discarding the essential

We live in a post-Nietzchean world of faith and spirituality. Nietzche's declaration that God is dead still holds true, since interest in all things spiritual doe snot necessarily translate to a belief in a metaphysical God or the tenets and dogmas of a particular fait.
Barry Taylor, in the Book "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope", p. 165

I swear, postmoderns have more faith in Nietzche then in God, I think. At least, they take him literally, while they go out of their way to try to take the Bible as non-literally as possible.

The return of God we are experiencing today is not a resurrection of the premodern God as much as it is a new iteration in concepts of the divine, based not on medieval scholasticism or metaphysics but rather on the daring and often precarious notions of postmodern culture.

So...what's new again?

People want spirituality without God? Nothing new there.

"...a new iteration of concepts of the divine"? Well, doesn't that sound like something straight out of Chopra or Wilbur. What might this look like, we may wonder?

Whether "Christianity" has any future at all as a vibrant expression of faith in the Man from Galilee is a matter of debate as far as I am concern. Perhaps the times call for something else, something other, not merely the repackaging of old metaphors (playing the "relevant" game), but a new incarnation of what it means to follow Jesus.

Ah, one of those cleverly worded postmodern phrases, where you are told one thing then told the opposite. In this case, we are told that ""Christianity...as a vibrant expression of faith in the Man from Galilee..." is a thing to be debated and, by extension, discard if need be. But right after that, we are told that we may need "...a new incarnation of what it means to follow Jesus".

So, what does this apparent contradiction mean?

Well, we have to think if there is a way to reconcile these apparent contradictions. After all, the contradictions are merely apparent, not real, if one looks at it in a sufficiently skewed way.

There are, for example, people calling themselves Christians who have no qualms about mythologizing or spiritualizing the Gospels to the point of saying that most or all of what the Gospels record that Jesus said and did is fiction and hyperbole (except for a very few select phrases which they approve of).

Is this where he is leading? Well, it's certain one way of tying the contradictions together--discard the real biblical Jesus for a jesus of their own creation.

The audacity and arrogance here is staggering, but common to man, which is one reason the supposedly positive spin the emergents try to put on man just doesn't measure up to reality. The Bible's apparently negative statements about man, how fallen and in sin and separated from God we are, are the truth.

ok, who DIDN'T see this coming?

How I Went from There to Here: Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue

With that in mind, I always responded, "I'm holding that issue in abeyance. I haven't made up my mind yet, and I'm in no hurry to. Homosexuality," I would say, "I one issue that I don't want to get wrong."

And yet, all the time I could feel myself drifting toward acceptance that gay persons are fully human persons and should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am. ("Aha!" my critics will laugh derisively, "I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!")

In any case, I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

Ok, so, a few months ago, I showed some excerpts from Tony Jones' book "The New Christians", which show how some emergent churches mentioned in the book were already compromising on the homosexual issue (even as some claimed to not want to deal with it).

Given all that, this move on Jones' part is completely predictable. The only question was the timing.

("Aha!" my critics will laugh derisively, "I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!")

Umm...yes, Jones, you and your ild are continuing your leftward slide. Those of us you look seriously at your movement are not surprised, because that is what you have been doing--sliding more and more leftward.

anything-goes worship

In traditional worship forms, the congregation is often reduced to passivity or, at best, to orchestrated responses. Worship that results in suppression is a contradiction in terms.
Gibbs and Bolgar, Emerging Churches, p. 177

Is it?

The underlying assumption in the book, and among those it quotes from the emergent churches, is that chaos and creativity are in themselves good things. As is said later on the same page...

The creation of art directed toward God is in itself worship.

But is that so?

When we look at the Bible, we do not really see an "anything goes" type of idea; rather, God sets some pretty strict boundaries about how the people were to worship Him. And lest we think He was not serious, there were at least two times when men who were caught up in doing things improperly were killed--Aaron's two sons when they offered strange fires, and the man in King David's day who touched the Ark of the Covenant when it was being transported improperly.

One could point out, and rightly, that with Christ's death and the new covenant, things have changed in how we worship. We no longer sacrifice animals, we no longer have to rely on a human priest to go into the most holy place for us.

But can we honestly say that this freedom is license? That we have now entered a time when "anything goes"?

I must say "no", but I must do so with some caution. I have some experience with the other extreme, the one that does not want to change, and condemns things that do not need to be condemned. This is especially seen in controversies over music, where some seem to hold that there is a style of music that is acceptable for church worship, and styles that are not. Going into that controversy is beyond what I want to do here, but suffice it for now to say that I think such restrictions are wrong.

I have no doubt that artistic endeavors may have a place, but they are not the main thing, nor should they ever be. And chaos has no place at all in churches, not do I think it necessary for the creation of good art. I am a graphic designer myself, and I find that very often, ideas come from thought and reason and digging and technique and exploration and evaluation. It isn't an exercise in chaos. "Let all things be done decently and in order".

separated from God

Contrary to the assumptions of the Greek version of faith tht many of us have come to know, the good news of Christianity is that we are integrated with God, not separated from God.
Pagitt, A Christianity Worth Believing, p. 90

Is that the message of Christianity?

(1) "Being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their hearts" (Eph. 4:18 RV).

First Proposition: Men outside the redemption re "darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God" through the ignorance that is in them, hardeneding their hearts

(7) "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2)

Seventh Proposition: Outside of redemption in Christ, men are under the control of the prince of the power of the air.

(11) "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one" (1 John 5:19 RV)

Eleventh Proposition: "The world world," the whole mass of men who have not received Christ, "lieth in the evil one"--rest in his arms, in his power, in himself.
R. A. Torrey, "What the Bible Teaches", excerpts from pp. 354-357

As with many other things Pagitt writes in the book, this assertion of his is without much if any scriptural support. And as is shown, scripture says much the opposite about man's condition.

and yes it does matter

Even if we could answer the question of who is and who isn't a child of God, it wouldn't help us be better followers of Jesus;
Nanette Sawyer, in the book "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope", p. 47

Well, we're so glad it's not really all that big a deal in her mind. After spending a couple of rather long pages trying to convince us that all are God's children, it's a relief to hear that it's not really all that big a deal to her.

In case you may not have noticed. I'm being a bit sarcastic in the above, though with a point; after all, this sudden "it doesn't matter" type of thing just really doesn't hold with the concern she has shown before.

it would only help us divide people into categories.

And this is wrong...why???

I mean, seriously, are we to believe that there are no legitimate categories? Or that if there are legitimate categories, then we should not see that there people in them?

The thing is, the Bible does divide people into those categories, as we looked at before. Saved and lost, those that are God's and those that are the world's, redeemed and not, Christians and those who worship false gods. These are large categories, important categories, even categories of eternal importance and consequences.

It's rather amusing, though, when emergents and postmoderns try to play this "don't categorize" game. It's amusing, because it's the thing they do. They say "This way of thinking is Modern, or Pre-Modern, or (insert whatever here)", they say "Those beliefs were fine in (insert time period here) or in (insert nation or culture)". In other words, an importance facet of Postmodernism is, simply, labelling and categorizing. Another important facet of it is that they themselves try with might and main to avoid being labelled and categorized; thus, Postmodernism seems to be something that to them is beyond definition, or else the more successful they are at avoiding being defined, the more succeesful they think they will be.

But the important thing here is, this appeal to not categorize is a bit of nonsense, or even more than a bit of it.

First John answers a different question, I believe, and a more helpful question.

I John probably answers many questions.

Addressed to a community that has just gone through a painful schism, this sometimes rhetorically inflammatory letter seems primarily about how to follow Jesus, and it pivots on two point: the persistent practice of love and the paradox of human nature in relationship with divine nature.

I really hope she didn't think she was saying something profound (though the text is italicized in the book) when she wrote that I John is 'primarily about how to follow Jesus', because one could say that about any book in the New Testament, and it may even be a legitimate observation in regards to the Old Testament books. So I hardly see how such a statement is saying anything more than the blindingly obvious.

And whatever primary concerns John may have been writing about, doesn't mean that there were no other things addressed.

no we're not all God's children

With all this background, you may understand the reason my statement of faith, my personal credo, written in seminary and required for ordination in the Presbyterian Church, included the line; "I believe that all people are children of God, created and loved by God, and that God's compassionate grace is available to us at all times."

Imagine my surprise when a particular pastor challenged me on this point. He suggested that "children of God" is a biblical phrase, and that I was using it unbiblically. He believed that not all people are children of God, only Christians. If I'd been quicker on my feet, I would have done a Bible study with him right there; instead, I focused on not letting my jaw hit the floor and mumbled something aobut God creating all human beings. Back at my seminary desk, I searched for words and understanding about these concepts.
Nanette Sawyer, in the book "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope", p. 45

I can't help but give some credit where it may be due here, that at the least when she was challenged on her beliefs, she does say that she wished she had thought to take the person challenging her to the Bible. Granted, if the man who challenged her was up on his Bible, he would likely have shown her why she was wrong, but at least there is something good there.

But not in her ideas, which are wrong. Consider this...

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither is he that loveth not his brother (1 John 3:8-10)
taken from R.A. Torrey "What the Bible Teaches", p. 353

So what about the Bible on this question of the children of God? Is it unbiblical to call all people children of God? It is true that there are many places in the New Testament that talk about the children of God as the followers of Jesus. But it is not true that this must lead us to the kind of arrogance that asserts that non-Christians are not children of God. In fact, there are three biblical instances undermining such an exclusionary claim.
Sawyer, "EMH", p. 46

Note first the attempt to paint those who are against her in a bad light-- "...the kind of arrogance...", as if anyone who disagrees with her couldn't find ample biblical reasons to think her wrong, as if the Bible doesn't say much against her contentions.

But, at least she sets forth a case, so let's look at it.

Paul says in Romans that "we are children of God" (8:16 NRSV) and that we are waiting for adoption, while the who creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God (see vv. 22-23). He indicates that we are not yet fully children of God. This metaphor of adoption into the family of God is based on the idea of becoming "conformed to the image" of Jesus, becoming so like him that we become adopted siblings (v. 29). A similar incompleteness and uncertainty is maintained in the first letter of John, which says that we are God's children now, but what we will be has not yet been revealed (see 1 John 3:2). And finally, in the Acts of the Apostles 17: 28-29, Paul expands the "we" when he affirms to the Greeks, to whom he was is preaching, and who are not followers of Jesus, "We are God's offspring".
Sawyer, "EMH", p. 47

Ok, so, let's look at this.

Romans 8:12-17
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors--not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For is you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deed of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out "Abba, Father." The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

22-23
For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until no. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

First off, who is Paul writing too? He specifically addresses "brethren", by which we may understand fellow Christians like himself. And Romans was a letter addressed to a church or churches, thus to fellow Christians. It was not, then, addressed to those who were not Christians. Therefore, to say that Paul is making some kind of statement about the universal condition of all people being "children of God" is unwarranted from this passage.

I John 3 1-2
Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

And here again, we the writer is addressing those who are Christians. He even makes the contrast with Christians and those in the world. And it is later in that same passage that the passage above from Torrey's book is taken, the one about children of God and children of the devil.

The most problematic one was in Acts 17.

Acts 17:28-29
for in Him we live an dmove and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring'. Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.

This one was problematic for me, because I think I understood it, but was not certain how to defend my understanding for a while.

I found this in Torrey's book. It's a bit tricky to put here, though, because one part makes mention of two Greek words, and I'm not able to type those letters here. I'll do the best approximations I can with it.

The doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of God is utterly unscriptural and untrue. It is true that all men are His offspring, stock, race, or nation (Acts 17:28, 'yevog' not 'tenva', see usage in Greek concordance), is the sense of being His creatures, having our being in Him, and being made in His likeness. (see context, verses 28-29). But we become His "sons" or "children" by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26 RV, John 1:12 RV).
Torrey, pp. 353-354

I am with Torrey in this, and against Sawyer. All people are God's creations, so are of value in that sense. But we are not all God's children. Although I respect that she tried to make a biblical case for her position (which puts her ahead of some others), her case is rather weak.

ALL ABOARD!!!

MYTH #1-JESUS IS OWNED BY CHRISTIANITY

THIRD—There is nothing wrong with being a Christian or even a Western Christian, if that’s your cultural background. But there is something far better and that is to be a follower of Jesus. The largest spiritual movements in the world are happening among Animists in Africa, Buddhists and Hindus in Asia, Muslims and Jews in the Middle East, atheists and agnostics in China and even Christians in the USA. This movement numbers in the millions who do not identify themselves with Christianity or Western Christianity, but sincerely and enthusiastically call themselves followers of Jesus. They love and worship Jesus!

How can this be? Because Jesus is more preeminent than we have let Him be. He is so much greater than any Christian can ever lift up and He must be lifted up. As He is lifted up Jesus will draw all men and women to Him, because He is the most attractive, the most irresistible and the most relevant ever. If the Creator-God were to ever take on flesh and become man, God would look like Jesus.

One problem with these paragraphs has to do with an unclearness in phrasing. The writer speaks of "The largest spiritual movements...", but then directly after saying things about "This movement...". Either a mistake was made there, or not. And if not, then he is saying behind all of those large spiritual movements there is in reality one movement encompassing all of them.

If that is so, then we have to contend with the assertion that he is saying that animists, Buddhists, Hindus, et al., are in to his mind "followers of Jesus" who "love and worship Jesus", despite the fact that few of them actually really worship Jesus, but something else.

Whic is, of course, the whole universalism and "all roads lead to God" things, which the Bible will have no truck with.

Of course, if may simply be some awkward phrasing and misspelling. I do plenty of that, so have no place to stand in saying overly much about that. It would be good if it were to be clarified, though, because such sentiments coming from that source are not so very surprising.

another's summations

And they are pretty good, too, considering whose they are.

The Emergent Church: Emergence or Emergency?

I think Giesler does a good job of showing the contradictions in the emergent's positions. It's an interesting read, and worth it.

shoehorning

Believers must give up old loyalties in order to create a space for the kingdom to come. Nationalism, individualism, and consumerism are a few of the idealogies that must be reappropriated or completely abandoned in light of the coming reign of God...

According to N.T. Wright, Jesus stated that all loyalties had to acquiesce to loyalty to the new kingdom. All forms of power had to be relinquished. Satan, not Rome, was their enemy now, thus ending all forms of nationalism and violence. If one wanted to pursue the kingdom of God, old, former loyalties had to give way to new kingdom-oriented ones...
Gibbs and Bolgar, Emerging Churches, p. 91, 92

Perhaps they could have told us where, exactly, the Bible tells us this.

For example, Paul was a Roman citizen who seemed to not think it wrong to be one, and even to make use of it at times. In Philippi, he uses it to demand an in-person apology from the officials who had who imprisoned him and Silus wrongly. Later, he uses it to keep from getting beaten in Jerusalem, and then to make his appeal to Caesar. In Romans, Paul still refers to Israel both as "my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh" and as "God's people".

One may rightly point out that we Christians have a higher loyalty to God, "we ought to obey God rather than men". That is very true, but that doesn't make all other loyalties of no effect. The fact that we are the Bride of Christ does not mean that married Christians have the right to abandon their spouses on a whim, and even in the New Testament marriage is treated as a high and serious thing. Similarly, simply because our citizenship is in Heaven doesn't mean we can blithely disregard and abandon our earthly citizenships and duties.

Nationalism, if by that is meant things like love of country and patriotism, is not something that must of necessity be relinquished. Yes, it must be kept in its proper place, as must all other loves and loyalties. I think Lewis put it something like this in 'The Four Loves', that only by loving God firstly can we love others rightly. But loving God rightly does not necessarily mean that we cease loving others.

we interrupt your regularly scheduled programming...

It's been a couple of days since election day. Trying to figure how to think about it has not been easy.

Falling into extreme pessimism has been most tempting, and not without reason. That such a person was chosen for our highest office is something that I still cannot comprehend. Although I say that the media is complicent in it because of how they tried to hide and spin all the things about him, in the end the people knew what he was. They knew what he said to Joe the plumber, and knew what it meant. They knew his stands on abortion and even infanticide. They knew the type of person he was, and they chose him anyway.

Very well. The people have spoken. Now we shall see what comes of it.

I am not completely pessimistic. For one thing, he is, after all, a politician, and one of the cheapest currencies in the world is a politician's promise.

Also, I am not forgetful of things in Scripture. Although not a king, perhaps there is something to be said for "The king's heart is in the hands of the Lord, and He turns it wherever He wills". I have consoled myself a time or two with that thought that "What has been intended for evil, God can turn to good".

But let us not be naive and dreamy, either. Even if he only accomplishes a bit of what he has said, it will be quite damaging enough. If he sets up the economy the way he wants, the damage will be serious. If he gets something like the Fairness Doctrine passed, free speech will be damaged, and I can't help but think that hate crimes laws will not be long in following and will be used to further restrict speech. If he passes the abortion legislation he wants, then any gains done in recent times will be set back. If he makes immorality normal and legal in marriage, then we will have lost all claims to being a moral people.

So, what now???

It is easy to use Scripture out-of-context here. I could pull out "If my people...will humble themselves, and pray...then I will forgive their sins, and heal their land". And there is much to be said for what is being said there. We do need to humble ourselves, pray and seek God's face, and turn from our sins. We need to repent.

I'm not going to say that passage is necessarily applicable to us. If we do those things, perhaps God will heal our land. If we repent, he will forgive our sins. But I think that promise was given to a certain people, a people called Israel, and we the church aren't them. But the passage still gives good advice.

Now, if the repentence were to be truly national, then maybe our land could be healed. But I'm not a pollyanna, and if anyone reads this, they are likely already Christ's, or at least think they are.

We need to repent. I couldn't care lesser about having big services in large churches or stadiums with lots of people gathered and weeping on each other's shoulders. I couldn't care less about the theatrics. We need real repentence, not a show. And by 'we' I mean myself as much as anyone reading this.

We, the church, need to repent. If others who are not Christians can be led to repentence, then all the better for them and for us.

We need to repent of abiding the presence of wolves among the sheep. No small list could be made of those wolves, and no doubt disagreements would arise in some cases of which is which, but let us start with some that are obvious--those who are ecumenical to the degree of saying that all religions are ways to God; those who would deny or abide the presence of those who deny basic biblical doctrines such as the Godhead and Christ's death and resurrection and ascension; those who make the Gospel about health and wealth and manipulating God into blessing them; those who would trade eternal life for some kind of supposed utopia on earth.

How often have we seen the dark and ugly side of things like the Word of Faith preachers? It is to our shame and those scam scum can not only still do their thing, but get wealthy doing it.

How often have we seen how shallow and wrong this new apostolic and prophetic movement is? I wish there were prophets, but if there are any, they aren't in Kansas City, or Pensacola, or Toronto, or any other such place. How many more trainwrecks like Bentley do we need to see that there is something deadly wrong with what their saying and doing? It is to our shame that we have abided such things, falling for their supposed manifestations, trading in sound doctrine for barking like dogs in church aisles.

There are no doubt other things that we need to repent of. Some may point out how divorce in the churhc is no better than in the world, and maybe they are right, but I am cautious about that. How many of those people turned to Christ after being divorced? How many are cases of Christians who fell but have repented and been restored? We must be wise in how we view such stats, while also considering that they may be showing us a problem.

We need to return to the Bible, and what it says, and preach that.

I cannot promise the same blessing that the passage above promises, except the part about God forgiving those who repent, because I do not think that will happen, at least at this time, and I've already given one reason why, that those promises are not really directed to us. Perhaps a day will come when our land will be healed, but it will not come until Christ returns. But I'm not speaking to a nation, but to the church.

I am not a Word of Faith sycophant, nor a dominionist of any stripe. What I see in the Bible is "If they hated Me, they will hate you as well" and "All those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". Some I have heard and read seem to say that if we get right with God, we can expect favor with the world and even a sort of christianization of the world. I think that much the opposite is what would happen.

I am not a bold man. I am not a preacher. I don't know how all of this will work out for any of you, or even myself. The threads that surround us are huge, I would even say worldwide. The fact that we may have a bad and even ungodly leader is not new in history, but the seeming global quality of it all is new. And we shouldn't ignore that.

Before our God, we must be humble and pray and turn from our sins. Before people, we must stand firm, and expect persecution and ridicule and rejection. Some will hear, and repent and believe. Many will not. Let's go ahead and accept now that it will be so.

The time is short. I can give no advice on what specifics any of us should do outside of what I've said above. God will be with us, though, if we are with Him.

enemies, enemies everywhere!!!!

The fact is, all religions of the world are under threat--from fundamentalist Islam, but more, from the McDonaldization and Wal-Martization of the world, from global consumerism, from forces that emanate not from Arabia and Afghanistan, but from New York and Hollywood--forces that make religion equally superfluous, trivial compared to the lust for a new car or a new pair of jeans.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 286

Yeah, because we all know that Ronald McDonald really, under that clown suit, wants to do away with all religions in the world and set up a Big Mac Mecca. Because we all know that sometime in the next few years, Wal-Mart is going to declare jihad and seek to run bomb-filled delivery trucks into Krogers, K-Mart, and Ikea stores. We all know that people can't drink Starbucks and claim any loyalty and affiliation to any religion but Starbucks.

Or maybe McLaren has been reading a little too much cyber-punk.

spinning things as worse then they were

In ancient Israel, the categories clean and unclean maintained identity and established boundaries, and contact with outcasts, sinners, or lepers made one unclean. In conjunction with the holiness laws and food laws, the priest declared who was in and who was out. The sinners, the outcasts, the oppressed, the poor, and the hungry were despised and were definitely out.
Gibbs and Bolgar, Emerging Churches, p. 118

Ok, let's see...

Where did they get any of that???

I mean, really, where in the Law does God tell the people that being oppressed, or poor, or hungry made a person or a people 'unclean' and "definitely out"?

While I don't have a list of the thing that the law declared unclean or said made a person unclean for a time, I have no recall of something like social status being one of those things.

In fact, one can find places in the law where room is left for the caring of those kinds of people. For the hungry, there were the rules about gleaning the fields, which can seen illustrated in the book of Ruth. It wasn't a welfare or handout system, they still needed to do the work of gathering from the fields, but it is there. And there are places in the law where they are warned to not show favoritism to either the rich or the poor, but to judge justly. There were laws about, for example, not keeping a person's coat overnight, so that they could be warm.

If they want to comment on how the law may have been twisted, they may have a point. But to me I do not think they make that distinction. At least in the above, they make it seem almost arbitrary, that the priests made the decisions based solely on their own opinions, and not on the Law God gave the people.

can you spare us a change (please)???

A comic that works on so many levels



In both the religious and political spheres, it would be good if people considered that 'change' is nothing in itself. Simply because something is 'different' doesn't mean it's 'good', or even 'better' than what is here and now.

being fair to the Law

In ancient Israel, the categories clean and unclean maintained identity and established boundaries, and contact with outcasts, sinners, or lepers made one unclean. In conjunction with the holiness laws and food laws, the priest declared who was in and who was out. The sinners, the outcasts, the oppressed, the poor, and the hungry were despised and were definitely out.
Gibbs and Bolgar, Emerging Churches, p. 118

Ok, let's see...

Where did they get any of that???

I mean, really, where in the Law does God tell the people that being oppressed, or poor, or hungry made a person or a people 'unclean' and "definitely out"?

While I don't have a list of the things that the Law declared unclean or said made a person unclean for a time, I have no recall of something like social status being one of those things.

In fact, one can find places in the law where room is left for the caring of those kinds of people. For the hungry, there were the rules about gleaning the fields, which can seen illustrated in the book of Ruth. It wasn't a welfare or handout system, they still needed to do the work of gathering from the fields, but it is there. And there are places in the law where they are warned to not show favoritism to either the rich or the poor, but to judge justly. There were laws about, for example, not keeping a person's coat overnight, so that they could be warm.

If they want to comment on how the law may have been twisted, they may have a point. But to me I do not think they make that distinction. At least in the above, they make it seem almost arbitrary, that the priests made the decisions based solely on their own opinions, and not on the Law God gave the people.

???

Imagine an adult human with a double Ph.D. in engineering and ornithology trying to use grass, feathers, scraps of paper, and mud to build a common robin's nest. His fingers and thumbs form a muddy blob that would crumble in the first rainstorm. Then imagine a robin building the same next with nothing but her beak. The robin (as far as I can tell) doesn't know that she knows how to build a nest and doesn't know how she knows, but she knows; she has a feel for it, as we see every spring. She can do something the certified, lettered expert human can't. Her unknown knowledge illustrates the deepest level of human knowledge that is learned not just from a "teacher" but from a "master". If you ask, "How do you do that, how do you know that?"--the only answer can be, "I don't know; I just know!"

This is the kind of inwardly formed learning that Jesus, as master, teaches his apprentices; a knowledge about how to live that can't be reduced to information, words, rules, books, or instruction, but rather that must be seen in the words-plus-example of the Master.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 96

Ok, can anyone understand what the heck he's trying to say?

Is he trying to tell us that being a Christian is like being a bird? That God pours the knowledge of how to be a Christian into us, so that we know what to do like a bird knows how to build a nest? Because there does not seem to be a "master bird" that goes around teaching other birds how to build nests.

And isn't the whole "knowledge...that can't be reduced to information, words, etc..." just a cop-out? Isn't that just a way of saying "I'm right, just don't ask me to prove it"? Isn't that just his way of telling us to not ask him to expect him to give biblical support to his position, and even to not question when what he says goes against the Bible?

ooooo, heaven is a place on earth???

Because our questions about the afterlife have risen out of the Greek worldview, rather than the Hebrew culture of the early church, it's not surprising that we can find very little in the way of answers. But if we are willing to suspend the need for answers to those questions for a bit, I believe we find a whole other set of questions that are worth pursuing with equal passion.

The early Christians saw heaven not as a place we go to but as a reality that comes to us. They talked about redemption and healing coming through God's creation, not apart from it. They believed we would live as freed bodies in this healed place, not as freed spirits in some other place.
Pagitt, A Christianity Worth Believing, p. 228-229

Counterpoint.

Praise by to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a lving hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade--kept in heaven for you,

who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
I Peter 1:3-5



Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

Meanwhile, we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling,

because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked.

For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed, but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord.

We live by faith, not by sight.

We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may recieve what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
I Corinthians 5:1-10




Jesus replied. "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor by given in marriage; they will be like the angels of heaven.

But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,

"I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"?

He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
Matthew 22:29-32




Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.

We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.
I Thessalonians 4:13-14




He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him.
I Thessalonians 5:10

The Bible does say much about how things will be set right when Christ returns, among men and in all Creation; however, in regards to the earth, it also says that it is "reserved for fire", and that we look for "new heavens and a new earth", which seems to be something similar but different to what we have now.

As such, then, I think that Pagitt must do more then just claim that the early church didn't see Heaven as a place they would go to. Paul is pretty plain that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord". That doesn't negate the things said about Christ's rule when He returns, but those don't negate the other, either. Jesus said that in His day Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were living, and in the Transfiguration He converses with Moses and Elijah, who in body had been dead hundreds of years, and for Moses well over a thousand years.

And consider such biblical passages as are above, I think we can say that they did see Heaven as a place. A place where those who died before are, and where we go after we die.

so, where did he get that idea?

Jesus made it clear that the afterlife isn't a place. It's a state of being...

While it might not seem like it at first glance, even Jesus' comments about "going to prepare a place for you" and "in my Father's house there are many rooms" come from the rabbinic tradition and are meant to create a picture of God's redemption on earth.
Pagitt, A Christianity Worth Believing, p. 222-223

Although not as footnotes-happy as Bell or Tony Jones, Pagitt does have several in this book; however, when he makes this contention about Jesus' statement about His Father's house having many rooms, there are no footnotes, and no support is given to his claims about the interpretation he claims.

Also, there is the disciple's own reactions, recorded in the passages in John, to Jesus' statement. They are troubled by His words, and ask where He was going, and are in sorrow that He would leave.

If they knew He was only using figurative language, then why did it bother them so much? Would they not have welcomed it if it had been "a picture of God's redemption on earth"?

You heard me say, "I am going away and I am coming back to you." If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe.
John. 14:28-29

Perhaps Pagitt has some kind of supports for his claims. But if so, what are they? What rabbinic tradition is it that says what he claims? Why is his claim not supported? Could no specifics have been given, no specific resource cited?

creative misplacing of priorities

Worship expressed both verbally and through a full range of artistic expression is a unique human activity on earth. Witness and mission are the outflow of that worship commitment. Consequently, it is given the highest priority.

Jonny Baker (Grace, London) highlights the central importance of creativity. "It's a core value for me and Grace. I would say that being made in the image of God, among other things, is about creativity. ...""The creativity of God is linked to the realization of the kingdom of God in our midst," says Doug Pagitt of Solomon's Porch (Minneapolis). "The phrase 'the kingdom of God as the creativity of God' I made up as tha way of explaining how God and humanity interact."

Art is our participation in God.
Gibbs and Bolger, Emerging Churches, p. 175-176, 177

One thing I've noticed in things I've read and listened to from various emergents, is how much they stress creativity, even to the point, as Pagitt does in the quotes above, of linking it to God's kingdom, making it almost synonamous with it.

While I do think that creativity is a good thing, I find a lot that keeps me from putting such emphasis on it, and making it such a great virtue or core value. Let me try to explain.

I am a single man, having never been married, but as it perhaps usual with some of my age in such a situation I have a bit of history of being 'in love' several times. Looking back on those instances and the women to whom I had feelings, I can say that in few if any cases were any of them very artistic women, and that I don't recall such creativity or lack thereof as being of much importance to me. Some of them may have been musician to a certain degree, or tried their hands at poetry, but those weren't the things that seemed to define them.

Rather, when I look back on them, it was other things about them and their character that were the things that drew me to them. Some of them I consider to be true saints in regards to the works they did, or things they overcame, or the sacrifices they made. Almost all were good and godly, who wanted to obey God and show Him to others. No doubt they were creative, but in what I would call a practice sense--using their creativity to help solve normal or even not-so-normal problems.

When I look at the New Testament, I see very little if anything said about creativity. None of the instances of the Great Commissions say anything about it; rather, they seem to presuppose that we already have the message, the Gospel, that we are to take to the world. We are told nothing about the Apostle's artisitc abilities, and since most were what would be considered 'common men', we may presume that they had very little. Nor do we have record of them ever encouraging their congregants to explore their artistic creativity.

In the list of spiritual gifts and fruits of the Spirit, artistry and creativity are notably lacking.

Even in what may be thought of as the more expressive spiritual gifts, like prophecy and tongues and interpretation, there is little room, if any, for personal creativity. A prophet was to share what had been given to him, a person speaking in tongues likely did not understand what he was saying and so had to rely on the interpretor to translate.

Finally, I'm not unfamiliar with the lives of some very creative people, and frankly while I may admire thier works, other parts of their lives would give me pause. Berlioz, Wagner, Lord Byron, Whitman, van Gogh, to some degree or another were not people who showed godly character traits. As a chess player, I can think of Alekhine and Fischer as examples of great players who were of very questionable character. And to play the extreme card, I could point out that Nero was a poet and Hitler an artist.

As someone who could maybe be labelled a 'creative', though in a very low-grade sense, I can appreciate creativity and the arts to some degree. But that also means I can appreciate the limits of artistic creativity, and I want to say quite clearly that I see no call to artistic creativity in the New Testament, that a person can be a Christian without ever picking up a paint brush or writing a line of verse.

So be at peace, you who have no desire to paint pictures or write poetry or who have little to no musical abilities, you are not second-class Christians in any sense. There is no biblical command for you to be any such thing; rather, consider well the things the Bible does command of us--to live pure and holy lives, to be Christ's witness to the world, to take the Gospel to the world, among other things--and see that one does not need special artistic abilities or special creativity in order to do those things.

And for those who are artists and musicians and such, beware if you think yourself somehow special and above those who are not. You may have your places, but those places are no higher or holier then anyone elses. And don't think that painting or writing puts you above the need to communicate the truth, or that you are above accountability because you are 'creative'. Be grateful to God for the gifts He's given to you, and use them for His glory.

using fakes to dismiss the real

Ironically, though, when many modern Christians use the word sovereign (another form of "kingship" or "lordship"), they make matters worse, much worse, because for them, sovereignty means absolute control, and control is a very tricky word. Again, if you're living in danger and chaos, to say, "A good king will soon be in control," would be good news.

But it's not good news at all if you live, as we do, at the end of modernity, a period that told us in a hundred different ways how we're already controlled: by our genes (genetic determinism), by class struggle (Marxism), by primitive psychological aggressions (Freudianism), be operant conditioning (Skinnerism), by evolutionary competition (social Darwinism), by laws of physics and chemistry (naturalism, reductionism), by linguistic and social constructions (some forms of extreme postmodernism), by Euro-American military and economy (colonialism), by technique and machinery (industrialism), and by advertising (consumerism).
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 89

So, because a bunch of pretenders are claiming the throne of sovereignty, we must kick God off of that throne?

Or, should we recognize that God is sovereign despite (maybe even because of) the presence of all of those pretenders.

And if I may say, some of those pretenders are themselves simply pretenders in McLaren's mind. I mean, really, can advertising really make people do things? It may be manipulative at times, but manipulation can only go so far.

And, as well, this supposed distaste of people today to the idea of a good king cannot explain, for example, why people today are so fond of Tolkien. One of the main points of the "Lord of the Rings" is that a good and sovereign king (insofar as a human king can be sovereign) is coming and has come to take his rightful throne, taking over for a great but insane man and having a part in defeating a demonic power. Or how many people like Lewis' Narnia stories, which again often revolve around the establishing of good kings and queens. Or the continued interest in King Arthur.

Perhaps in the supposed progressive circles Mclaren runs in, the idea of a soverign king either isn't viewed positively (unless one of themselves should hold that throne), or is denied. But out here in the real world, it's still powerful and very meaningful.

But in the end our human reactions to such things are meaningless. If the Bible says that God is sovereign, then He is so, and any distaste in the idea is wrong.

the emergent shift?

"Preach the gospel to all creation," Christ said. Are we only now beginning to understand what he meant? I believe the unwritten melody that haunts this book ever so faintly, the new song waiting to be sung in place of the hymn of salvation, is simply the song of creation. To move away from the theology of salvation to the theology of creation may be the task of our time.
Vincent Donovan, Christianity Rediscovered, quoted in McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, pp. 100-101

One of those 'in a nutshell' statements--Heaven is traded for earth, salvation is discarded in exchange for saving the world, love of the world pursued.

Plus, I suppose we could ask, where did Jesus say to preach the gospel to all creation (as if either Donovan or McLaren were Creationists, we may wonder). Preach it to every nation, all peoples, yes. All of creation? Book, chapter, and verse, please.

getting it all backwards

He (Vincent Donovan) explains, "I was to learn that any thoelogy or theory that makes no reference to previous missionary experience, which does not take that experience into account, is a dead and useless thing...praxis must be prior to theology...In my work [theology would have to proceed] from practice to theory. If a theology did emerge from my work, it would have to be a theology growing out of the life and experience of the pagan peoples of the savannahs of East Africa". Similarly, I have become convinced that a generous orthodoxy appropriate for our postmodern world will have to grow out of the experience of the post-Christian, post-secular people of the cities of the twenty-first century.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 100

If the whole postmodern virus as it concerns religion could be summed up in one small phrase, a good one would be "praxis must be prior to theology".

Or to sum up in other words, "we have to do everything backwards".

We have to change the message of the Gospel to fit, so we think, the heathen peoples to whom we are suppose taking to Gospel to. We have to know what the people want so we can give it to them, rather then giving them what they need.

(and if you live in the country, tough bananas, pal, because they're only concerned about "the post-Christian, post-secular people of the cities of the twenty-first century"/.)

Instead of going to the Bible to see what message we should give to the heathen, we go to the heathen to see what message we should give to them.

Because Jesus said "Go into all the world, and get from them the gospel". Didn't he???

As someone who spent a few years in missions himself, I can only say that these men's ideas are hogwash.

friends in low places

No. The Christian faith, I am proposing, should become (in the name of Jesus Christ) a welcome friend to other religions of the world, not a threat. We should be seen as a protector of their heritages, a defender against common enemies, not one of the enemies. Just as Jesus came originally not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, not to condemn people but to save them, I believe he comes today not to destroy or condemn anything (anything but evil) but to redeem and save everything that can be redeemed and saved.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 287

What is evil but religions that teach people to worship and serve other beings but the true God? What is evil but religions that teach people to seek their own salvations in their own works--acts of 'righteousness', pursuit of nothingness, an unending cycle of reincarnation?

There is the definition of evil. True Christianity cannot but be the enemy of such things, as even Jesus and the Apostles knew.

Other religions are the enemies of God, and as such the enemies of the people in those religions. Those religions are misleading the people, giving them false hopes and false assureances, and as the Truth Christianity cannot be anything else but the enemy of those things.

Christianity must love the people in other religions enough to tell them the truth, that they are worshiping what is not true, worshiping devils and demons, thinking they are saved when in reality they are lost, and telling them to repent and leave those things and come to the living God.

two important facts about every one of us

It's one thing to recite these confessions and statements in a Sunday school class. It's a very different thing to live out a theology of inherent depravity (that humans start out lacking anything good). We can say we believe that humanity is evil and depraved and that we enter the world this way. But I don't think this fits the Christian story, nor do many of us truly hold to it.
Pagitt, A Christianity Worth Believing, p. 124

Counterpoint.

...The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They begain with the fact of sin--a fact as practical as potatoes. whether or not man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not merely materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proven...The strongest saints and the strongest skeptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all athiests do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.
Chesterton, Orthodoxy, p. 11

And further...

...I mean, I've never heard of someone walking the halls of a maternity ward and saying, "Oh, what a collection we have here of dirty, rotten, little sinners who are separate from God and only capable of evil!" Rather, the impulse is to say, "What wondrous, beautiful miracles." Or to borrow a phrase from the creation story, "It is very good." New life just doesn't seem to fit with this notion of inherent depravity.
Pagitt, p. 124

In the Bible, we are told two very important facts about ourselves. One, which Pagitt seems to have no problem accepting, is that "we are fearfully and wonderfully made". He is right that babies are "wondrous, beautiful miracles", though if he thinks that is such a prevalent attitude, he should check the numbers on abortion.

But the Bible also gives us another fact, which Pagitt unwisely seeks to discard. It tells us that we have been "shaped in iniquity, and conceived sin", and that we "come out of the womb speaking lies". We are told that "all of the works we think are righteous are only putrid rags". In that since, the man calling children in maternity wards "dirty, rotten, little sinners" is speaking as much truth as the one calling them "wondrous, beautiful miracles". Both things are true, and unless one accepts that both are true, nothing the Bible teaches about us makes sense, and one must mutilate and truncate the Bible, as Pagitt does, to disregard the one so as to wholely cling to the other.

deconstructing Jesus???

I think Jesus is right because I believe God was in Jesus in an unprecedented way.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 77

God was in Jesus???

So, what is Jesus in this?

Is the divinity of Jesus being dismissed here??? God was only in Jesus, not Jesus being God???

Even his explanations over the next few pages leave me unsatisfied in regards to what he thinks here. Rather, after some kind of lengthy politically correct apology about the use of masculine terms in regard to God and Jesus, we get this...

...the experience of God in Jesus was so powerful that it forever transformed what followers of Jesus meant when they said the word God. What was God like? What was God about? When they thought about what they had learned, seen, and experienced in Jesus, their understanding was revolutionized. Eventually, after a few centuries of reflecting on God as revealed and experienced through Jesus (in the context of some major controversies with varied forms of Greek philosophy), the church began to describe God as Father-Son-Spirit in Tri-unity or the Trinity.
p. 84

Is he really trying to say that the Church had no idea of the divinity of Jesus until a few centuries after the Scriptures were completed? Is he trying to say that the early church was unitarian, or thought that Jesus was just some kind of good man, a great ethical teacher, or some kind of ascended master?

Seriously, as I'm writing this, I'm feeling sickened. Why would anyone who names themselves Christian listen to this man? Doesn't this absolutely disqualify him from being any kind of Christian teacher? His ramblings about Marxism and liberation theology and pacifism could maybe be relegated to non-essentials (though I stress the 'maybe'), but this cannot be, and for him to say what he's saying and to infer what he's inferring is heretical to the core.

Look it up. The page numbers are up there. Look at things in context, and confirm or not that what I'm saying is real.

seeing what's really there

...Recently I received an e-mail from an intelligent, young, "religiously right" Christian (intelligent enough to use e-mail) who told me he expects to die as a martyr at the hands of "liberals." How many hours of religious broadcasting does it take to produce this much fear.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 278

Leaving the snide remark about how a "religiously right" Christian could dare to be intelligent enough to use e-mail...

(especially as he likely doesn't dare to acknowledge the discovery by McLaren of Jesus' supposed 'secret message', which somehow the Church for 2000 years had missed)

Likely it doesn't take many hours of such broadcasting. Likely it doesn't require any at all.

Maybe this young Christian merely has his eyes open.

Maybe he's noticed how any biblical opinion he holds is being labelled "hate speech" or "not progressive" or something else in order to be dismissed.

Maybe he's noticed how his education system is set deliberately to minimize his views. Maybe he's seen how nothing but evolution is allowed in his school, and that not by force of evidence but force of law. Maybe he's seen how other religions are being welcomed into his schools, except his own. Maybe he's seen how his country's history is distorted and his country defamed by teachers and professors with their own liberal agendas.

Maybe he's noticed how people like McLaren will bend over backwards to accept and acknowledge almost every other viewpoint as being worthy of being in 'the conversations'. Except his own.

Maybe he's noticed how the liberals are actively trying to silence people like himself. Maybe he's seen how his churches can't speak out about who should lead his nation without the liberal bulldogs of the ACLU threatening to silence them. Maybe he's seen how "hate speech" laws are going to be used to silence him from speaking of the biblical views of things like homosexuality. Maybe he's heard of the misnamed 'fairness act', meant to shut down conservative talk radio, and notices that liberals aren't a concerned about how their own liberal television bastions aren't a part of that so-called 'fairness'.

Maybe he's noticed how the media will opening plug anyone and anything liberal, playing the 'victim' card ad nauseum, while being openly and actively hostile to all things conservative.

Maybe this young man has his eyes more open then McLaren does.