conservative ecumenism

So, for once, theOoze actually has an article of some interest.

Co-Existing with the New Black-Robed Regiment

It's about some things that happened at the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor rally, a bit about what was called 'the black-robed regiment'. It's a bit of a link with the past, when pastors at the time of the American Revolution opposed the British. In this new version of it at the Beck rally, though, it wasn't just Christian leaders in the mix, but also rabbis of the Jewish faith and Muslim imams.

Let's summarize what he have so far: The black-robed regiment is back again today to turn the heart of the nation back to God, God is the answer. But this effort isn't Christian, it isn't political, and it isn't sectarian. It includes Catholic priests, rabbis, Muslim imams, all working toward spiritual renewal and the rebuilding of a civil society one person; one family; one church, mosque, synagogue, temple and one community at a time because there is no right God or wrong God.

The aims of the new black-robed regiment appear to work quite nicely with these objectives:

- To promote, encourage and support engagement between Jews, Christians and Muslims both individually and through their respective communities through dialogue, education and research.
- To promote and facilitate the education of the public in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths and belief and in particular to advance the knowledge and understanding of: the teachings, traditions and practices of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths; the shared history of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths; both the common ground shared by the faiths and the theological, philosophical, cultural, political, and economic bases of and differences between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths and communities.
- To promote for the benefit of the public, religious harmony between Jews, Christians and Muslims by encouraging among them a greater understanding and appreciation of and Muslims by encouraging among them a greater understanding and appreciation of each other’s distinctive faith, beliefs, and practices and their common ground. And to this end also to promote friendship, goodwill and mutual trust among them.

I must admit, this fairly recent development as been largely surprising to me. I've thought of ecumenism as mostly a liberal, progressive thing--it doesn't matter what you believe so long as you're a social justice type, all religions are viable ways to god, and all that.

On the other hand, I've known that politicals has in the past made for strange alliances. Evangelicals and Catholics are both largely pro-life, so that issue has made tem do some things together. A few years ago, Mormons were among the ones leading against the move in California to legalize homosexual marriage, which put them on the same side as Evangelicals.

And now, we seem to have the developing of another form a ecumenism, a politically conservative kind.

Most weekdays, I get a chance to listen to a bit of Beck's radio show. Maybe only a half-hour, roughly, but I still enjoy it, and find it informative. Although I don't listen to him as much as I did a few years ago, I like Hannity, and agree with him on many things, even though he is Catholic, and there are things in Catholicism that I have problems with.

It's an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, I'm an American, and I think our freedom of religion is a good thing. Were I, for example, a part of a pro-life organization, I think I would work with people of other flavors of Christianity, or other religions, or even those who claim no religion, in the goal of helping to save the lives of those who are unborn. I would definitely vote for, say, a Mormon or even a Muslim who would be politically conservative instead of a Protestant whose positions are liberal.

On the other hand, support for a person based on political or social positions should not be confused with thinking that person is a fellow believer or Christian. Confusion on this point may be easily possible, but it is important that it not be allowed to happen.

Although I like Beck and enjoy his show, and although I find much in his opinions that I agree with, I simply cannot accept that he, as a Mormon, is a fellow believer. Mormon doctrine is simply too deviant from biblical teachings. It does make me sad to write that, and I can only hope that a day comes when he will discard the unbibical elements in is beliefs and trust in the true God revealed only in the Bible, but that day is not now.

Nor can I agree with his attempt at a conservative form of ecumenism. If he were to keep it in the realm of political and social issues, I may not have as much of a problem with it (I must also acknowledge that my source here, theOoze, and whatever there sources are, may not be the best). It's when he goes over into saying that a largely undefinied 'god' is the answer that I get very squirrelly.

if i wanted a circular god, i'd find a fat buddha

Theology after Google

Theology after Google does not divide up the world between the “sacred” and the “secular,” as past theologies so often did. All thought and experience bears on it, and all of one’s life manifests it. Thus the distinction between one’s “ministry” and one’s “ordinary life” is bogus. All of one’s life as a Christian is missional.. The great 15th-century theologian and mystic Nicholas of Cusa imagined God as a circle whose radius is infinite and whose center is everywhere. It only takes a second to realize that Cusa’s picture wreaks havoc on all geometries of “inside” and “outside.”

This is hardly a new idea. I was hearing this from people in the missions organization I was in several years ago. I think it's something that could be debated. For example, when God spoke to Moses in the wilderness, He called where they talked "holy ground". Wherever that perameters of that "holy ground" was, it was different than the normal ground Moses had been walking on before, and so he was told to remove his sandals. A similar thing happened later, when Moses and the people of Israel were at the mountain and God came down to them. The mountian was not to be treated by them as another mountain--the people were not to approach it, and any animal that touched it was to be killed. The Tabernacle and later the Temple were not common buildings, and even in them there was a place that was entered only once a year by the High Priest, the Holy of Holies. The Ark of the Covenant was not to be touched at all, and God killed a man who touched it, even for the theoretically good reason of keeping it from falling. The tribe of Levi was different than the others, they were not given land, but were the priests and keepers of the Tabernacle and Temple.

It's an interesting idea, perhaps not without merit, depending on what is meant by it. I think the last sentence of the paragraph quoted above gives an idea of what he means--that in trying to do away with the concepts of "inside" and outside", he's essentially sneaking in, though not so subtly, universalism. Perhaps not surprising, since TheOoze is Spencer Burke's site, and Burke has claims to be some form of universalist.

And that is where this writer's version of "no sacred or secular" falls apart. I doubt the New Testament could be more plain that there is a very real difference between those who believe and those who don't, between those who are children of God and child or wrath, the sheep who are welcomed and the goats who are condemned, the wheat and the tares, the wise virgins and the foolish ones, those in Abraham's bosom and those in Hades, those whose names are written in the Book of Life and those whose names aren't.

One can point to divisions people have made that have been silly or even stupid. But pointing those out does not mean that all divisions are wrong. And when the Bible plainly says there are those who are pleasing to God, and others who are subject to God's wrath, then it is not wise to try to dismiss those divisions simply because one doesn't like them, and simply because they do not most kind "picture".

Finally, a bit on the difference between the symbol of the circle and the more obvious Christian symbol of the cross, from Chesterton's "Orthodoxy", toward the end of chapter 2.

As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.

the convoluted emergent thought process

Sometimes, an emergent writer simply insults our intelligence.

Christianity is the only to reach God, certain Christians argue, because the Bible says so. It tells us that Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."...

...but I don't believe it can be used to argue that Christianity is the only true religion. First, Christianity as a religion did not exist when Jesus spoke those words...
Burke and Taylor, A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, p. 107

Is this a true statement?

We know that it wasn't until a few years after Pentacost that the people in Antioch first started calling them Christians, or that language's equivalent. I'm unsure of what they were called before then, and to an extent, it doens't matter--things changed with Jesus, no matter what name you put on those changes.

As such, then, I think that his argument that Christianity as a religion did not exist when Jesus was on earth is a matter of symantecs, and not of fact. Already with Him, things were changing--He called the people to believe in Him, and accepted their worship of Him. He called people to follow Him. His death was the sacrifice for their sins.

So, Burke argument is irrelevant--the statement Jesus made then is just as true now.

Compounding this point are two additional facts: no one actually recorded Jesus' words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words, and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into any other language can be taken literally anyway.

???

If you're puzzled by that last statement, no matter the language you may have read it in, I don't blame you.

First, if Burke wants to claim that it's may be possible that what Jesus said here is something that He may not have said, then how far is he willing to take that line of thought. It's obvious Burke doesn't like what is being said by Jesus (far to exclusionary for his taste, no doubt--God in the flesh should have known better). But is Burke willing to say that he doubts any of the statement recorded of Jesus that he likes? Is he going to doubt that, for example, Jesus may not have told any of the parables that it was recorded that He told? Or maybe Jesus didn't say anything about the peacemakers being blessed?

That's the thing--he can't cast doubt on the authenticity of statements he doesn't like, without casting that same doubt on ones he does.

Which isn't even bringing up what he's doing to Scripture in the first place. His argument reminds me of what 'progressives' like the Jesus Seminar do, claiming Jesus said this but not that, or did this but not that, based mostly on their on materialistic worldview and philosophy., along with an unhealthy dose of political and social liberalism.

Second, his claim that we can't take a translated statement literally is nonsense. He can translate that any way he wishes, as can anyone who wishes to say his statement is profound and not abject nonsense.

But more important, to read this as a literal statement requires that I take the other statements he makes about himself as literal. For example, Jesus declares that he is the bread and the vine and the Good Shepherd. Does that mean that he is literally a loaf of bread or a plant? Of course not! These are metaphors, clues to something about his character and person.

Now for the kicker...

In his book Living Buddha, Living Christ, Thich Nhat Hanh forever changed my understanding of the Christian life when he spoke of Jesus as the Tao, the way.
p. 126

So, Christians take Jesus' statement literally about Himself being "the way" (which the context of the verse supports), that needs to be destroyed (or, as pomos say, deconstructed; or, as I say, spun). But when someone from outside of Christians uses the same word in a different way, well, that's just...profound!!!

And his attempt to weasel out of the words reminds me of something Lewis said about the Bible being a book for grown-ups. When Jesus said He was the way, a grown-up knows what that means. The disciples certainly knew it.

To say that Jesus is the Tao is to acknowledge that the way he walked in the world is the path to follow. It is not about competing with other faith traditions. It's about living out a way of grace, love, forgiveness, and peace.

This is simply salvation by works, a heresy which is the farthest thing from anything in the Bible.

The message of the New Testament is consistent--repentence and forgiveness of sin, and belief in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. None of it involves works. Burke and Taylor make it only about works, even belief in Christ is optional in their opinions.

the more things change...

To think of Christ as the center and norm of all humanity made a certain sense in the Ptolemaic universe, which had the earth at its center. It continued to make sense, however strained, in the Coperican universe, which had the sun at its center. Today, Christocentrism cannot make sense in the Einsteinian universe, which has no center and in which every structure is a dynamic relationality of moving components.
Tom F Driver, quoted in A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, p. 97

Oh, my.

You know, way back when, someone forgot to tell God that the earth actually orbits around the sun.

And Jesus, well, when He said that only He was the way to the Father, well, He just didn't know about molecules and atoms and quarks and stuff.

But we today, well, we're smarter than God. And we know that those statements have to be discarded, because our voices have thundered from on high (though there is no up there, we believe we know).

So, because Einstein was born, God is taking Muslims in to Heaven.

Or something like that.

the whole smorgasbord

First, a bit of a reminder, from the Ooze.

MYTH #6: You Must Believe Jesus Is the Son of God To Follow Him.

Because it may help to explain this.

FAITH HOUSE ADVISORY COUNCIL

So, from the monotheistic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (not mentioning the athiesm of humanism), we now have a practicing Hindu on their council.

Prediction--They'll soon be adding a Buddhist, too. Not long after that, a shaman. Or maybe the shaman will come first, but I suppose the Buddhist would more politic, since it is a major religion.

Because now the door is open to the polytheistic religions (though if Buddhism is nontheistic, and a humanist was already a part of it, then why has it taken so long to put a Buddhists in the mix?)

It would be almost amusing to watch, if it weren't sad. Some people will go to such great lengths to do things any way but God's way.

not all is forgiven

And furthermore, when it comes to the God of the Bible there is only one kind of sin in the world--forgiven sin.
Chalke and Mann, the lost message of Jesus, p. 109

This quote comes in a context of the writer writing about the parable of the prodigal son. Is the statement true, though? Is it true there is only forgiven sin in the world?

Forgiveness rests basically, then, on the atoning work of Christ. That is to say, it is an act of sheer grace. 'He is faithful and ust, and will forgive our sins' (1 Jn 1:9). On man's side repentance is insisted upon again and again. John the Baptist preached 'a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins' (Mk 1:4), a theme which is taken up by Peter with reference to Christian baptism (Acts 2:38). Christ himself directed that 'repentence and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name' (Lk 24:47). Forgiveness is similarly linked with faith (Acts 10:43, Jas. 5:15). Faith and repentence are not to be thought of as merits whereby we deserve forgiveness. Rather they are the means whereby we appropriate the grace of God
New Bible Dictionary 2nd Edition, p. 391

Something should not be believe simply because it is nice-soundin; if anything, the "too good to be true" reaction is probably a good sign that what one is hearing is not true, not to mention that it may be a scam or fleece.

Chalke's quote above has no scriptural support to it, not even in the context of the prodigal son parable. And in fact, one can find scriptures where even Jesus those who are opposing Him that they will die in their sins (John 8:21-24, reference found in 'What the Bible Teachers' by RA Torrey, p. 358).

There may be a wish that all people should be forgiven, but the wish doesn't make it so. Forgiveness of sin seems closely linked in the Bible to repentence and faith, and is not an isolated thing forced on people ("Your sins are forgiven, I don't care how you feel about it, so deal with it.")

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.