Emergent Village Goals, 2007

Nice summation (I guess) on why support is deserved, but a couple of questions.
With all the talk about the wonderful uplifting, networking, relational, supportive and dynamic “conversations” that are starting up, growing and thriving everywhere, why the nonstop exultation about growing infinite conversations, with the occasional reference to the gospel or the “way of Jesus.?” Is the priority establishing some universal limitless warm and fuzzy Oprah show? As occasionally mentioned, what exactly IS the gospel and “way of Jesus?” As this loosely defined (to put it charitably!) movement can’t (for obvious reasons) come up with any kind of statement of faith or core beliefs, (aside from some hopelessly vaguest possible principles), I don’t think it a bit puckish to ask.

Also, I was curious to listen to you recently in Winston-Salem, during your talk (I guess sermon would be the wrong word, as it implies something tangible being taught) describe how a good colleague refers to you as 1 of only 2 true followers of Jesus in the world. Ergo humility? Who’s the other one?

Before I get to the meat of what I want to say…I came to emergent village to see what your site had to say. So on the sidebar I see this article – “Emergent Village Goals, 2007”. Wow, this will be fresh and visionary, I thought! This will give me an idea of the course they are plotting. And what do I read…a fund raising brochure trying to convince everyone why you are worth supporting more than people who actually are not ashamed of what they believe? Amazing! This truly has never been done in the history of the church. Groundbreaking stuff, I must say. New Skool, indeed. Reminds me of my good ole Southern Baptist Days. Let me suggest “Pledge Cards” and a walk down emergent aisle to put them in a big mock up of the Temple Treasury Chest. Just struck me funny.

But to my charge to you –

I will make you a deal…unashamedly preach the truth in season and out; Correct, Rebuke and Encourage with great patience and careful instruction as a man who has been given the pulpit of God and pubically call your cohorts to do the same as the purpose of this website and I will give you a donation. Stand up and faithfully ground God’s people in the whole of His truth as is your responsibility and charge as a shepherd of God’s (not your) people. Have the courage to say what is right as Jesus did, if this is truly your goal to build relationships as he did. He was compassionate with the wandering sheep of Israel but very honest as to their standing before God’s truth – and they flocked to Him. He was authentic. He was real. He did not hide under an ashamed bushel. But for those who were to shepherd His flock, those are the ones for which he reserved His ire for they were responsible for the spiritual well-being of of His people. They were entrusted to them as stewards to care for on God’s behalf. You are shipwrecking the church by hiding from them the whole of God’s absolute truth. And as a shepherd in this regard you are failing. Without knowing you personally, I assume your motives are good ones…to create true community in Christ. However to have true community in Christ, the community must know Christ and the truth for which he stands, every non-offensive as well as every offensive part.

Brian McLaren…either preach the truth out in front…the whole truth…every aspect of the counsel of God or remove yourself from your puplit. If you continue to hide from people the whole of God’s truth you will cause them to stumble over a manipulated gospel that is not true and if you cause these little ones of His to sin, then judgment will not go well with you. Perhaps you have heard it said that it would be better for a person to have a great millstone fastened around their neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea than to cause one of God’s to stumble. You might recognize these harsh and non-emergent words as those of some guy named Jesus. I implore you to take heed of them first for the sake of your eternity and the eternity of those your are shepherding.

My prayers are for you to see this light, repent and become a wise shepherd of God’s people. Further, my prayers are against the emergent movement that God’s people might not be ensnared by the deceptions of the enemy.

Also plotting goodness (all of it),

kj

(as a post script to those who are reading this who are swimming in this emergent stream…i encourage you to read the gospels for yourselves and see the true Christ who loved sinners by eating with them, healing them, talking with them and TEACHING them the whole truth of God. Look at the powerful and tender Christ who was zealous for His Father, His Father’s House, those who His Father entrusted to Him and those who would never follow Him. See the Christ who stood against those who veiled God’s truth. Be conformed to this image. This is the image that will truly be salt and light in a dark world. This will build the authentic relationships you seek. My prayers are for your sancification in His truth for His good purposes)

”# We seek to promote multiple and diverse voices rather than single heroic figures. This brings together amazing amounts of energy, intelligence, sincerity, wisdom, and passion, and helps us break out of the superstar mentality that has so many negative side effects.”

This is an old call for the church. Please take time to read “Biblical Eldership,” by Alexander Strauch. It is a good look at a biblical basis for leadership spread over more than one person.

The problem is all, and I mean all movements seem to end up with a single “heroic” figure who leads the way. I believe it is in our sin nature to seek such a person, much like the nation of Israel sought a king.

Brian, I thank you for your message and your excitement about 2007. I firmly believe that the way to truly know Jesus is to continually search for how to believe; the way of knowing is not evidenced by some man in a pulpit or on the internet telling me what I have to believe. Thank you for not being “that man.” Thank you instead for challenging us in our faith and being a friend (albeit unkown personally to many, including myself) on the journey.

JK-

Might it be a bit presumptuous to lay claim to the whole, unabridged and absolute truth of God, when the writer responsible for most of the New Testament admits that we “know in part?” Or is your knowledge of the truth more full than Paul’s? I’m not trying to be an apologist here – I don’t know Brian personally, nor do I think he’s got a corner on the truth (or a greater share of it than anyone else). But he is a follower of Jesus, and if you and he disagree over precisely what the good news is and who it includes, this isn’t a reason to call him ashamed of the truth. Even less to convey a wallowing-in-unrepentant-darkness-and-foolish-deception rebuke as a thoughtful prayer for his own good. You do realize that you just told another Christian that his eternity is in jeopardy, don’t you? Who’s really being deceived when the love of God is limited like this? Ever read John 3:17? Yet you just condemned a fellow believer in Jesus as the Son of God because you don’t think he believes the correct things.

Iceberg dead ahead, brother.

The “emergent church” movement is not the true gospel. People should be very cautious about this. I fully agree with Mr. Jackson above.

I agree with you on at least one thing, Wilhelm – people should cautiously examine this sort of thing. I challenge you to rethink your wording, however, because to exercise caution in considering matters of faith/doctrine/theology, implies that there is something of value – something worth hanging on to – to be found. It seems clear, having thrown your hat in with JK in your brief reply, that you do not believe there is anything of value in the emergent movement. If you really mean “people should stay the hell away from emergent,” then just say so.

If you feel comfortable doing so, I would be interested (sarcasm aside) to read what you believe the true gospel is, and how, specifically it differs from what you believe the emergent version is. As I stated before, I’m not trying to tow a company line here – I just like to challenge and be challenged when it comes to this type of conversation. Let’s keep the dialogue going!

Peace,

Andrew
(to clarify, a different Andrew than the one in comment #3)

Andrew:

“Or is your knowledge of the truth more full than Paul’s? ” Tough quote here. I believe Paul had a revelation of Jesus that probably goes beyond most of our experiences. He was also well educated in Jewish law, the Torah, and his present day Jewish doctrine and traditions. This makes Paul more knowledgable than I can ever imagine to be.

However, we do have one thing Paul did not and that is a unabridged compilation of his and other early church fathers works, the Bible. There is one essential truth I believe Paul had that we all need to hold and that is Jesus is our hope for fellowship with the God who created all.

I also believe the biggest critique of “emergent” is that people are trying to fit God into their personal box, “doing what is right in their own eyes.” I believe God laid out very specific ways we can approach Him and those ways were completed in Jesus Christ. I can’t just “do my own thing” and expect to fellowship with Him, God, I need a better way.

Yes my actual name is Andrew.

What is the Emergent Village’s stance on sin? Do you stand with the Bible and call adultery & fornication & homosexuality & murdering unborn babies sin? Do you stand by the Ten Commandments? Do you tell people that they are going to hell if they don’t repent and accept the free gift of salvation from Jesus Christ? Do you tell them that Jesus is the only way to God and to salvation? Do you tell them that the Bible is the inherent Word of God? Or are you loving people straight into hell…? We don’t need sugar-coated or watered-down theology. Our nation is in a mess spiritually. Preach the Gospel not what makes people feel good. I have to say that after reading your website I am not sure what you believe or what your message truly is. It sounds like you are a hodge podge of different beliefs none of which embraces the Truth. If you stand for everything then you really don’t stand for anything.

Good replies and good questions, Nikki and my fellow Andrew :)

My broken record disclaimer first: I don’t represent emergent in any official capacity. I’m just a guy who likes to “chat” on forums. I won’t be able to speak for all of the people that consider themselves “emergent,” or any other term associated with it. That said…

I completely agree with you in this, Andrew – Jesus is the unique and only vehicle or way to experience the fullness of God’s love in this life or the next. I do not believe that this precludes experiencing God’s love for anyone, regardless of their beliefs. God has (most of us would agree) directed us to love our enemies. I see no reason why God would fail to model this Himself, and this is assuming that He considers non-believers enemies.

Hmm, a potent windstorm seems to be picking up outside – I think I’ll truncate my comments for now, and come back later to finish. Briefly stated, I take sin very seriously, but I am not in the business of telling people that God will only love them if they quit their dirty, sinful lifestyles. I believe some very specific things about hell, which I’ll be happy to lay out when the storm blows over.

Until then,

Andrew

Alright, it appears as though the power is going to stay on here, though much of my area is without at the moment. Getting back to the issues…

Lastly in response to your post, Andrew, I accept your criticism of emergent as entirely possible. I believe that this is a universal problem for all theistic believers, though. We just can’t help it – any of us – we fit God in to our own “box” every day. In this sense, I reject the idea that the emergent movement is the sole perpetrator of said crime.

Moving on to your thoughts, Nikki. They are numerous, so forgive me if some of my responses seem short – I want to be sure to address each of your questions/concerns. As I said before, I can’t speak for all of emergent, but sin is a serious thing, with real consequences. We may differ on what they are – or more appropriately, how long they last – but I do believe that there is such a thing as sin – an action, or perhaps a thought, that goes against the nature of God. I believe that we are created to be in relationship with God and each other, so yes, something like adultery, which causes pain and seperation in a relationship, falls in to that category in my opinion. In the same way, I think sex outside of marriage tends to cheapen the sexual relationship within marriage, robbing both partners of at least some of the potential joy and lasting satisfaction that can be had. Homosexuality doesn’t make biological sense to me, though I am not about to pretend that homosexual sin is somehow worse than heterosexual sin. That is to say, to what extent I may have sinned sexually in the past (or present), I have no moral high ground over someone who sins with the same sex, in body or mind.

Murder is murder. I happen to share a personal distaste for the idea of abortion. I think it causes more and worse problems than the one it ostensibly solves. But again, our job as Christians (in my opinion) is not to sit in judgement over anyone. We may encourage each other to live ever closer to the example of Jesus, but I strongly disagree with an evangelistic approach that threatens everlasting torment in the same breath as one might extol the virtues of God’s everlasting love.

As for the Ten Commandments – let me ask you this: do you refrain from working on the Sabbath, remembering always to keep it holy? I don’t mean to undermine the law that God gave to Israel, but I believe Jesus summed it up best in saying that we should first love God with everything we have, then love our fellow humans as we love ourselves. This isn’t watered down or sugar coated to me. The gospel – remember it means “good news” – certainly doesn’t need to be a bitter pill to swallow, either. Your statement about preaching the gospel OR what makes people feel good, seems to me to be saying that the real good news makes people feel bad. Is that what you mean? I hope not. Else, it’s a bit of a misnomer to call it the good news in the first place.

The Bible. I believe you mean to ask if I think it’s the inerrant word of God? If so, my short answer is no. That gets me in to all kinds of hot water with my fellow believers, but I simply don’t believe that the bible is free from any error. It contains all kinds of scribal errors and seeming contradictions. This does NOT dilute the powerful message that it contains, nor decrease the urgency of spreading the gospel wherever we can. I do NOT dispute that it is God-inspired, but I also do not believe that it is God-dictated.

I think I’ve addressed, in some way or another, the questions you’ve raised, Nikki, but I notice now that I forgot to deliver on my promise to mention a few things about hell. This is severely shortened and succinct. If you find a point lacking depth and are interested in hearing more, just let me know.

I have come to doubt very seriously the eternal, or everlasting, nature of hell. Faced with scripture and tradition, I can’t bring myself to reject the idea that hell exists altogether, indeed there seems to be some very serious and unpleasant things ahead for those who reject Jesus in this life. However, the same scriptures speak of a God who desires reconciliation with everyone, and of a God who has the power to do precisely that. The idea that God will subject some of His creations to eternal torment, defies any sense of justice – infinite punishment for finite crimes, in other words. This strikes me as purely retributive and unloving. A temporal, or restorative punishment, makes so much more sense to me, in keeping with the loving nature of God. I don’t pretend to know the particulars, and I realize this comes off as unnecessarily emotive and wishy-washy, but trust me when I say there is a lot more meat to these arguments. I refrain here for space considerations. For more thorough readings, I suggest George MacDonald, Thomas Talbott, and Jan Bonda as good sources of information. I don’t agree on all points with all authors, but they are a great way to get in to the subject of a universal reconciliation.

Looking forward to your replies!

Andrew:

“Briefly stated, I take sin very seriously, but I am not in the business of telling people that God will only love them if they quit their dirty, sinful lifestyles.”

The sad part about this is this is the underlying message about what which seems to be heard about evangelical teachings. This is NOT the statement of the Bible. It is filled with testimony after testimony, from cover to cover, about a God who is absolutely just and always provides a way for His creation to approach Him. The very reason for Jesus is because we can’t clean the filth and dirt of our actions off ourselves. Romans 7 shows a Paul who attacks that very question of failure to get rid of his sin.

“I reject the idea that the emergent movement is the sole perpetrator of said crime.”

I fully agree. All groups have a habit of doing this and it is not limited to “Christian” groups. This is the very point the Bible teaches, God is God and we will not understand His mind and can only give ourselves to Him through His provision. God made the covenant with mankind through Jesus, not the other way around.

“The Bible. I believe you mean to ask if I think it’s the inerrant word of God? If so, my short answer is no. ”

Andrew you have hit on a topic which is debated and discussed at the highest levels of Biblical training today. No the Bible is not physically inerrant and we only have very accurate copies of the originals, far more accurate than any comparable ancient texts. What we have is the record which has passed the test of time of God’s dealings with man.

Good comments, I hope you find your peace with God through Jesus Christ.

Andrew – God does not SEND anyone to hell. That is our choice. When God created us He gave each of us free will to choose to love Him and follow Him or to not. If we choose to forsake the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ then we send ourselves to hell.

The Bible was inspired by God and written by many hands over many generations yet its message stayed the same throughout – how is that possible without God’s Divine Hand…?

What I mean by “what makes people feel good” is that too often pastors and evangelists only want to preach about God’s Love. That is only half the story. Yes, God is Love and He created us to be in intimate relationship with Him but mankind chose differently. We chose to follow Satan’s example. After we did that we changed the plan. God doesn’t tolerate sin but He loves His creation so much that He sent us salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ. Those who do not believe and trust Jesus are subject to the consequences. What man does not want to hear is about the fact that God is just. Our flesh does not want to hear about the consequences of our sin. We just want to be told how much God loves us… hence we are loving people into hell if we don’t call sin sin. Pastors need to preach about the fact that God loves us so much that He sent Jesus Christ but that if we choose to not believe then we will send ourselves to hell. We will be eternally separated from the Love of God by our own choosing. The Good News is that we don’t have to go to hell – again it is OUR choice.

Sin is sin whether we like it our not. We need more people standing up and calling it what it is instead of trying to make people feel better about themselves. I accepted Jesus as my Savior many years ago. I have not always done the right thing but I have always known that God loves me. I have repented of the sins of the past and continue to do so today as I draw closer and closer to God. I want people to hear the Good News that Jesus died for them and that He rose again for them. I want them to know that sin is sin and that there are consequences to those sins but that God is the Deliverer and that He wants them to choose Him.

If sin were a non-issue with God and everyone He created were going to heaven regardless of how they lived then why would He have sent Jesus Christ to die and rise again as payment for sin? Why were Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden of Eden if there are no penalties for sin? Believe what you wish as that is how God created each of us but be assured that God is Love, that He is Just, that hell is real, and that the choice is up to us – follow God through Jesus Christ or follow the world to hell. Also, be assured that those who falsely lead people in the name of God will be held accountable. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible. You can’t decide that you like the part about God loving us but not the part that convicts us of our sin. We are loving people into hell every day by not telling them about Jesus and how He came to save us from sin.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved.” John 3:16 – 17

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23

How can we preach God’s love without pointing out sin? My pastor preaches straight from the Bible about both God’s love and His justice – If it convicts me then great he has done his job and now I am drawn closer to God as I see my sin and repent of it. Too often what I see in other churches and from TV preachers is this prosperity gospel and love gospel without the balancing part of God’s justice and how He hates sin. Yes, God loves each of us – He created us. Yes, He wants us to be in an intimate relationship with Him – that is what He created us for. He also gave us free will to choose to love Him and loving Him means forsaking sin. If we don’t tell people what constitutes sin then how will they know? How can they make an informed decision for Christ without all the facts – not just the ones that we like?

This is becoming an interesting thread. Nikki, while I agree with you about sin I believe the term and its meaning has become lost in this culture. What has happened is the ears and minds of this culture have become seared to the point where when the word sin is mentioned the response is, “whatever.”

The Bible mentions they, the “non-followers of Jesus,” will know you, “followers of Jesus,” by your love. On paper it sounds great but in reality it is a complete failure. I ask myself why? There are probably many reasons, however I believe the biggest is the emphasis on the confession or born again moment rather than the on going life of the follower after his/her confession.

It seems to me there is an emphasis to get a body count of followers and build big mega churches but ignore the daily lives. I have also experienced what I call the, “straddle the line” method of being a follower of Jesus. What happens is a person decides to become a follower to avoid hell and then spends the rest of the time trying to figure out how he/she can live their normal lives and still be a follower.

Wouldn’t the followers of Jesus who stopped trying to straddle the line and work on removing their log while showing compassion to others who are entangled with sin be a better witness? Yes we have to make it clear that sin is not tolerated by God, but why can’t we make it clear through our lives that sin is a struggle all of us deal with? Maybe by doing so ears and minds will soften and the Holy Spirit can move in.

Wow – so much to respond to, I’m sure I’ll miss some of it on the way by, but thank you both for your comments. And Andrew, you don’t need to be the “other Andrew.” I’ll be NW Andrew – how about that? Ought to work if you’re not also from the northwest :).

I understand your criticism of the way I put the opening quote in your first reply, Andrew. It was hastily written, and perhaps needs rephrasing. I believe in the Holy Spirit, and I believe in people being convicted of their sin. I just don’t care for beating anyone over the head with it. This is mostly because…well, I’m broken, too. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not afraid to help someone realize and deal with a particular sin or destructive habit in their own lives, but I feel I must first have established some sort of relationship or rapport with that person based on my acceptance of them as a fellow creation of God. I heard a guy say it this way once: “We are beggars showing other beggars where to find food.”

As to your comments about bible originals, I have to disagree. We don’t have the originals of the New Testament. What we (not me personally) have are copies of the originals, and in some cases, copies of copies. Again, I still hold the biblical record in very high regard. I believe what it says about Jesus, and I believe that all human hope and fulfillment is tied up in Him. The bible doesn’t need to be error free to be right.

Now, Nikki, about love and justice. Do these traits of God need to be in opposition to each other? I’ve asked the question elsewhere before, but does God suffer from sort of schizophrenia – lavishly in love with His creations one minute and damning them to eternal torment the next? But then I see you take the Armenian route – doors of hell are locked from the inside, or something like that? Imagine a situation. If a child is told they have a choice between eating at the table or going to bed without supper, and they choose instead, to play in the living room, what are mom and dad going to do? Probably send the little snot to his/her room. You may say, “Well, the child CHOSE not to sit at the table, so they really CHOSE to go to their room.” OK, fair enough – but mom and dad still set the conditions and the consequences, not to mention physically moving the child in to the room….you get where I’m going? If you’re dead-set on there being an eternal hell, the metaphor gets serious, because this Dad is sending people to their rooms, cranking up the heat, and never letting them out. The major problem with the idea you’re putting forward, Nikki (as always IMO), is that you’re saying that God doesn’t get what He wants in the end. He desires for all of us to be reconciled to Him, but really, just a few of us are going to limp off in to the sunset for a victory party, while the rest of humanity marches away to everlasting torture. For all the talk and glorious victory war metaphor in our church today, is this really how you think it will go down? This is the big win for team God? Pay close attention, please, because it’s usually at this point that people make up their mind that I’m looney and stop reading what I have to say. Sin has real consequences! I agree with you. I believe that there is pain and anguish ahead for many people as a result of ignoring or rejecting God. I do NOT believe that it goes on forever. I believe that God’s justice flows from His love, that he will allow people to experience the true and horrible consequences of sin so that they might see the love of God through Jesus for the true and wonderful thing it is, and choose accordingly. The gates to His city are never closed. Ask yourself why this might be. Imagine the last remnant, the most stubborn of souls, finally entering in to the kingdom of God. Now THAT sounds like a victory party! I’ve had people nearly scream at me that this means a second chance after death, and we just can’t have that. Well, why not? What about those who never get to make a “fully informed” decision about Christ. They aren’t really choosing to go to hell, are they, considering that they might not even know it exists? Might they have the opportunity after this life to choose? Might the good news be better than you ever imagined? Let me know what you think.

Interesting that you have a hard time with the concept of eternal damnation, and it would appear ditto for McLaren. Especially since Jesus Christ spoke very seriously about and warned of it. Not that we would want to be caught looking like a “follower of Jesus,” would we?

By the way, who besides McLaren is the only other true “follower of Jesus?”

WhitemoonG #16: Are you presuming that you know exactly what Jesus meant when he talked about Hades? You sound as if this is very clear and defined, when it seems to me there’s quite a bit of theological debate.

And the comment about McLaren’s talk in Winston-Salem. If it was the evening session, I heard the same message and don’t recall the comment whatsoever. Assuming Brian meant something conceited by saying it is ridiculous, in my opinion. If you don’t trust my judgment (and why would you?), you can listen to all of Brian’s talks from Wake Forest linked online here: http://www.knightopia.com/journal/?p=620

Go listen to it and judge for yourself.

To Andrew NW – so, I can live anyway I want – rape, murder, molest, steal, cheat, abuse… and still in the end because God lavishly loves us all I still get to go to heaven…? That isn’t even logical much less scriptural. God loving His children lavishly and wanting to be reconciled with all His creation is not in opposition to Him allowing us to choose to not love Him. Do you not believe in free will? Do you not have a choice to either accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord or to not? I do. I simply chose to accept it and be a born-again Christ follower. Why allow evil to have ever existed if there were not a choice and therefore two places to spend eternity – with God (heaven) or without Him (hell). Jesus life, death and resurrection would all have been in vain if in the end we just all get to go to heaven regardless of our life choices. Face it – there is a heaven and a hell – the choice is up to each individual.

God gave us free will so that our love for Him would be even sweeter. He could have just made us to love Him without having a choice in the matter – is that how you want to be loved? Not me. God wants us to want to be reconciled to Him. Once you truly accept the free gift of salvation then you don’t want to live the same way you did before. You should want to know what sins you have in your life and strive to live your life in such a way as to become more like Christ. We can never be sinless but we appear sinless to God once we accept Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection which washes us white as snow with His blood.

How do we know that we are sinners – by the preaching of the Gospel with the sin part included. It is not all about love – it is also about sin and consequences. Sin will eternally separate us from God if we don’t choose Christ. Notice, I never once said beat someone over the head with a Bible and tell them how horrible they are. You do have to share with them in a loving manner but that does not mean that you change the message or water it down to be more acceptable to the general public. Jesus never apologized for the message or said living a life patterned after Him would be easy. As a matter of fact it is very difficult in this day and time but the benefits are eternal.

Hi WhitemoonG –

I confess I don’t understand the fascination with who the other true follower of Jesus is besides Brian McLaren. Perhaps you can fill me in on the back story there. At any rate, I doubt very much that Brian thinks of himself in this way, and I think it’s pretty silly to pretend like he does.

So Jesus teaches us the doctrine of everlasting punishment. You would be referring to which, the rich man and Lazarus? The sheep and the goats? Well then, let’s make sure that we’re telling people that salvation is based on works, and that when you’re in heaven, you can talk to and see all the people stuck in hell. Whoops! Seems we’ve been picking and choosing all along. Jesus CLEARLY taught this systematic doctrine of eternal punishment that caught on about the time of dear old St. Augustine.

WhitemoonG, I can understand that you don’t agree with me, and you clearly have a negative disposition towards McLaren for some reason or another, but why would you imply that I am afraid of being caught looking like a follower of Jesus? Have I tried to back off of Jesus as the only way to God in some way? If so, quote me where I’ve done it and we’ll talk more about it.

Nikki –
I see we were probably typing at the same time. Let me respond to the beginning of your reply with this question: Even if hell only lasts for a finite amount of time, do you want any of your family members or loved ones to go there? Similarly, if you have children, do you teach them to make good decisions so that they can avoid the negative consequences of poor decisions? Let me be clear, I understand that your concern is that I seem to be saying that we don’t really have a choice in the matter, but let me assure you that I believe we do, in fact, have a free will. I believe people will eventually see and respond to the love of God with that will, even if it takes place after suffering the consequences of their rebellion in some sort of hell.

Let me apologize for making it seem as though you were in favor of physically assaulting people with the bible – I really didn’t mean it that way :). Remember, though – I agree with you that sin is serious. I’ve said it now several times, and it still doesn’t seem to be registering. Jesus’ death and resurrection is not in vain! Are you telling me that billions of people have to go to hell for eternity for his work to have meant anything? Certainly not! To quote a familiar Christian idiom – “Jesus paid it all.” Well, what kind of poor investment is it if he only gets a small fraction of what He paid for?

NW Andrew:

To quote a familiar Christian idiom – “Jesus paid it all.” Well, what kind of poor investment is it if he only gets a small fraction of what He paid for?

That’s good I haven’t heard this one yet.

The debate going on within this thread is great! All of these ideas and discussions are very historical and have been argued since Jesus ascended into the heavens. Eternal damnation, universal salvation, free will, the credibility of the Bible and more, these things are the heart of the emergent church.

Now let me ask this, tradition, is there validity there or do we have to reinvent the church wheel? I am finding people have hope and comfort in both these positions and the middle ground always comes back to who is Jesus to you!

Good stuff guys and gals!
Merry Christmas!

No, I don’t want anyone to go to hell – that is why I share Jesus Christ with those I love and come in contact with. The thing is that I can only share my beliefs – I cannot make them accept Jesus as their Savior – that is an individual choice. That is what free will is all about. In life we choose, then we live with the consequence. Well, if we choose to accept Jesus as our Saviour then we go to heaven. If we choose to deny Christ and go with the world then we go to hell. Period. There is no middle ground. God tells us we cannot serve two masters – its God and Jesus or its the world.

So, you believe that if we don’t accept Jesus while we are here on this earth then we go to hell for a little while and then get to go to heaven… now, does that really make sense to you? Who wouldn’t want to escape eternal damnation – people will say and do most anything to get away from things that are not pleasant (and trust me – hell would not be considered a pleasant place).

If what you believe is true then Jesus life, death and resurrection would indeed be in vain. If in the end we all get to go to heaven then why did Jesus suffer, die and rise again? If He were not paying the price of sin to save us from something then what was His purpose? Please tell me what Jesus means to you… who is He to you?

I forgot to comment on this statement, “Are you telling me that billions of people have to go to hell for eternity for his work to have meant anything?” No, what I am saying is that many, many people are going to hell because they choose to not accept Jesus. They are going to hell IN SPITE OF what Jesus did for all mankind.

We have been discussing God and Jesus but we have only eluded to another part of the equation so I have a new question – who is the Holy Spirit to those embracing the emergent movement?

And NW Andrew – I am still looking for your response to our last interchange…

Wow! I have been speed reading all of these “discussions” and I am really struck with the amount of energy is being spent “discussing” your opposing views. I have a great idea – go out and be Jesus to the world, share his love, feed the poor, visit the sick, those in prison and share what you have with others in need and let’s leave the rest up to the only one who has the correct answers to your questions.
One of my favorite lines of Brian McLaren’s is that “we have to stop defending our beliefs” and that is what it seems to be you guys are doing.
Peace and Blessings
Bizzy

Bizzy:

I agree we do need to be doing these things, but what makes you think we are not? Discussions are good as is “defending our beliefs.” By discussing we learn and sharpen what we know with the hopeful goal of finding what is true and eternal verses what is not.

When I hear comments like Brian’s what I believe he is really saying is, I have the last word on this so go and work.” This is akin to say, “God told me.”

So let’s get to work but also let us become watchmen on the wall.

If we ever become afraid to both hear God, and communicate that (yes, it can be done without definitive statements and subjectively established authority) then I think we’re up a creek.

God speaks. The sound of His voice, I believe, will sound like love, dignity, honor, truth and beauty, and will move the heart to life and not fear.

I’m happy for someone to say “God told me” if they do so in this biblical, New Testament spirit.

Say what you need to say, Brian. I’m thankful for the spirit in which it is being said.

Dan:

“yes, it can be done without definitive statements and subjectively established authority”

Please give me an example of how this can be done.

So far most of what I see are people trying to convince each other their position is the most right, your post included and yes I am guilty of this sin also.

Bizzy – I am out doing the things you mentioned because I am about doing what God has called me to do. To imply that because we are taking a few moments out of a day to discuss our beliefs we are not out working for Christ is actually insulting. I find this interchange very interesting and worthy of a few minutes of my time. Also, how do you know that God has not put this discussion out there for a purpose…

Bizzy, you said:
I have a great idea – go out and be Jesus to the world, share his love, feed the poor, visit the sick, those in prison and share what you have with others in need and let’s leave the rest up to the only one who has the correct answers to your questions.

The Internet IS part of the world! Here we are. And anyone imparting God’s Word to others/quoting It/directly reminding others of It—“others” here specifically mean those who are lacking It and need to hear It (which includes many “emergents”) IS sharing God’s love. What kind of parent or guardian does not discipline or set things straight? A negligent one.

Bizzy, you also said:
One of my favorite lines of Brian McLaren’s is that “we have to stop defending our beliefs” and that is what it seems to be you guys are doing.

You are wanting to quote man before God. That is what is happening in this thread. Defenders of Emergent are more apt to defend men before they defend God. These defenders are apt to “follow” the man Jesus instead of have faith IN the Lord Jesus Christ.

God bless those who tirelessly defend faith in Jesus Christ anywhere in the world, including in the trenches of the Internet.

Sorry for my long delay, Nikki, and thanks to the authors of all the new comments for their additions, whether I agree with them or not! :) My grandmother passed away about a week and a half ago, so I have been with family, traveling to and from SE Washington to celebrate her life, and then of course, celebrating the life and hope that Christmas represents, here where I live.

Forgive me if this seems to ignore the current discussion on this thread – I’d like to address Nikki’s comments that she last wrote to me, and I’d like to come at it from a different angle.

Nikki, what I’m having a hard time with in our discussion here, is that it seems to me that I’m unable to articulate my views in a way that you can accurately represent when you reply. I guess that’s kinda my way of saying, as nicely as possible, “you’re not getting it.” I don’t mean it sarcastically, either, I honestly don’t feel like you are understanding what I’m saying, and I should take at least partial blame for that. It’s also entirely possible that I’m doing the same thing to you. Just as it seems that you have some preconceived notions about a universal reconciliation, I probably have some preconceived notions about your arguments against it.

I’m going to admit a weakness here, in a sense, by saying that I’m unsure about some things. It bothers me to do this, because I so often feel as though, when presenting a case for UR, I must seem to have certainty, because the opposing view or arguments are almost always gilded with theological certainty. This is one such case – on paper, it looks like everything is black and white to you, that matters of faith are a simple and easy thing to grasp, and if everyone just “got it,” then the world would be a much better place. Now, I know that is probably not a totally accurate description of who you really are, but this is the way it comes off to me. And here I am, wrestling with a legitimate issue (at least in my mind), looking at the evidence, seeing great hope in what I read (both biblically and in commentaries), but still unable to say that this is a doctrinal certainty (a universal reconciliation). So it becomes a matter of hope and faith. I trust that whatever God does, it will be loving and just. I don’t need to believe that his love and justice are at odds with each other. Indeed, where we might say that God is just, we usually don’t say that he is justice. Love seems to be this overarching and central attribute to the character of God, and so I naturally trust that what God decides to do will be loving. If it is also just, merciful, or any other word we might use, then that comes from His love. And this is what creates the problem of an everlasting hell for me. While I admit that my understanding of love and justice are not equal to God’s, I must assume that I have at least some ability to reason when it comes to these matters, and I have simply failed to see the reason in endless punishment. All through the biblical account, God restores. There is punishment, to be sure, but there is almost always restoration. Why then would God some day just give up on restoration? Punishing His creations for time without end doesn’t seem to have a purpose. So, Nikki, when I write about the possibility of hell not lasting forever, it doesn’t diminish the awful, terrible possibility that it exists at all. It doesn’t take away the seriousness of God’s punishment. When you comment on it like “going to hell for a little while” is no big deal, it misses the point altogether. This is why I keep reiterating that I believe sin and judgement are real and serious.

But further than that, this certainty that surfaces in your arguments is flawed in another way as well. We have no idea how many people have been born, lived, and died without ever having so much as heard a single word about Jesus. What of these people? The answer is easy if you’re a Calvinist, but for the rest of us, this is a real mind-bender. I count myself as incredibly fortunate to have been born in to a family that believes in God and His Son Jesus. While I may not hold the exact same views as my father and mother, the foundation was laid, and it is a tremendous blessing. But not every person is so fortunate, and this is what saddens me: it seems so easy for us to expect people born in to different traditions to just pry themselves free of everything they’ve known since childhood and embrace the truth we know. This isn’t leading where you think it might be leading, by the way. I’m not saying that there are many paths to salvation – let’s be clear on that. Just honestly consider what you think God does with people that have never heard – with children who die in their formative years, for instance. Where do these people fit in your view of things? And please also consider this: why would God task us with loving our enemies if He, ultimately, is unwilling to do so Himself?

It’s all a mess, isn’t it? It isn’t just cut and dry, no matter how badly you want it to be. We must live in the knowledge that we are unsure about a great many things, and it doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything. Instead, I think, it means that we should keep a healthy humility about our “firm” opinions.

Andrew-I do not think there are many educated, thoughtful Biblical scholars who would not agree that there are scrible errors in the existing copies of the Bible. However, that does not take away the possibility of the original mauscripts as being entirely error free. And even with scrible errors, the copies we have, can still be said to be authoritative in everything they proclaim or state to tbe true. Because the same God who oversaw the original process of putting His Word into writing is able and (I believe, willing) to oversee all the copying process as well.

As far as seeming contradictions are concerend there is a large step between something being a seeming contradiction and actually being a contradiction. Here is where a specific example or more would really contribute to the conversation.

Hi Brian –

Absolutely I believe that the bible is authoritative. It’s message is not diluted (at least not in my opinion) by many of the “errors,” but it’s still a long way from the possibility you mention to the certainty that many people claim. The textus receptus that a lot of people (some of whom I know and love) claim to be the only true, inerrant, and inspired word of God is about the most flawed translation we have. However, most of the “contradictions” or errors that I allude to are not things that distort or change the theological picture. Things like the two genealogies of Jesus being different don’t make me want to question the biblical record as a whole – it’s merely an author’s preference – but it does kind of hint at the unlikelihood that the writers of the bible were in some sort of Spirit-induced trance as they took dictation from the Almighty. This is basically my way of refuting the “every word in the bible is directly from the mouth of God” type of theology.

I’ll refrain from listing the examples you asked for, mainly because, like I said, I’m not trying to build a case against the bible. I truly cherish the stories and accounts that have been handed down to us in the bible. Even with little flaws and errors, the accuracy of it’s transmission is pretty amazing overall.

For specific reading on this topic, I’d direct you to the book “Misquoting Jesus,” by Bart Ehrman. Though I haven’t had a chance to check up on his sources, it IS an interesting (read: probably on a lot of pastors’ banned list) read to say the least.

Happy New Year to all! Here in Oregon, it’s been raining all year, but it’s what keeps us fresh and green. May the Spirit similarly fall on and refresh you!

-Andrew

Well, one of the more interesting inconsistancies in the Bible I’ve found recently is in 1 John 5:17.

Kris:

Would it help you if I were to let you know the “death” spoken of in this passage is two fold?

The word here is thánatos in Greek and normally refers to physical death. In the context of the chapter eternal life is spoken of here and so is physical death. I will agree this is a very confusing wording but we know from Jesus’ own mouth the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit or basically attributing the acts of God to evil (Matt 12:31).

With both the idea of physical death and blasphemy of the Spirit in mind, what is John trying to say? Does he contradict himself when the majority of the chapter 4 is talking about false prophets and those who claim to be followers of Jesus (love for brothers) and chapter 5 summarizes with knowing what is true, followers are “in Jesus Christ.”

Is it really an inconsistency or is it just confusing? When you take it as a whole letter and back it up with Jesus’ own words it begins to show some light.

This is the main problem with biblical interpretation we want to use it, the bible, as a cook book to make our lives better. Just look up the recipe, mix the ingredients together and viola you have a perfect life! It just doesn’t work that way, as a follower of Jesus your life might actually get a little tougher in the sense of this age we live in.

Blessing, keep looking the inconsistencies up!

Good analogy, Andrew – I agree with your conclusion.

^^^My shortest post. Ever.^^^

NW Andrew – I am so sorry to hear about your grandmother! I lost both of mine in the same year so I can sympathize with that kind of loss.

We just aren’t going to come to the same conclusions, are we… :) For me, a lot of things are black and white. I also guess I just have a kind of blind faith. I don’t question the Bible – I trust that it is God’s Word handed to us through men of His choosing. I do like the analogy of it being a recipe book to fix our lives if we just mix that right things together. That does seem to be what many people think and are looking for even though that is so not true. Life as a Christian is tough and it does get harder in this time that we live. I am totally against prosperity and name-it-claim-it messages that are so often preached on television. God never promised that being a Christ-follower would be easier, just that He would be here to guide us through. Having gone through some very hard times in my life I can attest to the fact that He never left me nor forsake me. Even when I was angry with Him and pouting He stood by me. I have felt God envelope me with His love on more than one occasion in my life when I was down and hurting.

I don’t have an answer for you on the people who have lived and died either before Christ or without having been told about Him. All I know for sure is that God tells us to go out and tell others about Him and what He has done for us through Jesus Christ. I also know that we have free will to choose to accept Jesus as our Savior or to reject Him. I firmly believe that there is eternal damnation beginning at death if you live this life knowing about Jesus but rejecting Him.

I have read something quite interesting over the last few days. The well known mathmetician Blaise Pascal made an interesting wager. He did a lot of work in the gaming theory in math. He was trying to reach out to those who were unimpressed by previous theological arguments for Christianity. It supposedly goes something like this – He said to think of a coin being spun at the far end of infinity. It will come down either heads or tails. How it lands will reveal to you whether there is a God – heads – or whether there is no God – tails. A choice has to be made. If you wager that there is a God and you live your life as if there is one – if the coin comes up tails – you’ve lost absolutely nothing. But if it comes up heads and there is a God, you’ve won everything.

After saying that, I would rather live my life having accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, believing that there is indeed an eternal damnation in hell, being ready to meet Jesus when I die and find out later that it is only a finite punishment than to gamble and find out that it is indeed eternal when it is too late.

Thanks for the lively debate. I have enjoyed it. Have a Blessed and Happy New Year! I will check back here periodically to see how the debate is going forward.

Oh, I was wrong in my earlier comment.

It isn’t 1 John 5:17, it is 1 John 5:7-8. Nearly all ancient manuscripts do NOT contain the last hyalf of 5:7 and the first half of 5:8, which leads me to believe the text may have been altered to re-inforce the Trinity.

Kris:

Good catch! Here is a good translation from the NASB:

“7. For there are three that testify:8. the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

I highly recommend the NSAB (New American Standard Bible) they do a good job of attempting a “word for word” translation into US English. They also note the issues you point out here and italicize where they have added words to make more logical sense.

Please understand this only points out our failures due to over zealousness to evangelize the message. It does not invalidate who Jesus is.

Keep looking!

So, I am hearing that the Emergent Church is now accepting openly homosexual Christians. Since when did we start attaching clarifications to our being a Christian? You are either a Christian or you are not. If you have to attach a qualifier to it then I have to question what “Christian” means to you. To me it means that I have pushed aside my fleshly nature and turned my life over to Christ Jesus. I have accepted the free gift of salvation provided for us by God through the sinless life, brutal death and glorious resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ. I no longer hang on to my past sins. I no longer participate in the sins of my past and I strive daily to deal with my present sin nature so that I can be more like Jesus. I will go ahead and say that homosexuality is a sin according to God; therefore, a Christian who once lived in homosexuality should not still be engaged in homosexual activity. That is an abomination to God. You cannot be a homosexual and truly be a Christian unless you are changing the definition I laid out earlier of what a Christian is.

For translations, I suggest watch the teachings of Gene and Melisa Scott. They don’t just teach from the origianl Hebrew and Greek, but other ancient languages such as Syriac , Ethiopic, and Arabic to obtain a VERY thorough exegeis.

They claim to have the world’s largest collection of anicient manuscripts in their Cathedral in Los Angeles.

Sorry this is just a test…

Kris:

Dr. Scott, your a follower of his? I first saw him over 20 years ago when he had his own sattelite TV show. He would seat in that big easy chair and smoke those cigars while ranting and raving about things.

The last time I saw him was a recorded message about salvation in Jesus Christ the day he died. It was one of the most orthodox well put together presentations I have seen on the subject.

I always found it sad his lifestyle betrayed his intellect. I pray I will see him again in Jesus’ kingdom, I enjoyed his uniqueness.

Thanks for the post Kris!

I hadn’t heard of Dr. Scott until I saw him and his wife on iNetwok about a month ago. They are both quite edifying teachers.

How EXACTLY did his “lifestyle betray his intellect” as you say?? You seem to have a great deal of personal knowledge about Dr. Scott.

Alright, Nikki, I’m going to try again today. :) I had written a lengthy reply yesterday, but it got lost when I tried to post it, so I’ll try to sum it up and maybe tack on a reply to your latest comments regarding homosexuality.

First, thanks for your thoughtfulness! My Grandma loved God, loved her family, and lived a full life. Her passing means that she won’t have to suffer through the later stages of Alzheimer’s, and for that I thank God. He is merciful and kind, truly!

I can appreciate and identify with your feelings on a lot of what is offered under the banner of Christ in the visual media. I won’t go quite so far as to say that no good comes of it, but that’s mostly because one of my good friends and brothers in the church came to accept Jesus because of a televangelist, who has since been exposed as a tremendous fraud. When I heard him tell me this, it was definitely one of those “God works in mysterious ways” moments. :) It also highlights one of the reasons I think it’s a huge waste of time to lampoon other segments of what is supposed to be a universal church. I point the finger squarely at myself on that issue, too – I’ve certainly spent my hours pointing out the specks and ignoring my own plank. Since that time, though, I’ve been extremely hesitant to impose limits on how and where God can accomplish His good work. Not that I could impose them at all, mind you, but I’m sure you get the gist ;).

I think I’ve heard that coin-flip analogy before, but it appears to have very little to do with Christianity per se, and more to do with whether or not there is a God at all. In that case, it is quite an effective metaphor, but as we both know, there is some theological distance between believing that God exists and believing in the revelation of that God through Jesus. And please understand that, from my point of view, I’m not soliciting a gamble on God by hoping for a universal reconciliation with that God. I’ve stated it in many different ways here: I believe that how we live matters. There’s no way I could look at the words of Jesus and sum them up by saying that it makes no difference what choices I make in this life. Clearly, it is a serious matter! However, I also can’t look at all the evidence and conclude that either a) God doesn’t have the power or b) the will, to save all of His creations. By comparison, the verses and texts we point to as proof of an everlasting hell are underwhelming, both in quantity and in context. “BUT,” you might say, “Jesus Himself lays it right out there!” To which I would reply, “Since when?” Does anyone really think that the parable in the last part of Mathew 25 is Jesus’ way of laying out a systematic doctrine? This from the man who, until the very end of His earthly ministry, seemed concerned about keeping His own true, divine nature a secret – all the parables he told and all the hyperbole He used – yet we’re pretty sure that He meant this literally? Now, I know the case for infinite punishment doesn’t rest solely on Mathew 25, but try to look past my narrow argument and see the merit in trusting that God does so love the WORLD, and does indeed desire that NO ONE perish, and that He won’t stop until precisely that is accomplished. Let it come off the page and be alive for you. It is hope and faith in the goodness of God, not just some academic trick to make the bible say what I want it to.

There was more to this post originally – material I’ll try to repost as soon as I can do so. For now I’ll have to leave you with this.

Blessings,

Andrew

Kris:

Dr. Scott, I looked him up again to be sure we were talking about the same person, has passed away but his videos and church remains. Google him a little and you will see he had a lot of controversial things, like a few marriages, lavish life style, out right cussing and fowl language, open belittlement of women, questionable finances and more. All of these things betray his message, but they brought attention to him personally. Of course I could have entirely missed the point of it all.

He had a brilliant mind and was (still is) very interesting to listen to. The problem is because of his excessiveness’s he is hard to take seriously. There is just a lot of stuff you have to filter out to get to his teaching.

Thanks for the post and discussion!

Are you talking about This????

http://www.resurrectionism.com/

It seems pretty clear that Dr. Scott was betrayed by intellectualism, not the other way around as you assert.

In any event, he recticfied that error.

I certainly take him nmore seriously that people who debate “what must we do to be saved”

Hi,

I’m interested to see that no one has brought up C.S. Lewis’ Great Divorce in this conversation about the existence and length of hell. It paints a picture of hell where anyone can leave whenever they want to and almost no one does.

I’d also like to talk a little about sin. I believe that adultery and fornication and abortion are sin. I also believe that every “white lie” I tell is sin, every time I zone out and ignore my child is sin, every time I choose not to spend time with God that he wants to spend with me is sin, and sin is sin, I do it every day. There is a problem with classifying sins as worse or not so bad and I think there’s an overreaction in the other direction in some parts of the church. One very visible issue is homosexuality. I’m married to a sex-addict so I know quite a few others and a fair amount about it, sometimes homosexuality is part of sex-addiction (I am not claiming that for every homosexual because I just don’t know). I think you can be a homosexual christian because I am a food-addict, codependent christian. If I never choose chocolate as an escape again and never try to control or manipulate the people around me I will still be a food-addict, codependent christian, I will just be making better choices. I am a christian not because I don’t sin (and believe me I do try not to sin and believe that attempt is an obvious part of christianity) but because God loves me and Jesus has paid the price for my sin. I do believe that sin can be an indication of christian maturity but that’s a whole other conversation. I agree that you’re either a christian or not but that’s an incomplete picture and for some people a negative one though for me it’s the most important description of who I am.

Nikki asked if someone could rape and murder and abuse their whole life and still go to heaven and the answer according to conservative theology is yes – if they repent and accept Jesus’ sacrifice and God’s sovereignty (and probably pages of doctrinal beliefs depending on the denomination), I hear NW Andrew saying that maybe we also get to make that decision the day after we die, not just the days before. I don’t think that’s illogical.

Having said all that I don’t have any idea whether death is the cutoff point for repentance, I just like to think that God who has been madly in love with me since long before I was born would not stop pursuing me after death if I was stupid enough to keep rejecting him until then, to me it fits better with who God reveals himself to be.

There’s so much to talk about on this thread, even though I don’t know anything about Dr. Scott. I would like to point out to Keith who seems unlikely to return that in the only book of Brian’s I’ve read he sums up Christianity as loving God and loving others and I don’t see how you can biblically argue against that one.

Love to you all,

Jenni

Sorry about the double post my ISP is getting fired this week.

Pastor Melissa Scott’s message tonight was quite good. I’ve often been in “Psalm 77” mode.

And I’ve never seen anyone (besides the Levitt letter) who breaks down some many verses into their original Hebrew.

Hey Jenni –

Well said on the topic of sins and our propensity to “grade” them. That is essentially what the missing part of my last post was about, but I think you’ve said it better than I would have, so I’ll just leave mine out. :)

Kris:

We are getting this backwards, his intellect did not betray him his life style did. This short article spells it out,http://www.therestisnoise.com/2005/09/dr_gene_scott.html, people thought he was a Kook.

His first marriage seems to end in an affair (his wife having one) and then he marries two other women substantially younger than he. As I posted before his cigars, fowl language and wild talk all make him sound like a “kook” which betrays his message. I thought the “Resurrection” was basically a good article, nothing really unorthodox there.

Thanks!

Sorry Andrew, I don’t put much credence into unsubstaniate claims of a New Yorker music critic.

The messages I’ve seen Dr. Scott preach are more biblically sound than ‘Christains’ who debate “what must we do to be saved?”

Kris:

I am glad you like and admire his teaching. I am also sorry if I offended you. The article I linked to was just one in many over the years so my point is substantiated that his life style got in the way of his intellect.

I agree with you about his “sound” teachings, they are concise and well thought out. Now if you like women teachers who encourage others to seek the truth of scripture by studying it check out Kay Arthur and Precept Ministries.

Thanks again, good exchange!

Well, Melissa Scott’s messages last night were once again quite edifying.

The first, a repeat from last week, spoke of the TRUE spirit of giving. She said not to give to her church unless you have been taught. Quite refreshing given how much time and effort many churchs and religious organizations devote to fundraising.

And you don’t see any “Give via PayPal” links at her website.

The second message began with a comparison of Isaiah 61:1-3 with the correponding passage in Luke. The most interesting part I found was how, in the Greek, the words for “Good News” and “healing” are so similar.

Kris:

Good stuff! Why don’t we hear more of this today? Another good pastor who has done a lot of Hebrew study is Rob Bell. Check him out.

Blessings

For a purely Hebrew perspective, you cna’t get much better than the late Zola Levitt’s ministry, although Perry Stone is also very good.

The Scott’s seem much stronger in Greek, and (as I said before) also use both ancient and modern languages to do VERY thorough exegeises.

Interesting ‘discussion’. Pretty well illustrates my concerns for the emerging church at this time in history. I know most will not like this but I am hearing points of view on theological issues that have been debated since the days of Christ. I think we need to admit one thing as we explore the implications for the emergent community. We all have different theological foundations. I am hearing Calvinism, Wesleyanism, Universalism and a dozen other -isms expressed. The conversation is not necessarily a bad thing, but if we don’t acknowledge different perspectives, understandings of biblical authority, etc., we will end the conversation in confusion and frustration. Which is what I am sensing in these multitudes of posts. I wish the Body was not divided (physically), but one thing denominations have done, they have enabled churches to serve together in spite of theological differences.

Well, my 2 cents anyway,
God bless.

Hi JP –

Are you sensing a kind of modern day Babel in the emergent church? Maybe that’s a poor summary of your comments, but I wonder if you’d expand a little on this pros/cons kind of approach to blurring (or erasing, even) denominational lines. I think we may be at least on adjacent pages here – I think it’s great when there is an ecumenical move towards service outside the church walls. I’ve seen it work beautifully, and I’ve seen it tank. It’s an imperfect thing, much like the ongoing conversations here with emergent. A spirit of graciousness and humility is required for any of this to work towards the common good – which is to say, kingdom growth. The moment (and I’ve had them) we pat ourselves on the back for “working with” (stooping to the level of) the [insert denomination here]’s, it all kind of goes out the stained glass window. But enough of my thoughts, tell me more about what you’re thinking! :)

Peace

andrew,

What I am saying is that everyone, even if they identify themselves as ‘emergent’, is going to read scripture and truth through certain lenses. Theological persectives that have evolved into denominations have been around for centuries. Various issues (predestination vs. freewill has been argued over by Wesleyans and Calvinists for example)are not agreed on perhaps but have been discussed between many adherents of differing denominations. In other words, we can agree to disagree knowing that our reading of scripture differs in certain areas.

Ok, so what happens now in the emergent church movement? We get the idea that we can all come together, dump the denominational walls and enter into some kind of utopic flowing conversation…like a big happy coffee shop. But when I, coming from a Wesleyan perspective, speak to a fellow minister who speaks and comes from a Calvinist perspective, we understand each other from the outset. We understand that there are some areas we can agree to disagree on. I follow the saying, In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, love”. If I came to the conversation believing that, because we identify ourselves as ‘emergent’, we could be on the same page on all issues and that this person, following a thoughtful discussion, should agree with me on everything, then I will leave the “conversation” frustrated.

As I surf blogs, read critiques of the emergent church movement, and enter into the conversation on my own. I have spoken to some and bantered back over issues of Hell, judgement and salvation, and have gotten nowhere. Hours spent analyzing responses and posting replies only to realize later that this person I have been discussing this with was a universalist. He will never read a passage of scripture about Hell literally because it doesn’t agree with his theological foundation.

To fail to recognize this results in a lot of frustration. The kind I sense coming out the the above conversation.

Thanks for clarifying that, JP – I see your point. Frustration has a way of creeping in on even the most well-intentioned debates. The statement you make about essentials vs. non-essentials is a great ideal to adhere to. However, in a situation like this thread, particularly between Nikki and myself, that statement breaks down a little bit, because we can’t agree on whether the issue at hand is an essential or a non-essential, so we’re stuck somewhere between unity and liberty.

I absolutely agree with you that this type of conversation can result in frustration on all sides, but I don’t think that it needs to end that way. I may hope for, believe in, and at times literarily champion a form of universalism, but I continue to serve on staff for a congregation of people that mostly believe in an everlasting hell. And it’s not because I try to hide it – I just don’t think it’s worth causing a big stir. If someone wants to ask me about it, I’ll be honest, if someone wants to engage in debate about it, I’ll do so with chutzpa, but when everyone’s had their say, I still love my church family. I’m still happy to be a part of a community of Christ-followers. Obviously, it’s tough to impart this feeling in the middle of a debate, especially so when the parties aren’t face to face. There’s no body language to be read here, just written language.

But I’m starting to ramble, so I’ll close with this: I, personally, think that emergent is pointed in a similar direction as you and I. I don’t think it’s all about everybody agreeing on everything, though I can understand how it comes off that way. Instead, I think you would find the vast majority in agreeance with unity and love above all, even when the theological common ground is the size of a postage stamp.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments! Perhaps we’ll banter some time :).

Peace

I’m sensing a GREAT DEAL of “Babel” in the “emerging Church” movement.

To go along with some of the apostasy.

Would this be some of the frustration that JP mentioned bubbling over? Instead of taking a shot like this at a bunch of unnamed people, why not engage with the apostates and meaningless talkers and try to gently correct? If there are people here that you are fairly certain are headed for damnation, why not reach out in love before it’s too late? This little snippet you wrote leads me to believe that you don’t really care what happens to people who don’t believe correctly. Am I getting the wrong impression here?

I used to work for Dr. Gene Scott. He could be hilarious. ... then get so mad we thought he’d stroke out. Melissa banned smoking after he died. She’s trying to keep the thing going, but just doesn’t have what it takes. Dr. Gene Scott used to command attention and respect though he was too focused on getting money in his later years. Pastor Melissa Scott is common but tried too hard to act like him. She treats the church money and property like she earned it herself. That’s what blows old guard minds!

“That’s what blows old guard minds!”

The “old guard” are like the “Republican Guard”: bones littered amongst rusting canons.
There’s a reason you are yesterday’s news.

andrew,
Thanks for responding so considerately (not sure about that other guy:). I think you have understood what I was saying better than I have explained it. I appreciate the effort! I suppose a good question would be, “if we are going to come from different theological perspectives, would it be better to identify them first? Would this be a help or hindrance to discussion? Would it take us right back to problems we are seeing within denominationalism? ie “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos”. But if you are “universalist” and I am a wesleyan, then I suppose knowing this ahead of time could prevent rehashing the same ol disagreements and allow us to move on into something we do agree on.

Thanks again Andrew, would like to chat with you more. You can find me on my blog: www.hardtobelikejesus.blogspot.com

I make even less sense there:)

Yeah – another good question, JP, and I think the answer is highly dependent on the situational context. If I could analogize your question a little, it might look like this: There are those who jump right in to committed relationship and work out the kinks as they go along, and there are those who need to know if a potential mate is compatible in their likes, dislikes, attitudes, etc., before taking the plunge. With over half of marriages failing, it seems that we can’t make a hard and fast rule about which kind of relationship works best. The answer is: some work, some don’t. So, what we have happening in emergent, then, is the former. We’re jumping in with nothing but love on our minds, but destined for some rough waters along the way as we work out our differences. The prudent merit of the alternative, of course, is that maybe the conflict and messy fighting doesn’t have to take place, since we’ve carefully considered what we’re getting ourselves into before committing to a long-term relationship. Ultimately, we as participants bear the responsibility for whether or not this relational conversation “succeeds,” whether we are jumping in head-first, or starting with a big toe to test the temperature. I would count it a success if someone who is keeping their distance from Christianity can see us modeling the unity, liberty, and love you spoke of earlier, and be drawn in to the conversation.

NW Andrew:

Not a bad analogy, but like marriage I believe a person will not find contentment until they make a commitment.

The word church simply means “assembly” or a group and it seems the “emergent” side of it is like that living together analogy you posted. But eventually there has to be some glue to maintain and hold it all together and that is when it stops being emergent and becomes a living organization.

For a couple the glue is the marriage commitment, a public proclamation of what they already internalized. The irony is Jesus used the same analogy and called His church/assembly His bride.

Seems like one of the “goals” is who can make the longest post.

More evidence of legalism seeping into the Church.

Not to mention pride.

Kris-

You evaded my question. I hope that’s short enough.

I can see no one has posted on this blog for awhile…but I wanted to ask Dewey above if he still works at the Cathedral? It certainly sounds like you do, or at least still attend…if you are in such disagreement with Pastor Melissa Scott, my question is why you stil work there/attend? I can never understand people staying in a church where they disrespect their pastor….they end up doing way more harm than good, surely.

Ahh, Dr Scott is an interesting fellow—never intended to become a preacher—his father was a preacher while Eugene went to UC and Stanford receiving an MA and a PhD (in Geography, I think, from which perhaps his knowledge of all the biblical era tribes) His father’s ministry—King’s House—was in dire financial shape and his father pleaded with him to take over, it needing the enrgy of a younger man. He agreed with certain conditions—one was that he never had to report financials to anyone—and I remember him saying, during a fund raiser, looking into the camera, “Some of you ask me ‘Well what will you do with the money?’ and to those people I say none of your business. If you need to know, then give it to another ministry.”

The years when he sat in the fur-covered chair smoking a cigar and ranting were the years when the California state Franchise Tax Board and Corporate Commision were hounding him and he fought them and refused to give in to the state.

He was a breath of fresh air in the religion business, and did, apparently, indeed like long-legged ladies and strong-legged horses. An educated man—a man with a real education from real academically demanding Universities not from some phony Liberty College type propaganda mill .. in fact one of the things I remember him saying—must have been 30 years ago—was about the other evangelicals, and he said “They have convinced the world you have to be a dummy to be a Christian.” and also said that those evangelicals were “people who thought the first thing you got when you brought Jesus into your heart was a blow dryer.” A wonderful man—and I’m not a Christian. But his erudition and wit proved that Christian and moron were not necessarily synonyms, and he will be missed.

Melissa is brilliant, fascinating, an engaging teacher and, frankly, kind of sexy. (And I’m not ashamed of thinking so because Because Gene Scott made it clear he believed that WE are flesh and blood creatures).

For an Armenian translation of Dr. Gene Scott’s teaching on The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, visit http://www.pastormelissascott.com/international.html.