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 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Abtruth
and too await with bated breath to see what you come up with. Don’t come back too shortly - we want you to do a good job of this!!.
Cheers
MN
May 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Not to put the pressure on of course…..
May 29th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I look forward to it!
May 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
And I think Abtruth that you make a very pertinent point in that each of us are called to represent and imitate Christ where we are which will look different in each case, but likewise hopefully bear some very similar and familiar characteristics.
I believe in arguing for truth and seeking to clarify and uncover that truth, but sometimes I think we argue making the error that others should look exactly like us. It ain’t gonna happen and neither should it. Hopefully in the diversity however the truth, glory and person of Christ will still consistently shine through.
Cheers
MN
May 30th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Rev,
You said:
That is funny. I though by your former assertions about Ghandi then, as a Jesus follower par exemplar, Ghandi’s life is proof that they are wrong.
Wrong about what?
What did Ghandi’s life prove? That his favourite god was Ganesha? Shiva? Hanuman? Durga? Lakshmi? Or? That Krishna is the way to salvation? That Sita is going to put the world to rights? That Dhumavati is going to bring justice? And Jesus was this super cool guy with great ideas about non-violence and U.N. millenium development goals?
May 30th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Have you actually studied Gandhi? Or Hinduism? Because I don’t think you know what you are talking about.
But I am not using Gandhi as an apologist, I am pointing out that this person, accepted Jesus as the perfect example of humanity, “the way” infact. And said about Jesus that “Jesus must be liberated from Christianity, so that he can be embraced by all faiths” Gandhi could not reconcile the perfection of Jesus and his teachings with the imperialistic violence of Christendom. It is no wonder he did not accept Christianity.
Gandhi’s life proved that the teachings of Jesus actually could work, even on a large scale. Gandhi’s life proved that love is the way. Gandhi proved that Jesus is much more attractive than Christianity.
The fact is, Gandhi believe in Jesus enough to follow his example, do you? A hindu, who did not profess Jesus as the third person of the trinity, and co creator of the world actually trusted Jesus enough to risk his life in pursuit of Jesus’ teachings, and way of life, and most Christians I have met, including myself, do not trust in Jesus or His teachings as much as he did.
rev
May 30th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Hmm, I’m I’ve seen plenty of other men and women trust their version of god like Ghandi did. Let’s see, what did Ghandi say, “truth is god”
Whose truth?
Which truth?
Does this truth have a name?
Dear old Ghandi was a Hindu, and just tried to expand the concept of Dharma to espouse some form of vague universalism based on his concept of an Ur-religion based on his concept of “truth is god”. It all sounds wonderful (well to me it sounds wonderfully confused) just like those who think “love is god”.
Christians however follow their master:
I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me — Jesus
God is love. — John
May 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Should read:
“vague universalism based on his concept of an Ur-religion of “truth is god”. “
May 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
So back to your assertion Rev, that “Gandhi could not reconcile the perfection of Jesus and his teachings with the imperialistic violence of Christendom. It is no wonder he did not accept Christianity.”
Firstly “Christendom” really ended with the Holy Roman Empire. Some then used “Christendom” to merely refer to Western nations that were predominantly Christian even if after the Reformation, they had become increasingly secular in their governance etc.
But what your assertion also tells me, on top of Ghandi’s ‘truth is god’ religion, is that in his political pursuit to oust the British and seek Hindu-Muslim unity he formulated his own religion in an attempt to achieve those ends, by trying to link Christianity with imperialism/colonialism and trying to gloss over the fundamental differences between Mulsim and Hindu which were a constant source of violence (and remain so in parts of the subcontinent, to this day)
Perhaps Ghandi was not as ‘humble’ or as ’sincere’ in his pursuit of truth as he claimed to be. Perhaps he, like so many of us, subsumed the gospel to a political agenda.
BTW, technically speaking, there is no such thing as “Christianity”.
Ghandi simply rejected Jesus and saw in him just some nice moral teacher (heaven forbid, on par with Mohammed) You, being so concerned about the Kingdom of God, I assume would recognise that Jesus is (to quote Beasley-Murray here) the Contender, Initiator, Instrument, Representative, Revealer, Mediator and Bearer of the Kingdom of God. Which is why to accept Jesus, the Jesus who really is God’s Word Incarnate - is to enter the Kingdom, and to reject Him is to be excluded.
Frankly I am also interested as to why of all the Christian saints, both well known and relatively anonymous, you would hold up Ghandi as such a “Christian” example. Are your brothers and sisters in Christ just not up to your standards there Rev?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
could this be a result of understanding the ideals of Christianity but not understanding Christian teachings on the nature of man
May 30th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Saint, If you would like me to systematically go through those quotes I will, I get from them not even a hint of what you get.
Christendom did not end with Rome, and if you think that the imperialism that drove the English empire was not equated with Christianity you are very very naive.
I have spoken of Dorothy Day, St. John Chrystostom, St Francis, Martin Luther King, and many others in my many discussions. I did not bring Gandhi up in this conversation, I am commenting on someone else. I completely disagree with your assesment of Jesus in Gandhis life, and reject your interpretations of the above quotes. I am very interested in the lives of all who truly seek to live like Christ, and not so interested in those that thought about Christ so much they never got around to doing anything. I will take the slightly dodgy theology of Henri Nouwen when accompanied by a life lived with such integrity, over the brilliance of Calvin who had people that disagreed with him put to death. In Gandhi I see evidence of the message of Christ appealing to others, and being lived by others, without the trappings of Imperialistic Western Culture, and I long for more examples of Christians living the same way.
1 John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
abtruth, that is an interesting question. I think Gandhi did understand that in man were all sorts of evil, but also believed in a truth that could be found in Jesus’ teachings about love, and non violence that could actually change the hearts of man. I think he found in Jesus much more than a set of ideals however, contrary to Saint’s belief he actually followed Jesus example, not that of Mohameds. He was willing to give his life for his friends, and even loved his enemies enough to confront their injustice without violence.
rev
May 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
And is it possible that Gandhi saw in Jesus, the way (the way of nonviolent resistance to oppression, caring for the poor and marginalized, giving your life for your people) the truth (the truth of his teachings and his simple way of life transforming society) and the life ( his acknowledgement that Jesus is the shining example that all of humanity must follow) and that we can find God (the father) through this way, truth and life? Now I believe in a God of grace, and justice, I am perfectly happy to leave the fate of Gandhi’s eternity into my loving Fathers hands, but by marginalizing him, as most Christians do, we lose one of the premier examples of how Jesus teachings can be lived out here and now.
rev
May 30th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Rev, there is nothing in all that I have read of Ghandi’s attitude to Christ that tells me he knew Him, even if I, like you, leave his eternal fate to God.
If anything he was like so many others who thought Jesus’ teaching was rather nice (especially the Sermon on the Mount) and used it to further his political agenda. Jefferson was another one who instantly springs to mind. Perhaps his intentions were good, but you know what they say about the path to perdition. After all the Devil himself, as we know from the temptations of Jesus, knew Scripture all too well. And is also very apt at a bit of Scripture twisting. And if you have read Lewis, you would know that accepting Jesus as just a great moral teacher really makes him for a lunatic or a liar. Because he claimed much much more of Himself. Might as well follow any other great moral teacher and proponent of non-violence. There have been plenty of those through history. (And with respect, it was also you who referred to “Constantine Christendom”. You can’t blame Constantine for every ill in every generation)
Wonderful Hindu syncretism.
I won’t quote any other excerpts of his speeches and writings where Ghandi rejected the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection.
Stay well Rev. It’s a shame that in 2000 years of Christian history, Ghandi is the best you could do to teach your flock. If I see a bare foot skeletal man with a hand woven loin cloth on the steps of Parliament house, I’ll wave to ya. Promise.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Yeah, you are such the smart ass.
I teach about Jesus and try to emulate him, you can go right ahead and try to be CS Lewis if you want.
Perhaps you should learn some of the other quotes of Gandhi, like when he says that he would become a Christian if he ever met one. Or like when he said, I love your Christ but not your Christians, they seem so unlike Christ. Or again when he said that if Christ could be liberated from Christianity he could be the way for all of the faiths in the world.
When I look over the truly good and amazing men of history Gandhi is right up there with St. Francis, Martin Luther King, St. Patrick, St John Chrystosom, Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa. All of whom lived their lives the way they did, because of Jesus. But hey atleast you know a lot.
rev
May 30th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Well I have been a called a sanctimonius prick on Signposts before, so it’s good that now a pastor calls me a smart ass. Soon I might get the full body. And body is the key word here.
People who say they don’t become a Christian because of Christians yada yada are simply adding one more excuse for denying him. In fact, I actually find *that* attitude arrogant to the extreme. Like, well God, your people aren’t just good enough for *me*.
Those of us who are Christians are Christians because in Christ we see the face of God. And because we know that without Him we are lost, without hope. There is no better place for a hypocrite, a sinner then in the grasp of Christ and in the church.
When we are united with Christ by faith through the Spirit, we not only become sons of the Father, but we are united to the body of Christ. We inherit Him but we inherit each other, one entire big messy family. The very family with whom we will spend eternity should be finish the race.
Ghandi wants Christ without you and me. No problemo. His terms.
God’s terms are different.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:08 am
And of course Gandhi missed out on what it means to be part of the body, and many other blessings that come with a surrender to Christ. But what of those that say they have surrendered their lives, but really just live in the same nuclear family me first life that everyone else lives, they just have different sunday morning plans now? Are they not really living in the kingdom of God? Are they not missing out on what Jesus calls finding your life?
Jesus call is not only to believe, but also to follow.
As for Gandhi’s terms, well I choose not to have fellowship with pompous self righteous jerks or self centered money worshiping false teachers also. Does that mean I am not accepting God’s terms? Or the fact that I often have much more in common with non Christians that actually see in Jesus something noble and worth emulating, rather than Christians that are only looking for something to make their own life “feel” more meaningful, but never actually pick up their cross. I guess that makes me arrogant, or maybe it just makes me someone who actually loves Jesus so much, that I hate the pretense and self serving religion of many of those that claim Jesus as their Lord.
Of course any time you point out the faith of a non believer, or confront the lack of faith of believers you are demonized:
Matthew 8: 10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Luke 11: 52″Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
53When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, 54waiting to catch him in something he might say.
rev
May 31st, 2007 at 10:46 am
Curiosity got the better of me and I couldn’t resist the temptation to see where this thread had gone. Good on you Saint and Abtruth for providing such a diligent batting partnership. Welcome back to the Nebuchadnezzar.
Interesting how the syncretistic Gandhi is so often quoted in Christian circles as the epitomy of Christian belief. Yet he seemed to have no grasp of the true value of God’s redemption through grace. I would be loathe to quote someone who appears to miss the point.
Roger
May 31st, 2007 at 10:57 am
I would say that I have never heard any Christian talk about Gandhi as the epitome of Christian belief, but rather an amazing modern example of how the Christ like behaviour can change even this modern world. And this is why I admire the man. I do not agree with his beliefs, but his belief in Jesus (even inadequate as it was) was true enough to cause his life to be lived differently. The same cannot be said for all of us with such perfect theologies.
rev
May 31st, 2007 at 11:28 am
Roger,
I once commented on Homer treating discussions like a tennis match. Now you’ve compared them to cricket. It’s great to see you can engage in a genuine discussion and not treat it as a competition. (…5, 6, 7, 8, Go Abtruth and go the Saint!)
May 31st, 2007 at 11:30 am
Rev
which ones rev?
even though some might value theological correctness (now a vice in many ‘Christian’ circles) does this automatically infer that our lives are not being lived in accordance with our beliefs…
a thorough understanding of the nature of God/Jesus and his example and commands (theology - the science of God) should lead to orthopraxis.
a faulty understanding would lead to faulty orthopraxis (see ‘god and homosexuality’ string)
Gandhi did good with bad theology… Imagine what he could have done with good theology
May 31st, 2007 at 11:45 am
ok
we must close the door on all metaphors… before the allegorical horse bolts
similes are just like chalk and cheese. and there should be no more rhetorical statements (and do i mean rhetorical!!)
i’ll be keeping an eye on you all … literally
May 31st, 2007 at 11:55 am
btw
5678 is for dancers only
234 muso’s
10987654321 astronauts
1357 fibronachi enthusiasts
101001101010 computer geeks
31/10/1999 the day the world will end for obscure apocalyptic cult followers
May 31st, 2007 at 11:59 am
Bec, in the words of Alexis Sayle, “are you being sarcarstic?”
Anyway, my apologies, you are a woman, the subleties of gentlemanly cricket conduct would have been lost on you.
(light blue touch paper and retreat quickly)
Genuinely, I have scanned the posts and they are engaging and thoughtful.
Anyway, we could carry on until the cows come home…
May 31st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
touch wood we wont have to…
May 31st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
…wont have to what? carry on or retreat quickly?
May 31st, 2007 at 12:23 pm
.. and please, try and be more or less specific and I really really hate exaggeration, and no more analogies, they are like feathers on a snake.
Also, who needs rhetorical questions? Avoid cliches like the plague (they’re old hat) and contractions aren’t necessary.
One should never generalise and let’s eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.”
Now, I’m going to pull up stumps and head back to the nineteenth hole. (Don’t mix your coloquiasms).
Have fun
Roger
May 31st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Roger,
Yes, I was being sarcastic. I think it’s pathetic to treat discussions like this as a competition. Since we’ve entered the realm of gender stereotypes, it strikes me that this is a phenomenon more often found in men than women. Men seem to have greater difficulty in truly listening and engaging, and often converse as if winning the exchange of words is the goal, rather than enjoying the process of the exchange of ideas.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
bec totally agree. I have found too that men have assumed certain things about me (which were completely wrong) based on certain comments, whereas this has not happened with the “womenfolk”.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Emma, I even have one male friend who regularly says “oh Bec…you’re not as much fun as you used to be!”…meaning I used to be a fiesty little firebrand who would argue anything and everything until the cows came home, and now I’m more likely to realise when he’s just up for a fight, and respond with “hmmm. Yeah, whatever. Do you want another cuppa?”
May 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I think it’s getting old?
Or maybe realising there are often six or seven sides to every story and - god forbid - we might not be right all the time.
he ha. what am i saying? we’re always right