FINALLY

the baby is coming and the midwife is here!

from the previous post…

this is from my last comment on the last post, and i wanted to put it here to make sure it’s not missed.

. . . we do not affirm that all denominations have everything right, but we do affirm that: Jesus is God, and was born of a true virgin who had been with no man, according to the prophecy; nothing is to be added to or taken away from the Word of God; all scripture is inspired by God, and not one translation is perfect in conveying the full meaning of the original greek, hebrew, and aramaic. We further affirm that the Holy Spirit, as He assists our understanding of the Bible, does not contradict Himself; it is by our preconceptions (and we all have preconceptions) that we wrongly understand the meaning. if you believe that the Holy Spirit has told you that Jesus is not the Word who was with God in the beginning and is God, you are in grave error.

joel osteen is not a preacher of the gospel

this makes me want to go live in the woods and never see a dollar again. i think i’m being a bit reactionary, of course. but when the most widely followed preacher is telling his flock that everything will be great if they just think positively and believe that God wants them to be rich i want to contradict him. i wish that the elevation of individual, acquisitional thinking would just stop. it’s an evil thing that the poor are forsaken so that churchgoers can get their bmw’s and gas-guzzling suv’s.

all i have to do is remember that paul, peter, jesus, and so many others who were close to the heart of God did not become rich. i want to understand His will for me like they did, not like a 21st century greedy self-gratifier who just wants divine approval for his coveteousness.

i haven’t been able to write for a few days because work was so demanding that i was drained in the evening. thought was difficult to capture and record and i just didn’t have the will to force myself to write. that’s not what writing should be about, anyways – requirement or forced platitudes just don’t fit in the context of genuine curiosity.

emergence was the topic of another conversation today. just so you know, i love when amy and i have time to sit and talk – she’s my peer, my soulmate, my sharpening stone, my encourager, my best friend, my love. anyways, we were talking for a while about how emergence seems to have the right idea (love each other, love the world, be the hands and feet of Jesus in our current culture) but holds an element of individualism that, for some, is a temptation to be lone rangers. example: joe is a Christian. joe is disillusioned with corporate churchianity. joe finds out about this emerging church movement thingy, decides that it sounds great. joe doesn’t get hooked up with a body of believers because it’s ok not to, but rather blogs and has the ideas in his head but the fellowship just isn’t there.

i’m not saying that there is any difference in denominational fellowship; there are still many people who do just the same as my example who call themselves methodist or baptist or presbyterian. it’s just that i believe that if the Church is to emerge and be as Christ intends her to be, her members should be elementally connected to the others, breaking bread together, spurring one another on to good deeds, etc. if we are to be known by our love and if we are to be as Jesus prayed we would be (unified even as He and the Father are), we need to be with each other!

i wonder how we can strike a balance between the ‘we go to church on sunday morning, sunday evening, and wednesday evening because our parents did and everyone else in our town does’ mentality and the freedom to meet with fellow believers as we please. there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a prayer meeting, but there is something very wrong about going because it’s what you’ve always done. it becomes a religion rather than a longing for nearness to God and lifting up His name with brothers and sisters.

is my attitude too lackadaisical? am i being vague?

criticalism

recently i’ve read several things that give me the impression that people don’t like to be challenged. first of all, let me just say that i do have to deal with my own defensive reactions to statements i perceive as being challenges (to which my wife will attest), even if they’re not posed with a critical spirit; i’m not intimating that i myself am above the fray. what i wish for in my own communication with people is complete clarity, so that i don’t have to deal with being seen as defensive, thereby jeopardizing the reception of any effectual argument i may make. there are many things that are worse than admitting that you’re right and i’m wrong.

that said, i’ve seen a bunch of seemingly ill-conceived conversation arising from (and having to do with) speculation concerning rick warren.

one source (source A) was interviewed, and began with a defense of warren against the accusations that (a) he was mentored by the very new-agey robert schuller, (b) he agreed with some new-agey sounding statements made by bruce wilkinson as a guest speaker at saddleback, and (c) assorted other complaints about things he has done/said/advocated. another source (source B) responded to that with an indictment of source A’s Christianity and made it very clear that source A must not be living a right Christian life if he was able to say some of the things he said in his interview. source A replied, and the basic overview of the argument is that they don’t agree with each other at all.

this post has nothing to do with the topic of their argument. rather, it has everything to do with a basic flaw in our nature that i’ve noticed. we don’t like it when people don’t agree with us. whether the conversation be between the views of emergent/anti-emergent (which could also be stated as ‘evangelical/anti-evangelical’) or immersion/sprinkling baptism, etc., there is often more venom than necessary injected into our statements. i know that this seems to be a very broad and presumptuous claim, because i’m not giving specific examples or names or quotes (and i refuse to), but i would simply boil it down to this: as Christians, we must love each other, and we must tell the truth to one another; we are just not conversing in a way that combines the two.

i’ve been married for six weeks or so. there haven’t been many times when i’ve had to bite my tongue lest i say something i really shouldn’t say, but there is one characteristic that is common to many of those times; it is when she analyzes my family that i am most defensive in my reactions. i see a similar pattern in many of the foolishly pursued conversations that i’ve read. it is in defense of a brother or of a pet theology that people are prone to the mistake of territorialistic reply. it’s no surprise, really.

when i began thinking of unity this evening, i wasn’t able to conceive of brothers and sisters in Christ approaching each other face to face with friendship as long as there is defensiveness in their conversation. unity is much bigger than whether or not rick warren is a new age guru, or whether or not my brother acts the way my wife wants him to. it requires that we all subject our desires to the desires of Christ, and if we are to be attacked, let it be by unbelievers whose consciences are pricked as they witness our love for one another and our neighbors! small as my voice is at this time, i wish that more believers would let their guard down and allow free conversation to take place, with correction as a welcome part of our everyday lives rather than as a signal that someone else is out to get us.

as happens so often, i’m talking about a need, the fulfillment of which is probably a prerequisite of unity. it’s a need that i can’t fill myself (and it’s a good thing, because it’s way out of my league) but i do know that the Spirit who resides within us is able and willing to reconcile brother with brother.

spiritual or selfish?

i ran across a weblog the other day (http://www.bluedogbob.com/) on which the author purports to post conversations with Jesus and Buddha. he claims to have met a being while in meditation, a being called Maitreya. this is what one website has to say about him:

“Many now expect the return of their awaited Teacher, whether they call him the Christ, Messiah, the fifth Buddha, Krishna, or the Imam Mahdi. Millions now know that the Teacher who fulfills all these expectations is already living among us.

“Maitreya, the World Teacher, has not come alone, but with a group of wise Teachers who have long guided humanity from behind the scenes.

“They are returning to the everyday world to help us solve our most critical global problems. Maitreya is not a religious leader, but an educator in the broadest sense.

“He is here to inspire us to create a new era based on sharing and justice, so that all may have the basic necessities of life: food, shelter, health care, and education.

“His open mission in the world is about to begin. As Maitreya himself has said: ‘Soon, now very soon, you will see my face and hear my words.’” (http://www.shareintl.org/ )

the author of the weblog has his jesus telling him that he’s just one of many “masters” serving humanity at this time. it’s interesting that i read such a thing right now as i’m just beginning to think in terms of ecumenism within the church.

it’s a good reminder to not get too interested in unity, at least not to the point of sacrificing essentials of the faith and doctrine. as the jesus this author has transcribed for the enlightenment of the world says:

“Have you never the noticed the many similarities found in all the world’s religions and customs? Throughout the centuries, humanity has received the transfer of knowledge from the spirit world. This has been in many forms including human incarnations of master teachers, appearance of masters in visible spirit forms, demonstrations for non-believers of feats beyond human ability and inspiration channeled directly to humans in all fields of earthly creation.”

in the words of Paul, “As we said before, so say I now again; if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:9, KJV)” if this be the case – if it is true that the gospel of Christ requires that it be the only Gospel – then the jesus of the author’s dreams is false. in Jesus’ own words, He is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” and “no man comes to the father but by” Him (John 14:6).

what i need now is to take care that i don’t forget the call to spiritual monogamy when seeking the unity of the body. i love the idea that there are people across the world (the emerging church movement) who have a heart for the lost and are trying to find ways to reach them better as the church, rather than just as individuals, but i shudder when i consider the words of one of their most prominent leaders (brian mclaren) when he defines the god in whom he believes on page 76 of his book A Generous Orthodoxy as GOD B:

“a unified, eternal, mysterious, relational community/family/society/entity of saving Love [Who created] a universe of interdependence, relationship, possibility, responsibility, becoming, novelty, mutuality [and] freedom.”

this god is contrasted with GOD A:

“a single, solitary, dominant Power, Mind, or Will [who created] a universe of dominance, control, limitation, submission, uniformity [and] coercion.”

i found a great response to those definitions in another blog at http://oraculo.blog.com/blog/timbosplace/260240/:

“Note that McLaren does not say which forms of Christianity reflect belief in God A. Without backing this statement up with examples, these words are ‘full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’ (Shakespeare). Moreover, McLaren’s description of ‘God B’ as the God of ‘a Christian who believes in Jesus as the Son of God’ suggests that THE Christian God is not ‘a single, solitary, dominant Power, Mind, or Will’ (contra Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6-28, etc.), but merely the God he describes in ‘God B’—’unified, eternal, mysterious’ etc. Of course, the real Christian God—that is, the God of the Bible—is all of these things and more. That McLaren has set up a false antithesis between ‘God A’ and ‘God B’ seems to suggest that he is making God is in own image. That his descriptions of the universes created by these respective gods are contrasted by negative terms—the universe of ‘God A’ is ‘a universe of DOMINANCE, CONTROL, LIMITATION, SUBMISSION, UNIFORMITY [and] COERCION’—and positive terms—the universe of ‘God B’ is ‘a universe of interdependence, relationship, possibility, responsibility, becoming, novelty, mutuality [and] freedom‘ (emphases added)—confirms this indictment.

“Moreover, it is important to note that there is no mention made here of God’s justice and holiness. Yet these are essential biblical themes! Isaiah 6:3 should be familiar to everyone: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory’ (NIV). Of course, upon acknowledging that God is holy, we should become aware of how we pale in comparison (Isaiah 6:5, NIV):

‘Woe to me!’ I cried. “I am ruined!’ For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.’

“Isaiah does not appear to find himself ‘in universe B, getting to know God B.’

“Of course, there is more to Isaiah’s story, but at this point it is sufficient to say that McLaren makes no mention of God’s holiness as testified to in Isaiah 6:3, nor does he mention the justice in which Isaiah cries ‘Woe to me!’ and finds himself to be ‘ruined’ because he is ‘unclean’ in 6:5.”

mclaren also says on page 93 of his book that:

“[P]erhaps it’s best to suspend what, if anything, you ‘know’ about what it means to call Jesus ‘Savior’ and to give the matter of salvation some fresh attention.

“Let’s start simply. In the Bible, save means ‘rescue’ or ‘heal.’ It emphatically does not automatically mean ‘save from hell’ or ‘give eternal life after death,’ as many preachers seem to imply in sermon after sermon. Rather its meaning varies from passage to passage, but in general, in any context, save means ‘get out of trouble.’ The trouble could be sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment, or any kind of danger or evil.”

the response to that i found (also on http://oraculo.blog.com/blog/timbosplace/260240/) was:

“What about sin? Although sin could be covered by that final phrase—’any kind of danger or evil’—it is conspicuously absent from McLaren’s list of the ‘trouble’ from which we are rescued. If we turn to Scripture, we find Matthew 1:21 telling us that Jesus is so named because ‘he will save his people from their sins’ (NIV). In fact, the name Jesus means ‘Yahweh saves’—and what people are saved from are ‘their sins’! It emphatically does not say that Jesus will save his people from their ‘sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment,’ etc., though salvation from these things is an important part of the biblical understanding of salvation (e.g., Exodus, Isaiah).”

also prevalent in mclaren’s book are contrasts; he contrasts his missional christianity with liberal and conservative forms of Christianity, and sets up very unfavorable straw men for each of the opposing two forms. throughout the book, he paints almost all theological viewpoints but his own into corners, and his “generous orthodoxy” ends up as anything but generous (from the point of view of a man whose approach to orthodoxy his book has deemed “ungenerous”).

all of this is good for me to know as i seek to understand more about what the emerging church really is, where it is, and what it’s doing. i really do want to know how the body of Christ may be better served, both within and without the walls of her sanctuaries. i know that i can afford to be taught something about loving people better. however, there is a thin line between loving someone better and becoming like them, as mclaren illustrates for me on page 109.

“[Missional Christianity] gets us beyond the us-them thinking and in-grouping and out-grouping that lead to prejudice, exclusion, and ultimately to religious wars. It opens up a third alternative beyond exclusive and universalist religion.”

if there is no “us and them”, how can we be expected to bring good news of healing and restoration? if there is nothing to be restored to, how can it be attractive? if there is no in-grouping and out-grouping, how can the Church be a city on a hill? isn’t mclaren putting a bushel over a large portion of the light we have? there are Christians, and there are non-believers. it’s that simple, really. yes, there should be an absence of “us-them” thinking within the body itself, but never should the “us” be extended to include those who have never partaken of the gift of Salvation!

just to make sure that i’m not perceived as being completely against the emerging church movement, i really do appreciate that young people who love God are trying to be the Church rather than going to Church. i want zeal for being Christ’s witness for myself as well, but i still have to guard the Gospel once given to the Saints.

that’s all the post i’ve got in me right now, but more later as i have time. this one was started a long time ago and has been in draft form for days. peace.