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 28th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Rev - to turn your argument on its head, where did anyone say how one lives is not important? Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.” Faith without works is dead. Works without faith in Christ, the Christ of the Bible are also dead works. Legalism at best or just someone trying to be a “good person” however they define it.
Let me put in another way: how would you respond to this guy?
Again you seem to be accusing someone - which one of us? - of some form of dualism where all that matters is getting to heaven, or all that matters is correct belief. Where on earth did you get that idea from? (Should we point the finger of overrealised eschatology at you?) Is it because a few of us disagreed with the crappy statements by Cheryl. Like that Christianity is a lifestyle? Or has someone/something else been getting under your skin lately?
May 28th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Rev - to turn your argument on its head, where did anyone say how one lives is not important? Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.” Faith without works is dead. Works without faith in Christ, the Christ of the Bible are also dead works. Legalism at best or just someone trying to be a “good person” however they define it.
Let me put in another way: how would you respond to this guy?
Again you seem to be accusing someone - which one of us? - of some form of dualism where all that matters is getting to heaven, or all that matters is correct belief. And who on earth mentioned a sinner’s prayer? Did I? Did Veritas? Did Abtruth? Where on earth did you get that idea from? Is it because a few of us disagreed with the crappy statements by Cheryl. Like that Christianity is a lifestyle?
(Should I point the finger of overrealised eschatology at you?)
It seems to me someone/something else been getting under your skin lately and you are projecting that onto others.
May 28th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Rev re #90 . I still don’t get how you think anyone (much less any Signposter) who disagreed with Cheryl’s statements or found her whole article a pile of fluff (to put it nicely) is a fundamentalist much less “characteristically dispensational”.
May 28th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Mt 17:17 ff When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”
“O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.
Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”
He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
Rom 10:9ff 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. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
Gal 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
James 2:26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Rev
I am would probably be a fundie in your eyes.
What we have in common however is that we both believe in Jesus as our Lord and Saviour, and that belief is evident one way or the other by our actions in relation to what the canon of Scripture says, how the Lord directs us throughout our lives, and how/if/whether we listen and obey. Fortunately my salvation is not dependent on me doing “better”. While I am acutely aware of my shortcomings and wish I could do “better”, belief in what Jesus has done for me underpins my whole life and that has to be sufficient for me - not the desire to do “better”.
In terms of the article that provoked this discussion, if the truth is that the Jesus I believe in is not the historical Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead on the third day, then in Paul’s words “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men”.
I believe in this truth, dare I say the truth. My belief is important, and it in large part with an increasing ear to what the Spirit is saying and where He is leading (I hope). The truth is even more important, because without it my belief is useless. The truth is our cornerstone and I believe He is Jesus.
It is interesting that the first thing Paul tells to invest in here is the truth amongst other things.
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Cheers
MN
May 28th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Saint,
What I am arguing against is the idea that fundamentalism is the same as the faith that the apostles and early church practiced. I read in your post, which I reposted that you were comparing the two, and in the way that you wrote it, I believe I was totally justified in doing so. That is what I have been railing against. And fundamentalism has decided to focus its attention on the cognitive thinking aspects of religion, making correct belief more important than correct action. When I believe Jesus is quite explicit when he tells us that it is correct belief married with correct action that is required. This is not how we earn salvation, it is how we emulate our Lord. When Jesus tells us about the Sheep and the Goats, he does not ask what these people believe, but only how they have cared for others. Why? Because true belief requires that we live differently.
If we really believe in the afterlife, then we would not spend the majority of our 70-80 years on this planet seeking to secure our own comfort, or even our families comfort. We would not be afraid to stand against culture. We would not be afraid to be outcast, or even martyred. The early church understood this.
MN, you are right, we have faith in the historical Jesus. But how does your faith become visible? How has your life changed? Paul was responding to a specific time in church history when a group of people that have historically believed their adherence to the law, and circumcision was we brought them salvation. He explained that it was faith in God, and specifically in Christ that justifies us. And in his context he was fighting against a “culturalization” of the gospel, he was fighting against a legalistic form of Christianity that was returning to a temple system, and ultimately a Jewish one. This was keeping the gospel from the gentiles. I am sure you know all of this.
But what bothers me, is in our churches now, we basically make having the correct doctrine your key to salvation. Mental assent to a few key intelectualisms is all that is needed, well that and a few moral teachings. But when Jesus calls his disciples he calls them to leave everything and follow him. When the rich young ruler will not do just that, Jesus lets him walk away. When the early church found those in need they sold even their houses to care for the needy. If I truly believe that Jesus is Lord, which I do, then how can I not begin to walk out the kingdom of heaven?
Now if you want to make a big deal about which came first faith or the works, I think it is about as unfruitful as chicken and egg talk. Faith that does not move us into the kingdom of heaven is superfluous, it is a hollow false belief that actually drives us further from God while believing we are closer to him.
rev
May 28th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Rev, with respect, your first comment was this:
[1] My bad because I called her Cheryl first and then switched to Laura
So you immediately made some assumptions about my response WITHOUT having read what Cheryl wrote and assessing whether my comments (or anyone else’s for that matter) were justified.
In fact, by your own admission in your last comment
you would have to agree that Cheryl may espouse correct action but it is certainly not married with correct belief. Or do you?
May 28th, 2007 at 9:40 am
And I just checked again. Cheryl mentioned Jesus once, when quoting the Sermon on the Mount.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:54 am
It strikes me that there’s a few posters here who choose to put the most negative spin possible on every sentence anyone who doesn’t entirely agree with them writes. Chery’s article is an opinion piece for heaven’s sake, not a doctoral dissertation.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Sorry, that post above didn’t explain much. Saint, Abtruth - I feel like you’ve just assumed the worst of Cheryl’s piece, and I personally interpreted it in a completely different way to that you did. Can you explain what statements you have a problem with, and why, because I’ve just read it again and I honestly can’t find anything in there that I disagree with. There’s not enough substance there for me to take strong issue with any of her statementsone way or another.
The one thing I do question is her statement about the creeds. I regard myself as pretty PoMo (at least, I realised that my legal research is situated within postmodernism, and the few theological essays I’ve done probably are too), but I have no problem with the Creeds. I grew up Anglican, reciting the Creeds every Sunday, and I’m thankful for that. I find it somewhat ironic that my most conservative and fundamentalist friends (who are mostly pentecostals) haven’t even heard of the Creeds (or things like Lent, Pentecost Sunday or Advent for that matter).
Her statements about rationality, reason and empiricism resonate with me completely, and herein lies my primary problem with people like Dawkins (who I would regard as a fundamentalist) - they miss the point entirely. Faith is not about empirical data, rationality, or reason - there are aspects of Christian doctrine that can be supported by empirical evidence, and faith is not “unreasonable” or “irrational” in the popular sense, but it is far beyond the realm of western, rationalist science.
May 28th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Saint,
let me try for the third time, I will try and be as clear as possible. You said this:
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.”
Now, if you read the first paragraph you read the word fundamentalist. Then in the second paragraph you write about how Cheryl’s comment should have been this instead. It is not a large leap to understand how I understood you to mean that fundamentalism, and disagreeing with it, is the same as disagreeing with the fathers, the creeds, and the apostles.
Taking your response to mean that, I rebutted. Rather than tell me that you think I misunderstood what you were saying you argued with my assertion. Which further made me feel that both you and the others were actually advocating a fundamentalist position.
Now I said right at the very start that I disagree with Cheryl, I firmly believe the creeds, but like her my faith has little in common with the fundies, and I believe much more in common with the early church, and biblical discipleship.
rev
May 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Rev -
After some initial comments on Cheryl’s article by others
You commented in #68-70 without having read Cheryl’s article
In #75 you laid out your beef with fundamentalists, orthodoxy, Kingdom of God etc etc
In #76 Veritas rightly pointed out that you can’t lump all fundies in the same boat as Darby dispensationalists
In #78 I said:
You said to me at #81 that my assertion that Cheryl could not lay claim to the “faith preached by the Apostles, attested by the Martyrs, embodied in the Creeds and expounded by the Fathers”
Meaning you thought I was relating that to the church in Acts and is somehow associated with fundamentalists.
You see, I deliberately chose that phrase (which is Lewis’s and is common in many Christian circles where tradition plays a role in interpretation) as I do read the church fathers (and church history, and historical theology but I only claim a very rudimentary knowledge) and the age of the Fathers ended around the 8th century so it would be a huge leap to equate that with the church of the Apostles in Acts.
Perhaps I should have been more specific except that I doubt that would have made for clarity because
(1) I think given we were discussing Cheryl’s article people would have at least read it before determining whether someone’s comments were apt and (2) Abtruth, Veritas and I had all dropped hints as to what was in Cheryl’s article before you popped in which should have alerted you to its contents and (3) You still insisted that my (our?) comments supported what you define as “fundamentalist” and never really demonstrated (at least to my satisfaction) how they could be construed as such except on the basis of my lack of clarity to which your ignorance of the article’s contents may have contributed.
So am happy to leave it there. Now that you have read her article and can we can at least agree it’s off to a certain degree, although we disagree on the degree of difference.
May 28th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Rev
correct beliefs are more important than i think you portray rev.
we almost never act in a way that is inconsistant with our actual beliefs… inconsistant with our professed beliefs yes.. our actual beliefs no.
Bec … how do you rationalise this then
you said
you seem to hold a strange definition of faith. the faith that we are to emulate from the bible is from the Greek “pistis” (sp?) which means ‘what we have been pursuaded of’
if it were all about the sort of faith you are esposing, what was Peter and Paul Arguing for? they went to the temple and gave Reasoned arguements for their faith.
do you have faith in your husband? for what reason?
do you have faith in your cars brakes? for what reason?
do you have faith in your senses? for what reason?
Faith is ALL about rationality and reason and logic .. we have these powers becasue we are made in the image of God
May 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Saint, I responded to your quote, not anything in Cheryls article. It was your quote that in my mind equated fundamentalist doctrine with the early church, which had nothing to do with the article. I read the article immediately after posting my first response, and the article did not change my mind to what you had said. You are saying you did not mean what I took you to mean, and I accept that.
Abtruth, I am not in any way disparaging belief, but when the profession of belief becomes the focus, and not the actualized beliefs which are proofed by actions. The fact is the world is full of Christians that say they believe the right things, but live in complete contrast to their so called beliefs.
rev
May 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
yep… no argument there
May 28th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
So when I decry this dichotomy, and call for orthopraxy to be as important as orthodoxy why do you feel the need to correct me?
rev
May 28th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Well Rev I just think you used our comments on Cheryl’s article to jump on to one of your hobby horses. And we were discussing Cheryl’s article before you jumped in.
If you want to discuss the relative importance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, then bring it on.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
So sorry you feel my passion for the kingdom of God, and discipleship and even Jesus Himself is a hobby horse. It is an expensive hobby horse, one that has cost me my entire life, perhaps I should look into some video games instead.
rev
May 28th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
No don’t be sorry Rev. Be glad that you recognise the importane of authorial intent. Please continue (and feel free to rail against my vices: books, beer and smokes).
May 28th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Saint,
Re: life after death - I think that there’s life after death, because I don’t think the resurrection makes much sense if there isn’t, and while my faith doesn’t revolve solely (not I said solely!!) around the resurrection, I don’t feel that Christianity makes half as much sense without it. I’m not sure what “life after death” looks like, but I’m definitely more convinced of its existence than Cheryl is. I do, however, think that many churches place far too much emphasis on the after life, and not enough on the here and now (and this is linked up to the emphasis on individual morality > social justice stuff).
Re: rationality etc. You have distorted what I said - I did say that reason and rationality had no place in faith, I said that faith was bigger than that. The existence of God is beyond the realm of empirical evidence. Jesus’ resurrection is beyond the realm of empirical evidence (for most of us, anyway). An atheist will mount arguments based on reason, I can mount arguments in support of my faith based on reason, but ultimately we cannot conclusively prove our argument/disprove that of the other…there is some room for choice, movement of the Holy Spirit, etc.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
rev
because (as i have said) that it is there beliefs that are at issue, if they truely understand and believe in orthodoxy their actions will follow. if their actions don’t follow one could question their belief.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Bec
really ??
i thought there was STACKS of evidence
and i say that true faith is based on reason and that God embodies the purest rationality and logic and has imbued us with these traits as we have been made in his image.
faith not based on rationality/evidence etc is blind faith.
my belief and faith in Christs resurrection is based on logic and evidence, historical literary archaeological and that of biblical prophecy
i don’t have to have faith to believe - i believe therefore i have faith
May 28th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
abtruth,
I don’t know how to make myself any clearer.
I did not say there was no evidence for the existence of God. Nor did I say that belief in God was illogical, irrational, or unreasonable.
I merely pointed out that there are a variety of ways in which that evidence could be interpreted.
If we could prove the existence of God as irrefutably as we can prove the existence of the piece of granite sitting on my desk, then we’d probably find far fewer atheists.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
sorry - comment above at 109 should have been addressed to abtruth, not saint.
abtruth,
let me come up with another analogy - that of love. I’m sure this has been done a million times before, but I’m going to use it anyway. I know that I love my husband, but I can’t tell you why I do - I can come up with plenty of reasons, and I can tell you that he makes me laugh, and we have common values, and I think he’s a good person, etc etc - but at the end of the day, I don’t believe that my love for him can be explained in purely rational, scientific terms. The same goes for my beliefs - I can point to plenty of reasons why I think Christianity is an option for intelligent people, but at the end of the day, it’s not just about that.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
abtruth you said “Faith is ALL about rationality and reason and logic”
i disagree. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” - that doesn’t sound rational or logical at all to me.
btw - lOVED the cheryl article, don’t know who posted it. It was the perfect bit of reading to give to my non-christian colleague who had seen the dawkins thing on the weekend and was thinking about “all that stuff”, so thanks.
even if we don’t agree with everything she said (and I think I agreed with pretty much most/all of it), it is a brilliant way of opening up conversation.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
^ ^ egg-zachary.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
ohh geez
just because we cant see it doesnt mean they are not logical reasonable or backed up by sound evidence
do either of you Bec/emma think that God can do anything illogical?
May 28th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
abtruth,
I think that either we’re using language differently, or I’m explaining myself badly. I am using rational, logical, reasonable etc in a Western, rationalistic, scientific, empiricist sense.
In simple terms, I believe that God is far bigger and far beyond western science.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
you misunderstand me. I mean the very PROCESS of there being a substance to something hoped for, that somehting that is not seen can be in evidence is not logical, at least not to me.
as for God doing something illogical. now that’s interesting, I honestly don’t know.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
faith is the evidence of things not seen but which we believe in because of the preponderance of evidence that God has given us for his existence which is available to everyone
May 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I didn’t become a christian because of a preponderance of evidence. besides an atheist would argue there’s more evidence the other way.