Sorry for my absence for an entire week. There are reasons, but they are not that important Let’s get back to it. I wanted to exegete a little bit out of that passage found in James 1:2-4, 12, (it’s what we are studying in our home fellowship) but got stuck in J. P. Moreland’s Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007). Can’t seem to get out of the postmodern assault on the Church. Hopefully I’ll soon get to some biblical passages for analysis on this site. But until then - Have you noticed how much we as Christians have polarized in our evaluation of those who disagree with ourselves? I certainly agree that we should draw swords whenever we feel that biblical absolutes are being adulterated, whether we come from a leaning toward the political/religious left, or from the political/religious right. It seems, however, that our swords are drawn more toward each other as apostate Christians, than toward the substance of what we have to say. That’s how I got interrupted. I came across this passage in Dr. Moreland’s book and thought that it was worth passing on. See what you think.
We are now in a place where we can fruitfully discuss tolerance. The principle of tolerance is often associated with the debate about relativism. It is often thought that this principle is implied by relativism but is at odds with some form of absolutism because the latter is dogmatic and judgmental while the former is more tolerant in orientation. In order to evaluate this claim, we need to get clear on what the principle of tolerance is.
As already noted, two senses can be distinguished. According to the classical sense of the principle of tolerance, a person holds that his own moral views are true and those of his opponent are false. But he still respects his opponent as a person and his right to make a case for his views Thus, someone has a duty to tolerate a different moral view, not in the sense of thinking it is morally correct but quite the opposite, in the sense that a person will continue to value and respect one’s opponent, to treat him with dignity, to recognize his right to argue for and propagate his ideas, and so forth. Strictly speaking, on the classic view, one tolerates persons, not ideas.
In this sense, even though someone disapproves of another’s moral beliefs and practices, he or she will not inappropriately interfere with them. However, it is consistent with this view that a person judges his opponent’s views to be wrong and dedicates himself to doing everything morally appropriate to counteract those views, such as using argument and persuasion. It should be clear that the classic sense of tolerance is really an absolutist position and is inconsistent with relativism. If a person does not hold another position to be morally false, what is there to tolerate? Surely, it is not just the fact that one doesn’t like the view in question, but that he judges it mistaken. (p. 103 – emphasis mine)
“One tolerates persons, not ideas.” For those of us who have polarized concerning various ideas, I fear that we judge ourselves and our Christian walk based upon those ideas, and not based upon our worth as brothers and sisters in Christ. Unity preaches good but when tested in our Western culture seldom translates to reality. If that train is still coming, it seems apparent that we need to be a little less arrogant in our relationships toward each other. There will be an apostasy - I understand that - further, there will be a winnowing and separating of the wheat - I understand that as well - but let’s wait until the world causes that sifting before we judge who is, and who is not a brother or sister. Of course there are so-called Christians who are already manifestly false. If one feels strongly about confronting such a person then one should do so before the Lord and with much fear. As for the rest, they will be manifested when the world-system that hates the Church is loosed upon us. There are those who will remain faithful to Christ and His Church, and those who will not. Testing will reveal our nature at that time. Selah
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Never To Be Seen Again?
Apparently I have become obsolete. I just addressed a blog site that informed me of my slide into obsolescence. The site explains itself: The monologue of the Religious Right is over and a new conversation has begun! Join the God’s Politics dialogue with Jim Wallis and friends…
Since I am a member of that RR, I’m wondering “where do I go now? Our monologue “is over”. Perhaps I’ll accept that invitation and have an ongoing “conversation” with those “friends” that participate in the blog. Believe me, I am not being sarcastic. As I have stated previously there are many Christians who are obviously substantive, passionate, and honest in their beliefs yet whose ethos is polar-opposite to my own. They wish to heal the World; I wish to confront the World. Can we all do a little of both?
If the monologue is dead, perhaps I will be allowed to converse with the dialogue. Let’s see.
Since I am a member of that RR, I’m wondering “where do I go now? Our monologue “is over”. Perhaps I’ll accept that invitation and have an ongoing “conversation” with those “friends” that participate in the blog. Believe me, I am not being sarcastic. As I have stated previously there are many Christians who are obviously substantive, passionate, and honest in their beliefs yet whose ethos is polar-opposite to my own. They wish to heal the World; I wish to confront the World. Can we all do a little of both?
If the monologue is dead, perhaps I will be allowed to converse with the dialogue. Let’s see.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Wayward-Bound?
Well, it’s been a few days, hasn’t it? I really do want to procrastinate, but I just can’t seem to get around to it. None-the-less, let’s get started again. Perhaps you have noticed that there are precious few links appended to this site. This is by design. There are so many sites wanting to be linked to out there that things can get cluttered. I have decided to take my time in reviewing various and pertinent sites so that, when added to the list, you can be assured that that site is substantive and pertinent to the subject matter that is being reviewed. As the months go by there will be plenty enough sites added, fear not.
Notice that a new category has been added to the list of Links. I have entitled it Wayward-Bound? What is meant by that, and why the question mark? There are many Christians out there who are very concerned by the recent “success” of that phenomenon loosely described by the term church growth. The term here-used is referring to the efforts of promoting church growth generated by such groups as the Purpose Driven system, the Emergent/Postmodern “conversation”, those redirecting their efforts to be “seeker friendly”, and various other efforts to remove confrontation from the Christian/Biblical message. As has been previously alluded to, these efforts may be removing barriers to apostasy and to whatever degree that that contemplation may be true, to that degree these efforts are causing the visible, man-made Church to be in a wayward-bound state. As has also been alluded to, there are many solid Christian brothers and sisters participating in this phenomenon. Thus, the question mark. Are we indeed wayward-bound? The remnant, i.e. the true church is contained within that man-made church. Are we to be extracted from such an environment, or are we to augment such efforts?
The single entry contained within this category is manifestly resistant to such growth techniques and methodologies. Slice will be the first of many. I have decided to list both pro and anti growth sites. It is not the desire here to set up straw dummies that are easily knocked over. I will do my best to link to the most penetrating of both belief systems that are available. The visible church is obviously in flux. If headed in the right direction, let’s support those efforts, if not, there’s a freight train coming.
Notice that a new category has been added to the list of Links. I have entitled it Wayward-Bound? What is meant by that, and why the question mark? There are many Christians out there who are very concerned by the recent “success” of that phenomenon loosely described by the term church growth. The term here-used is referring to the efforts of promoting church growth generated by such groups as the Purpose Driven system, the Emergent/Postmodern “conversation”, those redirecting their efforts to be “seeker friendly”, and various other efforts to remove confrontation from the Christian/Biblical message. As has been previously alluded to, these efforts may be removing barriers to apostasy and to whatever degree that that contemplation may be true, to that degree these efforts are causing the visible, man-made Church to be in a wayward-bound state. As has also been alluded to, there are many solid Christian brothers and sisters participating in this phenomenon. Thus, the question mark. Are we indeed wayward-bound? The remnant, i.e. the true church is contained within that man-made church. Are we to be extracted from such an environment, or are we to augment such efforts?
The single entry contained within this category is manifestly resistant to such growth techniques and methodologies. Slice will be the first of many. I have decided to list both pro and anti growth sites. It is not the desire here to set up straw dummies that are easily knocked over. I will do my best to link to the most penetrating of both belief systems that are available. The visible church is obviously in flux. If headed in the right direction, let’s support those efforts, if not, there’s a freight train coming.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Frogs in Tepid Waters
I finished reading a book by David Wells about a month ago and thought that if there’s going to be any comments generated I’d better do so before I forget everything about it. Not that the book is without substance; certainly the opposite is the case. The problem lies in my inability to hold on to thoughts for very long at my age. The book is Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
I got the impression that the author was going to demonstrate the degree of infiltration that a postmodern mindset had re the current workings of the Church. Such was not the case. As my reading progressed it became evident that his intent was to expose postmodernism per se. He apparently takes it for granted that the emergent philosophy is heavily engaged in such a methodology. Why would it be necessary to accuse anyone of such a belief-system? They (emergent, The Conversation, etc) freely admit to such. There is no duplicity here. It was not always clear whether the author was leading up to a conclusion, or whether he was demonstrating how brilliant he was as a scholar. Upon completion of the book, it appears that the former was the case. Again, as alluded to above, there are many substantive points made by the author. Rather than dwelling upon the seemingly wayward emergent community, let’s ask some questions of the evangelical community; namely to those of us who consider this postmodern thrust to be a detrimental thing:
Alluding to the deterioration of biblical absolutes that result from the PM mindset, Wells says this:
For while the evangelical Church is aware of such things as the fight for gay and lesbian rights, hears about the eco-feminists, knows about pornography, has a sense that moral absolutes are evaporating like the morning mist, knows that truth of an ultimate kind has been dislodged from life, it apparently does not perceive that in those and many other ways a new worldview is becoming ensconced in the culture. If it did, it surely would not be embracing with enthusiasm as many aspects of this postmodern mindset as it is or be so willing to make concessions to postmodern habits of mind. (p. 158 – emphasis mine)
Question: Is the author saying that we evangelicals are frogs in tepid waters? If so; what then? If, as he clearly states, we are making concessions to a mindset that is adulterating absolutes and is dislodging truth of an ultimate kind, is not some form of confrontation required? The author addresses that thought:
Yet confrontation is always at the heart of the relation between Christ and culture because that relation is one of light in its relation to darkness, truth to a false belief, and holiness to what is fallen. (p. 164) When rival worldviews are in play, it is not adaptation that is called for but confrontation (p. 156)
To those who believe that the Return of the Lord is at hand, a sobering thought comes to mind: Ultimate biblical truths that have previously generated barriers to apostasy for the evangelical community are being removed by default. It may not be the intent of Christian Emergents who have adopted the postmodern belief system to so remove those barriers, but the possibility cannot be ignored. One would be well served by considering the pertinent passages found in Mt. 24:4-11; I Thes. 5:1-6, and II Thes. 2:3. some of us are feeling the water becoming hot; some of us are hearing the train coming. TAFTCom…
I got the impression that the author was going to demonstrate the degree of infiltration that a postmodern mindset had re the current workings of the Church. Such was not the case. As my reading progressed it became evident that his intent was to expose postmodernism per se. He apparently takes it for granted that the emergent philosophy is heavily engaged in such a methodology. Why would it be necessary to accuse anyone of such a belief-system? They (emergent, The Conversation, etc) freely admit to such. There is no duplicity here. It was not always clear whether the author was leading up to a conclusion, or whether he was demonstrating how brilliant he was as a scholar. Upon completion of the book, it appears that the former was the case. Again, as alluded to above, there are many substantive points made by the author. Rather than dwelling upon the seemingly wayward emergent community, let’s ask some questions of the evangelical community; namely to those of us who consider this postmodern thrust to be a detrimental thing:
Alluding to the deterioration of biblical absolutes that result from the PM mindset, Wells says this:
For while the evangelical Church is aware of such things as the fight for gay and lesbian rights, hears about the eco-feminists, knows about pornography, has a sense that moral absolutes are evaporating like the morning mist, knows that truth of an ultimate kind has been dislodged from life, it apparently does not perceive that in those and many other ways a new worldview is becoming ensconced in the culture. If it did, it surely would not be embracing with enthusiasm as many aspects of this postmodern mindset as it is or be so willing to make concessions to postmodern habits of mind. (p. 158 – emphasis mine)
Question: Is the author saying that we evangelicals are frogs in tepid waters? If so; what then? If, as he clearly states, we are making concessions to a mindset that is adulterating absolutes and is dislodging truth of an ultimate kind, is not some form of confrontation required? The author addresses that thought:
Yet confrontation is always at the heart of the relation between Christ and culture because that relation is one of light in its relation to darkness, truth to a false belief, and holiness to what is fallen. (p. 164) When rival worldviews are in play, it is not adaptation that is called for but confrontation (p. 156)
To those who believe that the Return of the Lord is at hand, a sobering thought comes to mind: Ultimate biblical truths that have previously generated barriers to apostasy for the evangelical community are being removed by default. It may not be the intent of Christian Emergents who have adopted the postmodern belief system to so remove those barriers, but the possibility cannot be ignored. One would be well served by considering the pertinent passages found in Mt. 24:4-11; I Thes. 5:1-6, and II Thes. 2:3. some of us are feeling the water becoming hot; some of us are hearing the train coming. TAFTCom…
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Behind the Wall
Just got a letter from the guy that I recently visited in prison (see previous entry). A portion of the letter goes like this:
I wondered what was the goal for my life. Right now I’m not sure, but I feel like you guys have something to do with it. I want to be used by God, even while I’m in here. Thru the past few years I’ve felt so bad about myself, I didn’t feel I had the right to tell anybody what to do or how to act. Maybe now I can at least say, ‘Don’t follow me, And Don’t make the same mistakes.’ Ron, when you told me about your (blog or Web.) page I thought what a wonderful way to work together. Ron, the other day you ignited a spark in me. I’m sending you a poem I wrote years ago. I was locked up when I got saved. If you feel like putting it on your page, I would be blessed.
So here it is:
One hundred men lay sleeping
But no one’s souls at rest
Each heart has it’s own rhythm
Deep within it’s chest
These walls are old and knowing
They’ve seen us come and go
Chained, cuffed and struttin, gangsters walkin slow
We walk the well- known mainline, been doin it for years
Showing man- size courage, hiding man- size tears
When they lock you down in irons and cages made of steel
Although your wrists are bleeding, it’s the inner pain you feel
When the man takes aim around you and the bullets start to fall
When the smoke has cleared away, you’re still behind the wall
As the world goes slowly by, nothing seems to change
I’m praying for an answer, as I slowly go insane
Then I heard of Jesus in my cell that day
And how He changed so many lives of all who came to pray
He became my savior, He became my lord.
Now I’m trusting Jesus and giving him my all
I’ve never felt such freedom since I’ve heard His call
Cause all the world is living…
And Lost Behind the Wall (emphasis mine)
Joe gets out in 2011.
I wondered what was the goal for my life. Right now I’m not sure, but I feel like you guys have something to do with it. I want to be used by God, even while I’m in here. Thru the past few years I’ve felt so bad about myself, I didn’t feel I had the right to tell anybody what to do or how to act. Maybe now I can at least say, ‘Don’t follow me, And Don’t make the same mistakes.’ Ron, when you told me about your (blog or Web.) page I thought what a wonderful way to work together. Ron, the other day you ignited a spark in me. I’m sending you a poem I wrote years ago. I was locked up when I got saved. If you feel like putting it on your page, I would be blessed.
So here it is:
One hundred men lay sleeping
But no one’s souls at rest
Each heart has it’s own rhythm
Deep within it’s chest
These walls are old and knowing
They’ve seen us come and go
Chained, cuffed and struttin, gangsters walkin slow
We walk the well- known mainline, been doin it for years
Showing man- size courage, hiding man- size tears
When they lock you down in irons and cages made of steel
Although your wrists are bleeding, it’s the inner pain you feel
When the man takes aim around you and the bullets start to fall
When the smoke has cleared away, you’re still behind the wall
As the world goes slowly by, nothing seems to change
I’m praying for an answer, as I slowly go insane
Then I heard of Jesus in my cell that day
And how He changed so many lives of all who came to pray
He became my savior, He became my lord.
Now I’m trusting Jesus and giving him my all
I’ve never felt such freedom since I’ve heard His call
Cause all the world is living…
And Lost Behind the Wall (emphasis mine)
Joe gets out in 2011.
Friday, January 4, 2008
New Baptist Covenant
Well, I’m back from San Francisco. Great city; dark city. How sad! We had good fellowship as family and I was able to visit with a brother at Solano State Prison in Vacaville. He gets out in 2011. Many of us are hoping that he gets an early release if the governor goes through with his early-release program. This is a brother shedding light in a very dark place. Some of us are ambivalent here. Should he stay and save lives, or should he get out early and be restored to us? God’s will be done!
Just got an email from a friend wanting to know if I had any information on the upcoming convocation called for by the advocates of the New Baptist Covenant in late January. Presidents Carter and Clinton will be there. Does the appearance of these august persons imply a liberal, humanistic bent? In follow-up research, I find that implication to be a fact. Apparently the initial motivation of the upcoming event and even the initiation of the covenant itself seem to be generated by a desire to heal the racial divisions causing a split amongst Baptists during the mid nineteenth century. Further, it is the desire of the convocation to bring about an inner healing amongst fellow Baptists before they can generate the “healing of the nation and the healing of the world…” Here are some comments contained in the above article:
We are looking for ways to put feet to our faith, said Dewitt Smith, president of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, the African-American body founded by Martin Luther King and others. It is possible to be together and to differ on our opinions. When it comes to the things that will help humanity, we must take a prophetic stance – we must take a strong social-action agenda and make it work.
Daniel Vestal…said the Carter initiative fills a need for ‘a broader Baptist witness that is committed to social justice as well as evangelism.’
The 2008 convocation will connect participants with ministries and resources on such topics as prophetic preaching, ecology, sexual trafficking, racism, religious liberty, poverty, HIV/AIDS, religious diversity, public policy, youth issues, evangelism with integrity, stewardship and the spiritual disciplines.
Let’s not be mentally lazy here. Is Isaiah 58 mandated upon all believers? Yes, but of course it is. We are to cloth the naked, take the homeless poor into our homes, divide our bread with the hungry, and satisfy the needs of the afflicted. Such an ethos is fruit bearing within a believer. It is the inner nature of every true Christian. My question to the participants at this convocation would be to address a most profound danger, namely, AT WHAT PRICE will you be doing such things? The danger derives from substituting goodness for biblical confrontation, etc, etc. Many more questions arise:
What is this prophetic stance? Is it eschatological, or is it designed to help humanity?
Big difference – No?
Will your social resources also include abortion?
How far are you willing to embrace and take religious diversity?
Well, obviously many, many, many more questions beg to be asked. It seems to me that the man-made visible church is rapidly drifting away from a light-shining, soul-saving, biblical confrontation as evidenced above. Where does John 15:18-20 stand here?
If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
To the participants above, I would suggest that you take care that your good works do not substitute for the substance of the biblical message. You are in danger of being a Laodicean-like religious entity that is whoring after the approval of a world system that hates you and the Church that you belong to. You are in danger of becoming useful idiots to that same system.
To the remnant of Christ, the called-out elect, I suggest diligence here. Do not get caught up in the religious success of such movements as Purpose Driven, Seeker Friendly, The Conversation, New Baptist Covenants, etc, etc, - especially when such religious success substitutes good works for substance.
What is going to heal the World? Good works, or the second coming of the Lord in power and might? Is He going to return and negotiate, or is He going to return with a sword? It’s more than important that we all decide.
Just got an email from a friend wanting to know if I had any information on the upcoming convocation called for by the advocates of the New Baptist Covenant in late January. Presidents Carter and Clinton will be there. Does the appearance of these august persons imply a liberal, humanistic bent? In follow-up research, I find that implication to be a fact. Apparently the initial motivation of the upcoming event and even the initiation of the covenant itself seem to be generated by a desire to heal the racial divisions causing a split amongst Baptists during the mid nineteenth century. Further, it is the desire of the convocation to bring about an inner healing amongst fellow Baptists before they can generate the “healing of the nation and the healing of the world…” Here are some comments contained in the above article:
We are looking for ways to put feet to our faith, said Dewitt Smith, president of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, the African-American body founded by Martin Luther King and others. It is possible to be together and to differ on our opinions. When it comes to the things that will help humanity, we must take a prophetic stance – we must take a strong social-action agenda and make it work.
Daniel Vestal…said the Carter initiative fills a need for ‘a broader Baptist witness that is committed to social justice as well as evangelism.’
The 2008 convocation will connect participants with ministries and resources on such topics as prophetic preaching, ecology, sexual trafficking, racism, religious liberty, poverty, HIV/AIDS, religious diversity, public policy, youth issues, evangelism with integrity, stewardship and the spiritual disciplines.
Let’s not be mentally lazy here. Is Isaiah 58 mandated upon all believers? Yes, but of course it is. We are to cloth the naked, take the homeless poor into our homes, divide our bread with the hungry, and satisfy the needs of the afflicted. Such an ethos is fruit bearing within a believer. It is the inner nature of every true Christian. My question to the participants at this convocation would be to address a most profound danger, namely, AT WHAT PRICE will you be doing such things? The danger derives from substituting goodness for biblical confrontation, etc, etc. Many more questions arise:
What is this prophetic stance? Is it eschatological, or is it designed to help humanity?
Big difference – No?
Will your social resources also include abortion?
How far are you willing to embrace and take religious diversity?
Well, obviously many, many, many more questions beg to be asked. It seems to me that the man-made visible church is rapidly drifting away from a light-shining, soul-saving, biblical confrontation as evidenced above. Where does John 15:18-20 stand here?
If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
To the participants above, I would suggest that you take care that your good works do not substitute for the substance of the biblical message. You are in danger of being a Laodicean-like religious entity that is whoring after the approval of a world system that hates you and the Church that you belong to. You are in danger of becoming useful idiots to that same system.
To the remnant of Christ, the called-out elect, I suggest diligence here. Do not get caught up in the religious success of such movements as Purpose Driven, Seeker Friendly, The Conversation, New Baptist Covenants, etc, etc, - especially when such religious success substitutes good works for substance.
What is going to heal the World? Good works, or the second coming of the Lord in power and might? Is He going to return and negotiate, or is He going to return with a sword? It’s more than important that we all decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
