,700 years.
rev
May 27th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Rev, not all fundamentalists adhere to dispensationalist theology and it’s many variances - that’s probably a lengthy whole different post altogether- so to group them altogether is a bit naive. Do you actually think that orthopraxy (so evident of eastern religions) is more important than orthodoxy.
Saint, dude, I think you’re right about Gandhi - may have been an icon of humanity - but not of Christianity.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Saint, this guy Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father, I will trust that this is correct.
rev
May 27th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Rev - I have no beef with Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God.
What you seem to have done is equated my reaction (and probably Abtruth’s and Veritas’ reactions) to Cheryl’s article as an indication that I/we were advocating fundy dispensationalist fire insurance type Christianity. You must let go of that American thang mate.
Cheryl simply distanced herself from “fundamentalists” (although she really did not define them much more than those who were for “pre-emptive strikes” i.e. a political definition. And once again, makes the historically unsupportable inference that Christianity - like other religions - has a “reputation as violent, arrogant, manipulative and dangerous”)
But her “alternative” description of Christianity - in its social and personal dimensions, was way off being orthodox even in the broadest terms. One can then say, how then can that go hand in hand with orthopraxis? Our actions emanate from our fundamental aims, beliefs, core values. The two go together.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Rev - And He also asked, who do you say that I am?
May 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Veritas, perhaps you should study the fundamentalist movement, its roots are firmly in the Darby dispensationalist camps. There is no naivety in my statements, fundamentalism is absolutely tied with this theology, and particularly in the US where it is so pronounced that to even suggest that Israel is the slightest bit in the wrong on anything will get you lynched.
As to orthopraxy, doesn’t James make it absolutely clear that our faith is shown by our actions? Did Jesus tell us that we are to be disciples that actually do what he commands us? Is not the end of the sermon on the mount our saviors direct command to actually live his teachings out?
As for Gandhi, Gandhi very explicitly called Jesus the perfection of humanity, credited Jesus with being his inspiration, and said, that Jesus needed to be released from Christendom (and all of its imperialistic violence, and cultural impositions) so that he could truly become the saviour of all the world. In my mind he followed Jesus better than most Christians I have ever met.
rev
May 27th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Saint don’t tell me what I have done:
“Which makes me think: Laura said, of fundamentalists “My beliefs have nothing in common with theirs, apart from a historically inherited name. ”
Laura should have said “My beliefs have nothing in common with Christians who hold the faith preached by the Apostles, attested by the Martyrs, embodied in the Creeds and expounded by the Fathers. If I had two ounces of integrity, I would stop ursurping their name. Besides, as a postmodernist, I am profoundly anti-gospel.””
Which can be very easily taken to be a support of fundementalism, if you did not mean as such you could have been much more clear. And don’t give me that don’t be so american crap, I have been in Australia long enough to know that the fundie spirit is very very alive and well here as well.
I do not agree with Cheryl and I expressed as much, but I probably come closer to living like Cheryl does than I do the fundies.
rev
May 27th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
“Rev - And He also asked, who do you say that I am?”
and your point is?
May 27th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Rev - Ghandi never accepted Jesus’ divinity though. He also thought Mohammed was wonderful. He advocated for Hindu-Muslim unity (and failed miserably) He was anti-British, advocated for civil disobedience, jailed several times and a politician for a significant portion of his life. Whatever inspiration he drew from Jesus it’s not the Jesus I know.
And as to #81, are you saying that you read the “faith preached by the Apostles, attested by the Martyrs, embodied in the Creeds and expounded by the Fathers” = fundamentalist = Darby dispensationalist ? I’ve missed something there.
May 27th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
well for my 2cents worth
othopraxy leads to a reintroduction of law over grace
i would say that beliefs are more important than what you would have us believe rev
i would also say that if you know the truth (the truth in its proper context not the shallow abstractions we are fed all to often) then true repentance will lead to the discipleship that we are called for.
but do we really believe? do we call ourselves Christians on the basis of social/peer pressure - cultural or parental indoctrination - finding a community that accepts us for who we are?
so many seem to have a will to believe in some sort of Christianity because of perceived benefits (including eternal life) on some sort of ‘best deal’ basis. but this is nothing but dogsastic voluntarism and ultimately leads to a corruption of the truth for our own desires.
or do we call ourselves Christians after we have seen who we are before perfection and found ourselves wanting and that Christ’s grace was our only hope? leaving behind who we were, taking up our own cross and following him? to say ‘not my will but yours be done’
oh and rev
Peter was an early church father wasn’t he?
didn’t he get caught up promoting circumcision?
May 27th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Rev, not everyone who is classified or classifies themselves as fundamentalist, not even in the broadest term, is necessarily tarred with the same brush you are wielding and many have very different ideas and interpretations of dispensationalism whether following Darby or not. So in other words such a large generalization is not accurate or valid to everyone’s beliefs. Even the term fundie/fundamentalist needs a lot of unpacking especially the way the term is abused these days.
James did talk about faith without works is dead so I do agree with you about living in obedience to Christ’s commandment. They shouldn’t be kept separate but in balance - not one without the other. There are many people who live according to Christ’s commands and many of these people also don’t profess any Christian faith. Faith is essential I am sure you agree but just living a lifestyle in kind does not save oneself.
May 27th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
#82 - The point is Rev, that orthodoxy and orthopraxis go together.
The Bible says a lot about correct action, but also correct belief. They go together. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the world’s Lord and Israel’s Messiah, the one who fulfills all OT prophecies, the Yes to God’s every promise.
If you don’t understand that, by the Spirit, you can’t walk in the Spirt either. You might as well follow the Issa of Islam.
Paul in his farewell to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:
Warned the elders about false teachers. With tears.
Peter in his second letter makes a point about who Jesus is:
Before then warning about false teachers and false prophets:
Hard to separate the word, belief, actions here.
May 27th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
exactly. Christ saves not our obedience
that said if we are truly saved our obedience would be evident
May 27th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
And you might as well read the whole passage from John which you quoted (given it’s Pentecost Sunday and it’s the lectionary reading)
8Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
15″If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you.
May 28th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Can you show me one place where I didn’t say that orthodoxy was important? Show me one sentence where I said what we believe isn’t important? No you can’t, but the prevalence of belief over practice is glaringly apparent to anyone who takes an honest look at things. Nobody is called a heretic for living completely the opposite of Jesus and the disciples, but if you don’t agree with the exact understanding of the doctrine of hell that is “appropriate” you are a heretic or an aberrant teacher. Why does no one care about how you live, or spend you money? Everyone will berate Brian Houston for his doctrinal issues, but what about the way the guy lives? We have succumbed to a platonic idea that the spiritual matters and the physical doesn’t. We care that the world is going to hell, but don’t seem to give a shit that it is going through hell now.
As to your scripture, we are called the body of Christ, meaning we are to be the example of Christ, the arms of Christ, the physical manifestation of Christ’s love for people. The early church understood this, and lived it, and grew in ways we cannot even fathom. They didn’t just say a sinners prayer, they gave their lives for others as their saviour did. If you really believe that Jesus is God, then it should change the way you live.
Legalism says that in doing this you earn God’s favour, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am calling for is people to start actually living what Jesus taught, and stop making excuses for it. They make excuses for it and then they say how much they believe.
rev
May 28th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Oh, and this is from wikipedia: second paragragh
The nature of the Christian fundamentalist movement, while originally a united effort within conservative evangelicalism, evolved during the early-to-mid 1900s to become more separatist in nature and more characteristically dispensational in its theology. Most fundamentalists have strongly opposed the Roman Catholic Church for theological reasons; in recent years there has been limited political cooperation between individuals in each group on certain social issues, such as abortion. However, the relationships between Fundamentalist Christians and Catholics are culturally strained and theologically hostile, due to their strongly divergent views of salvation and Christology.
Characteristically dispensational sounds like what I was saying
rev