OK, so it's not really a meeting. I did get to shake the guy's hand and say a cursory hello.
(By the way...that's me on the fourth row aisle seat, looking stoned. I wasn't. I promise. My brother and sister-in-law are to my left.)
Brian McLaren, known in many ways as the father of the emergent church movement, visited my brother's church (Highland Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky) this past weekend, delivering a Sunday morning sermon, holding an informal Q&A during Sunday School and then lecturing on the thesis of his new book, "Everything Must Change." I was fortunate enough to be able to participate in all three activities and certainly enjoyed the experience. Not that I agree 100 percent with his theology, but I think he is raising some important issues for the Church to consider.
(Others didn't agree either, especially during the evening Q&A. This is McLaren's take on the event. I looked across the blogosphere for the guy who challenged McLaren about redemption, eternity and the emergent theology during the Q&A but couldn't find him. I also looked on Twitter to no avail.)
Of course, I could spend hours talking about where McLaren and I agree and disagree. Feel free to peruse posts tagged "emergent" or "brian mclaren" for times we've discussed it before.
Sure, this is a late response to that particular blog post, but I'm sharing nonetheless.
I'm certainly in agreement that religion has treated science with disdain when the two are not inherently competitive. I'm also in agreement that society has, in large part, sacrificed objective truth on the altar of subjective morality (although I don't think Charles Darwin is solely to blame for this shift in cultural attitudes...post-modern thought didn't arise from one man's scientific theory).
I disagree with Ken that "do unto others as you would have them do until you" is the core of Christ's message. It is undoubtedly an essential part of the Christian theology that Jesus established. It is not The Gospel. To think otherwise is to place man's actions ahead of God's salvation. Indeed, that line of reasoning has it backwards; the reverse, in fact, is true: salvation first, works that result from that salvation is second.
The Gospel is this: in an outpouring of love, God created the universe, and with it, mankind. The first man chose sin instead of a personal relationship with God, and, thus, sin entered the world, separating imperfect humans from a perfect and divine God. Yet God, in his great mercy and love, ever-seeking to restore man's relationship to Him, provided Himself as a sacrifice by coming to earth as a man, Jesus, who lived a perfect and sinless life prior to giving Himself to death.
In that act of sacrifice--and in His glorious, bodily resurrection from the dead three days later--Jesus now stands at man's side as an advoate, saying to God on behalf of those Christ has saved: "This is my child. He/she has asked forgiveness for the sinful acts of their lives that have separated them from you. Yes, this one is imperfect. But I was willing to live the life he/she could not have lived by dying the death he/she should have died. I took this one's place, Father. My perfection provides Grace to them in your eyes, regardless of their worthiness."
That's The Gospel. Sure, gratitude from Christ's sacrifice pours itself out from Believers in acts of sacrificial love; these are reflections of Christ's love for man, stirred in us by Christ living within us through the Holy Spirit. This manifests itself as Christ commanded, through "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you." But that oft-quoted verse is not The Gospel. A component, yes.
I'm not as intelligent as Charles Darwin. I think he came up with a fascinating theory. The minutae of how God, in His omniscence and omnipotence, established Creation, is beyond the limits of my human intelligence. Don't misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that it is somehow wrong to attempt, with vigorous scientific observation and inquiry, to discern these and other matters. What I am suggesting is that mankind is guilty of a collective arrogance in regards to its attempts at comprehending God. That, among other reasons, is why I can't understand the reasons behind some evangelicals' celebration of an agnostic scientist, despite his obvious genius.
So, what do you think? Agree with me? Disagree with me? That's cool...but share your thoughts. Back 'em up.
That's because Rick Warren is not a gay-hater. Nor are most Christians, if you want to know the truth. Most people, however, don't want to know the truth about Christians. It's too easy to simply buy into every stereotype about us that you can find. And, trust me, you can find plenty.
See, mass media will tell you we hate gays, African-Americans, unwed mothers, illegal aliens, etc. And you thought Christians are hypocrites (we are, of course...just no more than anyone else.) The irony would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetically sad. Christians are accused of using stereotypes to push an agenda of hatred and fear. Yet, many times, the opposite is true. Our society has become so blatant in its perpetuation of stereotypes against Evangelicals that we don't even realize it's happening. We are the only socio-cultural group of whom it is socially acceptable to hate. Christians are seen as bigoted, intolerant and quick to judge. Sadly, many high-profile Evangelical leaders have said hurtful things (I'm looking at you, Pat Robertson), and those incidents have painted all of us with a very broad brush. The irony is that it's the same brush used to portray all homosexuals as pedophiles, predators and perverts. Are some homosexuals pedophiles, predators and perverts? You bet they are...just as you can bet there are Christians who are bigoted, intolerant and quick to judge.
I get so stinkin' tired of universalist philosophy. It's so disingenuous...at best. At worst, it's a coward's way out. It's essentially saying "I don't have the stones to stand behind my own convictions, so I'll just hold hands with everyone, tap my red shoes together three times while singing 'Kumbaya, My Lord' and hope for the best. That's not hope.
Disclaimer: I don't believe in purgatory, nor do I think Mr. Alighieri had the whole "hell thing" figured out. His Divine Comedy was just that: a work of poetic fiction. It's just that this animated movie version of "Inferno" looks really, really cool.
(It's sad, isn't it, that I have to put a disclaimer before posting this. Trust me. If I don't, some uber-legalist Christian will get all pissy with me for promoting something that's not in the King James Version of the Bible. So, just chill...)
Before Christmas 2008 gets too far in the rearview, here's a quick reminder, in this most tumultuous year, of what really matters. Now I know I can't expect everyone who watches this to agree with the "true meaning of Christmas." But this is not a politically correct blog. Sorry. It's just not.
We're about Truth around here, not what society tells us is culturally relevant.
No Communion for Obama Supporters? Wait, let me see if I understand this. If you support abortion rights, Jesus did not die for you? I'm confused. (That's not the Gospel as I understand it. Whatever happened to Romans 8:1?)
Group Sues Over 'Day of Prayer' Oh, come on. Get over yourselves. So don't pray. Or, better yet, celebrate the 364 days of the year when most people ignore God.
Text Messaging for Jesus Give them credit. Christians will make a ministry out of just about anything.
I had the opportunity to visit a college-town mega-church this past Sunday. It had a huge campus, a coffee bar, great decor, a ton of young people and a rockin' praise and worship service. It's truly remarkable what God is doing there, and I was certainly happy to be a part of the service.
The sermon was good, too. Its title was "Kingdom Living," and the pastor asked, somewhat rhetorically, if we truly understood what it means to live the way Jesus told us to live. He explained, quite rightly, that Christ's way of living is radically different from the way our culture tells us to live. Naturally, he incorporated some manifestations of "Kingdom Living." Cleaning up at a homeless shelter. Buying food for an orphan in Honduras. And so it went.
It's amazing to witness what God's Church is doing in what we're told is a post-modern world. Oh, His people have always been generous to a fault. Studies show Christians are much more philanthropic than the public at large. Even Christians in lower tax brackets are prone to giving what they have much more readily than those who make more money but don't identify with a specific belief system.
But what's changed in the last generation or so is an awareness of social issues that may have escaped Christians in another time. Evangelicals today focus their energies on environmental issues, believing it to be a moral cause and worthy of their God-given mandate to change the world for the better. We care about fair trade; sure, Christians have always been aware of global poverty--one of my Sunday School classes when I was a child sponsored a child in El Salvador--but today we think twice about buying a cup of coffee. Was the man who grew these beans paid a fair price, and can he feed his family in the name of my desire for a latte? That silk shirt I'm wearing--was it stitched by an eight year-old boy in a Indonesian sweatshop?
These are all critically important issues, and I'm so very thankful that today's Church cares about--and works toward a solution for--these and other problems of social injustice.
But there's an inherent problem that comes with this new worldview. It walks a dangerous tightrope between faith- and Grace-based salvation and a works-based system of belief. Scripture tells us Christ's sacrifice on Calvary was an act of supreme Grace, one that we could never merit, deserve or accomplish on our own. In short, there's nothing we can ever do to bridge the gap between our humanity and God's divinity.
We must be very careful, then, that we keep spreading the Gospel forefront when confronting social justice. The old saying goes "No Jesus? No Peace. Know Jesus. Know Peace." That's doggone right, trite though it may be.
Fighting social injustice without incorporating Jesus into the mix doesn't mean anything to the one ministering or to the one being ministered to. That's because the minister isn't able to reconcile himself to God through works, and the one being ministered to cannot hope to find reconciliation to God through someone other than Jesus.
What's your take? Is tackling social injustice without the Gospel message worth anything? Why or why not? Share your thoughts...
Emergent Village is in the midst of a transformation in its operations, a move its board announced Thursday after a year of what it terms a "discernment process."
Its announcement lays out a framework for the future of the Emergent "conversation." I've certainly been critical of aspects of the movement; I've always felt those involved in shaping its message are too willing to capitulate on areas of core Christian doctrine. I know, I know. Emergent is about being a safe place where hard questions can be debated without fear of repurcussion. I get it, and I think that's an admirable goal. I love Emergent's commitment to social justice, too. Its stance on global poverty is wonderful. I've met some truly great, loving Christians that are a part of the Emergent conversation.
Here's what scares me. "Many religious communities fear, shame, restrict and exclude people who ask questions, propose creative innovations, or open up new ways of thinking (emphasis mine.)" That's from Emergent Village's recent announcement. What exactly does this mean? Is such a statement purposely vague? I wholeheartedly agree that it's an unfortunate fact that many fundamental Evangelical communities fear, shame and even exclude those from their congregations who ask hard questions and propose creative innovations. But does "open up new ways of thinking" really mean "open up new ways of believing?"
It's a fine line between Emergent theology and Universalism, which to me is worse than atheism. At least atheists have the courage of conviction. Universalism--there's a great piece about it in the current issue of Relevant magazine, by the way--is, at best, flaky and, at worst, cowardly.
Now, I don't think there's anything cowardly about "friends of Emergent." But it's a slippery slope.
What are your thoughts? Are you a "Friend of Emergent?" Do you agree with its goals and mission? What are your thoughts on its recent announcement? Is Emergent too close to Universalist theology? Join the conversation here.
You can, in this day and age, now receive daily text messages from the Pope. That's right, Benedict himself will text you every day with "words of encouragement."
I haven't watched this yet, so there's my disclaimer. Just haven't had the time during a busy work day. But I've been hearing good things about it. This is part one of three.
I've worked on and off in college ministry. That's how I heard about Ivy Jungle, and over the years I've participated in a couple of these surveys. They are vital pieces of research (really, akin to what Barna does for the overall population, albeit on a much smaller scale, of course) that provide clear direction for ministers and laity in campus ministry today.
So, read the survey and share your thoughts. I'll take a look tonight and perhaps record some comments of my own.
Author and Emerging Church leader Don Miller gives the benediction during the first day of the Democratic National Convention. Added some Democratic Party platforms into his prayer, which I think he shouldn't have done. Now, he's entitled to his political leanings, but I don't think they have a place in a prayer, even if you do think universal health care and minimum wage are moral issues.
I'm disappointed he didn't get any television time...I suppose if he'd not used the name Jesus and instead prayed to some relativistic, wimpy god who answers to any name you want to call him then maybe television wouldn't have cut him out. But you start praying to "Your son Jesus, who gave His own life," then we suddenly get nervous. Pray to god, it's fine. Pray to God, well, that's just not PC, is it?
Of course, here's one criticism I had of the prayer, and I hope I'm not being too nit-picky. When Miller says "who gave His own life against the forces of injustice," I wonder at Miller's meaning here. What he prayed was technically true, but is Miller saying that Christ's death was merely to expose injustice? If so, that makes Jesus no better than Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi. Yes, Jesus died because of man's injustice. But let's not forget that He was not murdered. No one took Jesus' life. He gave it willingly to redeem man's sin.
His death was to redeem injustice, not expose it.
What are your thoughts on Miller's prayer? Do you mind that he read it from a Teleprompter? Should he have bowed his head? Do you think television should have showed the prayer? Why or why not?
Ah, if only spirituality was as simple as answering a bunch of questions on a quiz to find out who you should worship.
Apparently, it is that easy. At least if you use Beliefnet's Belief-O-Matic. I'm not a big fan of Beliefnet; it's a little too Deepak Chopra-esque to me. But the Belief-O-Matic is mindless fun. Some of the questions need more varied answers--I found that for many of them I had to pick answers that were as close to my Evangelical Christian convictions as I could get; the "right" answer wasn't there--but if you want to spend five minutes taking an online quiz (and who doesn't?), try the amazing, 100% guaranteed Belief-O-Matic today for only three easy payments of $19.99!
In other Emergent news, there are rumors that Rob Bell is leaving Mars Hill Bible Church (Michigan). Has anyone else heard this rumor? Is there anything to it?
* What were your Belief-O-Matic results? (I was quite relieved to discover I am, in fact, a born-again Christian. Glad the Belief-O-Matic cleared that up.)
* Should pastors and other Evangelical leaders publically support a presidential candidate? Why or why not? What role should Christian leaders take in presidential politics?
* What do you like about Rob Bell's theology? What don't you like?
* Would having a Mormon on a presidential ticket influence your vote? What about a Muslim? A Hindu? An atheist?
Admittedly, the passage refers specifically to the prophetic book of Revelations, not to reading in general. Yet I believe that it is a divine truth that reading is a blessed activity, that God shines upon those who delight in the act of curling up with the written word.
I was always a very small child, rail thin, very bookish. I suppose I was a nerd before nerds were cool. Bottle-thick glasses, freckles...the works.
Of course, I was always quite conscious of my (real or perceived) frailty. Then my mom read me The Pussycat Tiger. I don't know the author--it was a My Little Golden Book. It told the story of a tiger cub, ridiculed by all of the animals of the jungle for his small size and weak growl. Yet his mother told him, "If you eat lots of tiger food and take lots of tiger naps, one day you'll grow up to be a great big tiger."
The moral, of course, was that I wouldn't always be a small, slight child, that one day I'd grow up to be a man, secure in my own skin and able to conquer my own little world just as The Pussycat Tiger eventually did...if only I believed in myself "and ate lots of tiger food and took lots of tiger naps." A simplistic view of life? Perhaps. Yet it remains for me, these many years later, a valuable lesson in self-esteem, taught by a tattered, rail-thin book read to me by my loving mother in the warm glow of a nightlight.
What book got you hooked? Go to FirstBook and share your story--and share it with us here.
I've been asked to fill in for my pastor and give a "sermon" during Sunday morning services. I have a few ideas of my own, but I want to know what you think.
After posting a question for sermon ideas on Twitter the other day, I sorted through the responses and came up with this list. Vote for the one you like best. Of course, God reserves the right to nix any of these ideas--it is, after all, His call--but we may just find that all three of us agree.
(If I'm feeling especially brave, I may even post audio of the sermon here for Multi-Media Monday. We'll see...)
Vote and, please, offer any comments or suggestions. Heck, you may find you don't like any of these ideas, and that's OK, too. Have one of your own? Fill out the comment form.
I don't need--or have--any words to describe this. I simply stand amazed at the indescribeable beauty God has created, and I am forever in awe that He allows me to see these glimpses of Heaven before the day when I live there forever.
One of my very good Twitter brothers posted a note on his Facebook profile that was too good to pass up.
(Thanks for allowing the re-post, Matt. People need to read this.)
Religious people will huddle in their churches, spend at christian stores, only go to church-sanctioned social events, only hang out with Christian people. This comes from fear.
The law inspires fear-
fear of God, and fear of man.
fear of God's wrath on our inevitable failings, slip-ups and misdeeds,
and fear of man- fear of man's influence on us, fear of relationships or encounters that will end up in sin, carried off by the moment or the circumstance, cultural values that may sweep us into sin, accidental sin that we are ignorant of. Fear that salvation can be lost and must be regained hundreds of times each day.
Grace inspires love.
Love of God and Love of man.
Love for God because he will not destroy us even though we deserve it, that he does not count our sin against us for which he already took the punishment, love for His power to never lose us, or let us go, no matter our failings, slip-ups, and misdeeds.
Love for man, because we know God loves them and we are commanded to share his love with them. Not all will be saved, for not all are called, but since we have no fear of the law to consider, we are free to engage culture for his sake and ordered to befriend the lost, the hurting, the estranged, the ultimate of sinners, the people we used to love being.
For the lover of the law, life is a series of slippery stones above a great waterfall, jumping one from another, conscious of the fall the whole way, hoping our balance will be sure each time.
In grace, life is a stream to be forded, the water sometimes deep and cold and swift, other times, shallow, warm and quiet. But there is no danger, because we are carried.
I posted one of these polls back in May, and I was so pleased with the response and the fact that it fostered dialogue I'm planning to do it at least twice a month, maybe even weekly. Thursday needs a theme, after all. I have (in theory, at least) themes for most days--Multi-media Mondays, Wednesday Link Day, News of the Week (on Sundays). Polls on Thursdays? Needs a catchier name...
So, fill out the survey below. The first three are "serious" questions, the final one just for fun. Please bear in mind: just as important as taking the survey is sharing your thoughts on the questions. Don't let your opinions float around in the ether. Nature abhors a vaccum almost as much as Web 2.0 does. So, let's get some back-and-forth going.
