The early Christians were known for their radical departure from dependence on a worship place, authoritarian priests, and any religious performance through ceremony, holy days or sacrifical 'offerings.'
Wade Burleson
Upside Down Church Through Inside Out Christianity (link)
Guest Post by Wade Burleson
It's difficult for some believers to grasp that they are the church. Anytime I hear of Christians who are "upset with the direction of a church," or "angry with the church," or "tired of the church," I wonder if they truly understand what they're saying. They are the church, but it's rare to hear a Christian say "I'm angry with myself," or "I'm tired of myself," or "I'm upset with the direction in my life," etc…. Why is it that so many see "the church" as something other than themselves in union with Jesus Christ?
I think the fault lies with Christian leaders — particularly us pastors — who for many centuries have attempted to place churches and church ministries on par with ancient Temple and Old Covenant worship. From massive church buildings erected to inspire, to stained glass windows or elaborate decor intended to tell stories, to a "priesthood" of authoritative pastors/leaders who separate themselves from 'laity,' to injunctions to tithe into the storehouse of the church or risk being devoured by the devil, and to programs that are set in stone (unalterable and unchangeable) like Israel's Ten Commandments, the modern church looks more like Old Testament Israel than the early followers of Christ who were radically different from the "religious."
The early Christians were known for their radical departure from dependence on a worship place, authoritarian priests, and any religious performance through ceremony, holy days or sacrifical 'offerings.' As Adolph Safir reminds us in his brilliant work on Hebrews:
“The Greeks and the Romans were not merely astonished at, but felt irritated by the worship of the early Christians, who without image and altar, without priests and vestments, appeared to them as atheists, men and women ‘without gods’ and at times felt threated by the mysterious power Christians possessed as they rejoiced in suffering and met with calm courage the tortures of death itself” Adolph Saphir.
The crystallization of the institutional church using Jewish modes of worship is not limited to Roman Catholicism beginning in the 4th century AD. Eventually, Baptist churches and other conservative evangelical churches, though historically shouting loudly 'no creed but the Bible,' have come to ignore the New Testament teaching on the nature of the true church and have now:
(1). Replicated Israel's hierarchy of priestly authority (calling them pastors);
(2). Imitated Israel's emphasis on a particular type of worship at a specific place (calling it sanctuary worship); and
(3). Perpetuated Israel's obligation to the old 'if-then' covenant with God ('if we will obey God, then God will bless us').
The freedom of a sinner to personally trust Christ and experience the power of God at work within–transforming that sinner from the inside out – is substituted for a form of behavioral control imposed by a spiritual authoritarian from without (usually a pastor) who uses Old Covenant passages of Scripture to bind believers.
The simplicity of New Covenant worship 'in spirit and in truth' has been overwhelmed by the desires and the demands of leaders within the institutional churches. We pastors, often in an attempt to protect our jobs and salaries (or future jobs and current reputations), spiritualize everything we do, acting as if our ministries and programs are God's ministries and programs. The greatest danger I face at Emmanuel is the temptation to forget that what is done at the building on Sundays and Wednesdays is just a part–a small part–of who we are as a people. Whether it is giving, serving, or attending other places of worship, our people should have the liberty and freedom to give, serve, and attend wherever the Spirit leads.
Christ's church always leaves the building on Sundays, therefore the church should never be called the building. Whatever is done on Sundays or Wednesdays in the building should be designed to empower and encourage "the church" (you) to worship in spirit and truth every day of the week. My job is to lead people in such a manner that they cheerfully give to the Lord, joyfully serve the Lord, and willingly worship the Lord. A good pastor will always remind God's people that Christ's church extends far beyond the membership rolls of any one corporate church. If the Spirit leads someone at Emmanuel to join another corporate church, an institution that uses different methodologies and ministries to encourage "the church" to give, serve and worship – then great! We are all on the same team. We are the church.
In addition, if the Spirit leads the people at Emmanuel to give less, attend less, and serve less, then our budget, our ministries, and our organizational mission efforts will shrink. If the Spirit leads our people to give more, attend more, and serve more, then our organizational ministries will expand. Regardless, the New Testament is quite clear that our church is not a new Temple, our pastors are not a new priesthood, and our religious activities are not prescribed by any law. God's people should give, should serve and should worship as the Spirit leads, where the Spirit leads, and as long as the Spirit leads. It is not the Law that constrains us but the Spirit who compels us. Unfortunately, many modern Baptist churches have taken promises and laws of the Old Testament and attempted to force them into the New Covenant church. The result is a dysfunctional gathering of law worshippers who are more concerned with conformity than a gathering of strong, individual believers who are empowered by the Spirit.
When did God’s covenant with Israel become obsolete? In AD 30 Jesus the Anointed One died on a hill called Golgatha. The night before He was crucified He took a cup of wine and declared, "This cup is New Covenant of my blood shed for the remission of your sins." The next day, on the cross, Jesus cried “It is finished!” Everything about the Old Covenant– all the laws, the rituals, the sacrifices and the types–were all fulfilled in Christ. The Old Covenant had served its purpose (as a schoolmaster that points the sinner to Christ) and is now fulfilled. God made it obsolete in the death/burial/resurrection of Christ.
When did God’s covenant with Israel grow old? For forty years (a Jewish ‘generation’) after the cross, from AD 30 to AD 70, the Temple remained standing. For those forty years the early followers of Jesus Christ came to the Temple to pray, worship, and proclaim the new way to God through faith in Jesus Christ. It was on the steps of the Temple that Peter healed the lame man by saying, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I to you. In the name of Jesus Christ arise and walk." The disciples preached Christ in and around the Temple grounds, but the Old Covenant Temple way of worship was 'growing old.'
When was God’s covenant with Israel abolished? In AD 70 God used the Roman army to utterly destroy the Temple. Just as Jesus prophesied forty years earlier (Matthew 24), the Romans did not leave one stone standing upon another. This destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the Old Covenant way of worship was prophesied by the prophets and Jesus for centuries. Israel had been unfaithful to the covenant they had with God, and God therefore abolished it and instituted a new covenant. Again, it is not as if there was no good purpose for the Old Covenant. If it were not for the Law (the biblical way of describing the Old Covenant), Paul would not have known sin. The Law acted as a mirror, reflecting back to the Hebrews their sinfulness and God's holiness. In addition, the Law, particularly through its festivals, rituals and symbols, portrayed a coming Anointed One (Messiah) who Himself would take away the sins of the world. When the Messiah came and fulfilled the Law, the Old Covenant was made obsolete by God, grew old in time, and was eventually abolished (disappeared) in AD 70. The Temple was gone.
The dwelling place of God in the new agreement that He has made with sinners, called the New Covenant, is the life of the individual believer. It is the life of God in the soul of man that is the true miracle of the New Covenant. The power of the Spirit of God changes the sinner from the inside/out. We are the Temple of the Living God. For this reason, any institutional church that tries to substitute itself as the old Temple, its pastors/priests as the Old priesthood, and operate by Old Testament "if/then" principles and promises, is denying the truth of the New Testament.
The New Covenant changes the way we worship God every day of our lives. The Old Covenant agreement between God and Israel was a come see religion. Come see the Temple. Come see the rituals. Come see the festivals. The New Covenant is a go tell religion. Go tell sinners of the Savior who has guaranteed the Creator’s goodness to those who trust Him. Christianity is radically spiritual, internal, personal, and trans-cultural (all people). Some of the best worship you can have is with family or a small group of believers around a camp fire at a lake, or at home around the dinner table, or at a backyard barb-e-que. Believers are the church. God dwells in us. Where we are, there He is. We don't behave one way 'at church' and another way everywhere else. We can't do this because we ARE the church. Further, since the life of God is in the invidual sinner who trusts Christ, there is no hierarchical authority in the church. Every believer is a priest unto God.
The New Covenant changes the way we apply Scriptures from the Old Testament. The “If … then” Scriptures are seen as part of God’s promises to the people of Israel. Let me give you three examples of “if/then” promises that Christian people use wrongly.
(Example 1): If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (II Chronicles 7:14).
That is a great Old Covenant promise. Israel often failed this condition of humble repentance, and as a result, they were often taken captive by foreigners and there land was destroyed. This verse, often quoted by Christians, is not a New Covenant promise.
In the New Covenant God says that He "is able to do far more abundantly beyond all we even ask or think, according to the power that works within us" (Eph. 3:20). This is the New Covenant promise. When you come to God by faith in Christ, God resides within you and has begun a work in you that He will carry to completion. Do you find yourself pulled toward addictive sins as a believer? He will eventually break you of them for your good and for His glory. The alcoholic who comes to God by faith in Christ need not worry that a relapse into drunkenness will cause the favor and goodness of God to withdraw from Him. In the old agreement he would have worried, because in the old agreement it was his obedience that ensured God's goodness, but in the New Covenant it is God's goodness to Him in Christ that ensures the sinners' eventual obedience. God is conforming, and He will continue to conform, every sinner who trusts Christ into the image of His Son. It is a guarantee dependent upon His fidelity and strength not your own.
(Example 2)“If you bring the tithe … then I will rebuke the devourer for you” (Malachi 3:10).
This is an often quoted Old Covenant promise by pastors, used as an enticement (and/or threat) for the New Testament believer to give to his or her local church. This promise, given to Old Covenant Israel, is another if/then promise. The rebuke of the devourer is given IF Israel brings their tithes to the Temple. If the people of Israel do not bring their tithe to the Temple, then the devourer is free to reign and destroy their possessions.
In the New Covenant, Jesus died and in His death He “destroyed the devil” (Hebrews 2:14). In the New Covenant, the devil will seek to devour you as a 'roaring lion,' but as Bunyan so eloquently pictured in Pilgrim's Progress, the lion is chained. Naturalists also tell us that only teethless lions roar. The truth of the New Testament is quite clear. The "strong man" (Satan) who was once at peace in his home (your life) and was well armed, was disarmed and dislodged by One "stronger than he" (Jesus Christ) who has now taken up residence within you (Luke 11:21-22). As a New Covenant believer in Christ you don't give money to your local church in order for God to rebuke the devourer. Malachi 3:10 is an Old Covenant promise. The devourer is already REMOVED from your life. Jesus is now your Lord. You give as you follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit. The more you comprehend the work of Christ on your behalf the more you cheerfully give, the more you joyfully serve, and the more you radically worship! In other words, in the New Covenant, giving is a matter of the heart, not the Law. As the Spirit leads you to give to ministries that proclaim the good news of Christ, care for the needs of fellow man, and work hard to do kingdom work–then give!
(Example 3): “If you call upon me in the day of trouble; then I will deliver you” (Psalm 50:15).
Again, that is a great Old Covenant promise, but it is nowhere close to the incredible truth of the New Covenant Scriptures.In the New Covenant, God delivers His people even when they find themselves emotionally, spiritually and personally “dead in our trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). His amazing and agressive love for His people through Christ ensures that He will "never, no never, no never" (five negatives in the original) leave us or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5). It is interesting that in the first portion of Hebrews 13:5 says that we should have "the kind of character that is free from the love of money BECAUSE God will never leave us or forsake." We do not live this way IN ORDER for God to never leave us or forsake us. Words are important.
In the New Covenant our lives are a response to God's goodness to us in Christ. In the Old Covenant, people lived their lives in order to obtain God's goodness. If you ever find yourself being motivated to do something in order to get God to do something in return, you are living under the principles of the Old Covenant. Unfortunately, the Old Covenant, and Old Covenant churches, and Old Covenant promises will always let you down. However, the new agreement that God has with sinners will never let you down. "He is able to save to the uttermost (i.e. a guarantee that you will never be cut off from God's goodness) those who draw near to God through Him” (Hebrews 7:25).
This post might have turned upside down your understanding of "the church." If so, I hope you might land on the realization that you are the church and the Spirit of Christ is changing you from the inside out.
i would encourage everyone to listen to the sermon archives on emmanuel enid’s website you will be blessed. this is a great article!
@ Kevin:
Absolutely! We are grateful that Wade allows us to feature his current sermons in our EChurch posts. For those who would like to check out the archives over at Emmanuel Enid, here is the link to Wade's sermon outlines.
http://www.emmanuelenid.org/component/k2/itemlist/category/13?Itemid=346
If you want to listen to a particular sermon, you can do that through iTunes. See link below.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/emmanuel-baptist-church-enid/id356939836
I think those of us who are in liturgical churches will likely refrain from commenting on this post.
Brilliant article! This is not a new problem. For centuries, believers have recognised some of these issues and left their "church" to start afresh. They were then persecuted by the "church". Another problem was that as they grew some adopted similar hierarchical structures and ended up replicating the system.
@ numo:
Hi NUMO,
I’m Catholic to the backbone, and I do openly recognize Wade Burleson as a Christ-follower who has put himself on the line for people more than once and has paid a price for this sacrifice. If I see things differently and pray differently, it does not keep me from a deep admiration for Wade and for the people of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid. Many of the people on this blog know that WADE is on the side of the angels when it comes to fighting against abuse in the Church. As I said, I am profoundly Catholic in the way of my praying, and I think that is what actually enables me to have genuine respect for those whose beliefs may differ. I That my own Church teaches respect for the dignity of people of all faiths . . . that is something I am proud of as a Catholic.
@ numo:
An interesting variant on Epimenides’ Paradox…
Liturgical or non liturgical we all worship in whatever way is most comfortable to us. That in no way diminishes the truth in the above post. We are the church, not the liturgy or the church service or the pastor/priest or building. If all of those things disappear it is still the gathering of 2 or more in his name that makes the church.
Thank you Wade. For more on the subject I strongly recommend Reimagining Church by Frank Viola and George Barna and Finding Organic Church by Frank Viola.
Wow. This is terrific. Posts like this remind me why I still identify as baptist–despite discomfort (and several run-ins with) most Baptists’ shenanigans. After being in many spiritually controlling environments, Soul freedom is incredibly important to me. Thank you Wade, for using your writing to bring about the gospel and freedom in Christ to others. 🙂
THIS is what I was taught as a SBC growing up….what is going on today, I no longer recognize…thank you Bro. Wade for reminding us….
The ultimate tension here is that tradition is not ultimately bad per se, but that it is ultimately *cultural* – and Christ’s church (as in the people of God) is to be made up of *all peoples*. If your cultural heritage expresses itself best in liturgy, go with liturgy. If your culture expresses worship best with tribal drum music, go with it. It is cultural pride and rationalism run amok to insist that there is only *one proper way* for the New Testament new covenant people of God to worship and organize themselves – whether you think that “proper way” is Baptist congregationalism OR Catholic bishoprics. 😉
@ K.D.:
The SBC is in a downward spiral, and it will only get worse as the new guard takes control.
Welcome to our new commenters! Thanks for chiming in.
Deb wrote:
The New Guard of 20-year-old Elders to whom There Is No Christ, There Is Only CALVIN.
“There is no Dana, there is only Zuul.”
— Ghostbusters
One of the great difficulties that I have with some of the Neo-Calvinists is this. Let’s take an example of John Piper. There appears to be a schizophrenic approach to the If/Then Old Covenant versus the New Covenant. When a tornado struck a Lutheran church, Piper said it was God’s judgement on them. In other words, they did not obey (presumably to the ELCA stand on homosexuality.) so God punished them.
We cannot have it both ways. It is either if/then or the New Covenant. I am a great believer in the new covenant of grace. It is a wide, loving and merciful grace that does not revert to the Law.
@ dee:
Is it any wonder that there is confusion in the Christian camp? Great example!
One of the differences between Lutherans and some Presbyterians such as D.G. Hart, and some of the Reformed/Presbyterians was the difference between a two kingdoms view of scripture and one kingdom–in other words, the Bible revealing one long covenant with various manifestations (or dispensations, for the Baptists). Those Reformed who consider themselves classically orthodox will insist on a two covenant distinction, even though they will draw parallels between circumcision/passover and baptism/communion.
With regard to tithing, it seems to be evangelical protestants outside the confessional Reformed orbit (neocals, Larry Burkett, Dave Ramsey, the NAR, etc.) who really insist that tithing has always been an obligation on Christians ever since the time of the apostles.
dee wrote:
To be fair, this is mostly a problem among Neo-Calvinist Baptists. The old-style Presbyterian Neo-Cals are full-blown “New Covenant is just the Old Covenant with Christ added”.
dee wrote:
To his credit, D. A. Carson tried to make the case for this in times past at some Reformed Conferences. I used to have some tapes of him hammering this point home from Hebrews and challenging his listeners to really apply Hebrews 8 to their theology. Whether or not he was successful, you can judge.
numo wrote:
Oh come now. Surely you know me better than that by now.
Personally after spending more than half a century in churches that would probably fit Wade’s ideal of church (never got involved with the reformed movement) I have after much study and thought and evaluation become a part of a liturgical tradition. I suppose that in doing so I went from being the church to no longer being the church, but perhaps I exaggerate. I suppose that I am a priest but our rector who as a believer used to be a priest stopped being a real priest when be became an ordained priest in a liturgical tradition. I suppose that even the very idea of priesthood cannot possibly apply to all christians because there was an OT priesthood and we better just drop the whole idea lest we confuse the two. And if we are to totally abandon OT worship style including temple worship it is not enough to note that animal sacrifices are no longer needed for forgiveness of sin but we must also abandon prayer as way too OT.
We could totally abolish the liturgy including the multiple readings from scripture, the prayers (we kneel BTW and we better cut that out), the music, the recitations of creed and lord’s prayer and the prayer of confession prior to the eucharist. And by all means we better quit it already with the bread and wine, because for sure we are not being the church when we participate in any such as these things. We better understand that we are only the church when we sit and listen to longish lectures about what we should believe. We cease being the church if we implement our beliefs because that is works which will lead us straight to perdition.
I am not buying it. I think that what Wade has said is worth hearing, but I also think that this post portrays way too narrow a view of church. What he has said sounds too much like saying that the definition of church begins and ends in how we think about ourselves. Not so. There is more to it than that.
Sometimes I fear that my own religious tradition, Churches of Christ, is like this. So many in Churches of Christ worry about doing things “exactly” the way the New Testament says, and yet they use Old Testament examples to justify doing things in a certain way in the New Testament.
Numo,
I get where you are coming from. Someone mentioned to me the other day that it sounded like I was trying to “abolish the clergy” and I responded, “No, I’m trying to abolish the laity.” What I mean by that statement is the “separation” of “professional ministers” from the “laity of Christ” seems to me to be artificial, institutional, and non-biblical (in the New Covenant). I have known a few Catholic priests who have shared similar views, so whether or not someone is a “Catholic, Baptist, evangelical, etc…” seems to me to matter little in terms of how we view the body of Christ. I get that I “draw a salary,” but that’s simply because I’m on call all the time to do things others can’t. Anyway, thanks for commenting.
Wade Burleson wrote:
At least you don’t confine your hours to from 8-5 and expect people to take off work if a meeting is needed, as I have seen far too often. And I do understand the minister seeing to their family. (BTW this is why I don’t believe elders should be anyone with young children).
okrapod wrote:
Agreed1
@ Christiane:
I too have great respect for Wade’s work on behalf of the abused, as well as for his freedom of belief. Just happen to disagree with many of the points in this post. And am not at all a fan of hierarchy, but realize the need for some kind of administrative structure.
My view of the calling of someone in the pastorate is very different than what some people have made it, but that has a great deal to do with where I’ve come from, as a Lutheran. Pastoral work isn’t about standing up in a pulpit and showboating, nor is it about lording it over others.
@ Wade Burleson:
Thanks for your response. I think many of us view the whole idea of covenants and Judaism differently than you do, as well as the ministry, sacraments, etc.
But I do respect your position, while not agreeing.
Best to you,
numo
Wade Burleson wrote:
You’re a specialist within the Body.
Just like my parish priests.
for some of us, “Church” means “the Body of Christ” and that includes two thousand years of those who have called Christ ‘Lord’. It includes people of many ethnic backgrounds, as far back as the first century when the Apostles went out to the known centers of the world and beyond, bearing the Good News to all they encountered. It includes people who worship in many ways, in many languages, some who are persecuted for their faith by beheading at the hands of ISIS and some who think a red coffee cup is a sign of being picked on. We are a vast, diverse, and interesting group . . . some ‘plain people’ and some laden with centuries of tradition and liturgical history. But all of us in the Body of Christ bend the knee before the Lord of Life, and when we hear ‘He Is Risen’, we all affirm ‘He is Risen Indeed’.
when one group among us begins to bring harm instead of good, the others among us step forward and DO something about it . . . the wrong-doing crosses over many divisions, and the response to correct the wrong-doing also comes from across many divisions . . . that is the nature of who ‘we’ are. When one part suffers, we all suffer. Wartburg Watch is an active response to suffering within the Body of Christ. And in this way, it is also very much a part of the Body of Christ. That’s how I see it. All good comes from God and Christ is the only real unity we can claim.
Wade,
Thank you for this post. I am a pastor of a small church and this is at the heart of what I believe God wants his people here to understand. Thank you for the clarity and hope given in Jesus.
numo wrote:
“Administrative structure” and hierarchy/bureaucracy are a function of increasing size. Small-church structure where everybody knows each other does not scale up beyond the troop-size limit. As you get larger, some sort of structure (and all the side effects) are inevitable.
Eeyore wrote:
“The new Presbyter is but the old Priest writ large.”
— John Milton
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
exactly. And even very small congregations need to have a couple of people who are responsible for doing certain things, be it building maintenance or whatever.
@ HUG
@ numo
I agree with what you are saying. I may ‘hear’ Wade a little differently since low-church baptist is my mother tongue. What I hear is a mixture of talking about administration/hierarchy on the one hand and a separate objection to liturgy per se. These two issues are separate but overlapping. Low-church baptists, in varying degrees of intensity, object to both.
@ okrapod:
Yes, I know, but it is difficult for me, all the same, and I think for many of us who come from liturgical church backgrounds.
I also have serious objections re. the portrayal of Judaism, but that’s a whole other topic.
I did this yesterday…it’s a post for Veterans Day. Its also some,thoughts on friendship and shunning.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/a-post-for-veterans-day-a-story-out-of-operation-red-wings-in-afghanistan-and-evangelical-christians-and-friendship/
I have a different view of covenants and Judaism, too. Also, the purpose for the law. Hebrews was written to converted Jews. In Romans 2, as Gentiles, we are told the law is written in our hearts and what that means in the Jew/Gentile dichotomy. I don’t see grace as a license to sin but as forgiveness and resource to become new creatures in Christ.
I don’t think God with held grace before He was the resurrected Incarnate Messiah. I don’t see the law specifically as an if/then proposition before Christ.
What I am hearing in the post is New Covenant Theology. However I totally agree there is no clergy/laity divide in the Body of Christ.
numo wrote:
Me too, and yes it is. But also before we get too uppity about the new covenant we have to rethink the idea of a covenant breaking God and decide what grafted on means. and why we need to take Romans 11 out of scripture.
Amen!
@ okrapod:
Yes.
__
Theo-Sheepskin and a 501(c3 Shingle, I have none…BUT, IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS WALK? 🙂
hey,
…my nickel is on Jesus.
huh?
Da ‘church’ time upon the earth is ‘running out’ (R) ?
What?
The ‘gospel of the kingdom’ ™ will be preached world-wide, then the ‘end’ ™ will come?
Yep.
—> Cuz Jesus said so.
(Wait for it?)
…those who ‘win souls’ R wise?
Beat dat.
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
__
Third Day :”His Name Is Jesus…”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-8AAzfxxPiA
—
okrapod wrote:
Can you elaborate on this a little? I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at.
Deb wrote:
New Calvinism brings church folks back under the law. TWW reports frequently about the abuses of this authoritarian system, as a new breed of reformed pastors wrest control of SBC’s traditional pulpits and expand into new territory via church plants. The remnant of “free church” is gradually disappearing from SBC; within a generation, it will be gone (thanks to the reformed movement which has captured our youth). With each passing day, more spritually-gifted born-again free-will Southern Baptists are entering the “Done” ranks … discovering that they are the Church, rather than going to church. Worshiping in Spirit and Truth beats gathering in the cantankerous institution we have called church. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to find the genuine among the counterfeit in organized religion. Until we experience revival and spiritual awakening in America (if/when we do), look for where God is working and join Him there. (Note: many para-church organizations come closer to the NT model of authentic Church than the churches in your community).
@numo: Agreed. I have lots of respect for Wade but he loses me on the Old/New Covenant split; there are quite a few Christian concepts concerning Judaism and the OT law that are uncomfortable at best, going back to the beginnings of Christianity. My family background on my dad’s side is Jewish so I’ve had a good bit of exposure to both, though I did end up Christian as on my maternal side which is appropriately Jewish in and of itself. Oy vey.
I think having specialists (trained clergy) is unavoidable in any group that’s bigger than can fit into my living room, and I’m glad they’re there, Wade included.
Max wrote:
So, in 20 years, how many people will actually still be SBC? ( In your best guess?) In 20 years, I will be gone, or just not caring anymore…
This post is like a sip of ice-cold lemonade on a hot summer day.
Mourning Dove wrote:
Bam! My, that lemonade was refreshing! Thanks to Wade for serving it up.
I couldn’t stop thinking about Robert Morris/Gateway Church (who reside in my neck-o-the-woods). Their push of, “tithe or the devil will getcha.” I’m sure there are plenty others who adhere to that teaching. In fact, I’d imagine it’s all too common nowadays.
Melissa wrote:
Sounds like the Hexerai in PA Dutch stories (and the Witches and Conjure Men of Manly Wade Wellman’s weird fiction) — extorting money by threatening to put a Hex on them. (Including using their familiar or a conjured/summoned spirit as legbreaker.)
Wade Burleson wrote:
Wade I love that line. My first thought when someone makes a statement like that is that they are speaking from fear of losing their position. I have also seen you describe and explain that pastor is not a noun our position but rather it is a verb and a function. I think so many of our young SB pastors have completely lost sight of this. They seem to have little desire to pastor but completely covet the position of PASTOR.
Loved this article on your site and glad the DEEBS pasted it here as well. thanks Wade you help me often to keep my head on straight.
Mourning Dove wrote:
Or a mug of warm hot chocolate on a winter one. 🙂
Original Mitch wrote:
Oh, yes! I think they imagine they are the heroes of their own story.
Sean wrote:
With a warm fire burning in the hearth.
This post could have been written with my situation in mind. I’m returning to Christianity and church after a long absence. As I contemplate my return, I realize that I will never find a “perfect” church. Humans aren’t perfect and neither are their institutions. The only thing with this post that I find difficult is when we talk about old vs new covenants. So when we look at God’s actions in the old testament narrative we find a brutality that is missing in the New. I don’t have a theological background but from my layman’s perspective, was the Old Testament a mistake? God saying “I messed up with all the ‘thou shalt…on pain of death’ and smiting. Maybe I should give peace a chance?”
I don’t have an answer except to take the bible in the context of it’s time, that I must discern the bronze age/iron age mentality of the time when it was written, when it was acceptable to wipe out your enemy to the last man, woman and child. When slavery was a reality (and an accepted one) in most societies. When women were seen as chattel. When death was a lot closer to the average person.
There were no concepts of liberal democracy as practiced in the 21st century, not much concept of childhood or even romantic love – in most cases. These are very modern concepts of only the last 200 years or so.
Many churches have written on their websites that they believe the bible is inerrant and inspired. I don’t think it’s inerrant but I can discern in it what inspires me.
Ken P. wrote:
I was referring to what is not only a huge and complicated topic with lots of associated issues, but a topic which some strains of christianity have revisited in their thinking after the events of the mid last century and a topic on which people can easily get, well, intense. The issue is what about the God’s covenants with the Jews, what about the OT laws (like the big 10) and their relationship to the gentiles. Some names associated with ideas about this are supersessionism, covent theology, new covenant theology, dispensationalism and probably more names. Romans 11 is one place to start.
In the post it seemed to me that Wade maintains a different position in his thinking than I do, and than to some extent I think some others here do, judging from prior discussions about this on previous threads. My thinking is far more like what the RCC did including some work by JP II on this issue. I am practically certain that Wade was saying exactly the opposite of that and that he was even advising wiping out influences from Judaism as much as possible from the practice of contemporary christianity. The post-holocaust re-thinking about supersessionism can be found on line.
Jack wrote:
That’s an interesting take on it, though I don’t believe God makes mistakes.
The way I have always thought of it was that God chose Israel, gave them the Commandments and the Law, gave them prophets and signs, and lots of chances. Lots of examples of what happens when you don’t live right, and the blessings that come when you do. And still, they couldn’t do it.
To me (and I am NO theologian!), it has always seemed that the whole point was to show that no matter how clear and simple God makes the rules (for our own good!), humans just could not, can not do it right, not on our own.
Therefore, Jesus.
K.D. wrote:
That depends on how long it takes this particular resurgence of Calvinism to fizzle. It will fizzle, leaving thousands of disillusioned folks to enter the Done ranks. SBC has been down-sizing for decades. They routed the liberals and moderates during the Conservative (= Calvinist) Resurgence in the 1990s. I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 60+ years – the denomination has always been fussing and fighting about something. That contentious behavior spills over to the local church level, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth ranging from things like color of the carpet to color of the preacher. Sad to witness a once-great evangelistic denomination on the decline. The book of Revelation has a word for Southern Baptists … repent or else.
Jack wrote:
I think I agree with Roebuck here. Humans made the mistake. The New Testament begins with Jesus arriving and shouldering the blame and taking the punishment for “whosoever will”.
Jack wrote:
It’s been awhile since I’ve studied the Ancient Near East codes that were prolific but based on pagan worship. The most famous is the Code of Hammurabi and there are similarities to the Mosaic Law except the Mosaic is far more humane in respect to the dignity of human life, treatment of women and slaves and made a distinction between intentional and accidental crime and the resulting punishment.
Normally God doesn’t work in a vacuum so in His progressive improvement to include justice and grace toward redemption, He builds on current cultural codes based on the Living God rather than pagan gods.
If you do some research on the Code of Hammurabi vs. the Mosaic Law, I think you will have a different view of God in that His wisdom, fairness, longsuffering, and compassion become evident in teaching His people who have been in Egypt for many years and who have been living in a pagan-oriented environment.
Hope some of that makes sense.
Wade Burleson wrote:
Amen! It’s clear that the NT model for doing church is that leadership offices (pastor, teacher, evangelist, etc.) have been given to the church to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4). Whose job is the ministry? Every believer has a part!
As a 60+ year Southern Baptist, I’ve witnessed a diminished emphasis on long-standing Baptist doctrines of “priesthood of the believer” and “soul competency.” These were (are) powerful Biblical precepts which united pulpit and pew to fulfill the Great Commission. The weakened focus on the role of the laity was particularly apparent in the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith & Message, as the denomination began to yield to New Calvinist influence.
Jack wrote:
Me too.
Further to the concept of ‘God making mistakes’…
Why did God create humans in the first place? To have free will? Why would He do that? Because He was bored? Did He want some surprises – is God capable of being surprised? Or did He know, in fact dictate, from the get-go exactly what every human was going to do (tip of the hat to Mr. Calvin)? Or not? Is knowing the same as dictating? Has He just been toying with humanity from the very beginning?
There is this whole ball of actually pretty basic and straightforward questions with unknowable answers. This is but one of the many reasons why I am NOT a theologian! 🙂
When I start to fall into this sort of impossible revery, I just remember the words of Himself: ‘My ways are not your ways’.
roebuck wrote:
The real kicker is: “… so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Nancy2 wrote:
Well, exactly – God is God, and He lets us know a little something about what’s up, but His plan and thoughts and such are just unfathomable. He works on a different ‘time’ scale, for a start, if you can even associate Eternity with ‘time’.
And then… Jesus. What a God! To do this for us. It makes me wonder who we are, why us, what really IS the plan? I know He loves us, but sometimes I find myself really wanting Him to like me a little bit. I mean, I would like to get a chuckle out of Him, if I could. I like to make the people I love laugh. And I love Him so…
Bridget wrote:
When I was a younger, I aspired to be an elder– in part because my young children seemed to be obedient, believing, etc, as required by ITim and Titus. Now that I’m elder, I can’t imagine qualifing– mostly because of self-awareness but also my wonderful adult children have adult problems and degrees of faith.
Tina wrote:
Have you heard of elders being forced to resign when their wife died because, no longer husband of one wife, doncha know?
Dave A A wrote:
Taken out of context, that’s a funny little phrase…
Dave A A wrote:
And now we have “elders” who are young! A reformed SBC church plant near me has a “lead pastor” who is 29, with an “elder” team in their early 30s. I get the feeling when I look at SBC’s church planting program that the youth group is running things!
Nancy2 wrote:
So all the human misery and suffering down through the ages is not enough? There has to be a ‘punishment’ laid on top of it too?
There was a time when I wouldn’t dare and question it. Now my conscience won’t let me sign onto it anymore.
@ okrapod:
Thanks!
Muff Potter wrote:
What is ‘it’?
@ Nancy2:
Mourning Dove wrote: “This post is like a sip of ice-cold lemonade on a hot summer day.”
Sean wrote: “Or a mug of warm hot chocolate on a winter one.”
Nancy2 wrote: “With a warm fire burning in the hearth.”
++++++++++++++++
with a splash of Kahlua.
@ Muff Potter:
I believe that there is a hell, and that those who refuse to accept Jesus will go there. The punishment Jesus took was rejection, torture, and crucifixion in exchange for our salvation.
Jack,
You wrote: “So when we look at God’s actions in the old testament narrative we find a brutality that is missing in the New. I don’t have a theological background but from my layman’s perspective, was the Old Testament a mistake?”
Your question is very pertinent. I wish I could elaborate more, but I’d like to give a simple (and short) response.
I see the Old Testament ALL about Jesus. Everything – from the Law, to the festivals, to the sacrifices, to the exile, to the prophets and prophecies, and all the rest – is fulfilled in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. So, rather than it being a mistake, it’s a revelation of Jesus. I would check out this article for a more elaborate response. http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/10/jesus-is-new-israel-in-gods-new.html
roebuck wrote:
I thought, why not throw in an “a” for parallel structure? In not too long, should I live so long, I’ll be an elderly!
Max wrote:
Why is it that young Baptist and Presbyterian types never aspire to be a BISHOP? After all, that’s what Paul says is a good thing. And there’s no age connotation with that one.
Dave A A wrote:
The same reason the President of the SBC doesn’t aspire to be a POPE???? ; )
@ Jack:
http://reknew.org/2015/08/what-to-do-with-the-violent-god-of-the-old-testament/
Greg Boyd writes a lot on this topic. You can search the above link for lots of posts on it. He has been researching a book on the topic for about 8 years.
@ Dave A A:
@ Nancy2:
Oh, but they do. As to bishop the belief is that episcopos (bishop) is the same thing but only another word for presbuteros (elder) so now hold that thought. At the same time the doctrine of the autonomy of the local church means that the senior (elder) pastor is the same thing except by another word for bishop-the same functions of oversight now being vested in the top-most local elder.
So now form a voluntary co-operation between many local churches with their local ‘bishops’ and you have the SBC. Then the SBC power structure become the cardinal bishops in function and the guy who functions as king of that hill (be it the president of the organization or someone like Mohler) is the first among equals analogous to the bishop of rome.
I look at that system and the playing they do with the word and idea of ‘bishop’ and all I can think is who do they think they are kidding? What they have is a system in which both the local church and the senior pastor can maintain a position of nobody is going to tell them what to do, and they have done it by having a plethora of ‘bishops’ in a multitude of autonomous churches.
So let me say here that I am calling hooey on their denial that this is what is going on, but I personally think that the idea of bishops is itself biblical.
roebuck wrote:
I think the Church has really dropped the ball on what “the love of God” is about.
I’m struggling to think of how to express this concisely… I suppose to introduce the idea I could describe a brief exchange I had with another Christian I know a while back. He’s a man in his 50’s (maybe nearer 60 now). And his belief was that “unconditional love” – as opposed to earned honour or respect – was completely sufficient for the Christian life. He described to me a eulogy written by a bereaved mother for her still-born baby’s funeral, in which she stated that even if he had survived, grown up and done all the things a young man might succeed in doing, she wouldn’t love him any more than she already did. This, said my acquaintance, was “proof” that unconditional love is enough.
I cite that conversation with caution, because I know that it takes somewhat out of context a real-life tragedy that has hit some of our fellow-commenters very directly and personally. But to me, that thinking was deeply disturbing. Although that might serve as a description of unconditional love, it serves as proof that “unconditional love” as celebrated in at least a certain proportion of the UK church, is not enough.
Because, and I can think of no better way to say this, we are not still-born babies. We are living, breathing, hoping, aspiring, achieving – sometimes hurting – human beings. To love only our existence, and nothing of our contribution, is not to love us at all. This depiction of God reminds me somewhat of when our daughter was very small – she loved her soft toys. She did so because she was a young child, projecting her own emotions onto what were really only pieces of polyester and stuffing. It was the best she knew how to do at that age. But, in the long run, you cannot respect a soft toy, and it can’t do anything you don’t make it do.
I don’t see, in the way Jesus treated people, a self-centred and sentimental “love” that was devoid of friendship, liking, or respect.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Absolutely. And truth be told I respect my grown children more than I ‘respected’ them at ages 2 or 5.
Let me throw this your way and see if you will do something with it.
I am thinking that God wants us to like Him also. Love for God can really be gratitude mixed with admiration mixed with caution mixed with curiosity and other stuff, but ‘like’? Maybe not so much. We like people when we see in them things like playfulness. We people don’t tend to see God grin or like Roebuck said chuckle. We tend to see the restrained and barely visible semi-smile of unwilling tolerance. Painful indulgence as it were.
So let me say, I think I have heard chuckles and seen playfulness, but I may be being irreverent here. I mention this hoping that someone else will join me in this opinion.
@ Lydia:
Lydia, I loved this! Thank you so much for posting the link!
Jack wrote:
It’s commonly held that the God of the OT is different from that of the NT.
Yet the love and mercy of God is mentioned in the OT, and his faithfulness towards a frequently unfaithful Israel; and the NT has passages about his wrath against sin, and final judgment. And the doctrine of hell (devoid of embellishments) is found almost exclusively on the lips of Jesus himself, as though God wouldn’t trust anyone else with this truth.
God can be both merciful and severe, and the perennial mistake of the church has been to emphasise one at the expense of the other. Throughout most of my Christian life the love and grace of God has been so in the centre that the idea of actually ‘fearing’ God has all but disappeared. ‘He was a God-fearing man’ is not a common expression these days.
Of course different Christians need different emphases at different times in their lives. Some need to become secure in the love of God, brought into the benefits of a complete salvation and sent on their way rejoicing. Others need to see God as not someone who can be trifled with, to whom it does matter if we fool around with sin in our lives. God as a Father who loves and disciplines, who softens the hearts of some and hardens the hearts of others.
okrapod wrote:
I don’t doubt for one minute that Jesus was grinning and/or chuckling as He watched Peter trying to walk on water. 🙂
Victorious wrote:
I’ll bet the Apostles made Jesus chuckle from time to time. You know there were more than a few eye-rolling moments as well.
okrapod wrote:
Ahem ……. themselves.
Nancy2 wrote:
Apparently so.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I think sometimes that phrase maybe misinterpreted and stretched beyond it’s true meaning. Loving someone unconditionally can be hating what they do, yet still loving the person.
When our children are young, for example, there are countless times when we hate what they do, yet we still love them. Our children test our limits and break the rules. They disappoint us and make us angry, yet they are still our children, and we still love them.
roebuck wrote:
I think the Apostles made Jeses want to bang his head against a wall a few times, too!
Wade,
I agree with your post.
This makes me curious to see what your official membership signing form and or process reads like.
I have come close but have never signed one because of the hierarchy wording either explicit in the material or spoken by one or more of the leaders.
@ okrapod:
“I am thinking that God wants us to like Him also. …… We like people when we see in them things like playfulness. We people don’t tend to see God grin or like Roebuck said chuckle. We tend to see the restrained and barely visible semi-smile of unwilling tolerance. Painful indulgence as it were.
So let me say, I think I have heard chuckles and seen playfulness, but I may be being irreverent here. I mention this hoping that someone else will join me in this opinion.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree. I think God is a person, with a sense of humor, spontanaeity, feelings, impulses, playfulness (like you say), a sense of humor. I think we can know God like we can know anyone. I think we can chat with him all day long, and learn to tune in to GOD fm, finding his wavelength, hearing/sensing/seeing in one’s mind’s eye. I think we can learn to bring him in to whatever it is we’re doing like a friend who is always ready to help, always ready to join in and participate, ingesting him like air.
I see God as a highly social person, who LOVES and absolutely thrives on contact, connection, communion (I don’t mean grape juice and crackers) (& sorry for the alliteration).
And not just quiet, thought-things. I think God LOVES and thrives on joining with us on big, energetic things (like improving one’s swim stroke, or building up endurance in running/biking, ‘moving day’ when you’re moving all the furniture and boxes with all kinds of emotion, or the enjoyment of a very fun party with people you love with lots of laughs) — just like created beings respond to expressions of energy (excitement, momentum, big feelings, noise, big physical movements). it’s contagious and motivating. i’m sure God responds to these as well in a similar way. I think when we bring him into these things with us, he’s ‘activated’ as well (just like a human being would be).
roebuck wrote:
Simply this:
When I read the Genesis narrative, I don’t see an angry god, I see a heartsick and horrified parent who watched his beautiful kids reap the consequences of their actions. I no longer see a cosmic magistrate who had to levy further punishments like ‘spiritual death’, ‘broken fellowship’ and ‘sin debt’ as I heard from one expositor.
Nancy2 wrote:
As I’ve commented here before, I hold to the tenets of the Apostle’s Creed and especially to its supernatural components. It affords me a wide latitude of conscience and human freedom. I suspect we differ on what it means to accept Jesus and gain salvation. I can no longer in good conscience sign on to what is taught (Soteriology) by Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, the Roman Catholic Church, Calvin & Luther.
Neither am I a universalist.
okrapod wrote:
Sunday school lessons in my early childhood caused me to believe that the Jews were an ancient people who died out. I did not learn otherwise until I discovered some of them sitting next to me in elementary school. My family attended mainline churches where the existence of living Jews was simply not a topic for children, despite anguished revision of theology after the Holocaust. Our churches’ reticence about Jews—our habit of not taking their existence into account, let alone their beliefs—was not harmless.
Wade Burleson correctly points out the folly of “improving” Christianity by adding Old Covenant practices. However, he comes perilously close to saying that the New Covenant replaced an inferior system of belief: “the old pattern of worship in ancient Israel was made obsolete.” “No longer is worship about Temples, priests and rituals.” “When was God’s covenant with Israel abolished? In AD 70 God used the Roman army to utterly destroy the Temple.” These passages could imply that the New Covenant discredits the Old, and that modern-day Judaism is not a valid religion. I am far more comfortable believing that both covenants are in effect, and that I am grafted on.
Years ago I had an Orthodox Jewish co-worker who described the rules and laws he followed as achievable by mere humans. One needed to do so much—quite a bit, in fact—but no more. He considered the requirements of his religion to be compassionate in their limitations. A person might, as it were, pay his due to God, and his debt to society, and move on.
The grace we claim as Christians contains a burden with which we sometimes wrestle. We confess our sins, and perhaps feel entirely cleansed, while knowing that any small sin causes us to fall short of the only standard, which is perfection. I am writing here as no scholar, but as a believer often mired in guilt about things I did as a very young person, things forgotten by all but me. I still cringe at small wrongs I committed against people who are now long dead. Confession, forgiveness, repentance, and greater wisdom help, but only so much. I am up against the infinite.
Perhaps I would feel more cleansed in a system under which I bought a sacrificial offering and watched it burn. As a Christian, though, I do not claim that covenant. I find comfort in liturgy and sacred places, and in the freedom to pray and worship anywhere, without seeking out a priest or beholding an image. Nevertheless, being hopelessly puny, no matter how much I love my covenant and my Christ, I rarely feel tall enough to reach them.
Muff Potter wrote:
Nor can I. Thanks for your reply.
@ Friend:
I do not know any Jewish people who find the law burdensome or impossible to live by and with. Not one.
Amy-Jill Levine (who is Orthodox, but teaches NT studies at Vanderbilt) has a lot to say about this in her book The Misunderstood Jew (the title refers to Jesus). She has also written a book on the parables, and is co-editor of The Annotated Jewish New Testament. She has pretty much heard it all, being a Southerner who has a large number of divinity students in her courses, and has an engaging way of discussing many of the issues raised here. I highly recommend her work.
@ Friend:
There have been no such burnt offerings since the destruction of the temple, in 70 A.D.
Jewish people were worshipping in synagogues during Christ’s lifetime; he and Paul frequnted them. Jesus reads from the srolls in one early narrative (in Luke, iirc). Fwiw, synagogues were one of the good things brought to Judaism by… the Pharisees. Yep, them. Just because some of them opposed Jesus and were taken down a few pegs by him does not mean that they were *all* self-righteous jerks. In fact, Judaism as now practiced can be traced back to the Pharisees. They were actually reform-minded.
@ Muff Potter:
The Apostles and Nicene Creeds aren’t about whatever the Westetn arm of the church developed regarding “original sin.” Like you and roebuck, i no longer believe in it, though i do indeed believe in sin. Neither do i subscribe to penal substitutionary atonement anymore. Substitutionary, yes; the creeds and other documents from the church’s earliest centuries are *not* about Jesus being sacrificed to appease a wrathful God. Neither is there any mention of hell, though Hades (abode of the dead) has been mistranslated this way in English. Many churches that use the Nicene Creed have revised that wording to more accurately reflect what is being said in the original – that Christ “descended to the dead.”
I know this might be confusing for some of you, but these creeds are easily found on the internet and are crucial statements of faith for all of Christianity.
Muff Potter wrote:
Problem is, the only alternative is what is taught (Soteriology) by Jack Chick and Calvary Chapel.
okrapod wrote:
Semantics, My Dear Wormwood, Semantics.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Not true, though.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
You ever checked into whst the Eastern Orthodox (among others) have to say on these issues? You might be plesantly surprised?
__
“Walk This Way?”
hmmm…
The divine similitude in Man and his original uprightness no longer exist… (Calvin, Inst. I, 15, 4).
huh?
This change away from the original orientation towards God is rooted in the fall of Adam (Niesel 81).
The first man created by God fell away from his Creator and thus ‘decided’ the fate of the whole human race (Calvin’s Inst. II, 1).
All Mankind are in Adam (originated from him) , thus all are condemned by his act of disobedience in the garden.
“When you eat of the fruit…you shall surely die.”
What?
Yes, All Mankind suffers under a death sentence incurred by the first Man, Adam.
As we came (originated) from Adam’s loins, therefore all are under the penalty of Adam’s disobedience; Death.
There is no need for God to condemn men, as there are all under a self incurred death sentence.
Now please note that John Calvin, in his theological system (ICR) , says that God thus ‘choose’ some Men for ‘election’ to heaven, and some Men to Hell.
—> But this is not true.
What?
Yes, all men are condemned because of actions of Adam, the first man,
Sure.
Yet God from the garden promised a redeemer, thus fulfilled in Christ at Calvary.
Good News?
Yes!
Jesus has proclaimed ‘the gospel of the kingdom’ ™ ; –that ALL those who believe in the finished work of God’s dear Son Jesus, will receive redemption of sins, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and Eternal life.
Thus, –because of Jesus Christ, the death sentence (that was on Mankind because of Adam) fell upon Jesus, with the proviso that those who will believe in Jesus, will be set free from ‘Sin’ and ‘Death’. This is the ‘good news’ (R) of the gospel.
Thus, God uses the foolishness of the gospel (the good news) to save Folk.
“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” 1st Corinthians 1:21
This is where You, Dear Wartburg Reader, –come in…
Knock! Knock!
Please ‘believe’ upon Jesus today, You’ll be glad you did!
Who says Christmas only comes around once a year?
ATB
Sopy
🙂
—
numo wrote:
Oh indeed not. I did not mean to conflate ancient rituals with modern Jewish practices, and I thank you for pointing this out. I also appreciate your recommendation of Amy-Jill Levine’s work.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
One of the biggest barriers one faces in discussions like these about covenants, Jewish roots of Christianity, etc, is that people automatically default to dispensations with images of Left Behind, etc.
I am even reluctant to mention the land covenant because people assume I want Palestinians dead.
@ numo:
Her book, “The Misunderstood Jew:The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus” is 3.99 on kindle if anyone is interested. Downloading!
@ NJ:
One of my problems with rigid tithe teaching comes from my reading of 2 Corinthians 9:7. If ever there was a place to teach on tithing in the NT church, this would have been a place to do so. Instead, Paul writes to trust the Holy Spirit in directing people in their giving.
Obviously, giving is important. However, I get concerned when I see pastors/teachers getting rigid over the percentage or amount. That strikes me as humans trying to control as opposed to trusting in God. I left a church over this matter as the senior leadership made committing to giving 10% tithe to that local body as the price to pay in order to lead a small group there.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I hear what you’re saying HUG, but what kind of alternative is Calvary Chapel & Jack Chick? I reached escape velocity from that kind of fear-based gravity years ago.
@ Friend:
No worries – i got whst you were saying; just wanted to mention that sacrifices haven’t been a thing for a good long ehile now. 🙂
Up! Down! In! and Out!
Livin’ La Vida Loca!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p47fEXGabaY
Muff Potter wrote:
Speaking of Livin’ La Vida Loca…
Divorce Minister wrote:
…and often defining that as 10% of gross income to be given to the church to which one belongs. No discretion to give, say, 8% to the church and 2% to the soup kitchen supported by the same church.
If I understand your meaning, your 10% was essentially “pay to play.” That is beyond shocking.
Divorce Minister wrote:
I remember a time, years ago, when I had boug
Lydia wrote:
I’m a friend and staunch supporter of the nation state of Israel, that hasn’t changed over the years (nor will it). Some of my progressive brethren have taken me to task over this, but oh well as they say. They remind me of what the KGB used to call ‘useful idiots’ in the West anyway.
numo wrote:
Given the weird ideas people have about others, there’s no such thing as being too careful. When I lived in the UK, some people seriously assumed that I had grown up on a ranch, with cowboys and everything.
@ Nancy2:
Small keys … Try again:
I remember a time, years ago, when after I had bought the bare essentials in groceries and paid the bills (no cell phone, no satellite TV, ect., just bare essentials), I only had 17 cents left in the bank account at the end of the month. If I had tithed ten percent of my meager income, I would have had a hard time determining what to sacrifice: food, electricity, leaving my 6 year old daughter at home with no babysitter???
My church understood my situation, and no one complained.
Divorce Minister wrote:
I was told by a church staff member at a nearby church that the church had fired it’s part time youth director because he was spending too much time with the kids by going to their games when he should have spent more time at his desk because ‘church is a business after all.’
I have no idea what he would be doing at his desk that would bring in money, but they sure wanted him to do it.
@ okrapod:
I don’t really think Wade is saying what you’re claiming he says. I don’t think he’s trying to prescribe a specific means of worship or way of being the church, he’s just saying that the clergy-laity distinction is not a New Testament Era model and the idea that church is a given place is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Pauline Epistles, the writings of James and John and Peter and the clear statements of Jesus, such as “the kingdom of God is within you”. Apparently the church, according to Jesus, is not something that you can say “There it is”, it’s us. Whether one chooses a liturgical means of worship or not seems beside the point.
Sopwith wrote:
🙂
okrapod wrote:
Oh man, that happened to a guy, former ( now former)youth minister I know who was going to the high school and eating lunch with the kids, going to the plays at school, going to concerts, ballgames etc during the school day.( school approved, somewhat small city)…..they fired him because he was “not at the church enough, and spent too much with the kids…”
Wow….just wow….what is wrong with these people?
Rachel wrote:
I just don’t see how anyone can take what Jesus said and the balance of the New Testament and derive this position from it. I am not saying the Hebrew Law and Scriptures are nonsense, they all point to Jesus, they were fulfilled in Him, they are the words of God, of infinite value–but again, they were fulfilled. The whole point of Christianity, of the Gospel (as opposed to The Gospel™) is that there is a split between the old and new covenant, one brings death, the other life. That’s just right there in black and white.
K.D. wrote:
Perhaps pharisaism.
Divorce Minister wrote:
I’ve seen it before, no leadership of any sort unless you gave sufficiently, and pastor pored over the tithing records to ensure that all were giving what he deemed to be an appropriate amount. What it really boils down to is a professional class attempting to protect their livelihood.
@ Friend:
I hear you. People from France and Switzerland thought that about me (some of them, obviously not all).
@ Law Prof:
I think we come from very different streams of Christianity, and what troubles me deeply makes obvious sense to you. That’s not to be critical, just saying that there is more than one approach in play here.
numo wrote:
Hey, shoot. Tell me about the other approach and support it.
@ Law Prof:
I guess the question would be if any were saved in the Old Covenant. Then ask how and why. Were they ever “saved” by keeping the law perfectly?
I guess I would have to say I view the Mosaic law quite differently than most around me.
@ Law Prof:
I really can’t summarize it in a combox. Okrapod took a shot at it, upthread, and I recommended some books…
Law Prof wrote:
The primary purpose of this site, as stated in the header, has to do with “Dissecting Christian Trends”.
Christians are entrusted with the truth, and with that comes a responsibility. In order to expose false teachings, one must be grounded in the truth, and from that standpoint defend their ground.
So, it strikes me as a cop-out when someone who regularly engages with the content offered on this site says, “there is more than one approach in play here” and when asked to defend their approach says, “I really can’t”.
I don’t see the point of being contrarian, or suggesting the above post contained false teaching, if one can not supply a reasoned defense of their position from scripture, in keeping with both with the nature of the blog and of the admonition Christians are given to use the light to expose the darkness.
Let’s not keep it hidden under a bushel if it’s that important! Please, enlighten us numo and okrapod! Let your light shine!
I lean heavily on the verses, “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places” (John 14:2a), and, “they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:28b-29). These verses soften the edge of the hard teaching, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6b).
I believe in a big heaven, not full of folk like me, but brimming with folk who could not stand one another during their brief mortal lives: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” —I Corinthians 13:12
This is a lovely and deep discussion, and I hope it will continue in a kind, open spirit.
@ Paula Rice:
Nobody is bein “contrarian,” let slone selling “false teaching.” If you or anyone else cannot be bothered reading previous comments, that’s your problem, isn’t it?
Both okrapod and i previously stated – upthread – that this particular discussion does not lend itself to the kind of oversimplification that is required if a combox. If you look up the post where she tackles it, dhe gives some very cogent reasons as to why that is.
I have always felt that this is a “Do your homework” kind of site. I bet you csn find okrapod’s post in about 10 sevonds, if you hit CTRL + F and type in her usernsme
You can also find my book recs that way. Not sure what the Mac shortcut is; i just gave you the one for any version of Windows.
It serms pointless to reiterate what okrapod has already said. Same for me. We can certainly pick up from those points, but please, if you could look them up, it would be very helpful.
I am not inclined to get into an argument with you, but am actually trying to give you some substance. What you do with it is your choice.
@ Friend:
Thank you, and very much agreed.
@ Paula Rice:
Look, anyone – very much including athe7sts – is welcome to comment on this blog. I am not sure why you ferl the need to check everyone’s bona fides, or to make accusations of false teaching and the like. Just because someone has never heard X does not mean that X is untrue, nor that those who believe X have ulterior motives.
@ Paula Rice:
It is hardly a “cop-out.” There is such a thing as trying to avoid unnecessary arguments, and for me, this is one of those times.
@ Friend:
Fwiw, in some strands of Judaism, the world to come is full of all the righteous. That mesns gentiles will more than likely outnumber the Jewish folks there.
If people who have been relentlessly persecuted by gentile xtians for well over 1500 years are more than able to envision themselves sharing everlasting life with representatives of all religions, as well as the one that was cruelest to them, who am i to argue? It strikes me – not for the first time – that us so-called xtians tend to come in wsy behind a lot of other folks on a lot of the things that mattered most to Christ himself.
@ Paula Rice:
My original reply to Law Prof is here –
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/11/11/upside-down-church-through-inside-out-christianity-wade-burleson/comment-page-1/#comment-227995
@ Law Prof:
The thing is, there are actually multiple approaches, which is one of many reasons that trying to summarize them in a comment is difficult.
Again, if you want to check the comment upthread where okrapod name-checked a number of them (but felt that was pretty much all she could do, dince it is a huge topic), you’ll find some good starting points.
As for one of the authors who would be helpful, i will put Dr. Amy-Jill Levine’s name here one more time, since i think she deserves the up. She teaches NT stdies at the Vanderbilt U. divinity school and is probably the best place to start for anyone who comes from a Southetn Baptist background, if only because she knows you folks well and explains thing more clearly than i ever could. (As i am neither evangelical or Southetn Baptist, and do not speak the lingo or understand the differences between your part of the church and mine in the way that she foes. I am still hornswoggled by pretty much everything to fo with you folks’ churches and all.)
@ Paula Rice:
Do you think that, maybe, you are assuming that only xtians have “the truth”? I cannot say that i agree, if so.
@ numo:
Just so nobody feels obliged to look it up, here is a link to the relevant post by okrapod –
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/11/11/upside-down-church-through-inside-out-christianity-wade-burleson/comment-page-1/#comment-227890
numo wrote:
I briefly attended a Southern Baptist 32 years ago after I first became a Christian, but never really identified with their beliefs other than the congregationalist approach (which seems to be losing ground under the modern incarnation of that denomination), they were just the nearest church in my small town. I have a background in ELCA Lutheran, PCUSA (liberal) Presbyterian (on paid staff), and Methodist, all of them in whole or part liturgical. I’ve also attended a number of non-denoms, from spirit-filled charismatic to the neocalvinist/YRR abusive church that I’ve frequently mentioned here. So I may not quite fit into the category of “you folks”.
numo wrote:
I will not say that Christians have the only hold on the truth, but I will say that it is beyond refutation in my mind that Jesus is the only way to the Father.
numo wrote:
Except for the obvious fact of believing in Him and the claims He made about Himself. No small thing, really.
Jesus didn’t come to tell us all to be nice to one another and and live in harmony and coexist, He is the most divisive figure in world history by a million measure. He came to tell us the stark truth. If some people calling themselves Christians do not live up to that name, then they are likely either very foolish, destructive Christians, who will answer to God for it, or are phonies and frauds, using the name of Jesus to fulfill their lusts for power or prestige or property. Of course, Jesus also warned us about those phonies and frauds.
From Compline, words for this time of the evening:
Keep watch, dear Lord, with those who work, or watch, or weep this night, and give your angels charge over those who sleep. Tend the sick, Lord Christ; give rest to the weary, bless the dying, soothe the suffering, pity the afflicted, shield the joyous; and all for your love’s sake. Amen.
Lydia wrote:
I’m one of those old fossils who has to have a real old-fashioned type book in his mitts. Gonna order a copy and it’ll get to me by snail-mail.
@ Law Prof:
I am ELCA (formerly LCA ) myself. “Conversion” as a teen (am thinking it happened *much* earlier, but this was vis-a-vis a bunch of Catholic charismatics who prayed like mdmbers of the AogG and used Pentecostal/evangelical terminology quite freely. So did i, but never left the Lutheran church, though i was in some others.)
I think maybe looking at the ELCA’s repudiation of Luther’s horrible anti-semitic screeds might be helpful, also JP II’s statements regarding Judaism. All of that makes more sense to me – kid from a mixed Jewish-gentile neighborhood – than so-called replacement theology and all the rest. But i am not the best source, which is why i am trying to defer to people who genuinely do know the intricacies of these subjects. It’s also pretty well imposdible to boil down the 1st 500+ years of church history to fit a blog combox.
@ Friend:
Amen.
And thanks for this, Friend.
@ Muff Potter:
I love books, but my physical books cost an awful lot of money to move. E-readers are a godsend in more ways than one.
@ Law Prof:
I was not referring to capital-T truth above, nor am i now.
Maybe part of the difficulty here is where I’m from vs. where you’re from? The East Coast (mid-Atlantic) is very culturally different, overall, than your region, and – as with your region – there are many small regions within a region.
@ Friend:
What a beautiful prayer Friend, and thank you for sharing.
@ Law Prof:
You don’t think thst Hitler, Stalin and Mao all deserve that title of most divisive figure? Let’s agree to disagree on this, ok?
Like i said above, i was and still am trying to avoid getting into an argument or three. We are Chridtian; i believe what is stated in the Apostles and Nicene creeds.
@ Law Prof:
I cannot begin to say how far above my pay grade it is to try and decide who is “a real Christian,” let alone the criteria involved in making that kind of decision!
There are times when i think about beginning the process of conversion to Judaism (Reform), actually. And yes, i realize that doesn’t square with what i just said about the ecumenical creeds, but that’s how it is. I don’t know thst i would necessarily make the same choices i made when i was younger, although i am deeply grateful for the faith of my parents (my mom in particular) as well as for that of close family friends who are Jewish.
@ Law Prof:
No, you don’t fit that category – my apologies! Sounds like we could trade stories. 🙂
@ numo:
Make the same choices if i had a shot at a do-over, that is.
Then sgain, maybe i would. 😉
__
Come Bitter Rain,
And Wash From My Heart
That Sadest Of All Words :
‘Betrayal’.
huh?
When the Israelites rejected Jesus in 33 A.D. , Jesus, –some time after His resurection and ascension, He raised up Paul to take the gospel to the Gentiles.
What?
And one shall say to Jesus, What are these wounds in your hands? Then He shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of My friends.
…Surely our griefs Jesus Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried;
Yet He was esteemed stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed.
By oppression and judgment Jesus was taken away.
Yet who of His generation protested? For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of His people He was punished.
Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush Jesus and cause Him to suffer, and though the LORD made His life an offering for sin, He will certainily see His offspring and prolong His days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in His hand…
Skreeeeeeeeeetch !
All of us like sheep have gone astray the scriptures says, –each of us has turned to his or her own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Jesus…
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Jesus Himself bore our sins” in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by His wounds we can be healed!
Yep.
Please accept the healing that Jesus has to offer You, today; –He is available by prayer 24 by 7, give Him a shout !
You’ll be glad you did!
(please consult the Bible for details…)
ATB
Sopy
—
Law Prof wrote:
I guess I need to clarify. I don’t mean to say people who are not Christians cannot tell the truth. When I said Christians are entrusted with the truth, I was referring to the Gospel. And yes, absolutely, the Gospel, being the revelation of the grace of God to fallen man, is the only path to God. I probably should have capitalized Truth to distinguish it from truth since I was using the word in the John 14:6 literal sense. 🙂
numo wrote:
This would explain a lot. Further, the New Testament doesn’t describe the process as being complicated. In fact, it’s pretty basic. But to know who is in the camp, one must be in the camp, and that is of primary importance to recognizing those who are not.
numo wrote:
I have no problem defending my faith. In fact, I enjoy doing so.
I think it’s nice that TWW affords Wade Burleson a voice here, and I respect that. I thought his post was very pastoral. I don’t find any reason to squabble over it because I think it’s a sound teaching.
But you are very bold, numo, in a way I’m uncomfortable with, and it feels to me as though you are quiessentially more comfortable here than I am. So, while I have no trouble standing my ground, I feel it best to yield the ground here to you, as it’s not mine to defend.
Thanks for sharing your views.
@ Muff Potter:
I have collected books for decades. It became a problem. Now I only seek more rare, classic or reference type hard cover books. All those years I traveled, what I would have given for a tiny kindle!
@ Paula Rice:
“But to know who is in the camp, one must be in the camp, and that is of primary importance to recognizing those who are not.”
++++++++++++++
hmmm….. the camp is full of psychotropic fumes.
God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are very findable outside said elite ‘camp’. to be in the camp is to enter erosion of objectivity.
but why the us-versus-them mindset?
Law Prof wrote:
Just to clarify because I believe Jesus Christ is Truth and Life, my concern is more about the focus on Mosaic law vs. Grace in Covenant Theology. Jesus Christ has been positioned by so many throughout history as an excuse to perpetuate sin against others. Jesus’ grace did not remove right and wrong. Jesus referred to the Pharisees as “lawless”! Covenant Theology tends to focus on us remaining horrible sinners as if that is ok because we cannot help it. I don’t believe for one minute God would purposely make laws He knew people were “unable” to keep. That would make Him a tyrant and deceptive. But that is the position/result of so much of this sort of theology.
@ Lydia:
Way to go Lydia. You do the singing and I will hum backup.
@ elastigirl:
Amen to that. Besides, outside the camp is an OT concept; imagine that. Weren’t lepers outside the camp?
@ okrapod:
This is hard to discuss because people tend to think i am promoting the law (I would be a Gentile in this scenerio!) or that one is promoting some sort of sinless perfection. I will mention again that Hebrews was written to converted Jews and should be understood in that light. If so many theologians had not positioned Romans to be about “individual salvation”, which is now ingrained, it would help. A lot. Romans is all about the Jew/Gentile dichotomy because that was a huge issue in the early church. And since then, Christianiity tended to adopt the “Jewish” all bad position.
@ Paula Rice:
You are unaware of the realities of it, but you assume thst you know.
Please, could you show somemkindness toward those whose beliefsvare notmin lockstep with yours?
@ elastigirl:
Amen. And Jesus was literally outdide the camp, per the writer of Hebrews.
elastigirl wrote:
I don’t mean the camp of a particular denomination or that of the four walls of a church. Is that what you assumed I meant? When I said “camp” I meant those who are members of the new community, the church; those whom God has called and know they belong to him. Is that something that seems unfair and exclusive to you?
@ Paula Rice:
I don’t know why you want to separate the sheep from the goats (as you biew us/them), but one reason thst i threw the bit about conversion onto the table was, admittedly, to see if you woild call it this way.
I did not makemit up, and the very reason i didn’t has a great deal to do with the kinds of responses you have posted.
But then, i also adhere to what is ststed in noth the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. I am not sure why, but i do. So there it is.
@ numo:
As you view us/them…
@ numo:
I am kind. I’m also not going to be drawn into an argument with you.
@ Paula Rice:
Please, at least take some time to read about what all is involved in conversion to Judaism. It is not what you think.
Paula Rice wrote:
Yes.
In the parable of the wheat and the tares Jesus said leave the tares alone, the angels will solve it when the time comes. At the same time, I don’t see that he said anything about even identifying wheat or tares at all. At the same time, and in the teaching of Jesus, there will be some surprise and consternation at the judgement as to whom in fact he knows or does not know. In the meantime it is not for us to say, much less to label people.
In this case your have apparently identified a life long Lutheran as one of the tares. Those of us who have heard her over time would strongly disagree with you. But my disagreement is larger than that. I believe that the mission of identifying much less separating the wheat and the tares has not been given to us to do-at all.
Paula Rice wrote:
Just to clarify, I am not going in the same direction as Numo with this. But how would you describe the camp. Is Calvin in it? Was his thuggery no big deal?. Would Driscoll be in the camp? How about Mother Theresa? How can we judge such things outside of “fruit”?
Is the camp based on “correct doctrine” or good fruit? Or both. The only expectation I can find in the Gospels is “repent and believe” from Jesus Christ. And repent is not saying sorry. In my view, It is a total “from…to” metamorphosis of which we choose and are aided by the promised Holy Spirit.
Law Prof wrote:
Isn’t this what the creeds proclaim? Most everyone who comments here holds to one of the three main creeds. Working out our salvation may look different among us.
okrapod wrote:
Jesus was outside the camp all the time.
@ Bridget:
Yes, he was.
okrapod wrote:
I brought this up earlier (on this thread or another). Jesus seemed clear about this.
@ okrapod:
Thanks, and i really agree with you on the larger issues that you’re tackling. It is much bigger than the Who Is “In” and Who Is “Out” approach.
It is literally not ours to judge. At least, that is how i see this passage, fwiw.
@ Paula Rice:
I think you are kind and a seeker of truth. That is one of the very cool things about this blog. It tends to attract truth seekers. And discussing such things can get real messy and contentious. I am often reluctant to get into Law/Grace discussions because the topic is huge and so much of it ingrained makes it hard to discuss. It does amaze me that so many Gentiles think they are now free from Mosaic Law. :o) Romans says the law is written on their hearts. We are never free from right and wrong. Good or evil. We are to be the Temple where God resides.
I have had very bad experiences with these discussions.. But I do think the standard Law/Grace arguments end up painting God as a deceptive tyrant. When the truth is He is long suffering and patient. He is HESED. A word hard to translate but we often see it as loving kindness.
@ Wade Burleson wrote:
“My job is to lead people in such a manner that they cheerfully give to the Lord, joyfully serve the Lord, and willingly worship the Lord.”
Excellent. Thank you.
And gifted (a gift is free) by the Holy Spirit, each person has their gift (1 Cor. 12, Rom. 12, Eph. 4) to offer in the Body of Christ.
Bridget wrote:
But we can use wisdom and identify rotten fruit and warn others. This is done on this blog all the time. That is making a judgement call about fruit. What we cannot do is judge others when we are doing the exact same things they are. Nor do we hold salvia keys like 9 Marx does. And I believe they have rotten fruit. This is about fruit. It is interesting to do some cursory research on wheat vs Tare. They look alike for a while until fully grown. If the Tare was obviously producing rotten fruit all along and strangling out the growing wheat, it would be best to avoid the Tare and warn others.
Lydia wrote:
I agree with this. I stated as much when I brought up the parable of the tares and wheat.
@ Paula Rice & Law Prof:
For as long as I’ve been a denizen here at this blog, I have never heard numo deny that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Nor have I ever denied that he is the promised one, Messiah to both Jew and Gentile. I think that our disagreements are largely over the mechanics and logistics of how that (salvation) plays out.
Muff Potter wrote:
Heck, Muff, I’m not firing a shot across Numo’s bow, throwing down a gauntlet, swiping him across the face with a glove, nothing. Not claiming Christians have a corner on all truth, either, and they most certainly do not have a corner on all virtue! I’m to the point where if someone tells me they’re a Christian, I figure the best I can do is force myself to not hold it against them. I am sick of that which calls itself Christianity, maybe sicker than Numo. I believe there are truths in virtually all religious belief systems, I believe that everyone is made in the image of God.
That said, Jesus either was who He said He was or He wasn’t. And He sure did claim to be God Himself and the only way to Heaven.
numo wrote:
Not even close. Pipsqueaks. Little mice. Jesus is by far and away the most divisive figure in world history.
numo wrote:
Obne can draw and direct line between Luther and Hitler. I say that as one who formerly taught Sunday School at not one but two ELCA Lutheran churches.
Bridget wrote:
I’m not too hung up on creeds. Just saying that in spite of the fact that some who have called themselves Christians have acted like monsters throughout history (e.g., the crusaders, John Calvin) that believing that Jesus was who He claimed to be is something of a dividing line. He made that kind of a point.
@ Paula Rice:
“I don’t mean the camp of a particular denomination or that of the four walls of a church. Is that what you assumed I meant? When I said “camp” I meant those who are members of the new community, the church; those whom God has called and know they belong to him. Is that something that seems unfair and exclusive to you?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I guessed you didn’t mean a building or a denomination, but I wasn’t exactly sure what you meant by ‘camp’. what seemed exclusive, members-only, and an unfair appraisal of things was the inside the camp/outside the camp wording. although I’m sure you’re complex enough that that was not your thesis statement on the subject.
having lived a lifetime in various communities comprised at least in part of ‘members of the new community, the church; who know they belong to him’, and now living more on the outside, I no longer see people according to a binary system of who’s in and who’s out, but I simply see people as people. And I can say that I see divine gems in my friends of other or no religions. I recognize deposits of God in them.
if anything, if there is a God-camp to be in, the experience of it enables a person to recognize God in many places.
@ Law Prof:
It’s true.
@ Law Prof:
I disagree, but it’s about views of history; not a religious disagreement. Very few people knew anything about Jesus during his esrthly life.
I think it is the religion, with its insistence that people be xtian or else (the “or else” includes pogroms, burning at the stske, etc.) that is divisive, not Jesus. In other words, human beings claiming to act on his behslf, using him as an excuse for evil.
Law Prof wrote:
I can relate.
@ Lydia:
Hi Lydia,
I don’t know why exactly feel things have gotten off track here, and I take responsibility for some of this if I have added to the confusion. I initially made a general observation based on what I noticed happening within this thread, and observed some people taking exception to what Wade had written. There were some people who said they had a different approach, which is when I said something. It seemed to me if you’re going to start drawing attention towards some kind of different approach being offered, that runs contrary in some respects to what Wade had offered in his teaching, then I think that position should be explained. If not, it impressed me as being something…I forgot the word I used. Personally, I think it would have been nice for there to have been more discussion in support of what Pastor Burleson shared and some fellowship based upon that, but that’s just me. I found it unfortunate in some ways that it did not occur, and believe me, I’m all for a good debate. And I wasn’t uncomfortable that disagreement had taken place, per say. But I was uneasy with the nature of it. Like I said, I come here expecting to interact with subjects relevant to the Christian faith, as stated in the header. That’s not to say there shouldn’t be people who participate here who hold to various other persuasions. That’s not it at all. But I have gone on record as saying that it is my hope and belief that while discussing issues surrounding the nature of Jesus Christ, the Christian faith, and the Gospel, that there would be a standard people can identify, that is then used to define what is and what isn’t the Gospel. Who is and who isn’t Jesus Christ. What is and what isn’t Christianity.
I believe there is a standard. That is my personal belief. I self-identify as a Christian. While I am accepting of people and their views, I don’t shy away from raising up a standard, which is what I did when I said that there is a way by which Christians can identify who is in the camp and who isn’t, and as far as I know, I meant that to be taken in a general sense and not applied to anyone here in particular. Somehow that got taken to mean I was calling some people sheep and some people goats and I’m not sure how that happened, but I take responsibility for that. It may have resulted in a failure in my communication, I’m really not sure.
What I was getting at, and piggy-backing on what I had said about Truth (capital T), is that we, as Christians (sorry, not meaning to leave anyone out here) are to become familiar with the Gospel in such a way that it literally becomes in our hands a sharp, two-edged sword, but which we can both speak the truth, and divide between what is true and what is false.
I believe we do this (and forgive me if this sound elementary, but I’m honestly not sure if I’m taking for granted the thoughts I have concerning these things, or if this proves helpful to elaborate and clarify) by becoming very familiar with what is taught in the bible coupled with faith in its’ veracity. I’ve heard that the way they teach people to recognize counterfeit bills, for example, is to train people by giving them stacks of real money that they are to grow very familiar, so familiar that when a counterfeit is added to the stack it can be immediately recognized. I think that is how we are able to spot a false gospel, by becoming very familiar with the true Gospel. And there are false teachers and false preachers that the bible says we are learn to identify, mark, and warn others about. As I see it, that’s not something we take on as though it’s not part of the process. I see it as a natural outcome of having our senses trained to discern between good and evil, which happens when you know the bible well.
But like every other aspect of the Christian faith, exercising discernment and making judgments is something we do as we are led by the Spirit. For example, I don’t think Peter woke up on one day and said, “Today I’m going to pronounce death upon someone so that people are in awe of me.” But what happened one day is Ananias came in and lied, having conspired with his wife to do so, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter discerned their deception. God revealed the truth to Peter, and also the punishment. The result? Both Ananias and Sapphira fell dead as door nails. Did people react to this by saying, “Dang. I don’t see the big deal. So what if they kept a little something, something back for themselves? Seems a bit harsh, don’t you think?” The bible records that fear feel upon the people as a consequence, and we’re to view that as a good thing.
So, what am I saying here…I’ve kinda lost my point. You asked, “How can we judge such things outside of “fruit”?” We can, but it takes the Spirit, and not everyone always agree on what one person (or more than one person) may discern. And it’s not always necessary to do something or say something, but sometimes it is. I’m not sure that helps thought because, like I said, there’s no formula to it. But I do believe there is a real, solid, clear, objective truth to which Christians are to gather around. How we organize ourselves around that standard is something that should be guided by the Spirit rather than by some set structure. Does that make sense?
Lastly you asked, “Is the camp based on “correct doctrine” or good fruit? Or both?” Well, that’s a good question. I believe when a person comes to faith in Christ they are “grafted into the vine” as the bible says. He is our source of life. As we are connected to Him, we then are able to bear fruit. Jesus identified himself as the Truth, and I believe God wants our faith in him to be as true as possible, thus the admonition in scripture for teaching to be sound (i.e. in accordance with what is revealed in scripture). Therefore, it should follow that the larger the revelation of God within us (which should be our experience because faith is something that should grow and enlarge within us over time), the more tasty and mature should the fruit be that proceeds from our lives.
Ok here goes…I’m hitting “post comment”! Lord help me.
elastigirl wrote:
I think I agree with you elastigirl, and I appreciate you sharing this. Personally, I think it would be extremely helpful if we all knew each other better, and became familiar with what our spiritual gifts are. For example, I recognize very clearly in Wade Burleson that he doesn’t just function in the role of a pastor, but that he has the spiritual gift of a pastor. I can read that in the words he’s written and I’ve always watched him preach in video. My guess would be in his everyday life he functions in a very pastoral way in a general sense, with his friends and with his family.
I admire pastoral people and thats not to say those of us who aren’t gifted pastorally are unable to function pastorally at times. I think this comes with having the Spirit. But the bible says makes a distinction between the various gifts that the Lord distributes to the Body for the purpose that every joint would supply and that we can all grow up together into a mature expression of Christ. We’re not all going to be pastors, for example. I know for myself I am prophetic. With this gift I function differently than a pastor does. I’m aware of that. But also, in my experience, people are conditioned to accept the gift of the pastor more easily then they do someone who is prophetic. In my own life, I’ve often been rebuffed by pastors because they want to channel by prophetic gift through their pastoral gift. And this can be true in other ways. A pastor, for example, who isn’t very evangelistic may not be as accepting of the person with the gift of an evangelist and seek to dampen their enthusiasm for outreach. But the prophet needs the pastor who needs the evangelist who needs the teacher who needs the…etc etc. I don’t know you but you seem like you’re very smart and that you also have a huge heart of compassion combined with a desire to heal.
So, anyway, I hope what Ive shared in my previous post and this one gives you maybe a little better sense here of what I’m talking about when I say “camp”. I truly believe the camp is the real, true body of Christ comprised of people who desire to use their god-given spiritual gifts together with others and are connected to the source of our lives, Jesus Christ, bound together by love. 🙂
I do not believe in replacement theology or what is known as supercessionism. Neither does my denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I think you will find thst this is true for most mainline churches, and, since relatively early in John Paul II’s tenure, the Romsn Catholic church.
This is a VERY compex and potentially explosive subuect to disfuss anyehere. Both okrapod and i were attempting to refer you and other readers to tetms you can read about, as well as at leadt one author eho is Jewish, but who specializes in NT studies, teaches at a highly regarded Southern divinity school, and who gets where you and many others are coming from in a way that i don’t, basically due to my own upbrunging and background (church, mixed-Jewish/gentile ‘hood; parents and us kids being close friends with a number of observant Jewidh families; the whole atmosphere post-Holocaust and post-McCarthy).
I also referred to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds a number of times. Both are held in common by the Eastetn Orthodox, the RCC, all Lutherans, Anglicans of pretty much evety stripe, Methodists and Presbyterians. They are so eady to find via Google, and have been the underpinnings of xtian belief for over 1,500 years. I suspect thst you would agree with what is said in them. For my part, all the rest is gravy – and Bridget, who is very familiar eith these 2 creeds, also said as much.
Short of cut-and-paste jobs on huge chunks of text (which doesn’t work well), all i can do/say is encourage you and others to follow up on the suggestions we have made,
But i don’t know that you have done so, which leaves us deadlocked.
I am out of this now. I do not mean to cause ill feeling here, but i am feeling like you might be heresy-hunting, first with Muff Potter, and now eith me.
Please just let it rest. I think most of us are here due to things we have in common, and God truly knows, we are an extremely diverse group. I am not interested in the kinds of things you serm to be fovused on, though. So best to bury whatever hatchet i might be carrying and move on. I hope you will do the same.
Fwiw, a link to the Apostles Creed – y’all can look up the Nicene Creed, i truet. 🙂
anglicansonline.org/basics/apostles.html
@ numo:
Not sure why my hyperlink went awry. But hey, it’s hit # 4 or 5 on Google (just search on “apostles creed”).
Ciao.
Paula Rice wrote:
I totally understand your frustration and I can only speak for myself. It might be a bit uncomfortable for folks to disagree with Wade. Not sure. Wade uses the Book of Hebrews for the basis of much of what he wrote yet that book was written to converted Jews. Okrapod was right to mention Romans 11. The sad thing is Romans has been taught as a treatise on individual salvation from a determinist God. I believe it is a long explanation/argument about the whole Jew/Gentile dichotomy. The timing of its writing fits with the banished Jews (including converted Jews) being allowed back into Rome. That must have caused some problems with Gentile Christians in Rome?
I totally disagree with the whole Law OR Grace dichotomy as is understood by certain groups as in Covenant Theology and even large swaths of evangelicalism. I think it can lead to major problems as we have seen throughout history.
I do not think God was devoid of grace in the old covenant and I have a totally different understanding of Mosaic law as in its purpose concerning the Israelites coming out of centuries of Egyptian rule. I also notice in the OT non Jews were accepted within the “camp” so to speak because of belief or loyalty to Yahweh. Abraham was a pagan but He believed God and it was credited to him. The lineage of Jesus has non Jewish women. There are plenty of hints along the way that Yahweh is for everyone but He chose Abraham to propagate a people to reflect His ways, His wisdom back out into the world. But those people had free will and often did the opposite of seek God’s wisdom and guidance. I also believe all of this took place within a very evil and pagan backdrop. When we look at Mosaic law we might want to take a look at Ancient Egyptian practices and other ancient pagan religions to get a feel for the contrast.
A long time ago I was reading through the OT with my then 6 year old. We were reading a light translation and she said about the tedious laws in Leviticus: God must have wanted them thinking about Him all the time. Bingo! Out of the mouths of babes….
I also think we make too sharp a distinction and totally forget that Jesus came as a Jew and we end up inadvertently turning Him into a Gentile. Gentiles were never under Mosaic Law yet we seem to have adopted it so we could throw rocks at it as our enemy and replace it with Grace as a license. The big problem in the NT churches were the Judaizers feeling there should be some adherence to the law for conversion. I can imagine they did not think it fair these Gentiles had not labored with the law as they had.
The whole law/grace dichotomy sadly means that many proclaim that no one could keep the law so that meant Jesus had to keep it perfectly for us. So that means that God declared laws knowing that people could not keep them? I just don’t see it. And I fear it paints God in a very bad light. I think Jesus was showing that the spirit of the law was always most important. Jesus is our example of being human. We can be like Him. Not the God part but the human part. He promised us the Holy Spirit and we have access to great wisdom.
I honestly believe much of this comes from determinism and dualism that infected Christianity early on. Augustine comes to mind. And so many aspects play into it. Original sin, material world evil, only spiritual world is good, etc, etc. The list is too long but it morphed into Calvin’s systematic theology and hints of it are everywhere in Protestant and even Catholic theologies. Law/ Grace turns Yahweh of the OT into the mean God who sends His nice Son to save us. I think Jesus IS God in the Flesh. Even the book of Hebrews says that Jesus is the full representation of God. That must have seemed to be incredible to the Jews when they looked at how Jesus dealt with the Law they knew.
Frankly, it is just too much to explain and I have probably only confused it more.
Lydia wrote:
On the contrary, Lydia. I thought your comment was excellent!
Yeah… some Lutherans are huge on Law vs. Grace, and I am absolutely not one of them.
My understanding – from as far back as I can remember – is that God *opened out his covenant through Christ,* to include any/every person who wished to partake of his grace and mercy.
I am probably putting it wrong, but that’s it in a nutshell. No lines in the sand; no dividing walls of hostility anymore (as it say in Ephesians ch. 1). Yet we human beings keep finding pretexts to reinstate those walls, making them worse than the Berlin Wall ever was.
I believe. One thing that I believe is that God has not turned his back on anyone, and that we are literally “grafted in,” from the wild olive tree to the domestic, as Paul says in Romans ch. 11. It wasn’t our natural habitat to begin with, but it always and forever has belonged to God. We are not part of some new hybrid tree; we are grafted into what was there already, that a patient Gardener took great pains to cultivate – one that already included many ingrafted shoots, from way back.
Nobody, so far as we can tell in the history of monotheism, started out as a monotheist.
OK, I just cannot take on any more of this in comments here; it is staggeringly enormous and difficult. Am beginning t feel like parallel universes are (almost) colliding and I have tried the best I can to state things without getting into the touchiest stuff, but here we are.
I doubt anyone will want to read this (it is massive, and is probably skewed anyway, in one direction or another), but here goes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism
* The changes post-Holocaust are really important. And not just in the RCC, either.
Another starting point (though A-J Levine is the best, I think, for most evangelicals) is David Nirenberg’s Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition.
my question to Wade:
Does God say anyone who comes to me and accepts my Son as his saviour he will grant eternal life no matter how much he changes or adds to it?So how messed up can people be in their religion and still gain eternal life?
His answer:
Since it is a gracious God who saves through Jesus, and NOT faith that saves (i.e. ” “we are justified BY GRACE through faith”), then the vehicle “through” which we comprehend our right standing with God (faith) can be cloudy, muddy, weak, small (as a mustard seed), etc… but since “salvation is of the Lord,” our justification is strong and sure regardless of the amount, strength or deficiency of our faith. A little or clouded faith IN JESUS saves as much as a lot or clear faith saves. It’s your enjoyment of Christ that suffers when you add things to your faith, not your salvation in Christ.
@ Rachel:
Rachel, thanks – and great observations. Very much agreed.
@ Kevin:
Thanks for sharing this, Kevin. I found this to be really helpful.
Lydia wrote:
I’m with Victorious on this Lyds, I too think that your comment is well put in the space you used for stuff that has beleaguered sharp minds for centuries.
@ numo:
Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one gets to the Father except through me.” Divisive as it gets.
@ Law Prof:
I would rather not take this aspect of things any further. It is making me feel pretty uncomfortable, overall.
There is one other thing … and that is that the commenters here come from a wide variety of places/churches within the Christian tradition. People who believe in the same basics of the faith are all too often stymied by terminology, the way thjngs are described, by seeming irrelevancies and more when we encounter others who come from traditions that are unfamiliar to us. Sometimes are customs seem strange, even – i mean, Lutherans from my part of the xtian world are just not going to be engaged by the same things that evangelicals are focused on, and it is *not* becausenone group of people is right and the other group of people is wrong. But… it can be the cause of awkwardness and misunderstandings.
I think that has happened here, and for my part, i would like to apolgize for any hurt that my words might have caused.
There are so very many variations within xtianity, and, at the end of the day, i think over 90+% of that isn’t really important. If we can focus on essentials, and, at the same time, learn to understand and respect others’ points of view, that is about all anyone can ask for.
Personally, i am still recovering from several decades spent in a detour through chwrismatic/evangelical churches that were all quite abusive. They all csme from the discipleship movement, and were all cult-like, manipulative, intolerant of diverse beliefs, and very invasive in tetms of peoples’ personal lives/privacy. I think evetyone here who has experienced those kinds of abuses knows what I’m talking about. We are all sensitive, due to what we have been through.
We worship in different ways, and for some of us, that worship is deeply liturgical and “high.” For others, that’s not the case. I think what matters is that we all desire to follow Christ. But one church’s wsy of doing that is more than likely going to differ from another’s. It’s just the reality of things, but i don’t think we are *that* far apart on essentisls.
For myself, i would feel quite uncomfortable asking other commenters about their beliefs. I was, as i stated upthread, trying to avoid getting into unnecessary arguments, and i wish i had just left it at thst.
It can be hard to know how people are responding when we only have text to go by, with no facial expressions or sense of another’s actual voice. It seems to me that this, all by itself, has been one of the difficulties in this thread.
okrapod wrote:
I think that one of the biggest, but subtlest, challenges of the Christian life is that we are instructed to come before God both together as a body, and privately in secret. Because we’re unique, my relationship with God in secret is different from yours, and so on for every possible pair of believers *. So when we come together, everyone has something to contribute, garnered – presumably – from their own private relationship with God, and that in turn means everyone has something different to contribute.
This creates at least two separate challenges. It takes a lifetime to learn how to listen to an invisible God in the secrecy of one’s own prayer life, and it’s easy to try to take short-cuts: typically, to borrow someone else’s. In other words, to try to fit in with the group we’re part of by becoming more/less reverent, more/less emotionally expressive, more/less zealous for evangelism, and so on ad almost infinitum. In congregations that have not truly practiced whole-body ministry, as it’s known, it’s inevitable that dominant personality-types become the unspoken yardsticks by which spirituality is measured.
So the second challenge is to learn to come together with other believers and engage together with the same invisible God. I have to be secure enough in my own friendship with Him that it’s not threatened by that of others, and at the same time, secure enough in my friendships with others to respect their very different personalities. And all this while recognising that all of us are still journeying towards maturity, and therefore need to be challenged and refined by one another.
That’s perhaps my biggest problem with the denominationalising of Christianity. It’s far easier to find somewhere that reasonably suits me, and fall in with it, in the belief that I’m developing my own relationship with God and being a part of the Body of Christ. But in reality, I’m not properly doing either.
* A number equal, to a very good approximation, to the square of the number of believers.
numo wrote:
You know, that was kind of the point. Jesus makes a lot of people uncomfortable.
Thanks, numo. I read here but rarely comment; a lot of the commentary tends to go over my head on theological grounds, or else I’d just be joining in the chorus of horror, depending on the post. Occasionally, though, something grabs my attention. (And I’m Episcopalian myself; I love the liturgy. To each their own, however, and to God be the glory in the end however we worship.)
I value the diversity of Christian experience and beliefs in the commenters here.
@ Law Prof:
Please, I would just like to drop this.
@ Rachel:
Oh, I bet you could add quite a lot here, but I understand why someone might not wish to comment. I do the same (no comments) on most blogs and sites.
Law Prof wrote:
I don’t think that it is Jesus per se who makes a lot of folks uncomfortable, seeing that even a lot of atheists and members of non-christian religions speak of respect for Jesus. One their favorite mantras seems to be ‘if christians were like Jesus I might be one.’ And noting his popularity with the crowds when he was with us in the flesh.
What makes a lot of people uncomfortable is the attitudes slung around by people who think that they know it all and they represent Jesus himself and that if they think something it must be what God thinks and if they believe something it must be comprehensive truth and that they themselves are called to the ministry of obnoxious declaration of how right they themselves are.
I say this from my previously described close encounter of the disgusting kind with some professional fundamentalists.
@ okrapod:
This!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Do you run into a lot of that problem over there? I don’t think that I have ever been in a church that did not have a problem with too much ‘engaging’ between the people-as in engaging of the hostile kind. Nor have I ever been in a church that was not obsessed with trying to get everybody just frantically involved with activities and groups and programs and missions and and and.
Probably I am not comprehending what it is that you are saying.
None the less, I was confirmed in the episcopal church this morning, and I have to admit that it is a fit for me, mostly because they are willing to put up with, as far as I can tell, just about anybody who walks in the door. The bishop was the celebrant of the mass also and he seemed like one of the most transparent and least show-biz folks I have seen. If it was all just a show it was a good one.
@ okrapod:
congrats!
liturgical churches have their internal problems, their share of programs, bossy people, the lot. but it plays out a bit differently.
@ okrapod:
i think the deal is along the lines of: baptism (for most of us liturgical types, in infancy). Bingo; you’re part of the church.
They know that people will mess up, sometimes spectacularly so. But they are always there; the doors are open. Look at how repentance is an integral part of the liturgy.
I find it all very freeing; no endless lists of “rules” to “get right”; no more feeling like I’m trapped on a hamster wheel that’s going 120+ mph and I can’t get off.
okrapod wrote:
Well said!
@ numo:
And there is a kind of light heartedness about it. Some things are dead serious, but even dead serious is not doom and gloom and hopelessness and massive condemnation of pew persons as slimy bug poop.
Example. Sometimes here on TWW we kind of joke about salvation by doctrine alone, or salvation by tithing and such. Well, this morning while trying to get everything lined up for the confirmation ceremony Father S, who is a natural born pistol anyhow, joked that he believed in salvation by good taste. I told him he missed his true calling-stand up comic.
Does that sound like anything that would remotely have happened in any previous church I have known? Not to me it does not. And I enjoy it, and that without apology. There is a more relaxed attitude fitting I think for people who do not think that God is just one massive ball of anger and wrath and condemnation.
@ Paula Rice:
“… real, true body of Christ comprised of people who desire to use their god-given spiritual gifts together with others and are connected to the source of our lives, Jesus Christ, bound together by love.”
+++++++++++++++
completely agree. if only it were as simple as that. the need and desire for control and fear of lack of control inhibits all this. as well as fear of mess. if money were not part of the equation (of the church institutional) it would be easier.
Nancy2 wrote:
He can’t be Pope of SBC … Al Mohler already is!
@ elastigirl:
It reminds me of how idealistic we all were, back in the 70s, during the Jesus People era. That ended badly, on the whole.
okrapod wrote:
Actually I think people are quite comfortable only with their imaginary notions of Jesus, the great uniter, the peacemaker. But that is not Jesus.
He claimed to be the only way to heaven, He said He was God on earth. That makes people quite uncomfortable. That’s all I’m saying.
If you want to take shots at people who are of “the ministry of obnoxious declaration of how right they themselves are”, fine, I’m there with you. But that’s too easy a target, we can all hold hands around that. The Jesus I see in the Bible was not a uniter, He was one heck of a divider, He set people against people, He is described as a stumbling block. And pretty much all because He simply says, more or less: “I’m God, you’re going to have to serve me, I’m it.” Don’t know an atheist going who’d feel comfortable with that.
numo wrote:
Numo, this isn’t any more directed at you at this point that anyone else.
@ Law Prof:
It would be helpful to all, i think, if you let it rest. You made your point several posts back.
@ Law Prof:
Too bad there isn’t a way we could vote comments up or down. If there were, I’d vote your comments up.
@ Law Prof:
The real division brought by Jesus is still to come, when he divides all people to their final destination at the Great White Throne Judgment. Eternal Life or The Lake of Fire is about as stark as a division gets.
@ numo:
I don’t really understand these sorts of comments when you continue to respond over and over. It reads very one sided.
Law Prof wrote:
Which raises a very interesting thought, which I wish I’d come up with myself but to which I am indebted to my friend Mark from Inverness. Consider the following two statements in which, of course, the emphasis is added:
And:
The phrase “all religions lead to God” is very much A Thing, and has been for a long time. And maybe they do! It may well be that one can approach God by just about any means. In fact, ISTM that there are several examples in scribsher of people who are not following any particular God-instigated form of covenant religion who manage, nevertheless, to interact with God in some way. Abimelek’s exchange with God in Genesis 20 is an interesting case in point. God started that one, but he still recognised Abimelek’s plea.
But coming to the Father, for adoption and everything that means, only happens through the agency of Jesus. We’re not merely sinners in need of saving; spiritually, we’re orphans in need of a home, and a parent who is not merely a mentor or role-model but someone whose very identity we can share. Paradoxically, of course, the heart of the Young, Rebellious and Reformed meme (and others like it) is about replacing that adoption process with a doctrinal sausage-factory.
numo wrote:
Definitely can relate to you here. We haven’t gone to church for going on three years now because of virtually the same experiences. Sorry for what you went through, I know what it feels like and it feels like a punch in the gut.
@ Lydia:
Honestly, I feel the same way about some of your comments here. We are coming at this from very different places, and i cannot “translate” what I’m trying to say into the kinds of words and expressions you seem to want.
It is, to be honest, frustrating. And maybe we could
– agree to disagree
– live and let live
?
You wanted to be “enlightened”; i gave the explanations my best shot.
@ Lydia:
Sorry, that was not intended for you.
At this point, it reads how it reads. I can’t delete anything, and you can always ignore what i say. Might be the best strategy.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Surely there are people, as you’ve mentioned, who never heard the word “Jesus”, but who will be in Heaven. The Hebrew scriptures are full of such people, such as Abimelek, and for that matter, all the patriarchs. Who am I to say that a person living in the remotest reaches of the world today couldn’t come through faith to know Jesus, even though he or she never heard about Jesus? I can’t say, not mine to judge.
But–and it’s a big “but”–Jesus didn’t just claim to be a way to the Father, He claimed to be God Himself, one with that Father, claimed the power to forgive sin, said He was the “I AM”. Jesus either is God Himself (and thus we better serve Him and recognize Him for what He is, not a way, but The Way) or He’s just another fool with a God complex, exponentially worse than any Furtick or noble or Driscoll.
numo wrote:
Probably a good strategy for many of us. :o)
@ numo“:
I guess I don’t understand why you feel you have the right to tell others what to “drop” but then you don’t do the same. I don’t get it.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Intellectualism over the adoption as sons and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Nice.
(I liked you ‘doctrinal sausage factory’ word-picture, btw. only reason I’m taking time to comment this morning.)
Mara wrote:
I’m suitably honoured! 🙂
Law Prof wrote:
The ultimate heresy… and one to which I, too, subscribe. For one thing, I think there will be many who have been taught, by those of “sound doctrine”, that God is a monster and who have therefore rejected him in favour of something/someone they will, when all is done, recognise as the Good News for which they had always hoped.
okrapod wrote:
Haha! Very Episcopalian of him. 😉
@ numo:
I thought it was refreshing to see somebody recognize and admit his own particular potential weakness and a potential weakness of the system and openly poke fun at it.
Hi Readers
Please forgive my absence. My stepfather is still in rehab and will be there for at least another 2 weeks. I need to take my elderly and handicapped mother to see him each day as well as helping her with her errands. This takes about 4+hours out of my day at this point. I am doing my best to carve out time for the blog, etc. but I know I have been slack. Please forgive me. Our future plans include building an addition into our house ASAP to prepare to have our elderly parents move in with us. Believe it or not, it will make things easier.
In the meantime, let me reiterate one of the goals of this blog.This blog is not made up merely of conservative Christians but people of varying faith, no faith or off and on faith. It is not my goal to insult anyone for their beliefs. It is a place to share, preferably as kindly as possible.
Take a look at my relationship with Wade Burleson. I respect him enormously. he is one of the most loving men I know. Yet, he and I disagree regarding some of the issues surrounding the Reformed faith. He and I have discussed some things online and off. And guess what? He still believes as he does and so do I. But, I would attend his church if I were in Enid.
I am sick and tired of churches out there claiming that their particular brand of church is the”real” church and all the others are losers. Also, I believe that all of us are on a journey of faith and that we grow and change over time.
Please, for the sake of kindness and grace, respect those who differ from you in their faith at this time. We have enough jerks out there who are going after people in their churches. Here, we need to be different.
Stop with the heresy hunt. It sounds like one too many Calvinistas I have known. Instead, when you speak to someone who does not espouse what you believe to be orthodox Christianity, take a step back and learn from that other person.You do not need to believe wheat they believe. Just learn and try to love unless that person is deliberately hurting abused people.
This is NOT directed ta most of you- just a few. Sometimes, even a few can take things off track.
Please help me out as i struggle off line to get things squared away with my family. If you need to speak with me ASAP, send me an email and put the word “URGENT” in the subject line.
@ dee:
No need to ask for forgiveness. You’re doing life.
@ dee:
Dee, your remark about the heresy hunt made me laugh, weirdly. My 2 small black old dogs have collars with lights in which we wear on our nightly walk down to the village green. I call them the ‘Illuminati’ & tell them we’re going heresy hunting 🙂
@ okrapod:
It’s also very much an accepted thing to have that kind of sense of humor jn TEC and similar. You know, they’re the cocktsil crowd; Lutherans are more into pretzels and beer.
There is a lot of sly self-critique in many Episcopalians. I especially like the Mystery Worshipper (might not have the name quite right) posts over on Ship of Fools. (See, even the name of the site shows that they feel fine with making fun of themselves.) Haven’t read there in a long time, though.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Wouldn’t that be awesome. I never thought of that. It would seem to make things right instead of just having to make up one more pretend explanation for what looks for all the world to be an injustice.
numo wrote:
I will have to keep an eye out for that, but I have not seen anything of that sort yet-except Father S of course. What I have noticed is what looks like a lot less pretense. I don’t see people pretending constantly that everything is just won-der-ful PTL with sugar and cream. That too is refreshing. I don’t want to sound like I arrive at theological / doctrinal decisions much less commitments like this. But if we can cut back on the pretense it is icing on the cake.
@ okrapod:
Lutherans are also unpretentious. I think the kind of ptetense you’re referring to is pretty much confined to evangelicalism, really. Not saying liturgical churches are perfect culturally – far from it. But i don’t recall ever being expected to go to church as someone I’m not, you know?
@ numo:
You know, I did not find the methodists to be doing that let’s pretend mess either. But the SBC mega where one of my family members was seemed to be a focus of it. I don’t remember the baptists of my youth having that problem either. Hmmm. I will have to give this some thought.
@ okrapod:
Yeah, i don’t think it’s part of the mainlines. Very different kinds of church cultures, on the whole.
Beakerj wrote:
I cannot wait to rip off your joke.
@ dee:
I’m with elastigirl on this one dee, no apology of any kind required, family and real life always come first.
@ dee:
I must admit there are times I’m unsure how to navigate the waters. I reviewed some of my comments and I can see why someone might think I was heresy hunting. I think there are times when I share what I believe in a general sense and it may be interpreted as though I’m applying my comments specifically to individuals, or because my faith isn’t the same as that of others, what I share creates conflict. I must say, this isn’t easy! And if I have, in the process of sharing my faith, struck some disconsonant cords, I’m sorry for that. I must admit, I don’t always see a way around that. Added to this is the fact of the subject matter, which deals, in a very real sense, with “heresy hunting”. Post after post points out the problems happening within the Christian community, largely stemming from misapplication and misinterpretation of Scripture. Obviously, people approach this subject matter in a wide variety of ways. But, I’m left feeling somewhat confused and bewildered as to what the goal of this all might be. Is it to point out the problems as if to say let’s not work to discover solutions or to provide answers or attempt to engage with the subject matter in a way that produces a sense of hope, or what. Because whatever the goal is, I get the feeling it’s kinda more about pointing out the problems and letting everyone come at it from their various positions without their being any right answer. Like the problem is wrong but there’s no right answers.
So, I’m honestly confused here. And in terms of feedback, I’m going to be honest. I personally do not care for your opinion, numo. So, you can share what you think about me and my involvement here but what you think doesn’t matter to me. I’m sorry if that seems mean, but I felt the need to explain that up front because I have no intention of responding to you or interacting with your comments, nor do I expect you will respect this about me. Fact is, we’re not all going to agree and get along, especially on a subject as volatile as religion.
@ Paula Rice:
Paula, we are from very different denominational backgrounds. Just because we worship differently than you (well, some of us do, while others don’t) and express ourselves differently does *not* mean that we do not believe.
I know we have had conflicts in the past, and as I said many posts upthread, I want to bury my own hatchet. I am sorry for causing offense, but my thoughts and beliefs are just… Christian, but different than your views. I do respect your views. Hope you can see your way clear to accepting (not agreeing with, necessarily) the views of others who come from diverse parts of the body of Christ.
I will close with this…
numo wrote:
True, that……
Friend wrote:
Amen!
okrapod wrote:
And I agree with you.
okrapod wrote:
I think this is exactly true, & I than k you for saying it.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Agreed.