India, McLaren and The Dalai Lama
by Jim Henderson
I have a long term love affair going with India.
We were recently able to spend a week together.
Whenever I visit there I come away with my head spinning.
India’s cultural contradictions are open for all to observe.
The most obvious being the insidious social structure called caste (the world’s oldest practice of religion based discrimination).
I’m part of a support team for Sunil Sardar who is leading the fight to end India’s Apartheid – the caste system.
Sunil is a leader in the Social Spirituality movement which advocates (and agitates) for a Jesus who died to save the world rather than merely as my personal savior.
Brian McLaren is also a Social Spiritual activist.
Not only is he kind he is cutting edge.
His newest book Everything Must Change articulates the very same things Sunil propagates in India.
Brian’s tour is coming to Seattle this month. I’m looking forward to hearing him creatively communicate his newest ideas.
If you live in Seattle – this is a must attend event.
The Dalai Lama is also coming to Seattle in April to participate in the Seeds of Compassion Conference.
Where I will be leading a workshop called Recovering the Compassionate Tradition of Jesus.
Rob Bell, Todd Hunter, Sunil Sardar and Nancy Murphy will be part of this workshop. They will help me listen to several leaders from other faith traditions talk about their experiences with Christians so we can improve in our attempt to recover the compassionate tradition of Jesus.
David Beuning said
am March 30 2008 @ 10:17 pm
I am increasingly comfortable about Brian McLaren and his message …. recent stories linking him to the “New Spirituality” message going around, which is just the 80’s New Age using an updated term.
I understand Brian does not belief in the biblical doctrine of hell. Is this true?
Please clarify. I may have to opt out of association with your efforts.
Thanks for listening.
David Beuning
Mpls, MN
Jim Henderson said
am March 30 2008 @ 11:49 pm
David
if you want to know what Brian thinks about hell you would be best served by reading his own words in The Last Word and The Word After That.
I would not take it upon myself to explain his position on that topic
Thanks for asking
Oh… one question
Am I hearing you correctly - when you are say that a difference over your view and someone elses view on Hell provides a reason to disassociate with them.
If that is true (and I may be reading into your words) then what would you possibly do with the words of our Master and Savior when he told us to even love our enemies? And wasn’t our Savior also accused of fraternizing too closely with those others disapproved of?
If we are given this standard for those who openly disagree with us why are we given such easy latitude to break with those with whom we differ on insider issues?
I’m probably just not understanding you
help me
Mike Clawson said
am March 31 2008 @ 1:45 am
David, what is this “New Spirituality” thing you’ve mentioned? I’ve read all of Brian McLaren’s books and heard him speak on many occasions, and have never heard him mention anything by that title. Could you clarify what you’re referring to?
And Brian, afaik, does believe in the biblical doctrine of Hell. However, he may not believe in certain evangelical versions of it, which are not actually “biblical” IMHO.
Elaine said
am March 31 2008 @ 10:32 am
Jim - Can you tell me more about your visit that put your “head spinning”?
Elaine said
am March 31 2008 @ 10:47 am
David B. - I find it curious that although Jim talked his trip to India and Sunil Sardar, Brian McLaren, and Dalai Lama - you chose to only comment on Brian McLaren.
I am interested in learning about what it is in Brian’s message that makes you uncomfortable. Would you talk about that?
JIM H said
am March 31 2008 @ 11:38 am
If you want to learn about the new spirituality I recommend James Herrick, The Making of the New Spirituality. It is very insightful about some of these issues and well documented.
Marcia Montenegro said
am March 31 2008 @ 12:03 pm
I was involved in Tibetan and Zen Buddhism before God intervened and redeemed me through faith in Christ. Buddhism does not acknowledge the reality of the self. Even Buddha (acc to Buddhist scriptures and teachings) said that although we must have compassion for all sentient beings (because sentient includes animals, who can incarnate as humans), there are in reality no sentient beings to have compassion for (I believe this is in the Diamond Sutra as well as other places).
In buddhism, compassion is cultivated through their form of meditation (the purpose is to go beyond the thinking mind so that one can apprehend “emptiness” which is the ultimate reality - ‘emptiness’ is uncaused and so is the only real ‘thing.’ Everything that is cause has no real substance in reality). So basically, compassion comes from a technique.
Buddhism sounds good superficially, but if you explore the teachings, you will see what a startling contrast they are to the teachings of God’s grace and to the love of Jesus. There is no real love in Buddhism because of course, there is no god (there are gods, but the Buddha is greater than the gods since the gods must reincarnate and become enlightened just as humans must do).
Buddhism is darkness and buddhists are in bondage. They need the love and light of the true Jesus Christ, and this is what Christians need to be proclaiming with love in these days of syncretism (which is what I believe is going on with parts of the Emerging “conversation” and in the church).
I fear that people who don’t really know what Buddhism is are going to be deceived by what appears to be Christian watering down of buddhism or approval of it. Are the true teachings of Buddhism going to be revealed and contrasted with Christian teachings?
Jim Henderson said
am March 31 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Where did we say we were going to be promoting Buddhist teachings?
The Dalai Lama is coming to talk about how to teach children to be kind and compassionate
He will not be talking about or teaching on Buddhism
Marcia Montenegro said
am March 31 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Jim, I wasn’t clear on what this conference is for or is about, or what the purpose is. What is the purpose? Is the theme compasssion?
Compassion in buddhism means working so that sentient beings will reincarnate as buddhists and become enlightened. The Dalai Lama wants to spread buddhism because he believes that is the only way people can be liberated. So eventually, all sentient beings will incarnate in a buddhist country or a place that has access to buddhist teachings. This is one reason he’s established several monasteries in this country.
Do you agree with Brian McLaren that one can follow Christ but still remain a Hindu or Buddhist?
Meg Ady said
am March 31 2008 @ 8:52 pm
Good question Marcia. I think yes.
I’m a Christian, don’t attend church, and find yoga incredibly spiritually helpful. There I connect to Jesus, the divine. There i stop and in quietness, and physical movement, tune in to the spiritual and emotional streams of my life.
I feel sad that church and me haven’t worked out. I wanted it to.
Jim, I’m planning to attend BM’s thing, and a special Dalai Lama thing a friend invited me to. The one I’ve NOT (yet) got an invite to is Bishop Desmond Tutu. Could you please get me one, perchance?????!!!!
Cheers,
Meg
tammy said
am March 31 2008 @ 9:31 pm
Hi David,
Mike said,”And Brian, afaik, does believe in the biblical doctrine of Hell. However, he may not believe in certain evangelical versions of it, which are not actually “biblical” IMHO.”
Let me help brake that down for you . Brian Mclaren’s belief is “biblical” because that is where he also gets his belief on hell.The question really is which one of you is actually interpreting the scriptures correctly.
My concerns with Brian on hell is secondary to the Good News, the kingdom of God and Jesus himself. Brian has a different gospel, kingdom of God, and a different Jesus then the evangelical version, as Mike would say . In his “framing story” Jesus work at the cross was to expose the cruelty and the injustice of those in power, kingdom of God is us partnering with God and fitting in with God’s dreams actually coming true on earth more often,and Jesus came so that we may follow in the way of Jesus here on earth so that in doing so we may not destroy his creation and then this earth can go on in a peaceful eutopia, and Jesus return is not actual as he came the first time. Note that this is very limited in expansion , but this is the messages found in “Everything Must Change.”
Brian Mclaren is proclaiming a different message, and he knows it. He is openly trying( while not always upfront to certain questions) , among other things, to show that the “framing story” he presents is the one that actually respects the message of the scriptures. While he has good things to say about the “suicide machine” it loses all power because he has counterfeited the central person and message of scripture to construct his ecosystem.
After reading Brian Mclaren’s works I must now speak warning: Brian Mclaren definetly looks like a sheep , and I am sure believes he is a sheep, but he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
—————————————–
On page 269, opening paragraph of chapter 31 in”Everything Must Change” Brian writes:
Can the suicide machine really be stopped? Can the earth really be liberated from the destructive framing story that drives it? Is Jesus’ healing and transforming framing story really powerful enough to save the world?
The simple answer is the nobody knows.
——————————————-
For those of you not familiar with his work you may not grasp all of that last quote. Whether you do or not that quote is still a problem. Just remember that this is his response to his own understanding of the “essential message” and “framing story” and Jesus ” good news.”
David, it can be difficult to talk with the “emergings” if you are not already familiar with their definitions to the same or similiar terms.
Marcia above gives a good example of how important it is to understand the worldview someone is holding and what they most likely are communicating in the language they use.
love tammy
Jim Henderson said
am March 31 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Anyone want to respond to Tammy?
Marcia Montenegro said
am April 1 2008 @ 10:35 am
Meg, thanks for your view. But you don’t need yoga for a connection to the “divine.” Our connection to God is through faith in Christ and that is the only way to have a relationship with God. If yoga could do it, I could have stayed in the New Age and continued my self-inducing hypnotizing Eastern meditation (which is what it is - it’s like a medication that gradually numbs you to reality and to truth) and continued on with my astrology. There would have been no need for God to intervene. But he did. I’m sure you get spiritual feelings and experiences with yoga, but feelings are not a good basis for truth.
As for what Tammy said, I have the same concerns she expresses. McLaren and some of his fellow emergents are sounding more and more like New Ager Matthew Fox. In fact, I think Leonard Sweet regards Fox as one of his “Lights,” if I’m not mistaken. That’s pretty scary. Those used to be my “Lights” when I was in the New Age (and Eastern beliefs).
Jim Henderson said
am April 1 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Marcia you asked me
“Do you agree with Brian McLaren that one can follow Christ but still remain a Hindu or Buddhist?”
Of course - remember The Centurion of whom Jesus said “I have not found such great faith in ALL ISRAEL”
Was Abraham a “believer” in Jesus or our Father of Faith?
How did mentally assenting to a presecribed set of beliefs become the litmus test for faith.
See Matt 10:42
See Matthew 25 - what is the criteria Jesus used to determine true and false followers
Marcia Montenegro said
am April 1 2008 @ 7:50 pm
Jim, thanks for answering me. I really was wondering what you thought on that.
The centurion or Abraham examples do not mean that people can know God or Jesus through or combined with beliefs that are antithetical to Chrisitanity such as Hinduism or Buddhism.
Even if I were to agree with you that someone today could be saved by knowing the true God but not know Jesus, it still does not address the issue of how someone can be a follower of Christ and still stay in Hinduism or Buddhism?
Can you explain how this is possible since you agree with McLaren on this? There is no god in Buddhism, so how are Buddhists worshiping/believing in/serving God?
And if they come to faith in Christ, how can they not reject Hinduism or Buddhism?
Marcia Montenegro said
am April 1 2008 @ 9:54 pm
I don’t think Matt 10.42 is about salvation.
You said: “How did mentally assenting to a presecribed set of beliefs become the litmus test for faith.”
That’s a straw man. I never asserted that.
Back to my question: How is salvation in Christ compatible with Hinduism and Buddhism?
Pam Hogeweide said
am April 2 2008 @ 1:29 am
How is salvation in Christ compatible with Hinduism and Buddhism?
because jesus is a person and not a doctrine. dogmatic religious beliefism will blind us from seeing the reality of the grace of God that is greater than Hinduism or whatever ism is out there. The love and grace of God are not prohibited from the consciousness or heart of a Hindu or Buddhist.
Think about it. Come out from behind that pulpit and think…no one is saying that all paths lead to the One True God. We are all quite aware of the various forms of spiritual bondage that result from all kinds of religious systems.
But Jesus can and does reveal himself to people in the very system they are in. He is not barred from revealing the glorious reality of what he is like just because someone was born into a Hindu caste system or is being raised as a Tibetan Buddhist. This does not keep out the Holy Spirit.
For many people Buddhism and Hinduism is so deeply entrenched in their culture that to entirely reject these religious systems is to reject their identity. I think God’s grace is a lot more dynamic than that.
Remember the samaritan woman at the well? The devout jews rejected their form of religion. Jesus hung out with her in the very space of it.
I don’t know that this will help you, but really, we all believe in the unique position of Jesus as the Son of God who redeems mankind. I think we’re looking at the same elephant, just different sides (if you know that story that reference will make sense, otherwise, um, never mind…!)
Ok, so Jim was trying to blog a bit about India and this Seeds of Compassion event in Seattle. So Jim, how in the world did YOU get involved with SoC??? Are there any other Christians who will have a presence there? What’s your agenda? Will you get to meet the Dalai Lama? Is this a spendy event? (sorry, had to ask. you know me. i’m such a cheapskate when it comes to conferences and gatherings!)
tammy-again said
am April 2 2008 @ 2:23 am
* I am so sorry, my apologies.Something went wrong, ignore the 2 post before that came up Tammy before this one. [Tammy, I deleted those for you - Helen] I just use my other e-mail to get it through.
—————————————————-
Jim replied:
Of course - remember The Centurion of whom Jesus said “I have not found such great faith in ALL ISRAEL”
Was Abraham a “believer” in Jesus or our Father of Faith?<>“Do you agree with Brian McLaren that one can follow Christ but still remain a Hindu or Buddhist?”
Jim replied:
Of course - remember The Centurion of whom Jesus said “I have not found such great faith in ALL ISRAEL”
Was Abraham a “believer” in Jesus or our Father of Faith?How did mentally assenting to a presecribed set of beliefs become the litmus test for a life.See Matt 10:42
See Matthew 25 - what is the criteria Jesus used to determine true and false followers<<
I started writing then I deleted.This response is big enough already. But I agree that it is important to discuss this statement and verses too. However, I believe that the language used by Jesus and the apostles in the verses I quoted above is a partial answer itself.
tammy-again said
am April 2 2008 @ 2:27 am
I have no problem saying that a Hindu can chose to follow in the example of Jesus.There are atheist that do that. But to clarify for those here who may not understand(an example again that we may use similiar language that now needs to be clarified so as not to miss the point someone is try to communicate)Mclaren’s position is that the Hindu is then part of the kingdom of God and they do not need to be individually reconciled to God, by believing in Christ death , burial and resurrection(the gospel)to be in the kingdom of God. But the requirement is for humans to actually be part of the kingdom of God and a follower in the way of Jesus is to individually have been reconciled to God through Christ. As a child of the kingdom,as servant to the King, we should share with the world the peace we ourselves have received, through being reconciled to God, in word and deed.
This is one of the reasons I believe that Brian Mclaren is preaching a counterfeit Jesus, kingdom of God,and gospel: The Hindu can enter the kingdom of God and not be born of the spirit(born again)because the Hindu does not have to be reconciled to God through the cross of Christ by individually receiving and believing the good news(Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose) because the Hindu is a follower in the way of Christ(disciple) by caring and acting on the things that Jesus cared about apart from individual salvation(reconciliation and peace with God).
If you are not born of the Spirit you cannot enter His kingdom.In order to receive the Spirit of Christ you believe the good news,in to be a disciple( follower in the way of Jesus you must obey the Father’s will- believe in the one he has sent-Before Jesus died and was resurrection it was the Kingdom at hand- the good news, Jesus the Christ-the forgiver of sins, the Messiah. For us the mystery has been revealed-the good news of the kingdom of God-that he died for our sins,he was buried and rose for the dead.
John 3:3:I reply Jesus declared,”I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
John 3:5-7 :Jesus answered,”I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.You should not be surprised at my saying,’You must be born again.’
John 1:10-13:He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Acts 2:38: Peter replied,” Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 5:32: We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
John 6:28-29:Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, ” The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent,”
John 3:16-21
Acts 8:5: Philip went down to a city of Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there.8:11-12:They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. But when they believed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ,they were baptized, both men and women.8:14-16:When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them:they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:43-44:All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.10:46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Romans8:9:You however,are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.8:15-17:For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ” Abba, Father.”The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs-heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his suffering in order that we may also share in his glory.
Titus 3:5-8:he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that,having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God my be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good.These thing are profitable for everyone.
Ephesians2: 8-10: For it by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Ephesians 1:13-14: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession-to the praise of his glory.
2 Corinthians5:4-5: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.
1 Corinthians 15:1-5: Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, who you received and on which you have taken you stand, By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.Otherwise, you have believed in vain.For what i received i passed on to you as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter and then the Twelve.
—————————————————–
As to the centurion: His FAITH was in Jesus.
As to Abraham: He believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.
Roman’s 4:20-25:Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it is credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness-for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
M
tammy-again said
am April 2 2008 @ 1:09 pm
So sorry, this paragraph was “lost” and was suppose to be part of the last post.There was also corrected spelling and other stuff in paragraph 2 of the last post but my not final draft was the one that got copied.That’s what happens when you leave the computer and your 18 year old gets on after you ask him not to touch anything because your in the middle of something.
This is one of the reason I believe that Brian Mclaren is preaching a counterfeit Jesus, kingdom of God,and gospel: The Hindu can enter the kingdom of God and not be born of the spirit(born again)because the Hindu does not have to be reconciled to God through the cross of Christ by individually receiving and believing the good news(Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose) because the Hindu is a follower in the way of Christ(disciple) by caring and acting on the things that Jesus cared about apart from individual salvation(reconciliation and peace with God).
[Tammy, I added the missing paragraph up above in your other post - Helen]
tammy-again said
am April 2 2008 @ 3:12 pm
Jim, I think that this is worth mentioning. I really, really like Brian as a person as I read his works. There of course are a few areas where !out! has flown his flat side, but don’t we all have one.I think he is an awesome thinker who is taking an awesome wrong turn and he is taking a lot of people with him. So, just as he is doing , speaking on the things that he believes should be discussed in relation to God’s revelation of Scripture, so am I. Just as he is pointing out and challenging people as to issues in the entire span of the “Christian Religion” , I am challenging the “Christian Religion” he is in the forefront of creating .
Thank you for asking respectfully if anyone wanted to respond to me.
I don’t think Pam has discovered or heard enough in this conversation about how Marcia thinks to make a comment like this:” Come out from behind that pulpit and think…”
If the conversation continues on this blog line know that where I am speaking or questioning, or anyone else is speaking or questioning these are the thoughts that encompass my heart and mind in the conversation: Proverbs 20:5: The purpose of a man’s heart are deep waters, but I man of understanding draws them out.
love tammy
Marcia Montenegro said
am April 2 2008 @ 9:54 pm
Pam, you said:
“because jesus is a person and not a doctrine. dogmatic religious beliefism will blind us from seeing the reality of the grace of God that is greater than Hinduism or whatever ism is out there. The love and grace of God are not prohibited from the consciousness or heart of a Hindu or Buddhist.”
Hmmm,”dogmatic religious beliefism?” Sounds like emotional laden language that does not address the issue. Are you implying I’m into that, and what does it really mean? How about the instructions in God’s word to hold to sound doctrine — there are quite a few of them. I am not religious. I do have beliefs but don’t call that “beliefism” which sounds like a new word that maybe is meant to be derogatory.
I never said God could not reveal Himself to a Hindu or Buddhist or that Jesus could not be revealed to them. That is not the issue at all.
I asked this question:
How is Christianity compatible with Hinduism and Buddhism? Because it isn’t, yet McLaren says that one can be a follower of Christ and remain a Hindu or Buddhist. But this would mean holding views that are completely in contradiction to each other, which is not what the Bible talks about when it talks about repenting (turning away) from false gods/beliefs to the true Redeemer.
I had an Eastern worldview for many years - I can vouch for the fact that such a worldview is in complete opposition to belief in Jesus.
As for the woman at the well -that story has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.
The biggest failing of the Israelites was their propensity to syncretization - the blend of worshiping false gods with the true God. In fact, they were called down on this quite a few times by God. They were sacrificing to God, praying to Him, etc. but at the same time honoring other gods. This was a no-no, according to God, not to me.
One cannot be a follower of Christ and remain a Hindu or Buddhist; it’s only possible to do this if
one is not really a follower of Christ.
David Knudtson said
am April 3 2008 @ 12:45 am
One, two, three, four I declare a Bible war. All this talk about hell has been a bit too painful for me. Let me explain. Not that I fear hell nor do I believe that I might be on a highway to it. But it is full of pain just the same.
I was raised in a “classical” Pentecostal denomination and eventually as a young man (age 19) was licensed as a “preacher” with the same folks as I passed the test about the Bible doctrines and had preached two successful revivals. They believed and I believed then and I still believe and I quote “In the bodily resurrection; eternal life for the righteous, and eternal punishment for the wicked.”
By age 25 I had come to be apart the church that John Wimber was the leader of (circa 1985) in Anaheim, CA. My wife and I ended up there and we were eventually sent out as young church planters when I was 29 (1989) and although the story of our life as part of the Vineyard Movement from 1985 through 1995 had many twists and turns, by the time 1996 dawned we were just burned out, broken and hurt.
I find it very ironic that some of the rhetoric about the whole Emergent “gig pop” is very similar to what was said about the Vineyard when I was young man. I remember hearing the criticisms of how we were involved with the “new age movement” and I would just wonder to myself what the “h” (sorry and I do in fact mean hell) were people talking about? I mean I attended Church (Vineyard Anaheim) Sunday morning and Sunday night and was part of Bible and Theology training classes and was a small group leader and helped run the bookstore and I never once heard anyone talking about the “new age movement”. Well not at least in a positive way.
Sometime in the late 90’s a friend of mine who I knew from the Vineyard days told me that God was calling me to be part of something called the Bridge in Portland, OR (whatever that was??). At this point in my life I was pretty skeptical about such things so in my typical “I don’t care and please leave me alone now God” pattern of life, I finally got around to visiting the Bridge Christian Church in Portland, OR in late 2001. That is right 3 years latter (sorry Ken and Debra for being such a hard headed guy when you needed help) and as I lived about 20 miles away from Portland, OR at the time, you would think I would have gotten around to visiting it sooner, but I didn’t. Oh well. Anyway to make a long story short, my wife and I eventually threw our lot in with the Bridge community and were part of them until early 2007 when we planted a Bridge Church (Nameless Church) in Vancouver, WA. So I have had some interactions with those who are emerging. I guess you could say I am part of the whole Emergent “gig pop”.
Ok so all of that was a prelude. Here is the pain part. During the time period at the Bridge just before God moved us towards being very reluctant middle aged Church Planters, I was involved in a series of very public conversations with one of the young leaders about the nature of hell and the final judgment. I even went so far to as to quote the Apostles Creed in all the back and forth. I mean after all had that not what the Church had always believed about hell? I mean that is what I was taught in Bible School and the Vineyard Institute of Ministry?? For me this was such an important issue, that I let my view of hell lead to the severing of our relationship with each other. I mean the young leader to whom I gave hell. A very good friend of mine, Ken Loyd, during this time of the very public discussion about hell at the Bridge came up with the following analogy in regards to Theology and God’s Love.
Ken proposed that Theology is to the Love of God what plumbing is to water that flows in a house. We all need good plumbing in order to get water when we turn on the faucet. But really it is not pipes and faucets that we want. We really want God’s Love and Mercy. So I guess we could spend a lifetime (and some do) figuring out the exact way that the plumbing and faucets work and how they should be installed but in reality most people just trust what others tell them cause all they want is the water really. Now I am not saying that good theology is not important. I have spent a lifetime trying to “contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the Saints” but if I give people hell over hell, who do not quite agree with me about hell, have I not just become a “clanging cymbal”?? I think I did read that somewhere. Was it a bathroom wall?
Now here is the ironic thing. I have just spent the last year planting Nameless Church aka the Bridge Vancouver and for the first time in my life taking an honest look at Church History and the Historic Ecumenical Creeds of the Faith and the Church Councils. And guess what?? I have come to the conclusion that there is actually only one Creed that has ever been affirmed by the entire Church. And that is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. It is not the Apostles Creed because it was only affirmed in the Church of the West and not in the Church of the East. Those of us who still consider ourselves Protestants, as we Protestants are in fact a “splinter group” off of the Roman Catholic Church are more comfortable with the early Creeds of the West, but in reality the Nicene Creed quite frankly is silent about hell. So then in that final Nicene Creed, which was affirmed in 381 AD and which is sometimes called the symbol of Faith, the whole hell question is a bit sketchy. It simply says that Jesus ……. will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end……and that …….we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
So guess what??? I mean what the hell?? There is not one word about hell in the symbol of the Faith. Well at least the hell that I first believed in and still do. But sometimes the hell of the Evangelical seems a lot more like it came from Dante’s inferno than the Bible. I mean come on. Lets be honest about it.
Look I can quote you the verses and the “proof texts” about hell but I will not separate over it with other believers. Why??? Because in the midst of much more real and important issues of the true heresy that tore the Christian Church apart for more than 2 generations from 325 AD to 381 AD, the same people who more or less gave us the list of what should be part of the New Testament could NOT agree upon the exact nature of hell or the exact nature of the final judgment.
Those who were closer to the source and origin of truth are better equipped to tell us what the truth is and what is most important. I would suggest to fellow people who are emerging that we look again at the last time that the Christian was truly undivided and summary statement of what was most important to believe. That is the Nicene Creed.
So then I am truly sorry for the hell that I put that young leader through at the Bridge about hell, but now 2 years later I am not sure I would have describe my truly heartfelt beliefs about hell as being an essential doctrine. If you were to attend a service at the Emergent Church that I lead you might hear a pretty “fundy” sounding sermon on hell from time to time (if it is on the universal liturgical calendar). But then we are also following the ancient Church calendar and learning about liturgy. Ok so then next you will accuse us of being Catholics. But I honestly did not have a clue about the what the whole calendar thing was about until this last year. You mean a Bridge church plant is doing the liturgy??? Yep your are correct sir. But when it comes to hell, it really is not one of the most essential things about the Christian Faith. Why?? Because it was not an essential enough issue to the Fathers of the Faith who told us what was the correct list of books for the New Testament (the Cannon) and quite frankly they could not agree about hell. So why would it be any different for all of us in the 21st century?? I mean what the hell?
Jim Henderson said
am April 3 2008 @ 1:27 am
Lots of smart people who disagree with each other.
I am fine to leave it that way since it looks as if none of us will be shifting our positions anytime soon
Someone said:
“I think he (Brian) is an awesome thinker who is taking an awesome wrong turn and he is taking a lot of people with him.”
We will have to disagree- I think Brian is seeing the future and acting very courageously and fortunately taking a lot of us with him.
Believe me - with the people I associate with Brian is the least of my concerns when it comes to possible heretical relationships.
Here is the problem as I see it
Now remain these three - Faith, Hope and Love
But the greatest of these is Truth
Also - why has no one in the history of Christianity ever been accused of being a heretic for being unloving (which is the highest command of Jesus)
Also - Why do we give people like Luther and Augustine a pass on this issue - both of them were heretics when it came to not loving their (fellow Christian) enemies - why aren’t we up in arms about that?
Pam Hogeweide said
am April 3 2008 @ 1:59 am
Ok, it wasn’t nice of me to tell Marcia to come out from her pulpit and think. My apologies.
Jim is right. There are a lot of really smart people, like Marcia and Tammy and David whom we will not be able to agree together with. We all know our bibles to the best of our bible scholarship. Amazing scholars of scripture who devotes themselves for decades to the original texts of greek and hebrew cannot even agree with one another!
Jim reminds us that love is a core message of the New Testament, I hope this is something we can agree on.
There will always, always, always be voices in Christendom that are held suspect, as David pointed out. Jesus’ voice was held suspect by the religious thinkers of his day, and on down the line. This is not to give a pass to any eclectic wind of doctrine, but to point out that our faith tradition has a long history of having difficulty agreeing. How shall we conduct ourselves with those we cannot see eye to eye?
I’m totally ok if my understanding of the gospel is messed up. I’m completely all right with it if I dont’ have perfect bible skills in rightly interpreting ancient writings that scholars split hairs over. I’m ok with that. What I’m not ok with is being disrespectful to someone over disagreement. Not my nicest moment on the blogosphere to write the pulpit comment, Marcia.
You are thinking…just because I disagree with you does not mean you are not thinking. That was rude of me.
(stop by my blog anytime for a cup of coffee….)
Helen said
am April 3 2008 @ 9:28 am
Pam thanks for listening to Tammy and apologizing to Marcia.
People who listen and apologize - those are the people I want to be around. I don’t care what they believe; to me those are ‘my’ people. I feel safe around them.
I’m going to Brian’s Everything Must Change tour tomorrow when it comes to the Chicago area and I’m looking forward to it. I don’t expect ‘right beliefs’ to be an issue at it - I’m expecting it to be a gathering of people who care about the global crises we face and want to do something about them. That seems to be Brian’s focus lately.
David Knudtson said
am April 3 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Hello again.
A quick point of clarification on my comments above as I was posting and did not completely proof read it completely. And I do apologize for being so long winded.
It is my viewpoint that the Nicene Creed is the line of demarcation between Christian and Non Christian belief systems. If it is not then we need to apologize to the Gnostics who believed that God was a series of emanations and progressions and we need to apologize to Marcion who believed that the God of the Old Testament was a different God than the New Testament and we need to apologize to Arius who believed that Jesus was a created being and while being our Lord, he was not Eternal God in human flesh. I suppose I could go on with the ancient heresies but then I will just end up being too verbose again. It is really sad to me how many of these very ancient non Christian belief systems are still rampant in the Church.
Again it seems to me that the last time the Church was undivided and was in complete agreement in regards to Doctrine and Practice was at the end of the 4th Century. For those of you who have an interest in India and China I would suggest you read up on the first splinter group after this time period who were known as the Nestorian Christians. They had a profound influence on the East and prior to the middle ages some believe there were more Christians in the East than in the West.
Further when I have made the statement that in the last year I have done a serious study of Church History I do not mean I have never read it before. I usually just read it in the past looking for “proof” of the continuation of “signs and wonders” and the continuation of present day ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
There is a faith that was handed down by the disciples to their disciples and so on and so on. I do hope it really does truly emerge.
Marcia Montenegro said
am April 3 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Pam, thanks for the apology. I do appreciate it.
I agree that we should not be divisive and should show love to each other.
But we are also told defend the faith and to warn against teachings that go against sound doctrine (not my term). This also needs to be done in love.
I see a watering down and demeaning of doctrine in some parts of the church today and this worries me. Check out the epistles in the New Testament - much of that was written in response to false teachers in the church. The whole book of Galatians was written in response to false teachings as were parts of Colossians, 1 John, 2 Corinthians, and others. Look at Acts 20 where Paul says he pled in tears with warnings against false teachers - the “wolves” who would come from within the church’s own ranks.
This assault on the faith never ends as the enemy is always attacking it.
Holding to sound doctrine is biblical — there is nothing wrong with biblical doctrine, which just means the teachings as canonized in scripture.
And I agree that loving is biblical as well. But too often a false dichotomy is presented between sound doctrine and love, that’s it’s one or the other — but we are to practice both. Because someone is concerned about attacks on the faith or on doctrine does not mean they should be silent because it might be unloving to speak up. It is actually unloving to keep silent.
I think some people in the church have been burned by legalism or by unloving people, which is very sad. But those experiences do not negate the teaching of scripture to hold to sound doctrine. If the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the NT with concern about it, so should we be. In fact, we are told to be concerned.
We can be loving *and* hold to sound doctrine, as were the writers of the NT writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Love without truth is spineless and truth without love is legalism and oppressive. Too often, we see one extreme or the other and not the balance between the two. This is why many of us are concerned with what is going on.
tammy said
am April 4 2008 @ 12:28 am
Thanks Helen, and I also am planning to be at Oak Park on Saturday.
Thanks David, I think I have a question that I’ll post later after I read your post again.
Jim said,”I am fine to leave it that way since it looks as if none of us will be shifting our positions anytime soon.”
And I can respect that. Know on this end that if I can be persuaded to shift a position that I hold to be correct, which you believe I hold wrongly, I will. And I will assume the best , that you do it in love unless you give me clear reason to believe otherwise. Jesus said to know the truth and the truth will set us free and to test all things to see if they are from God.
Jim your response to my comment,”We will have to disagree- I think Brian is seeing the future and acting very courageously and fortunately taking a lot of us with him.”
There is a lot of perspective where I could take the time to respond to this specifically and point out my problems with all of his problems and my agreement with all of his concerns, because I have both. I know you can see my central concern( at lest partially) and do not want to engage, then yes we must agree to disagree.
However, I still would like to reveal how I think and feel about your comments on a “litmus” test.
Jim said,”Believe me - with the people I associate with Brian is the least of my concerns when it comes to possible heretical relationships.”
I didn’t once use the word heretical. I said he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But what is heretical to you and how do you test what is heretical to you and what is not?
Jim you said:”Here is the problem as I see it
Now remain these three - Faith, Hope and Love
But the greatest of these is Truth.”
And now that you have revealed this I would say the problem is what you assume , maybe, about someone like me or Marcia. Now these three remain- Faith,Hope and Love and the greatest of these is love, and that is the truth.
Jim said,”Also - why has no one in the history of Christianity ever been accused of being a heretic for being unloving (which is the highest command of Jesus)”
Besides those who may have said it and not documented it, in general I haven’t read enough to know but if you’re right it could be because “being unloving” is an action , considered orthopraxy. In any case I did not call anyone a heretic and only suggest orthopraxy in light of those who would use heretic.
Matthew 22:37- :Jesus replied:” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and will all you soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it:”‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The first is, as an individual response, to love my God with all my heart ,soul and mind. And in this I recognize my only ability to do so is because he first loved me which He examplified in the good news(centered on the real Jesus). And becasue I have now been loved unconditionally, and it is true because it is true that Jesus died for my sins, was buried, and really rose from the dead ,I actually can love others unconditionally so that I can love my neighbor, which includes my enemies.And that love comes in different actions: in truth and love, giving and receiving.And sometimes that love is acted out in speaking the truth in disagreement. On that I know I serve a perfect and loving judge who knows the motives of my heart better then i do myself and I always know then I serve a higher judge then any man, which brings me back to first loving God with all me heart, soul and mind. If I have not first rightly served him, then I have not rightly served my neighbor.Hence, daring to say what I have said on this blog.
Jim said,”Also - Why do we give people like Luther and Augustine a pass on this issue - both of them were heretics when it came to not loving their (fellow Christian) enemies - why aren’t we up in arms about that?”
God has placed me is this day and this place.My focus on the past is relying on God’s word and the history recorded in the Scriptures, which is alive and living in the present, of which I am letting guide me (even in this conversation) for today and looking ahead to the future. Hence, the defense and proclumation of the goodnews. My central concern to Brians message, because
individuals who have received peace and reconciliation(not a infant view of a got a ticket out of Hell)are people who as they mature in their faith share peace and reconciliation by word and deed with the world, caring for one individual at a time. Ephasians5:1: Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
With Paul I cry out I resolve to know nothing except Christ and him crucified.
1 Corinthians1:20-25 :Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
Pam said,”I’m totally ok if my understanding of the gospel is messed up.”
Why? Roman 1:16-17 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:first for the Jew, then for the gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written:”The righteous will live by faith.” The gospel spelled out for us:1 Corinthians 15:1-5. Can I ask, how do you give the gospel to a child?
Pam said,”I’m completely all right with it if I dont’ have perfect bible skills in rightly interpreting ancient writings that scholars split hairs over.”
I am in full agreement!
Ephesians 4:12:Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead,
speaking the truth in love,
we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
Marcia Montenegro said
am April 4 2008 @ 1:02 am
Faith, hope, and charity (love) - yes, but these mean nothing without truth. These are of value only when they are based on the true God.
Without truth as the foundation, our faith would be in something (or someone) false, our hope would be for something that would fail, and our charity for something unworthy.
For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. John 1.17
“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4.24
“and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” John 8.32
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.’” John 14.5
“Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith.” 2 Tim. 3.8
“I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.” 1 John 2.21
tammy said
am April 4 2008 @ 2:50 am
Hi Dave K,
Just a thought of strong agreement about divisions in the church: besides false teaching in the church in Scripture Paul already was dealing with division in the 1st century church too. And I definetly don’t see Paul
as a clanging symbol, again, his central message to challenge the divisions was the gospel.1 Corithians 1:13-17:Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.(Yes,I also baptized the household of Stephanas: beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
David said,”It simply says that Jesus ……. will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end……and that …….we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”
This is my other major problem with Brian that I have more questions to ask, seek and understand before I would make further comment. What would be your reaction to a proclamation that Jesus will not come again in glory to judge or that Jesus will not come again in glory? And just to make sure at the most basic level that we will be speaking the same language:it hasn’t happened yet, it still is in the future and Jesus(in glory) will return to earth and will be seen. If at the most basic level if we are not understanding that the same way could you expand on that first so I am not interpreting you word through my belief? thanks:-)
David Knudtson said
am April 4 2008 @ 8:04 am
HI Tammy K
As there is more than one David in this thread I believe that you asked me “What would be your reaction to a proclamation that Jesus will not come again in glory to judge or that Jesus will not come again in glory ” by Brian (Mc Claren right??) or anyone else.
My reaction would be that any belief or teaching which is in conflict with the Nicene Creed is something other than Christianity. I hope that clarifies it for you.
As we Protestors tend to be not up to speed on the symbol of the Faith and many of us were raised with boneheaded beliefs like “no Creed but Christ” let me post a English Translation of the entire Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I can fellowship with officially anyone who can say yes and amen to the Creed I just posted. Even if they don’t I can still be their friend. Further, I can allow room for people to pretty much believe whatever they want about all kinds of other issues and topics outside of the scope of the Creed.
Now I may not be a smart man, but I have noticed that many Christians read the Bible and come to different conclusions about lots of things after reading it. So for me then, I use the Creed as my benchmark of whether or not someone is talking about Christianity or not. Further, I can allow other Christians to have any heartfelt belief which they believe is “biblically” based but is outside of the scope of the Creed.
tammy said
am April 6 2008 @ 2:17 pm
David,
I asked Brian myself at the conference in Oak Park.
As to the return of Jesus in glory to Judge the living and the dead as the nicene creed says, Brian said,” I am agnostic.”
I then said to Brian that I must then ask, and I did, then when will the resurrection of the dead take place. His response ,” I don’t know.”
I made mention of Andrew’s blog at the onset of these questions mentioning that the questions had not really been answered in Andrew’s blog.
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2008/03/brian-mclaren-r.html
Because of Christ,
tammy
David Knudtson said
am April 6 2008 @ 7:49 pm
Hello Tammy
I have never met Brian (but I have met his wife and at least one of his daughters). When I was a active member/attender of the Bridge Christian Church in Portland, OR they would go there from to time as at least 2 years ago anyway the daughter was attending college nereby. His daughter is a very talented singer and songwriter.
While I do not speak for anyone but myself obviously, it my heartfelt conviction that the Nicene Creed is so very important and crucial that it should be affirmed by all believers. Perhaps some in the emergent realm of things believe everything is up for grabs and re negociation?? I for one do not.
While I have yet to see anything in writing that denies said symbol of faith (the Nicene Creed I mean) by the older leaders of the whole emergent “gig pop”, I do see such musings all the time in the young soon to be leaders. The next generation so to speak. I see it in their blogs and in personal interactions I have had with them. I can’t do anything about everyone obviously, nor I am quick anymore to point the finger at others and say “heresy”, so all I can do is teach and train those under my Pastoral Care in regards to such issues. If and when the Emergent “gig pop” officially, more or less, denies historic Christianity (this of course assumes that they do…..God forbid that they do) as affirmed in the Nicene Creed, I for one will emerge out of being emergent rather quickly.
Is this what some emergent leaders call beliefism?? God I hope not!!
It has been said that renewal/revival movements throughout Church History at a certain point must deal with the ancient “most important” doctrines of the Faith. Those who are succesfull in dealing with them bring blessing to the whole Church. Those who do not just end up being another “non-Christian cult” on the rubbish heap of Church History. I for one hope the emergent “gig pop” passes this issue.
David Knudtson
http://www.namelesschurch.org
Jim Henderson said
am April 7 2008 @ 1:16 am
“I didn’t once use the word heretical. I said he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Sorry for not being able to the difference.
tammy said
am April 7 2008 @ 7:26 am
Sorry Jim, I was trying to stay away from a this is heretical and that is heretical and this over here is heretical kind of statements. My purpose was not to make comments on his positions as if they stood independently and then introduce a theological argument to support my position.
Brian’s message is tightly knit together and my concern with his message is in it entirety. To say he is a heretic because of this or that then spirals down into an idea that I am then finger pointing at individuals who may have decided to aline themselves with a particular theological point Brian holds.
My concerns are much graver then calling him a heretic. My purpose is not to be a critic. I think David K. caught this.
You see , some in the church I have spoken to/or read their blog comments( not liberals as David points out) have been reading Brian’s work through the “framing story” ( if you will) that they have held and saying, hey i agree with that, i see his points or they have only read portions of a book and skipped around and have not seen the totality of the message, inserting their own definitional terms into similar language. Or because of assuming he is holding to the nicene creed, they assume certain things into the text that are not actually there. So in a book like New Kind of Christian they come away saying something like,” I was moved, but something also doesn’t sit right but i can’t put my finger on it. Well leadership suggested the book, maybe its just me. And then there may be a slow desensitization as he controls the exposer of his world view in the books he releases and/or answers to questions on blogs. Then of course there are other’s who fully understand, reject what they have believed and decide the message Brian is putting forth is the correct one and make it there own.
Another words, there are a lot of folks out there that really don’t grasp it as they haven’t really fully engaged with the emerging message and no one has approached them and effectively revealed that inside the sheep’s clothing there really is a wolf.
And then there are the mental road blocks that keep the conversation from continuing with someone who is ” emerging”. Let me use an example: A Jehovah’s Witness believes the possibility of a triune God is wrong and it is a sin to believe it is correct, therefore they will not engage their critical thinking skills ‘outside the box’ to discuss the issue. So if i were to say to them,” I understand and respect that you believe you have the truth, but i also believe i have the truth. If you have the truth I want it, if i have the truth do you want it?” it will sometimes open up the box so something can actually be accomplished in the conversation.
Once they accept this worldviw they become deeply submersed in their own culture which says,” You can’t test that, it a sin, the organized authority which is above you knows the truth and has told you what it is.”
In contrast the worldview for the Christian position is God is the authority and He says ,” test all thing to see if they are from God.” Jesus is the one that said knowing the truth would set me free so I am free to test even if it would test me right out of being a christian.( Sadly, there are leaders in the body of Christ that knowingly and unknowingly have helped put a box around the critical thinking of people.)
I have found the emerging culture to have a mental road block when it comes to discussing truth.
tammy said
am April 10 2008 @ 12:36 am
Was here looking to see if anyone blogged. In seeing the last line of my comments standing alone i can see how that could come off bad.ihhhhhh.”I have found the emerging culture to have a mental road block when it comes to discussing truth.”
I have found the emerging culture to have a mental road block when it comes to having a conversion with someone who makes an assertion of truth in opposition to their truth claims.
Reading the Secret Mystery of Jesus now.
David Knudtson said
am April 10 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Hello Tammy Said (and I am sorry for calling you Tammy K above as I am the one with the K)
So then if I understand what you have said you believe that Brian McClaren is a wolf in sheeps clothing? While everyone is entitled to their opinion I just don’t agree with you on that one.
I have made the point in the comments above that everyone should take a serious look at the ancient creeds and truly affirm then. So while Brian might be agnostic about the exact nature of the future return of Christ and the final judgement, that is not the same as preaching another gospel. Last time I checked being agnostic about something meant to not be sure one way or another about something.
I sort of stumbled across this website where a Episcopal Church Leader in 1914 deals with the issues as to why the creeds are important and he addresses these issues in terms of “Modernity” and I would suggest that his points are even more valid in a “Post Modern” world. Here is the link for those who like to read and think.
http://homepage.mac.com/rc.vervoorn/swete/ancient_creeds_modern_life.html
When it comes to truth here is a propositional position that I work from:
1. All truth Comes from God
2. Not all truth is found in the Bible
3. Those things which are found in the Bible are more or less true and any thing which may not be true is faithfully recorded.
(so then I could personally affirm the idea of the Bible being without error in the original manuscripts but as we don’t have the original manuscripts it is sort of a mute point)
4. Therefore when I interact with other claims of truth in the marketplace of ideas (which might come from God….see point number 1 above) then my goal is to let the revealed truth of the Bible trump any other supposed truth that I find.
Besides this basic approach then to truth I also hold 3 other foundational beliefs by “faith” in regards to Jesus, the Bible and the Creed.
A. Jesus was who he said he was and he came back to life again….the heart of the Good News!!
B. The Bible is God’s Word and it is the final authority when it comes to matters of spiritual truth when it is “rightly divided”.
(this is not to say that that I don’t read lots of other things that are not the Bible…. for instance last night I was reading the Epistle of Barnabas and it is most interesting but those who are my Fathers in the Faith long ago gave me the “knock list” of what is the Scriptures versus what is just interesting and helpfull versus the “real prescence” of Jesus that is found in the Holy Scriptures)
C. The final draft of the Nicene Creed is the dividing line between Christian and Non Christian belief systems…..therefore to deny the Nicene Creed is to deny the Christian Faith.
So then out of my approach to Truth and also my beliefs that I hold by “faith” about Jesus, the Bible and the Creed flows everything in my life. So then after 33 years of serving the Lord Jesus it is where I am as of today on these issues.
tammy said
am April 10 2008 @ 11:12 pm
No offense was taken David. I thought you were being funny.K
And a big thanks to Jim for the fix it clock!
Okay , let’s leave to the side now my stand on Brian Mclaren. It’s been made clear what I think and I have no desire to continue to repeat it. And thank you David for getting us to the disagree part.
David said,”So while Brian might be agnostic about the exact nature of the future return of Christ and the final judgement, that is not the same as preaching another gospel. Last time I checked being agnostic about something meant to not be sure one way or another about something.”
Agree on agnostic. So if Brian says he isn’t sure one way or another about ” Jesus returning in glory” should he be telling people he holds to the nicene creed? My question to Brian wasn’t ” about the exact nature of the future return” and Brian understood that.This is why he said” I don’t know” to my next question ” When then will the dead be raised.” Brian new I had already read his responses to Andrew and I prefaced my question
in light of Brian’s Eutopia.
My contention on this blog was that Brian is actually preaching another gospel. The Nicene Creed points were your ( very welcome and nice) addition.
David said,”C. The final draft of the Nicene Creed is the dividing line between Christian and Non Christian belief systems…..therefore to deny the Nicene Creed is to deny the Christian Faith.” To give you the most of your argument I will say that to be agnostic at 1 point
of the Nicene creed is not to deny it. But its not the point of the Nicene creed to be excepted in its entirety? If your are agnostic at 1 point are you not agnostic to the Nicene creed?( Which at the least means the you do not up hold it) And, from your perspective above “to deny the Nicene Creed is to deny the Christian Faith.” how much of the Nicene Creed then does one not have to uphold to be considered to deny it?
David said:”When it comes to truth here is a propositional position that I work from:
1. All truth Comes from God
2. Not all truth is found in the Bible”
Here’s mine
1.The truth of God is only known through special revelation from God.
2.The truth found in general revelation will not oppose the truth of God.
David said,”A. Jesus was who he said he was and he came back to life again….the heart of the Good News!!”
Okay here is my central contention with Brian, the gospel. Now because of what you say in A. I am curious to how we disagree and then when we know we’ll be able to be talking about the same thing.
1.If someone is a calling their self a Christian and sounds and acts like a christian( and places their self in the category of prophet)but is preaching a different gospel would your say the term wolf in sheep’s clothing applies to them?
2.If someone asked you today what is the goodnews of Jesus would you say,” Repent and believe in the Kingdom of God,” or would you say,” The mystery has been revealed,Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose from the dead.”
3.Do you believe that I have misrepresented Brian when I say he is preaching a false good news ( see posts above also): He believes the goodnews is ” Repent and believe in the Kingdom of God” and when he says this he is saying that it is about following Jesus example so that God’s Dream of a Eutopia here on earth may be realized.And all who follow in the ways of Jesus are of the Kingdom of God, Muslin, Atheist, Buddist, Christians.
4.Do you agree with Brian, as described in part 3. ,that this is the goodnews.
Here is the goodnews as I read scripture: the good news is centered on Jesus. When Jesus was here the kingdom was at hand and the will of the Father is that they believe in the Son, the Messiah, the forgiver of sins. Repent and believe the good news for the Kingdom is at hand.After Christ death the mystery is revealed,the goodnews is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead. The goodnews of the kingdom. Now the another element of the kingdom is not the goodnews but the entrustment of being part of the kingdom, service. It seems to me that we agree on the goodnews according to your A.point. So do we agree?
love tammy
David Knudtson said
am April 11 2008 @ 2:22 am
Hello Tammy Again
I believe Jesus means what he says “I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by me”. Remember one of my foundational things in life is that “Jesus was who he said he was” and the words of Jesus are completely true!! Again I accept these things by faith but I do in fact accept them.
Therefore, while I believe that the Grace and Mercy of Jesus can reach people in all kinds of places and situations and while those in other belief systems may somehow make it into the “Kingdom of God” because God credits to them righteousness due to their faith (though they have mistaken beliefs) this is not clear revelation of the Scriptures. It is the exception that we arrive at because of the OT Saints. Now it is the clear revelation obviously for the OT Saints but it is just a hopeful belief for all those who do not know about Jesus or have not heard about Jesus. It is not the clear and main and plain teaching of Jesus or the Holy Scriptures.
I would therefore have to agree that if someone teaches as you have stated above that “all who follow in the ways of Jesus are of the Kingdom of God, Muslin, Atheist, Buddist, Christians.” that person is peddling another Gospel.
This is sounds more like Unitarianism than Christianity at least on the surface.
I do hope this is not an accurate representation of where Brian is coming from. I do hope it is just your understanding and that your understanding is somehow off. Perhaps Brian only means this in the same way I understand these things? As the exception for devout people who are wrong but sincere??
You know when I was a kid (circa 1971)and all those hippies got saved (and I think that included Jim H who runs this thing here) and they used to carry signs that said ONE WAY. I bet in their heart of hearts all these ex hippies still really believe that. That there is only ONE WAY. I do hope the fruit that remains are that we are “new kinds of Christians” but the keyword is “Christian”. So there is only ONE WAY. It is through Jesus.
tammy said
am April 11 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Hi David,
So basically we agree on the goodnews and you hope I have misrepresented Brian , not because I would do so intentionally but because I have misunderstood him. I am assuming that, if i am correct that Brian is “peddling” another gospel, you understand why I would think this is an essential conversation and I would feel so strongly and in faithfulness give warning.Yes?
Jim, do you think I have a wrong understanding of Brian’s “essential message of Jesus”? If I do can you clarify what it is?
At the Deep Shift conference Brian was asked, “What is the gospel of Jesus?” His response was that he usually doesn’t like to answer this question but the way it is asked - “Repent and believe in the kingdom of God.”
I would not intentionally misrepresent anyone. Before I decided to shed light on what Brian is really saying( as I think there are more people importing their essential beliefs into Brian’s ‘christian’ message instead of really understanding what he is saying in it fullness or they are confused) I did a lot of work to make sure I understood his perspectives so as not to misrepresent him and narrow down that which is most essential, the gospel. Even after I took in his perspective the essential problems still remained. As of now, I believe Brian himself has the best intention at heart( however I could be wrong). For our fight is not against flesh and blood.
Before I ask my next question and we wait on Jim’s response I was curious for your answers and now I am curious about why you didn’t answer the Nicene Creed questions I posed, or you just didn’t get to them yet?
So what’s you sermon on this week?
love tammy
ps: I wrote this in a blog, it was all your your fault David:-)”The importance of using the Nicene Creed is because Brian and the movement at large have no Statement of Faith as a “framework”. Another words, there is no way of knowing at the onset of picking up one of Brian’s books how he “frames” or what he
“frames” as essential to Christian faith and his understanding of Scripture.When he accepts a creed however, he is saying that that Creed correctly represents what he believes Scripture to communicate. So christians pick up his book and start reading a “christian book” and just natuarlly assume somethings into the text of his writings. The nicene creed becomes the only thing outside the bible to challenge his interpretation of Scripture, so that the holding to a creed becomes an admission to how he interprets the Scriptures. Since he claims to hold to the Nicene Creed it is beliefs of which he agrees to be held to.”
David Knudtson said
am April 14 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Hello Tammy Again
Ok there is a bit of a problem for me to comment further on Brian. As I have not read enough of Brian’s Books or some of the other totally “hip” authors to comment on specifics (I can only share from my personal experience of being part of an Emergent Church for 6 years as it was filtered through my previous Church experiences and affiliations). So some of Brian’s books I own and have read. There are other Emergent authors that I started to read them but got bored and and never finished their books. I did very much enjoy a New Kind of Christian though.
I am a bit of strange one at the moment. I have spent the last year reading lots of Catholic and Orthodox books on Doctrine in my spare time. A little Orthodox book about the “herey” of the Doctrine of Sola Scriptora written by a Ex Protestant Church of the Nazarene Pastor now Priest I found the most interesting. I told my wife that I should convert so I could wear the really kewl vestments and get paid to preach. But I feel too strongly about the co equality of Men and Women in ministry to every consider that seriously. lol.
So I am sorry I can’t really say much more about Brian only that the Books that I have read I do find “Christian” in approach and doctrine. Because of these interactions I will order the newer ones and read them.
But in general terms, while I am totally up to speed that there are those in the Emergent World that deny the reality of the historic Evangelical hell (I think that is how we started to interact in this thread above anyway) and that it may sound like they are Universalists and/or Unitarians from time to time, I for one am not.
So for me personally to not at the very least affirm the Nicene Creed (not to just say you believe it to “get along” which might be what some emergent people might be doing????) but truly and actually believe it in your hearts of hearts is very problematic.
Again if this is what Jim H (the person behind this off the map thingy) means by “How did mentally assenting to a presecribed set of beliefs become the litmus test for faith” start then I can only say “Houston we have a problem here” and I would most humbly ask Jim H to please do not forget that there are those who have gone before us who at a certain point had to make a line with a Creed and say “this is what the Apostles taught us and taught their disciples and taught their disciples” and so on and so and so on and further that these are the books that are Holy Scriptures and these other books are not the Holy Scriptures etc etc. The same process more or less that gave us the Bible gave us the Nicene Creed. You cannot have one without the other!!!
Now of course I assume Jim H knows this and I am very thankfull for what he is doing here and his ministry of being “normal” (as some of us who emerged out of the Vineyard know exactly what it is to be “not normal”…..umm should I tell you stories about flashlights and checking teeth for gold fillings”??? etc. etc. etc. lol)
Jim H and Casper have written about the Bridge Christian Church in Portland, OR in their book “Jim and Casper go to Church”. The time of their visit, was before Nameless Church in Vancouver, WA of which I am the Pastor and Home PDX in Portland, OR of which Ken Loyd is the Pastor were planted by the Bridge. In other words I was there when they visited. Yet the Bridge is an Emergent/Emerging Church that is now 10 years old that most clearly has a Creed!!
So while some Emergent/Emerging Churches do not have a statement of faith I can very much assure that the Bridge Christian Church in Portland, OR does. Here is the link to it.
http://www.thebridge-pdx.org/about.php
Ironically if you were to read the Nameless Church website you would see that we do NOT post the same statement of faith as the Church of our most recent origin does, but we have chosen to concentrate more on general statements that we affirm both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds and the Evangelical Reformation Confessions, (we are doing this on purpose and for a purpose as we try to develop a Bridge between Catholic and Protestant understandings of the Scriptures) but I can truly say “yes and amen” to what the Bridge Christian Church in Portland, OR affirms in it’s Creedal Statements.
As the Emerging/Emergent Movement is not uniform then I think one of the problems the whole Cult Watcher groups might have is they don’t have a central person or group or a belief to try to “nail” them all down with. It is still emerging. But again I can only speak for me. So then if being Emergent means denying the Nicene Creed in whole or in part, then I am no longer Emergent nor can I promote or endorse anyone who does.
To answer what I preached on, it was John 10:1-10…..stressing that Jesus is both the Shepard and the Gate or Door. That Jesus himself is the one that lays down as the door to the Shepfold to protect his sheep. It was a very exclusive message. Jesus being the only Door. The only way. The way the truth and the life with no man coming to the Father but by him! Dang I am sounding so darn “fundy” at the moment lol.
David Knudtson
http://www.namelesschurch.org
tammy said
am April 15 2008 @ 2:56 am
Hi David, actually there is a christian ministry called EMNR that was developed as a place of accountability( by choice) for apologetics ministries of which would include “cult watchers.” I have served in christian countercult/apologetics ministry.
However , my interest in Brian Mclaren did not come about from any “cult” concerns as I have never heard any accusation of social abuses in the emerging movement and in no way in reading Mclaren could anyone stand on such an accusation, it would be ludicrous.As to his message I came to his books not knowing what he was teaching.(I have been on sabatical from the counter-cult/apologetics ministry.)I started reading him knowing that people I trust as mature christians really liked his work or were very concerned, but this is still not why i started what has become research. I have found that those who praise or are concerned both have shared his message with me minus a lot of context.( some of this does have to do with the way he writes and the amount of reading it may take for some to discern his message.) And i have found much of the same just reading blogs, book reviews and critics.I have found some balanced critics but sadly Brian uses the off the wall critics in his conference as examples of main stream christianity.( Then again, the way i started this blog some would say i am off the wall.)
Okay, so why did i finally decided i had to know what Brian was teaching. Because Willow Creek Community Church is my home church and he was coming for the student conference, his books have been suggested for reading and recently a Willow magazine quoted someone who swims in the emerging pool and made the gospel comes off unclear and then the article mentions the social gospel is not a bad word. Then, my kids are 14,16,18,20, and 20 year old niece also that i raised- the generation the emerging movement, I was told, would be the movement of the next generation. I am not into movements, no not even the seeker movement. I didn’t come to be a Christian the “coventionist” route. Basically, I prayed,” God I can’t trust what man says, they all disagree so I am going to read the bible and if it is really from you reveal it to me.” And then i read it through twice and then used a concordence to follow up on all the verses of certain words and then the new testament one more time.I became a christian in my bedroom while reading the bible after i got off my shift at UPS. I have never got so little sleep and had so much energy, I was 24.Then I chose Willow as my church because it was balanced. Well I have told you this much and you have told me about you so…. I am 39, I have a G.E.D., I worked my way right into ministry by sharing that Jesus really rose from the dead and loves you, and that happened to lead to countercult/apologetics ministry because of who God kept putting into my life.Christian who asked for my help to understand something they had been questioned about,family members hurting because of kids in abusive cults, or cultist trying to evangilize me. I am an uneducated layman(women), I am a chritian.period Presently, to make money I am owner/partner of a cleaning business and cleaning houses( Like Pam is, went to your site Pam.:-)
My focus right now is to lay out my concerns before my church. Really blogging is not a good media for being able to layout a clear position because you really only can say a little at a time and it is easy to misunderstand people or assume something into their thinking and then you either talk around each other or spend the little bit of time being patient to clarify.Anyway, that’s why I took the “put it out on the table” approach.
Jim, I am truly waiting on your responses.
And i have been married 20 1/2 years.
Have read generous orthodoxy, some of New Kind of Christian,Everything Must Change and re-read it again, The Secret Message of Jesus, many things Brian has on line,his online interviews, his open letter to Chuck Colsen,and then those who write on him pro and con.
About your sermon: Inclusively , all are welcomed but some will exclude themselves from entry through an essential gate. Less fundy sounding?
love tammy
tammy said
am May 7 2008 @ 4:44 am
Hi David,
I have done more reading of Brian Mclaren’s works. If you are ever interested in having a private conversation please contact me at freetruth@sbcglobal.net
and anyone else who would want to have a conversation in private.
If there is a concern that I have misrepresented Brian I will refer the book, pages and paragraphs from more then one source of Brian’s works for you to check yourself.
I also have a paper I can e-mail by Jason Poling who has done an appraisal of Brian’s work. We have many points of agreement, however, our biggest point of disagreement: He hopes and tends to believe that Everything Must Change is not part of the inevitable outcome of Brian’s body of work in tone and teaching , I see Everything Must Change as part of the inevitable outcome of Brian’s body of work in tone and teaching.
love tammy
tammy said
am May 8 2008 @ 1:36 am
Thought you all might be interested in reading this: Evangelical Manifesto
It just came out and can be found here:http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs/Evangelical_Manifesto.pdf
Jim, I am also curious of what leaders from other faith traditions and from which faith the leader expressed what,as shared in regards to their experiences with Christians.
love tammy
Helen said
am May 11 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Thanks Tammy - I posted about that on Conversation at the Edge on Thursday.
I just saw your comment where you mention asking Brian the question at Deep Shift. I guess I didn’t get to meet you there. I blogged about that too.
Tanya said
am July 11 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Wow. I know that this is a relatively old blog, but I was intrigued and decided to peruse it, and I am so impressed AND refreshed. You guys actually strive to get along with each other! You have spirited disagreements, but are able to respect one another, apologize where necessary, and still be believers in community. I like that. Thank you for the window into the possible.