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.

gift from God

this little child is loved. i felt her moving under amy’s skin this morning, and i know what she looks like, in a vague sort of way.

interesting thought: birth=death.

when we are born, we have been fearfully and wonderfully made. since conception, we have grown and been made suitable for life in the environment outside the womb. in a sense, we have been through a sanctification process. we are better suited to see and hear without impediment than a month-old fetus.

when we die, we are born into everlasting life and we see, hear, and know truly.

as a father, i think i’ve caught a glimpse of what it must be like for God as He eagerly awaits the homecoming of His children. He’s got it better than i do, though, because He knows everything about me, but i only know what adia feels like from the outside and what the shadowy figure on the ultrasound looked like.

i saw her arm move! she’s alive and i can’t wait to meet her.

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.

people

amy and i went to cincy this weekend . . . aralyn’s 1st birthday was on thursday so they had her party on sunday, which was nice. we were also able to show off amy’s ring, and to pick up our wedding pictures (finally!!!), and they are absolutely perfect.

i found out that people exhaust me. i never thought they did, but being with constantly talking humans for 2 full days and driving 6 hours each way just made me wish monday would come so i could rest. that’s weird, wishing that the work week would come sooner, right? now i understand why my dad would always go find a couch or chair and just sit there every time the family got together for a holiday. he’d make people come to him for conversation, and that minimized his exhaustion.

introverts are like that, and i guess i’m getting more introverted as i get older. first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a low tolerance for active socialization.

another topic altogether: i’m thinking of starting a(nother) theologically oriented blog. not as if there aren’t enough of them out there, but i have a few friends who like writing thoughtful essay-type things about the interpretation of this or that word, the meaning of the Christian life, etc.

i was looking around on google today after running into the term “emerging church” in my friend’s e-mail. it was the first time i’d heard of either the term or the movement. it looks interesting to me, simply because i’ve been moving in the direction of “heart worship” as opposed to “head worship” and that is one way of describing a goal of the emerging church movement. i refuse to let theology (or the quest for knowledge) die in my walk with God, but i want to see Him in others more, and in the things that i cannot understand as well. i want to agree with other believers, not simply on theological grounds but on the experiential plane as well; we all have one thing in common, and that is the Holy Spirit. if we are indeed seeking to know the Lord Jesus Christ better, it cannot be a bad thing to call one another “brother” across denominational lines and in spite of doctrinal differences.

the problem with this inclusive approach is that there is the danger (for some) of a weakening of the fabric of absolute truth. example: Christ died, was buried, and is risen again, seated at the right hand of God. yes, we believe that. do we also believe that it makes no difference if we believe in (a)the One Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus or (b)the Mediator and the Mediatrix, Mary? i may call a Catholic Christian “brother” but i cannot stand idly by while he accepts a doctrine of demons!

i may be characterizing the emerging church movement as simply an ecumenical one, and i admit that i have a very limited viewpoint of it at this point. i do wish to know more, but i also reserve my support because i have seen how dangerous it is to espouse doctrinal relativism and am not entirely convinced that the ec movement (as a whole) believes in absolutes.

my prayer is that denominations would collapse, that Christians would seek their Lord, that brothers would love one another and that truth would be the quest of the universal church. until that happens, we all have a very straightforward duty: love one another – and our neighbors as ourselves – as we take the living gospel to all men.