The Remerging Church

beautiful

That certainly captures what I think is the essence of it all—that we are participating in something larger than ourselves and something that has a deep, rich history.

Good stuff Jeromy! I totally agree. I’ve said the same thing myself. Though I personally used the term “converging church”, I think your “remerging” means pretty much the same thing as what I meant. The church is “converging” or “remerging” as much as it is “emerging”.

Paul’s letter to the Phillipians is helpful here, I think. And I think it pushes a little bit against what you’re saying here. In Phillipians, Paul tells us to be a symphony – different parts – but having the same mind. To me, this isn’t about all of us doing our own thing, as long as we truly believe we’re following Christ – which, I think, is one (wrong) direction that this idea can lead to.

However, if it means being able to challenge each other – iron sharpens iron – and we’re still together, and not seperate…

I agree with what you are saying. The problem is that there are a lot of those who consider themselves part of the emerging church who have the same sort of see you later schism mentality that has plagued church history. In order to embrace this sort of re-emergin means that we embrace a church that we may not agree with, we must be willing embrace christian brothers and sister that are not willing to embrace us. I Haven’t seen alot of that happening yet… May we be such a people of Grace.

I just love this so much! Thanks for writing it.

Jared, I agree that we must offer peace and open the conversation with those who are not willing to embrace us. Unfortunately, we cannot force anyone to embrace us, accept us, etc. I think this is why this remerging will include the church-of-the-willing. Not all will be willing to unite. Which breaks my heart. As you said, let’s be people of such grace!

The many of the splits whereof you speak were not divisional in their beginnings. For example, Luther truly believed in Reforming, not recreating the church. It is generally the reaction of the status quo that identifies a movement as divisive rather than constructive.

Jeff, I see what you’re saying, but in Paul’s analogy of the body of christ, the ear does something entirely different than the eye, yet both are valuable, needed, and beautiful. The ear doesn’t tell the eye to put aside its differences so they can find common ground in order to be the body. The eye and ear can both remain as such and still find unity. Will unity have an element of being “shaped” by each other, as you mentioned? Absolutely. No arguments there. But it will be a mutual shaping bound in respect and love.

All I can offer is that this weekend we got a glimpse of the type of unity spoken of above…and it was indeed a beautiful sight!

Good point Jon. I think there are a lot of us in the emerging church who never wanted to leave our roots, but who were pushed out regardless. While we can still endeavor to love those who have rejected us, part of that love might also means not forcing ourselves into a context where we’re not wanted anymore.

Jeromy – Good point, and well made.

However, surely it is “both”, not “either/or”? I don’t see emergence and remergence as opposites.

Because God or our knowledge of God is constantly evolving, it is always emerging. One aspect of that knowledge is the knowledge of unity, of the deeply ecumenical work of the Spirit.

Emergence is keenly critical of modernism, and modernisms hallmarks include individualism and emphasis on belief statements.

The re/merging you talk about is a fruit of emergence, more than its replacement.

11 comments in as many hours – one thing I think we can say, is when the nature of who and what we understand God wants us to be always generates passion.
A lesson I am learning over and over through involvement in coordinating Hope for Belper (see our blog) has been that actions don’t necessarily speak louder than words, but they sure do amplify them.
Coming together to experience and share God’s endless grace towards us and communicate the gospel through our lives lived out in service to our family, friends and neighbours as the spirit inspires us, are the actions that will speak loud and clear in to everyone’s sole.
In the widest sense then, it is for each person to respond to the message of reconciliation, with God, with ourselves, with each other and with the whole of creation.
Whether emergence or remergence, these could almost be dismissed as highbrow philosophical debate, whereas the life of community (and not just what we might still think of as the church) restored to a right relationship under the sovereignty of God can only be thought of as wonderfully pure and life-bringing.

Nic, I agree. They both are complimentary and are walking hand-in-hand. I get this picture of many varieties of vines emerging out of the ground and then weaving together to create a stronger, more vibrant and beautiful vine.

There certainly is no excuse for the divisive attitude taken by many within the church/community. Jon had the point right about Luther being pushed out. This has happened throughout the history of the followers of Christ. If the focus is on Christ and serving him, then it should be inconsequential if one is rejected by some.
As Gareth pointed out, the community must be rightly related under the sovereignty of God and this is pure and life-bringing. Like John says in 1 John 2:5-6 (NLT) “5 But those who obey God’s word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. 6 Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.” I think there is some legitimate concern though if love and faith are divorced from content. Truth found in God must be affirmed or else there is no fellowship with one another. Love and unity are the goal, but they must have a basis. 1 John 1:6-7 seems to state this rather forcefully. The basis of love and unity must be centered on God, the sacrifice of Christ, and living in his likeness.
The point brought up about Paul’s analogy of the body refers to spiritual gifts in the community. It is difficult to see Paul, who even excoriated certain false teachings, like those who promoted circumcision, saying that those promoting that teaching were a different part of the body.

Ryan, you said: “The basis of love and unity must be centered on God, the sacrifice of Christ, and living in his likeness.” Well put.

Question regarding Paul’s analogy: Do you think it does/can refer also to the larger community as well, or simply a local one meeting in a particular building?

Great discussion!
I think Ryan points in the direction I was trying to go; the body is that of Christ, so it will look like him. Of course, we may have different ideas of what he looks like – what we are to be and how to live – but we will/should look like him even with all our differences. The fabric, what we are made of will/should be the same.
I like the idea of the church-of-the-willing. And are we willing, in our togetherness, to be shaped by the other, as well as have others willing to be shaped by us?

Jeff, well said. I like the idea of Jesus being our fabric, or the thread.

I also like what Jeff said about Jesus being our fabric. Like a beautifully-woven rug, our unique fabric joins with all the other “fabrics” of Jesus—Orthodox, Fundamentalist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.—to create a unified whole. Only with this kind of unity can the true nature of Jesus be realized. This really is a turning point for advancing the Kingdom.

I appreciate the desire for the body of Christ to be united, as Jesus asked for such when pouring out His heart to the Father in John 17:20-23. But do we always have to come up with a new name, a new label, or a new movement to do such? Can’t we just say we are the church, the ekklesia, the body of Christ and walk out what that means, with no need of labeling and proclaiming a movement?

Movements and ‘isms’ fall and fade away. The kingdom rule of God will always remain (Heb 12:26-29). I long for us to be satisfied in the reality that the kingdom can never be shaken, even when movements come and go, rise and fall.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Scott, I would offer that the language is shifting back to “kingdom” as the defining element.

Jonathan –
Thanks for the reply. I would just encourage us that if we are ‘shifting back’ to kingdom, as well as the way Scripture speaks of church, then we can be encouraged to stick with those terms. I really don’t want to be overly negative, I just know that, with the trends of today, the label of ‘re-emerging’ will not be relevant in maybe 10 years. So, we can be encouraged to stick with a healthy view of the words used in Scripture and get on with that.

That was my heart.

Scott, The words we are using today have much more to do with what is happening in the moment than what is happening universally. Remerging, or convergence, are just distinctions to describe the now, not the whole.

Scott and Jonathan,

Both of you are missing the big picture of where this movement is going. In ten years, hopefully, we won’t even need to label ourselves “Christian” anymore, because that term itself is only a passing “ism” (albeit one that has lasted nearly 2,000 years). Consider this reasoning:
1. Jesus=God=Love
2. All religions value love.
3. Therefore, all religions value Jesus.

We are finally coming to the global realization that, fundamentally, all religions are actually based on Jesus. So since all religions have the same base, in the future, there will not be a need to label any of them. (Although I imagine, as Scott says, that we could simply call it a “Kingdom”.)

In focusing on names, you’re missing Jeromy’s rightful enthusiam in describing this present time as the brink of a new religious era (e.g, a second reformation). This “reformation”, however, will be global and without divisive labels entirely.

Schafer: Are you being serious or tongue-in-cheek?

The way you are writing makes you sound like a Unitarian-Universalist, but it also seems like you could be a fundamentalist who is parodying this whole Emergence thing by showing the logical conclusions of their thinking.

I think that most here would be uncomfortable to realize that their current trajectory is headed towards Unitarianism, since they still want to say that the revelation of Christ that is contained in the scriptures is normative for our relationship with God.

But what do you think about these things?

Who are you really?

Todd,
I would be contradicting myself if I agreed with Scott and Jonathan in stating that the present religious course is that of abandoning labels, and then turned right around and labeled myself, as you ask me to do. Besides, ad hominem is irrelevant to any argument.

I assure you, this is no parody of the new “Kingdom”. My thesis is simple: Adherents of Emergent-type religion are the founders of a new, unified, global religion.

Blessings.

Shafer
On the one hand I envision something like what you propose, the emergence of the Cosmic Christ. I view Jesus as “savior of all men, especially of those who believe”.

But on the other, do all religions really value Jesus? Judaism, for one, has largely rejected him, thus far. Islam holds tightly to “Jesus as prophet, and no more.” And in Eastern thought, he is reverred but not necessarily elevated above other deities.

We might also say “No religion values Jesus.” Jesus was, as we mostly agree, by and large opposed to religion.

I’m with your hopeful sentiments, but I wonder if you are not taking the conflict aspect of the Gospel enough into consideration: “I come to bring division / You will be hated” etc. I’m also not sure your prognoistications of “In 10 years Xty will be over” are correct – 2000 years of tradition overturned in a decade? And “global religion”? – THAT sounds somewhat ominous.

I believe in God’s universal salvation, but its not cheap nor easy.

Nic,
I agree that most religions do not (seemingly) value Jesus. But remember the fundamental assumption of the current new reformation: Jesus=God=Love. The coming Kingdom will not usher forth through His name, but, instead, surreptitiously, through the name of Love. That way, all religions may join together in “Jesus” without even realizing that He is actually the centerpiece. Then, we will finally have a global religion!

I don’t think Jesus is up for a global religion, albeit all being willing to count their lives a loss, take up their cross, and follow Him. We read the Gospels and get a little uncomfortable at what Jesus actually calls people to walk out if they truly want to be part of His kingdom.

Scott,

If I read you correctly, you’re saying that a global religion based on Love (i.e. Jesus) will not occur, because not eveyone will follow the difficult teachings of the Gospels. But do you disagree that the Gospel message itself is, essentially, love? It seems to me that anyone who loves, follows the Gospel, and to follow the Gospel is to follow Jesus.

I’ll reiterate. The coming Kingdom will NOT arrive through the specific name of Jesus, but rather through his alternate name, Love. In this way, even a Muslim, for example, is a follower of Jesus, because Muslims love (except terrorists, who are fundamentalists).

I’ll package it up:
1. The Gospel is Love.
2. Adherents of religion X love.
3. Therefore, adherents of religion X follow the Gospel.

I think it is clear that we will, at some time in the future, have a global religion, spearheaded by progressive, understanding Christians (i.e.Emergents).

Shafer –
I’m sorry. While love is at the heart of Christ and the gospel, it is not at the expense of just getting along for the sake of getting along. Now, do know, I think dialogue a major help in seeing people truly come to Christ. A lot of hurt and pain has come from Christ-followers who were not willing to dialogue and actually have conversation with other people. But, in the end, Christ proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom that said, at times, it would even pit son against father, daughter against mother, etc. So, love is foundational in Christ, but not at the expense of truth and following after Christ.

While I believe the pure love of Christ is ferocious in saving people, I believe that one has to be willing to lay one’s life down and follow all of what Christ has commanded. I don’t presume perfection for anyone, but I presume that a true new birth will call for a people willing to actually walk about what Scripture teaches. We just can’t get around the huge calling of Scripture. I have to take it all, not just a few words scattered in the pages.

Scott,
I hear what you’re saying, and I do appreciate your replies. But, I like things to be more clear cut. If I may sum up what I think you are saying now, it is that you disagree with my assumption that the Gospel is really all about love, and thus, it will be impossible to build a new world religion based on the Gospel (i.e. Love/Jesus). In effect, then, you disagree that Jesus=Love, and that undercuts the basis of all my reasoning for my Emergent-founders-of-global-religion thesis.

So it seems that we are at an impasse. I say that Jesus is the same thing as Love, which leads to global religion, and you say that Jesus is not the same thing as Love, which leads to the current, 2000 year-old system of dischord, doctrine, and “isms”, which is exactly what Emergents are trying to change.

I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either we separate Jesus and Love and keep the status quo of division, or equate Jesus with Love and bring on the global religion.

What side are you on?

I’ve just read the whole conversation for the first time. Appears from over here in the High Desert (where the air is admittedly thin) that this might be one of these ‘theological discussions’ that ends up being for its own sake (an interesting activity), but I’m all for using Scripture [theology] to “equip God’s people for good works,” and then DOING the good works. (Brian McLaren probably just hates being used as a proof text!) Guys, why don’t we just all go DO as many good works as we can—in the Way of Love and as Jesus showed us—and we can check back in ten years and see which way the Spirit might have blown us.

Marie, it’s a good point, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the freedom to theologise.

I like what Shafer is doing here – he is playing provocateur. And I am not saying he is being inauthentic, he seems to truly believe in what he is saying. Some might say he is reductionistic or simplistic, I suppose. But the proposal that Jesus=Love is a radical one.

I still have a problem though with the word “global”. It still sounds ominous and to me means the opposite of Universal. But this is a semantic question, for what it is worth.

So the further question here is – is there something unique about Love as revealed in Jesus, or will all manifestations of Love inevitibly lead to God?

And lastly how do we measure this love, if indeed measuring it is necessary?

Shafer,

If you’d like to use a real email address, it would help me lend trust to your statements here. As it is right now, you are being “provocative,” but I’m finding it hard to trust your motivation behind the provocation.

I’ll tell you flat out that Jesus is Love, but he’s more than Love. I think you’d have to cherrypick verses from Scripture to get a theology of total Love. Further, I don’t think Jesus came to set up a “global religion,” nor should we be on about such a thing. If you are equating the kingdom of God with “global religion,” I think you’re just way off.

Shalom,
Steve K.

Shafer, I think you missed my original point to Scott, which is that all of this language is to describe the present. We need that language, which will change, to understand and talk about what we are going through together. Without emergence, remergence, and convergence, we would not be able to have that conversation. And as we shift back to kingdom, the journey getting there is all the more sweet.

Shafer –
‘Either we separate Jesus and Love and keep the status quo of division, or equate Jesus with Love and bring on the global religion.’

I’ve never asked us to separate Jesus and true agape love. But, as Steve K. reminded us, we can’t just cherry pick a few verses to try and build a global religion. I am very convinced, from reading the words of Jesus, that He didn’t want a laissez-faire, anything goes religion. Remember, He was not only full of grace, but He was also full of truth (Jn 1:14). Truth hurts and, unfortunately, can divide at times. Hence, Jesus actually taught that the gospel would, at times, pit son against father, daughter against mother, etc.

I want the kingdom of God to come, and the rule of God asks for sin to bow and to follow in the ways of Christ. Christ’s radical message irritated the religious and we find many examples of the spiritualists of Paul’s and John’s and Peter’s day being rebuked because they didn’t want to line up their lives with the kingdom of God. Love can actually hurt, because love wants people to line up with the character of the One who is called love.

So, in the end, it seems you are trying to purport that we just accept everything and everyone regardless, no matter what, without regards to the actual message Jesus and His followers proclaimed. While I want dialogue and to see people drawn into the heart of God, I know that Jesus didn’t accept any and every person. Read the full Gospel accounts. There are some beautiful, yet very hard, I mean very hard statements about following Him – take up your cross, leave everything, go and sin no more, blessed are the pure in heart, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Jesus boldly loves, but His love transforms people to walk out what He taught. I want to be a part of that kingdom. I’ll take the words of Jesus on this.

Okaaay, guys, I pwomise not to be pwo-vocatif anymo-wuh (wheeeeeze sniffle-spit) !

Between Nic “it sounds scary so it ‘aint gonna happen” Paton and Steve “it’s just way off” Knight, I must say that in no way am I convinced that Emergent isn’t heading towards global religion. I’ll make two more points, and then I’ll leave you alone—for now. :)

1. Most “emergents” are not really Emergent. I’d be willing to wager that most here, like Scott, when pressed, are actually fairly good, doctrinal Christians. Their common problem is that they have been dabbling in the murky Emergent-Postmodern bin for so long that they don’t realize the walking contradiction they have become. In expressing their (your, plural) ideas, instead of delineating your thoughts, your points are communicated disjointedly and amount to little more than wispy, random thoughts, which is the hallmark of postmodern blah. Your writings (and thought) are full of flowery language, but, like Barack Obama’s speeches, they are not backed up by a shred of logic. (BTW, Obama is NOT a great orator. He doesn’t hold a candle to Cicero.)

2. Lack of logical reasoning is itself an indicator of the coming global religion. Follow me here: Logical philology, beginning with the Church Fathers and having coalesced through the ages into the present corpus of Christian dogma, is the standard by which we identify ourselves as “Christian”. That is, without logical dogma, there exists no heresy (similar to saying that without good, there exists no evil). And if there is no heresy, there exists no difference between any two religions. For example, I might state, “Jesus is not God”, and if that statement is not Christian heresy, then, essentially, Christianity=Islam. So, I say, if one denies the use of logic in one’s reasoning, as is prevalent in today’s world, and especially the world of Emergent, one essentially denies the existence of heresy. And, as stated, no heresy implies unified religion. My final prognostication is that the coming global religion will enter by first villifying logical thinking and then unifying the world through emotional, non-objective “spirituality” of some sort. That is why Emergent ideology is quite dangerous—it reeks of non-logical, emotional banter.

That’s all for me. But hear me you, I’ll be sure to post thoughout the blog any newslinks or other relevant material that supports my thesis. Emergents (REAL emergents, that is) are working as hard as they can, even unwittingly, to bring on the new religious order.

P.S. Sorry, Steve. I won’t risk being identified. Criticizing post-modernists isn’t conducive to my career goals.

P.P.S. Sorry, Nic. I was “inauthentic”. But no worry. For all you philosophy-types out there, surely you see that I’ve basically used a “reductio-ad-absurdum” argument here to deduce that Jesus does not equal Love.

Shafer, I wrote: “Will everyone remerge as one? Sadly, as history has shown, no—only the willing will. For some, this remerging is a terribly frightening and evil occurrence. For others, it is the very lifeblood of God’s heart and they long for it with every fiber of their being.”

This is exactly what we are seeing here in this comment thread. I wish all would long for the unity Christ prayed for, but sadly, it won’t happen. As a friend of mine says, much love, brother.

Shafer
Now you have lost me, perhaps I am not as subtle as you.

As for your “Nic “it sounds scary so it ‘aint gonna happen” Paton”, I’d say you are dancing in the ballroom of your own twisted logic, not entering into a conversation in which the two parties try to understand there the other is coming from. How do you deduce this picture of me as scared and deluded?

Sorry, but I feel taken for a fool.

Shafer –
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts and intent.

Jeromy –
‘This is exactly what we are seeing here in this comment thread. I wish all would long for the unity Christ prayed for, but sadly, it won’t happen.’

For me, I long for this unity that Christ prayed for in John 17, but I think that, as long as we remain humble and teachable, it is ok to expect that we will not long for unity at the expense of truth. I’m not talking about having every T crossed and I dotted in our doctrine and theology. But I do sense it is more than just simply saying, ‘I believe in Jesus, so can’t we just get along.’ There are some central things to consider about our ‘belief’ in Christ.

Paul said – ‘until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’ (Eph 4:13).

This beautifully refers to a unified faith and knowledge of Jesus, and, even more, a mature faith where we grow up in the character of Christ. Again, I don’t think it means we all agree on our eschatology or intricacies of our soteriology, but there is a moving towards a unified Christ-centred gospel.

So, at least for me, I want to pray as Jesus prayed. But I also want to pray as Paul wrote about our unity in Ephesians. These, when properly considered, go hand in hand.

Scott, the unity that we are seeing is more than ever a unity in Jesus. We all recognized (catholic, orthodox, evengelical, mainline, peace churches…the list could go on) that our desire to follow Jesus and build God’s kingdom was the very thing that united us. Do we all believe the same things? Nope. Will believing (or trying to believe) all the same things bring unity? Nope. We can see where 2,000 years (500 in protestantism) of trying to find unity-by-having-the-same-believe has gotten us…not very pretty. I think it is in Jesus and loving others where a remergence has a shot.

i read the post – VERY interesting. Shafer is fascinating, in the role of the devil’s “global religion” evangelist. as the string developed, my sense grew that he is rather a christian who is troubled by where he thinks the emergent church is going.

i can empathize with his suspicion that it’s merely syncreticism in a different guise. for me, i believe there exists a very real push for the establishment of a secular kindom of god on earth, built by man & not in submission to the Father that Christ served. i see the move towards a one world government, single global currency & syncretic one-world religion as self-evident. having visited the lucis trust – lucistrust.org – in london & read quite widely on the topic, i can see the day when belief in Jesus as God in the flesh, as distinct and above any other human being who has walked the earth, will be seen as counter-evolutionary or anti-social.

Shafer, i hear your concerns & i think that if you are open to engage others here in honest discussion – rather than continuing with the devil’s advocate stance – you will be surprised & encouraged. i have no doubt that some emergents will end up going down the syncretic, “Jesus doesn’t matter, only love” route and will welcome the palatable humanistic-mystic globalist religion coming down the road. however, don’t short change yourself into boxing people like Nic Paton in with that crowd.

lets explore your concerns – you’re not the only one with them. whether it’s emergent or remergent or emergent detergent, let’s fandango the guberator & peer through the glass darkly together.

till soon all.

russ…

I am delighted to hear these diverse views. Shafer lost me on the last blog, but what seems unsaid so far is this. If as individuals we choose to walk humbly with our God and stay open to the love of the Father as exemplified in Jesus, then Jesus’ Spirit of Truth will be our sure guide through this awakening time.

Phyllis Tickle describes this “emergence” as indescribable because we’re immersed in it. So be it. Reconciliation comes to mind. Along the way I’ve sensed the Spirit of Truth graciously assisting me to reconcile diverse views. And certainly the path of reconciliation is to live and serve in the spirit of love. Jesus teaches that the Pure in Heart shall see God-they see God in others. Living love will liberate us from fear and the barriers we’ve constructed to secure and identify ourselves. As we learn to love AS Jesus loves and “set no limits on our love”, we emerge from the old wineskin labels and dogmas by which we’ve defined ourselves and others. And because your old wineskin may be my sacred tradition, we must honor each other in what we bring forth.

This is a most exciting time and a thrilling discussion. I believe with Shafer that the global is the eventuality, though I don’t think it’s eminent. Jesus still weeps over Jerusalem yearning to “gather his chicks”. And if we follow his teaching that “YOU are my mother and my brother” then we would see through his eyes the greater family under God-by faith, understanding, and service. This how I envision the dream and kingdom of God unfolding into the realization of the global family. And the “emerg-converging church” is the conversation.

Jeromy –
I never asked us to agree on everything, but if we say Jesus is the divine Son of God and the One who gave His life for the redemption of humanity, then we are deciding to agree on some things. And, while that is the starting point (or maybe part of it), there are probably a few more things we will need to stand on together as we move forward in God as the body of Christ.

So, while I don’t believe we must agree on the peripherals and intricacies of all theology, being united in our ‘knowledge of the Son of God’, as Paul stated it (Eph 4:13), seems more than just saying we ‘believe in Jesus’.

What Jesus do we believe in? Is it ok if He is just a good man, or the Son of God but not divine Himself, or can we accept the Jesus of the gnostic gospels? So, there are things we need to agree on if we are to move together in ‘grace AND truth’, as it says of the One we say we follow.

Scott, in your opinion, what are the things we need to agree on in order to unite as the body of Christ?

OK, I’ve recovered. I don’t want to leave this discussion on a negative note. Besides, I want it to go past the 50 comments mark!

This is, I agree, ultimately an excellant example of the “dialectic” in action: a thesis and its antithesis wrangle to produce a synthesis.

Or, we are in the rabbinic tradition, of continuing the dialog via ongoing questioning.

Good stuff is coming out of this thread. The simplicity of following the Spirit of God, the essence of Jesus Christ, the ongoing evolution of Orthodoxy, and a healthy critical scepticism.

For my part, R/emergence as it is now manifesting IS the burgeoning (generous) orthodoxy of tomorrow.

Sure, the Virtual Provocateur may be right, and some of “us” may go in the Global Religion direction. But I am more hopeful that that.

In short after considering the debate, I reject remergence as Global Religion, but I embrace it as Universal Salvation in Christ.

With love to all who have spoken up…

Our pastor has repeatedly warned our congregation about the dangers of the Emergent Church. Namely they throw out everything accepted as truth in God’s Word and redefine it to fit the World’s view.

Yes, Jesus is Love, and yes Paul did advocate unity-unity on agreeing to the Truth, not just loving our neighbor.Throwing out the importance of the truth of the Person and Character of Christ as described in Scripture in order for everyone to get along isn’t unity or “love”,it’s appeasement.

Yes, I agree we should stop undermining each other’s faith because they don’t serve wine at communion or they don’t have communion every Sunday, or they have musical instrumenbts or don’t have musical instruments-these are the kinds of things I think we can “agree to disagree” about-but we CANNOT have UNITY WITHOUT TRUTH!!

Bhuddism, Islam, etc may have SOME truth-like “love your neighbor”, etc. But the foundations of all the world religions-except Christianity-is the belief that we have to save ourselves and do for whatever god we are worshipping. With Christ it is HE SAVES US -and it is already DONE.

Sorry but the Emergent church theology has serious flaws.

Hi Barbara, I ask in all seriousness, but whose truth should we unite under? The Catholic’s? The Mennonite’s? The Evangelical’s? The Lutheran’s? The Pentecostal’s? The Orthodox’s? The Messianic Jew’s? The 4-point Calvinist’s? The ___________ (fill in the blank)? Yours? Mine? Nic’s? Jonathan’s? All of these, and many more, use the Bible to support their truth.

It is simply my observation that unity has not come with us trying to unite under “one” Christian truth. Perhaps it is in the person of Jesus, and not our theologies, that we will find unity…and the person of Jesus looks a lot like love.

OK, now, which one of you fundamentalist emergents is writing Obama’s speeches? (Click on my name to read the whole thing.)

Global Religion Highlight #1:

“I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world—including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country—I know, because I am one of them. (Applause.)”

Jeromy
I think we need to be aware of how limited this text based form of communication is.

When we meet Face to Face, and not just over printed words, unity becomes a possibility.

And when we travel together for some distance, we experientially discover the strengths and weaknesses of our unity.

The only truth we CAN unite in is OUR truth, the truth that emerges from relationship, and that includes the presende of the Spirit, over a period of time.

In one sense, blogging is still a rather modern concern. What we should strive for is true connectedness, and this can only be Incarnated into the Particular, particular friendships, localities, contexts.

That said, and for what the blog is worth, this is an excellantly curated post.

Shafer
I repeat Steves call for you to supply a valid point of presence. I for one come to these convesations with as much integrity as is possible in this medium. You need to honour that.

I sense when reading between your lines your dread at Global Religion, exemplified here in Obamas Turkish speech. With Russ #42 I hear your concerns. And I do not deny the possiblity of such a thing happening in the future.

But my view is to contemplate things “whatever is praiseworthy, good, true” (Galatians more or less) and in reaching out to the Islamic world in this way, Barak Obama is doing just that.

But he is first and foremost a politician. We on the other hand, are unfettered by issues of policy and power, this is a free forum. So we can weigh his spin against our aims – to build the community of God. But within the limits of his office, he is expressing generosity, hope, and acceptance, and this is I believe what Jesus would do.

Jesus’ ire for religion was aimed primarily at the Ungrace expressions of his own culture, essentially the Pharisees. But to the Samaritans, even the Materialist tax sharks of his day, he showed generosity, forgiveness, empathy.

We need to separate out our prejudices against the other and our Platonic/Augustinan/Calvinistic emphasis on Exclusion, in our political and theological critiques. We now more than ever, need to take the logs out of our own eyes before we point out the splinters in the eyes of the other.

Nic, Well said.

Here is an article about Tony Blair and his new work towards building a global religion. It’s obvious, I tell you, that through the headlong promotion of understanding, love, and mutual respect, the dogmatic dividing lines between all the religions are being erased.

Global Religion Highlight #2:

“Mr Blair, who now travels the world on behalf of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which aims to promote UNDERSTANDING (emphasis mine) of the main religions, left the Church of England for Rome soon after leaving office in 2007…He also thought that in Islam there would eventually be a change of heart [towards homosexuality]. ‘I believe that, ultimately, people will find their way to a sensible reformation of attitudes.’...He continued: ‘What people often forget about, for example, Jesus or, indeed, the Prophet Muhammad, is that their whole raison d’être was to change the way that people thought traditionally.’”

(I thought Jesus’ purpose was to die.)

Shafer
The more you bang on as a disembodied voice the less convincing you become. You cannot base your Faith on merely being Anti-Globalist.

I can understand if you are a pastor in a conservative church trying to emerge but weighing its consequences for your flock or even your future. For such as these, grace and sensitivity is called for.

But you are engaged in a straw man argument, and it’s growing tired. You seem to only be interested in provoking those falling into your category of emerging christianity, so you can put words in their mouth, and burn them down. And your critique is rather narrow too, your dread at One world religion is the guiding principle for the POV presented, at least in this thread.

So in addition to asking you to be finally be honest, and not in the sarcastic, condescending style of #37, I ask you to stand up for the gospel you truly believe in. It does not have to one I or anyone else agrees with, it just has to honest.

“Shafer”, I say with Todd, “Who are you really?” And “Shafer”, what do you live for?

Jeromy,
Since Barbara didn’t reply to your #48, I hope she doesn’t mind if I “tag-in” here. To prove your point that love could be the basis for a new Christian unity, you need to show why love is a more sure truth than all the other truths of the various denominations. The easiest way for me to counter you here is just to re-quote your own paragraph, but with a twist:

“Hi [Jeromy], I ask in all seriousness, but whose [love] should we unite under? The Catholic’s? The Mennonite’s? The Evangelical’s? The Lutheran’s? The Pentecostal’s? The Orthodox’s? The Messianic Jew’s? The 4-point Calvinist’s? The ___________ (fill in the blank)? Yours? Mine? Nic’s? Jonathan’s? All of these, and many more, use the Bible to support their [love].”

It’s my position that uniting in love is still just as seemingly ambiguous as all the others. Give me a good, logical reply, and I’ll respect it.

Shafer, I am not here to convince you or to get you to respect my opinion regarding unity. If you don’t want to bother with seeking unity, that’s your choice, and I respect that. My choice is to continue discovering what it means to love as Jesus loved and seek the kind of unity Jesus prayed for. If my choice to seek unity bothers you, that is your stuff, not mine.

For me, Romans 13 says it well: “Don’t run up debts, except for the huge debt of love you owe each other. When you love others, you complete what the law has been after all along. The law code — [...] and any other “don’t” you can think of — finally adds up to this: Love other people as well as you do yourself. You can’t go wrong when you love others. When you add up everything in the law code, the sum total is love.” What does love look like? Jesus.

As my brother, I wish you well.

There’s a very subtle paradox here. In being aggressive, logical, and forthright (at least, now I am), I am trying to save you Emergents from the false-religion canyon that you are driving towards at break-neck speed. I have no shame in declaring that my ultimate goal here is to get as many “emergents” as possible to realize where they are headed and bail out of this truck before it’s too late. I will hammer my global-religion thesis into your minds until it is indeed too late, God willing.

That’s my idea of Jesus-love.

Shafer, regardless of the objections I have already voiced (which still stand), I hear you, and your concerns regarding emergence and one world religion.

You bring up a salient point, which is worthy of further discussion. I am going to address the question in a new post in the next while.

Considering that Tony Blair wants to become EU President (permanently), he seems to be the highest-profile personality that is currently promoting the new, unity-based globalist religion. He’s using an Emergent technique in the highlight below: he doesn’t follow where the logic leads.

Global Religion Highlight #3:

“Finally, when asked if he believes that all religions worship the same God, he replies that it’s a very difficult question to answer: “Let me put your question to myself in a different way – do I believe that a Muslim who lives a good life and does good things and is a model citizen, an example to others – do I believe that that person is capable of salvation? Yes. So does that mean we worship the same God? I, I don’t know (he chuckles).’”

Good grief, this is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

Global Religion Highlight(s) #4:

“WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Says Nations Must Unite To Overcome Global Challenges.

...This idea – that we are all bound up, as Martin Luther King once said, in “a single garment of destiny”– is a lesson of ALL THE WORLD’S GREAT RELIGIONS. And never has it been more important for us to reaffirm that lesson than it is today – at a time when we face tests and trials unlike any we have seen in our time.

...And it is only by building a new foundation of mutual trust that we will tackle some of our most entrenched problems. That is why, in Turkey, I spoke to members of Parliament and university students about RISING ABOVE THE BARRIERS of race, region, and RELIGION that too often divide us.”

(Understanding, “rising above barriers”, and universal love are pillars of Emergent ideology. I assure you, those who follow this ideology are the founders of the coming global religious order.)

Basically, anyone who really believes in anything (i.e. truth) is a threat. Some of you may object to my linkage of political statements with religious (Emergent) thought. If this is so, you must also object to the link between the previous administration and the religious right. It’s clear that the Obama administration and the Emergent movement are peas in a pod, philosophically speaking.

Global Religion Highlight #5:

This news headline supports my position that the coming global religion will not arise through the specific name of Jesus. Instead, for the sake of unity, Jesus’ name will be abandoned and replaced by His false name, Love (or “Understanding”, “Mutual Respect”, etc.) What’s really interesting here is Obama’s use of a passage from the Sermon on the Mount in his speech. I warn all who read this: The coming Satanic world religion will be ushered forth through the use (in part) of loving, Biblical passages as foundational texts. This is the primary modus operandi of Emergent ideology. In seeking unity at all costs, Emergent (like Obama) exchanges the real meaning of Jesus’ words and uses them to support a lie (i.e. Emergent’s position that disposal of doctrine is good for the sake of unity).

Global Religion Highlight #6:

“Obama did not mention the name of Jesus during his address. However, he did mention Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.

...”There is a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells a story of two men…‘the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house…it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock,’” Obama said.

...“We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” he added. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

“Shafer,”

I think you’re having a dialogue here with yourself, at this point.

You’ve revealed yourself to be an End Times conspiracy theorist nut that no one here agrees with or believes, but we (or at least, I) find relatively amusing.

I’m sorry that this is harsh. Perhaps there will be people who stumble on this comment thread and actually believe that you speak for anyone (besides yourself). I just wanted to try and set the record straight.

You’ve come here to post these comments in total anonymity (using a fake name and a fake email address), pretending at first to be an “emergent” yourself, espousing a belief in a “one world religion” that Emergent is supposedly going to usher in (and pretending to be in favor of this), etc. etc. etc. This is all really disingenuous, unscrupulous, and wrong. A good biblical word for it might be Foolishness.

Again here, in your last comment, you say “Emergent’s position that disposal of doctrine is good for the sake of unity” reveals that you neither understand nor care to understand what those of us who have self-identified ourselves with Emergent really think about things.

So anyway, this is just a warning to anyone reading this about “Shafer,” he/she is not to be trusted or believed.

Shalom,
Steve K.

Steve,
Greetings. I’ll repeat myself. There are two types of emergents, (1) Fundamentalists and (2) Walking Contradictions. (See #37 for a refresh.) Now Steve, you appear to be a type-2 variety, which, I think, comprises the VAST majority of emergents. Your type of emergent holds, for the most part, good doctrinal beliefs. You don’t seem to believe that doctrine should be abandoned in favor of unity, and I laud you for that.

The problem with type-2s is that their core beliefs contradict what type-1 emergents believe. I, for one, am of the opinion that type-1 emergents, like Jeromy and McLaren, are really the busdrivers of Emergent. For example, Jeromy wrote, ”...A remerging of those who choose to toss aside the rules and theologies that divide, and choose to embrace the healing freedom that really does exist in Christ.”

Are you willing to denounce this statement? If you do, you are a Walking Contradiction-type emergent, because you “self-identify” with division-less Emergent, yet deep down, you actually believe in division. On the other hand, if you agree with Jeromy’s statement, you are a type-1 emergent, and your attack against me makes no sense at all, because you DO believe that disposal of doctrine is a good thing. Either way, you’re contradicting yourself.

I sincerely hope you are a type-2. Type-2s are real Christians, yet confused, and can still bail out of Emergent before it’s too late.

Blessings.

P.S. This is not a good argument:
1. Shafer is “an End Times conspiracy theorist nut that no one here agrees with or believes.”
2. Therefore, global religion will not occur.

P.P.S. I think there needs to be big disclaimer on the Weblog if “Shafer” is disingenuous: NO PEN NAMES ALLOWED.

P.P.P.S. Didn’t I say in an ad-infinitum-kind-of-way that I would post any relevant material that supports my thesis? I’m just being consistent here, man. At least you’re reading.

Tim (or Shafer or whoever you are),

There are unnecessary rules and theologies that cause deep pain and divide the body of Christ. In my opinion, a few that come to mind are that women cannot hold leadership/pastoral positions and that the Jesus’ supper (communion, the Eucharist, etc) should be reserved for those who believe, or do, or belong to, certain things. To clarify, my statement was not to propose that ALL theologies and ALL rules need to be tossed aside for the sake of unity. But there are some (like myself) who believe that SOME of OUR theologies indeed need to be. You don’t agree. That’s cool, again, not trying to persuade you here. But I did want to clarify for other readers what I WAS saying and NOT saying.

I sense that for you this remerging is a terribly frightening and evil occurrence. For others, it is the very lifeblood of God’s heart and they long for it with every fiber of their being.

So what did you like about the post?

Jeromy, darn it, back to the woodshed we go.

You say that we should throw out the painful rules, but keep the non-painful rules. Well, Moe Muslim says that he wants to take the Eucharist, but the priest won’t let him, because Moe refuses to state that Jesus is God. Moe is in pain because of this. So, let’s throw out the rule that one must state that Jesus is God to take communion.

I know you don’t agree with this. The point is that you have no objective way of deciding which rules to throw out and which ones to keep. It’s a very short jog from throwing out small rules to throwing out the big ones. If the small rules, no matter how painful they seem, are true and holy, then they must remain.

Mark (or shafer?),

You said it well: “IF…the small rules are true and holy…” To your point, you have no objective way of deciding which ones are either…so we should just blindly follow ALL the rules and traditions and theologies, regardless? Sounds like the very thing Jesus spoke and lived against.

Do I believe that Jesus would sit across a table with Moe Muslim and share a meal with her? Absolutely. Without a doubt. Hands down.

To me, I really believe that Jesus fulfilled the law, that we are no longer bound by it. Though I like my beers dark, I prefer my burdens light.

I certainly do have an objective method. I can claim inerrancy, which automatically filters out what rules to hold (i.e. all of them, talking NT here, not Law). You cannot claim inerrancy, and thus, you are still stuck wondering which NT rules to throw out, depending solely on how much pain each rule causes.

What’s cool here is that the blossoming Emergent position of errancy actually supports my views that Emergent is linked with coming global order. If the Bible is errant, it’s that much easier to toss out doctrines. And, the less rules and doctrines Christianity has, the more it looks like other world religions. So the very fact that Emergent (and others) forcefully questions inerrancy, itself implies movement towards a global religion.

Lisa (shafer?),

I’m glad to hear your views are inerrant…I was beginning to wonder.

No, you’re missing the point. I say the sky is red, because I define red to be X. That is an objective method for determining the color of the sky. You simply disagree with my definition of red (i.e. inerrancy of Scripture). The point is that I at least have an objective METHOD for determining the color of the sky (i.e. which NT rules to keep).

This conversation has hit the point of saddening. And, actually, there is no conversation between two people any longer. Shall we move on to other things…

Hey Scott, I couldn’t agree more. As a side note, I wasn’t taking myself or “Shafer” too seriously. ;-)

Thanks Jeromy. I want to post a very nice quote I found on Tim Challies’ blog the other day, but probably should let this article and its comments finish.

Now Scott, don’t get mad at me for seeming domineering. I don’t believe you know how to type on a keyboard, and if you try to convince me you do, well, that’s just bullying. The only counter-argument I’ve received thus far to my thesis that Emergent is headed towards global religion is an incessant, “No, we’re not! No, we’re not!” What’s really sad here is Emergent’s proclivity towards valuing “conversation” over getting to the bottom of important things.

I have garnered a couple new truths out of this, however, for which I am grateful.

1. Real emergents (type-1s) actually believe that the Lord’s Supper can be shared with Muslims (see #67), in direct contradiction of 1 Corinthians 10:27 (i.e. Muslims that partake of the Lord’s Supper do NOT proclaim the Lord’s death and second coming (v.26)—because they believe He’s still dead!) This was a surprise, even for “Shafer”. Type-2s, take notice.

2. Emergent is dogmatic: “Shafer’s views are false, period.”

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. I am going to keep dropping logical Acme-anvils directly on Emergent’s piano. But to stay on my toes, I’ll even start adding step-by-step reasoning as to why each bit of material (news articles, etc.) supports my thesis.

Hear me: Emergent is hurtling headlong towards a Satanic global religion.

Correction. That’s 1 Corinthians 11:26-27.

“Shafer,”

Your two categories for emergents (“type 1” and “type 2”) are ridiculous and insulting. You’ve proven by your comments here that you really have no clue about what Emergent is about, what individuals within this conversation are “on about,” the fact that there is diverse theological views and opinions within Emergent (and that’s OK!), etc.

You told me (in comment #64) “Either way, you’re contradicting yourself.” I’m glad you feel you’ve got me all figured out. I find your arguments here in no way persuasive. But you’re right about one thing: I am reading, and I do wonder, “Who is Shafer? And what is his/her real issue(s) with Emergent?” You seem dramatically concerned with Emergent “hurtling headlong towards a Satanic global religion.” It frankly boggles my mind how you can look at some theological issues and completely ignore all of the missional incarnational ministry that is going on in communities all over this country. Don’t you see any of this as God-honoring and Holy Spirit-led?

As Tony Jones recently said in a challenge to one of Emergent’s critics, I’d like you to consider these questions:

1) When does ignoring the written work of a published author, or speaking harmfully about someone—irrespective of readily available, published information to the contrary—rise to the level of “bearing false witness”?

2) In Matthew 12, Jesus warning is clear: Be very, very careful not to attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to the Evil One. (“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”) In other words, if something good is happening, we’d better give the benefit of the doubt to God’s Spirit—because if you say that a good work is authored by evil, then you’re in really, really big trouble. So: When do the constant charges of heresy and worse against emergent leaders rise to the level of “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit”?

I think those are questions you really need to grapple with, at least as much as you think we need to grapple with the concerns you’ve raised here.

1. Right. “Fundamentalist” and “Walking Contradiction” are insulting, but “End Times conspiracy theorist nut ” is just lemon-jelly-filled-doughnut-sweet. I, for one, am proud to be a fundamentalist. And, FYI, a “Walking Contradiction” is objectively defined as one who holds contradictory views and is bi-pedal. However, no human can be a “nut”, Steve.

2. Hamas performs “missional incarnational ministry”, too. (Whatever “incarnational” means.)

3. You’ve read the proof in the published literature of why Emergent is not heading towards global religion? NOW you tell me.

4. I could get a good blanket from the local Red Crescent chapter. But I better give the benefit of doubt to the Holy Spirit.

Note to all who read: Emergent is NOT the loving, accepting movement they want you to be believe they are. Emergent holds just as strong of views as any Right-Winger, the only difference being opposite viewpoints.

Steve, your strident attitude is a good thing. You’re close to getting back to solid Christianity, if only you’ll take a few steps. Your thinking has been infected by the Evil One. Get out of this stuff.

?????, one of my strongest views is that all of this verbal noise will seem completely silly when we all stand before God and realize our 3-pound brains were not able to comprehend a grain-of-sands-worth of who God is…we will all seem dumbfounded. In light of that fundamental view that I hold, I will dismiss myself from this woodshed and allow you to chop away for however long you fancy. I wish you the best and I look forward to meeting you face to face in the light of God’s love. Peace, my brother (or sister).

“Shafer,”

My “strident attitude” is toward you to come clean about who you are and be honest about your motives in this forum. Why are you so afraid? Perhaps because you might discover: emergents aren’t really the “unloving, unaccepting” people you’ve pre-judged us to be? emergents aren’t really the theological depraved people you’ve pre-judged us to be?

Your cards are completely on the table now (e.g., “Your thinking has been infected by the Evil One”). I asked you to seriously consider a couple of sincere questions based on Scripture. I hope you’ll still do that.

Steve
Thank you for being honest as well as forthright here. Despite the fact that we have openly sought to engage the bizarre, fearmongering conglomeration of URL’s we know as “Shafer” in human communication, he resists, apparently because “being identified…isn’t conducive to (his) career goals.”

However, I still think that whatever drives him emotionally (if he is indeed human) is a fear common to millions.

So I have written a piece asking “Does Emergence = Global Religion?” which might help us to get out of the deadlock of this thread and look at the issue afresh; see http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/does-emergence-global-religion/

Alright, look. My real name is hafSer. That’s h-a-f-S-e-r. I am a in the third grade. If my teachers knew I was a fundamentalist, they would hate me, especially when we get to the part when we talk about evolution. OMG. O-M-G. Oh, Steve, you’re right! Now that I’ve come clean and renounced the use of my pen name, I’ve completely changed my mind on Emergent!

(P.S. Steve, (1) you don’t believe we should abandon doctrine in favor of unity, (2) you don’t believe (I think) that the Lord’s Supper should be shared with Muslims, and (3) you just might believe the Bible to be inerrant. If all three of these boxes are checked, you are sitting close enough to the window for me to reach down from the roof I’m clinging to and pull you out of the Emergent bus. The busdriver will never notice.)

Hey. No.
I am from France and too poorly know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “One great urban look in contemporary wall clocks was an asymmetrical shape that added interest to the design.”

Thanks for the help :p, Bel.

Let the dead horse beatings return!

In welcoming diverse opinions concerning Christian beliefs and theologies (see #76), Emergent is moving towards the total abandonment of any rigid doctrines. And, when rigid, dogmatic belief practices are erased, Chrisitianity merges (no pun intended) with all the other world religions.

Here’s my skeleton-reasoning (as promised):
1. Rigid doctrine is sectarian.
2. Sectarian things disfavor unity.
3. Emergent favors unity.
4. Therefore, Emergent disfavors rigid doctrine.
5. Religions differentiate themselves through rigid doctrine.
6. Since Emergent disfavors rigid doctrine (from 4), Emergent likewise disfavors differentiation of religions.
7. Clearly, to disfavor differentiation of religion is to favor unified religion.
8. Therefore, Emergent favors unified religion (i.e. global religion).

I warn you! The kind of thinking Emergent is standing in, chest-deep, leads to results that most so-called emergents do not want.

Global religion highlight #?

“PBS…places a high value on presenting DIVERSE perspectives, as opposed to RIGIDLY adhering to any single political or religious point of view.”

Well, Steve, I must say that I’ve reached the end of the road with Emergent. I know I said I would continue to post on the Remerging Church thread, but it’s just becoming too dangerous for me to continue posting. I realized last night that many of my peers at my local non-Emergent church (which nonetheless is infected with a pseudo-Cohort) probably visit this site, and that I am merely an out-of-the-blue-Are you Shafer? question away from being found out. Then they could really do damage to where I am headed (intentionally vague). Emergent has the world system on their side, and I don’t. Being a fundamentalist is very dangerous these days, both to one’s career and personal relationships. This isn’t a bad thing. I am to rejoice in suffering for His name. But I have to be wise, and that means laying low now so I can inflict maximum damage to Satan (and his followers—Post-modernists/Feminists) later. Jesus himself didn’t go public until the appointed time.

The fact that fundamentalists are so hated today is just another sign of the times. Remember, one day, you will kill people like me, in the name of Love/Unity. It sounds crazy now, but you (plural) will do it. Mark my words.

Hey "Shafer",

I’m really saddened, although not surprised, to hear you articulate your irrational fears of emergent Christians “killing people like you in the name of Love/Unity.” That is such a disturbing image to me, I just can’t stop shaking my head.

Have you ever heard of “Shalom”? Shalom is usually defined as “peace,” but it is more specifically that vision of God’s kingdom where the lion lays down with the lamb, where all of creation is restored, and where there is true eternal peace. Anyone who understands shalom understands that shalom can never be established through human violence. That is why so many of us have become vocally anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc.

I also think your fear is irrational because fundamentalism (as you’ve self-described yourself with) actually holds the real position of privilege in evangelical Christianity (not “postmodernism”, “feminism”, or any other “liberal” boogeyman you want to prop up). I would venture to say that the majority of self-identified “evangelicals” are actually fundamentalists, they just don’t know it yet ;-)

[Ironically I even made a similar prediction to yours recently, except my prediction was that someone like you (a self-identified “fundamentalist”) would kill an emergent leader. I pray that doesn’t happen either, not because I want “my side” to “win” but because I humbly acknowledge that we need each other. We are both part of the body of Christ, his Church. You may reject some things we say or do, but please please don’t reject us. We are your brothers and sisters in Christ.]

So, you clearly believe that if you were to be “found out” for being “Shafer,” the anti-Emergent fundamentalist, that members of your church community would “do damage” to your “career and personal relationships.” I certainly hope that is not the case. I would hope that they would still hold their friendship with you in love. There’s enough backstabbing and “shooting the wounded” inside and outside of the Church already. We don’t need anymore of that.

Having said that, I hope you are “found out” so that you can experience this love and grace. No one here wants to kill you, "Shafer." We may disagree about some beliefs or practice, but at the end of the day my heart is truly and honestly broken to hear you share these fears so openly and honestly—and for you to say that you may not be posting here anymore.

If you do choose to go, I will be praying with you that you will “rejoice in suffering for Jesus’ name” and “inflict maximum damage to Satan” wherever you go. And if you want to continue to pushback in a non-public forum, you are welcome to email me directly anytime: knightopia AT gmail.com.

Shalom, “Shafer.” Grace and Peace be with you.

Tolle Seiten. Schaut doch auch mal bei mir vorbei

Hallo Leute,
eine wirklich gelungene Homepage!!! Weiter so. Viele Grüße vom Schönberger Strand an der Ostsee.
_____ \\\!!!///____
______( ô ô )_____
___ooO-(_)-Ooo___

Hey there ceblogger! Thanks helping us promote our ebook. Wishing you the best of success in your blog – Zigfred

Thank you for this article. I’ll bookmark it so that I can read every chapter.